Talk:Danmei

The statement "Danmei works ... are typically created by and for heterosexual women" is supported by a citation to this Masters thesis, but the Masters thesis itself cites two sources that I don't think sufficiently support the claim. The first source (Yi, 2013) is a personal essay that cites no sources and offers no original research to support the claim. The second source (Yang & Xu, 2015, chapter in Queer/Tongzhi China) does not actually state at any point that danmei is created mostly by or for heterosexual women, only that it's created mostly by and for women.

I've used Masters theses as sources for articles myself in the past, but given that WP:THESIS says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" and also given the sourcing issues I raised in the above paragraph, I'm going to remove this claim and its citation. If a more reliable source can be found to support the statement, it can certainly be added back in. MidnightAlarm (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the source in order to justify its removal. It is not a "personal essay," but rather scholarship published by an accredited university.

Please do not remove it or the associated text again unless you can supply your own source to discredit it. Keep in mind that you cannot remove content from Wikipedia just because you don't like it.

I find it curious why there is a sudden negative interest in the wholly uncontroversial statement (demographics of who create and consume danmei) in the article intro, while simultaneously ignoring the corroborating text of the article body? It's bizarre. Have you actually read the whole article, or done any research into the scholarship of the subject at hand? Hadal (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't call the thesis a personal essay. I called one of the sources it cites for that claim a personal essay, because it is. The author describes it in both the abstract and the text itself as an essay based on their personal experience, and it does not cite any sources. But it's true that I don't think the thesis is a reliable source based on WP:THESIS, which I linked above in...my explanation of why I think it's not a reliable source.

I did not remove the content because I don't like it. I'm neutral on it, personally; I don't really care one way or another if it's true that danmei is largely written by/for straight women, nor do I care if the article says that. Someone else who brought this statement to my attention via my talk page didn't like it, but I myself explained to them that we cannot remove reliably sourced statements just because we don't like them. And either you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said or you just didn't read what I said, because I explicitly stated in the post you're replying to that I removed it because of concerns about the sourcing, with an explanation for my rationale and a link to policy.

In any case, I'm certainly not about to get into an edit war about this. I'll drop a note on WP:LGBTQ+ to see if anyone else is interested in weighing in so we can hopefully reach consensus about whether to keep the statement with the current source or remove it until a more reliable source is found. MidnightAlarm (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

As I said on the project talk page, you have a non-trivial edit history on this page and have previously removed referenced content relating to heteronormativity in danmei. That begins to form a pattern. I am here merely to uphold the convention that referenced content should not be removed without cause.

Re this "personal essay," it was presented at a symposium. Conference presentations and symposiums are valid academic sources -- and you'll note I did not reference the symposium itself, but an academic work that referenced it. This is not unusual. This is not unreliable.

If you really want to discredit a source, especially in such a niche context with real lives at risk, you can drill down as far as you want to find a justification. But IMO it is not a good look and is far from constructive. On the other hand, I have taken this as an opportunity to improve the article with additional sources. I'll try to stay positive. --Hadal (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I have bowed out of this conversation (diff linked for any onlookers who may not have been party to the conversation at WP:LGBTQ+) and I intend to stick by that, but I have to say, it bothers me that you keep casting aspersions on my motivations. If you scroll further up this talk page, you'll see that I documented my decision to remove that other reference to heteronormativity that you mentioned, that I explained my rationale for doing so, and that it was, again, due to sourcing issues and not my personal opinion about whether or not danmei is heteronormative. In that case, as in this one, I explicitly invited discussion about the change. Please stop assuming bad faith on the part of your fellow editors. It's disheartening and really does not encourage a spirit of collaboration.

I'm glad you've been motivated to improve the article! That's always a great outcome. I'm genuinely sorry that you feel you have to actively try to stay positive in the face of all of this; it was never my intention to bring anything but positivity to the article or the discussion. MidnightAlarm (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Coming here from that discussion. The sentence in question "Danmei works are primarily hosted online as web fiction, and they are typically created by and for heterosexual women." cites, on page iii of the first source: Yi, 2013 and Yang and Xu, 2015, p.133 as sources. You are right about Yi 2013 with the abstract saying "But because I am a BL fan girl myself, I can offer an insider's perspective. This essay is a reflection on my personal experiences and observations as a member of BL fandom, and a response to erroneous, stigmatizing claims and moral panic about this community in China" and provides no source for the claim it was created for heterosexual woman. As for Yang & Xu, a chapter in Queer/Tongzhi China, it says nothing about the nature of the danmei on page 133 either, other than implying that it is "produced and consumed primarily by women" like BL in Japan. This is all it says (apart from a sentence fragment which goes onto page 134):

Originating from Japan, Boys’ Love, frequently abbreviated as ‘BL’, is a genre about male–male romance that is produced and consumed primarily by women. It was first introduced to China in early 1990s under the name danmei (耽美), literally meaning ‘indulging in or addicted to beauty’. After more than a decade of rapid expansion, BL has turned from a secret topic discussed in small, closed, online communities into a major web genre and a massive Internet-based subculture. Although it is difficult to estimate the number of Chinese BL fans, judging from the millions of hits received by hot BL novels at Jinjiang, the fandom is obviously huge and stable.

The second source cited is an article, but the page numbers are not the same ones cited. It seems to also be a survey of danmei fans, not danmei authors, in mainland China and Taiwan. The third source cannot be accessed without requesting a PDF, I did find a copy here, but it also complicates the sentence about it being made by/for heterosexual women, saying on page 106:

"The article shows the contradictions inherent in the danmei subculture: on the one hand, its proximity to the feminist and queer movements, on the other—its support for heteropatriarchal values...ans use BL stories primarily to express their notions of idealized heterosexual relationships...so danmei reinforces traditional gender roles rather than undermines them...Even though both characters in a danmei story are often feminized, possessing “soft masculinity” and refined beauty, the proportions of feminine and masculine traits in them are not the same. Paradoxically, romantic relationships between men in BL often receive a heteropatriarchal representation, which compromises the ability of danmei to support feminist or queer narratives alike. And this is yet another feature of danmei as a complex social, cultural, and media phenomenon"

And that's only on page 106. On the page before (page 105), it says in the abstract: "Despite the fact that these entertainment stories are characterized by a love line between male characters, the authors and consumers of Chinese BL are primarily heterosexual women." It adds on page 108: "Their authors and readers are primarily heterosexual women, a paradox that many researchers have been trying to comprehend." For that conclusion it cites three sources:

Zhou, Y., Liu, T., Yan, H.Y., Paul, B., & Yiezheng, W. (2021). A relational equality bias: Women’s narrative engagement in reading Chinese BL. International Journal of Communication, 15, 4840–4861.
Zhang, C. (2016). Loving boys twice as much: Chinese women’s paradoxical fandom of “boys’ love” fiction. Women’s Studies in Communication, 39 (3), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2016.1190806
Chang, J., & Tian, H. (2021). Girl power in boy love: Yaoi, online female counterculture, and digital feminism in China. Feminist Media Studies, 21 (4), 604–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2020.1803942

The first of these can be read here says in the abstract, on page 4840, that "Boys’ Love stories (BL) are a genre of male-male homosexual romance in China. The readers of BL typically are heterosexual young women" and it studies "BL readers’ idealization of relational equality in the stories to identification with characters in BL and to further investigate how factors that make this genre popular among heterosexual women may encourage negative social stereotypes of homosexual men...The results contribute to the ongoing discussion of how BL may influence heterosexual women readers’ perceptions of actual gay men, as well as heteroand homosexual romantic relationships in society" (page 4841). However, it never says that Danmei is "typically" created for by/for heterosexual women. It only says that "Most of the readers self-identify as heterosexual" (page 4842) and "Most of the participants are heterosexual with only one who self-identifies as lesbian" (page 4848) while they admit limitations of the study, on page 4845, including that it is not a representative sample: "...Second, using a nonrepresentative sample somewhat limits the generalizability of the results. However, as homosexuality is still a taboo in China, reading BL is still a stigmatized behavior, making it difficult to locate a more representative sample." It says on the same page that "Furthermore, the current study suggests that reading BL may lead to positive but stereotypical perceptions and attitudes toward gay men. Future studies should be conducted to directly examine the impact of BL on their readers’ expectations, perceptions, and attitudes toward LGBT groups."

The second one I listed above is behind a paywall, but I did find a version which says on page 250: "Nevertheless, there has been a notable increase in the number of young female fans, most of whom are heterosexual (Yi, 2013)" citing none other than... the thesis by Yi, the same one which shared the claim that danmei are "typically created by and for heterosexual women" as currently stated in the intro to this article.

The third source I listed above, is behind a paywall as well, I found a version online whic says on pages 1-2: "The severity of the sentence and the public attention it has garnered have greatly enhanced the visibility of a subcultural group within China’s public sphere, that is, the Yaoi fictionists, much at odds with the state’s intention. The overwhelming majority of this group are heterosexual young women who idealize the relationship between men. They find pleasure and perhaps even empowerment in producing and consuming homoerotic novels, comics, and animations, originally from Japan then localized in China." It cites this source:

Turner, Simon. 2018. “Interdisciplinary Approaches to Yaoi Manga: A Review.” Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics 9 (5): 458–472. doi:10.1080/21504857.2018.1494020

Like others, this is behind a paywall, even here. I do not see where this can be read, but it seems to apply to yaoi (it says in part: "This review provides a summation of previous and ongoing trends related to the study of yaoi manga fandom that focuses its attention on yaoi manga fandom. Following in the tradition of cultural studies, the paper examines the production and reception of media texts as they are related to the everyday lives of the consumers. For this reason, the core of this review does not examine the text in isolation."), rather than directly danmei. So, I'm going to say that the sentence in the current main article is not accurate and should be rewritten. Historyday01 (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

How would you propose it be rewritten? What is inaccurate? You have chosen several passages from several sources, some of which do support the current phrasing -- and some that only mention the majority of consumers of danmei as being heterosexual women, rather than both consumers and producers.

Would you be satisfied with something like, "primarily consumed by heterosexual women"?

This is still strange and seems to ignore the elephant in the room (who is producing it), but if that's what it takes to not fully ignore reality... so be it. --Hadal (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I would say say we need more sourcing when it comes to who consumes, and does not consume danmei. As the claim "they are typically created by and for heterosexual women" is not supported by sources, it is wrong to keep it in the article. None of the passages I highlighted above support the current phrasing as it is written, as the number of people in the LGBTQ+ community who read danmei is not fully known. (more on my proposed wording at the end of my comment)

I do not appreciate your comment below claiming, incorrectly, that my "attempt at source ferensics" (as you call it) feels "more like original research the further along it goes". I jumped from one source to another using the sources cited by each person. That is ALL I did. To say otherwise is to distort the truth in a way that is not useful for this discussion.

As for your statement that I am "focused solely on the article intro while ignoring the additional sources as well as the article body text about danmei audiences that has been part of the article for months", yes, I am ONLY focusing on ONE sentence in the intro, which is only going slightly beyond what Midnight Alarm commented in the first place (only one source and its citations were challenged, but I went broader with an analysis of all three sources)!

I don't understand how you are missing this. I assume when you say in your below comment about sources in "the article body text about danmei audiences" you are referring to the "audience" section, which says: "Most danmei fans are Chinese, and heterosexual women predominate among Chinese danmei fans. A 2015–2018 survey of Chinese danmei audiences found that around 88% identify as female, 66.5% as heterosexual, 15.7% as bisexual, and 2.7% as homosexual.[2] Fans of danmei cite equality between partners as part of the appeal of the genre, especially in comparison to heterosexual romance.[27] Researcher Anna Madill has written that among danmei fans in the Anglosphere, "there is a sizable proportion of women with very heterogeneous sexual identifications (and uncertainties) and a relatively small, but not negligible, group of gay male fans."[41]" Now, this cites three sources: an article by Anna Madill and Yhao Zhao which is noted at the beginning of the article, an article in Vice by Viola Zhou and Koah Ewe, an an article by Anna Madill. The Vice article isn't useful, in this case, but based on the Anna Madill article, and the one she co-wrote with Yhao Zhao, we can revise the sentence in question to:

Danmei works are primarily hosted online as web fiction, and they are typically consumed by heterosexual women, but also consumed by bisexual and gay individuals.

I am saying individuals, because it appears that some gay men also read danmei too. How does that wording sound?--Historyday01 (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I personally agree with you, but I think we shouldn't be that dogmatic: If something is really redundant, maybe it is better to remove it😏 Yingqi365 (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Eh, I think my changed sentence is fine. We do not know where danmei authors fall in terms of their sexual or gender identity. Historyday01 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

i agree Yingqi365 (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

It's on the verbose side, but I have no issue with it as a compromise. I'm glad we can agree to take the whole article into account when writing the intro!

It's still strange that the producers of danmei must be relegated to the shadows as some inscrutable mystery, with any source discussing them marked with suspicion. But as I said before, I'm just happy to see reality not be completely ignored. --Hadal (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

What I'm just angry with is none of danmei authors' business. Instead, I'm highly alert of supposed heterosexist statements that could overshadow the LGBT community, especially when the case in China is complicated as I mentioned earlier in this talk. I'm personally a gay, so I chose to stand out this time and for the first time, though it maybe bothering to the parties involved. Yingqi365 (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, given the population base, this statement is itself redundant, isn't it? If this statement is not redundant, perhaps we could say that everything in human society is "typically created by and for heterosexual persons".

@MidnightAlarm@Hadal Yingqi365 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

In fact, it was after reading this statement that I chose to register and edit it. I did so because I believe this sentence both constitutes a potential deprivation of the subjectivity of sexual minorities and provides rhetorical ammunition for conservative anti-LGBTQ+ forces in China (I myself come from PRC, and I want to tell you that, unlike in the West, many of these conservative anti-LGBTQ+ advocates are women).

@MidnightAlarm@Hadal Yingqi365 (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

What's deeply troubling is that many people (not just here) mechanically apply Western social contexts to China when discussing these issues. This is profoundly irresponsible. After all, even on China's Baidu Baike, the entry for 'danmei' openly displays stigmatizing language about its audience…

@MidnightAlarm@Hadal Yingqi365 (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Keeping this sentence and adding more references won't solve anything. On the contrary, it will only invite more potential criticism toward China's LGBTQ-friendly communities. In civil societies like Europe and North America, conservatism and far-right forces can already run rampant—how much more so in a place disciplined for millennia by Confucianism and conservative thought?

This is also my first time participating in a discussion of this scale in such a setting, and I would like to thank everyone here for your attention.

@Hadal@MidnightAlarm Yingqi365 (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

In China, danmei audiences face daily gender-essentialist discipline from women of their own gender — a phenomenon unimaginable in the West. The proportion of anti-LGBTQ+ women in China is higher than you might expect. Meanwhile, customs like bride price（In essence, the groom provides monetary betrothal gifts, say, something like 100,000 to 200,000 RMB, while the bride rarely reciprocates with equivalent gifts, most often just some quilts or other trinkets） divide what should be a united female front, driving many women to actively uphold patriarchy for economic reasons. Applying mainstream Western feminism to all Chinese gender discourse is dangerously naive, as well-intentioned comments can become ammunition for patriarchal forces targeting sexual minorities and other women. China's anti-LGBTQ+ female contingent not only dreams of marriage and bride price but also attacks sexual minorities (especially gay men) and danmei fans daily. To claim moral high ground, they strategically co-opt lesbians to posture as feminist defenders.

@Hadal@MidnightAlarm Yingqi365 (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hadal@MidnightAlarm Yingqi365 (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, as a Chinese citizen, I want to tell you all: censorship targeting LGBTQ+ content like danmei does exist, and it's getting stricter as China's marriage and birth rates decline. But that doesn't mean danmei should disguise itself as heterosexual stories. First, in practice, such disguise doesn't exist; second, logically speaking, even if authors wanted to disguise it, would it even help? Yingqi365 (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Moreover, from some people's supposed 'feminist' perspective, the claim that 'danmei are typically created by and for heterosexual women' hasn't stopped China's anti-LGBTQ+ women from attacking danmei and its audiences(though they are mostly "heterosexual women"🤣) . Those anti-LGBTQ+ hypocrites, while upholding patriarchy for bride prices and physical needs, pretend to be the ones who love women most. 🤣 Handing them ammunition—does it really help? Will it make people more clear-headed? 🤣 Yingqi365 (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The last sentence means: Arming such hypocrisy—what's the point? Yingqi365 (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

We know, in Bangladesh, clothes are typically produced by women, and given the demographic weight of LGBTQ+ individuals, it can be deduced that clothes are typically produced by heterosexual women. But I guess nobody will make a claim like this in an encyclopedia. And moreover, China has a different social and political background from the West, in which women are mostly progressive... Yingqi365 (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

in which→where Yingqi365 (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Moreover, if you guys need evidence about what I said, I would be glad to help!

@MidnightAlarm@Hadal Yingqi365 (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Though honestly I'm a little bit angry at this very moment, if anyone still has objections later, there's nothing I can do about it. Yingqi365 (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Just take a breath and think: How many things are typically created by and for heterosexual men? This is a serious question...... Yingqi365 (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think there should be something like a revision battalion, which is dedicated to add such statements under all entries😂

But a problem arises: if something is 51% produced by heterosexual men and 49% produced by heterosexual women? How should they add it? Anyway, a statement that "typically created by and for heterosexual persons" could resolve this! What a nice reconciliation...😂 Yingqi365 (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Skyscrapers are typically created by and for whom? Whites? Heterosexual women? Heterosexual men? Heterosexual persons? I think someone must make it clear and immediately add his or her definition to that entry Yingqi365 (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, a heteronormative world would be great to some people then?

呜呼，草野小民，生逢盛世，惟有逖听欢呼、闻风鼓舞而已！🤣 Yingqi365 (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand this is a sensitive topic for you; but this is actually a reason why you should avoid editing in this area altogether, as your language here and on other talk pages undermines your ability to maintain a neutral point of view.

You have not demonstrated how keeping the current, factual phrasing is harmful or "malicious" (your words). Neither has anyone else here demonstrated its inaccuracy given the additional sources present.

I will point out again that this entire exchange, including User:Historyday01's attempt at source ferensics (which feels more like original research the further along it goes -- you cannot read the source author's minds!), is focused solely on the article intro while ignoring the additional sources as well as the article body text about danmei audiences that has been part of the article for months.

Your suggestion to change the text to, "typically produced by and for heterosexual persons" would maintain the core accuracy of the statement -- but buries the lede WRT the overwhelmingly female audience.

Speaking as a gay man, I don't see what's controversial about describing the factual demographics of these subcultures -- the yaoi article also describes it as being dominated by heterosexual women. Look at Heated Rivalry for a mainstream Western example: BL written and consumed by straight women.

I simply do not understand why any of this is controversial? --Hadal (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Danmei is Chinese BL, any discussion without a certain cultural and socio-political background is ridiculous🤣 And you simply refrained from responding to my statements. It must be stressed out that NOBODY who is really a leftist in China will appreciate your allegations and certain changes, as they are under the threat from many WOMEN instead toxic masculinity Yingqi365 (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

instead of Yingqi365 (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

and sadly you didn't get me(I don't think whether you are intentional to do so) for mentioning "heterosexual persons". This is just an analogy which could let everyone know that such a statement like "typically created by and for XXX" is both redundant and preposterous to be added to an encyclopedia🤣 Yingqi365 (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think→ I don't know Yingqi365 (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Western Western Western...

Is CHINA a Western country? I hope so, so if it comes true I'll accept your idea, but apparently not now Yingqi365 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

iPhones are typically created by and for heterosexual persons, so please add this to the corresponding entries in common encyclopedias, everyone will be glad to this!😂 Yingqi365 (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it is high time that I started a "by and for" movement, in which I will add certain statements in all entries about the material world, to let the whole community know that heterosexual persons are omnipotent🤣 Yingqi365 (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Historyday01 this might be a good idea, lmao😏 Yingqi365 (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

You are plainly violating WP:BLUDGEON here. Step away from this discussion and let other people discuss the topic at hand. Your comments are clogging up a discussion which could actually be fruitful. Historyday01 (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but i did so for someone in the discussion never read my statements seriously Yingqi365 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Human beings are typically created by and for heterosexual persons!!! Let's get started from this entry🤣@Hadal Yingqi365 (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

This kind of hyperbole is not helpful. Are you really trying to downplay the contextual importance of demographics in this and similar articles? This can't be a serious argument?! Hadal (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think they may be. I proposed some possible language above, just a heads-up. Historyday01 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Heteronormative frame

Copy Edit of the whole article

"by and for heterosexual women"

Related Articles