I'm not getting involved in this argument but I will address the comment deletions. I purged your comments not for what they said but because they were effectively spam, being posted on practically every Bridget-related asset on the site. This time around, barring some over-aggressive wording from you (which I'd encourage you to correct), it's been less argumentative spam and more productive discussion so I'm going to let these ones stay for now. That said, for as much as you are entitled to your opinion, others are as well and your constant correction and statement of "fact" every time someone uses the pronouns you deem incorrect needs to end here.

It's not your place to declare that. You don't know the character, and you don't own him. You don't get to declare for longtime fans that they don't have the right to feel betrayed or angry because you and your ilk selfishly and arbitrarily decided it's transphobic when it's not. Bridget isn't a real person, he's fictional character who's identity, self-worth, personality, friendship, motivation, and story were retcon for the sake making the most egregious character assassination since Luke Skywalker, and some stranger online thinks I'm not allowed to hate and voice MY opinions of it. That is utter nonsense, and I find that offensive and intellectually dishonest.

Oh blow off dude. Quit trying to paint rejecting bad writing as transphobic when you damn well know it has nothing to do with that. I'm sick and tired of living in a world where the character I was attached to is now retroactively "label" transphobic to make it morally corrupt to criticize the writing of them. Stop attach your identity onto a fictional character, and denying the representation he was for femboys and gay men a like back then, and even the transmen. You don't know anything. Bridget is the first popular trap that set off the genre itself back then, and I find that deeply offensive that thinking wanting that back is "transphobic," and stop deleting my comments and defending a bad story and character you know nothing about for superficial politics to make yourself look good. It's annoying and is a genuine violation of my experience with Bridget

She's not a real person, though, she's a fictional character who is portrayed differently in different pieces of media. That's really not comparable. To me this feels like how Harvey Dent is a black man in Batman 1989 and then a white man in Batman Forever, despite at the time those ostensibly being part of the same continuity. He's not retroactively white in the 1989 film. (And yeah, decades later they decided to split those continuities partially because of that, but again, that was decades later... and that's not even getting into how the opposite was true for Catwoman in the 1966 Batman show when switching between Julie Newmar and Eartha Kitt, and those are definitely part of the same continuity as each other.)

Hypothetically, they could in the next game have Bridget say "No, I'm not trans and I never was," and the same thing would apply. Because Bridget is not real and thus is subject to whatever the writers want at the time.

I dunno about you, but that's literally simple hateful bigotry disguised as "respecting the original plot". Would you refer to a trans person by a gender they decidedly aren't anymore? Would you try to correct someone when they're using the entirely correct set of pronouns in conversation relating to the past just because they didn't have those in said past? I used to proudly identify as a "guy", and look where that got me. Plus, using femboys and GNC as an excuse is pretty damn scummy on their part, they already get enough flack as-is.

I am trans and I also think the Bridget thing was very poorly implemented, so *shrug*
For what it's worth, pre-Strive did indeed proudly identify as male, so to me it makes sense to respect that as well as post.

"Femboy erasure" is going to be the next "white lives matter", Jesus H. Christ. You're just transphobic, man.

I love that one of her color schemes is just flash bang lol

the funny