Thread:Cyberweasel89/@comment-2089817-20200227050534/@comment-862718-20200304061320

Silver-Haired Seireitou wrote: Sorry for the late response. On some level, I understand their stance, and part of it is a stance I've adopted too. Which is to say that it does depend on the author's portrayal. Wikis like this which are meant to be geared toward canon material should be about documentation of the work as plainly as possible as the writer intended, not imposing self-interpretations, but the biggest problem comes with a lack of communication and the lack of reliable and properly translated material. You're right though, if three other sources of information all agree with one viewpoint and this place is the only holdout, then it definitely is suspect. That being said, as a journalist, I'm sure you can appreciate that it's also very plausible for those three databases to be reporting it incorrectly. A lot of these places, MyAnimeList and TV Tropes in particular, are not exactly the most strict when it comes to maintaining source credibility. Wikipedia, also, may cite references but you never can really tell if those sources are reliable unless you check them. To use stats jargon, they might be really precise but their accuracy might be way off the mark, and I'm sure you're aiming more for accuracy.

Not that I'm siding with this community, I've long since been disappointed with the lack of standards here and the complete absence of citations on many important pages. I hate reading something here and then having to find second-rate translations to even see if any of it is true or horribly paraphrased. But in my way of partially defending them, I merely mean to say that I'm sure it can't be that simply black and white either. Though I suppose that's the point of your research on the subject, to find out what's really going on there.

In terms of saying it's a hot button issue, I might have oversold that a bit. I've seen Facebook comment sections on Rakudai Kishi-associated pages and the occasional reddit thread pop up where people argue about it, so it made me believe it's pretty widely debated in this community. That's just it, though. It IS the author's intention to portray Nagi as a transwoman. Nagi fits ALL the Japanese cultural standards for one, and I even listed numerous other transwomen in anime that Nagi perfectly matches the ticked boxes for. The problem is that the people on this Wiki are looking at things through THEIR culture's eyes and seem to be heavily clouded with grasping at scant straws of validation, refusal to accept counterpoints, and no doubt lots of personal biases. Looking at Nagi through the eyes of someone in Japanese culture, it becomes VERY clear that Nagi is written with the intention of being a Japanese transwoman. Japan has far different cultural standards and stigmas around transwomen, which is why you see so many crossdressers. Since transwomen aren't really culturally acceptable to dress as women, many will claim to be an otoko no ko to try and wear women's clothing in a more acceptable way, and many other transwomen will say they are a "woman at heart" or "a woman on the inside" as a stock phrase to express their gender identity in a way that doesn't raise red flags. Nagi ticks all those boxes, and more than just that. And I've checked Wikipedia's sources and even spoken to friends in Japan. They can confirm, Nagi is a transwoman. So I don't really get why they're using poor translations to try and validate their opinions and not that of an actual Japanese person like I have. It really doesn't paint them well.