# Talk:Stop!! Hibari-kun!

After watching the anime and reading the manga, it is quite clear that regardless of her biology, Hibari thinks of herself as a girl. She lives as a girl, as the original version of this article stated, and does so because that is her actual character. The jokes in the series subversively mock the attitudes of others. Hibari herself is never a joke, and she is arguably the most self-assured and well defined character in the series. Calling Hibari male is accurate (male-bodied would be better, but male is probably fine), but calling her a "boy" or a "man" is not accurate. If it was, the comedic genesis of the series could not operate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.6.28.252 (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC) 

Hibari is not a "trans-woman". He refers to himself as a male, uses male pronouns, and acknowledges his male-specific responsibilities imposed on him by his father throughout the entire story. He is a male that looks like a female, is often mistaken for a female, and enjoys this appearance. He does not identify as a woman. 108.214.201.1 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Citation needed. Hibari uses "boku" but so does Nitori in Hourou Musuko. I know plenty of people here in Japan across the gender spectrum that use a variety of pronouns regardless of actual gender identity and/or sex. I've seen no evidence in either the manga nor the anime that Hibari would accept the designation "boy" or "man." Japanese is slightly more complicated by the fact that 男 can mean male or man, although perhaps we can argue that 男性 specifically means male sex. There's not the split between gender and sex, so just because Hibari recognises the legal and biological aspects of being male doesn't mean Hibari's gender is "boy" or "man." Hibari may well accept that there are male-specific responsibilities because of the nature of the 組, but once again, that does not mean that Hibari's gender is "boy" or "man." Hibari's obvious physical dysphoria (over lack of breasts as one example, I can cite anime epsiode and/or manga page if necessary) demonstrates that saying Hibari doesn't identify as a girl is wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.254.219.1 (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
In the end it does not matter what gender Hibari identifies as. Gender pronouns are to be applied as to what gender one is, not what one prefers to be referred to as. Hibari is a male, thus he should be referred to by male pronouns in the article.Thronedrei (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect, actually. MOS:GENDERID states that Wikipedia articles should "reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." (Though I'm not sure how relevant that is to describing fictional characters. The archives of the relevant talk page has one editor suggest for fictional characters "The easiest way round any problem would be to not use a pronoun and simply refer to them by their proper name".)-- User:Brainy J ✿ (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not pronouns are used (I do believe opting out of using any does a disservice to readers across a great many articles, and that MOS:GENDERID should re-address pronoun usage in cases with clear and consistent behavior on the part of the individual) Hibari consistently presents, acts, and lives as a girl. Omitting information about this behavior, or worse, attributing the character only as a "crossdressing male" leaves the article feeling rather bare-boned at best, or actively disingenuous at worst.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKA-Syenite (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The MOS:GENDERID as counter productive as it is to actually providing people with information and not confusing them, was created to address the concerns of people that had concerns about being addressed with what they felt were incorrect pronouns. However since characters are not people, they have no concerns or agency. AS such the MOS:GENDERID need not be applied to them. To begin with the whole MOS:GENDERID should be scrapped since a simple mention as to what a person identifies as would suffice, but that probably isn't a discussion to be had in this thread.--Thronedrei (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
seconded. the current solution of avoiding all mention of gender is inelegant--it's the series' central premise! there's adequate basis within the story to assume feminine pronouns. Plifal (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I'd just like to add onto this by pointing out that the author has actually answered the question of transitioning by stating that "his gender is a man", as shown in the comments of this Instagram post, (look for "Is Hibari-chan ever doing a full transition??")
Given that, I think this article should at the very least be neutral rather than stating that Hibari is definitively transgender. 148.252.133.113 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we should take one statement by the author on Instagram as gospel, considering he's made inconsistent statements in the past. For example, this interview[1] with Radio France, where he states that Hibari is "a transgender character". Given that in the story itself, she expressed a desire to be referred to as a daughter, and that she presents herself as a woman, I think we should proceed with she/her pronouns for Hibari. 76.115.59.55 (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
If the author has changed their mind or made different statements, we must reflect this in the article with context. We cannot deny the creators' opinion just because we don't like it or we criticize it. For example, I think Ishiwatari was blatantly lying when he said that Bridget was always intended to be a trans girl, because anyone can find old interviews of him on the internet where he says that the character's concept was "a boy cute like a girl". But I obviously can't use that to delete the current status quo or write about it in articles. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
UPD. I checked the text you linked to. He's doesn't say that Hibari is transgender, but rather that it is used for humor and that he wouldn't be able to repeat it in a modern work. So if the statement that Hibari is a boy was made later, it makes sense, since he himself finds it problematic to use genderqueeness as a comic element. Also, given the question of "why did you decide to write a transgender character", I'm not even sure we understand the context correctly. It's probably similar to Reki Kawahara calling strong female characters "politically correct" because in Japan that word is used as a synonym for "woke" and Western fans convinced him that it was a good thing. Perhaps someone should ask the author on Twitter again to get a definitive, up-to-date answer. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Bridget's gender was reframed in a new official product, though. I'm not sure if we should really be changing our entire framing of the nature of a work based on informal comments made by the author decades after the fact. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Bridget's gender was a full-blown retcon that also created a plot hole in their original character arc, while the writer stated that this was always the original intention. But back to the topic, Author explicitly stated this in a response to a fan question on his official media. We cannot selectively choose only those statements of the author that we like. If the author has made different and perhaps contradictory statements, we must reflect this. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
@Solaire the knight, i'm sure you agree that while the author's sentiment must be reflected in the article, it mustn't be taken as the definitive version. ideally we should look at the preponderance of both pronouns in reliable sources and see if there is consensus or contestation. if there is consensus for male pronouns than that seems straightforward, for female pronouns then we may add a note displaying the author's disagreement with this consensus; if there's no consensus then perhaps the best solution would be to use gender neutral pronouns with further explanation in the body. is this a solution that seems reasonable?--Plifal (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
I am against privileging secondary sources over the author themselves, as it creates a lot of room for abuse. Especially considering that we are talking about fiction, where secondary sources can often read things completely differently than intended or even wishful thinking. Especially in things like shipping or interpretation of character identity. For example, I have often seen quite authoritative sources write "the author denies it, but of course we know!". It would also contradict other discussions where we decided that in a debate about character identity and relationships, the only thing more important than the author is the direct text of the article. Of course, ambiguous and non obvious situations are always a separate conversation, but when we have clear comments from the author, we cannot ignore it or try to use consensus as a quasi-"Death of the Author". In this case, if the author's opinion has changed, while the official translation adheres to a separate position, we must mention this separately. Not to mention the cultural difference and all the consequences that come with it. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
@Solaire the knight, do you mind linking some of these discussions where the author's viewpoint is given primacy concerning character identity in contravention of a consensus among secondary literature? please may you point to any policy guidelines you have in mind? whatever cultural differences exist (past and present) i'm not certain that's a sufficient argument to make without strong evidence to suggest the positive claim. what sort of abuse did you have in mind?--Plifal (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Consensus still needs to be shown. Simply showing the prevalence of an opinion does not mean demonstrating consensus. We are not talking about scientific theories. Secondly, I also referred to writing articles about anime or including anime characters in various lists. Because you can very easily find a situation where an anime talks about friendship, the author himself describes the characters as friends, but many sources (especially Western ones like ANN or Anime Feminist) declare the characters to be "an obvious gay lovers". Trying to put secondary sources above the authors would clearly open the door to such abuses, especially given how many Western authors describe their headcanons as fact. We are literally discussing right now one of those cases where the interpretations of Western authors are put above the opinion of the original Japanese author. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
as it stands i was agnostic on this issue when i returned to this discussion thread yesterday, i was just trying to come to some understanding on how to proceed concerning the evidence available to us. my findings lead me to disagree with your reasoning even as my research into this topic (using reliable, scholarly sources i.e. not ann or animefeminist blog posts) has led to the conclusion that the current arrangement of excluding the use of pronouns is probably best. demonstrating that opinion is widely held does indicate consensus, there just isn't any yet on this topic. there is no consistent practice that i'm aware of on the english wikipedia for handling fictional gender identification please. for commentary please see below:
「二作目が「ストップ！ひばりくん！」という、あの男の子なだけど、女の子の格好をしている子が主人公の漫画を描いたんですけど。」("I drew my second manga, Stop!! Hibari-kun!, whose main character is a boy who dresses as a girl.")
"Hibari, who enjoys his successful impersonation of a girl, [...] "
"Although not a beautiful fighting girl work, the hero is a beautiful gay boy who might as well be a girl. This work, which achieves a dizzying reality by contrasting a girlish exterior with a male interior, [...] "
"Notably, however, while it does provide a character who self conceives as a woman, and is widely perceived as a woman, it does not provide a character who can convince people who know her secret that she is a woman."
"Compared to sho-jo manga, shonen and seinen manga convey stronger examples of the advocacy, acceptance, and empowerment of transgender identities in their narratives. Early and contemporary examples have also used fantasy and fictional settings such as Stop! Hibari-Kun! (Eguchi [1981–1983] 1982–1984)" -- also later cites Lewicki's above analysis.
"Cross-dressing can be seen in manga targeting men and women. [...] An often-created drama is a pseudo-heterosexual romance between the cross-dresser and a main male character (e.g., Stop! Hibari-kun!, 1983–1985)."
what i gather from this cross-section is that the self-identification of the character in the story and its author's identification of hibari are disparate. recent scholarship and close analyses are moving away from referring to hibari as a crossdressing boy, and are instead identifying the genre with a form of greater gender-fluidity than is understood in earlier (Japanese) scholarship. even tanaka (2020) is less resolute about hibari's self-identity. scholarship is too underdeveloped to use female pronouns in wikivoice.
-----
Eguchi, Hisashi (1 October 2017). "Hisashi Eguchi, Mangaka (Stop!! Hibari-kun!) - toco toco". YouTube. Archipel.  Event occurs at 7:40.
Etherington, Tara (2024). "Manga as Trans Literature". In Vakoch, Douglas A.; Sharp, Sabine (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Trans Literature. New York: Taylor and Francis. doi:10.4324/9781003365938. ISBN 978-1-032-43155-0.
Fujimoto, Yukari (2004). "Transgender: Female Hermaphrodites and Male Androgynes". U.S.-Japan Women's Journal (27). Translated by Linda Flores, Kazumi Nagaike and Sharalyn Orbaugh. University of Hawai'i Press. JSTOR 42771920.
Lewicki, Riley Hannah (2022). "Prefiguring the Otokonoko Genre: A Comparative Trans Analysis of Stop!! Hibari-Kun! and No Bra". The Journal of Anime and Manga Studies. 3: 62–84. doi:10.21900/j.jams.v3.868. ISSN 2689-2596.
Saitō, Tamaki (March 16, 2011). "A Genealogy of the Beautiful Fighting Girl". Beautiful Fighting Girl. Translated by Vincent, J. Keith; Lawson, Dawn. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-5450-5.
Tanaka, Hiromi (July 2020). "Japanese Manga". The International Encyclopedia of Gender, Media, and Communication. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781119429128.iegmc161.
--Plifal (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC) Plifal (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
These sites aren't blogs, they're what people will use 90% of the time in articles about anime. And considering the authors of these sites, prioritizing secondary sources over original ones would simply lead to us having their headcanons published in half of our articles. What you call consensus is actually the "dominant view" (and among authors of a certain worldview, since as I understand it, you were deliberately looking for works on trans reading). I don't see a problem with describing this as research and analysis, but analysis of the work and the original author's intentions are two different things. For example, despite Tolkien's vehement denial, it is common to read LOTR as a metaphor for World War II. Should we, by that logic, write outright that LOTR is a metaphor for war because "there is a consensus in the scholarly literature"? In any case, even if we close our eyes to the obvious things about the fact that the character's thinking does not necessarily have to coincide with the author's (a striking example is American Psycho), as I said above, non-obvious and ambiguous cases are a separate conversation. I do not demand that the article be rewritten to include any male pronouns, but I am against the author's opinion being completely ignored and not described just because someone thought the opinion of secondary sources was more "correct" and important. This should at least be described within some section on the creation of the title and its ideas. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
frankly i don't really understand why you're taking this tone with me. the posts i saw from ann and animefeminist were mostly opinion pieces, i'm not denigrating the sites in general, only to the specific pages on stop!! hibari-kun! that i saw. nor did i ever say the author's opinion should be ignored, in fact i said the opposite: "the author's sentiment must be reflected in the article". metaphors =/= character self-identity.
please retract this statement: "you were deliberately looking for works on trans reading", it is an accusation not borne out by my words or actions.--Plifal (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Until Death of the Author becomes a Wikipedia rule, only the author himself can be responsible for the lore of his works, not secondary analysis. That's why I mentioned the situation with finding metaphors in LOTR. That wasn't an "accusation", it was a simple comment about how most of the sources you cited were specifically focused on trans reading. But again, are we here to discuss each other or the article? That's all we've been doing for the last couple of days. But if you also agree that the author's opinion should be reflected in the article, and we both agree that categoricalness should be avoided in non-obvious cases, then what other questions could there be? Solaire the knight (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
@Solaire the knight, the issue is about whether the character in the story (as defined by the story) has an identity that is incongruent with the author's perspective. hence why secondary sources may be necessary to understand and interpret this fact. this method is used when, e.g. discussing documentaries and reference works on wikipedia. (edit: that is why i asked earlier if you could link any prior discussions concerning similar cases, which i am still open to receiving in order to further my understanding of existing precedence.--Plifal (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)) as i said earlier, i agree with your outcome but not your method.
"you were deliberately looking for works on trans reading" contains a nuance in english that implies that my action was agenda-pushing for one particular side of the argument when that is emphatically not true. it implies an intent that does not exist, and i do not believe it can be found in my action above. so i am asking, kindly, for you to please retract it.--Plifal (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
This character was entirely invented and written by the author, so I don't think anyone else can define it instead of him. As I said, Death of the Author is not yet a Wikipedia rule. At the same time, we can very well describe the fact of different interpretations, analyses and readings, but without crossing the line between interpretation and stated fact. I think this is pretty obvious and doesn't need such a long and passionate discussion. Naturally, we do not write about Thelma & Louise as a lesbian film, despite the fact that such a reading is common and often ignores Oliver Stone's comments about the bonds of the heroines. I apologize in advance if my words could leave such an impression, I rather meant that you cited sources of the same type that will obviously follow the same narrative, which can hardly be called "consensus". I have never met you outside of this dialogue and even more so I cannot accuse you of any intentions. Besides, it would be a violation of the rules. Either way, if we truly agree on how the article should be developed, I see no point in continuing this discussion. Because this is simply not the forum for discussing our views on literary criticism. You can leave your opinion or continue this here - [2]. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
i have responded to your comment on the page. i don't think our disagreement is that large, and likewise i apologise if anything i said came across as uncivil. i accept your apology but i still ask you to retract your comment since you have re-stated its meaning in this response; i think if you re-read the overview i did you will find that i came to the conclusion that there is no consensus, because the sources have different things to say on the matter (i.e. not necessarily pro-trans readings of hibari's character).--Plifal (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I thought I had retracted my words by clarifying them, but just in case I crossed out the disputed words in my comment. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
thank you kindly :)
--Plifal (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stop!! Hibari-kun!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 01:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Juhachi: Just a short comment before anything else: no separate section regarding the manga and anime's development? Almost all, if not all of our Good Articles on anime and manga have at least a short section on development and releases; right now, the development is limited to the manga section. Otherwise, the article is well-written (as expected of your work), and given the series' age, the depth of sources is respectable. This is almost a pass, I just need some feedback regarding my comments. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The development of the manga is incorporated in the manga section because I felt it would be better all together with the release info. This is not unlike recent GAs like No Game No Life and The Irregular at Magic High School which incorporate the development of the primary media together with the release info (notice how I also adopted the formatting of the characters from those articles, too). Also, considering its age, there was very little I could find related to the anime beyond the staff and a couple of DVD releases; I think one of the sources in reception touched on the anime within the source, but all the rest only talked about the manga. If any development info for the anime ever existed (like why did a series like this even get an anime in the first place, which I would personally like to know), it was probably in magazines published back in the 80s, long lost to time.--十八 03:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Juhachi: I see. This reminds me of the GAN that The Princess in the Birdcage Kingdom had, where no sources could be found for development and release, and thus I regretfully had to fail it. But this time, you were able to address the issue of sourcing, so I am pleased to inform you that this GAN is a pass. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)