Character pronoun and identity discussion

The LN takes precedence. Sui is an "it".

While we're on the topic of "it" for nonhumans, are there any objections to "it" as the default pronoun for individual Pokémon? The majority of media goes that route, including the games that started it all.

Stick with It for Pokemon, imo. Multiple Pokemon are Gender defined(I.E. Latias and Latios), but a huge amount don't.

Oh, right, and Omochao as They/Them. I say wait for Cheese for the game version to change. Sonic X also went with male too, so in some works, Cheese is defined. The games will likely retcon it later, but the Visual Novel game was meant as an April Fool's Joke and shouldn't be used in that way to represent canon. ...Albeit, who knows how long it'll be before Cream reappears, but still. I'd wait until they reappear and confirm if Cheese is given pronouns again.

Edited by Irene on Apr 5th 2023 at 11:59:36 AM

Referring to Omochao as they/them/their sounds right to me. I'm also leaning on saying Cheese should be referred to the same way too.

EDIT: (x4) Maybe "it/its" because the light novel is the original work and I didn't find anything saying the creator (Ren Eguchi) had any influence over the anime (besides making its source material). I might be wrong, however.

Edited by RandomTroper123 on Apr 6th 2023 at 11:25:24 AM

I agree with "it" for Hollow Knight and "they/them" for Omochao per the reasons given.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 5th 2023 at 7:48:01 AM

the visual novel is considered canon insofar as sega considers every sonic game canon, and it was written by sonic's social media team and approved by sega, so i do think it counts as a valid source combined with the statement about chao in the IDW comics. again though, i do lean toward waiting for official in-game confirmation for cheese just to be safe, so this mostly concerns omochao...

regarding pokémon, i've always thought our de facto rule was to use it/its to match the official policy, yeah. i have seen some entries use gendered pronouns for specific pokémon (like detective pikachu as he/him, which does have precedence in canon) or for single-gender species (like jynx, which doesn't seem to be supported in canon), but on the whole we seem to prefer it/its.

[Redacted, for the record I moved what this originally said to another message]

Edited by RandomTroper123 on Apr 6th 2023 at 11:07:39 AM

Just so you know, you can't edit pings into a message. To ping someone, you need to make a separate post.

if there's no objections i'll go ahead and update omochao's character page entry

I do think "it/its" should be the default when referring to entire Pokémon species and genderless Pokémon, since the games usually do that, but newer games have had characters refer to individual Pokémon with gendered pronouns, such as the noble Pokémon and ride Pokémon in Pokémon Legends: Arceus and Arven's Mabosstiff in Pokémon Scarlet and Violet.

I think "it/its" for the species and gendered pronouns for specific individual Pokémon (if gender is known) is fine.

Edited by RandomTroper123 on Apr 7th 2023 at 12:47:06 PM

I think we discussed the pokemon situation before. Individual mons can be addressed by gender, but species are "it". Using gendered pronouns for entire species wouldn't make grammatical sense anyway.

A confirmed gender isn't enough if in-universe pronouns don't match. The scattered exceptions above are exceptions, not the rule.

This is why Pokémon is hard to deal with; it's hard to separate gender-as-game-mechanic from gender-as-pronoun.

Some species are always a specific gender, so it makes more sense to refer them to as that gender. That's still in-universe, not just a gameplay mechanic(it's only Gen 1 where everything was coded as male, due to it no being a mechanic yet. There's also a rare few where their gender can swap on an evolution due to programming, but that wouldn't, well... matter for this purpose. We have oddities, yes). There's also non-gendered ones entirely, but outside of a specific trope that could be related, that doesn't matter.

Otherwise, individual members are their own exception as noted(as they're actual defined characters beyond the normal Pokedex lore). I don't remember any Pokemon who has no gender being given one either, so that's not something we have to worry about. We have masculine and feminine voices(for two different Mewtwo), but the movies/anime didn't attempt to gender them from what I remember, so. No worries~

Eh, no, it wouldn't make sense even for explicitly gendered species. It's still incorrect to describe an entire group as "he" or "she". That's why I don't really understand what the debate even is

Oh, I misread the point, heh. My bad.

Yeah, there's nothing to debate. They/Them for any group is... how you describe them, if I'm getting what is meant right??

For the record, what bwburke said was what I was proposing. I was referring to referring to individual Pokémon with gendered pronouns only if they're referred to as such in-game.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 7th 2023 at 5:35:47 AM

Believe it or not, I've got another Guilty Gear character I want to discuss, the newest fighter "Bedman?".

The folder for the character right now kinda bounces around between pronouns, either "it" or "they". And not helping is that the space is shared with its master, Delilah (she/her). The Bed is a mechanical construct and doesn't really have a human personality, so I don't think it really can be gendered.

(This is mostly for the sake of writing consistency when addressing the character)

Delilah calls Bedman? "have never seen it act like this before" in the trailer. I don't know the plot of Guilty Gear -STRIVE-, but glancing at the character sheet it sounds like Bedman? is a proper robot and not the Bedman from Guilty Gear Xrd.

I'm unsure if this is a pronoun issue or simply the folder referring to both characters who share the fighter slot.

Edited by Amonimus on Apr 12th 2023 at 10:08:55 PM

I checked Bedman?'s Arcade mode, and everyone (Delilah, Baiken, and Ramlethal) call Bed "it". The profile might need a general check-through, as it originally was only for Delilah before Bedman?'s announcement and thus Bed's inclusion into the profile. Bedman? as a character is just Bed fighting while Delilah standing near it.

I think "it" because, from my experience, mechanical constructs are often (albeit not always) referred to as "it". Plus, Bedman seems to be referred to as that in series.

I could be wrong about this though because I don't know too much about the franchise.

Is there any consensus on V1 from ULTRAKILL? I've seen several edits in the history of people editing instances of referring to V1 as "it" and changing them to they/them. I don't think there's anything in-game suggesting that V1 has enough of a consciousness to warrant being considered a person, but there is also a part where V1 is implied to be capable of thought. Any ideas?

Edited by ReginaldOgron5 on Apr 15th 2023 at 1:59:12 AM

I suppose I should bring up how in the most recent One Piece volume, Oda drew the character of Yamato as an oiran, which are traditionally presented as female.

And that got me thinking particularly in light of seeing people say the matter with Yamato was objectively resolved in the sense that Yamato will always only be presented as male, yet, Oda does things such as the Yamato oiran drawing even after the fact, in addition to evidence in the manga itself.

This isn’t to deny people who refer to Yamato as male, but what I suppose I’m trying to suggest is that if Oda presents the framework in such a way where it’s truly not wrong to refer to Yamato as female, and that it’s indeed fine to refer to Yamato as both he or she, again, going by how Oda and others have presented all the evidence and examples and official media, then can there really be no flexibility there in that case?

I mean, if Oda isn’t calling out people who refer to Yamato as female in regards to a topic that is very much highly important, then why should anyone worry about it at that point? And keep in mind I say this with the respect towards Kiku as the woman at heart she clearly is. I know this is an important topic for many people, but for as much as people think this is all 100% resolved and how there’s this idea that there’s only one way to view things, can there really be no room for the suggestion of flexibility?

Edited by electricmastro on Apr 16th 2023 at 1:00:47 PM

I mean, you can identify as male and still present feminine. Gender roles are as fabricated as anything else and they don't define how someone actually feels.

Good answer. That definitely seems a lot more flexible than always going by the idea that there’s only one way to view things.

Edited by electricmastro on Apr 16th 2023 at 1:08:42 PM