Talk:Otokonoko

Okazu

Goodnight. I did not understand a little, it is possible that this is some kind of misunderstanding. She is quite authoritative on the yuri and is used in most articles about works in this genre. Yuricon as her project even has a separate article. In any case, if you doubt the authoritative of this blog, you can always ask someone in the project "Anime" and all will be confirmed. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Copying the above from my talk page. @Solaire the knight: the problem is that even if we accept this source as reliable, it does not support what you wrote, e.g., that otokonoko is a "surrogate for a male audience". The sources discusses two anime or manga, but does not even mention the concept of otokonoko. See WP:NOR. Sandstein 20:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You can easily read in the first review that this vn is a kind of fantasy about hitting a straight man in a purely feminine yuri genre. It even spawned a separate "sub-genre" of yuri vn, where Otokonoko is used to simulate classic yuri with a heterosexual male protagonist https://vndb.org/g421. Secondly, in my opinion it is sophistry, for with the same logic one can deny that Kodomo no Jikan is lolicon, because the source says "little girl", not "loli", or Oreimo is not about incest, because in the source "imouto", not "sister". Similarly, this word does not mean any original, unique type of characters. Outside of individual Otokonoko works like Himegoto and real life, this word is actually practically a synonym for the English "crossdresser male". Solaire the knight (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite follow this. Where in the cited source does it say anything about the otokonoko genre in general, rather than about the specific works at issue? Sandstein 11:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Both of these works have otokonoko characters as the main charactrer to use pseudo-lesbian themes. Similar to the fact that Felix in ReZero and Astolfo in Apocrypha are otokonoko characters, but none of the English-speaking people will not call them by this word just to emphasize this. This is a trivial fact. You overlook that this is only a Japanese euphemism for crossdresser male characters (therefore in the western fandom a more common euphemism "trap" is used), as imouto is a Japanese word meaning "sister". You will not require proofs that the premise of Koi Kaze makes it imouto-title? Solaire the knight (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In particular, the Japanese wiki directly gives a link to otokonoko in the article about OtoBoku as a related topic, and Japanese article about otokonoko mentions this same novel novel as an example of similar characters in games. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

What you're attempting is original research by synthesis, see WP:SYNTH: you have sources that discuss two particular works, and you want to use this to make a statement about the whole genre the works belong to. That's not how we work. If you want to write "otokonoko is x", then you need to cite a source that says "otokonoko is x", not just "anime such-and-such is x". You can use these sources as a basis for articles about the two specific works, but not about the whole genre. Sandstein 22:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You did not understand. This word does not mean ONLY GENRE, it is also used as the name of a certain type of character. My text spoke only about the use of characters, not the genre. This absolutely does not make sense, because both of these titles use Otokonoko characters, but are not not created in the otokonoko genre. I just want to say that such characters can be used for pseudo-lesbian experiences and/or fanservice, and this has an ambiguous evaluation, and not that the genre itself plays with it. Generally, although this is not an argument for wikipedia, I think that now most non-yaoi works with otokonoko are pseudo-yuri like https://myanimelist.net/manga/9542/Mei_no_Naisho Solaire the knight (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other. I'll ask for a third opinion at WP:3O. Sandstein 13:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The problem starts with a badly-written article (as short as it is), and continues with a badly-written paragraph - a state of affairs that makes a factual discussion difficult. What I'd like to see is this: first, the article has to be readable (if you wish I can do the editing myself); second, the suggested paragraph has to be readable (that falls purely on Solaire the knight); and third, this discussion itself has to be readable. If no editing is done to clarify all of it and in that order ({{ping}} me if you want me to help), and in that order, the current revision should be kept just to avoid messing it even more, regardless of WP:OR considerations. François Robere (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, could you point out the problems with reading in my paragraph? English is not my native language, but it seemed to me that my paragraph was succinct enough that there would be no problems with grammar or reading. But in any case, I'm ready to rewrite it, if this helps solve the problem. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Frankly? I have no idea what this sentence means: In addition, since such a character can simultaneously be perceived as a male, and an attractive "female" character, otokonoko can be used as a surrogate for a male audience in male-oriented genres with a traditionaly preeminently female cast François Robere (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. Sandstein 07:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you about this. This means only that, depending on the audience, this character can be considered both a male or female person. Therefore, the addition of such characters to titles with female cast does not cause any problems that would arise when adding casual male characters. That's why now Otokonoko is so common in the female slice of life, pseudo-yuri and anime about idols. Up to the point that some of the works with Otokonoko gets a yuri tag when licensing them in the US. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, and what did we come up with in the end? The Japanese wiki mentions both works as a vivid example of the genre, and Okazu calls them as example of fake-yuri. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Translation request details

Though quite a bit of the information on the Japanese page looks like lists of people, television shows and events, section 4 over there seems to specifically cite some of the terminology we use here. However, the article as a whole seems to have fallen victim to self-study and original ideas, so it's unclear just how much is actually salvageable (though section 4's content is true). NakaNakaNoNo (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Good afternoon, could you point to the part of the text that you are in doubt? Although the discussion of my paragraph was stalled, the current version of the article is quite laconic and true. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

My concern isn't that the page isn't clear or that a part of it may not be true, but that the page as a whole is... lacking. While, as you said, the page is succinct, the Japanese version of the page seems to have additional details that could be added over here. At a glance, it had alternative terms for the concept under 日本以外での広まり (Section 4). It also specifies the analogues (though not exact equivalents) that are used in "the West," specifically 「gender bender」&「cross dressing」. And while there's a notice that large portions of the article are self-studied or unclear, that particular section seems usable after translation. At the very least, I think an improved version of that section could be added here. NakaNakaNoNo (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see the confusion now. I was referring to the Japanese page as the one that has all the notices on it. I was just saying that the English article could be expanded with Section 4 of the Japanese one. NakaNakaNoNo (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I see... Well, here I do not know how to help, as I was already trying to somehow supplement the article, but the discussion died down after a number of complaints. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 結佳梨Yukari JK 14.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Page move from Otokonoko to Otokonoko (cross-dressing)

Hi Hijiri88, I'm a bit confused by the page move from Otokonoko to Otokonoko (cross-dressing), because the subject of this article appears to be the primary topic for the term Otokonoko. Are you planning on creating an article on another meaning of Otokonoko that would be disambiguated at the Otokonoko page? — Newslinger talk 01:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Thank you for your comment. I've been out of the page-moving game for a while, but I can see that inclusion of a parenthetical disambiguator when no other articles with this title currently exist may be problematic. I did a quick ja.wiki search for other articles with this word in their title, and the only one that currently seems to have an English Wikipedia article is Toshishita no Otokonoko, but others that may have articles eventually (currently have articles on Japanese Wikipedia) include Otokonoko Onnanoko ("Boys, Girls"?), Megane no Otokonoko / Nippon no DNA / Go Waist, Otokonoko to Onnanoko ("Boys and Girls"?), Toshishita no Otokonoko (album) and Otokonoko Bokujō (with only the last one being tagged for notability).

Otokonoko is a common Japanese word that just means "boy", so it can be expected to appear in the titles of a lot of Japanese media, etc., with that meaning; the relatively obscure punning usage that is the focus of the present article could only be considered the primary topic among a very small group of people who (a) are deeply familiar with Japanese cross-dressing culture (or whatever this is -- a quick Google search indicated it is deeply associated with relatively obscure manga/anime, which would "fit" with the type of punning involved), and (b) don't actually speak a word of Japanese.

I'm not sure if the existence of the Toshishita no Otokonoko article and the other hypothetical articles merits a disambig page, but certainly the previous title of this article violated WP:PRECISE, so even having Otokonoko as a redirect to different title ("disambiguated" parenthetically or otherwise) would be preferable to the previous title.

(As an aside, I don't have the time/inclination at the moment to create a new article with the much-better title of Cross-dressing in Japan and merge this in there, and I think simply changing the title of this article to that, without changing the content, would be a definite no-no.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I understand your point, in that the Japanese word otokonoko refers to Boy first and foremost, while the cross-dressing is a secondary topic. However, since our primary audience is English-language readers, if someone is searching for otokonoko, are they more likely to be looking for Boy or for Otokonoko (cross-dressing)?

• If the majority of English-language readers are looking for Otokonoko (cross-dressing), then I would argue that Otokonoko (cross-dressing) should be moved back to Otokonoko, with a hatnote explaining that otokonoko most commonly refers to Boy in the Japanese language.
• If it's unclear what the majority of English-language readers are looking for, then there could be a disambiguation page at Otokonoko that points to Boy, Otokonoko (cross-dressing), and other articles that contain otokonoko in the name (including Toshishita no Otokonoko).

Do either of these options sound reasonable to you?​ — Newslinger talk 02:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A headnote seems like a fairly reasonable solution in the short-term, but I have to wonder about whether this article should really exist as a standalone in the long-term: on GNews a simple search for the word brings up a lot of anime fansites of dubious reliability that use it in the sense described in this article, but at least one or two entries on each page (generally the ones that come from the more reputable sources[1][2][3]) using it to mean "boy", while GBooks is almost exclusively linguistic works giving the romanized Japanese word for "boy". Would you be opposed to moving images of "apparent girls" out of the lead? That would help with the WP:ASTONISH factor probably more than hatnote (I imagine the only readers who would read a hatnote before looking at the photo are those with browser or connection problems preventing the photo from displaying in a prompt manner)? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The images would surprise someone who is looking for Boy, but they are appropriate illustrations for the subject of the article (cross-dressing). I wouldn't object to moving the images into a gallery below the article text as an interim measure until Cross-dressing in Japan becomes an article. — Newslinger talk 03:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That seems fair. FWIW, I came to this article because I was on RSN for reasons unrelated to this page, and I don't think I had never heard of this concept before. Without reading the discussion at RSN I clicked on the article and for a brief moment was confused why an article called "boy" had several pictures of apparent girls in it. Given the relative obscurity of this topic (would it be safe to assume you also came here from RSN having not heard of it before?) it is my assumption that there are more readers like myself than there are ones who are looking for an article on cross-dressing by searching for the present title, but I may be wrong, given that the only reason I stumbled across the page was because of my activities as a Wikipedia editor rather than reader. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Started on similar searches to those done by Hijiri88, and can't see that the 男の娘 meaning is a sufficiently notable subject for a standalone article. It's a neologism (cf. NOTDICT) used to refer to concepts which are more commonly known by other (English) terms; and which are better covered as aspects of "cross-dressing in Japan", "cosplay" &/or "anime/manga". I think Japanese word otokonoko refers to Boy first and foremost, while the cross-dressing is a secondary topic, albeit unintentionally, significantly undersells the disparity. - Ryk72 ^talk 04:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, yeah. It should probably also be noted that ko doesn't actually mean "young girl" or "daughter" except in slang, and none of the standard reference works appear to give it as a reading of the character 娘 (it wouldn't surprise me if the Miyuki Nakajima single "Ano Ko" or even some later work was what popularized it), which may be why it feels so weird to see such a silly pun taken so seriously on English Wikipedia (and a few anime fansites). It might be difficult to convey to a non-Japanese-speaker just how bizarre the current article is, though... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hijiri88, I also think that the page should be moved back to Otokonoko because there is no other page with this title, and a disambiguation is therefore not necessary. Sandstein 08:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree on principle (I know we don't like "unnecessary disambiguators", but precision in article titles and the principle of least astonishment are also factors that need to be taken into consideration -- this is an obscure topic, and probably the majority of its readers are more aware of the standard meaning of otokonoko), but per the below I think we've got a reasonable compromise in the interim, so I have no problem with the page being moved back as long as the hatnote is implemented and the image problem is addressed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added a hatnote and rearranged the pictures into a gallery. The gallery is not ideal, because WP:IG recommends setting pictures next to the relevant text, but it's just an interim measure.

The next step could be to expand this article into an article on Cross-dressing in Japan. We only need a short paragraph to serve as a lead section, and then the current Otokonoko (cross-dressing) article can be merged in as the second section. "Japan’s gender-bending history" from The Conversation (RSP entry) might be a good starting point as a reference. Unfortunately, I won't be very useful for identifying Japanese-language sources. — Newslinger talk 09:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, that sounds like a good idea to me. Sandstein 09:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'd do it myself immediately, but I've got a backlog of drafts I didn't get finished during Asian Month and really should take priority, and anyone who looks at my contribs for the last month or so will see that I haven't had a whole lot of time to write articles, especially ones outside my wheelhouse.

That being said, I would note that "setting pictures next to the relevant text" doesn't really apply in this case, since there is no context given to the images anywhere in the current version of the article text or any earlier version, and neither caption cites a source that explicitly refers to the subject as "otokonoko". Would removing the images pending a reliable source that explicitly to either Yakkun or Yukari as an 男の娘 be preferable?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Does "What Is Japan's Fetish This Week? Male Daughters" from Kotaku (cited in the article) work for Yakkun Sakurazuka? 結佳梨Yukari doesn't have an article on the English or Japanese Wikipedias, and I'm not sure if we can verify that image properly, but I found quite a few posts with the #otokonoko hashtag on their Facebook profile. — Newslinger talk 09:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess... I'm naturally somewhat reluctant to trust Kotaku and similar anime fan sites due to the fact that such sites keep getting used as sources of information on things like classical Japanese poetry due to their status as "reliable sources in general". But given that the source pre-dates the creation of this Wikipedia article, I guess it should be sufficient. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, as and where able; although I do think 男の娘 comes in well down the list of topics that should be included in "Cross-dressing in Japan" - definitely after both Takarazuka Revue and Matsuko Deluxe. The piece in The Conversation gives a good overview, better than what would be found in Kotaku or Japan Times, but we should see if there are any scholarly sources. - Ryk72 ^talk 09:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I am very skeptical about using The Japan Times as a general source for any broad-topic articles on Japan. Their main target audience is Japanese people seeking to read "natural English", and I've seen fairly strong evidence that they routinely sacrifice factual accuracy in favour servicing this audience. Cross-dressing is surely a popular topic in gender studies literature, so there must be a large volume of work published by university presses out there... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Important to clarify that while Otokonoko (男の子) means "boy", the Otokonoko slang and cultural identity (男の娘) does *not*. It is a play on the word but it's meaning is not "boy", but rather "male girl". In fact, the slang is sometimes pronounced as "otoko no musume" in order to avoid or clarify this confusion (this is specially favoured by trans women, as mentioned in the japanese wikipedia article). Also important to note that while "otokonoko" fits within " japanese crossdressing culture", it does not mean crossdressing and does not necessarily involve crossdressing. Japan has other words for crossdressing and crossplaying specifically. There are popular celebs and media characters who are described as otokonoko and do not crossdress, just being naturally "female-looking". The main characteristic of an otokonoko is what japanese people would describe as "a male body but passing as female". There are also crossdressers and crossplayers who would not fit the otokonoko label, as it is defined by the "ability to pass as female". Otokonoko often involves crossdressing, and it's largely a "crossdressing culture", but it is not about crossdressing. This needs to be clarified in the article at some point, just like it is discussed in the japanese wikipedia article. While the title could stay as "Otokonoko (cross-dressing)" for brevity, it may not be the most appropriate choice, considering it does not mean crossdressing. However, since "male-girl" is a slang in and of itself, some could argue it also wouldn't be the most appropriate descriptor for the title, despite being the direct translation and a more proper description. I leave that up for discussion.Trappy-chan (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if English is your first language, but for the vast majority of our readers either (a) they can't read Japanese text or (b) they know at least some Japanese. For all of these readers, the distinction between "Otokonoko (男の子)" and "Otokonoko (男の娘)" made in the above Important to clarify that while Otokonoko (男の子) means "boy", the Otokonoko slang and cultural identity (男の娘) does *not*. is practically meaningless. The only people for whom this would not be the case are Chinese-speakers who don't know what otoko-no-ko means but can read the Chinese characters. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Trap section

There's a lot of edit warring over this section. There are multiple articles that show that the term was associated with otokonoko, but if editors disagree with this then it should be redirected to the subsection in Reddit pertaining to 2020 and r/Animemes banning the use of the word. Please discuss here before making any further edits. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Blog articles are not reliable sources. This section is not to document reddit or any other site's drama. First source wasn't even GLAAD. Even in GLAAD it was grouped with words like "posing" and "deceiving" it is not related. SlySneakyFox (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

As much as I find the term distasteful, it definitely is related to this topic and would be expected to be discussed to some degree. The currently cited source is completely unusable on WP, though, as an anonymous blog.--Alexandra^IDV 09:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps on a page about LGBT derogatory terms but "some degree" is far too loose to relate it in this page. This is a page about man with a feminine gender expression not trans people. Imagine if editors went to every possible word that can be used in a derogatory way. GLAAD mentions is alongside other colloquial words like "fooling" and "deceiving" not the slang for otokonokos. It is not significantly related to otokonoko.SlySneakyFox (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The corresponding Japanese page for otokonoko lists the term kinder the offensive “to trap” meaning. The page is further under the Japanese LGBT culture grouping, showing its direct relation to LGBTQ and trans identity. SlySneskyFox suggesting that this is false equivalency relates to the previously mentioned “Reddit drama”, which seems to have influenced their history in editing this page exclusively. I nominate to remove his changes completely, and bar from further editing. KillingsBjorn (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, trans anime fan here. This edit war is really upsetting to see. In my opinion, the term is offensive, pedantic nitpicking over whether the dictionary definition ("deceiving") does not magically make it inoffensive and is thus irrelevant, and blog posts (or reddit administrative decisions, etc) which claim it *is* offensive should carry more weight than blog posts which don't (i.e. the current citation). Between (1) not saying anything, (2) mentioning the term and explaining why it is problematic, and (3) mentioning the term but not explaining, #2 would preferable and #3 is worst of all. I am going to make an edit in pursuit of #2. Regardless, #1 should be preferable to #3 and it is irresponsible and harmful for reverts to prefer #3 as the "default state". Sumireko Usami (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Neither blog posts nor reddit are reliable sources. But the other sources in that paragraph aren't great either, and removal would be the preferred option. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Being offended or upset means nothing and is not a reason for removal of entries. This is not a page about trans people, citing every possible word that can be offensive in wiki entries is unnecessary. SlySneakyFox (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You're blatantly holding a double standard about the quality of cited sources that support your argument versus the quality of sources that support everyone else's in this edit war. Sumireko Usami (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It's the same source as the one for "dansou." The fact that people only remove "trap" shows pretty clear which side the bias is on. A source must be related to this article that's the standard I hold. SlySneakyFox (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I'd missed that the same source is being used for other content. And other content which isn't even directly supported by that source - the equivalent of "dansou" would be "josou", not "otokonoko". I'll remove that too. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The news sources are as much of a reliable source as the rest of the articles listed here. You had a problem with a blog post well these isn't a blog post. SlySneakyFox (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The current listed sources that SlySneakyFox added literally state that “trap” is an offensive term... They state the relation to trans characters. Only one source mentions a passing relation to otokonoko. These sources further elaborate the insulting idea of “trapping” individuals or deceiving them with one’s gender. These sources do more to prove the point that the GLAAD article was correct that this term is offensive, while showing little to no relation to this page’s topic. KillingsBjorn (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Only one source has it listed as "kind of rude" which is a reach from "literally state that 'trap' is an offensive term" then goes to list it as well known, which is the point. GLAAD has normal word trap as a rude term against trans people along with "fooling" and other similar terms. This article isn't about trans people, so it is not significantly related. Even if you believe it to be offensive that doesn't change the reality that this is what they are commonly called and known as. SlySneakyFox (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing is still terrible. Listicles are not reliable sources. Blogs are not reliable sources. - Ryk72 ^talk 09:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This entire article is based on articles as secure as mine. My sources are as fine as the rest. There I used a previous source, even. The fact that I have to specifically point out repeat sources (as before with dansou) is infuriating as it in my opinion shows that people come to this article and just make a straight line towards trap and automatically discredit whatever source supports it even if it's used in other areas in the article and are just as reliable. SlySneakyFox (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@SlySneakyFox: Cross-dressing is a part of the trans umbrella, thereby this is intrinsically linked to trans identity. The issue is that you are disregarding that your own sources note the insulting nature of the term “trap”, and you are choosing to ignore it. Why are you forcing this without any addendum regarding that trap is conflicted terminology at best? Perhaps you should try making a page about “traps”, as it appears to be unrelated to the origin of this decidedly Japanese term, “otokonoko”. “Trap” or “otokonoko” are not listed terms under the anime wiki heading, further showing the lack of relevance. I will bring this to the attention of LGBTQ wiki project and the Anime/Manga project for further support, provided you continue to not accept the removal of the term.KillingsBjorn (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You can use DeepL or google translate or any other translation program. The source supports the claim. A man with a feminine gender expression is not trans. A slang term for a men is obviously an insult towards a trans woman. It would be an unnecessary addition to explain that. This article is not about transgender persons. I do not know of this anime or LGBTQ wiki but it doesn't sound like a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlySneakyFox (talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@SlySneakyFox: The WikiProjects (LGBT, Anime/Manga) that I mentioned are just two of the multiple Wiki groups who have currently marked this page for assessment, due to the disputed use of “trap”. They are the ones listed in the big yellow banner at the top of the the talk page. This article falls under review of multiple WikiProjects, because you keep making falsely attributed claims from unreliable sources. You are not following Wiki standards for editing either. There is no wiki page for the term “trap” as you claim to use it, because the term is not used as you describe it. Stop. KillingsBjorn (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The source I use is listed before in this article as well and clearly says after translation that trap is indeed used. Your dislike of the word doesn't give you the credibility to just delete it.

The following are not reliable sources:

"Japanese Fans Rank Top 5 Anime Traps, "Otokonoko"!". Japanese kawaii idol music culture news | Tokyo Girls Update. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

Bhattacharya, Anirban (2021-01-03). "19 Best Anime Trap Series That Aren't Hentai - Cinemaholic". The Cinemaholic. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

"26 Best Anime Traps Characters". My Otaku World. 2020-02-03. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

and should be removed. Not only are they listicles, but the publications are group blogs. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

How is group blog much different from the other sources listed in this page?

Newmo is also not reliable - it's a job recruitment site. SoraNews24, I would also put in the blog category, but it's used more broadly, so worth asking at WP:RSN. Vice & Kotaku are more likely considered reliable, but also worth asking about. I'll draft something there a little later. AERAdot seems most likely reliable. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not really answering the question. That's just listing the reliability of each site according to you. What criteria are you using for reliability on a slang article? Let's be real this isn't a fact or historical event. How exactly do you want a reliable source for a translation besides examples of such words in use and blogs like "japanesewithanime?"

The criteria from WP:RS mostly. - Ryk72 ^talk 02:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I would not consider a one paragraph French vice article by "vice staff" to be a "more likely considered reliable" source that is supported by WP:RS and my sources to be a too unreliable source to support the statements they are cited for. SlySneakyFox (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, it's one paragraph and a six minute video. More likely considered reliable is not my own view on the source, it's my view on the likely consensus of editors. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Fincher here, sharing some light on the meaning. The Japanese themselves translate "Otokonoko" as "trap", for example the Anime, "Ore, Twintails ni Narimasu" featured a display of the phrase in English&Japanese: "Trap" is the phrase originally intended by Otokonoko-artists, I see no reason to translate otherwise.

References

There's a difference between a translation and an aesthetic use of Latin script. See also: Engrish. But, even if this were a translation, we can't take a single instance and extrapolate a generalisation from it. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that the fact that "trap" is used to refer to crossdressers is WP:BLUE, while the issue of whether it is offensive would require additional RS. DaysonZhang (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLUE is a nice essay; but there is, of course, a counterview, WP:NOTBLUE. Rightly or wrongly, the content has has been challenged, and so needs a reliable source. The question of WP:DUE (raised at WP:RSN) is more interesting, and leads on to a broader question of what the topic of this article is, or should be - a Japanese cultural phenomenon (heterosexual men crossdressing for aesthetic purposes) or a term used in (English?) anime & manga circles. We currently introduce the topic as the former, but spend 2/3rds of the article discussing the latter. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ryk72, the result of that broader question will dictate whether it goes in Glossary of anime and manga or not. If it's just a general cultural phenom as with hikikomori or gyaru then the 2/3rds part should be de-emphasized. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Well it's been more challanged that people don't like the slang not so much the existence of the slang. One third is the translation. Another third for the former then only a third for the later. I don't see why it has to be an "or" when it's a "both." It is a term used in anime and manga circles to describe a Japanese phenomenon in media. SlySneakyFox (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Aight time for another talk. Now besides japanesewithanime you could argue my sources are a bit off. Not as much as a French vice article but a bit off. Now I have another source. Please tell me if you have any problems with Jisho. https://jisho.org/search/trap here it gives 男の娘 as a translation. SlySneakyFox (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Jisho.org is an amateur website; a "labor of love" for Kim, Miwa & Andrew.[4] That might be surmountable if it can be shown to have a reputation for accuracy or significant use by others. But it also might not matter - the dictionary content itself is sourced from JMdict, and presented without editing by Jisho.org; essentially just passed through - so it's the reliability of JMdict that's relevant. JMdict accepts public submissions, and is, therefore, likely to be considered user-generated, in the same way as IMDB.[5]
But again, that might not matter, because the definition from JMdict is (in full) 男の娘: Noun; 1. young man who has a feminine aesthetic​; Slang; Other forms: 男の娘 【おとこのむすめ】、おとこの娘 【おとこのこ】、おとこの娘 【おとこのむすめ】. It doesn't mention "trap" or "English-speaking anime and manga fans", and therefore doesn't directly support the proposed article text: Otokonoko characters are commonly referred to by English-speaking anime and manga fans as "traps". It might, if considered by consensus to be reliable, support some other text. That the JMdict entry for 男の娘 appears in the search list on Jisho.org doesn't, in itself, verify anything other than it appears in the search list.
But, I'm happy to post something on WP:RSN. Or to start an RfC. And will do one or both shortly. - Ryk72 ^talk 02:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It is highly ranked. If you are going to post to WP:RSN I recommend posting every source in this article and every single one of mine. For you will see none or maybe 1 will pass out of all of them. This is not a historical event or fact. This is translation of a slang term in another language. There is no concrete answer like 2+2=4. If you wish to talk about sources so much I recommend looking at the reliability of a French vice article as my sources match or beat the reliability set by that source.

Referred to WP:RSN, with specific mention of the Jisho/JMdict & Vice sources.[6] Previous postings there included all currently used & proposed sources.[7]. - Ryk72 ^talk 11:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Referred to WP:RSN and my edit comment. Let it stay up so they don't have to dig through the edits.

No. We don't leave poor or poorly sourced content in article so that people can read it without having to dig through the edits. If there is something relevant for RSN, then mention it there, or link a diff. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

They're as poorly sourced as the rest of the sources. It is relevant. SlySneakyFox (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. Here again. With another source...again. Do you have any problem with this one? Kroon, Richard W. (2010). A/V A to Z: An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Media, Entertainment and Other Audiovisual Terms. McFarland & Company. p. 702. ISBN 9780786457403.

It's certainly promising that the book is published by an academic publisher, albeit a small one. That's better than group blogs. But it's not so promising that a search of the content for "Otokonoko", "男の娘" doesn't yield any results. What text from the source? And what content in the article would it be used to support? - Ryk72 ^talk 11:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

An English version can be said to be the slang "trap n. A type of character common to anime; one who is identified as male, but who is depicted as quite beautiful and feminine." The part in quotes is from the book. SlySneakyFox (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sneaky, you have no reliable sources linking otokonoko to "trap". Why are you so insistent on having it in? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

They have the same definition. What do you mean? That is the thing linking them. Also 男の娘 appears when "trap" is searched in Jisho. Do you consider that a link? SlySneakyFox (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

For what article content is it proposed that this source would be used? - Ryk72 ^talk 00:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I have added a different version of "trap" with sources that should be considered reliable. SlySneakyFox (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The first source, by Nozawa Shunsuke, does not directly support the content for which it is used as a reference. Both The second source does not mention "Otokonoko". - Ryk72 ^talk 00:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The first source Nozawa Shunsuke does mention it. "otokonoko in the subculture (‘traps’)." It what links the two terms. @NekoKatsun: Please repeat your opinion so we are not deadlocked in an edit war again. SlySneakyFox (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Amended. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If these are the best sources we can find, it seems best to leave it out. The Shunsuke source is the closest, but the mention is too brief and vague to use in support of the claim—though we can guess this use is basic apposition, the parenthetical here could be interpreted by a reasonable reader to mean any number of different things, such as that only the subculture of Niconico posters is called "traps". (In other words, it's original research; the source doesn't directly support the claim.) —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break

The posting at RSN has now been idle long enough to be archived. Similarly to the previous posting on that noticeboard, there was a small response; with only NekoKatsun replying (previously involved editors excluded). Similarly to the previous posting, there was no support for the the proposed sources being considered reliable (p.i.e.e.). There was also concerns raised about the use of the SoraNews source, and, absent objections, I intend to remove it in the next few days. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Some quick edits that I doubt people will disagree with. Without any disagreements I will edit the following: 1. Removal of "as well as preoperative transgender women" As this was added on Aug 7 without a source and none of the current sources support it either. I welcome anyone to skip the wait and remove it immediately. Surprised this hasn't been caught earlier. 2. Replacement of the vice French source with the Vice Japan YouTube video in it. Skipping over if the Vice French is reliable or not. The 1 paragrapth contents of it doesn't support the claims it's cited for. The video does. If there are any disagreements please mention them. I'll be waiting a few days. SlySneakyFox (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

"Trap"

I would've thought that "trap" being offensive is WP:BLUE, but apparently some editors feel it shouldn't be noted as such, or that it should be noted as only offensive to trans women. At the time of this comment, there are two sources, GLAAD and the Transgender Zone) to back up the 'offensive' designation. Do we need more sources to call a slur a slur, or can we all agree that it's not a nice term and move on from there? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 03:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It is most certainly not WP:BLUE. You definitely do need a source. The transgenderzone is not a reliable source. Plus the fact they think "Trap Queen" is significantly related to trans women backs up their inaccuracy. Second, GLAAD does not support the claim it's cited for. GLAAD labels the formal version of "trap" as offensive specifically against transgender people. It doesn't label the slang term as offensive in a general sense or against otokonokos. To put it another way, one context of a word being offensive doesn't make the general or slang context offensive. Also, reminder to sign your replies. I recommend undoing the manual revert while a discussion takes place as it is far more accurate than the current extreme simplification/generalization of the term trap. SlySneakyFox (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)— SlySneakyFox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Okay, so you don't think it's a slur, as you think it doesn't fall under WP:BLUE, but you have zero sources backing up your opinion that it's appropriate. A word that's offensive is offensive, full stop, and there are multiple sources to back that position up. What do you find unreliable about Transgender Zone? GLAAD notes the term is defamatory in general. Do you prefer PopDust? Or Anime Feminist? I can keep going. You've been championing the inclusion of a slur in this article, and it's appropriate that we call it as such.

Thank you also for reminding me to sign my posts; please take this as your reminder to leave the reflist template below the conversation. I would also like to call attention to the fact that since you registered your account here on Wikipedia, literally all of your edits have been about this one topic. As such I've taken the liberty of tagging your comment as such, so that everyone in the conversation is aware of its participants. Please note that this is not an accusation or attack; it's simply a statement of fact. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 03:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Repeating that you believe it to be a slur doesn't make it so. Neither does posting blog articles. It is not up to the defense to back up a claim. It's like requesting a source that triangle is not a slur. "A word that's offensive is offensive" you realize many words are offensive when applied to transgender people but it doesn't make the entire term offensive, eg "crossdresser." The Transgender Zone comment is by an unnamed individual with no sources. The site doesn't seem better than a normal blog. GLAAD has it as defamatory as much as "deceptive," "fooling," "pretending," "posing," and "masquerading" and specifically in the context of transgender people. It is not talking about the slang nor labeling the entire word as offensive. It would be like linking GLADD to say "posing" is an offensive general word. SlySneakyFox (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC) — SlySneakyFox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You're absolutely right, it's not up to the defense... so why am I the one posting sources? You should be providing sources supporting your "inoffensive" narrative. If you want it changed, gain consensus for your preferred version first, as you've already been blocked once for edit warring and I'm sure you'd rather not repeat that. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

You are the one making the new claim therefore must have sources that are reliable and support that claim. You seem to think that I'm making a new claim. I am not. I am telling you your sources are either unreliable or do not support the claim. May I remind you, that you did not gain a consensus for your edit and did not wait for a consensus to revert to your preferred version. I do welcome other users to give their opinion. Do you think GLAAD notes the term "pretending" as defamatory in general, as well? SlySneakyFox (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)— SlySneakyFox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

To add to what SlySneakyFox said, it also seems to say nothing about its usage in this context. 8ya (talk • contribs) 20:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your bold edit, although I would've preferred we come to a consensus first on a debated topic. The sources I've provided make it clear that when used in the context of someone presenting as an alternate gender, "trap" is a slur, with the implication being that they are 'trapping' someone else (or the viewer, for a fictional character) into thinking their gender is something it's not. I fail to see how this could be anything but offensive, especially noting that violence has been committed in the real world over this, and media doesn't exist in a vacuum. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

What I am trying to say that the context of the usage of the word differs, as this one, from my experience and the sources provided here, refers to a certain type of appearance given, not a gender identity or similar. I am not trying to say that there is no overlap between the two groups (there obviously is), and that the word isn't also used as a slur, however that in this situation it would be wrong to simply state it is a slur. See for example the "Kroon, Richard" usage which by itself bears no pejorative meaning in it. Maybe it would be good adding that depending on the context the word can also be taken to be a slur. 8ya (talk • contribs) 22:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I would support this (also, I appreciate your joining the discussion, and I greatly appreciate your calm tone). I can see how the definition given in the A/V book is not presented as a pejorative, but I do think it would be remiss to not mention that it's a slur in real-life situations. "Boy who dresses as girl" is distressingly close to how transphobes view transwomen, and there's real-world violence associated with that (see, for example, Trans panic defense). I feel that Wikipedia's voice shouldn't normalize a slang term that's offensive in real life. Do you have any suggestions for editing that last sentence to incorporate that the term is offensive in certain contexts? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

"Boy who dresses as girl" so otokonoko itself? The Trans panic defense makes no mention of the word "trap." I do not understand how you are connecting this to a significant degree related to the article or outside of WP:SYN. You have not showed a reliable source to claim that trap the slang term is in general offensive. SlySneakyFox (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC) — SlySneakyFox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What I said was "Boy who dresses as girl" is distressingly close to how transphobes view transwomen. There's a LOT of nuance here that apparently you're just not getting, and if four sources and two people saying "trap" is a problem isn't getting through, frankly I don't know what will, and I have to conclude you're being willfully obstinate. You still haven't provided any sources stating that the slang usage isn't problematic, or explained why you're so dead-set on including the term. Please take a deep breath, reread this entire discussion carefully, and start trying to collaborate. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The number of sources doesn't matter when they are blog articles. Besides GLAAD, which is about the formal "trap". The sources are not up to standard. "two people saying 'trap' is a problem" I also recommend rereading the discussion or simply the 2 replies from the other user. Again I am not saying that the word has no problem contexts. My problem is that the Transgender Zone is not a reliable source and that GLAAD didn't back up your claim to label the entire slang as offensive. You seem to be dead set on telling the reader that the formal version of a slang in a different context on a different group of people is offensive. And I am not fully against that but that is not what you did with the past edit. You seem to be arguing an opinion on the offensiveness of "trap" formal and/or slang. I am arguing your sources are bad or don't support the claim. SlySneakyFox (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It really isn't. It's not "someone" it's specifically "transgender people." Otokonokos are not "presenting as an alternate gender" as they still identify as male, although I do not know for sure if you mean gender expression or gender identity. I am assuming the later. If it was the former then GLAAD is specifically talking about gender identity. "implications" that doesn't sound reliable. The definition of "trap" the slang makes no mention of "trapping" people "into thinking their gender is something it's not." I sincerely doubt violence was over the slang "trap" so I assume you mean "gender is something it's not" In which case that does not seem related and to be original research. SlySneakyFox (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC) — SlySneakyFox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

First, before I get into the reliability of sources. Any objection with me making the last remark into a new sentence and editing it to the following: "'Trap' is considered a transphobic term when it is used to characterize transgender people." SlySneakyFox (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC) — SlySneakyFox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Grammatically, it flows better as a 'however' at the end of the sentence in which it is introduced (the way it is currently). Not sure what you plan to discuss in terms of sources, as GLAAD clearly supports the existing sentence, and the remaining four sources on that line were copied directly from your adding it back in October. If you feel your sources are now unreliable, I'm happy to just stick with the clearly-reliable and supportive GLAAD source. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

That's fine then. Do note that it wasn't the only thing I changed. The wording can be left as the same. Fully agree GLAAD is reliable and supports the claim. I can go in depth with the sources but the quick and short of it is that I do feel they are unreliable and just sticking with GLAAD is my preferable course of action. SlySneakyFox (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I removed a few references at the end due to overcitation and changed the wording a bit, to make it more clear that those usages aren't the same (although now I think the ref doesn't fit so well?). Also I agree with the "however" feeling better, but imo it's better to have it in a new sentence. Feel free to change it back if you think it's worse ^^
Also I think the "a term defined…" feels kinda off there, but I guess helps to have it there to contrast it with the pejorative? 8ya (talk • contribs) 11:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree about the over-referencing. I tweaked the structure and grammar a little to recombine the sentences and to simplify the overall reading, what do you think? I find the whole thing flows a little better now; I hope you agree! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"term defined in slang" makes it sound like the definition is slang, not the term imo. I think it being defamatory should warrant its own sentence, and not tacked on to at the end of an already decently long sentence.
However thinking about it again the section seems out of place and more suited to be put in the first paragraph, with the definition part cut out. Also I went on google scholar and found a better source, although in Spanish https://repositorio.ulima.edu.pe/handle/20.500.12724/12188 , which also explicitly tells us that 'this' trap usage can be considered offensive (although doesn't mention transphobia) – I used google translate so if anything is wrong please tell me. 8ya (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer a "slang term define as..." but it's not really important. For your source I do not believe it to be reliable. The reason being a look over it's sources. A fair share are comprised of WP:USG sources like urban dictionary or group blogs, especially around the term trap. Also, the source of the thesis' mention for the "offensive" remark says it may be offensive and may not be so it isn't really clear even if it wasn't a group blog. SlySneakyFox (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

(I think you meant to say WP:UGC?) Whilst I do agree with some of their sources being non-RS, this shouldn't be a reason to call the thesis itself non RS, nor does it automatically invalidade the rest of the contents. It touching upon those only makes sense when researching and trying to establish usage of a slang term with no "academic" definition (and even if there was one, it'd ultimately have to be based on something non-RS). The only problem I see is that the reference given there for the might be considered offensive part is something indeed something not RS by any means, but imo this comes back to the previous sentence. Quoting the offensive part like WP:RSOPINION might be an option, although I do think it shouldn't be used here.8ya (talk • contribs) 10:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. I did mean WP:UGC. Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP (Dissertations) for additional reasoning and understand that's for far more reliable essays. Do you have any information making this to appear anything beyond an essay for college? It is indeed not reliable. I have shared your view on reliability on slang terms in the past but it has been pointed out to me that it still doesn't make it reliable. Are we still in disagreement? SlySneakyFox (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that Scholarship link. Whilst I do agree with that care should be exercised and that secondary sources are preferred, I don't think that alone should be reason to not use this reference here, as it still appears to be reliable, more than the previous two or any other I could find.
Feel free to change it back if you really don't trust it, but please keep it at the beginning.
I also wonder what other editors think, but I think the reliability is probably something better discussed at WP:RSN considering how the last section went ^^ 8ya (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I really do not consider it reliable as it is just repeating unreliable sources. I do not understand how you see it as more reliable then GLAAD or a published slang dictionary. With the permission you just given I will be changing it back. I'm not exactly sure what "keep it at the beginning" meant. So I'll be taking it as to put the entire previous sentence back in the beginning where your sentence was. If this is not what you meant feel free to correct me. SlySneakyFox (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I look at it as not as "repeating unreliable sources", but looking at the usage of a slang term in practice, among that being those unreliable sources, as a primary source – which is exactly what slang dictionaries do too. Also I wasn't talking about GLAAD, but Nozawa, Shunsuke (2012), which whilst being a much better, peer reviewed source, is nothing but a parantheses mention for what we're citing.
Ah yes that's what I meant. I removed the slang dictionary as it doesn't fit there, should be covered by the first paragrahp, and seems to imply that trap is only used for 2D (for example Nozawa, Shunsuke (2012) is talking about 3D). 8ya (talk • contribs) 15:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Got to disagree with the implication of "only." It says "common to anime" not "only to anime" after all. Then "referred to as a "trap" should become "referred to by the slang term "trap". While I understand it doesn't fit there neither does the disclaimer that it's offensive when used on trans people. One reason I give the definition is to clear up any incorrect connections/implications. Also, Nozawa, Shunsuke (2012) refers to the 2D as they're talking about videos. SlySneakyFox (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the disclaimer not fitting in there, which is why I hoping to have a reference in there connecting the two. I think it would be best to avoid incorrect connections/implications with changing the wording around like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otokonoko&diff=1038732632&oldid=1038437902 , but it seems like it wasn't good enough, maybe you can think of something better? :s
Sorry if my wording was misleading, I meant 2D as in anime/manga etc., as opposed to real-life people. 8ya (talk • contribs) 23:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"A type of character" refers to live action as well. I do not see where it implies "only" anime but understand you also mean a type of person but also note Nozawa, Shunsuke (2012) also refers to a category and not specifically a person. I'm not sure what specific implications you are talking about. It seems what implications we see differs. I say just leave it as NekoKatsun's August 12 version minus the extra sources for the last sentence. For now since you don't have a reference I say either re-add the slang definition or remove the GLAAD comment as Kroon 2010 is at least equality related. SlySneakyFox (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

"Character" here refers to "a person portrayed in an artistic piece". This doesn't make sense with for example Nozawa, Shunsuke (2012), where it's talking about the people, not the character they're cosplaying as. And nonetheless it doesn't fit there.
Don't have a reference for what? For the definition not fitting there?
This isn't an either both or none situation, but do as you see fit with GLAAD. I think the reference before was sufficient for what it's worth, but I'll leave this to other editors to decide. 8ya (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Nozawa, Shunsuke (2012) refers to a category invoked in context of a video which to me is under "artistic piece." Don't have a reference for the disclaimer, as you said yourself "I agree with the disclaimer not fitting in there, which is why I hoping to have a reference in there connecting the two." It's either both or none to me because if GLAAD is related with the formal version of trap then surely the slang is also related. This isn't the first time this has come up and I do not wish to have repeat conversations. Having both the slang and disclaimer is a nice compromise. So I'll ask one more time before I "do as you see fit with GLAAD." Are you fine with having the slang definition reverted back in? SlySneakyFox (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You're bending words here, you don't just call people "characters", even if they're artists.
"the slang" What slang do you mean? The word "trap"? Because that one is already in there. I don't really understand what you want to "compromise"
If you want to explicitly express that definition it would be more fitting with the definitions at the start, although I don't see the point as it is already covered. Or them being common to anime is what you're trying to include? 8ya (talk • contribs) 02:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not bending words. Nozawa, Shunsuke (2012) isn't calling people otokonokos but invoking the category. Yes, the slang trap. Past editors have requested a disclaimer. The disclaimer is off topic and can cause confusion on what the slang means. So I have the definition added. I quote the entire definition not to include a specific part but because the definition can be argued and a quote is the most clear. It seems the answer to my past question is "no" so I'll go ahead and "do as you see fit with GLAAD" by removing it. SlySneakyFox (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Establish consensus BEFORE making changes, Sneaky. The term is offensive IRL, GLAAD supports that, it should be left in. I would also like to add that barring additional sources, I'm starting to lean towards not including "trap" at all. One source really isn't enough to include it when we take undue weight into account. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I did get a consensus first with the other editor and waited about day and a half to see if anyone would speak. They did not. The term is not offensive. It is a formal word. GLAAD references the formal word not the slang in a context that's not about otokonokos. It is off topic. I am fine with including it with the compromise that the slang definition is also included. So do you disagree with adding the definition back in? SlySneakyFox (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, we have only one source that's nearly a decade old linking the terms. The more I think about it the more it shouldn't be here at all. Doubtless you'll object to its removal? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

There are other sources that are also a decade old, do we also remove them? Nah. Why focus only on this one? It is reliable so it is cited. Do you consider this source reliable. https://www.gamespark.jp/article/2019/03/30/88579.html Now back to the question. Re-adding the definition if we are to keep the off topic disclaimer. SlySneakyFox (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It may be reliable, it's the first time I've encountered it, but... were you just using the Google translation? Not sure if you speak Japanese, but I do, and the meaning doesn't quite come through via Google - the article is pointing out that although it's called "Trap Shrine", the game's content actually deals with otokonoko (the article differentiates between them). My point is that as of right now we have only one source that links the terms, and this is a tiny article. Is it necessary to include "trap" as a term, noting that Wikipedia is not a collection of random knowledge and that it's inclusion could be considered WP:UNDUE? I believe not. If it were we would be able to find multiple sources linking the terms. It's been months, and we can't. It shouldn't be here. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm using DeepL. "The English title of the game is 'Trap Shrine', but 'Trap' is a well-known slang term for a 'man's daughter' used by overseas anime lovers and sometimes gamers as well." seems quite clear. There have been multiple sources but people wish for an air tight reliability usually only in this specific section but sources are still sources and I have provided with these 2 for a "may" which is not a overzealous statement about everybody. A game being translated, a article about it, and a peer reviewed article seem fine to me. Might I also point to you WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NODISCLAIMER. "collection of random knowledge" like a formal word of a slang term being offensive on another group of people? If you believe a removal of content needs a consensus then you should have no problem with me re-adding trap's slang definition back in, right? As you have ignored this question twice now. If you have no disagreement in your next reply I'll be re-adding the slang definition that was removed without a consensus. SlySneakyFox (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE, if you want to throw policies at me. I agree with the slang definition being removed. This is how consensus works - it's not always in your favor. If you're that desperate to have it included, take it to the appropriate noticeboard, since 8ya and I have been trying to find compromises with you and your are refusing to work with us. At this point your edits are tendentious and you're just trying to WP:PUSH "trap" into the article for reasons you have yet to set forth. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

A consensus is not a vote either. And if it was the other editor agreed with giving me the ability to do whatever with the GLAAD source including removing it. I don't see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE is in agreement with you since the GLAAD doesn't mention otokonoko. WP:PUSH is an essay and if anyone here is trying to push anything it is the one that said "I feel that Wikipedia's voice shouldn't normalize a slang term that's offensive in real life." Either both are kept as a compromise or both are removed. SlySneakyFox (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're comfortable with removing "trap" in its entirety, as I think you're suggesting from "Either both are kept as a compromise or both are removed", I would be in agreement with that. Is this what you're suggesting? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

No. I am specifically only referencing the slang definition not the "An otokonoko character may be referred to as a "trap." Either both the definition and disclaimer are kept or both the definition and disclaimer are removed. The disclaimer is off topic would you not agree? SlySneakyFox (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I would not agree, which is part of why we're having this discussion in the first place. The disclaimer makes perfect sense and is relevant to the article and the term that you're insisting on including. A single tenuous source isn't enough verifiability to include "trap" in the article at all would you not agree? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Why do you disagree? Otokonoko is not at all even mentioned in GLAAD. The slang version of trap is also not mention and otokonokos are not transgender people. How are you connecting it, is my question. The source is not tenuous as it is very reliable, even peer reviewed. Also, do you disagree with the other source. You have not gave a solid stance yet. How about this source which shows another example of 男の娘 being translated to trap? https://nikkan-spa.jp/104794 SlySneakyFox (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with otokonoko. I have a problem with "trap". If "trap" is mentioned in the article then GLAAD's notice that it's offensive applies. I've already provided sourcing stating that "trap" is offensive when used for any person acting outside of their assigned gender role. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I know you don't have a problem with otokonoko. GLAAD is about the formal trap not the slang. It is original research because it makes no mention of otokonoko. You provided group blogs which are not a reliable sources and were definitely not neutral point of view. GLAAD should be completely removed and I was willing to compromise as long as the slang definition was added but now it is removed. The formal version of a slang in a different context doesn't significantly relate it to the article. And again what is your stance on the sources I have recently provided? SlySneakyFox (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Not quite sure what is meant by "formal" vs "slang" here. Do we have a source which describes this distinction? - Ryk72 ^talk 23:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Kroon 2010 would be that source but I'm not sure what you mean for a distinction. A slang term has a different meaning then the formal same word. GLAAD uses the formal version of trap, as exhibited by "trapping." There's nothing in GLAAD to point that it is using the slang term and the words around trap like "deceptive," "fooling," "pretending" are also all formal and point to the formal definition of trap. "Trap" as mentioned in otokonoko and source is a slang version. The way I'm reading your comment is like asking for a source on the distinction between trap (the mouth) vs trap the formal word. SlySneakyFox (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the distinction. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you see how there's no mention of otokonoko? Do you think GLAAD is referring to the formal or slang definition of trap? SlySneakyFox (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

GLAAD is referring to "trap" as a noun for a male who presents a culturally feminine gender expression. That's not a definition found in OED, Cambridge, or Merriam-Webster, so would have to be a colloquial (slang) term. I'm not sure how any of the formal definitions for trap (noun) (ensnarement devices, cunning ruses, horse carts, baggage, mouths) are relevant. Nor, if there's another definition somewhere in the above, what the distinction is. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

GLAAD is not referring to "trap" as a noun for a male who presents a culturally feminine gender expression. How do you get this? It does not even gender anything. There is nothing to point to this in the paragraph. Please quote me what sentence you see that supports this. Also, Merriam Webster "something by which one is caught or stopped unawares" SlySneakyFox (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hrm... so what is GLAAD referring to then? - Ryk72 ^talk 01:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The formal version of trap. "A device used for capture" or "a clever plan designed to trick somebody, either by capturing them or by making them do or say something that they did not mean to do or say"[8]/ "a dangerous or unpleasant situation which you have gotten into and from which it is difficult or impossible to escape"[9]/"something by which one is caught or stopped unawares"[10]. That's pretty clear considering how they use "trapping" which is not slang. Still waiting for that quote that supports your claim. SlySneakyFox (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

A "defamatory" spring mousetrap by Victor (with apologies to EEng)

I don't think GLAAD considers calling "a device used for capture" (e.g. mousetrap, bear trap) a trap to be defamatory. It is the use of the term for gender non-conforming persons which is described as defamatory. Describing a person as "a dangerous or unpleasant situation which you have gotten into" or ""something by which one is caught" is what GLAAD considers offensive. Describing dangerous or unpleasant situations as such is not. - Ryk72 ^talk 01:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course not. Same with the other words. It's not labeling "deceptive," "fooling," "pretending," "posing," "trap," or "masquerading" as always defamatory. But it is specifically on a transgender people not simply GNC people. It clearly says "Do not characterize transgender people as "deceptive," as "fooling" or "trapping" others..." It is not speaking for otokonokos or any other groups. SlySneakyFox (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh is that the distinction? That is offensive to describe a transgender person as "a dangerous or unpleasant situation which you have gotten into" or ""something by which one is caught", but it's not offensive to so describe a crossdressing person? (With an associated presumption that all Otokonoko are crossdressing, rather than transgender). - Ryk72 ^talk 02:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, GLAAD is silent on trap on crossdressers. Keep in mind the slang does not mean "a dangerous or unpleasant situation..." It means "A type of character common to anime; one who is identified as male, but who is depicted as quite beautiful and feminine." Whether it's offensive to crossdressers or not is not given by GLAAD. "not sure where you got "With an associated presumption that all Otokonoko are crossdressing" An otokonoko "is a Japanese term for men who have a culturally feminine gender expression." as listed by the article. It's definition is about a crossdresser. If it said gender identity then it would be different. And if you wish to go down that route then a English based website based on an English populace probably shouldn't be speaking for Japanese otokonokos. Still waiting on that quote. SlySneakyFox (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with the GLAAD reference not fitting properly, I disagree with the formal/slang differentiation, not like using it as a slur is "formal". They're just different usages of the same word I'd say. 8ya (talk • contribs) 04:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean. I was thinking formal in the same way as deceptive/deceiving is formal. Arguing whether it is slang or formal is not my main point, so I don't mind leaving it behind. My main point is that trap in GLAAD is not referencing a feminine men/otokonoko nor is it saying what crossdressers are offended by in the sectioned cited. SlySneakyFox (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I highly disagree with that, trap is a common term used for them, quite clearly not as a slur, so it should be mentioned. Also from my experience, and google trends, it is also the usual way to refer to them in the English speaking world, as opposed to "Otokonoko".
However I do feel like most of this is talking about WP:BLUE – both the trap usage and some people considering it offensive – but asking for references about the "side" one doesn't agree with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 8ya (talk • contribs) 04:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@SlySneakyFox: "The consensus for the removal of the slang definition was the removal of GLAAD", I wasn't agreeing with you if that's what you mean. I only agreed about the GLAAD mention as it is looking off.
As it is the extra definition there is deceiving at best. 8ya (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparently he was banned from both editing the article and its talk page, so I'll go ahead and revert it back.

Although I still think we could do better with that GLAAD reference. 8ya (talk • contribs) 10:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Page title and search description is misleading.

I've somehow lost my previous account and probably only edited one thing in the past. I'm not 100% sure about the rules but seeing this page and some of the conversations here, I felt I needed to comment about this so i made an account.

I think everyone can agree the common usage and understanding of the term "otokonoko" to mean "male child". So, I find it very strange that a article exists that uses that term with a entirely unrelated meaning "man that looks like a woman". I understand that a subculture picked the term to use for their own needs and modified the Japanese spelling, but the issue is that it's spelled the same in English, which leads to confusion that doesn't exist when it's spelled in Japanese.

Normally a primary usage's page might have other usages listed, or a disambiguation page that lists many usages, but there doesn't seem to be a page for the actual original and common meaning of "otokonoko", which makes sense since it's just a word.

Right now, if you search for "otokonoko" it pops up with a description saying, "Japanese men who cross-dress as women", which for 99.9% of cases is wrong. Is there some way to edit this so it changes to "Boy(male child)"? or "not to be confused with 男の子: Male child: Boy"

I think it would be better to just create a essentially blank page for the original term or a disambiguation page which comes up first in searches with both terms listed even if it links to an article that doesn't exist so that there is no confusion?

I'm not sure how well this would work with search, but it seems the most clear and concise way to label these pages would be... "Otokonoko(男の子: Male child: Boy)" and "Otokonoko(男の娘: Male Girl: Male Cross-dresser)".

I don't really care about the specifics if anyone has issue with the term 'cross-dresser' and wants to use 'man that looks like a woman', but I think the difference in spelling and meaning should come up in search so as to not mislead people. If anyone has any ideas on how this could be achieved, I'm all ears. Jessie with extra words (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that I think the majority of cases where it is used in English (outside a language-learning context, that is), it is indeed used for crossdressers. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so another page for that work wouldn't work, as there is no article content for the common use of otokonoko in Japanese. Maybe a disambiguation page that doesn't link to the common meaning would work? But I need to think more on it. Sandtalon (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This topic is wrong

I’ve spent decades in Japan and my wife is Japanese. Otokonoko means male child. There is no feminine of any kind inside it. Saying it is “pronounced like otokonoko male child” does not make it right. This page should be deleted for flat out lying. Making obscure references to a manga (where the child in question is slightly feminine) does not change the meaning of the word. 2403:4800:8477:4D01:813F:7A2D:E699:CDD4 (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Whatever is to be done in the article will require reliable secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

日本語はわかりますか？ 60.146.115.172 (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

そう、分かった。NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

この言葉がネット用語だ。意味がふたつ訳、別のページがある EvergreenFir (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)