#and the idea that being nonbinary is still being pressed as dehumanizing even with the edit

[ohnomysoul]

With all due respect. What are you even talking about? A character being nonbinary isn’t the same as… forcing a person to be something they are not and abusing them? No one is forcing Dante to be nonbinary. What would be the point? Being referred to gender neutrally isn’t dehumanizing unless its in the case of someone trying to weasel around respecting pronouns; of which only applies when the person has gendered pronouns. This doesn’t apply if a person’s (or character’s, in that matter) pronouns are they/them. Which, there is nothing saying that Dante’s pronouns aren’t that.

And this isn’t the first time Project Moon has had a mysterious protagonist either. Lobotomy Corporation had X, a character who, like Dante, was introduced without being able to remember his past or even his name. But the thing is, despite his true identity being unknown, he was always referred to with masculine pronouns and honorifics. Why would Project Moon change now? This is the second time they’ve used a mysterious manager, and their first time they used he/him before and after X’s reveal.

Granted, there is a possibility that Dante may be given other pronouns later, but that doesn’t really matter right now. This whole post just reads as being upset that a character using they/them pronouns is being seen as nonbinary. What is the issue?

It’s clearly not the depersonalization aspect, because using they/them isn’t inherently that and there isn’t any real reason to do so. Especially if their name is still given to them… which is a major part of most people’s identity. Simply calling them “manager” would depersonalize them more, but they do not.

This isn’t meant to be an attack in any way. I’m simply responding because this was in the main Limbus Company tag and I have to ask: why. What’s so horrible about a clockhead being nonbinary? Because all the reasons supplied hold no water other than speculation and one’s own goal when compared to other works by the same company. (One of which being an official webcomic where all the human characters are nonbinary. But by this idea, they’d only be nonbinary because they are expendable, yes? Which of course undermines the whole meaning of the comic so.)

Okay guys. 'They', 'them' and 'theirs' when used in the singular are gender neutral pronouns.

They are not gender specific to nonbinary people.

Arguing the use of a pronoun set that applies to literally all human beings (and a bunch of other stuff) must mean that Dante is nonbinary isn't just stupid, it's ignoring the themes of their character.

Dante is purposefully mysterious. We don't know anything about them, really. Most of the characters don't know anything about them. They know nothing about themself.

We, like most of the sinners, don't know Dante's real name, age or origin. We can't see their skin. We can't really tell what their figure looks like in that outfit and the way the others are drawn would make that largely inconclusive anyway.

Dante doesn't even have their own face anymore.

They are a fiction even within the narrative. One created by the company that they are currently being exploited by.

To argue that the identity that has been forced upon them by an exploitative corporation in a dystopian hellscape is a representation of their authentic self is either hopelessly naïve or entirely selfish.

To apply a nonbinary gender identity to them is to reduce them to what others have forced upon them.

Which is wild, if you think about it. Because the people he/himming Dante are doing so entirely because they are modelled after an actual human man who is buried in Ravenna. You can go see his grave. They are using meta information to come to a conclusion that might be wrong, and they know it might be wrong. Gender bent characters are not uncommon in this game.

But the people aggressively enbying them (and complaining about the he/himmers) are purposefully ignoring the open themes of depersonalisation in this character to... something something representation? IDK, because it makes them look like they have either no media literacy at all, or they just don't care about themes, narrative or the goddamn plot.

TL:DR

The other characters aren't calling Dante they and them because Dante is nonbinary, they're calling Dante they and them because they don't have the first idea what Dante is and have the decency not to assign an identity to Dante that might not be true. (Or they're invested in keeping that information from Dante.)

Dante could be nonbinary! But they could also be a man, or a woman, or not a person at all. The fact that we do not know is important to this story and dismissing it for the sake of 'representation' is both selfish and disrespectful to Project Moon.

This is their story, not your playground.

Your headcanons aren't justification for bashing the people who don't share them or Project Moon if it turns out that Dante is just a guy.

Edit: The possibility of Dante being nonbinary is slim at best and would absolutely undermine the theme of depersonalisation here. The depersonalisation of being stripped of your gender identity does not hit the same if you already insist that others use the gender unknown pronouns for you.

I only acknowledged it in the context that it's another possibility that the sinners aren't privy to.

It is not likely and it would undermine the themes of Dante's character.

In exactly the same way that taking a character who has been forcibly raised as the wrong sex and making them trans undermines that what happened to them was in fact abusive.

In exactly the same way that the character arc of Prince Phillip's father deciding against forcing his son into marriage was undermined by Aurora and Phill hitting it off.

If the bad thing that happens to a character is contextualised as turning out to be the right thing, then that takes all the wind out of any commentary that existed before the recontextualization.

(In fact, the Sleeping Beauty example is openly a joke. This man is going through a personal crisis and risking war for what the audience knows is no reason.)

Making Dante a nonbinary human character means that this very thematic example of their depersonalisation was an abusive corporation being correct in their behaviour.

Dante being a non-human character, a robit or something, would still be better thematically as they have had a false human identity pressed upon them.

LBC functionally misgendering Dante reinforces their unethical ways, them respecting this character's pronouns does the exact opposite.

Edit 2: I also feel the need to point out that the view I have laid out here means that we are being forced as players to be complicit in this mistreatment. Something that is far more powerful than removing the problem entirely with a nonbinary identity.

[joannerowlingfans]

Great article from June by Eileen Blair. Here’s some excerpts: 

“The Bodily Function Which Must Not Be Named

Daniel Radcliffe knows some things about menstruation. Recently he wrote a statement assuring us that the correct word for those who experience periods is not “women” or “girls,” but “people who menstruate.” However, when he told us this, he didn’t actually tell us this. He never used the word “menstruation,” or “period,” or “blood,” or any related word. There was no mention of clots, or cramps, or dysmenorrhea, or endometriosis. He did not name the “people who” experience these things.

Instead, Radcliffe did name author J.K. Rowling, who recently came under fire for stating the controversial opinion that the word “woman” is still of use, and that this now-contested term may even provide a more appealing way to describe human beings than “people who menstruate,” or the more streamlined “menstruator.” But while Radcliffe invoked Rowling’s name, he did not acknowledge her ideas, which she has expressed publicly in a number of tweets and in a recent essay. Instead, he opened his statement by simply insisting that there is no “in-fighting” between him and Rowling, without mentioning why anyone might think there is. He anticipated that “certain press outlets” might seize on the opportunity to report on a conflict between Radcliffe and Rowling, which they promptly did. The Guardian, the Independent, and the Times all referred to a “row” between Rowling and Radcliffe.

On social media, many enthusiastically shared Radcliffe’s statement, but I have yet to see any of Radcliffe’s fans mention that he both failed to identify the topic at hand and neglected to consider Rowling’s ideas about it. In 2020, it seems, if someone mentions Rowling, however obliquely, and with even the slightest hint that they disapprove of her for some reason they need not even state, they can count on being showered with unreserved praise.

The Menstruators Who Must Not Be Named

There is more that is not mentioned. The third sentence of Radcliffe’s statement asserts, “Transgender women are women.” Curiously, he does not go on to say, as anyone familiar with scripture would expect, “Transgender men are men, and nonbinary people are who they say they are.” In fact, there is no mention of transgender men or nonbinary people anywhere in Radcliffe’s statement, even though the ultra-specific term “people who menstruate” is intended to accommodate these groups—people who have periods who do not identify as women.

Why does Radcliffe choose this occasion to remind us that trans women are women? Trans women do not menstruate. This is why it is now considered exclusionary for those women formerly known as women to claim that menstruation is related to being a woman. That’s pretty much the point of terms like “menstruator.” By intoning “transgender women are women,” Radcliffe associates women, and only women, with the expression “people who menstruate.” This is exclusionary and transphobic. Not all women have periods, and not all who have periods identify as women.

Among those who cheered Radcliffe, I have yet to see anyone call out Radcliffe for his exclusionary and transphobic refusal to acknowledge “people who menstruate.”

The Silencing That Must Not Be Spoken Of

There is yet more that is not said. Rowling has been on the receiving end of misrepresentation and verbal abuse for over two years, simply for suggesting that women formerly known as women have the right to discuss the word “woman.” For advocating free speech, she has been derided, slurred, and even threatened.

Into the fray saunters Daniel Radcliffe, who, without any apparent effort, scribbles a few words calculated to score points with his base. His four-word magic incantation, “transgender women are women”—again, this is transphobic and exclusionary of people who menstruate—ignites passions and encourages continued demonization of Rowling. Readers need not even know what Rowling has said, for Radcliffe’s magic spell sanctifies him and positions him securely on the moral high ground. Rather than discuss menstruation, or Rowling’s point of view, he describes the discrimination young transgender and nonbinary people have self-reported. It goes without saying that this should be eradicated, but it is a diversion. Rowling, the prop he uses to display his righteousness, is at this very same moment being mercilessly bullied online and in the press. By ignoring this, by saying her name only to turn away from her, by making the sinner a foil to his own saintliness, he lazily enables those who would consign her to the online ducking stool.

Rowling has taken pains to be considerate and measured, just as women formerly known as women are still expected to do. Nevertheless, she has been described as “hateful” and “transphobic.” She has been accused of saying trans people “don’t exist.” Rowling has been called a “bitch,” a “cunt,” a “whore” (also “hoe”), and even—gasp—“a Karen.” (In reality, the offense seems to be not that Karen has demanded to speak to the manager but that she is the manager.)

As expected, Rowling is also called a “TERF.” (Rhymes with “serf.”) Proponents of “letting people be who they are” have proposed that “TERFs” like Rowling deserve to be physically assaulted or killed. One TERF-hunter calls upon a well-known veteran to do the honors: “I’d pay to watch [Charlotte] Clymer put on her army camo and shoot the TERF.” Another goes for the DIY approach: “Smack JK Rowling so hard I give that fool a lighting scar on HER forehead.” Rowling has been challenged to a duel by Tara Flik Wolf: “Oi JK rowling ow about you meet me outside! Hyde park! Lets fucking have it you cunt!” (In 2018, Wolf was convicted of assaulting Maria Maclachlan in Hyde Park in London.)

The demeaning comments are not limited to the blue circle of hell known as Twitter; otherwise reputable news outlets have also adopted the term “TERF.” Mainstream publications insist that this is not a misogynistic insult but a neutral term, an acronym radical feminists invented and applied to themselves. No matter how many times we insist that we consider this term a slur, no matter how many times we see “TERF” joined to “bitch” or “cunt,” we are informed that we have misunderstood, that this term is not intended to demean us. We really do like it, we are told. And a minute later we receive, for the 83rd time, a cartoon image with a gun pointed at us, an anime character threatening, “Shut the fuck up, TERF!”

The mainstream media has also joined in telling Rowling to “STFU.” The Washington Post says it directly in an article titled, “J.K. Rowling’s Transphobia Shows It’s Time To Put Down The Pen.” Molly Roberts informs us that Rowling is flailing; she’s a bigot; she’s even—middle-aged! And therefore obsolete. Other prominent publications have described her tweets and essay as “transphobic” or “anti-trans.” This is eerily reminiscent of how second-wave feminists were described as “man-haters.” In the 1970s, we were said to hate men. Nowadays we are said to hate trans people. Fifty years ago, we learned to speak about our bodies. Nowadays, we learn how not to.

Major advocacy organizations have issued patronizing “reminders,” as if Rowling has forgotten her lines. The Human Rights Campaign laments, “We see JK Rowling is at it again. Helpful reminder: If your feminism isn’t trans-inclusive, then it’s not feminism.” A GIF of Emma Watson as Hermione is included for no extra charge, mocking the author with her own invention.”

“Radcliffe’s statement has been applauded online by people like me: college-educated, feminist, middle-aged American women of the sort formerly known as women. I haven’t seen any of them mention the gleeful dehumanization of Rowling; nor I have I seen any of them object that Radcliffe has remained silent about the abuse, or that it was taking place as he crafted his “response.” While he is not directly responsible for others’ treatment of Rowling, he is responsible for contributing to a hostile climate, and not just among anonymous Twitter trolls.He is responsible for what he does and does not say, and for what he does and does not know (or pretends not to know).”

“The final paragraph of Radcliffe’s statement offers consolation to those who feel betrayed, who feel as though their experience of Rowling’s fiction has been sullied by Rowling’s continued existence. He assures fans that they may still be nourished by—well, by “the books,” “these stories,” and “the book that you read,” despite “these comments.” He doesn’t say whose books, whose stories, or whose comments.

The explicitly violent tweets and the contemptuous journalistic dismissals are unsettling enough on their own, and it’s troubling to think that Radcliffe’s failure even to address the matters at hand may have amplified them. But here he moves from omission to erasure. Whereas he began his statement by focusing on Rowling’s name and not her ideas, now he appropriates her ideas while refusing to utter her name. This final negation is pernicious in its own way. Radcliffe opened his statement with an acknowledgment of J.K. Rowling’s influence on his life, but just a few paragraphs later, he seems to have forgotten that he played Harry Potter in the movies based on the books rather than inventing Harry himself. At the same moment when Rowling is being “cancelled” by those who loved her books, as her former fans and even major publications demand that she surrender her agency and autonomy, Radcliffe steps in and arrogates the right to speak for “these stories.” He assures his base that they may still find meaning and solace in the books, despite the mortal sins committed by—She Whose Name Must Be Erased From The Covers Of Her Own Books. Chillingly, Radcliffe assures his readers that “nobody can touch” their experience of the books, implying that the unnamed, erased author has been purged entirely. How magnanimous of him. How inclusive.”

“I haven’t seen any complaint that Radcliffe fails to mention the trans men and nonbinary people who menstruate, or that he pretends not to know Rowling has already been fending off verbal attacks for years, or that he erases her name as he refers to “the books.” 

“Daniel Radcliffe seems to have forgotten Harry Potter began as an idea in J.K. Rowling’s head. But he wants “women” to be an idea in his own.

For all its popular appeal and re-postings, “Daniel Radcliffe Responds” does not respond to what J.K. Rowling expressed, and much is communicated by what he did not say. Radcliffe did not acknowledge the terminological issue or the content of what Rowling said about it. He did not mention the “people who” are affected by the issue or even credit Rowling as an author of “these stories.” Nor did the thirty-year-old honor Rowling as an elder who carries significant wisdom and experience—and who just might know something he doesn’t about the word “woman” or the practice of menstruation. He expressed fervent opinions about who counts as a woman, but didn’t show respect for this woman. Perhaps it is Daniel Radcliffe, not J.K. Rowling, who should “put down the pen.”