Do they still count as useless lesbians? If so, I'd say they're pretty far up the list.

...actually looking at the thread backlog a bit, weren't you yourself involved in a debate about a different set of labels and their application some four-five pages back Zor?

Indeed, albeit just a very short exchange without much back and forth and disagreement. Doesn't get more civilized than that I think.

The more difficult discussions happened on "So, do you want to go out, or?"

last edited at Sep 4, 2020 1:20PM

Crude, stereotyped pigeonholing is bad though - and that tends to be what such labels in practice get used for in online discussions at least.

Internet audiences tend to be abysmal at things like "nuance" and grasping that human behaviour is generally a context-dependent spectrum.

Interesting. That's not the impression I so far got on this forum. People seem to be relatively open-minded here.

The fundamental issue is that people discussing this kind of stuff in practice - also routinely here - tend to use such labels as prescriptive rather than descriptive.

Making sense of the world is fun, though. I agree, prescriptive use of labels in discussion of observations is generally silly.

Just to be sure we're not having a terminological misunderstanding:

• When I say "prescriptive" I mean "if you're A then you automatically must X, Y and Z, and if not you definitely should"

• when I say "descriptive" I mean "I see you show X, Y and Z patterns, thus it appears you are B."

• Descriptive and prescriptive use should also be separated from the normative function of classification, which is a somewhat unfortunate consequence of either that cannot be completely avoided. The normative aspect would be "I see you show X, Y and Z patterns, thus it appears you are B. It therefore seems likely that you're also α, β and γ."

Labels, like any cliché or stereotype, can serve as guidelines and blueprints in the creation of relatable, cohesive characters, and in that function they would be somewhat prescriptive. It also makes a nice basis for throwing curveball attributes into the mix that break with the stereotype.

For the manga in question we don't really have many data points to base our assessments on, and while what we've been shown and told does paint a certain picture, it's all up for debate and can be upturned by future developments. I'd say that potential ambiguity makes speculating and debate a bit more interesting.

last edited at Sep 4, 2020 11:42AM

By that same token those who like to label people as "tops" or "bottoms" are just as arrogant to assume they also speak for the entire gay community.

I don't follow? If individual Y asserts that individual X is top or bottom, it is usually in reference to a current situation ("X is topping here") or general observable pattern ("X apparently likes to top"/"X is top"). The "label" is applied to individual X, not any group of people, by individual Y, speaking for him/herself, not for any kind of group unless specified otherwise or spoken in a representative function.
Thus I really don't get the notion that "those people" assume they are speaking "for the entire gay community" in any sense. They are not talking about a group, nor do they represent a group. Furthermore, the "Top/Bot"-dynamic exists regardless of sexuality, and the categories aren't to be seen as prescriptive/restrictive, but descriptive of patterns and tendencies.
Case in point, though: It is explicitly stated that Kanda directed their first sexual interactions (https://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/handsome_girl_and_sheltered_girl_ch11#18), so the assertion that Kanda is probably a top is not exactly unreasonable or far-fetched, although we have only a limited dataset to draw conclusions from. The assumption that Ookuma is a "natural bottom", on the other hand, is not only based on her usual behaviour as "going with the flow" and her apparently letting Kanda be in charge in the sexual encounters we'd seen before chapter 12. She seems to be topping in Ch. 12, which coincides with an alcohol-induced personality flip and is portrayed as something atypical, out-of-character for her. The assessment that this was something exceptional further reinforces the idea that Ookuma is usually a bottom.

And now please tell me how I said anything about any group of people (>2) or representing any group of people.

As a rule of thumb if you want to label yourself "top" or "bottom" and somebody gives you shit for it, they can go screw themselves, but conversely if you try to label somebody else with those terms and they find it offensive then you're the one that needs to shut the Hell up.

Mind you we're not technically labelling people here. We are applying attributes to fictional characters based on observed "behaviour".
Also if someone "finds it offensive" that they're being labeled "wrongly" they need to take a deep breath and be ready to explain why they think the label was applied wrongly, because there's probably a good reason why the "incorrect" label appeared applicable to the other. You're not required to "shut the hell up" because someone's offended, but you should absolutely question what you said and why it was perceived as offensive, and maybe reevaluate your stance based on new information. The truth sometimes offends, so instead of "shut the hell up" I'd recommend finding out what actually went wrong.

It's a bit like the crux of the whole transgender debate. It comes down to simple manners that you should not refer to someone in a manner they find derogatory unless it is your intent to spit in their face at which point you shouldn't be surprised when things go terribly wrong afterwards.

I agree insofar that the "intent to exclusively offend" is where I no longer see the need to protect an utterance as "free speech". This is different from being provocative and cheeky in order to drive forward a debate or make a point. I don't think the serious parts of the "trans" debate revolve around preferred pronouns anymore, though.

last edited at Sep 4, 2020 6:49AM

Though it turns out it's her mother that always waits outside to pick her up from school, not allowing any outside of school activities. Shiho mentions she's a "burnt-out failure" in the previous chapter, so I guess she failed to get into the prestigious school of her parents choice and is now forced to do nothing but study. Her being at the reunion shows she has some freedom now or has completely cut ties.

Is that content from upcoming, so far untranslated chapters, or just speculation? If the former: spoiler much?

last edited at Sep 3, 2020 7:30PM

If we got a new chapter, I'd be even more inclined to re-read it.

Oooh, public indecency! I would never... totally... never... not even once...
...

... nice ...

Just wanted to raise awareness that volume 8 (the final one) of this masterpiece is out on Bookwalker today, for those wishing to buy it.

What better chance to re-read it could there be?

Edit: okay, having a second season for the anime adaptation announced would also be a damn good reason.

last edited at Aug 18, 2020 12:35PM

@MochaKiss
@Finding Jessica Lambert

Both your stories were greatly insightful in light of the Manga at hand, thank you for sharing.
Especially the parallels to the story of FJL's boyfriend/partner are striking (I am torn between saying boyfriend to reinforce the gender, and sticking with partner to acknowledge the implied permanent nature of the relationship - language is sometimes slightly frustrating). This completely explains why you suggest Saeko might be trans, and it's absolutely a possibility at this point in the story.

I'd suggest that it's still equally possible that she's "just" a tomboy lesbian. What stops me from assuming her to be trans is that, while she's expressed dislike and even disgust towards the notion of feeling sexual pleasure, and particularly being on the receiving end, the only instances of her showing discontent with her "being a woman" are her preference to wear her hair short and her previous nickname "Prince Sae", and I ultimately don't really see how those two have to clash with her being a woman. She could be all that and a woman, at least from what we know.

In any case it'll be just as interesting to find out what exactly her problem is as well as why she stopped "being Prince Sae".

My views on the story in no way invalidate or discredit your or your partner's stories. You have done your soul-searching, found your path and walked it to a solution that gave you a degree of peace. As you said yourself, how it develops further depends on the individual.

Also can we acknowledge once again what a bang up job SAD are doing with the translation?

I think you deep down too much.

To quote myself from another thread:

Down the rabbit hole we go!

You're probably right. Especially since I wrote most of that right after getting up, before having anything to eat.

"uncomfortable with her idea of womanhood."- It's enough to observe it through trans spectrum, even if she does not need to change pronounce, use hormones, etc.

All my points are aimed to show from Saeko's example how we can't make clear line "where woman ends and man begins".
I would rather say, tomBOY lesbian is a point where trans spectrum starts without necessity for that person to go further into transition to change physical features and sex.

Definition of transgender (from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgender )

: of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity differs from the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth especially : of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity is opposite the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth

I don't see how her gender identity differs from the sex she was assigned at birth. Being tomboy requires being a woman and identifying as such (cf. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tomboy ). Being tomboy isn't pathologic in the slightest. It doesn't necessarily cause pain. Traditionally, being trans does (ICD-10 code F64: Gender Identity Disorder, though the APA and the American DSM-5 differ). Tomboy is a description for behavior and personality that aren't typical for a woman, nothing more. Her gender and sex are still both "woman".

Even if we use the later definition of the term, stated for example in the Britannica ( https://www.britannica.com/topic/transgender ), she still doesn't qualify as trans: "In a later and broader sense, it has come to designate persons whose gender identities incorporate behaviours and traits traditionally associated with the opposite sex."
Simply because she still identifies as a woman, tomboy or not.

I think problem is, people see transgender persons as someone who must change pronounce, use hormones, etc. and it happens going deeper into trans spectrum, where gender identity needs physical expression through change of body features. But if someone, like Saeko, can't express sexuality through female gender role which should be easy for her as woman, it's also trans issue.

I do believe, in fact, that it is reasonable to tie transgenderism to the idea that change or transition are called for, in order to alleviate discomfort and distress.
No one's identity equals the stereotype of their gender. If we lower the bar for "being trans" to "somewhat deviating from the traditional gender role", everybody is trans (or at least "on the trans spectrum") and the term lost all meaning.
I also don't see that Saeko can't express sexuality through her feminine gender role, unless you think "being penetrated and bottoming" is "the one and only feminine gender role" in sex. Giving pleasure through manual and oral stimulation is very much an expression of feminine sexuality.

Saeko IS having transgender issues without any needs to change anything.
But society rather loves to call her "mentally ill woman", "not enough a woman", "broken woman"..., than accept it as transgender issue. It's easier to observe it through physical level, than through an abstraction as gender identity.

The most important indicator for a mental disorder is psychologically induced suffering over a longer period of time. I think it's pretty obvious that this is the case here. Even if her being subconsciously trans (remember, her overt identity is still "woman") is the root cause of the problem, she's still suffering and needs help.

So, for that "symptoms" which Saeko is expressing, we must find the way to justify our way of thinking and find a reasons "what's wrong with her". So, she must be a victim of something or someone, that we can have pity on her, or understand her sufferings. If we exalt her situation on gender identity level, we won't comprehend her feelings.

I linguistically don't follow, especially in the last sentence. Thus I can't say if I intellectually or logically follow.

And that's why many rather would call her mentally ill woman, than to understand her as normal and healthy person with trans issues who is in "wrong physical position" passing through wrong circumstances in life.

She is psychologically not a "healthy person". Whether her issues be trans (for which I see insufficient evidence so far) in nature or trauma based, she is not well. We can't properly diagnose her, obviously, but we can assess that something is amiss. Perceived suffering is what differentiates a harmless quirk from a psychological disorder.

Technically, she will always faking in that position, and it's bothering her. She can't make Miwa happy receiving pleasures on that way, and it makes her sad and frustrated- she must lie to her to make her happy. And it's not possible. How can you give of yourself something what you don't have??? Or be who you are not without faking?

People change, we're not set in stone. Even once we've established our identity, or rather identities, we are malleable and will adapt to new input, new experiences and new situations.

EDIT / Addendum: I can't, however, remember any instance in which Saeko was referred to as a girl or a woman (other than maybe girlfriend), especially by herself. Thus it's still possible that she's keeping her transgender identity in the closet and hiding it from Miwa, who's explicitly lesbian and thus might not take kindly to Saeko coming out as a man. Could also explain her issues, would fall in the transgender spectrum, wouldn't necessarily require transition, maybe not even therapy, but it would require finally talking about it...

last edited at Aug 15, 2020 6:21AM

Speaking of the creators posting previews of chapter 42... how many chapters are we behind o.O
Are we gonna get chapters as fast as SAD can put out new ones or is the Japanese release also just in the twenties? The former would be rad. Do people still say "rad"?

Reading the new chapter:
Ok, Coworker-San knows what's up, should advise them more.
Page 8: It's getting hard to continue, the cringe is strong. Uncomfortably real, though.
Page 9: "It's all about communication!" The irony in that sentence made me laugh.
Page 19: I'm starting to become indifferent. Honestly at this point Sae's missed so many fucking opportunities (literally) to talk about what's bothering her, it's starting to frustrate me. I mean she's already at the point where she admits to herself that Miwa'd understand and forgive her, but no, she has to keep piling on more and more pain.

Saeko (and most anime/manga characters) be like

This is basically the one thing that currently keeps any issues from being resolved. Miwa has started talking, but Saeko can't respond in earnest yet. "You gotta read your partner's reactions" - well, it's not like there's any genuine reactions to read except "she's clearly uncomfortable, but tells me otherwise, so I is confusement". Miwa proabably is capable of reading her partner, but she's not getting good signals. If Saeko keeps that up, she'll ruin that relationship. Not, as others insinuate, because "there is no chemistry between the characters" (I think there absolutely is), but because she's unable to maintain any healthy romantic relationship if she won't talk about her issues.

As for the other discussions going on:

I would be very careful about asserting that Saeko's issues fall in the "trans" category, and I'd rather not rely on the vernacular. Though, having skipped back to chapter 19 and read up on what happened, it could seem possible that she's somewhat uncomfortable with her idea of womanhood. Being a tomboy is not a trans issue per se, though, and shouldn't be pathologised haphazardly. At its core it's simply having an atypical personality composition for a woman, not an incompatibility that requires transitioning or therapy to "resolve". Being top or bottom doesn't (or rather: shouldn't) depend on gender or sex either, it's (or rather: it should be) the result of the respective personality traits combined with which partner can maintain more awareness during sex. If mutual stimulation happens, the partner that's "more in control" should guide the interaction in accordance with the feedback they receive from their partner. It's slightly different in situations where only one party is being stimulated (as has always been the case here).

And here's where my wild hypothesis comes in: Saeko let go of her senses during sex in middle or high-school and went completely wild in the wrong situation, with an exploitative partner or ill-meaning third party recording everything. Tape got out, reputation ruined, self-respect ruined, mental blockade against "letting herself go" established and solidified, essentially she's suffering trauma due to what amounts to sexual abuse. Long hair could serve to be less recognisable as well as to distance herself from her old self. Thus she refuses to let Miwa take control or even stimulate herself in front of Miwa, and she can't switch off her brain when Miwa tries to "do her". Also explains her strong reaction when she met her old peers - they've long moved past the incident, while Saeko's never had the chance to get over it and just wants out of the situation.
What proof do I have? No concrete evidence, just wild speculation! I don't think that's what actually happened, but it's not entirely unrealistic either. I'm pretty confident that there's trauma one way or another, and it's something she's deathly afraid of talking about, which usually means it's considered extremely shameful to talk about.

I find the Kandasexual wording more on the comedy side rather than legitimately explaining her sexuality. The whole "genitals don't matter" sounds like pansexual, although I guess she could still be gay without realizing it because she's too dense.

Oh yeah, it's definitely tongue-in-cheek comedy, but I guess it could also mean that she'd previously not given much thought to the idea that she could also get with girls. It just never occurred to her, which fits with her theme of being a coddled, incredibly sheltered airhead.

Saeko is just shy and does not want to give that side of herself to anybody. She needs to trust to her lover completely before giving herself completely.

I don't think it's about trauma or self-hatred, or anything else negative.
She is just very protective of a woman inside her. It's the most hidden and most vulnerable part of her.
If she wants to let her inside woman go, she must feel safe with her partner.

Saeko is just precious and very sensible.

Given the strength of her averse reactions despite the intimacy in their relationship, I think it goes beyond "normal" behaviour. Add to that the fact that she increasingly seems to actually suffer discomfort because of it, I think an argument could be made that it is indeed pathological. I mean, the "nah man, I'm toooootally fine" undertones have been there for a good while.

It's pretty clear that she has some disturbed relationship with her own body, whether it is because of physical abuse she suffered or a negative image that was pushed onto her (and that she adopted) is yet to be discovered. It's not about how her body looks, she's been naked before Miwa before, so I wager it's discomfort about how her body reacts to stimuli. Maybe she "just" feels distressed when her body starts acting on its own and she's not in control anymore. Overcoming her aversion to her own body's inner workings should be a bit of a challenge, sharing it with her most trusted (?) person and making the experience that her body's reactions don't provoke a negative reaction from her partner can be a good step, if a bold one.

Down the rabbit-hole we go!

What's the term for those who are only sexually/romantically attracted to people while down rabbit holes?

Surely there must be one . . .

Considering how many of the terms on the LGBTA-Wiki are less than two months old (as in "coined in June 2020") we might just go ahead and coin one. Lepocavinsexual? Could also be sexual attraction towards rabbit holes. Does kinda sound wrong.

last edited at Aug 12, 2020 10:47AM

You're gynesexual. I think lot of people find it more natural to describe the body shapes and other features as to what they are attracted to.

https://lgbta.wikia.org/wiki/Gynesexual

Am I, though? Gynesexual (arguably) specifies female anatomy, which usually refers to genitalia. That's precisely not the case, so the related "finsexual" would be the better label. I doubt that enough people are familiar with the term and I don't feel the need to force the label, so I'd refrain from using it in general discourse anyway. I mean think about it: at least for our current generation (being millennial), these labels feel like an afterthought (i.e. coined during our lifetime to classify something that didn't need classification before). It'll probably be different for future generations, but right now I'm more likely to alienate people by using freshly coined (some would say made-up) terminology that most people won't understand. It's jargon from the lgbt+ community that hasn't (yet?) permeated society at large.

Also consider this: strictly speaking I'm still (potentially) bisexual, as in a person's sex not being an excluding factor. That I'm only attracted to feminine-gender-coded behaviours and (granted, largely female-sex-coded) shapes doesn't change that. It's just additional information, and it refers specifically to aspects that are more considered gender, not so much sex as in reproductive facilities and X/Y manifestation. In terms of taxonomy it would be a different category that can coexist. It's basically "bi with extra steps".

And anyway, I don't "identify as finsexual", but rather "finsexual describes my preferences/lived reality pretty well" or maybe "I'm finsexual". Saying "I identify as" falsely implies to me a great degree of conscious choice, that I adopted the identity rather than adopting the label that describes my identity. I think that implication/perception might be a big factor in the aversion towards the plethora of labels that we often see.

Referring back to the Manga I'd say that Ookuma being "Kanda-sexual" is certainly not false, as she most definitely is attracted to Kanda, regardless of questions of gender and sex. Are there potentially other women that she might be attracted to? Sure, and it's likely that there are other men as well. It doesn't seem like she's given it much thought, and it'd be kanda cool (see what I did there?) if they explored that avenue a little more, but you can't have everything. I doubt she'll be shocked when she "realizes" that she's " kanda bi" (I did it again!), as she is in a happy and apparently healthy relationship after all. Heck, she doesn't even know what guys look like down below (as unrealistic as that might be), so for all intents and purposes she might be grossed out by male genitalia and actually be a minsexual lesbian.

Down the rabbit-hole we go!

last edited at Aug 12, 2020 10:13AM

Could someone educate me on the issue of single target sexuality (or, often "it's okay if it's you")? ["essay" coming up]

I kind of see why it would leave a bad taste. It's like saying, "oh, I'm only gay for you, so I'm actually straight, no homo." Kind of just dodging LGBTQ+ representation to avoid discrimination or something. (I personally don't feel like it is the case here because it isn't highly emphasized)

But also, in general... Can people be unlabeled? Is there such thing as being "mostly straight"? Does attraction to one individual who does not fit into one's sexuality require a label as pansexual, omnisexual, etc.?

Definitions can be helpful when people apply them to themselves—when they learn that there’s a category that corresponds to their own sexual/romantic experience, and they can say, “I’m not weird, there are a lot of other people out there who are [___]sexual/romantic.”

When people try to apply them to others, or to fictional characters, labels tend to be restrictive rather than enlightening—either readers want characters that reflect their own sexuality back to them, or they assume the author is representing [___]sexuality and then critique how it’s being done (even if there’s no evidence that’s what the author is doing at all).

You're once again knocking it out of the park, being all lucid and making sense. I personally don't like the compulsion to slap a label on every expression of romance and sexuality, but if you frame it as a means to an end, a stop-gap on the way to realizing your own identity (not just sexually) it is understandable. I like J.E. Marcia's psychological model on identity, in which "adopting" a label would fall into the "foreclosure" and exploratory "moratorium" states, probably on the way to self-realization through identity achievement.

As for the original question: There's absolutely such a thing as "mostly straight" or "effectively straight", but it could be defined several ways. I'll insert myself as an example: I don't really care what's in the pants, but I don't feel attracted to "clearly male physique" (face, build, bulk), so if a guy were to convincingly cross-dress (or actually be trans and pass well enough), I'd be down with that. (Un)fortunately I'm married to a woman. That last factor very much narrows down how my sexuality manifests to "effectively straight".
I wouldn't really care what's in the pants as long as the rest of the body looks feminine, and I don't know a label that properly describes it, nor do I care if there really is one. I think that's a bit weird, but that's okay, we're all weird in our own ways. Labels, while somewhat useful in discourse, are ultimately just rough categories that will almost never fully describe an individual.
I could speculate (!) that Ookuma has a similar perspective. She's not bothered one bit by what is and isn't in Kanda's pants, but was clearly attracted to her more masculine, if slender, physique.

Of course many people do care about what's in the pants, but initial attraction/falling in love is basically never about the genitals. Rather, it's about other, "unreliable" markers of sex and gender that can be misleading or be misread (as was the case in this manga). And probably pheromones.

All we can be certain about in Ookuma and Kanda is that they're now in a lesbian relationship, and I'm fine with leaving it at that.

last edited at Aug 12, 2020 7:25AM

Normally I'd gleefully jump right into all those discussions, but for now...

~happy noises~

last edited at Aug 11, 2020 8:59PM

^ Your comment just didn't seem to have much of a good opinion of the scanlation, apologies if I misunderstood.

Ooooh, no offence taken, and yes I apparently did give the wrong impression. I do like the translation, actually, it's really different in a way I appreciate. It's kinda wild in terms of trying to make it sound naturalistic.

^ The official translation coming from Viz, I'd rather see SAD continue working on this and providing us with some actually great translations.

I see no real reason why they should stop. Yes, there is a licensor for the Manga now, but they're releasing it in complete volumes, not catering to the digital fanbase that wants chapters ASAP as simulpub.

I mean, sure, there is always the risk of Viz shutting third-party non-licensed publications down.

last edited at Aug 6, 2020 12:13PM

Just found out that the official translation is "How do we Relationship?" ...... https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/how-do-we-relationship/.160659

I like, and fully agree with, the negative point mentioned in the review, though I'd maybe substitute "volume" with "chapter".

I'd love to see the official translation. Not sure if it can keep up with the wild scanlation(s) we've had so far.

last edited at Aug 6, 2020 9:47AM

If this is a mess and it's unsure then let's not. She is just acting like a guy, like i said she didn't change her way of dressing just because she start acting like a guy. Personally i don't see why it should be tag as crossdressing when it's clearly not crossdressing. Anyway, how do you act like a guy ? There is nothing such as behaviors reserved to one specific gender.

Actually, there are--it's well-established in sociology that there are gendered ways of walking, standing, sitting, talking, and generally interacting with other people. That doesn't mean every person manifests all those coded behaviors, or does so in the same way or to the same degree. But they do exist.

I am agnostic on the tagging issue--except for the obvious trigger labels, they don't matter much to me. But it's definitely the case that behaviors can be coded as gendered.

Tagging issue aside, there's a huge amount of gendered behaviours. I kind of like Judith Butler's postulate of "gender as performance". These behaviours are obviously not reserved for one gender, but typically associated with one more than the other, same as gendered clothes, and the associations change with time and society. That's basically the difference between gender and sex. I'd like to think of sex as what I am, and of gender as who I am.

Simple examples for some gendered ways of sitting are "manspreading" versus sitting with closed or crossed legs (e.g. to not allow others to see what's under a short skirt). Gendered ways of speaking would for example be found in turn-taking vs. interrupting one another. If you've ever seen a stereotypical "men vs women" sketch, you've seen an example of gendered behaviour taken to the extreme as a cliché for comedic effect.

last edited at Aug 1, 2020 4:30PM

Idk, that not something i call deliberate and yes, that doesn't count after because it's not like she change her way of dressing.

https://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/handsome_girl_and_sheltered_girl_ch09#18

This, on the other hand, definitely means that there was an intent to "deceive". That is putting it very, VERY strongly, as there was no malice, but rather the intent to not hurt, behind the "deception". A lie as white as it gets.

Beside a corset but did a corset is enough to count as crossdressing.

I see it as proof of the intent to crossdress.

If I were to make a stretch, I could argue that the vest she's wearing here (https://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/handsome_girl_and_sheltered_girl_ch10#5) and the shirts she's wearing on several occasions emphasize broad shoulders and are thus male-coded clothing by design (pretty sure they're not blouses, for example here: https://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/handsome_girl_and_sheltered_girl_ch02#2).
Ultimately it remains fuzzy because "masculine" clothing just isn't as "hard coded" to a specific gender as "feminine" clothing. We wouldn't say that the girlfriend wearing her boyfriend's shirt or hoodie is crossdressing, even though, at least in case of the shirt, it was designed around male physique.

If we propose that crossdressing isn't just about clothing, but also behaviour and gendered habits, it becomes messy again. She's definitely presenting as a guy towards Ookuma, not consciously at first, but it becomes deliberate after they start dating.

This is a mess.