Talk:Hikaru Utada/Archive 5

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Evidence that Utada continues to use feminine pronouns (i.e. she/her) keeps increasing. Not only does the profile on her personal website still use feminine pronouns, but recent news items on there do as well:

• Hikaru Utada recently has announced her first tie-up with a TBS drama series in four years. October 15
• The last time Hikaru Utada marked the US Billboard charts was 2019, for her first time in the Billboard Hot 100... September 1

She has never said or implied her pronouns are they/them, and that her personal website uses she/her shows that that is what is in accord with her self-identification per

The only arguments I can see against using she/her are original research or POV. All the evidence of self-identification as specified by GENDERID comes down on the side of she/her. The fact that she never said anything about pronouns also strongly implies she never desired a change from the she/her pronouns used in the past.

Also, I remember reading somewhere recently that in Japanese, even the first-person pronouns ("I", "me") are gendered. Hijiri88, since you know the language, any evidence from that angle? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

21:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Ryk72, is that not only the case that first person pronouns are gendered in very informal/casual speech? i.e., as I recall, "atashi" is typically used by females, and "boku" generally by males (or by feminine/masculine individuals generally regardless of their sex), but both are improper for formal use, while the "proper" wata(ku)shi first person pronouns are gender neutral. Is that not so? (I also seem to recall that Japanese's only third person pronoun is both gender neutral and typically only used in contempt). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D8A0:BDBC:2DED:46C5 (talk

) 07:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

"Kare" means "him" and "kanojo" means "her", and neither of them imply contempt, so I don't know where you got that idea. It's very uncommon to actually use them, because pronouns in general are usually omitted in Japanese, but they exist and are used occasionally. Mlb96 (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@

Ryk72, 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D8A0:BDBC:2DED:46C5, 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D8A0:BDBC:2DED:46C5, and Mlb96: Sorry, I seem not to have noticed this until now! Using pronouns to refer to human beings is generally either "friendly"/"intimate" or "rude" ("contemptuous" might be taking it a bit far though). But pronouns are also much, much more rarely used in Japanese than in English, since information that can be inferred from context is usually omitted, and pronouns, by definition, almost always refer to something that is known from context. Also, kanojo is something of a neologism coined in the late 19th century (in the form kano-onna) in order to translate European literature. Premodern Japanese actually had third-person pronouns to refer to someone "near to" the speaker (kore) or "far away from" the speaker (kare, are, etc.), and all of these (including a so, whose precise meaning -- whether it refers to someone "close to the listener" or literally means the same thing as sono hito or sono X in modern Japanese -- I'm not entirely sure of) could be used to refer to people, animals, and inanimate objects; none of them distinguished gender, hence the need among Meiji translators to coin a word for "she" (or perhaps elle). The pronunciation kanojo appears not to predate the 1910s. (This information is practically all taken from the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten, as well as various translations of The Tale of Genji -- which quite prominently uses a kare-kore contrast between two women in its opening chapter

-- into English.)

Modern native speakers of Japanese with imperfect English, at least when surveyed by American/European linguists, also seem to show a pattern of referring to both men and women as "he", and this pattern is shared by native speakers of other languages that don't traditionally distinguish between "he" and "she" (and/or "it"). It would therefore not surprise me, given that English and most European languages don't have the "near-far" distinction, to learn that this situation has been presented in western linguistics texts as "the Japanese have only one word for he/she/it". (This information comes from the same lecture series I cited here, most of which seem to take it as a given that Japanese does not distinguish between "he" and "she".)

And yes, I know that if you ask a modern Japanese person (especially a JFL teacher) what the words for "he" and "she" are, they will give essentially the same information as Mlb96 has above, and they're not wrong in doing so. I'm just saying that this is a relatively very recent development (practically, if not literally, within living memory) and is therefore not reflected in the field of comparative linguistics except among those who have studied Japanese as a foreign language. And it would certainly not surprise me if this is related to the reason why Utada has not given her "preferred pronouns" and why no comparable case of a non-binary Japanese having done so can seemingly be located. (The closest I could find was the Japanese Wikipedia article on transgender male actor Shiki Aoki, which says he refers to himself as boku.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, do you have a reliable source stating that Utada uses feminine for themselves? If yes, you have a point but if not, then you do not. WP articles are supposed to use they/them when the preference of the subject is unknown and in question, which appears to be the case here. Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

As I explained, it is not true that the preference of the subject is unknown. Pronouns are routinely updated when a BLP has only stated such on their verified

MOS:GENDERID. The gender of the pronouns used for her in Japanese - first-person especially - also factor in to assessing this. Crossroads ^-talk-

23:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like an OR argument to me. Do we have a statement of what the subject's preferred pronouns are in English? Or in Japanese, even? Newimpartial (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

(Responding because I was pinged. But I think I've stated previously that I don't want to be involved in this discussion anymore. I found the previous "discussion", more at the WikiProject than here, highly unwelcoming, toxic, and upsetting. I do not seem to have made this clear enough the last few times, so I'll say it again now: I don't want to be pinged back to this discussion. I have been a casual fan of our subject's music for more than a decade, but I don't generally follow the personal lives of musicians I like [I didn't even know Sakai Izumi was dead until about six months after buying several of her CDs], so the flare-up on this page, seemingly lit by people who had never heard of Utada before June 2021, was somewhat surprising to me. I think we should respect the stated wishes of our subject, whatever those may be. But I DON'T want to get into an extended debate over it. Please do not ping me again.) Demanding an explicit statement from a Japanese pop-star regarding "preferred pronouns" in English seems like a bit much; if we applied the reverse standard, then hardly any self-identified non-binary who aren't British, Irish, Australian, American or Canadian could be assumed to use singular "they". The subject's official website continues to use female third-person pronouns, the subject uses feminine first-person pronouns in Japanese, and the subject has consistently self-identified as "a woman". Given this last fact in particular, it seems highly likely that the "non-binary" statements earlier in the summer were more about not wanting to be "defined" by any particular gender identity or marital status, and so using special language that essentially shouts at the reader that "this person is gender-neutral and does not identify as a woman and has requested not to be referred to as she/her" seems like it rather runs counter to our subject's wishes (even setting aside the fact that does not identify as a woman and has requested not to be referred to as she/her is OR). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC) (edited 00:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC))

Hijiri88, what is the source for the subject has consistently self-identified as "a woman"? I haven't seen any statements since the nonbinary announcement that would support that, but I might easily have missed something. Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Then you have not been paying attention.[1] So, for me, thinking about what does being a woman mean to me, it's just being myself.[2] (As an aside, I should have known that if you were not willing to respect our subject's wishes not to be defined in terms of gender identity that you would also not respect my wish not to be pinged.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how I am somehow "defining" the BLP subject in terms of gender identity, but anyway, anyone who would use a Shiseido promotional video as an expression of a BLP's gender identity (and do we even know when the video was filmed?) doesn't seem like a plausible judge of whether or not to use gendered pronouns. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you please stop shoehorning "BLP" into every comment as though that policy were somehow on your side?

As for I don't see how I am somehow "defining" the BLP subject in terms of gender identity I should note that I did not mention you or any particular user, but rather was referring exclusively to how our article is written. As far as I am concerned, an article on a human topic where every 20th word is the subject's surname and that includes awkward phrasing like Utada is bilingual and speaks English and Japanese fluently. On September 7, 2002, Utada married Kazuaki Kiriya, a photographer and film director who had directed several of Utada's music videos. He was fifteen years Utada's senior. is very much "defining our subject by her gender identity": if we wrote about her in the same terms as her official website, this quote would name her once or maybe twice, not four times. I do think you, and perhaps others, had never heard of Utada Hikaru (or any Japanese musician) prior to this summer, and came to this article just to argue about pronouns, but I didn't say that until just now in response to your putting those words in my mouth.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

As a passerby only slightly aware of the backstory here: So is this as simple as "The subject said that they're nonbinary, and people assumed that they no longer took she/her pronouns?" (ambiguous they there). If so, that seems a rather offensive reduction (both gender-wise and culture-wise) of what it means to be nonbinary. Even if an American were to proclaim "I'm the enbiest enby who ever enbied!", we'd be wrong to assume a change in pronouns based just on that. Or is there some context I'm missing? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads for one has indicated elsewhere that WP should default to they/them for people who announce themselves nonbinary (unless they are known to prefer gendered pronouns). So I don't see the urgency of making this a special case. Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Well I disagree with that broader point, so I don't see this as a special case. We should not be in the business of second-guessing people's pronouns. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

But if we aren't second-guessing, then what pronouns do we use for a person? Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent

are reliable provided certain criteria are met. Historically we've changed trans and nonbinary subjects' pronouns based on tweets or Instagram posts, so the same logic should apply for not changing pronouns (or changing them back).) Again, I'm not entirely up to speed on the underlying facts here, so I'm reserving judgment for if someone would like to dispute Crossroads' evidence. But if he's right on the facts, then yes, it seems like second-guessing to do anything other than use the pronouns the subject used for themself (ambiguous themself). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}

] (she/they) 17:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads is definitely right on the facts here. Tamzin, my thoughts here nearly match yours. I have been reviewing other enby articles, though, and as far as I can tell the tweets/IG posts are usually definitive statements of pronoun preferences. Have you commonly seen posts that just incidentally use third-person pronouns? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I dispute that. The pronoun choices made by the publicists on Utada's "personal website" should not be interpreted as "stated preferences of the subject", as I and others have argued previously. As far as I know, the latest authoritative announcement we have was Utada's self-declaration as non-binary (with secondary RS coverage), and no subsequent retraction or declaration of pronoun preferences. So I don't see any justification for re-introducing gendered pronouns into this article, nor any

reason to rush to do so. Newimpartial (talk

) 17:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Where have I indicated elsewhere that WP should default to they/them for people who announce themselves nonbinary? I do not recall having done this. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It was this edit that led me to that conclusion, particularly Our language has "he" for male identities, "she" for female ones, and "they" for non-binary ones. That is all-inclusive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 02:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I wonder how the above quote relates to "non-binary women"? I note that you (Newimpartial, not Crossroads) have now twice ignored the August promotional video where our subject self-identifies as "a woman". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hijiri, the quote was my answer to Crossroads' question - it does not represent my view. And I don't have any preconceptions about what pronouns nonbinary women (or nonbinary men) should prefer. But for that same reason, I don't see how that promotional video has anything to do with the selection of pronouns nor, having read the English transcript surrounding the "woman" statement, do I see a gender declaration in it at all. Nor do I know when it was filmed, or how much the promotional video is intended to say anything in particular about the actual identities of the Shiseido-promoting individual in question. So I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at, here. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

That comment of mine you quoted was explicitly in reference to neopronouns. It does not say what you think it does. And it does not negate Utada's self-preferences nor her evident status as both non-binary and a woman. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure your comment does not say what youthink it does. But anyway, what "preferences" do you think Utada has expressed? Or do you mean the publicist's preferences? Newimpartial (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Apparently you think that she is somehow not in control of her own website, and that a publicist in this day and age would actually disregard their client's gender identity.

WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Crossroads ^-talk-

05:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's been four months since Utada's nonbinary announcement. We know she's somewhat fluent in english, and regardless of if you don't consider her official website her personal blog, she would have notified the publicists to update the site by now if she really did want to be known with they/them pronouns. I'm opening this up for an rfc; Tamzin's comments as a she/they NB supporting using Utada's last known pronouns (she/her) help break the POV mold, but it wouldn't hurt to have more opinions on this matter. FormalDude, can you explain why you changed this article to use they/them pronouns when there wasn't any non-OR or POV evidence? Unnamed anon (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate what you're getting at, I don't think my own gender is relevant here, except inasmuch as it informs my perspective that we need to get people's pronouns right. But if my participation—not as a nonbinary person, but as an editor who takes a hard line on pronouns—helps show that this isn't a purely POV-partisan issue, then good. To me, it's about a straightforward application of GENDERID, same as in discussions where I've been on "the other side" (cf. Talk:James Barry (surgeon)/Archive 2). That said, I'm still reserving judgment until those arguing for they/them have had a chance to make their case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon: My edit summary explained the reason, but to further elaborate, the singular they is much more preferable to repeating the subject's name over and over simply because we don't want to misgender them. Using they/them has no implication of the person's gender (it is a gender-neutral pronoun) and as such, using it in this article would be correct regardless of what Utada's gender is. ––FormalDude talk 00:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment - first of all, the last version of this article to which I contributed to was without pronouns, not a "they/them" version. So that is the version that I understood to have consensus. Second, my position is that gendered pronouns should not be added to the article without an express statement from the BLP subject endorsing or at least using gendered pronouns - and I haven't seen any such thing, only statements written by publicity people that do not seem especially rigorous. Has anyone seen anything else? Newimpartial (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Should the article use she/her?

• Yes, per the above, including excellent points made by others. As explained, her personal website uses she/her, even very recently, and she uses feminine first-person pronouns in reference to herself in Japanese. It is not for us to second-guess this based on faulty ideas that non-binary people must use genderless pronouns. Pinging everyone who commented above so they can give more formal "votes" for the ease of the eventual closer: Newimpartial, Hijiri88, Tamzin, Firefangledfeathers, Unnamed anon, FormalDude. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree it is not for us to second-guess their choice of pronouns. I don't think anyone is arguing that non-binary people must use genderless pronouns though. I've suggested gender-neutral pronouns only as a compromise for a subject who's choice of pronouns appeared to be unclear. Weighing all the sources that've been presented thus far though, I do think there's now good policy-based reasons to justify using feminine pronouns. ––FormalDude talk 00:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Where does this STRAWPERSON come from that non-binary people must use genderless pronouns? I have certainly not argued that. My point was always that the threshold of evidence for a nonbinary person to be stated to prefer their pre-transition pronouns has to be reasonably high, and I haven't seen it met by the status quo of a publicist's web postings. Newimpartial (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes until new sources present themselves saying otherwise. Right now though, the sources suggest feminine pronouns. ––FormalDude talk 00:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, as long as our subject's official website does I initially found the argument presented above, that Utada is likely not personally involved in the upkeep of the English version of her official website, compelling, but given all the other evidence, such as the use of feminine first-person pronouns and the explicit self-references as "a woman", I think the best reading of the somewhat ambiguous "non-binary" statement (and the much, much more ambiguous statement about "prefixes") is that our subject does not wish to be "defined" or "tied to" any specific gender ID (something also reinforced elsewhere in the Shiseido commercial), and we should therefore avoid using unnatural language (such as skirting all use of personal pronouns or possessive determiners in reference to our subject, or using the singular "they" in reference to our [known] subject, etc.) that "draws attention to" a particular interpretation of our subject's statements in June and forces the reader to think about our subject's gender identity more than the various more important aspects of our subject. (BTW, this ping is fine.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Anything I could add now is something that has already been said by myself or somebody else, but to make a long story short, there is much more reliable evidence that she still uses feminine pronouns, and the only "evidence" to do anything different has been a single statement that is related, but not mutually exclusive with the issue at hand. This endless cycle certainly deserves its own section on the lame edit wars page. Oh wait, I already put it there a month ago when I thought this was done. I may have to update it. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, barring new developments. I say that just to be clear that even the strongest consensus possible here would not prevent someone from changing this if Utada issues a clear statement requesting something other than she/her. I don't see any reason to think that the subject's publicity people don't speak for her. The main consideration of
  WP:BLP is to not do harm; it would be strange for Utada to feel hurt by us using she/her here, but also to not care when her own agents do so. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}
  ] (she/they) 08:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Utada has made no indication that she prefers they/them, and absent any indication of that, the standard forms should be used. Wikipedia editors, regardless of how progressive they feel their position is, should not be imposing their views that the subject should be using those pronouns absent any indication that the subject has actually chosen to use those pronouns. TJRC (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The media mostly use female pronouns. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Is this actually true, considering only media since this summer's announcement? I saw a lot of they/them or pronoun avoidance at the time of the announcement, and only one or two subsequent reversions to feminine pronouns. Is the evidence really so clear to you? Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't really matter. The pronouns issue is only really a thing in English, and certainly not in Japanese. English-language media discussing this matter are sub-optimal, equating non-binary gender identity with lesbianism and doing what some Wikipedians are doing in assuming that all people who self-identify as non-binary "should" use gender-neutral pronouns. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The subject's own current self-published material does so, as do the vast majority of third-party sources. The very fact that
  WP:COMMONSENSE matter, but common sense is not actually common, so we have to write our rules around such failures, and prevent them being pointedly misconstrued and misapplied in ways that are rather opposite to their obvious intentions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢
   😼  19:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Why does the guideline need clarification here? The guideline favors she/her, seeing as they're the pronouns she uses (or her agents use) for herself. And, as much as I disagree with the arguments against that, I think we can still assume good faith rather than accuse anyone of advocacy or activism. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • If you're convinced by a profile page that has not been updated, the use of two pronoun by a publicist in postings (out of five since the nonbinary announcement), and the rather ambiguous transcript of the Shiseido announcement - if you're convinced that that evidence has revealed the pronouns the subject has chosen, then more power to you. I just can't see it. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Could you please stop spreading this has not been updated lie? You know it not to be true. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
        • How about trying
          WP:AGF, and see how that feels? I see no sign that this profile page has been updated since March. If you do, could you perhaps explain that to me? I don't see it. Newimpartial (talk
          ) 00:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
          • How about trying
            WP:AGF, and see how that feels? I would say the same to you. You've been assuming that I'm lying to you about how the Japanese language works for months.[3] I see no sign that this profile page has been updated since March. Please stop playing word games. You know we are speaking of the "News" page on the same website.[4][5] Do you, or do you not, accept that Utada Hikaru's official English-language website has been updated since June, using the female possessive determiner ("pronoun" in Twitter speech) her in reference to Utada? Hijiri 88 (聖やや
            ) 00:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Hijiri, I have never once suggested that you were lying...about how the Japanese language works. That is an absurd and unfounded accusation, and I suggest that you strike it. There is a distinction between websites and web pages. Of course I accept that the website has been updated with news entries, and I note that, while the nonbinary announcement doesn't seem to be included by the publicist, there are two subsequent News items that use "her". I stated thus above. I also observed that the profile page, which contains much more gendered language, seems not to have been updated since March. No lying, and I have stated each of these facts at least twice above. Of course, I am not as inclined as other editors to read two uses of "her" as an expression of the subject's preference, but that shouldn't be grounds for you to be
              WP:UNCIVIL. Newimpartial (talk
              ) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
              • That is an absurd and unfounded accusation, and I suggest that you strike it. You have insinuated repeatedly (going back to August) that you don't believe my statements about the Japanese language, about our subject's usage of it, and about third-party RSes' use of it in relation to our subject. You insisted that the apparent fact of our (unsourced!) article on Japanese pronouns (which is, frankly, terrible) contradicting my statements means I am wrong, and then when I fixed the relevant portions of the article you just dropped that point without apologizing, instead moving on to saying that since the relevant tweets predate Utada's public coming out (but not her self-identifying as non-binary) they just "don't count". I am not sure if you have been doing this in order to "get a rise out of me" or if you sincerely doubt that I know more about such matters than you do, but either way it has been quite hurtful, and I resent your now retroactively claiming that I am the one who has been casting aspersions at you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
                • If you can't tell the difference between my questioning your interpretation of something, and accusing you of lying, then that sounds like a
                  WP:CIVIL statements that you ought to retract. Newimpartial (talk
                  ) 03:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
                  • Just going to note here that the accusation that I was misrepresenting my knowledge of the Japanese language was repeated more than two days after the above was written.[6] I don't see why my personal background, skills, etc. have been made such a key factor in this discussion, but I did not consent to this, nor do I appreciate the repeated snide insinuations that I have been misrepresenting myself or the basic facts of the Japanese language. (Needless to say, I have not consulted many "reliable sources" on this matter. The basic facts about who uses atashi are universally accepted among those with at least a pre-intermediate level of proficiency in the Japanese spoken language, and the statement that watashi -- universally recognized as, if anything, less "feminine" than atashi -- is "women's language" when used in casual speech could probably be found in a scholarly text on Japanese linguistics, but our subject's own statement on the matter should be enough.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • SMcCandlish, the overwhelming evidence you speak of consists, as far as I can tell, of a profile page written prior to the nonbinary announcement that uses "she/her", and two new postings by the subject's publicist (out of, I believe, five since the announcement) that use "her" one time each. That, and a video transcript that alludes to, but does not explicitly affirm, gender fluidity. That is your overwhelming evidence, so I salute you for finding something definitive where I find mostly uncertainty. By the way, I never suggested that "they/them" should be used because the nonbinary announcement - I said that they could be used because the correct pronouns are not certain. Which is still my view, given the currently available evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • What on earth are you talking about with this "video transcript"? You can see the actual video of her clearly self-identifying as a woman. And there's also the consistent use of feminine first-person pronouns in Japanese (which you have been ignoring because you insist that I don't know what I'm talking about and you'd rather believe your own interpretation of an unsourced Wikipedia article). You might also be interested to know that(i) Utada's coming out statement included, in Japanese, a statement that she had "felt" non-binary for quite some time (i.e., if the English profile on her website had been troubling her during that time, changing it would be a priority) and (ii) "my gender" in that Shiseido video is consistently translated as "女性であること" ("being a woman") -- Utada is a powerful Japanese media figure, and would not be obliged to "comply" with directions to speak those words if she didn't want to, and certainly there would be hell to pay if they consciously mistranslated her. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - If she identifies as female, has XX chromosomes, is somebody's daughter, etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @GoodDay: If she identifies as female Since someone is going to say this, I might as well: in June, Utada made an Instagram post about how she didn't want to use titles like "Mrs." or "Miss" that identify her by her gender and marital status. To me as a Japanese-speaker, this looks like a Japanese person being uncomfortable with English forms and wishing there was a simple gender-neutral -san that has nothing whatsoever to do with marital status. (The Japanese translation for "Mrs.", -fujin, is extremely rare by comparison.) But to many of her anglophone fans, this looked like a statement of non-binary gender identity, and she received a flood of SNS love for "coming out" as "non-binary". A little over a week later, she made another Instagram post (a livestream) in which she said that she "recently became aware that [she] fell under the category of what is called 'non-binary'" (my translation). Immediately, a large number of blogs (and "news sites" that are little better than blogs) started saying "Utada is non-binary. Non-binary people use gender-neutral pronouns like singular they. Utada made the announcement in livestream they posted on their Instagram account." Even though, in the four months since, Utada has made no statement that she prefers gender-neutral English-language pronouns, at least one very popular Japanese news site has continued to call her kanojo seemingly without incident, her official English website continues to call her "she"/"her" (even doing so in two recent news posts), and she has continued to publicly self-identify as "a woman" at least as often as she publicly self-identifies as "non-binary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijiri88 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    • You've just used the pronoun "she" several times, to describe Utada. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Just gonna point out here that that's how English prose normally works. Using singular "they" to refer to a known individual, and avoiding all use of pronouns like this article currently does and like another document I was recently asked to proof-read IRL did, is a very strong way of saying, and drawing attention to the fact that, "this person does not identify as a woman", and so should be avoided in cases where the person has not made a statement one way or the other regarding English pronouns and English possessive determiners but has been very clear that they do not want to be "defined" by their gender identity. (I'm speaking generally, so in this case "they" and "their" do not refer to a known individual.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Why is that remarkable? Hijiri !voted for she above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
        • As have I. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @GoodDay: What exactly do XX chromosomes have to do with it? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Something to do with science. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Lol GoodDay, what possible knowledge do you have of their chromosomes? ––FormalDude talk 02:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
        • It led me to side with the Yes side. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
          • I think the AGF (or perhaps
            WP:PACT) interpretation of the above is that having "XX chromosomes" is slang for "biologically female" and that, if Utada were biologically male but identified as female, some other "very fine people" might have a problem with using female pronouns, but since she is both biologically female and self-identifies as a woman, no one should have a problem with female pronouns in this case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや
            ) 02:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) I just realized that "biologically female" is almost as "Lol Hijiri88, what possible knowledge do you have" as talking about chromosomes, so I should clarify that she seems to have self-identified (and been widely referred to in reliable third-party sources) as both an "ovarian tumor" survivor and the (presumably biological) mother of a half-Japanese, half-Italian son. Side note, but her son, having picked up his Japanese from her, uses a feminine register in Japanese, a fact that she posted on Twitter earlier in the year. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict × 4) "Or perhaps" indeed. To me AGFing means assuming that they're just trying to get a rise out of people because in their mind it proves some sort of point, rather than that they're trying to push an anti-trans POV. I do wish people wouldn't jump in to a discussion that's proceeding relatively civilly just to land a few rhetorical punches. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
          • GoodDay, unless you've tested Utada's chromosomes yourself, you don't know their sex. Even if you did, it wouldn't help here, because the question is their gender, not their sex. Maybe read
            Sex and gender distinction. ––FormalDude talk
            02:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
            • @FormalDude: Are you talking to me? I hope I made this clear, but I was playing devil's advocate. Personally, I agree with you: I was just saying that some reactionaries might have a problem with your (and my) logic if it were being applied to a transgender woman rather than what we have here, which is someone who has been publicly identified as female since she was a child (her parents were both celebrities), survived an ovarian tumor, and has self-identified as a biological mother. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Shoot. I had an earlier EC with GoodDay, which I forgot about, and so your indentation looked like an error. Sorry about that. I think I've fixed it now. Or maybe you did. No idea. Too many ECs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Just pointing out that insofar as GoodDay's vote is based on XX chromosomes or biological female-ness, it conflicts directly with the site-wide policy consensus expressed at
    WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL, therefore ought to be ignored by the closer. Newimpartial (talk
    ) 03:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes until an announcement on social media about pronouns of choice and the official websites updating to reflect that. In Utada's main career when tens of millions of albums were sold, Utada went by "she/her" and was picking up awards as a top female singer, but that's now in the past. Also if Utada picks different pronouns than they/them, we may need to revisit that for standards. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I should say that I don't think it's likely she will. Despite Utada's multicultural heritage (upbringing? adoption? hmm...) and relative popularity abroad, she's still primarily a Japanese celebrity and is referred to in Japanese-language media much more often than English, and "singular they" isn't really a thing (read: can't be a thing) in Japanese. ("The Japanese word for they" is just a plural form of "the Japanese word for he", similar to French ils with the Japanese equivalent of elles only being used for exclusively female groups.) I actually searched, and I found quite a few instances of the meaning "her" (the determiner/adjective) being rendered as その, and in 90% of cases where English would need to use a pronoun the Japanese had nothing. (彼女 was used in one instance that I found, but it was immediately followed by a typo of はは instead of は, implying that it was clumsily added after the fact to clarify, for a lay japonophone readership, that Utada is not a transgender man [something discussed much more frequently in contemporary Japanese pop culture -- and actually American as well, unless I'm mistaken -- than being non-binary].) If she ever takes an interest in the "pronouns" matter, it will probably be one of Japanese pronouns and not English ones. Her coming out as non-binary fell right between this semi-viral tweet (which is basically accurate, even if most of the responses were not) and this Mainichi article (which, naturally, gets practically everything wrong -- the Japanese version was nerfed of practically all meaning because the translator avoided directly translating the erroneous information), so it may be that Japanese non-binary individuals in the future will attempt to reclaim the old kore and kare as third-person pronouns. ("kare was once used for both men and women" kinda misses the point, since it needs to be confined with "kore was once used for people as well as things", and the distinction is not one of gender but relative distance.) But that's all very

WP:CRYSTALy at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 03:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Also if Utada declares nonbinary, what does that mean for involvement in WP:Women and WP:Women in music projects, unless Utada has been making music in the women's genre and women's movements? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes every piece of actual citable reference appears to agree with she/her. Using they/them seems more OR/
  WP:RGW than anything.50.201.228.202 (talk
  ) 17:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Section heading added since this isn't part of the survery. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Should a

If ""they/them" are not real pronouns (or grammatically correct) for you, then you must have an

WP:OR version of English grammar underling that EXTRAORDINARY claim, At least, they should be enough for your comment to be ignored by the closer. Newimpartial (talk

) 02:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's all just take a deep breath. @Unnamed anon: Would you consider, in the future, not using terms like "real pronouns" and "grammatically correct pronouns" to mean she/her and he/him pronouns? It's needlessly inflammatory, and you make your point better without speaking that way. (And if you'd like an explanation of why that might be considered offensive, I'm happy to oblige.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost my temper after reading Newimpartial's comments throughout this entire thread. That was wrong, and hopefully shouldn't happen again. Historically, I have not had the greatest experiences when talking about subjects relating to being transgender, whether it be ones I've taken part in or ones I've simply observed. @Tamzin:, you're actually the first nonbinary I've had a comfortable conversation with regarding this subject, or even seen for that matter, and I really do appreciate that. Discarding my completely unjustified inflammatory comments, I do think the consensus is very clear and pretty objective in this case. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean first nonbinary person I've seen. I've talked to non binaries before, but about other subjects since I'm usually afraid to bring up politics. You saw how Nick Sandmann was slandered for standing in front of a native american saying nothing just because he was wearing a controversial hat. I meant the first nonbinary person I've seen act calmly about this subject. A few hours before coming back to this thread, I was reading the talk page of Elliot Page, seeing like 10 IP's asking to remove the single mentions of the name "Ellen" despite it being a known notable previous legal name, which strikes me as very history revisionist in the same way Stalin acted towards Trotsky to steal credit for his works. Seeing people actually want that kind of history revisionism to be accepted, along with Newimpartial's comments, made me lose control, but that wasn't okay for me to do so. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Tamzin is not the only one who prefers they/them pronouns for themselves. They are merely the most conciliatory. That said, the main reason I have reacted to as many !votes as I have is to correct the impression that I believe nonbinary people ought to prefer they/them pronouns, which has never been my position. My argument has quite consistently been that if they/them pronouns were to be introduced in this article, in the absence of a clear indication by the subject, it would be because Utada's preferred pronouns are unknown (and they/them are the grammatically correct pronouns in English for persons whose pronouns are unknown), not because us nonbinary folk should use they/them (which, as I say, has never been my position, here or elsewhere). Newimpartial (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon: There's still a few things you're saying that I bristle at a bit, but this strikes me as a good learning experience. I'll drop by your talk page when I have a sec. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:TALK#REVISE, if you want to modify a comment, you can use <del></del> tags to indicate the parts you want to strike and <ins></ins> tags to indicate the parts you want to add. For a random example of me doing that, see here. Could you please self-revert, or do something to indicate the original text of your comment? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}

] (she/they) 15:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon: Sorry, I was a bit vague on how to use those tags (part of the confusion being that I had to escape their syntax in the wikitext). I think this is what you intended? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Newimpartial, "singular they" is a part of standard, natural English grammar ("natural" here having nothing to do with biology but rather referring to natural, as opposed to artificial, language), but it does not refer to known individuals. Its use by transgender, non-binary, gender-fluid, intersex, etc. individuals is a recentism. I am not opposed to this recentism when it is used to avoid causing offense or harm to already disadvantaged sexual minorities, but in this case it appears to be quite the opposite: our subject is a "non-binary woman" who uses female pronouns, and some people are attempting to force a particular vision of what non-binary identity "should" be on her. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The only female pronouns the subject has used, in English, since the nonbinary announcement, are two instances of "her" from the publicist. You are convinced that this is a clearly expressed preference on the part of the subject; I am not. Newimpartial (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Hikaru is fluent in english. There would be some sort of correction if there was a preference to no longer use female pronouns. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

That is as may be, but it has nothing to do with your willingness to deny that pronouns preferred by several editors in this discussion are real or grammatically correct. Disagreeing with me over the appropriate standard of evidence in this case is no reason to lash out. Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, do you know the difference between "pronouns" and possessive determiners/adjectives? Your above comment seems to be a reply to me, but (I think?) I have been careful not to describe the words used in the news post as "pronouns", because they are not, except in a certain

WP:SLANG sense in which I never use the word. If you are going to insist that since the news posts were likely written by a publicist and not Utada herself, then you are essentially insisting that anyone who doesn't go around talking about themselves in the third person needs to be assumed to have claimed a very specific gender identity. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 03:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I suggest you retract your bizarre You are convinced that this is a clearly expressed preference on the part of the subject claim: I have made no such statement, nor would I. I think that for people who prefer conventional English language pronouns and possessive determiners (she, her, her and hers for those "coded female" and he, him, his and his for those "coded male") no clearly expressed preference is necessary or is ever likely to be forthcoming, and it needs to simply be inferred based on things like (i) explicit statements that "I am a woman" and (ii) tacit acceptance of the use of such pronouns and determiners by their agents. (Again, "their" here is used because I am speaking generally. Or, rather, because I am speaking about "people" in the plural.) Certain progressive-minded-but-perhaps-misguided Anglo-American cisgender individuals on Twitter do "list their pronouns" even though no such declaration is necessary, but the fact that Utada doesn't means either that such discussions are irrelevant or that she can be assumed to be less concerned about such matters than even such progressive-minded cisgender Anglo-Americans. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to possessive pronouns, as I thought was clear.

As far as your argument that Utada's statement about having an identity as a woman implies a preference for female pronouns, I am less convinced of that given (1) that we do not know whether the Shiseido piece was recorded before or after the nonbinary announcement and (2) according to the transcript I read, the whole thing is framed by the prior statement "I don't really identify that much with being male or female", which lends a different inflection to "What does being a woman mean to me, it's just being myself." Your argument that people carry male or female pronouns unless they explicitly state otherwise should not, I think, apply to nonbinary people - not because we ought to prefer "they" but because we might prefer any of the three singular third person pronoun sets, and there is no way to know which we actually do prefer. So the indeterminate "they/them" is therefore a valid option IMO. (Your argument that people who don't list their pronouns don't care about their pronouns seems bizarre to me, btw. I don't list my pronouns on WP, but I care about my pronouns, and I have almost never been misgendered here because people do in fact typically default to they/them in situations of uncertainty.) Newimpartial (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

They are not "possessive pronouns" (like "hers") but rather determiners/adjectives ("her"). The page you link calls them Possessive adjectives (also called “weak” possessive pronouns) but honestly they're really not pronouns (or even adjectives, since unlike adjectives they can be used in English before singular

countable nouns without needing a separate "a" or the like), and I don't think it matters if some people think they are, because I don't, and you were talking about the words I used. Anyway, I am not talking about our subject's statements "implying" a preference for a particular set of pronouns/determiners: I'm advocating for a return to the status quo until we don't have to rely on such implications, as doing anything else very strongly implies that our subject holds a particular gender identity that she has never claimed for herself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 04:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hijiri, the status quo is the article without gendered pronouns. Presumably you meant something else. Newimpartial (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps

"status quo ante bellum" might have been better? I was referring to how the article was written (regardless of content changes, such as the statement that she self-identified as non-binary) in June. In that version, our subject was referred to with either "she" or "her" twelve times in the first six sentences of the article body. The currently live wording is bothersome to those of us who think female pronouns would be best (for now at least) and apparently even to you (as you have spoken several times of your preference for singular "they"), it was introduced as a preliminary solution merely to stop an edit war, and cannot be considered the status quo the way that term is normally used on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 06:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, concerning your previous comments your idea that the decision to use English that is correct in situations where appropriate pronouns are unknown very strongly implies that our subject holds a particular gender identity that they haven't claimed seems bizarre to me. It doesn't imply any "particular gender identity" - that is the whole point (and the gender identity that the subject has claimed is nonbinary, anyway). Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It might help matters, if you would state your position in the above 'survey', as a 'yes' or 'no'. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I have been asking repeatedly for evidence of the subject's intentions on the matter, besides what looks to me like lackadaisical web updates by publicists. Meanwhile, I have been holding off on !voting in the absence of such evidence - and have beem looking in vain, myself. While I am leaning towards a NODEADLINE !vote for the status quo, I still hope that someone finds evidence of a higher quality than what we have seen so far. Newimpartial (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

A snow close is possible, as ten out of eleven editors have supported the usage of she/her, in the survey. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

If we're all in agreement that the pronouns 'she' & 'her', should be used in this bio article. Why is there continued arguing? GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• I recommend waiting until a week has elapsed and then listing this for uninvolved closure at
  WP:ANRFC. I do want a maximally solid closure for when misinformed Americans descend on this article from sites like Twitter. That is the problem we faced at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale, for instance. Crossroads ^-talk-
  04:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• The apparently unanimous voting for "she/her" makes it impossible for the article to continue with the artificially derived "they/them" identity. Note that if someone purposely withholds their vote then they haven't voted. So many votes in agreement remind me of the opposite situation of
  WP:SNOW in which a proposal has no chance of succeeding. If we apply SNOW to a positive vote, then this proposal is certainly successful. Binksternet (talk
  ) 02:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Binksternet: There's no artificially derived "they/them" identity in the article as it currently stands. What are you referring to? ––FormalDude talk 02:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The article currently says "their career", "their debut album", etc. As Hijiri88 said earlier, the subject herself has not asked the media to use "they/them" which brings Hijiri88 to conclude that a few editors artificially establishing the practice here is a violation of WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Where did Hijiri88 say the subject asked the media not to use "they/them"? I do not recall that at all. ––FormalDude talk 03:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Striked as I misread your comment. ––FormalDude talk 03:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The article's use of the very common

WP:OR. This RfC is to change the limitation of using gendered pronouns (currently the article only uses Utada's name) because the subject has shown usage of the feminine pronouns she/her. ––FormalDude talk

03:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

For many years, the article said "her career" and "her debut album". Editors changed it purposely earlier this year, in one case switching to male pronouns,[7] which was not kept. After this successful RfC is implemented, the female pronouns will be restored. Binksternet (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Keeping the article on one's watchlist, will avoid those 'sneaky' edits returning. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Or just add a hidden note/reference saying there is proof that she still uses female pronouns instead of meticulously having to watch over this article. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

What proof, though? Two posts by the publicist? Can't anyone do better than that? Newimpartial (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

(i) If you listen to, and believe, the actual words she used in her coming out statement, then her self-identity did not change in June but rather was something that had been on her mind for quite some time. Last December (almost certainly after "quite some time" before June) she explicitly said that her son used a feminine register (literally "women's speech") when speaking Japanese, as a result of only getting Japanese language input from, her words, "his mom".

(ii) Utada has continued to use the same kind of speech in interviews (specifically the use of watashi, although maybe even pronounced atashi, in contexts where a male or gender-fluid celebrity like Shiki Aoki would probably use boku).

(iii) Even in her coming out video she referred to herself pretty consistently as atashi (which is more feminine than the watashi she attributed to her son). (This is why I assume the 私s in the Yahoo! interview are supposed to be read あたし and not わたし or わたくし -- Utada pretty consistently uses the first of these three in speech, and at the time she learned to read and write Japanese [up to 2010], only the last one was considered technically "correct" as a reading of that kanji, but it would be pretty damn hard to find a video clip of her using watakushi where she wasn't tearfully apologizing to her fans for letting them down -- not sure if that's ever actually happened in her case.)

(iv) Utada explicitly self-identified, in English, as a woman less than two months after coming out as non-binary, strongly implying that she is a "non-binary woman" who in English (even disregarding the fact that she still uses what she herself calls "woman's speech" in Japanese) should probably still be identified with feminine pronouns. (It is theoretically possible to read this, as some on social media have, as Shiseido "forcing her" to describe her gender identity in terms she didn't herself believe, but she is a very powerful and influential celebrity, so if she didn't want to work with a cosmetics manufacturer whose philosophy she disagreed with, it seems much more likely that she just wouldn't -- or would at least cut ties with them and explain that the reason was because they forced her to accept a gender identity with which she didn't personally identify.)

(v) Her personal website continued, even two months into this debate on Wikipedia, to use feminine pronouns to describe, and still does to this day.

(vi) Her personal website has since been updated since with more feminine "pronouns" (I'll let you have that one). Not a peep from her about not approving of this personally.

(vii) Japanese news coverage of Utada's coming out explicitly used the (modern Japanese calque) third-person female pronoun kanojo,[8] apparently in order to make it clear that she was not a transgender man (an impression at least one of our readers/editors apparently shared, per Binksternet's comment above).

(viii) Every single statement you and anyone else who may have once taken your "side" on this issue (including me, per my own !vote above) have been able to locate regarding Utada's "gender-neutral" identity reads a lot more as not wanting to be "defined by" any particular gender identity or gender role, whereas both the current wording of this article and the wording you have stated that you prefer very strongly "box her in" to a particular view of gender identity and the "responsibility" of non-binary, transgender, gender-fluid, etc. celebrities to deliberately use special types of artificial language in order to create awareness among the general public (something our subject has never expressed any interest in).

(ix) One of the sources you apparently approved of (it was live as a citation for the relevant text from before your first edit to the article until after your last edit to the article) appeared to equate non-binary gender identity with lesbianism.

(x) Given (vii), (viii) and (ix), I and others believe that we should be prioritize not confusing readers into thinking our subject is a transgender man or a lesbian (neither of which appear to be identities she has claimed for herself) and rather should stick exclusively to terms explicitly used/approved by our subject and her agents; you have not been able to locate any sources whatsoever that contradict this usage, but rather have been insisting that we are not allowed use terms used/approved by our subject or her agents until our subject starts describing to herself in the third person, a social media trend that emerged in the English-speaking world fairly recently, but is not "a thing" among Japanese-speakers, who are the main consumers of Utada's social media posts (which are overwhelmingly in Japanese).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

(i) is OR based on the reasoning, in effect, that the subject's nonbinary announcement said that Utada felt nonbinary prior to the announcement but used feminine pronouns at the time. Not policy-compliant. (ii) no necessary relationship between Utada's chosen syntax in Japanese and in English has been demonstrated. (iii) ditto (iv) no evidence that the Shiseido promotional interview represents the subject's preference after the nonbinary announcement; Also no evidence that "nonbinary woman" implies a preference for feminine pronouns. (v) failure to update a publicity profile is not positive evidence of anything. (vi) two updates from the publicist, as I have repeatedly conceded. (vii) no clear relevance. (viii) personal POV. (ix) I don't approve of sources unless I say so - this is a purely defamatory comment. (x) Intereresting how you think not using gendered pronouns for a nonbinary or gender variant people would somehow "confuse" readers; I have no idea why. I'm afraid none of that is what I meant by proof, or even evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:DROPTHESTICK

. Please. All you keep arguing about is the lack of evidence that she still uses female pronouns. Failure to update a public profile alone isn't enough evidence, but the site has been updated while keeping the female pronouns, which you yourself have stated you have repeatedly conceded. Unless you're using a third definition I don't know about, that means you admit that there is at least one piece of valid evidence that she hasn't changed her pronouns, and this is going against zero evidence that she has changed them. The nonbinary announcement is often related to changing pronouns, but not unanimous, and until any future announcements directly from Utada about pronouns, stick with her latest known ones. Don't dodge them, don't make up a reason to use singular they. Her latest, reliably sourced, female pronouns.

@Hijiri88: I saw this clip of the livestream that specifically only has the nonbinary statement. The one reliable source for her claiming to be nonbinary, instead of anything. If you or anybody you know has seen the actual, full livestream on instagram, is this clip fabricated by some twitter crybabies, or is this statement actually on her original livestream? If it is fabricated, then this whole mess is for naught. If it isn't, then it's still not an automatic reason to change anything because as I repeated at the beginning of this lame edit war, some nonbinary people still use she or he. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

What some editors don't seem to understand is that, when people announce a new gender identity, WP policy requires that we ignore the latest known pronouns from before the announcement. That isn't, like, optional. Newimpartial (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Umm... what about the pronouns she has used (atashi, maybe also watashi), she or her agents have used ("she"/"her"/"hers"), and media in her home country have used seemingly without backlash from her or her fans (kanojo) since said announcement? Heck, she even called herself atashi while making the announcement, a fact you seem to be ignoring. I would also be very interested to know which WP "policy" (are you referring to MOS?) "requires" us to immediately assume for four months straight that the subject's official website "just needs to be updated". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon: The full livestream (which is mostly an interview about completely unrelated matters -- the coming out is all within the first five or six minutes and the opening monologue/Q&A are over by the 18-minute mark) is still on Utada's Instagram, here. I've been gaslighted (by mostly self-confessed non-japonophones) about my own understanding of the Japanese language in general and pronouns in particular (not to mention the specific nature of the wording Utada has used) so much in this discussion (here this week, here in August, and here in August) that, while writing the above, I needed to go back and check that she did actually refer to herself as atashi, and, yeah, she did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

She uses female pronouns to refer to herself in the video where she also said she was nonbinary? That's the most objective proof possible; only way to debunk that is future developments that haven't happened yet. Newimpartial,

WP:SNOW close this lame edit war please; I'd do it myself, but I don't think involved users are allowed to do so. Unnamed anon (talk

) 05:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:CR for two days now, so just be patient, it should be closed soon. ––FormalDude talk

06:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of full disclosure, I should say that other japonophone editors (the one I'm thinking of, who already did disagree in an off-wiki discussion, was sadly hounded off the site some years ago) are likely to disagree with my assertion that her using the first-person pronoun atashi (and maybe watashi) constitutes evidence one way or the other for our present purposes. I am interpreting this evidence, not based on scholarly literature in linguistics or LGBT studies, but rather in light of (i) the fact that all Japanese-speakers know, that atashi is feminine speech and is only used by men in very limited circumstances like if they are portraying members of the merchant caste in a period drama, and (ii) Utada's own statement on Twitter last December that her son's use of watashi is "women's language". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

As I (and, I believe others) have noted previously, Hijiri's interpretation of Japanese syntax is not supported by all authorities on that language. Since this isn't "Hijiripedia", we aren't supposed to defer unduly to one editor who picks up the BLUDGEON. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"syntax"???

Also, was your main goal with the above to cause personal offense? I can't think of any other reason for this comment.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I don't frankly think it matters what other "authorities" on Japanese say, because our subject herself called watashi "women's language", and you won't find any authority on Japanese (even the anonymous Wikipedians who wrote our terrible Japanese pronouns article) who believe atashi to be less feminine than watashi. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Noticed the close request at

talk

08:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Can this be fixed in the short term, while we wait for the close?

The current text has in two places referred to Utada's father by his given name only for quite some time. This looks deeply inappropriate (like it was written by a family friend in a private correspondence), and I doubt it is how the family members of other non-binary individuals are described if "consensus still isn't clear" on what possessive determiner is to be used. Are there any comparable examples? I think this article's opening paragraph goes into way too much detail on the early part of her biography, for no adequately explored reason, and considered simply blanking and rewriting it to fix the more prominent of the two occurrences, but... what do others think? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I know there's no rush, given that the RFC will likely be closed soon, but since this is now more than simply a matter of replacing the pronouns/determiners, I think we should start thinking about what should be done with the article's wording after the close (we can't simply revert back to June, as changes, and not just to the personal life section, have been made since then). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

There are also other little things, like Utada's ... personal life [schedule] became more active due to marriage, which was originally Utada's ... personal life [schedule] became more active due to her marriage: the latter implies busyness over preparations for a wedding ceremony, whereas the former implies (at least to me and likely many other members of the Friends generation[9]) that her married life proved unexpectedly busy for some reason. It's a subtle, and likely subjective, difference, but if we're to restore pronouns and possessive determiners, we should also restore the original wording if we can. It also seems that the current version with no pronouns or possessive determiners was not a rewrite of the pre-June article but rather a rewrite of a "they" version that also (i) included several small changes like changing "her album" to "the album" that seemed to meant to limit the use of pronouns/possessives and (ii) included a number of stylistic and even content changes that have nothing to do with gender. I suspect these represent the majority of the changes in question, and I'm not sure what to make of them or even if it would be worthwhile making anything of them.

@AngusWOOF, GoodDay, SMcCandlish, Binksternet, TJRC, Tamzin, Unnamed anon, and Crossroads: Do any of you have a problem with restoring "they/them/their/theirs" until the RFC is closed? I think the majority of us probably see gender-neutral pronouns as the lesser of two evils when compared to the current super-awkward style (the biggest problem with the former is that it misgenders her, but the latter also misgenders her, albeit less apparently so because a reader could mistake it for just poor writing or an overly literal translation from a language that doesn't use personal pronouns), and implementing the former in the interim would allow us to fix problems like as a result of Teruzane's job now, so that we would just have a simple find-and-replace job once the RFC is closed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Sorry, I was going to ping you separately because my reading of your comments (this in particular) is that you are already relatively amenable to this and might not need to be asked, but while drafting the rest I forgot that I hadn't done so. (The first paragraph was actually written after the second, and took much longer for obvious reasons.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in English a "they/them" version can not be understood as misgendering a person whose preferred pronouns are unknown. That's just the way English. And also, I have no problem with a they/them version, whenever as an intermediate step or a next stable version, because AFAICT the subject's preferred pronouns in English are in fact still unknown. Newimpartial (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I object. It's been used as a tactical tool, and some of the editors pushing the they/them position have openly shown glee that their edit-warring that caused the article to be protected froze it with these incorrect pronouns in place. Let's not encourage that. TJRC (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, what, TJRC? What incorrect pronouns? You are describing a thing that never happened. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Just to be clear, in English a "they/them" version can not be understood as misgendering a person" period. That's it–it's a gender neutral pronoun. It cannot be applied incorrectly. You can use it for female, male, non-binary, persons whos' gender is not publicly known, for groups that include both males and females, etc. ––FormalDude talk 15:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

We should use "she" and "her" in the bio. It's apparently the pronouns that are still being used to describe her. As for the "they/them" pronouns? I can't speak for other english-only readers, but I find the terminology confusing. "They/them" (to me) means multiple people. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I'm sorry you don't understand the singular they. ––FormalDude talk 16:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I've often heard (in history books, concerning monarchs), the term singular "we". GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Good for you, they have nothing to do with each other. The Royal we is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person (who is a monarch). The singular they is an established singular pronoun that has been used since the 14th century. ––FormalDude talk 16:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, but it's been used more recently, in singular form (going by my reading of the linked article) to describe non-binaries. Anyways, I'm sticking with using "she"/"her", in this bio. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Could we please talk about "nonbinary people" rather than "nonbinaries"? The latter term is offensive to many, like "transgenders" and "gays", and I don't see anyone here talking about "binaries" either. Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Very well. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Maybe you missed that by 2020 most style guides accepted the singular they as a personal pronoun. ––FormalDude talk 16:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It's always been my understanding that that refers to cases of non-specific or unknown persons, like If someone wants to take their driving test in Spanish, they should be allowed to do so or Some rotter stole my shoes. And they broke the window too!. Use of singular they to refer to a known individual is (as far as I am aware: please correct me with a source if I am wrong) a recentism that is still considered non-standard, but is an accommodation we make to certain English-speaking members of certain sexual minorities so as not to cause offense. Therefore, using it to refer to a specific named individual does very strongly imply that they are a member of such a sexual minority (yes, I know what I did there: I'm speaking in general) rather than, say, a woman who doesn't want to be boxed in by a "traditional gender role": hence, misgendering.

Anyway, it seems no one has understood my proposal that, pending closure of the RFC with consensus to use female pronouns, we should temporarily restore singular they (Teruzane's job → their father's job) in order to rewrite the article so that then restoring gendered pronouns would be a simple find-and-replace job rather than what we have now, which would require a complete overhaul of the article's prose. It would be more blatantly　misgendering her, but the current wording also, however subtly, misgenders her (and, I think we can all agree, uses terrible prose to boot), and the various subordinate articles like

Utada Hikaru discography

already do so. And I seem to have indadvertently sparked a linguistic debate that frankly has no place on this talk page.

So please consider my proposal withdrawn. I'll try to do my share of the lifting to fix the article after the RFC is closed, and I hope all of you will too.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Noted. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I believe you have it flipped. Use of the singular they, according to Merriam-Webster, has been in consistent use as a singular pronoun since the late 1300s; that the development of singular they mirrors the development of the singular you from the plural you, yet we don’t complain that singular you is ungrammatical; and that regardless of what detractors say, nearly everyone uses the singular they in casual conversation and often in formal writing. Whereas it's use for non-specific cases and non-binary people, according to Merriam-Webster, is considered new. Source. ––FormalDude talk 07:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that MW quote or link contradicts what I said. The Dickinson quote is talking about a non-specific, unknown person, and the article goes on to specifically call the use you are talking about "a new use". Are you sure you're not strawmanning me as a "non-specific he" proponent even after I just used singular they in my own comment? Anyway, why are you still talking about this here? What benefit does it have to this article? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Hijiri88, As long as the sentences that have removed gender are still coherent, we can leave those as is, but as per the survey, it is also okay to restore she/her when describing the history section in the biography, kind of like when Caitlyn was Bruce. As for singular they, you can use grammar "they are" instead of the grammatically awkward "they is" AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Looked over the 'survey' & so far, nobody has 'opposed' using "she/her". GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no opinion on other changes, but it seems worse to me to put they/them back while we wait for closure (which is surely not far off). That just lends those pronouns more authority. Oh, and once this is closed, the articles in Category:Utada Hikaru will need to be cleaned up. Some of them still use they/them. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)