# Talk:Wandering Son

I just started this article up. I will improve and enhance it in the future. This is my first article, and all of the information is based on the Japanese one, so what should I give as the source? -Shirohana (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's okay to use the manga itself as a primary source for facts about plot, character details, etc., so right now I think it's okay. Anything more than that will need citations to sources, however. You can find a lot of helpful information at Manual of Style (anime and manga) and from the people in WikiProject Anime and Manga. Cheers! — confusionball (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Vol 2 ANN's Right turn only import review. --KrebMarkt 20:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorporated, and thank you; I hope to get the section more filled out soon, since that's basically the only thing stopping me from taking this to GAN.--十八 21:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


### Others
An interview by Deb Aoki of Gary Groth about the new line of manga. I go to the meaty part for Wandering Son:

Q: I'm also curious about Wandering Son. It's definitely not your typical choice for a manga title to be published in the US, and definitely not a typical subject matter for comics in general. What attracted you/Fantagraphics to this title? Why do you think it was important to present it to U.S. audiences?
Gary Groth: "You answered your own question: It's not a typical choice for a manga title published in the U.S. and it's not typical subject matter for comics in general. I'm not interested in publishing the kinds of manga that I see published in the U.S. I mean, first, it's already being published, so why would we want to duplicate the efforts of others? And second, they're mostly simply not the kind of comics I like."
"Wandering Son is about gender confusion and those awkward teenage years of sexual awakening and a perfectly legitimate subject for literature -- or comics."
Gary Groth = overkill. --KrebMarkt 15:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As one good news doesn't come alone. The anime adaptation Cheers. --KrebMarkt 17:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. This ... is gonna get interesting. Not something to add till the actual announcement, tho' -- ANN is sourcing that to 2chan. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
April issue of Comic Beam is the primary source, the information rebounded on 2chan and then into ANN. --KrebMarkt 23:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm adding it in based on this; ANN cites Comic Beam that has the info, not to mention that the magazine came out today in Japan.--十八 01:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Today's Thursday. Dur. Man I'm so behind with things. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I'm dubious about including Thorn and Groth, two first-party sources with a financial interest in the work, in the Reception section. For neutral descriptions of the work, without any reference to the quality, Thorn would count as a valid reliable source, but that's not how his quotes are being used here. I haven't deleted them yet because I haven't figured out how, exactly, to use these quotes -- so I'm opening up discussion here. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right. The Groth quote seems better put in to Production, while the Thorn quote can be altered to be more neutral.--十八 00:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Since you seem to have some ideas how to handle it, I defer to you. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Not really; if you have a better idea of how to handle it, by all means.--十八 04:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A general collection place for comments and queries.
The first of them being that clearly I need to reread the series again, as my memory is that Yuki works in, rather than runs, a gay bar. Pls confirm? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose you're right. When I found this article last year, Yuki's description had her owning the bar, so I guess I just kept it in. As far as I remember, she's only shown working in the bar once or twice, and I don't think it's ever actually stated she owns it. The original info came from a translation of the Japanese wiki which states バーのママ in Yuki's description, which means a bar proprietress. Perhaps it was stated in character notes or something, and is not something actually found in the manga pages themselves.--十八 23:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, if she's the Mama, then yeah, she runs it (either as owner or manager). Interesting. I'll have to reread more carefully. (Or maybe it's in the short story.) —Quasirandom (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I found it, on the first page of chapter 16; whether she owns it or just manages it though is not stated.--十八 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yup, that confirms it. I'd totally forgotten that scene. Onward. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Moving on, "assigned sex" strikes me as the wrong phrase to refer Yoshino being female -- it's still the one she was born as, so there's no volition involved -- but I'm not sure what to use instead. I'm going ask TG friends what's current preferred language and come back to this. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a different phrasing used in lieu of "...learning she was actually a girl" or "...learning she was female" or something similar. You could use, say, "biological sex" if you want.--十八 21:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Asking around and doing some research, it looks like the current preferred terms are "biological sex" and "assigned sex," in about equal proportions. The theory behind the latter being that Yoshino was "assigned" by society to assume that sex from birth, even though it disagrees with her self-image, as she has been slowly, hestitantly finding out. I find the use a little odd, still, but can live with it. Onward. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Gah -- I got busy and dropped this off my plate, and now I'm about to go offline for a few weeks of backpacking. Sorry 'bout that. Will try to resume this upon my return. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's okay; good to see you're still alive. ;P --十八 00:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Google Translate offers the translation of the phrase "houtou musuko" as "prodigal son", not the one given here.  I thought this might make more sense in the context of the story (instead of a son who was lost and is found, he wanders and remains lost, perhaps?).  I couldn't find anything pertaining to the manga that might support this explanation, but I did find this site which describes the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Japanese, and uses the phrase "houtou musuko," so I think this might be worth mentioning in the article.  71.50.80.107 (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Both the Green Goddess and New Nelson translate it as "prodigal son", so this seems reasonable to me. Simon Brady (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

ANN Winter 2011 preview: 1 2 3 4
Mania.com streaming: Ep 01 Ep 02 Ep 03 Ep 04 Ep 05 Ep 06 Ep 07 Ep 08 Ep 09 Ep 10 Ep 11
ANN: Ep. 01-06 streaming
--KrebMarkt (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The official site says BD #6 will have episodes 11 and 12 on it, but everything else I've seen says the series is only 11 episodes. I haven't updated the episode count in the rest of the article but it would be good to clarify this - perhaps they're going to include an unaired episode on disc? Simon Brady (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

From everything I've seen, only 11 episodes are airing. I assume this means they're including an OVA in the last volume.--十八 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems Wandering Son's early debut at this year's TCAF sold out within the first two hours of its releasement.
http://manga.about.com/b/2011/05/09/tcaf-2011-day-1-springtime-sunshine-manga-and-buzz-books.htm
http://www.fantagraphics.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=TCAF-2011-Totally-Cool-And-Fun.html&Itemid=113
Would it be appropriate to include it under "Reception"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.220.224.106 (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 

Sure, I'll add it in.--十八 07:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Juhachi reverted my edit which changed the article to use the proper pronouns for the characters in this series, under the rationale that the characters are "biologically" their birth-assigned sex. I'd like to point out the following:

"Biologically male" and "biologically female" are widely considered offensive by the transgender community. "Male-assigned at birth" and "female-assigned at birth" are preferred.
Wikipedia policy is to use the pronouns that match with a person's stated gender identity. If one is to argue that this only applies to real people, then the following must also be addressed:
This article uses feminine pronouns for Yuki, a trans woman (and is therefore inconsistent in its handling of character pronouns), and
If one is to argue that it "doesn't matter" what pronouns are used since they're just fictional characters, then why are cisgender characters consistently referred to with the proper pronouns? Either it does matter or it doesn't.
Considering that the entire point of this manga is gender identity and transgenderism, it seems downright rude and disrespectful to use the pronouns for the characters' "biological" sex.
Nongendered (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, whether it's offensive or not is beside the point. Second, Yuki has already transitioned, so she's a woman. Shuu and Yoshino haven't transitioned yet, and are still biologically male and female respectively. Also, they are referred to as male and female in the story itself (read the Fantagraphics translation), so going against that would only serve to confuse readers. It's always been like this on this article, referring to Shuu as male and Yoshino as female, so changing it without prior discussion is disruptive, especially considering that this is a GA rated article, so any large-scale changes like this must be discussed first.--十八 05:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, whether it's offensive is a large part of the point. When it comes to the subject of gender, there is nothing more insulting than referring to a trans person with pronouns of the opposite gender. Shuu is already female and Yoshino is already male; even if their bodies don't match their identifications, it doesn't change that underlying truth. If readers of the article would be confused, then perhaps they need to click on the wikilinks to the articles on transgender and transsexuality. Further, the Manual of Style does not specify that a person needs to have transitioned in order to have their gender recognized; it simply says, "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies when referring to any phase of that person's life." As Shuichi self-identifies as female and Yoshino as male, it would go against Wikipedia's own guidelines to use the pronouns of their birth-assigned (what you insist on perjoratively calling "biological"; please keep in mind that most scientific evidence suggests that transsexuality is caused by a physical variation in the brain, which is a biological part of the body) sexes. -Nongendered (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, whether its offensive or not is besides the point, and doesn't help your argument, so we don't have to discuss that. Anyway, policy seems to back me up for the most part. WP:MOS#Identity states "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles..." It is verifiable that Shuu is referred to as male and Yoshino as female, per the official translation given by Fantagraphics for the manga, and the translation provided on Crunchyroll's streaming website: "Nitori Shuichi is a boy who wants to become a girl. He transfers to a new elementary school, and there, meets Takatsuki Yoshino, a tall and attractive young girl.", "Shuichi is a boy who wants to be a girl, and Yoshino is a girl who wants to be a boy.", "Yoshino is rudely reminded of her sex". Next, neutral point of view. In all respects, it is most neutral to refer to them by their biological sex, because it is indisputable what they are, even if their genders may be questionable.
Now, I realize the WP:MOS#Identity section also states "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." However, these go against the accepted pronouns given by the official translations. You must also realize that the same section states "avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage". I contend that referring to Shuu as female and Yoshino as male is confusing, and it is our job as editors to make sure the article is not confusing. Our goal is not to redirect readers away from this article. We want them to stay here and read and be interested. Again, realize this is a GA article, so your edit could be considered disruptive, and on that basis alone reverted.--十八 05:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that, if quoting any official source speaking about the characters and their identifications, they should be kept intact, as stated by the MoS. However, you are conflating "that person's latest expressed gender self-identification" with "third-person descriptions of that person's gender". I can find plenty of verifiable sources that refer to Chaz Bono as a woman; does that make it okay to change his article? For that matter, it's potentially confusing to use the proper pronouns for any trans person's self-identification. The section you've quoted on "confusing or seemingly logically impossible text" refers to constructions such as She fathered a child and He gave birth.
The thing that you seem to not be understanding is that the character's self-identification is all that matters when it comes to determining gender. If a character says "I am a girl," then she is a girl, no matter what anybody else says about her. Further, you keep falling back on the article's "Good Article" status as a crutch. "Good Article" does not mean that it is perfect and no longer needs to be altered. "Good Articles" may still have serious problems that need to be fixed. I would wager that whoever certified this article's GA status had not actually considered the issue of the characters' genders.
Finally, what I find confusing is the assumption that someone will be confused by the usage of "she/her" to refer to a character who self-identifies as female. It's more confusing to use "he/him" to refer to a character who identifies as female. (I would also like to point out that my edit also corrected a paragraph where "he" was used to refer to Yuki, where even you seem to agree that "she" is appropriate, and yet you made no effort to fix that when you reverted it.) -Nongendered (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
One thing I find especially wrong with your edit is that you also changed Makoto's pronouns, even though in the later part of the manga he no longer identifies as female and shows no inclination that he's transgendered. Based on the latest self-identification, I'd contend he should still be referred to as male. Also, the sentence that referred to Yuki as male was because that was talking about when he was a boy, Hiroyuki, before her transition. But I can see we're getting no where, so I'm going to ask for a third opinion.--十八 05:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I do admit that I made a mistake when it comes to Makoto, but that hardly invalidates what I'm saying about Shuichi and Yoshino Further, when it comes to Yuki, I repeat what I quoted from the Manual of Style: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies when referring to any phase of that person's life."
Finally, I feel that you are not taking me seriously as you continue to use the phrase "biological sex", when transsexuality is, in fact, a biological condition caused by a person's biological brain. Their biological, physical brain makeup and chemistry. The proper term is "assigned". -Nongendered (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing: If your real goal is to avoid confusion, as you say, you might want to think about how confusing it is to switch pronouns when referring to the same character in the same paragraph (or even sentence, as you've just done on this talk page). -Nongendered (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not trying to offend in any way. I am merely referring to them in ways I am used to. Instead of biological I could say chromosomal, if you like. Anyway, I don't think that gender clause in the Identity section was meant to be used for fictional characters, and I'd like to bring up a dispute at WT:MOS about it. Two of the pillars of Wikipedia are verifiability and neutral point of view, both of which are on my side in this case. In the end, the MOS is a guideline, and WP:V and WP:NPOV are policies, which should trump any guideline. If the article is reverted back to how it was, I'll agree that the Yuki section was slightly confusing and could be rewritten, like "When Yuki was a boy, she was..." or something like that.--十八 05:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
"Chromosomal" is just as bad, as it assumes something that isn't actually known in most people (most female-assigned people are XX and most male-assigned people are XY, but there have been cases of cisgender people who are assigned to and completely appear to be of a certain sex but have the "wrong" chromosomes). I wonder why you are so opposed to using "assigned", which I've now twice informed you is preferred, and which is completely neutral and doesn't carry any unintended implications or points of view.
I realize there are now new opinions being posted here on this page, but I'm going to say this in an indented subthread because it's a direct reply to something you said: It is NPOV to refer to a female character as "she". It is extremely POV to say that, because she is male-assigned, it's better to use "he" for her. -Nongendered (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
If I'm guilty of not being neutral, it works both ways. But okay, whatever. I have one final point to make, a point I was going to make a while back, but didn't. Namely, the way the gender clause in MOS:IDENTITY is worded. Again, it states: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." I want to put emphasis on "expressed gender self-identification" for the purposes of this series for the moment. Have either Shuuichi or Yoshino ever referred to themselves using female (Shuu) and male (Yoshino) "gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives"? Have they ever self-identified as a member of the opposite sex? I say no on both counts. Both have expressed desire to be a member of the opposite sex, but neither has actually referred to themselves as members of the opposite sex. Shuuichi is never seen actually saying "I'm a girl" and Yoshino is never seen saying "I'm a boy". Taking the guideline word for word, neither have actually "self-identified" as the member of the opposite sex, so I say you're in the wrong for trying to edit the article to reflect a self-identification which is merely implied. Real-life transgendered/transsexual people, such as Chaz Bono have made this self-identification ("I'm a man"), so it's more clear-cut, but that is not the case here.
A final point, assuming the above did not convince you. Shuuichi still uses the male-oriented pronoun "boku" to refer to himself, and Yoshino uses "watashi", which is technically neutral, but more feminine than male. If they self-identified as members of the opposite sex, we could assume Shuuichi would start using "watashi" and Yoshino would start using "boku". Japanese is very low-key when it comes to gender specific pronouns, but "boku" is still considered to be common for males to use, and uncommon for females, and vice versa for "watashi".--十八 09:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I saw this on the Third Opinion page.  I can see both sides, and suspect that there may not be a 'clean' solution to the issue.  I agree that the Identity section is designed for humans, not characters, but this doesn't necessarily help much since the difficulties remain in that the RS could be potentially used to argue either way.  My suggestion is that perhaps it is best dealt with by outlining the nature of the difficulty at the start of the article and explaining what method will be adopted.  That way, as long as whatever approach is adopted is consistently applied, it will be clear to the reader that it is making the best of a confusing/complex situation.  MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a similar issue at Birdo that was solved by applying the "latest gender identity" criteria. I agree that this should be discussed at WT:MOS and that at the very least, the MOS should be updated to make clear that any adopted criteria should be explained within the article or the talk page, and consistently applied. Diego (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems Birdo's page now refers to her as a girl though. What's to be done about the protagonists of this series though? Macintosh Grapes (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that the series has been released outside of Japan, do we use the Japanese or international cover? Macintosh Grapes (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There has been discussion about this at WT:ANIME in the past. Basically, the consensus was that the cover shouldn't arbitrarily be changed from what is already there, especially because the Japanese cover is the original one.--十八 09:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I have to restart this discussion based on yet another disagreement. First of all, official English translations of the manga as given by Fantagraphics refer to Shuichi with male pronouns and Yoshino with female. Reliable sources do the same. If the work itself does this, and if reliable sources do this, why should this article be any different? Changing it would only serve to confuse readers who read the manga and later come to the Wikipedia page to find that the pronouns are not as they are presented in the manga. Furthermore, neither character has explicitly stated in the work itself that they are of the opposite gender. Shuichi and Yoshino may have expressed interest in being the opposite sex, but until they explicitly do actually say they are a member of the opposite sex, they cannot verifiably be called transsexual, as doing so would be original research.--十八 02:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Until the characters explicitly say they are trans, we should use the pronouns used in the work itself. Wikipedia rules about verifiably and original research must apply in this case, as do identity rules. Also, it might be worth while asking for semi-protection, as the changes are coming from an unregistered user. David Bailey (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
All of the sources referenced do not adequately respond to the validity of calling them by their biological sex, not only are two of those sources reviews of the work and reflect only the default synopsis and a opinionated view of the work, they all consistently use the terminology put out by the author that Nitori is a "boy who wants to be a girl" and Takatsuki is a "girl who wants to be a boy" which is the common description of transsexual people coming from cisgender people, such as the author herself who is not in any way transsexual or transgender. You cannot ask that she use the proper terminology to describe transgenderism because she is not a part of the LGBT community, even thought she is writing this with the intent of making it a story about transchildren. One of the most important things to remember is the social climate of Japan which is intolerant and insensitive to LGBT issues http://diversityguides.com/gay_workplace/?p=352, which makes the attempt at using correct descriptions and the manga itself very sympathetic for the audience it was meant for, in America it would not be considered sensitive when compared to the handling of the FTM student Adam Torres http://degrassi.wikia.com/wiki/Adam_Torres. Both Takatsuki and Nitori have both been shown reacting with extreme emotion when called by their biological sex http://mangafox.me/manga/hourou_musuko/v01/c007/23.html http://mangafox.me/manga/hourou_musuko/v01/c007/24.html. Yuki-san is a transsexual woman who uses the same language the author uses to describe the two main characters to describe herself, as in "wanting to be the other gender" http://mangafox.me/manga/hourou_musuko/v03/c023/12.html. She has direct parallels with Nitori's experience http://mangafox.me/manga/hourou_musuko/v02/c015/4.html and Nitori and Takatsuki are described as having the same condition. Also, it is unreasonable to ask that they have surgery or come out because they are both children and cannot transition even if they want to, and they are minors and need to rely on their parents, so they can't come out because they might be kicked out like Yuki http://mangafox.me/manga/hourou_musuko/v03/c023/5.html. Nitori has shown that within her own mind she views herself as really being a girl http://mangafox.me/manga/hourou_musuko/v03/c018/26.html http://mangafox.me/manga/hourou_musuko/v01/c008/24.html, because Takatsuki is described the same way as her and is a secondary character we must infer that the author didn't have the time to include Takatsuki's own dream scene. Furthermore, Nitori specifically has a female nickname given to her by Mako who understands her condition, and she is called "girl" when she dresses up, which is how she would always be if she could http://mangafox.me/manga/hourou_musuko/v03/c022/11.html.
Finally, even if they were "just crossdressers", crossdressing falls under the umbrella term of transgender http://www.glaad.org/transgender and they should be referred to as such regardless if you ignore the overwhelming evidence they are indeed transsexual.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.52.209.97 (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC) 

All of that stuff you cited from the manga is merely original research. MOS:IDENTITY states on the first bullet point that in times of dispute, WP:V and WP:NPOV should be followed. It can be verified via the work itself and reliable sources that biological pronouns should be used, and it's more neutral to do so as, from an objective point of view without any knowledge of LGBT, Shuu is a boy and Yoshino is a girl.--十八 23:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Admins have advised the use of Dispute resolution noticeboard if the reverts continue. David Bailey (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Can we stop with the transgender/cisgender bs already? I don't care what is politically correct, if the source material calls her a boy and him a girl or whatever, then we stick to that. If I didn't know the source material I would be confused as hell by what gender they are.  I don't care if they don't see themselves as the gender their chromosomes say they are, it's confusing as hell to everyone because I can barely tell based on the article.  And don't say crap like "girl who wants to be seen as a girl" because his biological SEX, not gender, is a boy. No amount of surgery or hormones or self-image can change that. 66.65.6.19 (talk) .04:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten or removed the worst offenders, sentences that made little sense or that made direct assertions from an unbalanced point of view against WP:NPOV. Except for what I may have missed, I think what remains is mostly unambiguous and understandable. Diego (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Just posting to say that the article as it is, is still severely confusing to readers.  The characters' gender beliefs aren't set in stone, Shuu still thinks of himself as a boy and the same for Yoshino.  The article needs to be rewritten to what they biologically are so it makes more sense.  Also it's a bit outdated, Shuu's dating Anna again, for example.  If you look at the link at bottom of article [1] as well as the American publisher's site [2], both refer to the two protagonists by the sex they were born as, as well as what they are throughout the entire series.  If they actually decide to go through with surgery, then the topic should be revisited.  Sera404 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I opened up a thread at WP:DRN at WP:DRN#Wandering Son to try to resolve this.--十八 03:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed the page currently refers to Takatsuki by male pronouns and Nitori by female pronouns. If it were to stay this way, what do we refer to the more gender ambiguous Makoto? Macintosh Grapes (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Current discussion on the DRN thing is favouring referring to the two protagonists by their biological sex (i.e. Shuu is male/he, Yoshino is female/her) since that's what the manga and all third party (such as japanese/american publishers and mainstream reviewing sites) refer to them as.  If it goes through, someone will probably edit the article properly without it being reverted.  If it goes through, I'll also like to request semi-protection of the article to prevent immediate reverting by anon people who have not read the talk page or discussion on the DRN.  Sera404 (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Per the consensus at the DRN discussion, and also what was explained by User:Mr. Stradivarius on tour regarding MOS:IDENTITY, I'm changing it back to how it was. If the reverts persist, I'll do what Stadivarius suggested and take it to WP:RFPP.--十八 21:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well done on the edits Juhachi! The line "Shuichi Nitori, described by the author as a boy who wants to be a girl" should help clarify identity and hopefully discourage pronoun re-writes. For everyone's reference, the WP:DNR discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 33#Wandering_Son. David Bailey (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I simply reverted it back to how it was before; your edits on the other hand have set a good middle ground. I just hope it stays that way without having to go to WP:RFPP.--十八 20:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Junachi for the edits.  I honestly think this should be protected, as we have seen this same issue come up before.  I honestly believe in rights for all human beings regardless of who they are, but there is such thing as being obnoxious and biased.  This applies to all people and every viewpoint. I hope this does go to WP:RFPP in the future, to prevent further headaches. 141.157.228.139 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Addition: Since the characters in questions are not referred to as "transgirl" or "transboy" in reliable sources, or in the work itself, it should not be done so on Wikipedia, as per the result of the discussion at WP:DRN. Going against that is going against the agreed upon consensus of the discussion, which is to use biological sex pronouns for the characters as shown in the work itself and reliable secondary sources, and thus has been reverted. Not to mention that MOS:IDENTITY says to avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage, so referring to a "transgirl" with male pronouns is what I would consider 'confusing and logically impossible'; similarly, referring to a "transboy" with female pronouns is also 'confusing and logically impossible'. Furthermore, the work itself and reliable secondary sources call Shuichi a boy and Yoshino a girl, so it goes against WP:V to call Shuichi a "transgirl" or Yoshino a "transboy", since there is no verifiable evidence of them being referred to as such. It is also against WP:NPOV to add in phrases like "... who are unaware Shuuichi is a girl and Yoshino is a boy." because it does not represent views that have been published by reliable sources, as it says in the first sentence at WP:NPOV, and would thus also be applicable to WP:NOR: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves. Calling Shuichi a "transgirl" or a girl of any kind 'serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by reliable sources'. As this seems to be a continuing issue, I have also asked for page protection at WP:RFPP.--十八 20:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I was visiting this article recently, and I saw that there is information missing, like new characters or the recent plot of the manga, then I visited the other languages in which this article is written (excluding japanese, korean and chinese) and I saw that the spanish article is much more updated; I'd like to translate all that's missing, but my spanish is bad, could anyone do that?
--189.137.119.54 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Spanish wiki may have more plot and character info, but a lot of the latter is on relatively minor characters that have little to no impact on the plot as a whole, and generally don't warrant their own subsections because all that will be said of them will either be very short, or just contain a plot summary of how they are involved. This tends to be the case of what happens on the Japanese wiki as well. The plot on the Spashish wiki, too, is clearly overly detailed and should be trimmed to half its size, or at least the size of how it is here. However, I do admit that some of the current bios may need some minor updating, but anything seriously plot worthy will go in List of Wandering Son chapters eventually.--十八 21:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The manga ended recently. Makoto is a trans girl, Takatsuki is probably cis, and Nitori is a trans girl. Can we use female pronouns now? Willowforth (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

We really do not have to go into this for the umpteenth time. We go by the pronouns used in reliable sources and the officially translated manga by Fantagraphics as they are the most neutral and verifiable, as I outlined above. The whole issue is pretty insane now since Yoshino had previously been transgendered and then ends up cisgendered, and while Nitori appears to still be transgendered, he never transitioned. So I believe it should stay the way it is. In the end, it comes down to WP:V (it can be verified that Shuichi is referred to with male pronouns, and Yoshino with female, in reliable third-party sources and the work itself), WP:NOR (reliable sources and the work itself do not refer to Shuichi with female pronouns and Yoshino with male, so doing so would be original research) and WP:NPOV (using male pronouns for Shuichi and female for Yoshino represents views that have been published by reliable sources). I'll also point out that NPOV states "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus."--十八 21:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
You may want to reserve discussion for the moment, because there is currently a massive discussion raging in several places in Wikipedia about how to handle pronouns and other descriptors for transgendered people. The discussion revolved primarily around living people, so I'm not sure how it will apply to fictional characters, but it may be that WP will be setting specific set of rules (much like most newspapers have) for dealing with the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

why are you calling a transgender girl an effeminate child when effeminate applies exclusively to people who are still male? Masterball2 (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A transgender girl is a girl and a transgender boy is a boy. Transgender people aren't "boys who want to be girls" or "girls who want to be boys" or "men who want to be women" or "women who want to be men"
Before you say that Nitori isn't confirmed to be a trans girl, she's the most celebrated trans character in Japanese media. https://twitter.com/tropicalesque/status/1065804291540164608 Masterball2 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Read: https://thecritic.co.uk/the-sexist-pseudoscience-of-gender-identity/ 2600:480A:3091:3000:119F:A990:1541:D291 (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Josephine Bartosch is not a highly cited scholar in the field of gender studies, so her opinion is irrelevant to Wikipedia when she objects to mainstream scholars in the field. Reprarina (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall Yoshino expressing any desire for any particular pronouns in the twelve anime episodes that I watched ten years ago. Is that made more explicit in the manga? LichCake (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest replacing transgender boy in the article with transmasculine child, as this term more clearly covers Yoshino's case. Reprarina (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)