Most Common Kanji in FFVI Text

Some time ago, I was asked about kanji that frequently appear in Final Fantasy VI, so I scanned the text dumps to put together a list of the top 25, then added some basic information about them. Going through some of my working documents recently, I found the list and figured it would work as a blog entry with some revisions and extra detail, mainly added commentary.

This was originally addressed to a more beginner-level sort of audience, so I didn't use any kana, include uncommon pronunciations, or mention the official names for the pronunciations themselves. The "by itself" pronunciations listed are the kun'yomi (Japanese-assigned readings), which are most often used when a kanji is its own word or part of a word that's finished in kana, while the "in compounds" ones are the on'yomi (Chinese-derived readings), which are most often used when a kanji is part of a word with other kanji. (There are exceptions to both of these tendencies, some of them included in the examples below.) Some of the kun'yomi have additional letters in [brackets]; these indicate the non-kanji parts of the words they commonly appear in.

In addition to the frequency ranking in the game, I've also noted here each kanji's frequency ranking in an index based on an analysis of word frequencies in the Mainichi Shimbun over 4 years by Alexandre Girardi. This data is itself biased toward words common in newspaper articles (the problem with any frequency analysis is that you have to analyze something, and the choice of thing will affect the results), but should at least be significantly closer to standard usage than the game text. Some of the kanji common in the game aren't particularly so in general usage, while others are common in the game precisely because they're so common in general.

This list is based on the original Japanese Super Famicom version; more recent remakes may have differences. Also note that only the main text bank (story and dialog) was analyzed, not menu or in-combat text. However, the portions not included account for relatively little text and include relatively little kanji, so including them wouldn't be likely to have much effect on the results.

1) 国 (general frequency ranking: 3)

Usual pronunciation(s):

kuni by itself, koku in compounds


Country; land; nation.


It's not surprising that this would come up frequently in any discussion of politics, travel, or other international matters, both in and out of the game.

Sample words:

帝国 (teikoku) - empire
王国 (oukoku) - kingdom
国際 (kokusai) - international

2) 人 (general frequency ranking: 5)

Usual pronunciation(s):

hito by itself, jin or nin in compounds


Person. In fantasy or sci-fi contexts, this generally extends to members of any sentient and sapient species, like elves and dwarves, or Klingons and Vulcans.

Sample words:

人々 (hitobito) - people in general
老人 (roujin) - elderly person
商人 (shounin) - merchant

3) 帝 (general frequency ranking: 1276)

Usual pronunciation(s):

mikado by itself, tei in compounds


Emperor; sovereign.


The importance of an evil empire to the plot of FFVI drastically boosts this one's ranking in the game. While Japan still technically has an emperor, that typically has little everyday relevance, and wouldn't come up especially often in the news, with the exception of certain special events, like getting a new one.

Sample words:

帝国 (teikoku) - empire
皇帝 (koutei) - emperor

4) 魔 (general frequency ranking: 1514)

Usual pronunciation(s):



The supernatural, often with a menacing or unnerving connotation, though not necessarily.


It's unsurprisingly more common in a fantasy context, particularly when magic is a central plot point, than in general usage.

Sample words:

魔法 (mahou) - magic
魔法瓶 (mahoubin) - thermos (literally a "magic bottle")
魔物 (mamono) - monster
悪魔 (akuma) - demon

5) 獣 (general frequency ranking: 1714)

Usual pronunciation(s):

kemono or kedamono by itself, juu in compounds


Animal; beast. It can refer to animals in general, or more specifically to the furry, four-legged sort. When applied to humans, it indicates animalistic behavior, similar to calling someone a "pig" or "monster" in English, depending on the sort of behavior.


This kanji's frequency in FFVI is largely thanks to the race of supernatural creatures central to the plot that have it in their name. The grassland where monsters congregate also plays a role in boosting it in the ranking.

Sample words:

幻獣 (genjuu) - phantasmal beasts/Espers (the supernatural creatures mentioned above)
獣ケ原 (kemono ga hara) - the Veldt/Beast Plain (the grassland mentioned above)

6) 力 (general frequency ranking: 62)

Usual pronunciation(s):

chikara by itself, ryoku or riki in compounds


Power; strength; exertion; ability to get things done.

Sample words and phrases:

武力 (buryoku) - military force
怪力 (kairiki) - inhuman strength
能力 (nouryoku) - ability
力を貸す (chikara wo kasu) - to provide assistance (literally, "to lend strength")

7) 幻 (general frequency ranking: 1564)

Usual pronunciation(s):

maboroshi by itself, gen in compounds


Phantasm; illusion.


This kanji's frequency in FFVI is almost entirely due to the race of supernatural creatures central to the plot that have it in their name. In this context, it refers to something so rare and poorly evidenced that there's no telling whether it even really exists.

Sample words:

幻獣 (genjuu) - phantasmal beasts/Espers (the supernatural creatures mentioned above)
幻覚 (genkaku) - hallucination

8) 俺 (general frequency ranking: 1946)

Usual pronunciation(s):



A first-person pronoun with a confident, frequently arrogant, masculine tone.


The more professional and detached tone of newspapers makes this rarer in the official ranking than it probably deserves to be, while the preponderance of cocky characters in fiction makes it more common than usual there.

9) 行 (general frequency ranking: 20)

Usual pronunciation(s):

most commonly i[ku] by itself, kou in compounds;
okona[u] (by itself), gyou (in compounds), and others also occur fairly often


Movement from here to there; travel. While this isn't quite the same as English "go", they're fairly close analogues.

Sample word:

行く (iku) - to go (one of the most common verbs there is)
旅行 (ryokou) - travel, journey, excursion
行う (okonau) - to do, to carry out, to perform (a task, etc.)
三行目 (san gyou me) - line 3 (on a page, of a poem, etc.)

10) 手 (general frequency ranking: 60)

Usual pronunciation(s):

te by itself, shu or sometimes zu in compounds


Hand; means of doing.


This is more common than might be expected thanks in large part to a number of idiomatic and semi-idiomatic uses, most of them relating to things like ability or influence.

Sample words and phrases:

手に入れる (te ni ireru) - to obtain (literally, "put in one's hand")
拍手 (hakushu) - applause
自分の手で (jibun no te de) - [doing something] personally (literally, "with one's own hand"; compare to English "with my own two hands")

11) 私 (general frequency ranking: 242)

Usual pronunciation(s):

watashi or watakushi by itself, shi in compounds


A first-person pronoun, with a more polite or deferential tone. The longer watakushi reading is more formal and humble than the more common watashi. When not used as a pronoun, the kanji has a meaning of personal or private, as opposed to public.

Sample words:

私 (watashi or watakushi) - I/me
私学 (shigaku) - private school
私服 (shifuku) - civilian (non-uniform) clothing


Being the usual polite and proper term, this first-person pronoun is significantly more common in newspaper articles than others.

12) 界 (general frequency ranking: 158)

Usual pronunciation(s):



World; realm; zone.

Sample words:

世界 (sekai) - the world
幻獣界 (genjuu kai) - the genjuu/Esper world

13) 事 (general frequency ranking: 18)

Usual pronunciation(s):

koto by itself, ji in compounds


Thing, in the abstract rather than concrete sense.

Sample words:

事 (koto) - (abstract) thing
事情 (jijou) - circumstances or situation
大事 (daiji) - important

14) 世 (general frequency ranking: 135)

Usual pronunciation(s):

yo by itself, sei or se in compounds


World; generation; society.

Sample words:

世界 (sekai) - (the) world
世話 (sewa) - tending to or looking after
ルイ14世 (RUI juu yon sei) - Louis XIV

15) 前 (general frequency ranking: 27)

Usual pronunciation(s):

mae by itself, zen in compounds


In front of; ahead; earlier than.

Sample words:

名前 (namae) - (personal, as opposed to family) name
以前 (izen) - before, prior to, previously
お前 (omae) - you (in a confident masculine tone)
前回 (zenkai) - last time, previous episode (etc.)

16) 間 (general frequency ranking: 33)

Usual pronunciation(s):

aida or ma by itself, kan or ken in compounds


Interval; space; gap between.

Sample words:

時間 (jikan) - time
仲間 (nakama) - teammate, companion, comrade, ally
昼と夜の間 (hiru to yoru no aida) - the time between day and night

17) 戦 (general frequency ranking: 78)

Usual pronunciation(s):

ikusa or tataka[u] by itself, sen in compounds


War; battle; conflict. This is also used more loosely for things like competitions, not just for outright war.

Sample words:

戦闘 (sentou) - combat
戦う (tatakau) - to do battle
決戦 (kessen) - decisive battle, deciding match

18) 見 (general frequency ranking: 22)

Usual pronunciation(s):

mi[ru/eru/seru] by itself, ken in compounds


Sight; vision; viewpoint.

Sample words:

見る (miru) - to see
見える (mieru) - to be visible
見せる (miseru) - to show (to)
意見 (iken) - opinion

19) 大 (general frequency ranking: 7)

Usual pronunciation(s):

oo[kii] by itself, dai or tai in compounds


Large; vast; important.

Sample words:

大きい (ookii) - big, large
大陸 (tairiku) - continent
大変 (taihen) - seriously bad
拡大 (kakudai) - magnification, enlargement
大人 (otona) - adult

20) 何 (general frequency ranking: 340)

Usual pronunciation(s):

nani or nan



Sample words:

何 (nani) - what
何者 (nanimono) - equivalent to "Who goes there?" (literally, "what (unidentified) person")
何時 (itsu) (usually written in kana) - when
何百 (nan byaku) - hundreds


English can use question words like "what", "who", and "when" in two distinct ways that come so naturally to native speakers that I'm having difficulty putting the distinction into words. Basically, they can be used both to ask questions ("Who is this?") and to indicate the answers to stated or unstated questions ("the person who arrived last"). Japanese question words like nani, dare, and itsu aren't used in that second sense. However, they also have more flexibility in expressing unknowns in general than English question words do. For instance, the nan byaku example above refers to some unknown number of hundreds. In a related way, something that's itsu ka applies some (unspecified) part of the time but not at other times, while something that's itsu mo is valid at all times so the question of which particular time become irrelevant.

21) 達 (general frequency ranking: 500)

Usual pronunciation(s):

tachi as a suffix, tatsu in compounds


Accomplishment; arrival. As a suffix, it basically makes a plural, indicating the one named as a representative member of a larger group.


The pluralization usage drives its frequency in FFVI. Japanese doesn't usually concern itself with distinguishing singular from plural, except when it comes to indicating whether people are speaking for themselves or a group, and similarly whether speaking about a single person or a group that includes that person. Both of these come up all the time in conversation, so are naturally more common in game dialog than newspaper articles.

Sample words:

発達 (hattatsu) - development or growth
私達 (watashi-tachi) - we/us
ガウ達 (GAU-tachi) - the group consisting of Gau and others

22) 兵 (general frequency ranking: 522)

Usual pronunciation(s):

tsuwamono by itself, hei or sometimes hyou in compounds


Solder; troop; army.


One would hope this would appear more often in a war-torn fantasy world than in real life.

Sample words:

兵士 (heishi) - soldier
帝国兵 (teikoku hei) - imperial soldier

23) 出 (general frequency ranking: 13)

Usual pronunciation(s):

de[ru] or da[su] by itself, shutsu in compounds


Movement outward, away, or to a more public destination.

Sample words:

出す (dasu) - to bring out (e.g., of a container)
脱出 (dasshutsu) - escape
出発 (shuppatsu) - departure
引き出し (hikidashi) - drawer, withdrawal

24) 時 (general frequency ranking: 16)

Usual pronunciation(s):

toki or ji


Time; hour. Used with numbers to indicate the hour when telling time (10時 is 10:00, for instance).

Sample words:

時間 (jikan) - time
時計 (tokei) - clock
不時着 (fujichaku) - emergency [not at the planned time] landing

25) 言 (general frequency ranking: 83)

Usual pronunciation(s):

i[u] or koto by itself, gen or gon in compounds



Sample words:

言う (iu) - to say
合言葉 (aikotoba) - password, watchword
方言 (hougen) - dialect


Concern troll no friend to gay community

One of the editorialists who often leads me to wonder about standards in the editorial industry is at it again, layering a new bit of supposed concern over a rehash of many of the same tired and flawed arguments he was pushing three years ago, all while still claiming his bigotry isn't. This time, Chris Freind has taken it upon himself to offer branding advice to the gay community, advice that just so happens to play into the hands of transphobic (and homophobic!) groups. Who'd have guessed?

In honor of Gay Pride month, here's my take: I am proud to say that I have no gay friends.

Somehow, I'm not surprised. And does he not understand what "honor" means, or is this a clumsy attempt at wit?

And the reason is simple: I don't base friendships on a person's sexual preference, but on something far more important - character. Do some of my friends happen to be gay? Yep - and I count them among my closest comrades. But their being gay is absolutely irrelevant, which is why they are friends - not gay friends. The same applies to blacks, Asians, Muslims - you name it. A person's skin color, ethnicity or religion never plays a role in how I view people, and whether I call them a friend.

That's a nice ideal in theory. In reality, it doesn't work that way. Biases exist, whether you want them to or not. So assuming that these "friends who happen to be gay" actually exist, I'd advise them to keep a healthy distance. Though judging by Freind's shallowness of understanding, they already do. Perhaps it's appropriate that his name looks like someone tried to spell "friend" and got it wrong.

Regardless, all semantic contortion aside, if he has friends who are gay, then he has gay friends. That's just how adjectives work.

Unfortunately, extremists on both sides continue to hijack the gay issue, creating needless animosity and government intrusion.

One side brandishes several influential and official-sounding groups with ongoing patterns of falsely equating homosexuality with pedophilia, baselessly claiming that LGBT people are a threat to society in general and children in particular just by existing, and going on about some kind of "homosexual agenda" (or "transgender agenda" or "gender ideology" or whatever other ominous-sounding but ultimately meaningless phrases are in vogue) that's supposedly out to destroy Christianity and corrupt children and even cause the downfall of civilization. The same side also actively supports, domestically and worldwide, attitudes and laws that effectively or even explicitly criminalize LGBT identities. And every so often you'll get people like the Atlanta mayor who recently spoke of "killing them out" in reference to homosexuals, "transvestites", and (strawmanned) liberals in general.

Not that the other side is perfect, but what have they done that even comes close to this?

Given that Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden just declared that, if elected, LGBTQ rights would be his top priority,

He actually said that passing the Equality Act would be his top legislative priority. That's not quite the same thing, and explicitly clarifying the Civil Rights act is long overdue.

let's look at the issues - and misconceptions - surrounding this contentious topic:

Yes, let's. I think we'll find that most of the misconceptions are Freind's.

1) Plain and simple, Joe Biden is pandering.

Probably. It's what politicians do. Still, better to pander to equality than to bigotry.

In sucking up to the hard-core base who makes the LGBTQ agenda their first and only issue,

I'm pretty sure these people don't actually exist. Maybe in the opposition...?

Also, I just noticed "LGBTQ agenda" there, one of those ominous-sounding but ultimately meaningless phrases I mentioned earlier. Score one for the bigotry column!

Mr. Biden aims to solidify that constituency to gain a plurality, while the remaining votes are split among the 648 other Dems in the field - an exaggeration, of course, but not by much! To be fair, other candidates are also pandering, on everything from slavery reparations to impeachment, and gun confiscation to taxing the rich, but that's for a different day.

To actually be fair, every politician does this. Heck, besides stoking his own ego, Donald Trump, for instance, doesn't seem to know how to do anything but pander (which may just be another way of stoking his ego). He's even clumsily tried to pander to LGBT groups, though most aren't buying it, given his track record. So let's not pretend it's just the Democrats. And, for that matter, let's not dismiss pandering out of hand without considering content and actions, either.

Here's the problem: In the general election, the LBGTQ-platform-as-first-priority is DOA, and could blow a Biden candidacy out of the water.

Frankly, I think being bland and out of touch are bigger problems for a Biden candidacy. The main things he has going for him seem to be name recognition and nostalgia.

And that's not because a majority of Americans are anti-gay. Quite the opposite. Most people favor gay marriage, for example, but demand priority be given to more pressing issues, such as job outsourcing; immigration; skyrocketing college tuition; and sub-par educational achievement.

As do most gay people. Was there supposed to be a point here?

As 2016 proved, a candidate's failure to understand the electorate will be to his or her peril.

How so? I seem to recall the candidate who really resonated with his base's prejudices losing the popular vote.

2) For the most part, Americans are very tolerant, especially on issues close to the gay community.

For the most part, that seems to be mostly true. Unfortunately, there are loud, influential, and often violent groups that don't agree. Some even hold high office. Which is exactly why formally recognizing equal rights is such a priority.

The problem arises when the left's social-engineering propaganda is shoved down people's throats.

No, the problem arises when reactionaries lash out, particularly when supposed moderates blame the victims. Like Freind is doing here.

And "social-engineering propaganda" is another one of those ominous-sounding but ultimately meaningless phrases. Apparently letting people live their lives is social engineering being shoved down people's throats, now!

From commercials to TV shows to celebrity advocacy,

Yes, there's nothing more horrible than being reminded that gay people exist. /s

demands for political correctness and bowing to the liberal agenda

What demands? What agenda? In person, I might ask for clarification and examples. Here, I'll just note that this is hopelessly vague, with, yes, yet another ominous-sounding but ultimately meaningless phrase. I'm not impressed.

have become in-your-face politicking, and people have grown sick of it. The irony is that, while most have no problem with gays or gay rights, a backlash occurs when people feel beaten over the head, and worse, when excoriated as bigots should they happen to disagree.

It is a problem when people feel beaten over the head by the existence of people who aren't just like them, or by things that have no effect on them. So here's a thought: those who don't like being excoriated as bigots should rein in their bigotry.

And for the record, it's not anti-gay when people object to gays kissing in public, as most are equally uncomfortable watching two heterosexuals exhibit over-the-top public displays of affection.

A dubious claim at best, especially when gay people simply "kissing in public" is put up against straight people making "over-the-top public displays".

A little bit of couth and restraint goes a long way, no matter who you are.

Such as restraint from gawking at other people, perhaps.

3) Unfortunately, the gay community finds itself bent over a barrel because its leadership unwisely allied the movement with every letter in the LBGTQ umbrella

Breaking news: overlapping smallish groups with common interests work together to increase their effectiveness. Citations needed for the claims about this being an unwise move or one that bent anyone over a barrel.

- an entity which is exponentially growing with fringe groups. So what used to be a gay/lesbian/bisexual movement has morphed into "LGBTQIAPKDAFHITLGNC,"

Though there is some discussion over exactly which acronym to use and how many letters to spell out, I've never heard of that one, and indeed, Google tells me it simply doesn't exist outside of Freind's column.

which now represents "transgenders, queers, intersex, asexual, pansexual, kink (no idea what that is),

Let me Google that for you. But anyone familiar with the word "kinky" ought to at least be able to hazard a guess, while anyone who has "no idea what that is" should maybe... think twice before writing about it? Besides which, kink is not normally considered to be included under LGBTQ+. There's some overlap, of course, but then, there's also plenty of overlap with dyadic (not intersex) cisgender heterosexual people. Perhaps he's confused LGBTQ+ with GSRD (Gender, Sexual, and Relationship Diversity)?

demisexual (not a clue),

Let me Google that for you. Again, if he doesn't have a clue, why is he writing about this? And perhaps more to the point, why would he expect anyone to listen to him?


Allies are exactly that—people not LGBTQ+ who support those who are.

fetish, leather,

Also not normally considered to be included under LGBTQ+. I'm pretty sure he's just trying to rile up the sexually conservative crowd at this point.

He seems to have forgotten the H, I, and T in his imaginary acronym, too.

gender-non-conforming," and several other groups even some advocates surely don't know.

If so, they ought to educate themselves a little better. But advocates generally care enough to at least make that effort. This columnist, evidently, can't be bothered.

And gays also get lumped with the personal pronoun police

This is not a thing that exists.

who demand people be addressed by their preferred pronoun - ze/zir, ve/vir/verself, xe/xem, tey/ter/tem, etc.

Most of the pronoun combinations people get inexplicably indignant about are rare enough that anyone with this attitude is unlikely to encounter them, and in any case, it shouldn't be any harder to respect pronouns than, for instance, nicknames. If you care about the people in question, anyway. And if not, all that's really necessary is to keep it from rising to the level of harassment, which is already actionable to begin with.

- and the 31 recognized genders of New York City's civil rights code, and it's not hard to realize why the gay movement's credibility has been damaged.

That would mainly be because of people who make misleading or outright false claims, and mock concepts they don't understand. Again, like Freind is doing here.

(And yes, the Big Apple legally recognizes such beauties as Cross-Dresser, Drag King, Femme Queen, Gender Bender, Non-Op, Hijra, Pangender, Butch, Two-spirit, Agender, Third Sex, Gender Fluid, Non-binary Transgender, Adrogyne, Gender Gifted, Gender Blender, Femm, Person of Transgender Experience, and Androgynous.)

It's not clear what "legally recognizes" is supposed to mean in this context. These are just examples of self-descriptors used by people who are covered under the city's non-discrimination laws. The list doesn't appear to exist anywhere outside of an infographic that basically says, "yes, we mean you, too". There's nothing remarkable about this except that people have many and varied ways of describing themselves.

Enough said.

Yes, he's made it quite clear he doesn't understand what he presumes to criticize.

To recover its reputation, the traditional gay movement - largely comprised of reasonable, common-sense Middle Americans - would be wise to jettison all ties to the leftist trans movement,

And there it is. The idea that hanging separately is preferable to hanging together. The temptation to say, "I've got mine, so screw all y'all". The concern trolling "divide and conquer" approach that would benefit no one so much as the far right if it were taken seriously by more than a small yet worrisome fringe.

since the two have virtually nothing in common.

Never mind that many people still can't tell the difference even in theory, let alone in practice. Or that the same bad-faith arguments are being used against both. Or that there's a large overlap in the people in those groups, and that even if there weren't there would still be a substantial overlap in the issues that affect them. Or that there's an enormous overlap in the groups attacking both of them. Just to name a few things. So, sure, virtually nothing in common, as long as you ignore a mountain of commonalities.

Otherwise, its association that such radical elements will make it the butt of jokes.

Only if people keep making tasteless jokes that are neither clever nor funny.

And, as this column previously discussed, it would be a huge mistake to use identity politics when analyzing the gay community.

Why? Also, what is "identity politics" meant to indicate here?

Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro was elected president with substantial support from the gay community, despite slandering gays in despicable ways. Translation - especially to Joe Biden: Assumptions are dangerous, as most gays don't fit their stereotype. In fact, most exhibit significant diversity in everything from occupations to politics, and income levels to interests.

Gay people are still people, and sometimes people support the Leopards Eating People's Faces party without considering that the leopards might eat their faces. People aren't always sensible. And even when they are, they often have multiple conflicting concerns. So it would seem that Freind has some understanding of what intersectionality is, even if I'm doubtful that he'd recognize it by that name.

May I additionally point out that gay people also exhibit significant diversity in gender identity and expression, as he seems determined to ignore?

4) Both sides shamelessly politicize the gay movement.

There's "both sides" again! Though it's perhaps not completely without merit this time, since politicians, almost by definition, shamelessly politicize everything imaginable.

Some on the right ride their high-horse by proclaiming homosexuality to be a mental illness requiring re-education to fix; some don't understand that homosexuality and pedophilia have nothing to do with one another; and others damn the offenders to hell since God is against gays. Sure glad to know that those folks have a direct line to the Big Guy. Unfortunately, in their quest for absolute piety, many have forsaken mirrors, as they are incapable of reflecting upon themselves to become better people. Instead, the obsessive interest of such people in the sexuality of others is as incomprehensible as it is deviant.

This, we agree on. I'll add that I also find the obsessive interest of some people in the sex and/or gender of others to be at least as incomprehensible and deviant.

And the radical left demands special privileges for fringe groups by invoking the gay movement when, in reality, their agenda has nothing to do with gays.

Ah, yes, such lofty "special privileges" as not being fired or evicted or disowned or beaten to death solely for your actual or presumed gender or sexual orientation, as happens tragically often to people who are straight and cisgender. /s

I'll also point out that, should the shoe ever be on the other foot, non-discrimination protections like the Equality Act would also legally protect dyadic, heterosexual, and cisgender people from discrimination. If they were really as persecuted and reviled as some pundits claim, you'd think they'd be insisting it be passed.

The push for so-called bathroom bills are led by LBGTQ forces - which, by definition, encompasses gays -

It depends on which sort of bathroom bills he means. I'm pretty sure it's not LGBTQ+ forces that were behind North Carolina's HB2, for instance. But we'll assume he's referring to non-discrimination ordinances, since otherwise the rest of this goes from merely fallacious to utterly nonsensical.

He seems to have conveniently forgotten about that other type of bill anyway, considering that despite starting off with a lament about "extremists on both sides ... creating needless animosity and government intrusion", he's only connected government intrusion to one of those sides. Funny, I'd have thought screening people before they can pee would count as far more intrusive than, well, anything he's managed to come up with so far.

but the legislation being promoted would only serve people who identify as the opposite sex.

Not at all. It's mostly cisgender people who don't quite fit other people's idea of what a man or woman "should" look or sound or behave like who have been harassed, and sometimes even attacked or arrested, for being in the "wrong" bathroom. It's ironic in a way that a significant portion of transgender people simply go unnoticed, as has been the case in all of living memory, at the very least.

To oppose bathroom bills isn't anti-trans,

Of course it is. What else is there to call opposition to policy that would make trans people safer and less anxious, with no demonstrable downside?

and certainly not anti-gay.

In theory, perhaps not, but in practice, there's an awful lot of gay people who don't conform to gender norms. So, yes, it is, in effect, anti-gay as well.

Above all, the issue is about safety and security, especially for women. What parents in their right minds - Republican or Democrat, gay or straight - would feel comfortable sending their young daughter into the ladies' bathroom where a man, who on feelings of being a woman, might be using the same facility?

Never mind that women can be predators, too. Or that bathroom doors have never actually kept out anyone who wants to go through them. Or so many other problems with this line of argument that ought to be readily apparent with a little thought. If people want to creep on other people, they don't usually dress up for the occasion.

And if someone were to attempt formal enforcement of who uses what bathroom, how would they go about it? Driver's licenses? People have been using fake IDs since there have been IDs to fake. Birth certificates? No one carries those around with them. Genital checks? That's sexual assault. Genetic testing? That can take weeks, not to mention the cost. And we haven't even mentioned inconclusive results yet.

Far from being bigoted, opposition is rooted in avoiding voyeurs, pedophiles, and other lurking predators.

This drivel has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. Non-discrimination policies and ordinances, some in place for over twenty years, have had no measurable effect on any of these supposed risks. As even the hate group MassResistance admitted late in 2018 while advising their followers to change tactics, this is a concocted argument meant to manipulate people's emotions while avoiding any meaningful discussion. Far from being sensible, opposition is rooted in fearmongering about minimal risks that have no factual connection to where transgender people are allowed to pee. Which, in other words, makes it bigoted.

Especially since scaremongering makes people less safe.

Under such laws, high school boys could legally access girls' locker rooms, since no one could disprove their feelings of identity.

It's not that simple, which he would know if he cared to look into it instead of making bad-faith arguments. And again, non-discrimination policies in schools have resulted in no uptick in incidents.

And how would such a regulation work in the military, or workplace?

Why not ask them? Most large companies are already handling this without issue, and have been for some time. The military, too, had been doing much the same until recently, as have the militaries of numerous other countries.

How could a woman who feels threatened by a creepy guy habitually inside the women's bathroom file a sexual-harassment lawsuit? She couldn't, because he would be legally entitled to be there.

That's just silly. By that logic, someone who's being harassed in public has no recourse because other people have a right to be there. Non-discrimination has never meant that anything goes. Criminal behavior is still criminal behavior.

And who would pay the huge costs to construct bathrooms for an ultra-small percentage of the population?

What costs? Who's talking about constructing new bathrooms? How severe a misunderstanding of the concept does it take to even ask that question?

Look, I'd love for non-gendered bathrooms—which would be there for everyone, not just an "ultra-small percentage" of people—to be more widely available, and for so many reasons. Consider parents and young children, or caretakers and charges, who aren't of the same gender. Consider people who feel out of place, and possibly even unsafe, in either of the standard bathrooms. Consider that it's simply a more efficient use of available space and people's time to allow anyone to use any available facilities.

But that wasn't even under discussion here. Non-discrimination is just saying not to give people a hard time over what you presume to assume about them when they're going about their business and not causing any trouble. That's it. There aren't any costs involved in that, let alone "huge" costs.

Blech. He finishes with a few more closing paragraphs summarizing several points that he never successfully made, but I think that's enough of that.


Languages aren't codes for each other

One of my facebook friends whom I don't actually know is a native English speaker living in Japan who was recently (well, recent when I started writing the draft of this post months ago, anyway) vexed by a school worksheet. It had a series of example phrases written in both Japanese and English that included the following:

"Don't use Japanese. Speak English."

"How do you say this in English?"

The teacher instructed the students to cross out "in" in the second example, and when pressed on the issue, explained that since both examples contain 「英語で」, it can't be right for one to have "in English" when the other just has "English". Which, though it makes sense, simply isn't correct.


A Lament for the Once-United Methodist Church


It's been brewing for decades. In 1972, the United Methodist Church added a declaration that it "does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching" to its rulebook, the Book of Discipline [1]. Such sentiments were unfortunately typical of the time, though by no means universal. Homosexuality, some argued, arose from demonic influences, or was a communist plot, or was at best a step removed from rape and pedophilia, or if nothing else was unnatural and disgusting.

This language, and related language barring LGBTQ+ people from holding leadership positions, have lingered in the rules ever since. Enforcement, on the other hand, has been inconsistent. This upsets those who have an attachment to these rules, and such people often insist that the rules must have teeth.

In the meantime, though, the position enshrined in the Book of Discipline has become increasingly controversial, as heterosexist attitudes have over and over proven to be unjustified. And so some within the United Methodist Church have participated in or outright performed gay weddings, in defiance of the Book of Discipline, even before the United States Supreme Court affirmed marriage as a civil right for all consenting adults, regardless of sex or gender, in 2015. There are openly LGBTQ+ clergy, too, including a lesbian bishop in the Pacific Northwest Conference of the Western Jurisdiction. In everyday life, more and more people within the church, even if not gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or whatever else themselves, have found that they have friends, neighbors, and family members who are. Many feel, too, that the attitude of exclusion embodied in this policy runs contrary to the very nature of Christianity.