Talk:X-gender

Dead and questionable links

The tweet stating that Yuki Kamatani identifies as "x gender" is dead. Can his name be deleted if no other link can be found?

There is really nothing from academia on this page supporting the belief that "x gender" has any sort of traction in Japan. Using an online poll by an LGBT group to support an LGBT position isnt a nuetral stance.

The whole "Academic research" piece relies entirely on a link that cannot be accessed. This should also be deleted. Nothappycamping (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nothappycamping do you know how to access Japanese language academic journals? I searched on Google scholar and that resource is cited three times, but I am not sure whether there's a Japanese equivalent to jstor we can use to find the original source. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea how to access the journal in question. If it cant be viewed can it still be used? I was told elsewhere that this is not the case. If its been cited that proves it exists but no more than that. Can really use that one link for more or less the basis of half the article in question? Nothappycamping (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nothappycamping I feel like it is best we wait on this one. I believe this could easily be something only someone who went to university in Japan would know how to solve. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nothappycamping I put a verification needed template in the article. Now it will be put in a list that people periodically go through to find the original sources and verify their content. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And how long should it be given before verfying? Does it get removed if it isnt verified within a certain time frame? Can we look at the usage of "okama". In the article the claim is made that this was regarded as a third gender prior to modern times. This isnt true and the source says as much. In fact the source says that only recently it has been seen as a third gender, but even that statement is up for debate. I guess some people do but its not something that is anywhere close to common. Nothappycamping (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

So if thats the only source that is being used maybe what the person is saying isnt worth a mention on the wikipage? I agree, lets wait a bit. Nothappycamping (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Well google scholar says three citations so I consider it to be notable. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what the source says or who has used it? You think three citations makes an article notable? Is this the normal position that wiki takes?

Surely if any of this being mentioned is actually used then we should be able to get sources from something actually mainstream. I feel relying on one unreadable source makes a mockery of wiki rules. Nothappycamping (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nothappycamping we know the article exists, now we just need to figure out how to find it. I didn’t go to university in Japan and I think this question probably requires a university educated Japanese person to answer. There are people who could probably help a lot here like @Dekimasu and @Nihonjoe and they might be able to help. My hopefully mistaken impression though is that you just don't like it, and that’s why you want it removed. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about this topic, and it's not really a topic that interests me, so I'd be uncomfortable offering an opinion about specifics here. However, if the topic really does have only a single source for the majority of the information, then it may be good to userfy the article until such time as additional reliable sources may be found. That's all I have to say on the topic. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle of course I don't like it. We're relying on one article. If the words mean what the author says they mean surely a dictionary would suffice. Youhavetodobetter (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Youhavetodobetter I'm sorry who are you? I was talking to @Nothappycamping but you seemingly responded in his place. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle nothing has been brought forward by anyone to back up what that one source says. Is it time to delete? Nothappycamping (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nothappycamping it is not time to delete. Verification takes time and neither @Nihonjoe nor @Dekimasu the people asked to verify have responded yet, so they are clearly busy. I would suggest waiting a while.

The paper clearly exists, its author clearly exists. But these things take time, and you might be biased on this topic based on previously stated views. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 16:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I have also found another paper which may support the claim as well https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jaqp/18/1/18_144/_pdf/-char/ja Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 16:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle as I said earlier. If the source is in anyway accurate we wouldn't need to rely on that one source. Surely someone could come along with a different source. Even a japanese dictionary entry that supports what the article says. You could even do that.

I am biased, like everyone else is. I'm not pretending to be otherwise. Nothappycamping (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

We should wait for the source to be verified. You previously tried to basically just delete everything on this page. Accuracy is more important than speed. Removing the source would make it substantially less likely the content would ever be in the article even if it is true. If you know Japanese you can look over the paper I posted here and see if it lines up with it and add it as a source if you think it supports it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 17:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

YEah, thats a grand source. I will add the citation. Ive never done it before but Ill work it out. If I cant Ill give you a shout and let you do it. Thanks for the help. Nothappycamping (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Immanuelle. I cant work out the intricacies of adding the source. Having a nightmare trying to wrap my head around it.

I also see you unedited my edit about "okama". Look man, the source given says this about okama

"[14] Wim Lunsing, 'The politics of okama and onabe,' in Genders, Transgenders, and Sexualities in Japan, ed. Mark J McLelland and Romit Dasgupta, London: Routledge, 2005, pp. 81– 95. Lunsing goes through some of the controversy surrounding the terms okama (originally used to refer to male-male sexual acts, but later taking on a connotation of male-to-female cross-dressing as well), and onabe (mostly used by female-to-male transvestites). The meanings of the words and what they signify have changed with the times, and both carry a tinge of the entertainment world."

Yet the article makes this claim using the same linke.

" third gender identities have been known in Japan (such as okama or onabe)"

There is nothing in the source that says this. THere will be nothing on the internet that says the above because its simply not true. This has to be deleted. Nothappycamping (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what we are attempting to verify in this thread in general. It looks like the Twitter link was supported. I agree with Nothappycamping's analysis of the terms listed above, which also can be considered derogatory. Dekimasuよ! 02:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dekimasu I want your help in finding this source for the section "Academic research"

佐々木掌子 (2010). 規定されないものとしてのジェンダー・アイデンティティ－MTXとFTXの質的分類－ GID（性同一性障害）学会雑誌, 3(1), pp.44-45.

Google scholar shows citations but I don't know where to look Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 00:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle can we delete your unsourced note that you added? The source you use states that "okama" is not historically a third gender.

I feel your bias may be getting in the way of you letting this go. Nothappycamping (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nothappycamping the note is cited. But I do think it needs change to be more in line with the source.

as far as the academic resources part goes I’d be up for removing the entire section as soon as someone versed in Japanese language research says they can’t find the source and someone checks the other provided paper and confirms it doesn’t support the content. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

(extensive EC) The source is almost definitely not available online. It is still for sale here. It is also probably "reliable" in the basic sense that it summarizes an academic presentation (perhaps is just the abstract of it?), although I haven't seen the text. But given that there are many sources in general on this topic, I am not sure why that one needs to be used or treated as a more authoritative breakdown than others. Is it just because that article is cited on the Japanese Wikipedia page? (The Japanese Wikipedia article has a similar section that is tagged for reevaluation for being based on a single source.) The article in question is only 1-2 pages long, which indicates to me that most of the contents are being cited here. I think there is probably a WP:WEIGHT issue involved in relying on it to this extent. The paper by Yamada Sonomi cited earlier in this thread says the idea is intriguing but criticizes the amount of information available on the circumstances of Sasaki's data collection and expresses reservations about whether the analysis is sufficient. Dekimasuよ! 01:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

YEah, basically thats it. That was the original source so that has become the go to. I havent a clue if the phrases mentioned have high usage in academia, I mean of course they could.

I am more worried about the third gender line that @Immanuelle is trying to force into the article. There shouldnt be any need to mention genders from Thailand or India in a page about the Japanese usage of "x gender". Nothappycamping (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dekimasuthank you I removed it accordingly. I’m not gonna buy the source Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I simply don’t feel qualified to search Japanese language journals and I don’t feel you are either. So my not being able to find it shouldn’t be indicative that it’s not reasonable to expect someone to be able to find it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Your source is not in the Japanese language. From the source youre using okama is mentioned three times.

"okama, and onabe.[14] In recent years, GID has by far become the most dominant of these discourses, and the most well-known. The first legally recognised sex re-assignment surgery took place in 1998, and in 2001 the popular television drama, Sannen B-gumi Kinpachi-sensei, that featured a transgender teenager (FtM) helped spread the knowledge of the term and bring it into public awareness. Since then, it has firmly lodged itself into the public consciousness, to the extent that most non-explicitly female/male ways of being have been subsumed by it."

"Wim Lunsing, 'The politics of okama and onabe,' in Genders, Transgenders, and Sexualities in Japan, ed. Mark J McLelland and Romit Dasgupta, London: Routledge, 2005, pp. 81– 95. Lunsing goes through some of the controversy surrounding the terms okama (originally used to refer to male-male sexual acts, but later taking on a connotation of male-to-female cross-dressing as well), and onabe (mostly used by female-to-male transvestites). The meanings of the words and what they signify have changed with the times, and both carry a tinge of the entertainment world."

There is literally nothing in your source that backs up the claim you are making. As I said already, the only thing your source does confirm is that the word has changed meaning over time but none of those meanings have ever been interpreted as a third gender.

My source is your source. Ive shown you the exact part of the source that backs up exactly what I am saying. Nothappycamping (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle

I disagree. There is nothing in that source that says okama is a historical third gender. It's absolutely ridiculous to think of the word like this. Your source literally says historically it was related to homosexuality. These days it's related to trans. But a third gender even today is a stretch.

If you think the source your citing says it historically was a third gender can you show me that in your source?

It's very dangerous to have this misinformation on this page. I can imagine many high schoolers doing school work and using this mistake as a source for third genders in historical japan. Nothappycamping (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@NothappycampingIt doesn’t mention okama as a historical third gender anymore. Just Kathooey and Hijra. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Why mention either of those things in this article? THey have nothing to do with Japan. Historically what kind of connection did Japan have with Thailand or India?

What does this mean?

" The word transgender is rare in Japan with other terms historically being more common such as okama or onabe, but the term gender identity disorder has been increasing in popularity in recent years"

Of course its rare, its English. The word "vacuum cleaner" is rare in Japan too.

Your bias is really on show here. You do not want to let go of that paragraph. But its something youve cobbled together without any sort of knowledge or sources. Nothappycamping (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

X-gender is still limited to third gender even if third gender doesn’t historically exist in Japan Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That could well be the case but it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. In fact Im sure thats what the article is talking about. Im just uncomfortable with your repeated attempts to rewrite history and make it seem that Japan has recognised third genders for hundreds of years. Nothappycamping (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nothappycamping also I fixed the archives. Now there seem to be no dead links. The tweet has an archive link Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Nothappycamping (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

okama

Despite what the article says okama meaning a third gender in the past is incorrect. There were no third genders in Japanese history. One could argue that it may mean that now but even that is a stretch. The article should reflect that.

The source that is already there backs up most of what I said above. Nothappycamping (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This was ultimately correct but the user of very overzealous with removing large sections of the article over small nitpicks. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Everything I originally deleted has now been deleted. There is nothing nitpicky about the word being used as a third gender. I did not want this on the article as it was a complete fabrication. Nothappycamping (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

If what I said was "correct" why have you gone back and changed the correction I made? I have told you again and again and now Im telling you again that there is no history of transgenderism in Japan and the word "okama" did not mean that historically. There is no history of a third gender in Japan. The source you're citing doesnt make any of the claims you have written.

If you have a source that says otherwise then please present the source because the one youre currently using doesnt back up the claim you are making. I am once again going to delete what you have written and if you change it back without any source then it feels like youre involved in vandalism. Nothappycamping (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @GraziePrego I see you have now been drafted in to make the same mistakes that the previous user has made.

As I have stated elsewhere there is nothing in the sources that back up the claim of the sentence. If you have a new source then please show us the new source that defends the statement that you have edited.

"okama" is mentioned 3 times in one of the sources and 0 times in the other.

The three times it is mentioned are as follows.

"okama, and onabe.[14] In recent years, GID has by far become the most dominant of these discourses, and the most well-known. The first legally recognised sex re-assignment surgery took place in 1998, and in 2001 the popular television drama, Sannen B-gumi Kinpachi-sensei, that featured a transgender teenager (FtM) helped spread the knowledge of the term and bring it into public awareness. Since then, it has firmly lodged itself into the public consciousness, to the extent that most non-explicitly female/male ways of being have been subsumed by it."

"Wim Lunsing, 'The politics of okama and onabe,' in Genders, Transgenders, and Sexualities in Japan, ed. Mark J McLelland and Romit Dasgupta, London: Routledge, 2005, pp. 81– 95. Lunsing goes through some of the controversy surrounding the terms okama (originally used to refer to male-male sexual acts, but later taking on a connotation of male-to-female cross-dressing as well), and onabe (mostly used by female-to-male transvestites). The meanings of the words and what they signify have changed with the times, and both carry a tinge of the entertainment world."

Nowhere in any of those quotes does it back up "The word transgender is rare in Japan with other terms historically being more common such as okama or onabe,"

ITs a ridiculous statement to make in the first place, transgender is an English word so how could it be used in Japanese history? The edit is wrong, completely wrong. It has to be left out. Im not going to revert the edit just yet as I would like to have you or @Immanuelle discuss it here first so we can stop with the constant changing of the edit. So lets have a chat and sort out this disagreement. Nothappycamping (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle}

Can you explain to me how "The word transgender is rare in Japan with other terms historically being more common such as okama or onabe" plus your note " The word Okama was historically more linked to sexual orientation and its gender usage is a recent development" make any sense when they contradict each other. Nothappycamping (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle you have changed "historically" for "originally" but they both mean the same thing in this context so both sentences as they stand are a contradiction.

What you have wrote doesnt make sense in any way, shape or form. This has to be corrected. Youre still insisting on making "okama" an historical term for transgender but you have yet to provide a link that defends what you have written. You have my source but you wont use it. Lets talk about this. Nothappycamping (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure we’re using the same source but just disagree on the English wording. The term was originally sexual orientation related and gradually gained gender meaning, it is in decline due to the word gender identity disorder. I made the word change to make it clearer in implication that it’s not a contradiction. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 17:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My problem is you keep saying "the word transgender is rare in Japan."

What do you mean by this? Its an English word. Why would you or anyone expect it to be popular?

You then say "The word Okama was originally more linked to sexual orientation and its gender usage is a recent development"

What do you mean "more"? More means that historically it was also linked to something to else. What is that somethign else? When you add in third genders from other parts of the world it blurs the meaning and it makes me think you want to make it sound like it was also used as a third gender.

Why talk about third genders found elsewhere around the world in this article?

Also you then say " three subgroups are common"

If they are common then the words are easy to find in popular usage. This is not the case. Its so hard to find any information on any of those beyond the initial source. So how can you say "common"? Nothappycamping (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

the paragraph titled "classification" relies entirely on a blog post and should be deleted.

Three subgroups are common the article alleges but only relies on a blog as a source. Nothappycamping (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "x gender" on US passport applications.

This is not related to the phrase "x gender" that is used in Japan. Its just a way for the US govenrment to be accepting of other genders. It is not exclusive to Japan and the Japanese government had no input into this phrasing. It does not belong in an article about the Japanese term "x gender". It should be removed. Nothappycamping (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

X gender with regards to a US passport application

There is no "x gender" on the passport form. There is an "x" and it is not directly related to the Japanese usage of the word. The way it is worded in the lead gives the impression that its directly related to the Japanese usage. Nothappycamping (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Fire Semester 3

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Makcroncats, Leew04 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bluespoon22, Barterworthy, Pege456, Tiresometrack.

— Assignment last updated by Worm Insurrection (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)