Sch4n said: And author probably said both male and female because of some weird doujinshi thing or to satisfy the western audience. I do not think it really matters what the reasoning is, does this not make Macaron nonbinary or whatever the proper term is? In any case, they certainly would not considered an "okama", so I doubt it is a matter of him being a crossdresser and therefore a weird wording mistake on part of the author. It is either this or the whole "Nanachii" from Made in Abyss, where this is supposed to be a joke. I think it is possible there is a Japanese term for it that I am just not familiar with nor the author, or that there is not a one to one translation. Heck, even "Okama" being translated to "cross dresser" is not entirely correct, if I recall correctly. Maybe the author is just unaware of of the Japanese term for non-binary or something, but yeah. Maybe non-binary is not the right term, but what else would you call someone who the author says is "both male and female"? A futanari? And Macaron, he literally has Takehito Koyasu, the voice actor for Dio. Many women have voiced male characters in anime, especially younger characters. Heck, Luffy is voiced by a woman. |
 |
you have no idea what you're talking about. get your transphobic ass out of here |
| Like the first reply said, this is such a trivial thing. |
 |
It is people like you who wrote that description. And phobic? Do you think I'm afraid? If you can't stand it then it is you who should despair. |
| wow didn't think this thread would become a warzone |
| its fine as non binary considering the author themselves call them not male nor female |
Reply to Saimatsu_Fan
traed said:
@Saimatsu_Fan
Pretty sure it isnt exclusive to Americans
https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49754930
Not that im saying the translation wasnt awkward and nonsensical that every character was using only singular "they/them" on Macaron who was a stranger to them. That would have worked if it was an androgynous character maybe but it comes off odd that it was silently understood.
@Saimatsu_Fan
Pretty sure it isnt exclusive to Americans
The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’
In the eighteenth century, grammarians began warning that singular they was an error because a plural pronoun can’t take a singular antecedent. They clearly forgot that singular you was a plural pronoun that had become singular as well. You functioned as a polite singular for centuries, but in the seventeenth century singular you replaced thou, thee, and thy, except for some dialect use. That change met with some resistance. In 1660, George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, wrote a whole book labelling anyone who used singular you an idiot or a fool. And eighteenth-century grammarians like Robert Lowth and Lindley Murray regularly tested students on thou as singular, you as plural, despite the fact that students used singular you when their teachers weren’t looking, and teachers used singular you when their students weren’t looking. Anyone who said thou and thee was seen as a fool and an idiot, or a Quaker, or at least hopelessly out of date.
Singular you has become normal and unremarkable. Also unremarkable are the royal we and, in countries without a monarchy, the editorial we: first-person plurals used regularly as singulars and nobody calling anyone an idiot and a fool. And singular they is well on its way to being normal and unremarkable as well. Toward the end of the twentieth century, language authorities began to approve the form. The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) not only accepts singular they, they also use the form in their definitions. And the New Oxford American Dictionary (Third Edition, 2010), calls singular they ‘generally accepted’ with indefinites, and ‘now common but less widely accepted’ with definite nouns, especially in formal contexts.
Singular you has become normal and unremarkable. Also unremarkable are the royal we and, in countries without a monarchy, the editorial we: first-person plurals used regularly as singulars and nobody calling anyone an idiot and a fool. And singular they is well on its way to being normal and unremarkable as well. Toward the end of the twentieth century, language authorities began to approve the form. The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) not only accepts singular they, they also use the form in their definitions. And the New Oxford American Dictionary (Third Edition, 2010), calls singular they ‘generally accepted’ with indefinites, and ‘now common but less widely accepted’ with definite nouns, especially in formal contexts.
https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/
Examples of the singular "they" being used to describe someone features as early as 1386 in Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales and also in famous literary works like Shakespeare's Hamlet in 1599.
"They" and "them" were still being used by literary authors to describe people in the 17th Century too - including by Jane Austin in her 1813 novel Pride and Prejudice.
While these pronouns weren't used historically to define people as gender neutral, 'they' was used to specify a role being undertaken by a person.
"You could say that somebody was say, a teacher, but you didn't know whether that teacher was male or female," Dr Emma Moore, a professor of linguistics at the University of Sheffield, tells Radio 1 Newsbeat.
But she says it was from the 18th century onwards that people started using male pronouns when describing someone of a non-specific gender in writing and this marks the time when opinions on what pronouns should be used started to change.
"You might have a sentence like 'if a student comes to see the teacher, he must bring his homework', where he is supposed to refer generically to males and females," explains Dr Emma Moore.
"They" and "them" were still being used by literary authors to describe people in the 17th Century too - including by Jane Austin in her 1813 novel Pride and Prejudice.
While these pronouns weren't used historically to define people as gender neutral, 'they' was used to specify a role being undertaken by a person.
"You could say that somebody was say, a teacher, but you didn't know whether that teacher was male or female," Dr Emma Moore, a professor of linguistics at the University of Sheffield, tells Radio 1 Newsbeat.
But she says it was from the 18th century onwards that people started using male pronouns when describing someone of a non-specific gender in writing and this marks the time when opinions on what pronouns should be used started to change.
"You might have a sentence like 'if a student comes to see the teacher, he must bring his homework', where he is supposed to refer generically to males and females," explains Dr Emma Moore.
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49754930
Not that im saying the translation wasnt awkward and nonsensical that every character was using only singular "they/them" on Macaron who was a stranger to them. That would have worked if it was an androgynous character maybe but it comes off odd that it was silently understood.
>examples are hundreds of years old
lol
| @Saimatsu_Fan That's kind of the point? There is no shortage of grammar experts saying to use it https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/The-Singular-They More examples given in this academic paper Singular they has been present in the English language for centuries, particularly as a bound variable pronoun, as exhibited in (2) from Bjorkman (2017). Many of the present- day English examples cited in the literature also involve co-varying interpretations for singular they, which are anaphoric to indefinites as in (3a)2 or to generic-like definite descriptions as in (3b). (2) a. Shakespeare (A Comedy of Errors, 1623) There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me as if I were their well-acquainted friend[.] (3) a. Bodine (1975: 139) When you call on a student, it’s better if you can remember their name. b. Austen (Pride and Prejudice, 1813) Both sisters were uncomfortable enough. Each felt for the other, and of course for themselves[.] b. Balhorn (2004: 80) To operate it, the patient had to answer a series of questions, the final one asking if they wanted to die. If the patient answered yes, the machine would deliver a fatal dose of drugs. (Lessons from Down Under 2000) Note that in some of the bound variable cases (such as in (2)), the male or female gender of the antecedent is explicit (man, sister). In contrast, referential uses of singular they are for some speakers more limited. These are more likely to be epicene, in which the gender of the referent is “unknown, indeterminate, or mixed” (Bjorkman 2017: 3). https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/5370/galley/13006/download/ |
| Who are you to say a character only exists for the laughter of the audience? |
 |
| Sheesh this thread is super long, I’m surprised a Mod hasn’t stepped in and locked it at this rate lmao |
 |
| What a fucking dumpster fire of a thread, lol. The thing about language is, meanings, definitions, and connotations aren't stagnant. They can change, and/or have multiple meanings and interpretations. I mean...all words are made up in the first place, lol. Also, why does it really matter if the character is non-binary or not? I don't understand how that would affect the enjoyment of a series. |
 |
| I think "non-binary" gender is stupid if there aren't rather extreme circumstances for identifying as anything other than your biological sex (because it otherwise limits acceptable forms of expression) but given Macaron's mannerisms, appearance, and the fact their "true form" is a different sex altogether, it's not exactly a stretch to apply that logic. However, whether the author was talking about their sex or gender (in the social sense) they did not use the term non-binary, that was added into translations. |
| If you reply back to me and I never respond, I lost interest and don't care. Sorry about that. |
Reply to Saimatsu_Fan
traed said:
@Saimatsu_Fan
That's kind of the point? There is no shortage of grammar experts saying to use it
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/The-Singular-They
More examples given in this academic paper
https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/5370/galley/13006/download/
@Saimatsu_Fan
That's kind of the point? There is no shortage of grammar experts saying to use it
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/The-Singular-They
More examples given in this academic paper
Singular they has been present in the English language for centuries, particularly as a bound variable pronoun, as exhibited in (2) from Bjorkman (2017). Many of the present- day English examples cited in the literature also involve co-varying interpretations for singular they, which are anaphoric to indefinites as in (3a)2 or to generic-like definite descriptions as in (3b).
(2) a.
Shakespeare (A Comedy of Errors, 1623)
There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me as if I were their well-acquainted friend[.]
(3) a.
Bodine (1975: 139)
When you call on a student, it’s better if you can remember their name.
b.
Austen (Pride and Prejudice, 1813)
Both sisters were uncomfortable enough. Each felt for the other, and of course for themselves[.]
b.
Balhorn (2004: 80)
To operate it, the patient had to answer a series of questions, the final one asking if they wanted to die. If the patient answered yes, the machine would deliver a fatal dose of drugs. (Lessons from Down Under 2000)
Note that in some of the bound variable cases (such as in (2)), the male or female gender of the antecedent is explicit (man, sister). In contrast, referential uses of singular they are for some speakers more limited. These are more likely to be epicene, in which the gender of the referent is “unknown, indeterminate, or mixed” (Bjorkman 2017: 3).
(2) a.
Shakespeare (A Comedy of Errors, 1623)
There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me as if I were their well-acquainted friend[.]
(3) a.
Bodine (1975: 139)
When you call on a student, it’s better if you can remember their name.
b.
Austen (Pride and Prejudice, 1813)
Both sisters were uncomfortable enough. Each felt for the other, and of course for themselves[.]
b.
Balhorn (2004: 80)
To operate it, the patient had to answer a series of questions, the final one asking if they wanted to die. If the patient answered yes, the machine would deliver a fatal dose of drugs. (Lessons from Down Under 2000)
Note that in some of the bound variable cases (such as in (2)), the male or female gender of the antecedent is explicit (man, sister). In contrast, referential uses of singular they are for some speakers more limited. These are more likely to be epicene, in which the gender of the referent is “unknown, indeterminate, or mixed” (Bjorkman 2017: 3).
https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/5370/galley/13006/download/
my point is that all of them are old and don't matter anymore
| @Saimatsu_Fan Is English even your native language or are you just so deeply entrenched in ideology you want to deny the reality of spoken and written grammar? |
| Why are people allowed to make bait like this? |
Saimatsu_Fan said: natper26 said: I feel as if a large part of the issue with these types of weebs is that for some bizarre reason they have the idea that japan is this static mystical idealized utopia free from the reaches of the outside world so far ingrained in their heads when it’s literally just another place full of people who are their own individuals. Any progress or deviation from what is considered the norm is considered “the woke west corrupting my beloved nippon!!!” Having Macron not conform to a gender norm or any other deviation in any other series is either disregarded completely, written off as a “just a joke”, or is considered “pandering to the west for money” because these people cannot fathom that maybe some people in japan actually consider LGBTQ+ as something they support of their own volition instead of their made up fantasy that the west has brainwashed them. Hell this reminds of when in AI:The Somnium Files had a character (Mizuki) vocally and openly express her support for the LGBT in BOTH games and all these weebs came in saying “erm… that wasn’t in the original text.. 👆🤓woke localizers strike again!!!” only for it to turn out it WAS in the original text. Which led to them moving the goalpost so far as to say that the director, Kotaro Uchikoshi, wasn’t in fact japanese (he is) but a teenage white girl from California, because apparently that is easier to believe than a japanese person supporting the LGBTQ+. Or for another example, when Bridget from Guilty Gear looks directly at the god damn player and says “I’m a girl”, these uber-weeaboos deny it, claim it’s only a “bad ending result” and even forge a statement from Arc System Works claiming that she isn’t a girl. Even when the god damn creator of the series and director of the game publicly announce “she’s a girl” because apparently they can’t comprehend the words on their screen while playing the game, they still deny or claim it’s just “pandering to the west” Both of the examples i used are more recent but i could go on, and on, and on about numerous examples like Sailor Moon, Revolutionary Girl Utena, the entirety of the CLAMP group, but the thing is, there’s no point. These people are firmly stuck in their belief that “their glorious japan doesn’t believe in that type of thing” and that any indication that they may support the LGBTQ+ is simply a joke, a cash grab, or they’ve been brainwashed by the west. These people are so absorbed in media that they can’t possibly see japan as anything other than some utopia like how anime may portray it when it’s literally just another place. People at their core are the same everywhere, even despite the differences that different societies may impose on its people. You can’t just say that gay or trans or whatever people don’t exist outside of the west just because reported numbers are lower in places that don’t accept them. For the longest time left handedness was seen as wrong in a large majority of places and so the number of reported people that were left handed was super low, only for it to skyrocket when it wasn’t so stigmatized. It’s almost the exact same thing as the number of people who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ jumping up because now in a lot of places it’s less stigmatized. And because of that of course representation is going to increase because people can now portray this kind of thing in a positive light without being considered a worshipper of the devil or something. Saying that gay or trans people don’t exist in japan or that nobody from japan actually supports them is absurd because it’s just blatantly false. They do exist except because it’s still stigmatized over there it’s just less common to see people who are or can be open about it. I literally had a friend from japan who is trans except these basement dwellers can’t accept that because it’s impossible to fathom japan being different from their cartoons, of which frequently show and have shown for the longest time that, yes, trans people and gay people are real, but they just decide to ignore that or write it off as a joke or something. pov: you get your idealogy from Tumblr and Twitter Indeed brother. He sounds like he learned his vocabulary from Tweeter. ㅤㅤㅤㅤ  |
Reply to Saimatsu_Fan
traed said:
@Saimatsu_Fan
Is English even your native language or are you just so deeply entrenched in ideology you want to deny the reality of spoken and written grammar?
@Saimatsu_Fan
Is English even your native language or are you just so deeply entrenched in ideology you want to deny the reality of spoken and written grammar?
sigh..... none of this changes my point
| @Saimatsu_Fan You changed your point on your own. You switched from "only Americans" to "too old" even though these are only examples not unique isolated cases so you are completely pissing the point. Does this woman sound like an American to you? |
Reply to Sch4n
joseifan said:
Why are people allowed to make bait like this?
Why are people allowed to make bait like this?
Because people are free enough to take it.
Sch4n said: Because people are free enough to take it. So you admit to this being bait? |
| Thread locked Anime Discussion Rules: 5. Please refrain from posting thread topics which extend beyond the discussion of anime/manga as an entertainment medium to highly-debated social and/or moral issues. This includes but is not limited to: pedophilia, gender/racial equality, sexual orientation, etc. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Mashle: Shinkakusha Kouho Senbatsu Shiken-hen Episode 12 Discussion ( 1 2 3 )Stark700 - Mar 30 |
120 |
by Ricky16
»»
Jun 4, 10:08 AM |
|
Poll: » Mashle: Shinkakusha Kouho Senbatsu Shiken-hen Episode 2 Discussion ( 1 2 )Stark700 - Jan 13 |
99 |
by OfficeMouse
»»
Jun 3, 7:50 AM |
|
Poll: » Mashle: Shinkakusha Kouho Senbatsu Shiken-hen Episode 7 Discussion ( 1 2 3 )Stark700 - Feb 24 |
134 |
by The_Black_B3ast
»»
Jun 2, 5:43 PM |
|
Poll: » Mashle: Shinkakusha Kouho Senbatsu Shiken-hen Episode 5 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 )Stark700 - Feb 3 |
154 |
by The_Black_B3ast
»»
Jun 2, 4:30 PM |
|
» New PV with Opening SongDbagas8 - Nov 11, 2023 |
6 |
by squidchianti
»»
Jun 2, 1:08 AM |