Discussion Yamato’s Gender

[Uriel]

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 assume you are triggered now by this statement.
It seems that we can no longer have a discussion. Have a good life.

 

[Zmsp]

I assume you are triggered now by this statement.
It seems that we can no longer have a discussion. Have a good life.

I was, but I've also come to the conclusion that I had no reasons for it.
I do, however, understand if you're offended by that statement, and if that means you don't want to argue anymore, so be it.

On a final note, I can promise that I'll look into some stuff we argued about. I hope you do the same!

All the best!

 

[M3J]

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.

Because we literally explained why we're concerned by some people's continued refusal to recognize Yamato as a he despite him clearly identifying as such, and how it tends to boil over to real life prejudice. I don't know about Uriel and others, but if transgender people didn't face prejudice in real life, I wouldn't feel as strongly about how readers are reacting to characters like Yamato.

 

[Zmsp]

Because we literally explained why we're concerned by some people's continued refusal to recognize Yamato as a he despite him clearly identifying as such, and how it tends to boil over to real life prejudice. I don't know about Uriel and others, but if transgender people didn't face prejudice in real life, I wouldn't feel as strongly about how readers are reacting to characters like Yamato.

Wait, but I thought the concept revolved around not attributing a specific pronoun for the sake of respect towards individual choice?
I believe the term is "prefered pronouns". Isn't preference individual? When has Yamato stated any preferences towards pronoun usage?

Are you not forcing the pronoun you view as correct upon the character, just because it acts like a male? Isn't that just as prejudiced as calling Yamato a she because the character's a biological female?

I understand and aknowledge that you mean well, just like Uriel, I just don't agree with your reasoning.

 

[Tengou]

I don't know about Uriel and others, but if transgender people didn't face prejudice in real life, I wouldn't feel as strongly about how readers are reacting to characters like Yamato.

Sorry, but I have to ask. Why does the existence of prejudice have to be a precondition for people to care about things?

 

[Zmsp]

Curiously enough, I find myself using "he" for Yamato quite often when casually mentioning the character. I don't feel any intrinsic need to correct myself when I do so, because I never said there's a correct way of doing so. I just don't see why I should be compelled to see it as the right way of doing so on the back of a group of people projecting themselves on the character and wanting the character to be treated like they would want to be treated.

To me, that's intrinsically opposite to what they claim to defend, which is freedom of choice. They just think their own choice is the valid one because it comes from a place of empathy or personal experience, so something else just doesn't.

 

[weixiaobao]

As someone who married to a trans spouse. And living in a society where definition had been expanding and contrasting so much. Axios is by the way, a very neutral source.

One in five Gen Z adults identifies as LGBTQ, Gallup finds

The percentage of U.S. adults who identify as LGBTQ has doubled over the past decade.

www.axios.com

The lgb community extending to tq+ and now ia. Human's expression and identity exist in a spectrum. For a long time, there was a push for this "gay gene." Because it was politically effective. That you "born this way" to distinct from the religious "life style choice" alternative narrative. I always thought there is a genetic and an environmental to things. That there are more people exist between the homosexuality and the heterosexuality. And as society became less strict, bisexual grew disproportionately compare to gays and lesbians. Which then played into the religious choices. I acknowledge their concerns and its validity but then again, I was never religious.

The community as a whole grew to include qia and as time go along even more alphabets. Who know, they may come full circle, and lol if the community keep doubling up and they became the majority, Straight ended up as an alphabet also as a sexual minority (of course I don't think the trend will hold about the doubling up every generation).

But transgender, unlike other group, where people can just do the whole "live and let's live." Or they can interact, or maybe tolerate seeing people on television. Transgender require a lot of efforts in term of interaction, in one way is the proper pronouns. Trans community had too evolve into the non binary, gender fluid. And it evolve so much, that "dysphoria" may not even a requirement to be a trans person.

After same sex wedding was passed, the next political front was the trans right. For the past 5 to 6 years, the arguments seemed to center around a traditional view of what a trans person is. A trans person who doing everything to pass as the gender they identified with. This is a good argument because, one usually addressed people at what they wear and how they represent themselves. And even the physical features they have like tom boy for example, despite that they maybe boyish, they are still girls. We use these clues, instead of let's said checking their genitals before how we address them in term of pronouns. And traditional pronouns that came with pre existing meanings. Now they broaden it out to some random sound and dubbed it as neo pronoun, to cater to specific individuals.

Then there is the dysphoria component to it. That proper pronouns could alleviate pains and discomfort. Is a pretty good motivation for people to adhere to the practice of pronoun. Dysphoria is no joke.

If you keep expanding the definition until it is meaningless. JK Rowling said, "Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security." And it was the activist that corrected her about how trans are not just about cosplaying. That there is something more fundamental in there.

If Yamato didn't really put much effort in herself (she put more effort in to become Oden which consisting of trying to freaking take on the mantel of Momonosuke's dad) to pass as a guy, then why is that effort required of others to address Yamato as such? Unlike said Kiku. [In fairness, not all trans individual have the luxury of dressing in a way that they desire due to the hostile environment that they are in, but if you want something out of someone else, some efforts should be make].

If Yamato is not discomfort or in pain in anyway due to dysphoria, and what is the motivation then to address her as a he? IF it is coming down to just personal preference, do you please every person out there with their preference in every aspect of life? I don't. I only do it if I respect them, I care for them in some way, or we had some sort of pre existing relationship.

If trans people see themselves in Yamato, I think Oda did some good work there. If cis female see themselves in Yamato, that is cool too. If cis guys like Yamato, that is awesome as well. Art is interpretation. Heck, trans favorite author JK Rowling. With her, in recent years, there are plenty of talk about "death of the author." Which allow people to enjoy her work, and take opposite political stances from her. And interpret her works in any which way they please.

So I guess, if people viewed Yamato as a trans man. That is cool. Trans men are kinda under represented in the media anyway.

 

[M3J]

Wait, but I thought the concept revolved around not attributing a specific pronoun for the sake of respect towards individual choice?
I believe the term is "prefered pronouns". Isn't preference individual? When has Yamato stated any preferences towards pronoun usage?

Are you not forcing the pronoun you view as correct upon the character, just because it acts like a male? Isn't that just as prejudiced as calling Yamato a she because the character's a biological female?

I understand and aknowledge that you mean well, just like Uriel, I just don't agree with your reasoning.

Yamato indicated preferred pronoun when he made it clear he preferred to use men's bath. That's not prejudiced, as he has made it clear he identifies as a man/Oden, who was a man.

Sorry, but I have to ask. Why does the existence of prejudice have to be a precondition for people to care about things?

Because generally, I'm carefree unless something affects people negatively.

For others, I can't answer on their behalf.

 

[Tengou]

Because generally, I'm carefree unless something affects people negatively.

For others, I can't answer on their behalf.

No, that's not an answer to my question. You said that if transgender individuals didn't face prejudice, you 'wouldn't feel as strongly about it'. And my question is... why? Since we're already presuming that this is a problem for Yamato (and I'm not convinced that it is, mind you), would the absence of prejudice make it less of one? I don't think so, because if it is a problem, then it is a personal problem, and not a group identity problem.

I do not like the notion that the problems of people can be deemed more or less important depending on whatever groups they belong to. That is why I asked you that question, to see where you stand.

 

[xi0]

Curiously enough, I find myself using "he" for Yamato quite often when casually mentioning the character. I don't feel any intrinsic need to correct myself when I do so, because I never said there's a correct way of doing so. I just don't see why I should be compelled to see it as the right way of doing so on the back of a group of people projecting themselves on the character and wanting the character to be treated like they would want to be treated.

To me, that's intrinsically opposite to what they claim to defend, which is freedom of choice. They just think their own choice is the valid one because it comes from a place of empathy or personal experience, so something else just doesn't.

So the issue isn't using preferred pronouns, it's you feeling like you don't have the "freedom" to not use them...?

 

[Zmsp]

Art is interpretation.

That's precisely the point! It's perfectly valid that people interpret the character in different ways, and project their own views towards it. We all do that. It's inherent to art. What's not cool is projecting your own view, and try to compell speech out of a sense of guilt from something that shouldn't elicit any guilt.

So I guess, if people viewed Yamato as a trans man. That is cool. Trans men are kinda under represented in the media anyway.

This is what I somewhat disagree with, not that seeing the character as a trans man is wrong, but I disagree with the concept of "media representation" anyways.

This obviously depends on what you mean, and you're probably just talking about raising awareness towards their particular hardships, but that's proof of how the way people categorize themselves is endless, and there's no limit to the many ways we can feel prejudiced. Why should some be more important to others, and how can we cater for all of them?

So the issue isn't using preferred pronouns, it's you feeling like you don't have the "freedom" to not use them...?

No, absolutely not.
I'm free to call Yamato whatever I want, just like everyone else, but what I'm opposing is the notion that certain views are wrong on the basis of offending someone, and I've said this too many times by now. I believe I've elaborated on that quite a lot. Let us make clear distinctions between hate speech and taking offense.

When it comes to Yamato in particular, let's look at it this way: has she ever expressed any sort of rejection towards being a female? Has she corrected people who called her "princess", and asked to be called "prince"? You might say that "Oni princess" is an epithet that the character doesn't want to be called, but that's not because of any sort of misrepresentation towards gender, is it? If it was, the character would've mentioned it.

She went to the men's bath because Oden would've went to the men's bath. If someone assumes that's because the character wants to be viewed as a man and now we should call it a "he", isn't that just their own assumption? I thought preference was individual, and the character expressed no preferences towards pronoun usage, so why should I comply, and even more importantly, is it transphobic not to do so?

If we go beyond Yamato in particular, I do have a lot of other disagreements, and they're sociological/biological, but I don't believe you asked me to elaborate on those, so I won't.

 

[weixiaobao]

This obviously depends on what you mean, and you're probably just talking about raising awareness towards their particular hardships, but that's proof of how the way people categorize themselves is endless, and there's no limit to the many ways we can feel prejudiced. Why should some be more important to others, and how can we cater for all of them?

You losing me here bud. Why don't you just ask me what I meant rather than prop up a straw horse. And then proceed to beat that horse to dead, then beat it to alive, so that you can beat it to dead again afterward? Also following the same cynicalness of things. Why should I care about your opinion then? Why prop your opinion over the rest? What make your opinion so so so special?

My post was very concise. It argue why people didn't want to call Yamato a He/him. And all the trans allies on this thread. Still read it and synthesized with what I said. And yet, you were the dense one. Seemed like you disagree with the sake of disagreeing.

If you had ask me what I meant. And this is how I gonna answer. Biden had a stutter, a kid who had stutter problem found empowerment in knowing someone with his condition can get to the highest seat in the land. It was important to that kid. You don't look at Biden, and think it is an inspirational story about a person with stutter. But that kid interpret it that way, and what are you gonna do? Beat that kid, and tell him why are we care about what he think. Well follow your logic, you shouldn't care about what he think. And just let him think what he think. Live and let's live.

Brayden Harrington: Joe Biden and the boy with the stutter

Teenager Brayden Harrington delivers the "speech of the night" at the Democratic convention.

www.bbc.com

I as an immigrant to the USA. Specially a Vietnamese immigrant. My country import a ton of media ranging chinese series, to japanese manga, korean manhwa, Bollywood, Mexican soap opera, Middle eastern literature, Russian tv shows, British young adults, Belgium comic, German detective, Hollywood movies. When I grew up, Vietnam wasn't a major production of these type of media. So I am so used to reading and empathizing with people of different culture, ethnic, race, religion, gender, etc. So the whole representation in media to be was not important. If you put in some effort, you can find literally some media of some kind across the globe about a certain demographic in a certain genre.

Then I came to the USA, a majority white country. And still held that view. I took a white friend to see Into Spiderverse. one of those movie that almost universally like by everyone. My white friend said this to me, "it kinda ghetto." That took me back, if this white dude somehow got taken back by seeing people of different skins color than he is. Why am I had much higher bar for the minorities of the USA in particular for the exact same thing. Ms Marvel happened recently. And the amount of mostly but not exclusive to straight, mostly white, mostly male, mostly conservative that hate on this series even before they watch a single episode. So these folks want something. These folks are okay and want to see more of mostly straight, mostly white, mostly male, and maybe some conservative values of some kind. They want to see more of their representation. If the majority who see themselves in the majority of things, still have a problem of wanting to see representation. Then why will I deny that of a minority demographic. Especially if their "interpretation" is in their head. And I don't need to engage with it.

Heck, you don't even need to engage with them. You know those people that call you transphobic or whatever. Block them, call it a day. Move on. Live your life. You don't have to. But if you want to. Fine, do what you want. But do note, that is your choice. That you put yourself into the situation when if you want a different result, you can fix it by yourself very easily by not engage. But what you want to do, it to beat people into submission. To make the world into the same mold of thinking of you are. Isn't that just engaging with yourself. How boring would such a world be.

Representation can be skins deep, can be orientation, can be a bunch of things. A person who is an older brother in a big family. Saw a bit of themselves in the show Ms Marvel in the main character's brother (I had read comments like that) despite that person is white and not South Asian. Heck, a mom saw Tom Holland (spiderman actor) did ballet. And she is like "my son was bullied for doing ballet. But now he know spiderman know how to do ballet, he felt better about himself. Here Tom Holland is not Spiderman. Tom Holland knew ballet not spiderman. But the headcanon, allow her son to feel good about himself.

If you want to take that away. Go at it. But do note, YOU ARE GOING OUT OF YOUR WAY to take a joy out of someone else's day. And I do wonder what do you got in return. I hope you got something in return at such a high cost of ruining someone else's day. If there is nothing to gain. Then I guess it is an exercise of futility. And if that is your thing. Then go right ahead, my dude.

*Do note all examples I used are what I have see and observed irl

 

[M3J]

No, that's not an answer to my question. You said that if transgender individuals didn't face prejudice, you 'wouldn't feel as strongly about it'. And my question is... why? Since we're already presuming that this is a problem for Yamato (and I'm not convinced that it is, mind you), would the absence of prejudice make it less of one? I don't think so, because if it is a problem, then it is a personal problem, and not a group identity problem.

I do not like the notion that the problems of people can be deemed more or less important depending on whatever groups they belong to. That is why I asked you that question, to see where you stand.

Do you know the dangers and bigotry that transgender people face? How many transgender people, especially women, are killed? The percentage? Their average lifespan? Problems of people are deemed more or less important based on the dangers they face. Transgender women are one of the most vulnerable groups, and certain groups of people are working on trying to eradicate them one way or another.

So while I don't think Yamato is a transgender man, the fact is that he sees himself as a man, so there's no reason to not use the he/him pronoun. He does seem to be genderfluid enough, and there's really no good argument for using she/her. If there wasn't a chance of someone fighting against this being transphobic in real life, then it'd be whatever.

 

[Zmsp]

Why don't you just ask me what I meant rather than prop up a straw horse.

Well, that's true. I did jump to my own conclusions and elaborated on them without confirming what you meant, but I do the believe the word "probably" leaves room for doubt. Seems like I was off the mark, but curiously enough, the explanation you gave does go towards my point, but I'll elaborate on that ahead.

My post was very concise.

That I can't agree with, but that's besides the topic at hand.

If you had ask me what I meant. And this is how I gonna answer. Biden had a stutter, a kid who had stutter problem found empowerment in knowing someone with his condition can get to the highest seat in the land. It was important to that kid. You don't look at Biden, and think it is an inspirational story about a person with stutter. But that kid interpret it that way, and what are you gonna do? Beat that kid, and tell him why are we care about what he think. Well follow your logic, you shouldn't care about what he think. And just let him think what he think. Live and let's live.

This is where you lost me, because you're straw-manning my point, just like I seem to have done with yours.
The kid with a stutter is a good enough example for me to further explain my point, and since you elaborated on your view, I'll elaborate on mine.

The kid has every right to feel empowered and draw inspiration from that particular case. When I have said something that goes against this notion? In fact, if there's something that I've been trying to say, is that everyone projects themselves over certain figures or traits, and that's perfectly fine. Now, if we take that instance and say something along the lines of: people with stutters don't have enough representation in political seats, and we should promote that in order to empower and encourage other people with stutters. The latter is what I fundamentally disagree with, and people with stutters might feel offended, but why should I retract my statement because of that?

So, if this doesn't go in line with what you meant, let's go back to the beginning: what do you mean when you say that trans men don't have enough representation in the media?

Heck, you don't even need to engage with them. You know those people that call you transphobic or whatever. Block them, call it a day. Move on. Live your life. You don't have to. But if you want to. Fine, do what you want. But do note, that is your choice. That you put yourself into the situation when if you want a different result, you can fix it by yourself very easily by not engage. But what you want to do, it to beat people into submission. To make the world into the same mold of thinking of you are. Isn't that just engaging with yourself. How boring would such a world be.

This makes no sense to me, and it doesn't have to do with the topic at hand.

This a public forum, and people express their views for everyone to see and possibly engage.
Why should I block people with different views than mine, instead of engaging them? Please do clarify how I'm trying to beat people into submission.

 

[weixiaobao]

Now, if we take that instance and say something along the lines of: people with stutters don't have enough representation in political seats, and we should promote that in order to empower and encourage other people with stutters. The latter is what I fundamentally disagree with, and people with stutters might feel offended, but why should I retract my statement because of that?

So, if this doesn't go in line with what you meant, let's go back to the beginning: what do you mean when you say that trans men don't have enough representation in the media?

Why should I block people with different views than mine, instead of engaging them? Please do clarify how I'm trying to beat people into submission.

Because the dialogue you ran is rather boring. And I don't see you got anywhere. What is the end of it, do you want people to say you right and or got annoy enough to end it? Not only it is boring, it is a dialogue that ran its course so so so so so so long ago. This is like every trans debate. And people start with the differentiation of sex and gender. And or throwing out gender is social construct.

This is boring. It is boring, because it would have been interesting 10 years or 20 years ago. Did I ever argue for people with more stutter problem in the government? People can interpret Biden as senile old man who stumble on words despite he does actually have a stutter problem.

It was around 16 years ago, that manga readers in the western world, specifically black readers who mostly read free from Edited Mangas since these manga wasn't readily available in the West. Complaining about black representation in Naruto. And then when black people start to show up. It was either complaining about are they cardboard cut out? Are they too stereotypical like Killer Bee? Are they could be any insert color because race wasn't all that important or are they even reflect any actual black exp? It was all too much for mangaka who probably at the time when the first set of complaint, don't know much about their western audience. And their western audience didn't contribute much to them financially then. My position had always be the change that you want. It is only from you that you can write that authentic whatever story that you want. And it is you that need to search the vast amount of media out there that if you consume 1k a day, you still will ran out of days before you finished all those medias around the world. People complained about how they love the music from the 70s, 80s, 90s, and hate music nowadays. When it is nowadays that music are produce at a record. That songs can have 0 view in its entire life from indie musician that they never heard about. But people never put any effort in that.

You care about the "offend" part. Jordan Peterson is a slippery fella. He once said to a reporter that why she care about offend when she risk offending him with every question, or something along the like. I don't think you tolerate offend much better than others either, whether it is hate speech or not. The people on this thread who debating you ONLINE right now. Already somewhat lost at the start. Because they already reveal some personal risk and weakness, that is whether they had friends, or family, or themselves who are trans. And they care about that. But you a relative unknown to most people, they don't had you by the handle. Had they know any thing of value to you. Then they could have rant on a topic in which you have some personal stock in the matter, then you would be slightly more irritable. But even now, their views also offend you in some way. Hence you keep go on and on for pages on end. For what end here? Certain truth? This dialogue about representations? Or what is hate speech? May had reached multiple level deeper on videos of debate bros on youtube. What are you trying to do here? Persuade?

For some people, there are risks. And communications are not just individual on individual basis. On the internet, you are communicating with more than just whoever you replying to. Two people can talk about their disagreeableness on the WHO in term of coronavirus. But a radical component of the population could pick one side of the debate as their motte and bailey. Ms Marvel for example got reviewed bomb with 1s rating when it was barely aired from people who never see it and had problem with "representations." Their problem is that they don't like what Disney, specifically, putting out on air in term of representation. But they boringly never go into their specific views. INstead, they complained about the 10s review bombed in which they also caused due to their action. They complained about the lackluster story in which they have jack knowledge about since they never watch it. A person who has skins in the game, had way more to lost when they conceding any ground to actors whose motives they don't know about.

Is your problem with Yamato? Is your problem with power representation? Is your problem with interpretation of Yamato? Is your problem with the discourse that going on right now? Is your problem with Transness in general?

You ask very silly question. Why do we put one over another? And should we cater to all. Who are we here? You? All mangaka? The government? The voters? If not all, then is it nothing? Everyone, individually, put value judgement everyday. To ask that is so boring. What is your value judgement here? If you want to test the limit of hate speech vs offend. It should not be trans. It should be something that actually affect your skins in the game. It should be something that truely offensive you, as a person. You should come up with questions. Let's said you are a black person. How about race and iq. If you are religious, how about indoctrination of the youth? Hell, if you are disable, how about the question of euthanasia. To you specifically, trans is not the litmus test.

And in term of politicians, you know, even the American GOP before Trump played these representation game. It is a game of power, the Hispanics bloc is the bloc with most potential to swing and is the most numerous to actually change an election. In 2016, they pushed Cruz, Rubio, heck even Bush spoke spanish and had a Hispanics family. They pushed minorities all the time like Fiorina/Bachmann, or Cain/Carson, or Jindal. In 2020, progressives said Biden is terrible for the black community, and the black voters pick Biden over the like of Patrick/Booker/Harris/Messam who are actually black. So what does that meant in your worldview? You think politics is that simple of the matter of representation. And the whole identity politics seemed to be just skins deep. Some people value their identity as a gun owner, some as a Christian. And hell, religion is more of a lifestyle choice more so than the whole lgbtq+.

In America, the gun owner, or Christian religious identity can also be very untouchable in many circle. Not only they had plenty of representation even in the liberal Hollywood, and in politics. And constantly constantly push for more. And here identity go hand in hand with policy. Do you brave enough to go into one of these rallies, and discuss the nuance of these things. When they are so triggered to their own identity as a school shooting. That school shootings are government false flags operation.

Hell, I think that would be a way way bigger litmus test. So to the Muslim dominate society and test that too. Trans people barely held that much political power in term of time length in history. And whatever power they had, it is an intricate dance. To them, their very existence. Do you know why I mentioned the "gay gene" in my first post? Often in these topics, science doesn't matter. Heck even whatever side that say science is support them, will turn on science on a dime if science don't support them. The religious right have plenty of skins in the debate, and science, when do they care about science. Do they want an experiment on the effectiveness of prosperity gospel?

So what are you really really want from this?

 

[Zmsp]

So what are you really really want from this?

What are you trying to do here? Persuade?

Yes?

What sort of confrontation of ideas isn't based on trying to persuade others to share your views? You went on and on about severals points. Why? Wasn't it to have me reflect on them?

Is your problem with power representation?

A little bit, yes.

Is your problem with interpretation of Yamato?

Not with individual interpretation, but rather deeming a personal interpretation as the right way of doing so.

Is your problem with the discourse that going on right now?

Yes.

Is your problem with Transness in general?

The opposite.
The main purpose was elaborating on how problems with the first three don't mean having a problem with Transness in general. I thought that'd be obvious by now, even if you don't believe I was sucessful at that.

Are the arguments I used boring? What's a boring argument? Should we not use boring arguments? We're all free to ignore each other by whatever criteria we deem reasonable, are we not? Were they wrong? Anyone who disagrees with them is free to elaborate on the why and engage me.

Why am I expressing my views? Because I can, just like everyone else. I've taken several views into account and went on to read about several topics on the back of this thread. I've gotten something positive out of it. If someone else has not, they can always drop it, can't they?

 

[xi0]

No, absolutely not.
I'm free to call Yamato whatever I want, just like everyone else, but what I'm opposing is the notion that certain views are wrong on the basis of offending someone, and I've said this too many times by now. I believe I've elaborated on that quite a lot. Let us make clear distinctions between hate speech and taking offense.

You're invoking intention, and I agree that in this scenario Yamato isn't the person being offended. They're not real. However, the types of attitudes people display towards the topic itself is what is worrisome and it's what people take exception with. Plus, I don't really agree with the notion that people are behaving the way they are because they're "offended". That's an oversimplification that really only exists to ignore details IMO.

Hate speech can exist without intent, so I don't know what distinction you think you're making.

 

[electricmastro]

I do find it interesting how not even a vivre card overlooked by Oda himself was enough to settle the matter once and for all, and that it has been dismissed by some on the grounds of "Kaido and his followers say Yamato is a son more often" and "Yamato was bathing with the boys instead of the girls," as if having the narrative of a tomboy being under pressure by her dad to become part of a shogun patriarchy and bathes with whomever she feels like is out of the question.

 

[xi0]

I do find it interesting how not even a vivre card overlooked by Oda himself was enough to settle the matter once and for all, and that it has been dismissed by some on the grounds of "Kaido and his followers say Yamato is a son more often" and "Yamato was bathing with the boys instead of the girls," as if having the narrative of a tomboy being under pressure by her dad to become part of a shogun patriarchy and bathes with whomever she feels like is out of the question.

I'm curious why you characterize Oda as having "overlooked" it though?

 

[electricmastro]

I'm curious why you characterize Oda as having "overlooked" it though?

While he doesn't write all of them, I understand he looks over them enough for it to still be applicable to the manga despite not being mentioned in the manga itself.