Talk:List of fictional non-binary characters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removal of entries

Recently, @User:Tomorrow and tomorrow removed entries for 19 characters from this page, stating that their removals complied "with inclusion criteria" and argued that "characters where source did not describe as NB (Source saying they/they pronouns does not count as them being NB)" were removed. In another edit, it was claimed that "a non-human genderless entity is not NB regardless of pronouns used to refer to it." I reversed both edits here and here. My edits were reversed with the claims that "being bold isn't a reason to revert an edit, we literally have a guideline encouraging it," that their edits were "enacting an already in place inclusion criteria" and stating I needed to get "consensus for inclusion." Another reversal claimed that it was "unclear if you object to the edits" or if I "didn't realise WP:Be Bold was a thing." I DO realize that Be Bold is a guideline, but the user conveniently ignored this part of the guideline: "if you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page." I would argue that this page falls under the "controversial subject" description, as there is a lot of contention about what entries should and shouldn't be added to this page.

The question remains: should the following entries be included in this page? I would argue YES and would argue that some (if not all) meet the inclusion criteria:

Determining whether a character is non-binary: Characters are considered non-binary when either a reliable source identifies them as such, or it is confirmed explicitly by the character's creator(s). Do not include characters that belong to a genderless species or class of beings, for example, robots. Determining whether a character is eligible: A character is eligible for this list if the character or work they appear in is notable, specifically if the character is a main or recurring character. This is meant to keep the list meaningful and useful.

The addition, but related, question is if the inclusion criteria should be pdated. I've pushed to improve/update it in the past, but I'd be fine with changing it again.

Here are the entries in contention:

Anime and animation

Character	Show title	Portrayed by	Identity	Duration	Notes
Acid Storm	Transformers: Cyberverse	Jaime Lamchick	Genderfluid	2018–2021	Acid Storm is a Seeker and member of the Decepticons. While initially conceived as male, in the series itself, despite Acid Storm having a female voice actress, the character has often switched back and forth between "male" and "female" Seeker models in episodes 14, 15, 16, and 17. Commenting on this, writer Mae Catt stated that the difference was "just something Acid Storm likes to do."
Bastion	The Last Bastion	Chris Metzen	Agender	2016	A robot in the Overwatch franchise, Bastion was originally developed by Blizzard Entertainment as "agender", with the development team using "it" pronouns for the character. This pronoun was used up until the release of Overwatch 2, when Blizzard switched to he/him pronouns for Bastion on their official website listing for the character.
Courtney	Dead End: Paranormal Park	Emily Osment	Non-binary	2022	Series creator Hamish Steele said that Courtney is not "aware of gender in any way" and cannot be misgendered, noting that all pronouns were used in production. He added that he uses they/them for Courtney, but that Netflix persuaded them to use the pronouns of the person cast for Courtney's voice role (Emily Osment), which are she/her.
Korvo	Solar Opposites	Justin Roiland	Genderless	2020–present	Korvo is an intelligent alien scientist who hates Earth and wants to leave as soon as possible, while Terry is his evacuation partner. In March 2021, series creators Justin Roiland and Mike McMahan confirmed that both are a romantic couple in a committed relationship. Roiland also described Korvo and Terry as genderless aliens which asexually reproduce but are not asexual.
Terry	Solar Opposites	Thomas Middleditch	Genderless	2020–present	Terry is a Pupa specialist fascinated with human culture and the evacuation partner of Korvo. In March 2021, series creators Justin Roiland and Mike McMahan confirmed that both are a romantic couple in a committed relationship. Roiland also described Korvo and Terry as genderless aliens which asexually reproduce but are not asexual.

Books, print comics, and manga

Character	Title	Author	Identity	Year	Notes
Aziraphale	Good Omens	Terry Pratchett Neil Gaiman	Non-binary	1990	The book mentions that Aziraphale is perceived as a gay man and that this is incorrect because angels are sexless. Neil Gaiman specified that this meant that he has no gender identity, despite pretending to be a human male most times.
Desire	The Sandman	Neil Gaiman	Genderfluid	1989–2015	Desire is the personification of desire itself. Desire is both male and female, because the character represents everything someone might desire. Desire is called "sister-brother" or "sibling" by their siblings and "uncle-aunt" by their nephew Orpheus.
The Sibling	Rhythm of War, fourth volume of The Stormlight Archive	Brandon Sanderson	Ambiguous	2020	The powerful spren, or magic spirit, that suffuses and powers the tower-city of Urithiru. Unlike most sapient spren on the world of Roshar, the Sibling does not view themselves as male or female, and characters refer to it with they/them pronouns. Their voice is described as having an ambiguous tone which fits neither gender.

Live-action television

Character	Show title	Portrayed by	Identity	Year	Notes
Aziraphale	Good Omens	Michael Sheen	Non-binary	2019	In the show's context, book co-author and series writer Neil Gaiman considers all angels and demons to be non-binary, and cast all such roles gender-blind.
Crowley	Good Omens	David Tennant	Non-binary	2019	In the show's context, book co-author and series writer Neil Gaiman considers all angels and demons to be non-binary, and cast all such roles gender-blind. The demon Crowley, specifically, is shown to change gender presentations over time.
Janet	The Good Place	D'Arcy Carden	Genderless	2016–2020	A non-human, genderless entity who uses she/her pronouns. Janet corrects other characters who attempt to gender her by saying she is "not a girl".

Video games

Character	Game	Voice actor	Identity	Year	Notes
Quina Quen	Final Fantasy IX	—	Agender	2000	In a genderless race called the Qu. Also uses she/he pronouns throughout the game.
WX-78	Don't Starve	—	Non-binary	2013–present	A former human who transferred their mind into a robot. Referred to by they/them pronouns in-game in both Don't Starve and Don't Starve Together, as well as in official materials for the latter; before 2015, WX-78 was referred to by it/its pronouns.

Webcomics

Character	Title	Author	Identity	Year	Notes
Caliban	Aurora	Red	Non-binary	2019–present	The Ignan god Caliban uses he/him, she/her, and they/them pronouns.
Life	Aurora	Red	Non-binary	2019–present	The primordial elemental entity Life uses she/her and they/them pronouns.
Void Dragon	Aurora	Red	Non-binary	2019–present	The primordial entity known as the Void Dragon uses he/him and they/them pronouns.

Other

Character	Title	Author	Identity	Year	Notes
Murph	Nerf	Nerf, The Martin Agency	Non-binary	2022	The mascot of the Nerf toy weaponry company, with a body composed entirely of foam darts, uses they/them pronouns.
Nine	17776	Jon Bois	Non-binary	2017	A fictional depiction of the Pioneer 9 space probe. Bois also considered including a non-binary human character, but was unable to do so "completely matter-of-factly".
Tala	Hertfordshire Public Library system	Emma Phillips and Eva Povey	Non-binary	2022	A "bright, vibrant" alien who is referred to with they/them pronouns and serves as the new mascot of the Hertfordshire library system, replacing Bookstart Bear.

Considering your previous comments in previous related discussions, @Crossroads, @Nosferattus, @Bilorv, @Aykhot, @Eldomtom2, @Solaire the knight your comments here would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinions on most of these characters, though things like referring to Bastion as "agender" in quotation marks when the devs haven't used that term is definitely dubious. A core problem with this page that I see is that its focus is far too indiscriminate - we can hardly list every fictional non-binary character.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps. I don't have strong opinions on most of these characters either. And surely, the focus can be broad, but I do think there has been good progress in the "RFC about inclusion of Loki (MCU)" (2021-2022), "Scope" (2022), "Removing Chara, Frisk, and Kris" (2022-2023), and "Removal of Oscar, whose androgyny is misinterpreted as non-binary" (2023) discussions, which has resulted in a narrower scope than before. I think there should balance between being somewhat broad while making it clear we can't list every fictional non-binary character, as you rightly point out. Historyday01 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I favor removing robots and things like "primordial entities", basically anything that is anthropomorphized rather than anthropomorphic. Does that make sense? This list is going to get extremely long in the coming years, so it makes sense for us to narrow its scope and keep it focused on human (or nearly-human) characters, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That's fair and makes sense. Korvo and Terry are aliens, as is Tala. Acid Storm is a robot (a Decepticon) as is Bastion and WX-78 . Life and Void Dragon in Aurora are primordial entities. I think Nine in 17776 is a robot. Not really sure about Murph (sort of an alien? in any case, not human). Quina Quen would fall under us not including "genderless species or class of beings." Aziraphale and Crowley are gods, Janet is a genderless entity, as is The Sibling, Desire, Aziraphale (another version).

I believe the only one which may qualify under what you are proposing is Courtney in Dead End, who MAY have humanish characteristics.

Would you support this changed inclusion criteria? I streamlined it a bit, and I wanted to make it more clear, so there is no confusion in the future:

Determining whether a character is non-binary: Characters are considered non-binary, genderqueer, or any of terms under the non-binary umbrella (including agender, bigender, trigender, pangender, demigender, xenogender, or two-spirit) when either a reliable source identifies them as such, or it is confirmed explicitly by the character's creator(s).

Determining whether a character is eligible: A character is eligible for this list if the character or work they appear in is notable, specifically if the character is a main or recurring character. This is meant to keep the list meaningful and useful. Do not include characters that belong to a genderless species or class of beings, for example, robots, or are primordial entities. Only include characters with anthropomorphic qualities (i.e. human or nearly human characters), not those which are anthropomorphized.

Historyday01 (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Update: I am rethinking the above proposal and will purpose a new one later, as I note in a below comment.Historyday01 (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue with this is that a robot/nonhuman entity's baseline gender, especially those entities shared between works, is typically dependent on the work that they're from - angels might be nonbinary by default in the Good Omens universe, for example, but not so in the Ultrakill universe, or the Supernatural universe, etc. This can even apply to individual characters or entities, especially those in the public domain or those that have multiple conflicting adaptations - Nyarlathotep, for example, might be treated as male in one work, genderfluid in another, and genderless in a third. Excluding broad categories of nonhuman entities, especially ones whose baseline gender expression varies from work to work, seems overly strict to me, and ignores the fact that in many (indeed, most) cases nonhuman entities can have a binary gender identity (to use an example from the deleted characters, Caliban from Aurora is a nonbinary deity, but they coexist with numerous other deities that appear to have binary genders, such as Vash, Tahraim, Gleicann, Lady Ilia, Tynan, and Zuurith; for another example, elves from The Order of the Stick have different cultural views on gender than humans, as exemplified by the character Vaarsuvius being considered genderqueer by the author despite not viewing themselves as such, but there are still elf characters with binary genders, such as Lirian, Veldrina, and Zz'dtri). Additionally, a category of nonhuman entities being nonbinary by default does not necessarily mean that they cannot have a gender identity distinct from their category's baseline, and "nonbinary by default" does not necessarily mean "monogendered by default"; ghosts from Undertale, for example, are treated as nonbinary by default but can apparently experience dysphoria and transition to a binary gender (Napstablook, "Hapstablook", and Mad Dummy are all referred to neutrally, but when the latter two become Mettaton and Mad Mew Mew respectively, they are consistently referred to with binary pronouns).

Since there's no real way to distinguish between an "individually nonbinary" nonhuman and a "default nonbinary" nonhuman without having the context not only for their class of nonhumans but for the work they're from, and "nonbinary by default" isn't a clear criterion anyways (does a species with more than two sexes, like the five-sexed Tralfamadorians from Slaughterhouse-Five, count? One that has binary genders or sexes but that switches between them, like the inhabitants of Gethen in The Left Hand of Darkness? One that universally accepts nonbinary gender identities, like witches in The Owl House?), I would err on the less strict side and include nonhuman beings, although I agree that it would make sense to differentiate nonbinary classes of being from individual characters somehow. Is there a way to create sub-subcategories, so that each medium's subsection could have a "nonhuman" section beneath the main section (so the live-action TV section might have a "humanoid" section that includes Jim Jimenez from Our Flag Means Death followed by a "non-humanoid" section that includes Crowley, Aziraphale, Beelzebub, and other angels/demons from Good Omens, for example)? This would probably need a bit more refinement before actual implementation, as well as a working definition as to what exactly constitutes non-humanoid nonbinary, but I think it would solve some of the debates about whether certain characters qualify, and it seems simpler than just creating a separate article, which would probably result in even more confusion. Aykhot (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with proposal to Only include characters with anthropomorphic qualities (i.e. human or nearly human characters), not those which are anthropomorphized, which I think would support almost all the removals above. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That's... the opposite of what I said, but since you're the one who made the removals to begin with, I'm not surprised. Do you have a reason for not including nonhumanoid characters? Aykhot (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, I am rethinking the proposal (I have withdrawn it, for now) based on your comment, and will reply more in detail later. I didn't expect there would be two diametrically opposed views and was perhaps too hasty with the proposal. I'll propose a new one tomorrow. Historyday01 (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aykhot sorry, I agreeing with @Historyday01's original proposal, I realise that wasn't what you said. I was using the reply tool and that sometimes doesn't put responses in the most logical spot.

Though in response to Do you have a reason for not including nonhumanoid characters? yes, because otherwise I think we go down the path of including a whole range of nonhuman entities on the basis that "they don't have a gender therefore they are NB" when infact they don't have a gender because they are a robot/angel/god/dragon/alien/anthropomorphized version of the Pioneer 9 space probe. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

While I can understand that reasoning, as I've argued before (in the "Scope" section of this page), any nonhuman character will be interpreted from a human perspective due to the fact that only humans are creating or interpreting them, and as a result of this characters that might be "cisgender" for their species might still be considered nonbinary by their creators, by associated or derivative works, by other characters in the same work, or by the people who consume that work (see Neil Gaiman labeling angels in the Good Omens show as nonbinary, for example). Additionally, a lot of nonbinary characters, particularly in older works, are nonhuman precisely because having a nonbinary human would have been labelled as unbelievable or pandering, and in a lot of cases "these beings don't work the same as humans" is a justification for representation via proxy when it might not be safe or profitable to represent actual nonbinary human beings (alternatively, a nonbinary character might be nonhuman because of authorial bigotry, or their non-humanity might be unrelated to their being nonbinary). If we don't include nonhuman characters, this can result in a situation where being explicitly labeled as nonbinary by the creator is still not enough to warrant inclusion, which is unnecessarily confusing and seems to directly contradict previously established guidelines. Aykhot (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

That would be a problem. And its why I am planning on posting new possible guidelines for consideration on here either today or tomorrow (whenever I have time). Historyday01 (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aykhot do you have source for a lot of nonbinary characters, particularly in older works, are nonhuman precisely because having a nonbinary human would have been labelled as unbelievable or pandering, and in a lot of cases "these beings don't work the same as humans" is a justification for representation via proxy when it might not be safe or profitable to represent actual nonbinary human beings? or this: a nonbinary character might be nonhuman because of authorial bigotry?

Furthermore, even if this is true it doesn't have an impact on whether they should be included. Our purpose on Wikipedia is not to take a broad (arguably inaccurate) view of nonbinaryness in order to create "representation", it is to document what reliable factual sources say, and a tweet saying that an entire class/species in a fictional work is genderless does not mean that each individual can be listed as a "Non-binary character". That is what the vast majority of these removals were about. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Some sources commenting on the ubiquity of the trope:

[1]https://parasomniac.home.blog/2021/06/09/why-are-so-many-non-binary-characters-not-human/

[2]https://theafictionado.wordpress.com/2023/01/26/otherworldly-bodies-non-human-non-binary-characters-in-ya-fiction/

[3]https://electricliterature.com/we-need-more-non-binary-characters-who-arent-aliens-robots-or-monsters/

[4]https://www.cbr.com/non-binary-alien-trope-problematic/

As for the second statement, "nonbinary" is already a broad term as it is, as this very article acknowledges in the description (and for that matter, "nonbinary" is literally just any gender identity that isn't exclusively man or woman; it literally means "not having a binary gender"). There isn't a way to take a "strict view" of nonbinariness, since it's an umbrella term defined against two very specific things and encompassing literally every gender identity that isn't either of those two things. And to address your claim that the "vast majority" of removals were due to the characters originating from a genderless species, let's take a look at the removed characters:

Acid Storm: Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species (Cybertronians have binary-gendered members and are not genderless, and in fact, the vast majority of known Cybertronians have a binary gender - see Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Megatron, etc).

Bastion: Agender robot, but not described as "genderless", unless we're using the terms equivalently (which, at least based on previous discussion, we're not).

Courtney: "Not aware of gender", but not a member of a genderless species (Danny, a fallen angel of the same class of angel as Courtney, is male, as is Fingers, an angel of a different type).

Korvo (and Terry): Explicitly described as genderless.

Aziraphale (book version): Explicitly described as genderless.

Desire: Not a member of a genderless species nor genderless themself, as they are genderfluid and have siblings with binary genders (Destiny, Dream, and Destruction are men, while Death, Delirium, and Despair are women).

The Sibling: Not a member of a genderless species, as it is unique or unusual among spren for not having a binary gender.

Aziraphale and Crowley (show versions): Explicitly described by the author as nonbinary (as opposed to the book versions, who are described as genderless).

Janet: Described as genderless, although I can't actually find the source for that; presumably it's in an episode of the actual show somewhere, but it's worth noting that she's referred to as nonbinary by other sources.

Quina Quen: Explicitly described as genderless.

WX-78: Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species, as they're originally human and essentially a very advanced cyborg rather than a true robot.

Caliban: Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species, as other gods in the setting have genders (Vash, Zuurith, Tynan, Ilia, Tahraim, Gleicann, etc).

Life (and the Void Dragon): Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species (as these two seem to have different genders from one another - it seems likely that all primordials are nonbinary, but each one is nonbinary in their own way that goes beyond mere genderlessness).

Murph: Never described as genderless (they are described as having "no set sex or gender", which is not the same as being genderless) and the only known representative of their species.

Nine: Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species (as Ten and Juice evidently have different genders and pronouns from both one another and from Nine).

Tala: Never described as genderless (they are described as "neither male nor female") and the only known representative of their species.

So of the 19 characters that were removed, 5 were described as genderless and 14 were never described as genderless (in fact, of those 14, 8 are explicitly from species with multiple genders), so clearly genderlessness is not what "the vast majority of these removals were about". Aykhot (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

"ghosts from Undertale, for example, are treated as nonbinary by default" - wrong. As stated by official sources, they are treated as having an "unstated" gender by default.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, the fact that their genders are clearly able to be inferred from the way their relatives address them (Napstablook is the most prominent example of this, but "Hapstablook"/pre-transition Mettaton, Mad Dummy/pre-transition Mad Mew Mew, and even the dummy in the Ruins are all characters whose genders are known to their cousins and thus inferable from the way said cousins address them) means that their genders are not unknown despite not being explicitly stated, and the facts that all known ghosts are addressed neutrally (barring Mettaton and Mad Mew Mew, but as noted they were both referred to neutrally pre-transition) and the two that transitioned specifically had to transition to either binary gender points towards their being some flavor of nonbinary by default. "Unstated" ≠ "unknown". Aykhot (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

When an official source discussing the translation of their pronouns only says that Napstablook has an "unstated" gender, treating they/them pronouns as proof of a character being nonbinary is OR.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

So if a character is never explicitly described as a woman but indicated in every other conceivable way to be one (feminine presentation, she/her pronouns, portrayed by a woman, the absence of any evidence indicating she's not a woman, etc), we can't treat this as proof of her being a woman according to this logic. The same goes for men - masculine presentation, he/him pronouns, portrayal by a man, and the absence of evidence to the contrary are all apparently not enough for a fictional character to be considered a man, he has to be specifically referred to as a man to count. You and I both know that's not how it works, and calling it "original research" when nonbinary characters are treated the same way is a double standard. Aykhot (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Again I have to repeat myself - the official book discussing the translation of Undertale discusses the translation of Napstablook's pronouns, and in doing so rather than saying Napstablook is non-binary says they have an "unstated" gender. Since unlike she/her pronouns and (nowadays) he/him pronouns, they/them pronouns are used in more contexts than just referring to non-binary people, this indicates that assuming Napstablook is canonically non-binary is incorrect.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

And again I must repeat myself - unstated ≠ unknown. The context in which Napstablook's pronouns are used is one in which their being nonbinary is the only reasonable explanation. It doesn't matter that there are other contexts for they/them use (the main ones I can think of are reference to a nonbinary person, to a person whose gender is unknown, misgendering a binary trans person, multiple individuals sharing a body, and as a generic pronoun), because none of those contexts are relevant to Napstablook's situation (it can't be generic because Napstablook is an individual, there's no indication that they're more than one person, and as discussed, the context of familial usage indicates it isn't misgendering or lack of knowledge). I once again ask if you have a simpler/more reasonable explanation for the use of they/them pronouns by close family members than the character referred to being nonbinary, because if so, I would love to hear it.

Also, she/her and he/him pronouns are also used in more contexts then referring to women and men respectively; besides the existence of nonbinary people who use either or both set of pronouns, she/her pronouns are used for ships, countries, and other inanimate objects, he/him was historically used as a generic or neutral pronoun (as you mentioned; further confusing matters here are authors who, in response to longstanding usage of generic he/him, use generic she/her), and he/him and she/her are used to refer to male and female animals respectively. They/them isn't unique in this regard. If we can take an instance of she/her and deduce from context that the usage is referring to a woman instead of a ship or an animal, why can't we use context to deduce they/them is referring to a nonbinary person? Once again, it's a double standard. Aykhot (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry "them being nonbinary is the only reasonable explanation" is OR, plain and simple. Yes, unstated ≠ unknown, but in the context of a fictional work unstated does meant unknown unless the character's gender is stated elsewhere, which in this case it isn't. Fictional works can and do have characters who do not have confirmed genders without this meaning they are canonically nonbinary. As they/them pronouns are neutral and can be applied to men and women, the use of them to refer to a character of unstated gender, while somewhat unrealistic (not that dialogue in fiction is often realistic), does not indicate the character is meant to be canonically nonbinary, at least in a case like this where official sources could have referred to them as nonbinary but did not. This last point you keep ignoring - why wouldn't the officially licensed book on Undertale's translation, made in close collaboration with Toby Fox, say Napstablook was nonbinary if they were intended to be canonically nonbinary?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

So based on this logic, inferring that a character whose gender is never stated has a binary gender based on context is also original research, and thus characters who are never referred to as "men", "women", "guys", "girls", or other synonyms but that display every other indication of being either a man or a woman have "unknown genders". However, that's not how it works in practice, is it? If we're going to apply the "explicitly labeled as such" standard, we need to either apply it to all fictional characters regardless of gender, which would likely eliminate a number of characters from various lists and necessitate the editing of articles referencing them to reflect the fact that their gender is technically never stated, or don't apply it at all and allow labeling based on context clues. To apply it to some demographics but not others is a double standard, which is something you've failed to address.

The reason Napstablook's gender is listed as "unstated" in the translation book is because their gender is never explicitly stated. This does NOT mean that their gender is unknown. Things in fiction can be true without a character or creator ever explicitly stating them. For example, in The Dark Knight, Joker reveals himself to be wearing a number of grenades underneath his jacket when in a meeting with Gotham's underworld bosses; while none of the characters in the scene explicitly state "if we kill him he'll blow us all up", it's obvious from context that this is his message. For another example, in Hollow Knight, in one piece of dreamnail dialogue Zote the Mighty thinks to himself, "I'll kill a thousand more... Will that be enough, father?" From this, it is clear that Zote has relationship issues of some sort with his father, even though nobody explicitly stated this. For yet another example, in the Dracula novel, Jonathan Harker overhears Dracula commanding the three vampire women to "wait" and "have patience" outside his door, proclaiming that "To-morrow night, to-morrow night is yours!" From this, it is obvious that Dracula is about to feed on Jonathan, but at no point is this explicitly stated in the novel (the closest we get is in an American edition, in which the line is "tonight is mine, tomorrow night is yours!"). For yet another example, see my earlier example of Alphys's bisexuality, which is never explicitly stated and yet demonstrated to be canonical. Asking why Toby never explicitly labelled Napstablook as nonbinary is like asking why he never explicitly labelled Alphys as bisexual, or Bram Stoker why he never explicitly stated Jonathan was fed on by Dracula, or Team Cherry why they never explicitly stated Zote had father issues, or Christopher Nolan why he never had the Joker explicitly state he was going to blow up the bosses' meeting place - because it's unnecessary to explicitly state those things when they've already been clearly indicated and/or implied, and oftentimes, implication, indication, and other indirect forms of providing information are more effective storytelling devices than explicitly stating information. "Show, don't tell" is a writing guideline for a reason.

Finally, the reference to Napstablook was not meant to be the main point of the initial argument - I was using Undertale ghosts as an example of a nonbinary or monogendered species that can have genders different from the baseline of that species. If my using Napstablook and their family really detracts from the argument that much, just mentally replace the references to them with 82 White Chain and the angels of Kill Six Billion Demons, where angels are male-presenting nonbinary by default but White Chain exclusively identifies as female, or Cheery Littlebottom and the dwarves of Discworld, who traditionally all identified as male for cultural reasons and discriminate against Cheery for being openly female. Hopefully that should make the actual, original argument easier to swallow. Aykhot (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"The reason Napstablook's gender is listed as "unstated" in the translation book is because their gender is never explicitly stated". I'm sorry, by your own logic this doesn't work. The only characters the translation book refers to as having an "unstated" gender are those with they/them pronouns. So if it is a double standard, it's a double standard officially approved by Toby Fox. "Show, don't tell" applies to works of fiction - not non-fiction books about the translation of works of fiction.

I also know Napstablook wasn't the main point, but I wasn't interested in arguing the main point.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Toby Fox never explicitly stating the genders of characters with they/them pronouns is not the double standard here. That happens all the time even with the best and most explicit of intentions, as the current focus of this talk page proves. The double standard is when characters with unstated but implicit genders are treated as having unknown genders, which gets applied almost exclusively to nonbinary characters; a character whose gender is never stated but is contextually a man or woman will almost always be treated as such, whereas one who is contextually nonbinary gets labelled as "of unknown gender". Toby Fox never said their genders were unknown, just unstated, which as discussed above are not synonymous terms. As the creator, in this case it's actually impossible for him to engage with the double standard without removing it, since if he makes a statement either way the whole issue ceases to apply to the relevant characters; his explicitly confirming that a character is either nonbinary or of unknown gender would remove the double standard, but since all he's said is that their gender is "unstated", he's not approving it, he's simply not engaging with it at all.

You're correct that "show, don't tell" doesn't apply to nonfiction, but since the nonfiction in question deals with the issue of translating Napstablook's pronouns and not the context in which those pronouns are used, it doesn't actually provide us with information that contradicts or changes said context. There isn't anything to tell in the translation book besides "Napstablook uses they/them pronouns and has never had their gender explicitly stated", which does not contradict or supersede the actual game showing the context for that character. Aykhot (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between a work of fiction not stating a character's gender and a non-fiction work about that work of fiction explicitly stating a character's gender is unstated. You keep dancing around the question of "why wouldn't the translation book say Napstablook was non-binary if that was the intent?". What would you take as evidence that a character referred to with they/them pronouns is not canonically non-binary beyond an official statement.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither Toby Fox nor the translation book has an obligation to elaborate on Napstablook outside the place where they're relevant to the topic of discussion, that is, translating their pronouns. The question is, "why would the translation book say Napstablook was nonbinary", since it's their pronouns specifically that are relevant and not the gender-indicating context of those pronouns. It's simply not relevant to the topic at hand, unlike in the game itself, where their gender, and those of ghosts more broadly, is relevant enough to be contextually indicated and contrasted with those of their cousins.

If a character is referred to with they/them pronouns in a context that indicates their being nonbinary (familial usage, in this case), beyond an explicit statement either in or out of universe to the contrary, a good criterion would be a usage that both contextually indicates otherwise and invalidates the former indications. For example, if a character is referred to with they/them pronouns by a family member but later revealed to be multiple people in the same body, or a fake family member whose gender legitimately is unknown by the referents, or some kind of memory-altering doppelganger a la the (ironically named for this discussion) Not-Them from The Magnus Archives, that would be context that negates the earlier indication. Aykhot (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The translation book could just have said that Napstablook is referred to with they/them pronouns. Instead it refers to them as having an unstated gender and links this to the use of they/them pronouns. So no, I really don't see a reason why the book would have said their gender is unstated instead of being nonbinary if Napstablookk was meant to be canonically nonbinary.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Whew. Your arguments and that of Aykhot are so different that I'm not sure I can reconcile them. As such, the edit notice should stay the same, for now. Even so, this discussion is still important nonetheless. Historyday01 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Spot-checking four of these, the removals were absolutely correct. A source needs to say that a character is non-binary (or in rare cases some strict subset of the category) for them to be non-binary. They/them pronouns is not enough. Inclusion of these entries in the list is synthesis. The secondary sources in some entries mean that the gender should be commented on at a "List of characters" page or an article about the character or show. The tweets are typically worthless.

Historyday01's actions were completely wrong, opposing the edits on mistaken bureaucratic notions rather than contesting the reason for removal. This sort of behaviour makes these topic areas toxic as editors are reverted just for the sake of someone reverting them. Don't revert unless you can be accountable as to why these entries should be included. — Bilorv (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree thoroughly with your argument. Secondly, I only reversed each of their edits ONE time and didn't even get in an edit war (I used to do that in the past, but do NOT do that anymore, as I've learned). I fully and completely stand by my reversals. And as I half-expected, this turned into a discussion, which is a positive. I did NOT contest the reason for the removal because I was hoping that the reason for the removal could be more fully explained in this discussion (and it appears it has, and I'm working to come up with a compromise between all the perspectives to propose new language to the edit notice). I have to say, your comment is very unhelpful and almost verges on a personal attack. I'm surprised (and disappointed) to see this comment from you. I would not say my reversals (I only did two, and no more, no less) are "toxic." I don't own this page and I'm not acting like a bureaucrat. In fact, I don't even have any role in what some call the bureaucracy on this site. I'm just an editor like everyone else. I'm not going to fight over whether something should be included or not through an edit war. That would be a waste of everyone's time. Historyday01 (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Adding Ed to Paranatural?

One of the main characters, Ed, has recently(Chapter 8 Page 36) been confirmed in-comic to be non-binary, and uses they/them, with occasional he/him. However, a quick google yields nothing but fansites and the comic itself. Is the comic itself sufficient citation to add them, or should we wait for an article or something to come out? PiddleAndTwiddle (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we can wait for an article. Historyday01 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)