Boys Run the Riot

[Nami]

@kinokuri Whether or not it's legitimately crossdressing or transgender, they don't have (and refuse to have) appropriate tags to easily search for the latter. Not even an umbrella tag like "Gender Bender" used to be. So it's better this way than having no tag. Don't take it as some kind of statement or offense.

 

[Zeythra]

@ AverageDudeWithAveragePenis

I mean, socially? Yeah of course if you put work into it. Like try to look like a woman, act like a woman. Then yeah trans women can be women.

Thank god that we at least don`t have to debate this.

Biologically? Not so much. Your genetics will forever be your assigned gender at birth.

Why? Sex is more than just genes. What about your hormonal status? What about your anatomy? There are people with female bodies but XY genes. What about them?
And again, I don`t know where you are pulling this from. I have never heard that biology only cares about genes and ignores everything else. Actually, every country I know doesn`t do a genetical test to determine the sex of a newborn. They just look at their physis.

 

[YourFavoriteBarista]

Transphobes can shut the fuck up and aren't worth arguing with because their position isn't valid in the first place.

 

[AverageDudeWithAveragePenis]

@Zeythra

Hormonal more has to do with appearance more than genetics. Your body changes but your biological make up is male. There's nothing you can do about it I'm afraid.

You have to also understand we are more than our looks. Genetics tell our future, help cure patients, and many other things in the scientific community. When you said scientist confirmed trans women are women, you should be skeptical of their practices.

And yeah identifying as female means you want to present as female. But lately there seems to be an influx of "trans" identifying individuals who put no to little effort into their self identity.

You also gotta realize there are limitations within everyone. And not everyone has the money to afford plastic surgery.

By the way,
Anything I say that to these people in the comments they don't like, I'm considered a "transphobe" despite no malicious intent behind it. So I tend to ignore them. Maybe they'll come around eventually and see the error in their ways.

 

[Zeythra]

@AverageDudeWithAveragePenis

Hormonal more has to do with appearance more than genetics. Your body changes but your biological make up is male

But this is the point I am trying to make here. That your anatomy is part of what makes up sex. And what the hell is "biological make up" supposed to be if it isn`t your body?

You have to also understand we are more than our looks.

We are also more than just genes.

Genetics tell our future, help cure patients, and many other things in the scientific community.

And what does that have to do with sex? You`re overestimating the influence of dna on your body. The dna is only the Blueprint for the human body. Whether the body will follow it is - at least in the case of your anatomical sex - decided by the hormones. Okay, analogy time: Imagine you have a blueprint of a tank, but through various comedic missteps you end up building a car. Now the question: Would you call that thing that looks like a car a tank, cause the blueprint says it`s a tank? I wouldn`t. So why should I call a person who has the anatomy of a woman a man, just because the blueprint says so?

When you said scientist confirmed trans women are women, you should be skeptical of their practices.

Why? Because it doesn`t fit your views? Thank you, but I can think for myself. And I am way more sceptical about you than I am about actual scientists. You come here, state your opinion and claim your opinion is a fact with no arguments. Very scientific. Oh wait, sorry. You did make an argument: Genes are important. And your outside anatomy isn`t? Sorry, but genetics is only a subdivision of biology and therefore I will treat genetical sex as such: As a subdivision of sex. If you have a problem with that, please give me a solid reason why I`m wrong.
And as I said: If genes are decided by the genes, then why do doctors all over the world determine a child`s sex by looking at their physis? Why doesn`t everybody do a genetical test?

And yeah identifying as female means you want to present as female. But lately there seems to be an influx of "trans" identifying individuals who put no to little effort into their self identity.

Oh man, this is hilarious. Why? Cause gender identity is basically the same as genes as it decides your outside appearance (on a cultural level, of course). Now, regarding genes you say: "Screw outside appearance! The only deciding factor are genes!"
But regarding gender identity you say: "It`s not enough that you identify as female/male. You have to show it with your outside appearance!" Notice something? You`re contradicting yourself with your views.

You also gotta realize there are limitations within everyone. And not everyone has the money to afford plastic surgery.

Uhm....Thanks for the advice? I don`t know where I said something that would suggest otherwise.

 

[kinokuri]

@Nami
Well, its kinda hard to not take offense, as its literally calling a male that dresses like a male a crossdresser. However, i perfectly understand what you're trying to say. But, I still don't get what downside there is to just removing the crossdressing tag, as it just simply does not belong to the type of content the GenderSwap or Crossdressing tag provides. Im not trying to attack you or anything, just pointing something out. Wanna be friends?

 

[Nami]

@kinokuri The harm only comes from it then not being able to be easily found by those who would like to find it. Neither "Crossdressing" or "Gender Swap" fit what is going on in the manga, but it's still gender related and those two tags are the best that those who run MangaDex are willing to give us. I'd rather the tag be kind of wrong and the manga still have visibility here than vice versa.

 

[closetedprin]

I love this manga, I can relate to it very much and I cried to chapter 1 easily, the main character reminds me of myself and I hope this gets updated and not ghosted, if 2 chapters made me cry and want more imagine the chapters in the future. Also author don't listen to these transphobs/homophobes this is beautiful and it's literally my top manga rn, and probably will be forever even if you don't update it.

 

[SuperOniichan]

Please don’t just say that this is another “trans” manga that is simply trying to sell the androgynous character as a hyped LGBTQ representation. There have been so many titles lately that just use feminism and the LGBTQ agenda to cover fetish stories that I'm just tired.

 

[Lemonbird]

does it count as crossdressing if a trans man is being made to dress as a girl? why are we here if just to suffer?

 

[Pokari]

...I look forward to the days when legitimately transgendered characters are common enough that a manga featuring one as the protagonist doesn't have to have a flame war in the comments.

Also, Mangadex really does need to overhaul its tags. _{Though honestly I'm a little concerned because Mangadex admin culture has been known to pull more towards, well, that which is on the Mangadex Discord, which is more of a... a strong male weebish-geek culture than the rest of the site, with some of the blind-spots thereof.}

 

[tacotiiger]

@Pokari
while your comment is definitely well intentioned, please try to avoid using “transgendered” when refering to trans characters!!! the use of “transgendered” implies that being trans is an action you do rather than… an actual identity you are

 

[Pokari]

@tacotiiger:

^{Warning: I haven't been introduced to this particular notion of political correctness before, so you're getting my reaction at first blush and it's possible I'm missing something. Which is not to say I haven't thought it through before posting, for better or for worse.}

I respectfully disagree with that grammatical analysis. "Blond-haired" doesn't mean someone who did "the action of blonde hair", or even someone who dyed their hair blond.

Or rather, I can see the argument—that "transgendered" is an odd grammatical construction because it implies "transgender" is either a noun or a verb, when it's neither. But that's a misconstruction: The noun here isn't "transgender" but just "gender" (even if the hyphen is no longer linguistically present, as it is in "blond-haired"; "trans" here is thereby also implied to be an adjective, as it is, not a verb).

Furthermore, a lot of the obvious cultural analogues to me are also "noun-ed"s (e.g. the once-upon-a-time politically-correct "coloured" for people of colour). I can see that there's a counterpoint in "disabled", but the precedent certainly isn't that these are all "verb-ed" adjectives.

But, furthermore, going back to "blonde" and "blonde-haired": To the extent that they're not just interchangeable (and in practice I would usually use them interchangeably without much thought), the former subtly implies to me moreso that the adjective is a defining characteristic of the person in question. All other things held equal, I tend to lean away from defining people by their characteristics where possible; a "blonde-haired" person instead of a "blonde" person, "Jewish people" instead of "Jews". I'm not saying it matters a huge amount, especially in the more subtle cases, just that that is a reason I tend to lean a bit in the more-indirect direction with adjectives. The logic being roughly: A transgender person is not defined by the fact that they are transgender.

_{I suppose I also believe that anyone who is inclined to think nasty thoughts about a particular group of people is not going to be persuaded by the finer details of language anyway. If anything, it's at most useful as a sort of poker-tell on who is or isn't bigoted. But in this case, I also find the posited grammatical underpinning of the argument to be fundamentally wrong.}

Edit: As a side note, while we're talking about grammar, I think "transgender person" also feels a bit tortured to me as an adjective; like having "blondhair person" become a thing. The un-"noun-ed" version should normally be just "trans". But, to be clear, I'm not actually saying transgender is in any way a bad or incorrect word on those grounds, just explaining a possible aspect of my personal aversion; English has boatloads of other nominally-misconstructed words and so the real-world usage speaks for itself for linguistic legitimacy.

 

[Winzent]

This dead?

 

[miercoles]

i think this is dead but i came back to check anyway... rip

but also @Pokari not to be a sore, but the proper term is just 'transgender'. If you just google 'transgendered or transgender' there's a whole bunch of articles and reasons why.

 

[Pokari]

@miercoles:

Respectfully, when I google it what I get out of it is mostly that A) "transgendered" should never be used as a noun (e.g. "a transgendered" to refer to a transgender person, which seems fairly clearly offensive for reasons I don't think we need to discuss), and that B) "transgendered" as an adjective is a bit dated (Though not that dated, because used to just be "transsexual" when I was a kid, at least to the extent that that means the same thing, which not everyone agrees on. ...ugh, I swear I feel old all the time these days).

Oh, and to be clear, a lot of instances of the fallacious grammatical reasoning from earlier. That does seem to be a popular thing for some reason.

Edit: To be clear: I'm aware that at a certain point, if that bad grammar-reasoning is prevalent enough (as it seems perhaps it is), the term should perhaps be avoided, as there's no reason to upset people unduly, on a potentially sensitive topic, over a problem of the correctness of grammatical constructions. But for reasons why "transgendered" should be problematic as an adjective, if there's something I didn't cover in my previous post, I'm not seeing it. I frankly find it rather baffling.

Edit-Edit: Since I guess I didn't make it it clear with all the weasel-words above, I probably am changing my usage habits after this discussion, for what that's worth. Or rather I think I did after the first time 'round. I haven't totally lost sight of the bigger picture here. I'm just a pedant and frustrated by... what seems to me to be young, poorly educated kids getting their linguistics wrong. DEAR GOD WHEN DID I BECOME OLD. Ugh. I don't even.

 

[miercoles]

@Pokari I’m actually a grown woman involved with LGBT issues but thanks

 

[Pokari]

@miercoles:

Um. You should not take my self-deprecating humour about my growing old and "kids these days" as an actual accusation of naiveté.

It is possible my tone was not conveyed well. (Not saying I was my best self in these posts, far from it—on better days I would know better than to air my frustrations over specific shifts in nomenclature, in the midst of a sensitive issue—but I can at least say with certainty that any sarcastic remarks about my 'old age' were certainly not intended as a compliment to myself, and also certainly not to belittle anyone with whom I am presently conversing.)

Rather, they were more intended to humorously depict my despair as I slowly realize as I get older (and I am yet not actually old), that I will not be immune—as I would have assumed in my youth—from time marching on mercilessly past me faster and faster as I end up absorbing the newer precepts of society more and more slowly.

 

[tacotiiger]

hope you’re doing well, barista! :[

 

[devilledgreggs]

kinda sad this hasnt been translated further hope you're ok barista!