Discussion Yamato’s Gender

[Riku]

So we have a character who is biologically female, but uses masculine pronouns of themselves, and declines the invite to women's bath, because it's not mixed, and goes to mens bath instead. It stems from the said character fancying themselves to be Oden, historical figure that happens to be man.

I honestly think this is pretty straightforward. Is Yamato trans? Maybe, maybe not. But the lengths they go to be "Oden", to be a man, definetly make Yamato pretty damn queer, non-binary or genderfluid. There is no question about that.

Now, they themselves use masculine pronouns of themselves, making that imho the primary option. They/them always works. And I personally won't go hunting anyone who uses she/her, even if I might sneer at it a little secretly. However attacking anyone who does use he/him or they/them is a total no no.

As for Kaido forcing them to be a man/son, while could be in character for Kaido, is really simply just not directly shown or clearly indicated in the manga.

There is no denying, that there is definetly aspects of Yamato, that make them to easily viable to walk under a rainbow flag. What bothers me, is that people go to such lengths to deny this. Even if Yamato isn't trans, they are definetly a character that LGBTQ+ people can relate to. Now actively fighting against or diluting those aspects of the character can be, and often is, offending to people. It is just what happens in real live as well. "Just a phase, hasn't met a right man, bad parenting". Diluting that excistence is just wrong.

Also, there is no denying Kiku is a transwoman. I think it is plainly obvious, that Yamato is supposed to mirror her in that bathing scene. It's really a strong implication, that it works both ways.

 

[xi0]

She is female but uses ぼく (boku) to refer to herself. That by itself doesn't mean anything. Why would anyone want to suggest one needs to forego the conventions of language to refer to someone who appears female with a male third-person pronoun? You don't use third-person pronouns to address a person. You use second person ones, and those are pretty much gender-neutral even in Japanese.

It is no business of mine how other people refer to Yamato as. But I don't see a need to revise my speech because others said so. Especially third parties.

But "boku" absolutely is masculine?? What pronoun the character uses to refer to themselves is obvious pretty relevant (and in Yamato's case, intentional). None of us are addressing Yamato because Yamato isn't a person any of us can interact with, so I don't know what your point is in differentiating between 2nd and 3rd person pronouns.

It seems like it kinda is your business though, why join the conversation otherwise?

 

[Tengou]

But "boku" absolutely is masculine?? What pronoun the character uses to refer to themselves is obvious pretty relevant (and in Yamato's case, intentional). None of us are addressing Yamato because Yamato isn't a person any of us can interact with, so I don't know what your point is in differentiating between 2nd and 3rd person pronouns.

It seems like it kinda is your business though, why join the conversation otherwise?

No, my business was in conveying my thoughts on Yamato's gender, as per the topic of the thread. And I have made my case on why I think Yamato is female, which is corroborated by canon materials. People can be female and consider themselves female while using masculine first person pronouns.

My point in differentiating between second and third person pronouns is that you use the former to address a person directly, and the latter to talk about a person. There are certain norms of politeness associated with addressing a person directly, which is why different second person pronouns even exist. It is nonsensical to me that people want to police the use of third person pronouns since they are not meant to be terms of address in the first place. Furthermore, I don't subscribe to the idea that pronouns are a sign of respect and validation, or that respect and validation is always appropriate in the first place. Because for one, I have no right to just demand your respect, and for two, maybe sometimes a person is best served by pointing out that something is not quite right, and if peer pressure from social groups precludes such candidness then we are all the worse off for it.

 

[Uriel]

Like you, Kaidou is quite stubborn, And moreover, I doubt it has done Yamato much good in the long run. She had to literally stop being herself and become someone else in order to survive that hell. So I will keep referring to Yamato by her canonically established gender until I see the need to do otherwise.
Yeah, I'm also that stubborn.

LOL, comparing me to the villain. I see what you did there.

If what you say is true then Yamato would refer to himself as a woman, out of despising his father. That's what happens when someone that was abused confronts openly their abusers, they confront their whole paradigm.

Sadly, I had way too many friends that suffered abuse and I know those cases quite well.

That's the problem.
Trying to get people to share your views shouldn't come from a place of stubbornness, but intellectual honesty.

It comes to a place of tiredness, of seeing my friends die at hands of the police, or HIV, or expelled from their house when they start transitioning. It comes from a place in which I saw my trans friends being denied a job by a Terf woman just because she said: "No one would understand his position. We don't have the infrastructure" when they had all qualifications. A stubborn attitude like mine what was helped her to finally join the company.

Per day, they have to take a lot of bullshit all the time. So sometimes, the only way I can help them is by being stubborn.

You micro-aggressed me with that statement. Do you feel the need to modulate your speech because of it?

First: The important part of microaggression is to be aimed at a marginalized group.
Second: Aggression in other cases is being rude. I apologize if I was rude to you.

That's happened across human history with a lot of minorities, and society's come a long way in that regard. (with some obvious exceptions).
The funny thing is that by promoting diversity, we're accentuating differences that should have no value in society, and promoting people categorizing themselves under a certain banner, and there's no end to the amount of categories that people can put themselves under.
We shouldn't be promoting diversity, we should be promoting tolerance towards diversity.

Tolerance comes from a "High ground morale" place which is a no-no in terms of the psychological field.
Also, it's not promoting diversity: Diversity is already there. It's promoting embracing and empowerment.

You can't promote "be gay" or "be trans", people already are. You may, instead, promote safe places and healthy discussions about it. Believe me, no one would just be trans because someone tells them to. It's a rough path.

It is no business of mine how other people refer to Yamato as. But I don't see a need to revise my speech because others said so. Especially third parties.

This is interesting: Speech already evolves, and it's always third parties.

Anyway, peace. I'm not trying to "win a discussion" and force you to say anything. I just said that I would consider a "win" (Which I don't care about in a discussion, honestly) only when someone starts to use "they/them" or "he/him". It's not forcing anyone, it's just how I perceive a win in this thread.

 

[Sachsenhesse]

LOL no!

Sanji thinks Women belong on the throne in heaven!

How can someone from Germany misunderstand Sanji that much? Did you not grow up with Dr. Sommer?

Actually No. I grew up playing football with my friends and spinning bottels with girls.

Anyway you were a real german there, since you missed the comedic overdramatization.

 

[Tengou]

This is interesting: Speech already evolves, and it's always third parties.

No, it's not 'always' third parties! I said 'especially'. And one has to wonder to what degree it's even a third party's business at all how I refer to somebody. If the person in question has a problem with me referring to them as something, I will always welcome them to talk to me about it.

First: The important part of microaggression is to be aimed at a marginalized group.

This wasn't addressed to me, but this take is way too hot for me to ignore. Should I take this to mean that I can only be 'verbally aggressed' when I belong to a minority or a marginalized group? Well, then, since you agree that I can freely decide my identity, perhaps I should just start identifying as a trans person so that people will take my grievances seriously. I think this very attitude towards speech and towards group identity is the very reason why people are tired of the whole debate and why transgender people might be undeservedly getting a bad rep.

The individual is, and will always be, sovereign. Can we stop the tribalist nonsense and go back to thinking like and treating eachother as individuals again?

 

[Uriel]

No, it's not 'always' third parties! I said 'especially'. And one has to wonder to what degree it's even a third party's business at all how I refer to somebody. If the person in question has a problem with me referring to them as something, I will always welcome them to talk to me about it.

Language evolves as part of a conversation and influences. This is another different topic, but every language is alive. Third parties involve influences.

And in this case, since the character is fictional but comes to a representation of queer identity, I'm here to talk about it and not quite welcomed by you. It's ok, we can have differences but do not take me for a fool.

This wasn't addressed to me, but this take is way too hot for me to ignore. Should I take this to mean that I can only be 'verbally aggressed' when I belong to a minority or a marginalized group?

To be a microaggression, yes. Verbally aggressed is a different concept.

Well, then, since you agree that I can freely decide my identity, perhaps I should just start identifying as a trans person so that people will take my grievances seriously.

You are very welcome to identify as a trans person and do all that trans people do. Talk with other trans, and empathize with them! I'm being serious here. If you identify as something, please go ahead and take that path! I know it may be frightful at first, but saying it is the first step to being a more authentic you.

I think this very attitude towards speech and towards group identity is the very reason why people are tired of the whole debate and why transgender people might be undeservedly getting a bad rep.

So because people say trans right, trans people get a bad rep. You are not too far from the concept that a woman got raped because of the length of her dress, you know.

Microaggression comes because it has deep roots in society's historical debts and deeply ingrained roots which conform to the base of why trans people are being killed and discriminated. Same with racism. It's not the same to say "you're so white" as a joke as "you are so black". Historically, it's not. That's why the term exists, to differentiate from verbal abuse to recognize the context around that particular aggression.

The individual is, and will always be, sovereign. Can we stop the tribalist nonsense and go back to thinking like and treating eachother as individuals again?

I'm treating you as an individual with a historical context, with circumstances, on the internet.

 

[Zmsp]

It comes to a place of tiredness, of seeing my friends die at hands of the police, or HIV, or expelled from their house when they start transitioning.

I've also got a relatively close transgender friend.
Part of my work, although during a short amount of time, revolved around transgender people and surgery.

I can't say I've discussed the topic with the latter, because it was none of my business, but I'm aware of the hardships that my friend went through (he's working abroad so we haven't talked in a while). I guess I'm just lucky that he's a lot more reasonable than most when it comes to this sensible topic.
This has nothing to do with lack of empathy, but rather some sort of misconception that empathy means validating any sort of stance for the sake of not hurting someone's feelings.

First: The important part of microaggression is to be aimed at a marginalized group.

@Tengou worded it better than I probably would on this one.

Tolerance comes from a "High ground morale" place which is a no-no in terms of the psychological field.
Also, it's not promoting diversity: Diversity is already there. It's promoting embracing and empowerment.

You can't promote "be gay" or "be trans", people already are. You may, instead, promote safe places and healthy discussions about it. Believe me, no one would just be trans because someone tells them to. It's a rough path.

That take on moral high ground is adding malicious intent where there was none, but diversity can absolutely be promoted. I'm not going into great lengths to explain why, because if you haven't noticed that by now, you wouldn't care about what I'd say on the matter.

The last part is a lot more interesting. I guess this will just add "having homophobic views" to the list, but how can you claim that with any certainty?
There's an abundance of evidence that a lot of people are homosexual despite being pressured not to be, that's a given. As far as I'm concerned, massive respect towards them.

Does that mean that sexual orientation can't be influenced by environmental factors? The answer is: no clue, but it might be.

Sexual behaviour is still behaviour, and our behaviour influences the way we interact with the environment, just like the environment influences our behaviour. I'll give you an example: there's an abundance of non-violent people born in violent environments, but if you look at people who committed violent crimes and were due for psychoanalysis, there's a pretty firm correlation with a history of violence in their upbringing. You'll probably say something along the lines of sexual orientation not being related to behaviour, or mention something about culture, but this is actually worth thinking about. I'll look into it in the future.

I'll put some emphasis on the fact that I'm not stating anything, I'm just saying that you went for the "politically correct view" again, instead of the intelectually honest one, which is to say that we don't know, but it might. Oh, and I have a shitload of gay friends. One of them is probably going to be the best man at my wedding. We've talked about this over a few beers and he was actually the one who made the violent environment comparison.

 

[Tengou]

To be a microaggression, yes. Verbally aggressed is a different concept.

No. No it's not. Here's a google picture search for 'microaggression'. That's a lot of words, isn't it. If it isn't actual aggression, then clearly it must be verbalized. Because if it isn't even verbal, if it's merely implicit, then what? Are we to censor not just our speech but our thoughts as well? That's why the concept of micro-aggressions is an absolute crock of bull. I refuse to acknowledge the existence of something that only a certain group of chosen ones can be victims of.

And in this case, since the character is fictional but comes to a representation of queer identity, I'm here to talk about it and not quite welcomed by you. It's ok, we can have differences but do not take me for a fool.

And that's the end goal, isn't it? Once the water's muddy enough you can claim that I don't welcome you. The fact that I'm writing this to you means that I welcome you. I just don't appreciate the fact that you're using 'micro-aggressions' as a cudgel to browbeat your detractors, and the fact that you even think that this difference of opinion is even remotely sufficient for me to not accept you as an individual is insulting.

 

[Uriel]

I guess I'm just lucky that he's a lot more reasonable than most when it comes to this sensible topic.

Well, it's easier with a friend than with a stranger on the internet.

This has nothing to do with lack of empathy, but rather some sort of misconception that empathy means validating any sort of stance for the sake of not hurting someone's feelings.

So you are saying that because I'm saying "They/them" or "he/him" is really hard to validate? So when I tell you that it's triggering to queer experiences, you're saying it's too unreasonable and empathy is not related to that?

Your logic has too many biases. Like, way too many. The issue is that you don't seem to be aware of it which is what surprised me the most. At least I can be honest about my discourse being traversed by my queer experience.

I'll put some emphasis on the fact that I'm not stating anything, I'm just saying that you went for the "politically correct view" again, instead of the intelectually honest one, which is to say that we don't know, but it might.

So, what are you stating? In terms of this thread, Yamato.

Also, you're implying that because I have a politically correct view it's not an intellectually honest one. Which can be seen in a bad light. I would rephrase.

No. No it's not. Here's a google picture search for 'microaggression'. That's a lot of words, isn't it. If it isn't actual aggression, then clearly it must be verbalized. Because if it isn't even verbal, if it's merely implicit, then what? Are we to censor not just our speech but our thoughts as well? That's why the concept of micro-aggressions is an absolute crock of bull. I refuse to acknowledge the existence of something that only a certain group of chosen ones an be victims of.

Have you seen that picture? It's all minorities

You are confusing a lot of things here: You can suffer microaggression as a woman, a white cis male may suffer micro-aggression as a poor person or Judaism. People are not just one thing, and you will quickly notice that we all belong to at least one minority.

Microaggression, as a term, that you can google, refers to the context and baggage that aggression has behind it.

You can suffer from aggression, violence, and many other things as part of a majority group. For example, I could say something hurtful to the French community and it would not be a microaggression but aggression. That wouldn't mean it's less significant, it's saying that it has no historical baggage because France was always "First World" and "Colonizers".

And that's the end goal, isn't it? Once the water's muddy enough you can claim that I don't welcome you. The fact that I'm writing this to you means that I welcome you. I just don't appreciate the fact that you're using 'micro-aggressions' as a cudgel to browbeat your detractors, and the fact that you even think that this difference of opinion is even remotely sufficient for me to not accept you as an individual is insulting.

Oh, I accept your view. I'm stating it was violent.

Let's scrutiny it:

Gotta love how the activist types keep co-opting fictional characters for their stupid crusades. What has poor Yamato done to deserve this?

Implying that debating queerness is a punishment. And that it's a stupid crusade.

This is not a body issue. She is not uncomfortable with her physicality. In fact, sex and gender seem to matter very little to Yamato at all.

But He picked the boy's bathroom. Gender seems something that He cares about.

She is someone who has suffered greatly at the hands of an abusive father, and when she was at her lowest she found comfort and inspiration in the way that Kozuki Oden lived his life. She wants liberation not from her female body but from her father's oppressive influence. She is not transgender.

Denying the queerness experience of this character and aggravating anyone who is going through a similar experience.

So, with a hand in your heart...Do you think you were being your best welcoming way?
I don't mind if you call me whatever, but you have been denying queerness experience over and over and then saying someone is FORCING you to use different pronouns when calling you out on this topic. Then implying I'm somewhat invisibilizing aggressions because I separate terms and even quote you on the definition of those to be clear.

 

[Tengou]

Have you seen that picture? It's all minorities

Correct. That's because it's a phrase invented by identity politicians, and one with very little utility towards solving any real problems as far as I've experienced.

I don't mind if you call me whatever, but you have been denying queerness experience over and over and then saying someone is FORCING you to use different pronouns when calling you out on this topic. Then implying I'm somewhat invisibilizing aggressions because I separate terms and even quote you on the definition of those to be clear.

I don't remember calling you anything. But it is true that I was annoyed for the same reason that you are annoyed, except the other way around. You think that I'm denying queerness experience, while I think that you're denying her individual experience in favor of saying that she is queer. And I just don't see it. So yes, I stated in a very clear manner what I thought about Yamato's situation, looking at her from the position of the smallest minority possible, which is the individual. And it annoys me when people bring intersectionalist group identity diatribe into it when it really should be about Yamato and Yamato only, and then they go and reason that because I deny their perception of that one specific character, I'm denying queerness experience in general. Which is not true.

So yes, I admit I was blunt about it. And you see my bluntness and call it violence. Why is that? Why would anyone that knows themselves and accepts themselves for who they are need to feel threatened enough by my words to call them violence?

Now, did I comport myself in an ideal manner during this whole thread? I would say no. In retrospect, I used some words that perhaps I shouldn't have used, but I'm sincerely doing my best to muddle through, and I don't regret the gist of what I've said.

 

[Zmsp]

So you are saying that because I'm saying "They/them" or "he/him" is really hard to validate? So when I tell you that it's triggering to queer experiences, you're saying it's too unreasonable and empathy is not related to that?

Your logic has too many biases. Like, way too many. The issue is that you don't seem to be aware of it which is what surprised me the most. At least I can be honest about my discourse being traversed by my queer experience.

So, what are you stating? In terms of this thread, Yamato.

Also, you're implying that because I have a politically correct view it's not an intellectually honest one. Which can be seen in a bad light. I would rephrase.

I've already expressed my view on Yamato.

This all stemmed from you calling people transphobic/having transphobic views.

I asked for clarification on the reasons, you elaborated.
I disagreed, and shared my view, using examples of other statements that could be viewed as mysogynistic or homophobic, but had no such connotations, because they were based on empirical data. Guess I didn't reach you, but I'm not really surprised after your physiology takes and micro-aggressions segment. I'm honestly quite surprised that I'm the one with biased logic, but hey! It's still just an argument on the internet, no hard feelings.

Well, it's easier with a friend than with a stranger on the internet.

You should've tried telling my friend that gender is a social construct. He wouldn't be as amicable as I am.
Guess he was just a transphobic transgender.

 

[xi0]

My point in differentiating between second and third person pronouns is that you use the former to address a person directly, and the latter to talk about a person. There are certain norms of politeness associated with addressing a person directly, which is why different second person pronouns even exist. It is nonsensical to me that people want to police the use of third person pronouns since they are not meant to be terms of address in the first place. Furthermore, I don't subscribe to the idea that pronouns are a sign of respect and validation, or that respect and validation is always appropriate in the first place. Because for one, I have no right to just demand your respect, and for two, maybe sometimes a person is best served by pointing out that something is not quite right, and if peer pressure from social groups precludes such candidness then we are all the worse off for it.

And most, if not everyone in the manga directly addresses Yamato as a male... so... yeah, I still don't get your point in bringing it up? Does politeness have a prerequisite that we do things against our will purely for the sake of others? Or is there completely valid reasons for addressing people the way they prefer to be addressed? Does referring to someone a completely different way when not addressing serve a purpose, other than undermining them?

"Policing the use of third person pronouns" - is that what's going on? What I see is people saying why they see one or the other (or all) of them being proper and correct. If policing is what was going on here, I don't think this discussion would be open at all? The only real reason this is being debated the way it is is because of the way in which Oda wrote it.

You don't have to subscribe to the idea that pronouns are a sign of respect/validation, but if you take that attitude towards other people, expect many to not agree.

 

[Tengou]

And most, if not everyone in the manga directly addresses Yamato as a male... so... yeah, I still don't get your point in bringing it up?

This argument is beginning to go in circles, but I originally brought this up because you're right, she's been addressed as a male pretty much from childhood by all the people around her, and I think that's part of the problem. What child has their identity figured out? That's hard enough for adults to do.

So when I found out about Yamato's backstory, my first thought was 'has she ever been allowed to be a girl in the first place?'

 

[Riku]

This argument is beginning to go in circles, but I originally brought this up because you're right, she's been addressed as a male pretty much from childhood by all the people around her, and I think that's part of the problem. What child has their identity figured out? That's hard enough for adults to do.

So when I found out about Yamato's backstory, my first thought was 'has she ever been allowed to be a girl in the first place?'

Thats just speculation though. Kaidos men dubbed them Oni-princess after all (and Yamato didn't like that). My interpretation was, that Kaido treated Yamato like a man, because they wanted to be a man. In Kaidos case this was abusive, as in his world men are beaten up, mistreated and used from young age, so he mockingly treated Yamato that way as well. There just isn't clear indication that Yamato didnt have a choice.

You do realize that this also a very common "arguments" in real-life trans/homophobic discourse? "Must have been the upbringing" or "The mom spoiled them and treated them like a girl" are quite common statements. Not accusing you of anything, but just pointing out how similar these approaches are.

 

[Zmsp]

"Policing the use of third person pronouns" - is that what's going on? What I see is people saying why they see one or the other (or all) of them being proper and correct.

I'm sorry for jumping in because the argument was not with me, but if I may elaborate on this particular point, I'd like to mention that no one has directly complained with the way I address Yamato, and I've yet to directly complain with the way anyone addresses Yamato. I think this goes for anyone who's recently shared an opinion on the matter in this particular thread.

Policing is not the right word, but let me share some other examples:

Still adding names to that ban-list.

Though I hope everyone agrees on calling Yamato a "he" after this chapter.

These are the sort of statements that I have a problem with.
They transcend Yamato as a character, and go into sociological views, so they're bound to be discussed as such.

I'm not saying you agree with said statements or review yourself in them, but a lot of it boils down to this, and not the character itself.

 

[Tengou]

Thats just speculation though. Kaidos men dubbed them Oni-princess after all (and Yamato didn't like that). My interpretation was, that Kaido treated Yamato like a man, because they wanted to be a man. In Kaidos case this was abusive, as in his world men are beaten up, mistreated and used from young age, so he mockingly treated Yamato that way as well. There just isn't clear indication that Yamato didnt have a choice.

You do realize that this also a very common "arguments" in real-life trans/homophobic discourse? "Must have been the upbringing" or "The mom spoiled them and treated them like a girl" are quite common statements. Not accusing you of anything, but just pointing out how similar these approaches are.

I fully agree. If I was brought up like a man, I can imagine being annoyed at being called a princess. A child likely doesn't even realize that such a choice exists at all. It's confusing. Normally when you have a very young child, they explore the world around them by playing. They play with toys, they play with other kids, and they tentatively explore the limits of what is acceptable behaviour while doing so. That's how a young child learns to understand themselves and their place in the world, and in so doing they learn to act in a manner that will make them be liked by the other kids, because if they are disliked by the other kids, they won't be invited over to play. And if they won't be invited over to play, they won't get socialized properly. A good parent will watch and course-correct when necessary, while interfering with the child's process of self-discovery as little as possible.

Genderfluidity is determined by sex and temperament. Sex is rooted in biology, but so is temperament. Many genes play a role in determining a person's temperament, and it turns out that they are mostly the ones that govern the way our cells communicate with our brains. So I agree with you that genderfluidity is deeply engrained in 'nature'. It should not be dismissed as merely the result of upbringing. However, upbringing shouldn't be discounted entirely, either. Our learned self-perception is where 'nurture' comes into the picture. That is why it is so important for children to get ample opportunity to play and discover themselves.

Yamato... hasn't had much of this. It only hit me right as the arc ended, but she's 28 years old. And when I thought about it like this I was like... 'that's crazy'. Because mentally in many ways she acts like a teen, and a very young teen at that. First time I've seen Yamato completely open up was when she met Ace. It was a sight to behold, like the childhood that had been repressed for so long was finally given a release. The only person in Wano that didn't know the slightest thing about her, Ace gave Yamato something important; an accepting friend whom she could approach with a completely clean slate. Realizing that, I was quite emotional reading it, and I instantly understood the depths to which Yamato felt imprisoned.

She may very well declare once and for all that she's a man in the future, in which case, fine by me. However, one chapter title always stayed with me. And that's the title of Chapter 994: "My Other Name is Yamato." If I could point at anything as the reason for me calling her female beyond what the Vivre Cards say, it would be that.

 

[Uriel]

At least now I understand better where are you coming from, Tengou.

So, let's try to summarize:

Arguments in favor of Trans/Queer Experience:
- Usage of Male pronouns, from Himself and from other characters
- Identification as Oden, a male
- Bathroom scene, juxtaposition with Kiku (A more clear expression of transness)
- Defying Kaidou (his abuser) and afterward still identifying as male

Arguments against said Trans/Queer Experience
- Vivre Card data
- Identification with Oden not being same as identification as a male
- Kaidou's abusive behavior and addressing Yamato as "him"

If I missed something please add it.

Correct. That's because it's a phrase invented by identity politicians, and one with very little utility towards solving any real problems as far as I've experienced.

Minority?
If that's what you meant, in most countries that were used to grant seats at the senate, at least at first.
And I believe that solved a huge problem.

I can go with a large list about this if you want it but I think we're missing the discussion.

Now, did I comport myself in an ideal manner during this whole thread? I would say no. In retrospect, I used some words that perhaps I shouldn't have used, but I'm sincerely doing my best to muddle through, and I don't regret the gist of what I've said.

Same here, tbh.

You should've tried telling my friend that gender is a social construct. He wouldn't be as amicable as I am.
Guess he was just a transphobic transgender.

It's internalized transphobia. It's somewhat a known phenomenon.

You don't have to subscribe to the idea that pronouns are a sign of respect/validation, but if you take that attitude towards other people, expect many to not agree.

Thanks.

These are the sort of statements that I have a problem with.
They transcend Yamato as a character, and go into sociological views, so they're bound to be discussed as such.

I'm not saying you agree with said statements or review yourself in them, but a lot of it boils down to this, and not the character itself.

I'm sorry if my being annoyed with what I consider transphobic comments triggered you in any sort of way. I was just venting off, and I understand tengou was doing so as well.

Genderfluidity is determined by sex and temperament. Sex is rooted in biology, but so is temperament. Many genes play a role in determining a person's temperament, and it turns out that they are mostly the ones that govern the way our cells communicate with our brains. So I agree with you that genderfluidity is deeply engrained in 'nature'. It should not be dismissed as merely the result of upbringing. However, upbringing shouldn't be discounted entirely, either. Our learned self-perception is where 'nurture' comes into the picture. That is why it is so important for children to get ample opportunity to play and discover themselves.

I do agree with you that we can't count out upbringing. There is a lot of trans kid whose parent violently forced an identity that was not their own, so they end up being repressed and only be happy when they leave that environment and start the transition.

It's usually tied to confronting that environment. That's why I don't think THIS CASE is about Kaidou imposing male identification on Yamato, but I could be wrong, and in the next chapters of Yamato's arc we see its path to being a female.

But that doesn't take that, right now, it refers to himself as men.

Yamato... hasn't had much of this. It only hit me right as the arc ended, but she's 28 years old. And when I thought about it like this I was like... 'that's crazy'. Because mentally in many ways she acts like a teen, and a very young teen at that. First time I've seen Yamato completely open up was when she met Ace. It was a sight to behold, like the childhood that had been repressed for so long was finally given a release. The only person in Wano that didn't know the slightest thing about her, Ace gave Yamato something important; an accepting friend whom she could approach with a completely clean slate. Realizing that, I was quite emotional reading it, and I instantly understood the depths to which Yamato felt imprisoned.

She may very well declare once and for all that she's a man in the future, in which case, fine by me. However, one chapter title always stayed with me. And that's the title of Chapter 994: "My Other Name is Yamato." If I could point at anything as the reason for me calling her female beyond what the Vivre Cards say, it would be that.

We can then agree to disagree, but I'm happy that you will be fine once it's properly declared.

 

[Tengou]

I'm sorry if my being annoyed with what I consider transphobic comments triggered you in any sort of way. I was just venting off, and I understand tengou was doing so as well.

Yeahh, I think we were all venting a little bit.

 

[Zmsp]

It's internalized transphobia. It's somewhat a known phenomenon.

Could be, but another possible interpretation is that he just knew his shit and had a different view than yours.

I'm sorry if my being annoyed with what I consider transphobic comments triggered you in any sort of way. I was just venting off, and I understand tengou was doing so as well.

Actually, I wasn't triggered by that at all.
I just disagreed and explained my point of view, hoping to change your mind on what a transphobic view is.

I must admit that some of the stuff you said after did trigger me a bit, but mostly because they showed that you don't have an ounce of literature read on physiology, behavioural sciences or research projects/biostatistics, but used arguments that derive from those anyway.

I admit that I don't know much about some of the concepts around identity politics, but if you look back, I did ask for clarifications on some stuff, I never questioned anyone's hardships or denied that prejudice exists. I just questioned your view on prejudice, and tried to convey the message that having your feelings hurt doesn't necessarily mean that others were in the wrong, while it doesn't exclude that possibility either.
How do we differentiate the two? By being intellectually honest, but that also means having the proper tools to do so.