Ging Freecss Edit
I think it should be included that Kite was rescued by Ging from the streets. I'm not entirely sure what this means exactly but in chapter 1 Kite says pretty much just that. Viz version at least. In any case it's interesting to note.
- That would become a spoiler to everyone who has not read the manga or not that far in the manga. Also, XScar already a created a blog post regarding that issue (it's here!) and everyone has agreed to use the present tense. -Hahaharuhi! (talk)
- This is an encyclopedia on Hunter x Hunter. Of course there are spoilers everywhere on here. Since this is already a spoiler to the readers who has not read the manga/not that far in the manga/watch the anime only quite a lot on the main characters' pages, why do you guys not make this in past tense? Technically, it would be correct to use past tenses on this article and other dead characters, because they are dead. I see no problem with using past tenses for dead characters. Jademing (talk)
- Well if you think that's befitting for the wikia, why don't you try to ask the other editors about this again? Personally, I agree with you in using the past tense (I don't really care much about spoilers since I love them. LOLOLOL), but like I have told you before, many of the people here--visitors, readers, editors, etc.-- want to use the present tense. But if you still want to insist on this, why not ask the admins for advice on what tense to use? Or (I repeat) a blog post about this again perhaps? (Sorry if it seems like I'm running away from the issue, but I really don't want a conflict about this. Also, I suck at defending my conviction. By the way, WELCOME TO HUNTERPEDIA! :D) -Hahaharuhi! (talk)
- This is an encyclopedia on Hunter x Hunter. Of course there are spoilers everywhere on here. Since this is already a spoiler to the readers who has not read the manga/not that far in the manga/watch the anime only quite a lot on the main characters' pages, why do you guys not make this in past tense? Technically, it would be correct to use past tenses on this article and other dead characters, because they are dead. I see no problem with using past tenses for dead characters. Jademing (talk)
Kite Skills Edit
Hello everyone. In the chapter 335, Ging mention something about the skills of kite... he say that he got a skill in his crazy perriot that will come out if he really means that he will be dead... and if he is alive if got to do something with it
- "I'm the one who taught Kaito how to use NEN!! I taught him his ability, too!! His Crazy Pierrot has a mode called, "How Could I Die Like This?!" It only comes out if he really means it!! So if he's alive, then it probably has something to do with that!" ~ Ging to Gon
You should add Kite's en to his abilities, it's 45m radius (chapter 142, page 11)
kite's power Edit
and Let's not forget that not only was Kite discovered and trained by Ging, one of the top 6 Nen users in the world, according to Biscuit, but he also managed to track Ging down. I shudder to imagine how strong Kite would have to be to even make his way into the place where Ging is hiding.Kaito took on pito and ways caught off gaurd. What's more, Pito acknowledged him as a challenge, and a "test of his limits"also What Pito said about his fight with Kaito (being "like a dream") needs to be taken into context.
Major spoiler in the introduction. Just move the "twin sister" part to the bottom
On Kite's page background section his backstory was put. I mean do we really need to put Kite's backstory? first of all Togashi never did a scene where Ging and Kite's enconter it was only mentioned by Kite and the only backstory w/c is a canon was that he was Ging's apprentice in the manga there's no panel or page that Kite is some kind of thief or he leaves in sewers or befriending animals that backstory from the 2011 is completely a filler and a non canon from the original series so i guess its okay to delete that part from his page?
- No don't remove it. Maybe we could say it's from the 2011 series or something, like in Kikyo's Zoldyck Family arc - Hahaharuhi! (talk)
- ok then i will have to edit the trivia about this one.
- 13:16, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- On the other hand there's a panel of Anime & Manga differences so everything is ok now.
- 13:21, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
Kite's Sword apart of Crazy Slots?
During the flash back of Kite saving Gon from the Foxbear on Whale Island, Kite uses a sword to kill the Foxbear. At that point Kite already knew Nen, so would it be a part of Crazy Slots even though the number is unknown? If not I think it should atleast be added to the this part
"Only three of his weapons are shown in the manga: a scythe, a rifle, and a mace."
Kite's brain Edit
There's some assertion in the wikia about Kite's brain being fed to the Queen, but it's just a theory backed up by nothing. I thought this wikia was supposed to be about verifiable facts. Fan theories should stick to Tumblr or whatever, where they belong.
- Kite's brain was fed to the Queen. Why else would Meruem's twin sister, Kite (Chimera Ant), have human Kite's memories if the Queen did not eat his brain? 09:34,8/14/2015
- We don't even know if that's the mechanism of transferring memories, especially when the concept of the soul is played around with. It seems irresponsible to invent mechanisms to fill in knowledge gaps. GingFreaks (talk) 16:23, August 14, 2015 (UTC)
- Either that or your argument is actually invalid. How could Kite's memories be transferred? There was no mention of souls in the Chimera Ant arc. Have you read the Chimera Ant Queen's page? "to absorb the genes of creatures she eats and then transmit them to her spawn..." Kurt was eaten by the Queen; thus we have Colt. Reina was eaten by the Queen; thus we have Shidore. Zaikahal = Welfin; Jail = Meleoron; Human Kite = Kite (Chimera Ant). 02:54,8/15/2015
- Kite (ant) actually has the redheaded girl's genes - the one that Koala shot, presumably killing what corresponds to the concept of a "soul". The thing is we don't know how the memories were transferred! You are just proposing a theory. WIKI stands for "what I know is", not "what I think is". I can make a theory too. The wiki loses credibility when you start filling in knowledge gaps with fan theories. GingFreaks (talk) 18:02, August 15, 2015 (UTC)
- Wait. Chimera Ants have memories from their past lives. We know that much. Apparently, the most important memories come from their human genes - Ikalgo, Welfin, and many others have memories both from their human and animal lives, but the former are the ones that influence them the most and through which they define themselves. Now, I really don't see how Kite's Conjuration ability could have led him to manipulate reality in such a way that he is reborn into the body of someone he has never met long after his death, Conjuration surely is not random metempsychosis. Still, we can rephrase it in such a way that it is not specified, but be polite in the way you present your ideas and start making contributions before teaching an admin how she should do her job. Martialmaniac (talk) 23:37, December 19, 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that Girl Kite has Kite's memories but another person's body suggests that the transfer of memories happened in a way that is different from the other Ants that remembered their human pasts. I believe that the hypothesis that Kite's memory re-emerged through different means (one obvious theory as suggested by Ging being his "No Way I'm Gonna Die" slot, which could be a device whose nen strengthens after death) holds more than enough water to question that we "Know" his brain was fed to the queen. In fact, I personally believe it is more likely that his brain was in fact NOT fed to the queen. Acidkeeper (talk) 14:35, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that Girl Kite has Kite's memories but another person's body suggests that the transfer of memories happened in a way that is different from the other Ants that remembered their human pasts.
- Why? That's just another ant body - there are several ants who have mostly human appearances with animal charaacteristics etc. And as far as appearance should go; Humans are just another animal in the pool - although the most common/dominant in this one, obviously. There is no strong evidence to suggest Kite is physiologically different from any other ant. The best we have, is that ant kite grew from a baby-form - but that is probably more related to being Meruem's twin.Flaremmm (talk) 22:33, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
- Ant Kite's human genes are strongly suggested to belong to the red-haired girl the koala killed. This is the first known case of an Ant derived from more than one human. (At the very least we know no case of any Ant remembering more than one human past life, or with a memory-gene mismatch.) Acidkeeper (talk) 14:10, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it's heavily implied that Kite's rebirth was not a standard "eaten by the Queen and reborn as an Ant" process - Ging straight-up says he believes it's Kite's powers that caused it, though we don't know how. Some other information hints at it too: At the point where Kite was killed by Pitou, the Queen had already "conceived" Meruem, and she explicitly was putting all of her energy into his gestation. It makes no sense that she would conceive another child and risk Meruem's development. (And, though it's shonen manga and authors might not necessarily know this, it's basically impossible to remove a brain while leaving the eyes intact. That's a really nitpicky bit of "evidence", though.) Olivemeister (talk) 01:19, October 21, 2016 (UTC)
I thought we've already established that Kite is male, because he was only reborn in a female body does not mean he's female. Or are we going to pull out the Alluka card and say Kite is female because of how he looks?10:16,12/19/2015
There's no clear indication of how Kite identifies himself now, and it's especially confusing as he'll use either a very feminine or very masculine personal pronoun depending on who he was speaking to. Ultimately neither argument has a leg to stand on, but I think it's important to acknowledge that Kite is a girl now (not "looks like"), as stated in the manga. There's no reason to sooner believe he currently identifies as male rather than female while the opposite is also true, anything further than that is personal interpretation and probably doesn't belong on a wiki.
Personally though I would still use he/him pronouns despite the above.
And I'd also object to calling Kite Meruem's "twin", they're twins about as much as the guards are triplets. Kite had a separate egg sac and wasn't close to ready for birth, why call them twins? Mountaintimber (talk) 17:50, December 19, 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with the ambiguity. We have seen Kite now has all his memories and the same personality as before his death. Even if we decide to examine minor details, he addesses people the same way and has rejected the female name "Reina" for "Kite". Thus I think it's the opposite: the manga strongly implies - rather, states - he is the same as before and hence considers himself male, so there is no reason as of now to opt for gender ambiguity.
I checked. They used "looks like a girl" to mean "even though she is only a few days old, she looks like a human girl of about X years of age". I don't think it's unacceptable, but there is always room for improvement.
As for the "twins" matter, I disagree again. The main difference is that the Guards, like almost all Chimera Ants, developed in and "hatched" from sacks outside the Queen's body, while Kite and Meruem fully grew inside her body, like humans. In the first case we do not use the term "twins", but, since we seem to consider chimera ants more or less like humans, we should use it in the second. Martialmaniac (talk) 23:22, December 19, 2015 (UTC)
Ok first off sorry to start such a gender ambiguous discussion on here, since I was the one whom made the edit that states on the page that the current Kite is female, since I guess I didn't think it over for the fact that Kite may consider him/herself either male or female even though Kite now has the appearance of a girl. Secondly anyone wants to they can or I can revert the edits back to that Kite is Male.
@Martialmaniac I don't recall the manga ever saying that Kite is the same old Kite (I could be wrong but I'd need a source), and the very fact that Kite continues to talk like a little girl even AFTER regaining his memories absolutely proves that Kite isn't just the same old Kite that we knew. There's still nothing to show that Kite still considers himself male, much less anything being "strongly implied".
On the twins matter, I'm not sure if having began development in the Queen is enough to call Kite a twin of Meruem. I mean, logically all ants begin life in the Queen. Kite wasn't conceived at the same time as Meruem, didn't develop alongside Meruem, and supposed to be born at the same time as Meruem. Unless you're redefining the word twin, it just really doesn't seem to apply. Using the word in a "human" context is completely meaningless since there's nothing remotely human surrounding the circumstances of chimera ant birth.
Trivia point? Edit
I didn't want to drop this on the page without discussing it, since I don't know what the standard (if there is a standard) is for writing Japanese-exclusive terms on the wiki. And also because I just don't feel like dropping something onto a page without talking about the addition in advance.
So a lot of us probably know that human Kite and ant Kite use different pronouns. For the most part, ant Kite uses the feminine (and very childish) "atachi". This is the pronoun used for the "My name is Kite!" reveal, and it's the pronoun Kite uses while speaking to Koala and Spinner.
When Kite is speaking to Gon at the end of the Election Arc, "atachi" is abandoned. For the entire conversation with Gon, Kite uses "ore". (It's a little meta and I don't think my speculation belongs on the page but I took this as being an act of reassurance towards Gon - "I look different, but I'm still the Kite you remember". Given that Kite uses "atachi" with Spinner, it definitely appears that this change is for Gon and not an "I use this with people who knew me as a human" thing.) It was mentioned earlier that ant Kite's pronoun changes, but this literally only happens when Kite talks to Gon.
Would this be something worth putting as trivia? What I'd personally put is "Kite's personal pronoun changes from オレ ("ore", masculine) to あたち ("atachi", feminine) after being reborn as a Chimera Ant. However, when speaking to Gon after the election ends, Kite uses オレ once more." I don't know what's better, to use the romaji version of the pronoun or the original katakana or both or what, so I just went with that. Olivemeister (talk) 01:12, October 21, 2016 (UTC)
Atashi and Ore Edit
As Olivemeister pointed out, after regaining all of his memories, Kite ha sused both masculine and feminine pronouns. The last he uses is the masculine one, but this could mean pretty much anything: that he doesn't care, that he's gender-fluid/non-binary, that he used "atashi" only because he was being addressed as the girl Koala had killed, that he used a pronoun Gon would be more comfortable with... As of now, I think it's impossible to dteermine Kite's gender. I do believe he still views himself as male, since I don't think he never admitted having any of the red-haired girl's memories (which would imply he used "atashi" to identify himself as that girl and allow Koala to apologize); still, since we can't be sure, I believe his current gender should be left as "unknown". Martialmaniac (talk) 19:03, February 28, 2017 (UTC)
I'm here for going vague on the issue of CA!Kite's gender, and additionally swapping pronouns from rebirth onward to the neutral "they" instead of "he". Olivemeister (talk) 21:40, February 28, 2017 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that we should base his pronouns upon his biological sex rather than the pronouns he uses to refer to himself, and as we're fairly certain on his sex before and after his transition into a Chimera Ant, I believe we should refer to him with "he" and "him" before his transformation and "she" and "her" afterwards. Pigzillion (talk) 22:18, February 28, 2017 (UTC)
There's support for basically anything, but that actual reasoning ("biological sex is the ultimate decider") is really, really questionable and unfortunate. Olivemeister (talk) 22:57, February 28, 2017 (UTC)
Biological sex is the ultimate decider; state of mind doesn't change biology, and the notion that a person's pronouns should be changed because of their state of mind is preposterous. As such, since I believe we're all in agreement that kite was biologically male pre-chimera ant and biologically female post Chimera Ant, it's my opinion that we should change his pronouns accordingly. Pigzillion (talk) 23:19, February 28, 2017 (UTC)
No, it's biology, and mentality does not change physicality. I am aware that gender dysphoria exists, and I am aware that mentally Kite may well be male, but changing the pronouns of a fictional character because their mental state in complete contradiction to their biological sex seems like a much bigger mess, and one which I believe should be avoided. Pigzillion (talk) 23:43, February 28, 2017 (UTC)
In my honest opinion, I do think we should leave the masculine pronouns be. Moreover, it only occurred to me just now that Kite's page has two different pronouns, and there are paragraphs where we used "he" and then "she". It is confusing to say the least. Now, as for the usage of atashi, if I remember correctly, Kite only used that when he was a child, basically a toddler. I don't even think Reina (as Kite was called that time) would have all of his memories back. Much later, when Gon vists Kite, Kite has obviously remembered everything and begins referring to himself as, well, he.
And this is not another Alluka argument. With Alluka, we are told that Alluka is a son of the Zoldyck family, who referred to herself in feminine pronouns all of the time. With Kite, we saw him first when he met Gon in Whale Island, saw him as a Contract Hunter and battling Ants. We have everything to call Kite in masculine pronouns, yet one moment Kite used atashi, everyone loses their minds.15:16,3/2/2017
Honestly, I think Kite is more confusing that Alluka. He was undoubtedly male before his transformation and viewed himself as such, yet he underwent a complete transformation after his death and changed into a female on a genetic level. I'll address that again later, but I'll make my case first on why I think it might .appropriate to refer to Kite as female(after his transformation, of course).
I should start off by saying that whilst I did agree in the end that Alluka should have had the pronouns in his article changed to feminine ones, I have changed my stance on the matter. I won't be suggesting that we change his pronouns back, as any further additions to the discussion after about 2 years of debate would only create further turmoil, especially after a consensus has already been reached, but since his and Kite's cases are so similar, I will be speaking about it at some length. It is of my opinion that we should not base the pronouns that we use for these characters on how they themselves identify. We should base their pronouns off their biological sex. This is in complete contradiction to what I said earlier with Alluka, but after hearing differing opinions and debates on the topic, my belief has been swayed. Gender is not independent of sex. Gender is not independent of biology.
If Killua had stated that Alluka were a 6-year-old, female Chimera Ant with pink hair and purple eyes, we would not change his age from 11 to 6. We would not change his species from human to Chimera Ant. We would not change his hair colour from black to pink. We would not change his eye colour from blue(or black) to purple. And yet, however, it is entirely possible, I'd go even as far to say it was plausible, that we would have a long winded debate as to whether we change his gender from male to female. I do not agree with this sentiment. I do not agree that we should state that black haired characters have pink hair. I do not agree that Human characters should be referred to as Chimera ants. And I do not believe that we should refer to men as women and women as men.
Gender Dysphoria exists. That is an indisputable scientific fact, supported by many studies and brain scans conducted on transgender individuals, and I would not deny that Alluka may suffer from such a thing. But with that said, his state of mind does not change his physical body. Mentality does not trump physicality. Just because Alluka believes himself to be female, and just because Killua is feeding his delusion, this does not change the fact that every cell in his body(with the exception of some of his sperm cells, ironically enough), contains a Y chromosome, and I believe that is what should dictate the pronouns we use for these characters, not the gender they believe themselves to be. We wouldn't change any other biological fact on his article just because he believes it to be different. We wouldn't change his hair colour to pink just because he believed it to be pink. We wouldn't change his eye colour to purple just because he believed it to be purple. And as such, we shouldn't change his pronouns to female just because he believes himself to be female.
I will admit, however, that this line of argument becomes somewhat confusing when applied to Kite, as he's basically just one big thought experiment in this context. I could go through my thought process concerning this issue, but it's honestly just a nonsensical mess that I can't write down in a logical and easy-to-read manner, so I'll just finish off with the conclusion.
In my honest opinion, I think that in the case of post-Chimera-Ant Kite, we should refer to her using female pronouns, as she is without a doubt biologically female, and as I have said before, biology trumps mentality. But as Kite was biologically male and identified as male before his transformation, it could be argued that he is still male due to him being male previously in his character continuity, and should be referred to as such. Whilst I do agree that the latter is a convincing argument, however, I think that it makes more sense to change his pronouns according to his character continuity, rather than just sticking to the sex of his birth even after his rebirth. He should be referred to as male before his transformation, and female afterwards.
I'd like to specify that the feminine pronoun that Kite uses isn't atashi but as the original editor said, atachi (an even more childish variant of atashi). Also, he doesn't only use atachi in the toddler scene but also in the grown up scene where he talks to Koala. He reverts to using the manly "ore" when talking to Gon. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDohMtkx7Wc). He does not use any particular pronoun in the one line he addresses to Spinner Clow.
This could mean a number of things. I don't think the pronoun we use matter too much at this stage. (Though I do like the interpretation that Kite has become non-binary and more specifically genderfluid.)
Also, regarding what pronoun to use for non-binary characters, what is standard for characters seems to simply be consistent with what is standard for real people. To wit:
Division of Public Affairs (September 2011). "Style Guide" (PDF). Vanderbilt University. p. 34. Retrieved 2013-09-17. "Use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth."
Associated Press (2015). "transgender". The Associated Press Stylebook 2015. ISBN 9780465097937. "Use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth. If that preference is not expressed, use the pronoun consistent with the way the individuals live publicly."
Sponsored by the American Medical Association and The Fenway Health with unrestricted support from Fenway Health and Pfizer. "Meeting the Health Care Needs of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) People: The End to LGBT Invisibility" (PowerPoint Presentation). The Fenway Institute. p. 24. Retrieved 2013-09-17. "Use the pronoun that matches the person's gender identity"
So according to stylistic guides in modern usage pronouns make no claim as to the referred individual's chromosomal or gonadic sex so it is not incorrect information to refer to a character in the way they present themselves as even if it contrasts with their biology.
Just because a university in Nashville has chosen to feed the delusions of a certain group of individuals at their own institute and are forcing their students to do so, that doesn't mean we should follow suit on this wiki. A person's gender is not independent of their sex, and neither are their pronouns, meaning Alluka should be referred to as he and Chimera Ant Kite should be referred to as she. Pigzillion (talk) 19:13, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
Do you have style guides supporting your claim or are you arguing for the wiki to go against English language convention for politically motivated reasons? Feel free to share if it's the former, and if it is the latter even first assuming your reasoning is right we have to enter the separate debate of whether it is a wikia's role to consciously defy convention to further an agenda.
On a separate note, Wikipedia has a concise and useful protocol for gender identity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender_identity). Not posting that as a stylistic authority (that is what the above links were for), but more as useful guidelines for future reference. Acidkeeper (talk) 10:26, May 7, 2017 (UTC)
The Associated Press is a multi-conglomerate news organisation situated in New York City. It is a Private News Organisation, and what it demands its writers attain to using its own personal Style Guide has no bearing on anything whatsoever, other than how it's own writers should structure their articles.
The Vanderbilt University is, again, a private institute of education which has its own Rules and Regulations regarding how it's students may refer to individuals of questionable sexual identity. Just because this Private Institute has chosen to push its own Style Guides onto its students does not mean we should follow suit on the wiki.
Using these Style Guides as a model to follow suit from is, therefore, unreasonable, until we can reach a consensus as to whether or not how a person chooses to identify should affect the pronouns we use to refer to them by, and they are by no means an accurate representation of English Language Convention as a whole. They represent the linguistic restrictions and left-leaning language policies of these certain private institutes, with The Associated Press even forbidding the use of "Illegal immigrant", and stating that Republicans in America "reject mainstream science". As such, your suggestion that I only seek to push my own "political agenda" and ignore basic English Language Convention is hypocritical and slanderous. Pigzillion (talk) 12:10, May 7, 2017 (UTC)
The AP stylebook is not an internal guideline set but "the leading reference for most forms of public-facing corporate communication over the last half-century".
Sorry for the hypocritical and slanderous suggestions, I genuinely understood your reasoning to be politically motivated, and make no judgement of it other than it requires entering the separate debate of whether it is within the scope of the wikia to take a stance against, again, sorry to disagree on that, English language convention.
Since you disagree that it is English language convention to refer to individuals by their assumed gender identity, and that used pronouns make no claim as to gonadic/chromosomal sex, could you link some examples of reputable writings, or style guides, purposely referring to transgender people by pronouns other than their preferred ones? I think that would be very helpful. Acidkeeper (talk) 16:45, May 7, 2017 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary, which defines male pronouns such as he and his as the following; "Used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal". The dictionary also defines the word "Male" as the following; "Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilised or inseminated to produce offspring". For female pronouns, it is as follows; "Belonging to or associated with a female person or animal". It defines the word "female" as the following; "Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes which can be fertilised by male gametes". As for the Cambridge English dictionary, it's definition is virtually identical.
Is that good enough, or do you find the Oxford and Cambridge definitions to fit outside of "Standard English Language Convention"? And before you say it; yes, using these two private universities for my own arguments is hypocritical of me, but as you seem to hold your own examples in such high regard, I thought I would use two of the most prestigious educational institutions in history in defence of my own stance on the matter.
What was it you said? That "in modern uses, a person's pronouns make no reference to their gonadic/chromosomal sex"? I believe it was something along those lines. And I also believe that such a statement also falls out of what many would consider to be Standard English Language Convention, as such a thing goes against the very definitions of the pronouns you suggest we refer to these characters by. From what I am aware, Kite has two X chromosomes. From what I am aware, she has ovaries and female genitalia. And, from what I am aware, the very antithesis of the previous two statements can be said about Alluka. Thus, according to Standard English Language Convention and the definitions of he/his etc and she/her etc, we should refer to said characters by their biological sex, and not how they themselves choose to identify as. Or would you disagree? Pigzillion (talk) 19:12, May 7, 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as you accept Oxford and Cambridge Universities as a source, can you find us a text from Oxford/Cambridge that purposely uses other pronouns than a transgender person's preferred ones? If you do then we'll have established it is not standard usage. Acidkeeper (talk) 22:42, May 7, 2017 (UTC)
To what end? Even if the universities did choose to "respect" a transgendered person's preferred pronouns, they would still be grammatically incorrect in their usage, as they would be going against the very definitions of the pronouns they are using, and thus, would not be conforming to standard English. So, and this is a fairly legitimate question(though I think I already know your answer), what would you suggest? That we conform to the incorrect usage of the English language, used by a number of high-profile private institutes, or the established definitions of the words, written inside the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries, which directly contradicts the former's stance on the matter? If it is, in fact, the former, I'd like to ask why we even refer to dictionaries to begin with, if we can simply disregard their definitions at whim whenever it suits out own political agendas. Pigzillion (talk) 23:24, May 7, 2017 (UTC)
I already said to what end - in order to prove that using a transgender person's preferred pronouns is not standard usage. It seems you were not able to find any example. Unless you can provide examples of reputable writings purposely using other pronouns than a non-binary individual's preferred ones then I think we should consider it standard usage considering major stylistic guides' recommendations and the fact that examples of using a person's preferred pronouns are seen everywhere.
For example-- Fox News: "LOS ANGELES – Four years after "Matrix" filmmaker Lana Wachowski revealed she was transgender," - http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/03/09/second-filmmaking-wachowski-sibling-comes-out-as-transgender.html
Daily Mail: "The second Wachowski sibling has come out as transgender - four years after her sister." - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3483282/Second-Wachowski-sibling-comes-transgender-four-years-sister.html
Dictionary entries are a descriptive summary of conventional usage which unsurprisingly do not always address specific cases such as this one. What is standard usage in this case, however, is clear as per journalistic and academic writings and recommendations from both political wings. I may change my mind if you manage to provide examples of reputable writings that purposely use other pronouns' than a transgendered person's preferred ones.
Daily Wire: "Caitlyn Jenner goes to the White House"
The previous three articles are all using the pronouns correctly, as they fit directly into the definition of the terms "male" and "female". Those that pretend that a man is a woman because he feels like it, and vice versa, are not following historically accurate and dictionary definitions, and thus, are not conforming to Standard English Language Convention.
You are likely to counter this with "There are many more news sources which address transgendered people according to their preferred pronouns", to which I would counter, by saying they would be going against pre-established definitions in order to feed the delusions of a minuscule minority of people. No matter what links you post past this point, showing writers referring to transgendered individuals by their preferred pronouns, I will only counter by saying they are not following standard usage by not following dictionary definition, and that a number of news outlets and English speaking people do not conform to the idea that pronouns usage is distinct from biological sex. Pigzillion (talk) 18:10, May 8, 2017 (UTC)
Ok I've read some of the back and forth arguments on this topic by Pigzillion aka Alex and Acidkeeper. From what I understand from both sides is that it's an argument on whether Kite's Pronoun should be Masculine & Feminine or simply neutral. Both sides have brought up valid points and rebuttals to the other's respective points, but since one side has seemingly dropped from the argument completely it's not clear that the side (Acidkeeper) has conceded to Alex's logic as it's been roughly over 2 months now.
So in that light I'd say if Acidkeeper doesn't respond to this topic, until the deadline of July 8th to make it exactly 3 months since the two sides have posted then it will be decided that we'll just go with Pigzillion's point of view, unless any admins have anything against my proposal. As for if Acidkeeper comes back tries to argue if my judgement is unfair in anyway shape or form after the deadline, TOO BAD. You've had more than an ample amount of time to come back to this topic to argue about this further, but have failed to do so.
Hopefully this can bring some closure.
Sigh, it always has to be a gender issue around here.
Here's my take, when referring to Kite pre chimera ant days, it's obvious that he's male and should be referred to with male pronouns, that's unquestionable.
When referring to Chimera ant Kite, use female pronouns until there's any confirmation that Kite wishes to be adressed with male pronouns, Kite only using male pronouns in a conversation with Gon isn't enough evidence considering the history between them, it makes sense that Kite would use male pronouns, it's a special case, If Chimera ant Kite's biological gender is female and Kite seemingly uses female pronouns when talking to Koala, we should keep it that way for now. MrGenial11 (talk) 19:49, June 17, 2017 (UTC)
I don't care about Kite's preferred pronouns; pronoun usage is determined by biological sex, not a person's mental state. That was what the entire argument was about, and after I stated my final piece on the matter Acidkeeper was unable to retort and decided not to reply at all, hence Kite should be referred to using female pronouns after his transformation and male pronouns before, regardless of any confirmation as to his preferred pronouns. Pigzillion (talk) 20:37, June 17, 2017 (UTC)
I thin it is imo naive to say that "I'll just call you what you are" when sexes is and has always been IDEAL metrics and not the sole judgement in practice the first place. There are many different circumstances, conditions, defects etc that can all prevent people from falling into even the biological stereotupes of sexes. Such as possessing more than 1 pair or strand of X or Y chromosome, having a body that fails to respond to their primary sex hormones produced by their sex organs, having a birth drfects that may genetrically or physically ruin their sex organ or having it fail to develop correctly etc etc. All of these can ultimaltely play a part in one's presentation of themselves, and subsequently their personal perception in interaction with the public expections and their own which forms their gender identity.
In essence, sexes and genders are not independent, but they are also not one and the same. They are closely tied, as a subset of one's identity. And it should not be that we ignore one and completely favour another. There is a difference between delusion and seeing yourself in a certain way. Delusion comes at the expense of reasoning and awareness, self-perception is the product of reasoning and awareness. There is a difference between "I am a wolf awooooooo" and "I know I'm a human, but I want to be seen as a wolf". Whether or not you agree with the latter is another matter, but it is not having lose screws.
Not to mention, even before all that said, the dictionary definitions never applied to transgender in the first place, at least not for mtf, where you argued that they should still be referred to as male because they're supposely able to pregnent women. At least in the mtf's, their hormone treatment will make them infertile (I think ftm can still get pregnent as long as they stop their hrt or something but can be wrong). Hence on that basis alone the definitions do not apply. But I digress.
Anyway, point is: Sex is not definite in the first place, and neither is personal perception immediately mental or "delusional" just because they don't see themselves as they are "supposed to" or something.
Chimera ant Kite should imo, have a female pronoun until they have specifically said to be refer to ad male. Reasoning: Kite is currently biological female, and uses female specific pronouns to refer to themselves, both "physical" and "mental" reasoning will be used; and if it really comes one day that Kite wants to be seen as a man or whatever, there should be no objection to use the male pronoun in that instance. It's not so much that "mind trumps evetything" but again, biology isn't that simple and concrete to begin with, and that there is nothing wrong for person to be called for what they want to be seen as long as they had thought it through. It's I guess, dependent on respect a bit.
(I typed this on the phone, expect some grammar errors. Sorry about this.)
EDIT: not "concrete", the word i was looking for was "binary".
And on a similar note, would you refer to the person that stated "I know I'm human, but I want to be seen as a wolf" using wolf specific pronouns, or change your language in any other way to accomodate their belief that they are in fact a wolf? Pigzillion (talk) 09:45, June 18, 2017 (UTC)
Do you not have respect for other's choices, born from reasoning, just because you don't like it for not being 'absolutely true'? Do you go to Mc'Donalds and give speeches on healthy eating everyday? Not to mention as said and known, biology is not binary in he first place, so I don't think your approach stands since day 1 anyway; the extremity of male and female has always been an "ideal" scenario based on human's need to categorise everything and draw differences even in fluid systems, the product is by no means suddenly a universal metric.
You also miss the point of psychiatric help entirely. The point of mental health is NOT to correct them because you want it "right", but to help them restore their grasp of themselves, their awareness and their critical thinking abilities. If someone has made a decision about how they see themselves on PERSONAL terms because the really had thought about it, there is Nothing to fix. And there is nothing to change just because you do not like how someone excerises their private, personal and completely non-harmful (or non-affecting in genetal) thoughts about wanting to been seen a certain way.
And i don't think there is a wolf-specific pronouns. Because we use human pronouns on animals regularly. But i will have no issues respecting that personal perspective of themselves.
Well, I personally would not say to that person "I completely understand your personal perspective. From now on, I will respect your decision and refer to you as a wolf, and not a person from now on." Moreover, if Killua were to have stated "Alluka is a 6-year-old Chimera Ant with purple eyes and blue hair", I don't think the wiki would change information in Alluka's appearance section in order to accommodate how he personally feels. But who knows, maybe I'm just being ignorant.
The wiki itself should be an indifferent source of information about these characters, and as such, it should at least follow proper English Language Convention. Regardless of any politically motivated reasonings you may have for referring to men as women and women as men, the dictionary definitions of male and female pronouns still stand, and there are multiple news sources and English speaking individuals that do not accept the idea that women should be called men and men should be called women. As such, Kite should be referred to using female pronouns after his transformation and male pronouns before, otherwise, we would not be attaining to Standard English Language Convention. You may disagree on a personal level, but I do not believe that it is the wiki's place to go against Standard Language Convention in order to push your own personal agenda on transgender issues. Pigzillion (talk) 11:32, June 18, 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstood. This has nothing to do with politics, unless you want to see such in it. This instead has everything to do with informational accuracy and paying respect to the given characters within the wiki that they obviously deserve.
English convention was not created when we have the means and abilities to understand many biological and psychological intracacies, and pronouns were made with the obvious ignorance towards how sex genotyoe and phenotype as well as perceptions born from them ie the gender, works. It is thus not a definitive authority, in fact it never was to brgin with: Suppose someone was born with a defect penis, they are infetile, they have to take hormones externally, but they identify as a male. What do you call them, in terms of English convention? "She"? "They"? "It"? No, we use "he". Or what about: Another person is born with XY pair but look exactly like what you woukd describe as a "female" due to sex hormone insensitivity syndrome, they are also infertile but identify as female for whatever reason; what do you call them: Generally, we will use "her". In other words, the slightly outdated English convention is never truly "factual" or even incompatiable with the concept of gender and personal/self identification in the first place. (also as said, there is a difference between mental illness and having an opinion about themselves. We dont need to go thriugh it again).
So, where is the debate? Where is the controversy? Where is the politics in tbis? There is none, we just conjured it for no reason.
Also do note, I never disagreed with the notion of using female pronouns to refer to Chimera ant Kite to begin with. The onky difference is the rationale: I didn't agree to it just because Kite now has a vagina, but also including in the fact Kite is also seen using pronouns reserved for females out of their will. That is why, should Kite 1 day decided that "hey Gon, refer to me as a man", I will be the first to ask male pronouns even if you may want to keep the "a vagina means woman".
Once more, i disagree with that notion because neither does general language conventions or scientific finding support that to bgin with, then there is also the consideration of the subject own oersonal perspectives. Therefore, it can be rationally ruled that your argument/stance may be less valid, again, no politics is involved.
EDIT: if none if it sinks in, at least take this: there is a difference between description and identification. Having a penis and vagina is a description, but it is not an identification of male and female beyond the surface, because it is just one of the metrics used to idenfify; this applies onto tooics like sex. And on top of this, there is things like gender which by definition alone means it is personal, social and psychological, hence the identification in this regard should also surround those factors. This is merely intellectual honesty and giving respect to the whatever you are addressing.
Unless the reasoning behind your sentiment is to follow Standard English Language Convention or factual accuracy, you are trying to push a personal agenda. I was pushing my own agenda when I argued my point initially. If you insist on going against Standard Convention in order to push your own agenda, then I may be forced to regress and present my own as well, but I very much doubt it will come to that point.
In terms of informational accuracy, however, if Kite were herself to identify as a man, it would be informationally accurate to add such a statement to her wiki page. The same can be true about any transgendered character that appears in Hunter x Hunter. Never the less, it would be informationally inaccurate to refer to Kite using male pronouns despite this, as doing so would be going against pre-established dictionary definition and Standard English Language Convention. If any of the scenarios you have brought up were to become relevant, it would then be the wiki's place to question which pronouns to refer to these individuals by, but only in that specific scenario which is not addressed under Standard Language Convention. However, in this case specifically, Kite fits directly under the definition of the word female. As such, it would be informationally accurate to refer to Kite using male pronouns after his transformation, as doing otherwise would result in a breach of Standard English Language Convention and pre-established dictionary definition. In any other scenario further debate may be required, but in this case specifically, referring to Kite using any pronouns other than female ones would be in direct contrast to information provided by Togashi, and could only be justified by the promotion of one's own personal agenda. It would not be inaccurate to state that Kite identified as a man. It would be inaccurate to refer to her using male pronouns.
If you disagree, then either state that referring to a transgendered individual by anything other than their preferred pronouns goes against Standard English Language Convention, or state that we should go against Standard English Language Convention entirely. Pigzillion (talk) 18:12, June 18, 2017 (UTC)
And you won't stop editing your reply, so for a short postscript:
I recognise the difference between description and identification, however, personal identity does not change a description of one's biological self. Pronouns are reflective of one's biological description, not their personal identification, as stated by dictionary definition, hence a transgendered character's preferred pronouns have no bearing on the pronouns we on the wiki refer to them by, in this particular situation. Pigzillion (talk) 18:12, June 18, 2017 (UTC)
Okay so yes, Chimera ant Kite will use female pronoun (for the time bring anyway). Good. Not like i was arguing otherwise but okay.
On the supposed "unchangeable biology". Two things I have been saying that seem to just fly by you again and again:
1. English convention never had issues with issues referring to someone by what they choose to present themselves as. It is only the people that may or may not havr issues with it. You also keep on mentioning special cases when i bring up hypoyhetical but relevant examples, but ignore the said special cases by your definition that is the very nature of this debate.
2. Biology can not be changed. Okay. But it is also not black and white, being identified as male or female is even murky in biology. Hence, as i should have said and implied many times already, we identify genders largely based on personal and social factors, or parts of the "descriptions" rather than all of it; meaning it has always been subjective since day one, it has to be, because it really isnt something you sum up with a single word, both sex and gender.
Therefore, there is really no factual reasons to not refer to a character by what they want to be called as, and it shouldnt be a problem to use their desired pronoun for their page; as long as the wiki also makes it clear that there may be conflicting information or interpretations base on blah blah. Otherwise, what is the point to keep using a language standard in such a way as yoy pushed that is growly disagreed by modern studies, not accepted by the whoever you are referring to, and really isnt incompatible with personal identification in the first place?
I mean, do you agree that disabled people are not people? Because many of the disability is genetically driven, or that they dont look like the stereotupical and defined (in language and general science) human due to defects and trauma, nor do they possess many of the basic human functionality a lot of times fue to their disability (speech, 2 leg walking, critical thinking, having sex) etc etc. So what is it, are they people or not? Would you agree to refer to say, Professor X, with pronouns like "it"? What about a zombie main character such as the protagonist of Gungrave in later stages of the story, do we call him as "it"? Or is it that we shift pronouns depending on the person's own personal and social status, and it is noting grammartically wrong or rationally unsound?
So... why is it so hard to do when it comes to gender? Is it because of the language, the science, or just because some people have issues with treating it like any other similar subjects?
English Language Convention does have issues referring to someone by what they choose to present themselves as. My evidence? Dictionary definition. What is your basis for making such a statement?
I did address the examples(or "special cases") you gave; I stated that in those particular cases, it would be the in the wiki's place to debate pronoun usage should such an issue emerge, but in this case in particular, there is not debate to have, as Kite fits completely into the definition of the word "female", meaning there is no contradiction what so ever with dictionary definition, hence we needn't question Standard English Language Convention.
Biology is fairly black and white. There are males, females and in exceptionally rare cases, hermaphrodites. Personal identity is not biological, it is psychological, and pronouns are reflective of biology, not psychology. What do you not understand about this? I never denied that Kite may identify as a male; in fact, I believe there is a very high likelihood that he does identify as such. Never the less, as I have stated many, many, many, many many times before, personal identity does not change biology(as you have conceded), and pronouns are reflective of biology (again, how many times have I said this?) not mentality. We do not identify gender using social factors. We do not identify it using personal factors. We identify gender using biology. Why would you state anything other than this simple fact? Where is your evidence to justify such a statement? And what are these modern studies you are referring to? Studies that prove you are a man if you believe yourself to be male and vice versa? Or studies that prove nothing of the sort and simply provide further clarity as to the causes of Gender Dysphoria?
Your attempt to use Reductio ad Absurdum on my argument is also deeply flawed, as you clearly do not understand the difference between the terms "Human" and "Person". "Human" defines something that has human DNA. Your cells are human. An embryo is human. The severely disabled people which you described are human, as they possess human DNA. The zombie you described is human so long as it has human DNA. Professor X is not human, as he does not possess human DNA. A "person" is something entirely more abstract. A "person" is something with personhood. Is a severely disabled human being a "person"? Is a zombie or Professor X a "person"? Who is to say? I cannot provide a concrete answer, because unlike gender, personhood is determined by personal and social factors. I cannot say whether Professor X or the Zombie are people. However, I can say what pronouns to refer to them by, because pronouns are reflective of biology, which is not abstract or subjective. Does Professor X possess a Y chromosome in all of his cells? If yes, then he is a man, and we refer to him using "he" and "his". If the zombie contains two X-chromosomes in all of its cells, then she is biologically female, and we refer to her using "she" and "her". We do not "shift" pronoun usage based on personal and social status, just as we do not "shift" humanity based on personal and social status, as they are reflective of objective facts which can be proven with empirical evidence, not abstract idea's, as in the case of personhood.
So... Why is it so hard to do so when it comes to gender? It isn't hard. Because we don't shift anything to begin with. Because gender and humanity are based in genetics, and physiology, and biology. Because personhood is based in philosophy, and personality, and society. Because comparing the two is not comparing like with like. And because the only reason doing so could even be considered hard is because you are unable to differentiate two completely different subjects and instead refer to them as similar ideas. Pronoun usage is not distinct from biology, and only in the extremely situational circumstances you proposed earlier could it be considered otherwise. Kite is not in anyway a part of these specific circumstances, however, and since her biology cannot be thrown into question, she should be referred to using female pronouns after his transformation, regardless of how she herself chooses to identify.Pigzillion (talk) 20:10, June 18, 2017 (UTC)
It is like i'm talking to a wall.
First of all, i am not questioning Kite's pronoun, at least not at this stage. I've said it like idk, 3 or 4 times or something. Again, the issues i have lies in the rationale, not the verdict. So how many more times do i have to tell you before you take it?
Secondly, biology/sex is Not black and white, how many more "special cases" do you need before you get it? If you are just going to label anything that does not adhere to you personal branch of identification metric as offside and not important from the get go, are you surprised that you don't give a rat's ass about it? There ARE more possible cases in sex genetics and phenotypes that one can not realistically put everything under 1 word or 2. That is why we have terms like "intersex", where we bucket all the tough cases into and pretend that there is no problem in definition. But guess what, there are still problems: sex chromosomes abnormalties can make males "girly" (XXY and such) and females "manly" (if posses a Y chromosome and is active), or it could have no effect on the subject but still pose a problem identification wise such as a "female" accidentally possess a passive Y chromosome. The "human-ness" question can also be brought up like earlier becausr it is also quite common for people to be identified as "super-human" in this regard where it is possible for "females" to possess 4 or enen 5 X chromosomes, or "males" having an extrs Y chromosome that makes them "extra manly". And no, these ain't some condition that is never heard of, the chances is about 1 in a 1000 or so. Do you not realise sex is mere a convenient tag, and is not to be used in backwards and being oh so serious about it?
Thirdly, Why do you even think we have 2 terms, "sex" and "gender"? Why are you using the definition for "sex" to define "gender"? Yeah okay, so you literally just equate the 2 because of your personal opinion, and parade it like something relevant. Well too bad, Oxford dictionary (which you have used) thinks otherwise: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender Maybe language is never incompatible with identies, and it really is just you and a couple others' personal opinions?
And no, we do refer to people by their gender pronoun of preference, this is so in everyday life, and in things like police reports, and im sure medical field is like this too. Sex can also be re-assigned as long as citerias are cleared, it is no longer unchangeable. And no, there will be no confusions in the said official records because it will also denote them being transgenders. The only exception is probably the autopsy report, because you can not tell what a dead body wants and a lot of times it is disfigured to the point of being non-recogniseable of anything. And again, no, you dont get to play the "politics" card, because you can not just play that card whenever there is anything to do with current scenary (not like the "original" support you much in the first place as previously shown).
Originally id thought you were confused, and joined more or less on the premise of clearing up a few things, but then i realised you are more wrong than confused. There really isnt an argument to be had here, sex tags have always been mostly suggestive rather than definitive due to the possible scenarios and curcumstances that complicate the matter, and gender is a concept and a word to refer to something tied to but also seperated to sex (though not to sure about this but apparently the term has also existed for quite a whie). And we do use the pronouns according to the subject's choice unless none can be narriwed down. I completely fail to see your perspective on this part of the subject, really.
Allow me to highlight the properly basic belief which you appear to adhere to. You believe, and I quote: "there is nothing wrong [with a] person [being called]... what they want as long as they [have] thought it through". In short, you believe that self-identification comes before biological truth. Such a statement, as it stands, is a properly basic truth and one I cannot initially argue against. Should you adhere to this properly basic truth, it is only logical to refer to a transgendered person using their preferred pronouns, and utterly wrong to address them as otherwise if they have stated their preferred pronouns. Again, there is nothing wrong with attaining to such a belief. However, such a statement is only justified so long as you are consistent with what it entails. Essentially, you cannot draw the line at respecting how a transgendered person wishes to be addressed; in fact, you cannot logically draw the line anyway, in this respect. Previously, you stated that "there is a difference between 'I am a wolf awoooooooo' and 'I know I'm a human, but I want to be seen as a wolf", and when I asked if you would change your language in order to accommodate that person's belief that they are a wolf, you said "I [would] have no issues respecting that personal perspective of themselves". In truth, this reply is rather vague, as "respecting that personal perspective" may simply mean "I won't refer to them as a wolf but I won't actively state 'you are not a wolf because you don't have wolven DNA'". Regardless of your intentions, however, in order to stay consistent to the properly basic belief that self-identification overshadows biological fact, so long as that person's self-identity is obtained through the use of rationality and reason rather than simple delusion, we must refer to that person as a wolf from that point onwards, regardless of their actual biological state. In which case, why must it stop at gender or species?
Imagine, for instance, that I followed your properly basic truth. I accept that self-identity comes before biological fact, and due to this, partake in a sort of "soul-searching" within myself, using my capacity for reason and rationality. I do so for many days, weeks, months even, and at the end of it all, come to the conclusion that I am, in fact... Neil Degrasse Tyson. Yes, I realise that biologically speaking, I may not be Neil Degrasse Tyson, and I may not have done any of the things which the biological Neil Degrasse Tyson has achieved. However, whilst biologically speaking I many not be Neil Degrasse Tyson, I have come to the conclusion that I self-identify as such due to the process of rational thought and reasoning, thus, I would like you to change your language in order to accommodate my self-identity. A friend of mine came to a similar conclusion. Using your properly basic belief which cannot in itself be argued against, he used his reason as a human being and found that biological state from which he was born into did not fit with his own personal identity. Biologically speaking, my friend is actually a 17 year old man. However, he has now realised that he self-identifies as a woman. A 76-year-old woman. Biologically speaking, she is 17 years of age, and biologically speaking, she is male. However, she has used her reason to come to the conclusion that she is actually a 76-year-old woman, hence when referring to her on the wiki, we should state that her age is 76 so long as "the wiki makes it clear that there may be conflicting information or interpretations 'base' on blah blah". Previously, you stated, "Therefore, there is really no factual [reason] to not refer to a character by what they want to be called as, and it shouldn't be a problem to use their desired pronoun for their page." As such, there is no factual reason to not refer to my friend as a 76-year-old woman. Nor should there be a problem with referring to me as Neil Degrasse Tyson. If biology has no basis in terms of gender(for the most part, at least), nor the way in which we refer to these characters, why should it affect other chosen identities also? If biological humans can be called wolves, why can't biological 17-year-old men and biological Pigzillion's be called Neil Degrasse Tyson and 76-year-old women? Yes, I realise that biologically speaking I may not be Neil Degrasse Tyson, but biology should not have a basis in how you refer to me, as my personal identity should have the final say.
If you attain to such a belief, if you refer to me as Neil Degrasse Tyson from now on, if you accept that my friend is, in fact, a 76-year-old woman and refer to him as such, then I cannot, in any way whatsoever, flaw your reasoning. If you accept such a thing to be true and respect my identity as Neil Degrasse Tyson, or Dumbledore, or Ceasar (the ape from Planet of the Apes), or anything or anyone that I choose to identify as, after coming to such a conclusion, not through delusion, but rational thought and reasoning, then I cannot find any reason not to refer to transgendered characters using their preferred pronouns. If not, however; if you don't accept my identity as Neil Degrasse Tyson, if you don't refer to me "by what [I] want to be called as", then I ask this; why would you do so for transgendered characters or people? Why would you change the pronouns, the language you use to refer to transgendered people, but not transspecies people? Why not transracial people, or transaged people, or transpeople people? Why would you draw the line at gender and not somewhere else? They all go against biology, and they are all self-identities which have been achieved through reason and logic, so why should gender be treated as special?
I realise that my method of referring to people is not perfect; I recognise that is certain circumstances where a person's biological state may be thrown into question, it may be prudent to determine their pronouns in a different way, which may include referring to them how they choose to identify themselves, but that is the extent of it. I have not simply labelled them as "offside and unimportant", I have stated many bloody times that simply looking at their biology would not be enough to determine what pronouns to refer to them by. I have stated many bloody times that in such cases, a different metric may be required in order to determine what pronouns to refer to them by. And just now, I have conceded that in such a case, personal identification may be an appropriate method to do so. However, if a person came to me and claimed to be Neil Degrasse Tyson in spite of their biology, I needn't do anything but say "Very well, but since you are not Neil Degrasse Tyson biologically speaking, I will not be referring to you as such". The same can be said about any of the examples I have given, whether it be the transaged person, the transspecies person or the transgendered person. In the case of a transgendered person, I would say "Very well, but since you are not biologically male/female, I will not be referring to you as such."
I shared your point of view initially. I believed that transgendered people should be referred to using their preferred pronouns! Why did I change my position? Because I listened to differing opinions and realised that not doing so would make me a hypocrite. Because if I would not refer to a 20 year old as 60, then how could I call a man a woman? If I could not refer to a human being as a Moose, then how could I call a woman a man? I couldn't, hence I don't now. But what about you? By what right can you say the same? By what right can you tell me that they are not the age they claim to be? By what right can you tell me that I am not Neil Degrasse Tyson, simply because I may not be him biologically speaking? By what right can you say such a thing when you will not say the same about a transgendered person? The answer is simple; you can't. Why? Because as you have stated time and again, self-identity comes before biology, and there is no justifiable reason as to why gender may be determined by self-identity but other aspects can't.
In conclusion, you're either right and are suggesting that we refer to Alluka as a Chimera Ant(species identity~) should the time ever come that he refers to himself as such, or are wrong and don't fully understand the connotations of what you are suggesting. Pick one, please~. Pigzillion (talk) 15:48, June 19, 2017 (UTC)
I also saw a fairly blatant flaw in my argument that I want to address before you try to pick it apart. Gender, as a word, is different from say, species, which has more in common with biological sex, as it refers to biology rather than self-identification. However, the general sentiment of my idea is still the same; just as the word gender emerged in order to differentiate biological sex(chromosome number, sexual organs etc) from internal awareness of one's self-identified sex(gender identity), the word species(or age, person etc; any of the examples I gave) in this context can be used to differentiate biological species(phenotypes common across all members of the species, genotypes common to all members of the species etc) from self-identified species(-insert word- identity; Snurrbulblurg, maybe? Lord knows; I'm sure we can think of something).Pigzillion (talk) 15:48, June 19, 2017 (UTC)
Hang on, Alluka as chimera ant? I assume you mean Kite?
To start off, "Degrasse Tyson" argument is a clear use of false equivalency. The reason why we say someone else saying that to be false is because Degrasse Tyson has uniqueness factor. There is no uniqueness factor in gender, there is no THE male/female/whatever, or THE dog/cat/whatever for that matter, but there is THE Degrasse Tyson.
As with the "moose" argument: As i have said before, it ultimately comes down to whether or not the person is actually losing sense or just plain having a whatever preference. Generally, an actually well-reasoned person will not come to you and claim they are something utterly unbelievable. A person's preference generally has a range of possibilities, and that should all be pretty moderate and minor. It is no different to concepts like spirit animals, totems, aura etc, or even things like a certain beauty standard, you dont have to be bat shit crazy to have beliefs and preferences in things like that, and want to be related to them or "be" them. For example, plastic surgeries is one of them. Do you refuse to use the photo of someone been through a plastic surgery and insist on using the "before" photo?
Transgendered people will also go through measures to conform themselves with their identified gender. Taking hormones, wearing the clothing styles associated with the particular gender, gloom themselves accordingly, also their behaviours and so on so forth. So, at one point wouldnt they be no different to being the other gender? There are people who are naturally infertile, there are people who are born without sexual organs, there are many born with messy sex chromosomes, etc, and yes, you understand those circumstances. So, what is the intrinsic difference between those people who have no issues to receive their proper identification despite their complications, and transgender people who are, you know, people with complications?
And the supposed "mental age" is not even trans-anything. It's no different to your grandpa believing him still be in his "young" 50s when he is 80, or a 13 year old believing himself to be old enough for 60 mentally. There is no standards thus it can neither be proven ir disproved, so just leave them be; it is no different to liking a kind of art.
Oi, you! Careful with my edits!
Nope, I mean Alluka. What I meant is that if there was ever a point where Alluka said "Yeah, I'm a girl and also a Chimera Ant", we would have to refer to him as a chimera ant in his article, since self-identity comes before biology. Sure, he's not biologically a Chimera Ant, just as he isn't biologically female, but so long as he identifies as such, we should respect him as a character and change our language in order to accomodate his own view of himself. I'm not saying he does, but were Alluka to ever say such a thing, we would have to accomodate such a circumstance.
I would disagree with your claim of false equivalency, as it suggests that there is absolutely nothing which differentiates the two genders, which, if it were true, would make the entire idea of transgenderism preposterous, as you would essentially be saying that a transgendered male(female?) that identifies as a female would be no different than if they identified as a male, which is clearly not the case. Clearly, there must be SOME distinction between the two, or they(transgendered people) would simply be asking for their pronouns to be changed whilst everything else about them would remain the same. You even state further in your response that transgendered people go through measures to conform themselves with their identified gender, hence their must be some differences to conform to in the first place. Thus, there must be something, no matter how small, which makes the male gender unique to the female gender, and vice versa, or else the two would be identical and nothing would change. Hence, since they must be unique in at least a single way, I should be able to identify myself as deGrasse Tyson, no matter how unique he may be, because just as my biological self is unique to deGrasse Tyson's biological self, a transgendered person's biologically male/female self must be unique to their female/male self, otherwise they wouldn't be changing anything to begin with.
Google "Otherkin"; you'll LOVE what you see(spoiler alert; there are DRAGONS!). Looking at it should show you a great many "well-reasoned" people who claim to be what you may find to be unbelievable. Not only that, but saying what you just said seems somewhat hypocritical, don't you think? I gave well documented and fairly common examples of people that self-identify in ways other than gender(again, otherkin), not to mention hypothetical examples which you should still be able to justify even if they have not been documented yet, but you just sort of brushed it off and said that "Generally, an actually well-reasoned person will not come to you and claim they are something utterly unbelievable". But once again, by what right do you get to deem such things as "unbelievable"? Why do you get to set the standard for "moderate and minor"? When I stated that the biological exceptions you gave were not relevent to the situation at hand, you accused me of labelling them as an "offside and not important from the get go". But why do you get to say the same to the examples which I have proposed? Even if you state that they are uncommon, you should still clarify what you would refer to them as despite of this, just as I provided clarity on the examples you gave me.
Spirit animanls, totems, aura etc don't dictate the way we address people. If Mr Moose's spirit animal is a bear, we do not them refer to him as a bear from that point onwards; he is saying that the animal which best fits his personality is a bear. Even if I stated that the gender which best describes me is female, to link the ideas together, this does not then make me female; at best, it shows that I am an incredibly feminine man. Otherwise, you would have to concede that Mr Moose must be referred to as a moose if his behaviour reflected the animal in question, which is obviously not the case. Mr Moose is an incredibly moose like human, but this does not make him a moose himself. You can disagree using your properly basic truth, but once again, be consistent.
The plastic surgery example you gave really isn't relevent in the slightest; a photo is a representation of a person's appearence, and if a person's appearence has been affected by plastic surgery, then the most recent photo should be used. Honestly, I don't really get what you're trying to say here. Is it that we should change the way we refer to a person based on whether they have had sexual reassignments? Because a photo isn't language... It's a photo. AND, as it so happens, you CAN'T justify changing the photo used to refer to a person by, simply because they self-identify in a different way than what the photo represents them as. Who'd of thought?
Grooming, behaviour and clothing styles don't determine gender; they determine grooming, behaviour and clothing, which, sure, might make someone appear more stereotypically masculine and feminine, but doesn't dictate whether they are male or female. Taking hormones, on the other hand, might, but even so, chromosome type and sexual organs come beforehand, as dictated by scientific norm. The intrinsic difference between a transgendered person and the people you have mentioned is, again, biology; it may be incredibly difficult to determine someone's sex if they suffer from a messy amalgamation of the syndromes you have described, which is exactly the reason why self-identification may then be required in order to decide what pronouns to refer to the person by. This is only the case, however, because biology cannot be used to determine their gender, thus, since self-identification is still included in the phrase "biological fact comes before self-identification", how that person chooses to identify themselves as may be the deciding factor in the pronouns we use for them. For the transgendered person, however, this is different. For the transgendered person, their biological state cannot be thrown into question, thus, how they themselves identify comes second to their biology, due to the phrase "biological fact comes before self-identification". Their biology cannot be questioned, thus, neither can the pronouns we refer to them by. Again, you may use your properely basic truth in order to disagree with this sentiment, and I would not be able to argue against you should you choose to do so, but only if you stay consistent to the connotations of such a statement, those being that you must refer to me as astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (sorry to disagree with you on that, though you may disregard this point if you cannot see it as true, since the other ones are still valid) and Mr Mooseman as a moose(or Moosewoman, depending on how they themselves choose to identify as). And don't forget the Dragonkin too; you must also change your language in order to accomodate them, also. Self-identified reptilian fire monsters deserve consideration too.
Finally, that wasn't the point I was making. "Young" as a concept is subjective, and is not something that can be "proven" using empirical evidence. Therefore you are right, you cannot be "transyoung" as young itself is subjective. That said, there's no reason why using your properly basic truth would not lead you to allowing the 13-year-old to identify as 60 and the 60-Year-Old to identify as 13. There's no biological pre-requisite for "young", but their is for age, that being a numerical measure of how long the person has been alive for. Therefore, there is no reason why a person can deny their biological age in favour of their self-identified age. You are right in that there are no biological standards for young and old, but their are scientific standards for a persons numerical age, which can be denied in favour of one's self-identified age, using your properly basic truth.Pigzillion (talk) 19:08, June 19, 2017 (UTC)
I'll be frank here. I'm not a patient person when i have face someone who debates like you do. And i have played with you somewhat nicely (can't say i was actually nice in this), long enough to get really annoyed by now, with your last post especially.
Let us all be real here, no ammount of rationalisation will fill the intrisic void in the knowledge department that you simply lack here.
I am not on my computer throughout this talk due to i guess some personal stuff but that is besides the point. I will be the first to acknowledge that i am in no way doing a good job and inputing my due diligence in debating and elaborating on this and making it clearer. But my dude, no one is supposed to be doing your basic homework on the subject and teaching you how logic works before you jump into the ring.
Look at this nonsense you've been doing: False equivalency, strawman, false premise, fake simplicity, appealing to tradition, appeal to nature (or naturalistic fallacy), almost moralistic fallacy, some levels of circular reasoning, hasty generalisation, argument by analogy, cherry picking, proof by assertion, argument from ignorance. And god knows what else. Sure everyone should have their dirty secrets; I for one suffers from appeal to moderation and a couple others, but THIS is ridiculous.
Why do i have to sit here and deal with your bulls, when you are just gonna bully everyone out of it with your nonsense and then pretend that you've won the day?
I don't know, fk do i know.
You see, i wanna go out of this. I am just sick of your almost dogmatic approach on science, language and critical thinking and your stoic cynical attitude. And the fact i am in no way, shape or form want to keep going at it with someone who will just rationalise their way around everything, dismiss it, completely fail to associate and connect ideas proposed because you just don't know enough to notice what is being said, or worse you would just flat out beat them down with superior stance and buzzwords you clearly have very little idea of beyond middle school level and employ fake/bad logic in all of this.
This wiki specifically uses "gender" in the info box, we will continue to use their preferred pronouns (if could be found) as per the format of current reports and such, and when there is potential confusion on whatever we will address it in special sections or elaborarions such as what we do with pitou and alluka to provide clarity amd avoid misinformation (used also in many official documents today to achieve both acknowledgement amd clarity). Oh you dont like it? Too bad.
Take it as you "win" or whatever. I'll just sit here hoping that Togashi never actually writes any other character who is not """normal""". Imagine the shitstorm. But fk, he's gonna do it, isn't he?
I'm out. Unceremoniously.
"Tantrum: An uncontrolled outburst of anger and frustration, typically in a young child. Example, He has temper tantrums if he can't get his own way"
Thing is, I DID put the effort in when presenting my views on the subject; a lot of fucking hours, in fact. Why didn't you if you wanted your point to be conveyed fully?
And my man, seriously, you can't just google a list of logical fallacies and fling them at me for shits and giggles; it doesn't debase my argument, it discredits yours. Even so, I'll address them ALL(since I do put in the fucking effort) regardless; not for you, but for the admins that may need to read all of this in order to come to a conclusion(and God help them; this thread is so fucking long):
False equivalency: Already explained myself on that one, boss; devoted a whole paragraph to it even.
Strawman: You're the one that stated your properly basic belief, not me, hence I haven't been strawmanning you, as all of the questions and analogies I have directed towards you have been rooted in your basic belief; I'll even quote you on it, "there is nothing wrong [with a] person [being called]... what they want as long as they [have] thought it through". All of the questions I have used to criticise you have been rooted in this statement, which you yourself said, and I have outlined the connotations of saying such a thing, not put words in your mouth.
False premise: Premise isn't false. I stated my belief and you stated yours(again, I've quoted you), and almost all of my most recent arguments have been rooted in these beliefs(which, again, you stated)
Fake simplicity: I then conceded that biology isn't at all simple when you gave relevant examples, and changed my stance accordingly. Did you do the same when I provided you with relevant examples?
Appealing to tradition: I did when I tried to base my reasoning on proper language convention, but did nothing of the sort when basing my argument off properly basic truths, which is what I am using to justify my point of view. I said we should do so in order to avoid being hypocritical and to stay consistent with the connotations of doing otherwise.
Naturalistic fallacy: Referring to people by natural(or biological) properties is good, not intrinsically because it appears in nature, but because doing so allows us to stay somewhat consistent with the way we refer to people, which is especially important on a wiki, where it should portray accurate information about these characters in a consistent way. Following your belief could result in consistency too, but only if you followed the connotations of such an idea fully.
Moralistic fallacy: Good thing you put almost in front of that, because that's exactly the fallacy present in YOUR argument: If biology were the most important factor when deciding which pronouns we refer to these characters by, then it would happen that we could not refer to these characters by their preferred pronouns! Note that in all of my responses, I stated that your logic would be fine if you upheld it completely, which seems entirely contradictory to the idea of moralistic fallacy.
Circular reasoning: My logic is not circular. The premise (X) is that you are suggesting that "there is nothing wrong [with a] person [being called]... what they want as long as they [have] thought it through", which is true because you stated it (Y). The proposition is that doing so would result in needing to refer to transspecies, transpeople and transdragons in the way that they prefer (Z). X is true because of Y. Z is true because of X.
Hasty Generalisation: Not really sure how this is applicable here. Maybe if I was suggesting that all pronoun usage can be determined using biology, but I've already stated several times that this isn't true.
Argument by analogy: Yes, I absolutely used argument from analogy. And? It is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable method by which to criticise somebodies (in this case, your) faulty logic or reasoning, so long as the analogies are appropriate to the issue in question, which they are. In fact, many of the examples I used aren't analogies at all, and have infact been documented(again, otherkin).
Cherry picking: I cherry picked news sources in my very early arguments, but other than that, I did no such thing against you. I picked a quote from you and used it as evidence for the properly basic truth which you attain to, but your entire argument is still based around that same truth, quotation or no.
Proof by assertion: I repeated the same points because you didn't successfully counter them. Why the hell wouldn't I?
Argument from ignorance: When I said that the truth you attain to is "self-identity comes before biology", it was based on the ideas you put forth and the quotation I have provided "multiple" times; I did not justify it as "This thing's true because you can't disprove it, herp derp". In fact, I didn't say that about any of them.
God knows what else: Maybe, cause I sure don't.
We might use preferred pronouns in order to refer to these characters by; in the ends, it's the admin's decisions, not mine. And speaking of which, I'll notify Rumble and the others and let them know that they may want to come to a desciosion earlier than expected. Pigzillion (talk) 19:59, June 20, 2017 (UTC)
Other than my sudden loss of any and all free time, I left this conversation because I don't have anything better to add than the now far-abovementioned quote of Fox News and Daily Mail using preferred pronouns. To my mind it shuts down the proposition that using preferred pronouns is a politically motivated stance against convention. The fact is I don't personally consider fringe right-of-Fox-news sources' stylistic choices to have much weight in defining conventional usage. I'll understand and respect if you don't see it that way. I hope I've been constructive and managed to contribute in a healthy way. Thank you all for your work on the wiki, coming from an appreciative reader. Acidkeeper (talk) 20:57, June 24, 2017 (UTC)
After the massive discussion that has just taken place, you have no idea how happy I was to see how short that response was; in all honesty, thanks. Just to clear up your personal view, however, are you saying that Fox News's Stylistic Choices specifically don't have much bearing on conventional usage or just the media in general? Or am I being stupid and you're saying something else entirely? Pigzillion (talk) 21:42, June 24, 2017 (UTC)
Well I'm glad this all has been resolved in a short concise manner, rather than the long drawn out manner that this topic is clearly renown for.
Well honestly I guess I'm jumping to conclusions, since that's what I figured from what Acidkeeper wrote. Unless someone else wants to voice their concerns and re-ignite the debate.
That the two of you were done arguing with one another.