Talk:Lana's Primarina: Difference between revisions

Talk:Lana's Primarina (view source)

Revision as of 07:36, 21 May 2018

8,276 bytes removed , 21 May 2018

→‎Gender: Removing inflammatory and irrelevant comments

Force Fire

40,934

edits

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ::::::FWIW, I am personally [[Talk:XY105#Genders|not sure]] that [[XY105]] actually confirmed any genders. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 11:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 :::::::Quoted here for context...
-:::::::"    In the Japanese dub, Monsieur Pierre mentions that Performers and their Pokémon must come to the dance party in male and female pairs (in the beginning of the episode when Serena watches his video). He uses the word 男女 danjo, which means "men and women". I don't understand Japanese too well though, so maybe someone who does speak the language can confirm this for sure. As for the outfits, Pokémon with bowties were paired with Pokémon wearing tiaras, which meant one group has to be male while the other is female. Since already confirmed male Pokémon (like Pikachu) wore bowties and confirmed female Pokémon (like Gourgeist and Eevee) wore tiaras, it was assumed that all bowtie Pokémon were male while all tiara Pokémon were female." Unless you are counter-implying that some people ''randomly'' switched outfits according to the '''Dawn's Piplup cross-dressing and Misha's Purrloin acting female thus non-binary Pokémon COULD exist in this show for 10 year olds so nope''' principle(A weak and seemingly paranoid contrarian argument for the sake of being contrarian that, being cloaked in good intentions, seems to be there in order to ensure site accuracy by taking no minor risks(and maybe having to make a few minor edits in reality to fix/clean up a temporary inaccuracy) thus not changing the net or gross accuracy of the site at all in order to not lose Google Search result placement for maybe a few days from a minor temporary error and false transphobia flags to other for-profit sites and thus ensuring ad hits and Archaic being payed), then it should stand. This franchise uses sex in most other languages(Including Japan) anyway, but due to due to Americans being so immature about the word sex they used the dated definition of gender and opened a can of worms regarding modern gender discussions in the process after Gen V. If the Japanese version calls it sex we should not get held up on the word gender and what it means nowadays and should treat mentions of gender as biological sex for the purposes of male or female discussions of Pokémon in this franchise due to Japanese term being sex(This site is well-known to be completely accepting of the entire gender spectrum, so thinking of the concept as sex within the context of Pokémon biology isn't going to change that, except to those who already hated this site who were looking for another excuse to do so). Getting hung up over an English-language retroactive muck-up isn't worth holding down and crushing debates like this...And all other gender(read:Sex)-paired outfits that come in twos should if one Pokémon's outfit matches their previously known gender(read:sex), as well..  But the argument is over already, isn't it? Piplup crossdressed in a way only Dawn did to her Pokémon and Misha's Purrloin pretended to be a girl to seduce Meowth and Oshawott, so any other Pokémon COULD be non-binary...so nope. --[[User:BlisseyandtheAquaJets|BlisseyandtheAquaJets]] ([[User talk:BlisseyandtheAquaJets|talk]]) 02:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
+:::::::"    In the Japanese dub, Monsieur Pierre mentions that Performers and their Pokémon must come to the dance party in male and female pairs (in the beginning of the episode when Serena watches his video). He uses the word 男女 danjo, which means "men and women". I don't understand Japanese too well though, so maybe someone who does speak the language can confirm this for sure. As for the outfits, Pokémon with bowties were paired with Pokémon wearing tiaras, which meant one group has to be male while the other is female. Since already confirmed male Pokémon (like Pikachu) wore bowties and confirmed female Pokémon (like Gourgeist and Eevee) wore tiaras, it was assumed that all bowtie Pokémon were male while all tiara Pokémon were female." Unless you are counter-implying that some people ''randomly'' switched outfits according to the '''Dawn's Piplup cross-dressing and Misha's Purrloin acting female. And all other gender(read:Sex)-paired outfits that come in twos should if one Pokémon's outfit matches their previously known gender(read:sex), as well..  But the argument is over already, isn't it? Piplup crossdressed in a way only Dawn did to her Pokémon and Misha's Purrloin pretended to be a girl to seduce Meowth and Oshawott. --[[User:BlisseyandtheAquaJets|BlisseyandtheAquaJets]] ([[User talk:BlisseyandtheAquaJets|talk]]) 02:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 ::::::::Good lord, really?
 ::::::::I '''did not know''' what lines supported genders in that episode. ''Every'' point you try to make after that quote is invalidated simply because you ran with your worst fears and never gave me any chance to respond. (Rants almost always mean you've made a bad choice. Please rein yourself in.) [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 11:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ::::::::::::Regarding "2", I'm hearing, "Because the Japanese describes biological sex, there can be no gender expressions contradicting it (or its traditional gender role)." I'll just let you confirm or dispute this part for now. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 00:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
-::::::::::::: Oh boy..I'm being accused of microaggressive transphobia, aren't I? Well, my stance on sex and gender(which will be ranty, and there will be a TL:DR version for the impatient...but because you
+:::::::::::::This show is not Sailor Moon or Princess Jellyfish. It doesn't explore those themes actively or passively. And you're still hung up on the word gender. I'm cool with non-traditional gender roles(heck, I encourage them to kids) and would gladly embrace them in this show or any other(Heck, I wish more anime(including this one) was more like undubbed Sailor Moon or Princess Jellyfish with gender) There's just no unquestionable evidence of non-binary Pokémon in the anime(Humans in the games do not disprove this The games are more mature than the anime by far).
+:::::::::::::Just because something exists IRL doesn't mean it mean it exists in the anime's falsely idealized world... And if you are so convinced that gender and sex are separated in the anime, follow through with it, be bold and progressive and change articles to what their gender is and write a new "Sex" cell section to place said biological section into, whichI support fully, because more wikis need to challenge that old rotten standard. If you're going to argue this, stand by it(Unless staff have a policy against seperating sex and gender in templates) and make a difference.
-:::::::::::::asked for it...) in the Pokémon anime. Here you go.
+:::::::::::::So, in summary, TLDR and all that jazz, I believe that they '''''CAN''''' and '''''SHOULD''''' exist and be explored, just that they aren't CURRENTLY doing so in an active or passive way, nor have the writers of any Pokémon product done so, '''''FOR POKéMON THEMSELVES, as they are NOT humans Any human traits(In the anime especially) are projections of our humanity onto pets like IRL''''' ...and likely wont exist or be explored with animals IN GENERAL.
-:::::::::::::This show is not Sailor Moon or Princess Jellyfish. It doesn't explore those themes actively or passively. And you're still hung up on the word gender. I'm cool with non-traditional gender
-:::::::::::::roles(heck, I encourage them to kids) and would gladly embrace them in this show or any other(Heck, I wish more anime(including this one) was more like undubbed Sailor Moon or Princess Jellyfish
-:::::::::::::with gender):There's just no unquestionable evidence of non-binary Pokémon in the anime(Humans in the games do not disprove this:The games are more mature than the anime by far).
-:::::::::::::Just because something exists IRL doesn't mean it mean it exists in the anime's falsely idealized world...And I'm not convinced this show is going to go there w/8-12 year olds with an international
-:::::::::::::audience who can't even handle the word sex w/o giggling in mind and half of them have "angry" parents who are too dumb to get gender=/=sex because they are idiots. And if you are so convinced that
-:::::::::::::gender and sex are separated in the anime, follow through with it, be bold and progressive and change articles to what their gender is(which will just cause as much of an argument as the sex one
-:::::::::::::currently does due to admin policy and even worse due to their being more genders than sexes) and write a new "Sex" cell section to place said biological section into, whichI support fully, because
-:::::::::::::more wikis need to challenge that old rotten standard. If you're going to argue this, stand by it(Unless staff have a policy against seperating sex and gender in templates) and make a difference.
-:::::::::::::So, in summary, TLDR and all that jazz, I believe that they '''''CAN''''' and '''''SHOULD''''' exist and be explored, just that they aren't CURRENTLY doing so in an active or passive way, nor have
-:::::::::::::the writers of any Pokémon product done so, '''''FOR POKéMON THEMSELVES, as they are NOT humans:Any human traits(In the anime especially) are projections of our humanity onto pets like IRL'''''
-::::::::::::::...and likely wont exist or be explored with animals IN GENERAL on stereotypically bland, bread and butter, run of the mill product commercial anime due to encouraging animals to challenge their \
-::::::::::::::gender roles being relatively unknown and new subject to the uninformed(Like looking for a baby's consent to change its diaper) and said idiotic attitude will likely but unfortunately persist until
-::::::::::::::Japan culturally de-privatizes sexual expression of noncishet people, and Americans get over their Puritanical attitude to sex, gender and "protecting the children from new revolutionary ideas".
-::::::::::::::Thus, the current climate surrounding old rotten standards of gender for fictional animals has more evidence than for newer schools of thought, so there's more evidence and precedence for Popplio
-::::::::::::::to be biologically female than for it and other Pokémon expressing modern gender spectrum traits.
 ::::::::::::: Is that a clear enough statement? --[[User:BlisseyandtheAquaJets|BlisseyandtheAquaJets]] ([[User talk:BlisseyandtheAquaJets|talk]]) 02:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@@ Line 69: / Line 34: @@
 ::This is insane...
-::To Tiddlywinks:
+::To Tiddlywinks: No that isn't my belief. You missed my point entirely. I know now that you just lazily skimmed for cherry-pickable, dismissive, out of context evidence w/o reading and gelling together the enirety of what I said as a whole. I'm not transphobic for Pete's sake. I just don't see hard proof of gender working the realistic human way with Pokémon in the POKéMON Anime's Universe ONLY. Prove that sex and gender are different, not in ALL anime, but in ''this one''. No two franchises or their parts follow the same rules bor themes as real-life ones. The Princess  Jellyfish anime heavily focuses on, for example, heavy positive trans themes and outright states that trans people exist in its '''fictional but realistic''' world, whereas Princess Mononoke has no statement   one way or another and no trans themes in a '''''fantastical, unrealistic setting'''''.
+::To Force Fire: They aren't going to spoon-feed us the answers, you know. Unless you go to TV Tokyo w/a list of things you absolutely need confirmed via such. And counter-speculation does not dismiss other speculation entirely. And Bulbapedia is one to talk about speculation with all of its shipping pages entirely built on such...hypocrisy much? Does the anime show evidence of Pokémon themselves living counter to biological sex as an identity and not by deception or by trainer choice?--[[User:BlisseyandtheAquaJets|BlisseyandtheAquaJets]] ([[User talk:BlisseyandtheAquaJets|talk]]) 05:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
-::No that isn't my belief. You missed my point entirely. I know now that you just lazily skimmed for cherry-pickable, dismissive, out of context evidence w/o reading and gelling together the enirety of what I
-::said as a whole. I'm not transphobic for Pete's sake. I just don't see hard proof of gender working the realistic human way with Pokémon in the POKéMON Anime's Universe ONLY. Stop assuming the worst about and
-::projecting you fears onto me. Prove that sex and gender are different, not in ALL anime, but in ''this one''. No two franchises or their parts follow the same rules bor themes as real-life ones. The Princess
-::Jellyfish anime heavily focuses on, for example, heavy positive trans themes and outright states that trans people exist in its '''fictional but ::realistic''' world, whereas Princess Mononoke has no statement
-::one way or another and no trans themes in a '''''fantastical, unrealistic ::setting'''''.  See how projecting real life onto fiction distorts things? If you have to have evidence about Pokémon genders spoon-
-::fed, why, then are you allowed to assume and speculate that the real-life gender spectrum is universal across multiple worlds written by multiple different minds and mindsets? Are you assumning all writers
-::account for the gender spectrum of real life in their respective worlds like some sort of hive mentality? Or that those who don't explicitly have a character opt out of and/or don't mention the real thing that
-::is non-binary gender are transphobic by 1 theoretical microaggression? Or are you assuming such and projecting your desires(which I share) by imposing real-world logic on an unrealistic world? Who gave you the
-::power and authority to do that to and damn anyone who doesn't see and do things your way in regards to writing?
-::To Force Fire:
-::They aren't going to spoon-feed us the answers, you know. Unless you go to TV Tokyo w/a list of things you absolutely need confirmed via such.
-::And counter-speculation does not dismiss other speculation entirely. And Bulbapedia is one to talk about speculation with all of its shipping pages entirely built on such...hypocrisy much?
-::Does the anime show evidence of Pokémon themselves living counter to biological sex as an identity and not by deception or by trainer choice? Otherwise you're speculating on the size of the gender
-::spectrum of Pokémon within the anime's universe and projecting onto it as well, which no one else but staff seem to be allowed to do constantly w/o penalization...And not
-::every trainer is Dawn or Jessie, so "trainer preference" isn't an excuse for indecisiveness, ignorance, projection, contrarianism, counter-speculation and hypocrisy in regards to the above and
-::other cases when ONLY 2 Trainers have done this outside of deceptions. Your logic is as speculative as mine, but you're allowed to do so because your projecting real-life animal characteristics
-::onto fictional ones, and speculating that the dynamic is the same as real life by stating that it is on your word, is somehow more right? How is your speculation better and more sourced(The backbone of wikis
-::are sources and consensus, not staff having final absolute word) than mine? Or are you using administrative privilege to project and speculate w/o consequence? I question your neutrality on the subject matter
-::of speculation...Either allow consensus on sex/gender and other contentious matters or eliminate ALL speculation to avoid making the staff looking like they are biased, inflexible, hypocritical,
-::projecting, and generally heel-dragging inaction flimsily justified with weak excuses when something goes against what they want to be or believe in/is and/or project onto Pokémon subjects. You
-::shouldn't argue against speculation when you, the other staff, and the site in general blatantly speculates with no apology or equal enforcement, all over the place, all of the time.
-To users and staff alike:
-::The above series of negative attitudes, power trips, unprofessional behavior and policy changes seems to have been caused over the years by early site issues like early staff being unprepared for
-::vandals and trolls, some event referred to a "Turkey Shoot" by my sources which traumatized officials at the time, and the forums supposedly losing traffic and ad revenue due to supposed lax
-::administration on this wiki's end that lead to higher brass or a creditor(who may have been named mozz) demanding micromanagement, authoritarianism and hyper restrictive rule revisions to
-::over-correct this, resulting in the '''''exact opposite problem''''':namely, that non-authorities feel oppressed, lied to and restricted by staff who think that this way of doing things attracts
-::"good" users, builds a community(The forums should be a separate entity with no co-dependence on each other), detracts vandals, trolls and liars...Spoilers, it hasn't!
-::Heck, some staff from then are still here and users from or that know of that time period were given staff privilege, which makes me believe there's some overcompensation going on for a past that
-::has long ended, according to my research. I'm calling you and the rest of the staffs' bluffs until you can prove me wrong about all I've said in this post and end the suspension of liberal
-::democracy imposed by a panicky first generation of sycophantic admins succumbing to authoritarianism to restore order and profit, which, IMO, happened wayyy before the policy changes. --[[User:BlisseyandtheAquaJets|BlisseyandtheAquaJets]] ([[User talk:BlisseyandtheAquaJets|talk]]) 05:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 :::I don't think I'm that wrong. I think at worst I've just framed it in a way you don't like. (I don't mean to say I'm not "wrong", but rather more that you're not making the effort to credit what accuracy it has and/or simply correct it.) I've honestly tried to understand you. You're the one who keeps fearing the worst...
 :::You ask me to "prove" that sex and gender are different in the anime. ...I don't have to unless you also have to prove that they're the same. They're both assumptions. We can argue over which is more reasonable (I definitely could), but it's a bedrock assumption you have to make one way or the other. The only difference is in the particular values we're each bringing to the situation. (And just in case: no, I'm not talking about transphobia, or whatever bad connotation you might imagine.) If I can't "prove" it to your satisfaction that doesn't mean you "win", it only means you always had different values and were very unlikely to break from them. (I /am/ willing to discuss it. But I'd rather have this understanding out there first if so.)
@@ Line 142: / Line 41: @@
 :::I will happily admit it. We are speculating that a gender spectrum exists. But you have to speculate one way or the other since there has been no explicit statement. And it is our policy from on high that we will not presume that Pokemon cannot express gender different from their traditional role. Our "version" is not more "speculative" than yours; yours does not have an inherently better claim as less (to say nothing of 'not at all') "speculative".
 :::I kind of don't want to start another point, but you've been mentioning things like ''"Dawn's Piplup crossdressing and Misha's Purrloin do not entirely invalidate sexed articles of clothing because not every Trainer is Dawn or Jessie"'' and ''"Not every trainer is Dawn or Jessie regarding accessories and costumes"'' and ''"ONLY 2 Trainers have done this outside of deceptions"''. On the one hand, you're admitting there are cases where Pokemon have had outfits that do not conform with their traditional gender role. Yet on the other, you insist that it's okay to make the default assumption for any other time that clothing matches traditional gender roles. In other words: true, "not every Trainer is Dawn or Jessie", but at the same time you cannot say that NO other Trainer is like Dawn or Jessie (or that any given character is definitely not like Dawn or Jessie). It's nonsensical. If it's happened before it can happen again, and there's no guarantee we'd know it. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 06:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
-::::So admin policy, opinion and perspective DOES trump and squash community majority consensus across multiple pages and holds more, weighted and supreme worth in discussions around here. Thanks for proving me right about this wiki's betrayal and undermining of its community. Now I'm done for real. Let it be known that if staff don't agree with the community wants, says or needs, then too bad. They have declared autocracy in the open. Your contributions and input don't matter if you aren't a member of the staff or you happen by chance to agree with them. I'm taking a long break until a massive cleanup is done around here. --[[User:BlisseyandtheAquaJets|BlisseyandtheAquaJets]] ([[User talk:BlisseyandtheAquaJets|talk]]) 07:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 :::::At a fundamental level, no part of asking that something like a Pokemon's gender be based on demonstrable facts should be very outrageous. If a Pokemon's gender is clearly stated, there's plainly no assumptions required. If, however, a Pokemon just wears a skirt, or...IDK, stares at a wedding dress, then calling it a female definitely requires an assumption. (It annoys me that this simpler formulation only occurred to me now...)
 :::::A majority consensus is by no means an absolute "good". Unidentified moves are a very clear example of where a "consensus" (or unchallenged assumption) can easily turn out very wrong (and has). The gender policy isn't altogether the same beast, but zero assumptions is plainly the safest option. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 08:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)