KiraNoot said:
Please don't put : in tags. It makes my life waaay harder later on, just because they are also used for search syntax as well, and if there is ever overlap I don't have a good way to resolve it later on.

It doesn't have to be : specifically. I was using it as just an example for how I imagined how it could look like lol. It can be _ or - or anything to make it legible without breaking it into 2 tags.

Edit:
I gotta say I really wasn't expecting these changes to ever come, and it makes me happy you're finally taking the time not only to do this, but to work on doing it the right way.

I don't suppose we'll be getting a tagme equivalent for lore tags?

Given that lore tag use is not mandated like normal tags, it might be useful to indicate where someone who actually knows about the characters in question can come in and fill in the lore tags.

Its important to not have these tags do lots of implications, if any. Example.
post #1940513

Character is AMAB, had bottom so they are Andromorphic, but are a trans_woman; they just happen to have changed the bottom parts first and not bothered to go through other aspects of transitioning/prefer their body this way.

If tags implicate, then AMAB will implicate Gynomorph which would not be accurate to this character at all. So in the case of lore tags it is very important that they are applied carefully and don't have a complex web that causes a host of potential problems.

Demesejha said:
So in the case of lore tags it is very important that they are applied carefully and don't have a complex web that causes a host of potential problems.

ideally lore tags wouldn't imply or alias with non-lore tags and vice versa.

I think they were talking about gynomorph_(lore) etc. ie. the need to be cautious about implicating lore tags to other lore tags.

savageorange said:
I think they were talking about gynomorph_(lore) etc. ie. the need to be cautious about implicating lore tags to other lore tags.

Yeah thats right! Im still unsure of how they'll appear, whether it'll be lore_ or something else so I didnt include it yet.

Because we have fantastical creatures, several tags do not necessarily imply transgenderism.
- genderless
- herm
- maleherm
- cuntboy
- dickgirl

For lore tags, there are too many combinations of gender and situation I can't think of making a list without being biased.

I would say something like "afab" or "amab" would work, standing for "assigned male/female at birth." at that point, users looking for genitalia would be able to search for whichever they would like. in cases of tagging images, one could theoretically use both "afab" and "male" tags to search for male characters with pussies and vice versa with "amab" and "female."

some other users also suggested using "cis" as well, though i could see a good few people getting huffy about it for being "redundant." "trans_" is also a decent option for single tags. it's quicker to search "trans_male" than it is to search "afab" and "male."

Theoretically, amab would include male and trans_female (that were male), and afab would include female and trans_male (that were female). It would be more convenient to use current situation instead of past situation.

ScreamoShaymin said:
one could theoretically use both "afab" and "male" tags to search for male characters with pussies and vice versa with "amab" and "female."

No, one could not do that. As I have explained multiple times in this thread already, assigned sex at birth is NOT the same thing as that actual sex; it does not guarantee any particular anatomical features, and those features can also change.

And anyway, with the way that this site tags anatomical sex, a "male" character by definition can't have a pussy, regardless of previous assigned or actual sex. Searching afab male would return anatomically male characters who were assigned female, and that latter part would not necessarily show any visible traits at all. If you want otherwise-male characters with pussies instead of dicks, there's already a tag for that: andromorph. (Keep in mind that there's no guarantee that any one of them was AFAB.)

Kamril said:
Theoretically, amab would include male and trans_female (that were male), and afab would include female and trans_male (that were female). It would be more convenient to use current situation instead of past situation.

would include all characters who were assigned male, not necessarily who were male. There is a distinction. It would be most convenient to be able to make such specifications rather than being limited to only one way or the other, no? If they're implemented, assigned sex tags aren't going to replace anything else, they're just an option.

Kamril said:
Because we have fantastical creatures, several tags do not necessarily imply transgenderism.
- genderless
- herm
- maleherm
- cuntboy
- dickgirl

For lore tags, there are too many combinations of gender and situation I can't think of making a list without being biased.

Happy to see the herm tag come back, as my (fantasy) character is specifically a herm character, they aren't trans, and I would not want to imply to people that they were. They are biologically a herm by design.

Sekh765 said:
Happy to see the herm tag come back, as my (fantasy) character is specifically a herm character, they aren't trans, and I would not want to imply to people that they were. They are biologically a herm by design.

??? .. It never left.
herm remains a valid tag under TWYS, with 27 taggings of it in the last week, 12000+ posts total.

The only relatively recent change relating to herm that I know of, is the implication herm -> intersex

kyuuuuu said:

• agender/genderless, implies nonbinary

This is one I don't recommend. A lot of instances of genderless characters are of a species that would not be expected to possess sex or gender in any case, like many mechanical lifeforms or species that reproduce asexually.
"Nonbinary" would also be an inappropriate term for species that reproduce using 3 or more sexes, but by nature of having such unusual biology in that regard, such characters would USUALLY be depicted as conforming to at least one of said sexes/genders in fiction, so I think this is a moot point.

Kamril said:
Because we have fantastical creatures, several tags do not necessarily imply transgenderism.
- genderless
- herm
- maleherm
- cuntboy
- dickgirl

For lore tags, there are too many combinations of gender and situation I can't think of making a list without being biased.

On that point, I hate to bring it up, but would bringing back the futanari tag now be a useful addition for lore? To my limited knowledge themes of gender nonconformity don't come up very often in the genre, with characters mostly presented as female both in gender and physiology(apart from the addition of male genitalia), and I've seen the term outright rejected as transphobic in some places, so I would characterize it as its own branch of art.

bustyboy (and its probably excessive amount of alternate spellings) is a thing that people call their characters sometimes, it's not a valid tag for normal tagging but it should be considered for lore tags.

Penguinempire-Dennis said:
On that point, I hate to bring it up, but would bringing back the futanari tag now be a useful addition for lore?

"Futanari" is basically the same as herm, so it should just be aliased.

kyuuuuu said:
"Futanari" is basically the same as herm, so it should just be aliased.

Or gynomorph (dickgirl), so I don't think alias works.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Or gynomorph (dickgirl), so I don't think alias works.

i was under the impression that "futanari" was literally just the Japanese word for hermaphrodite.

It's not used in that consistent a way, it can refer to either.

darryus said:
i was under the impression that "futanari" was literally just the Japanese word for hermaphrodite.

Transiently, yes, it has specific connotations however tending to imply in any art, specifically to girls, (and they are still girls) whos clitorises are penises, and they have testicles internally and can somehow bear and sire children. Any other depiction, such as people drawing gynomorphic characters *dick+balls boobs* and slapping the name futanari or shortenings of it is in error as a misunderstanding of the word and its usage. But I digress.

Either way it should absolutely not be used as a lore tag. Intersex and more appropriately Hermaphrodite applies instead.

Late to the party.

kyuuuuu said:
I don't see why the character's currently visible sex (which would be tagged with TWYS) should be included in the same tag as their identity, or in any lore tag for that matter. And besides that, any variant of something like "male_woman" comes across as willfully rude and kind of silly, so let's not... You bring up some good points otherwise, though.

Getting out of trans-specific context, but hypothetical ^{kind of silly} tag gymnastics time
Let's say you have a three-character image tagged ambiguous_gender female male_(lore) female_(lore), with two characters of ambiguous_gender and one female.
It would be impossible to determine from these tags alone whether the ambiguous-tagged characters are one male and one female, or whether the apparent-female character is intended to be male, but is instead tagged female.
It's important to note that this specific scenario would likely be solved by the crossgender tag, but from what I've seen crossgender is normally reserved for intentional depictions of swapped sex, and was rarely applied to infamously-androgynous characters such as mikhaila_kirov and reggie_(whygena). Other tags such as transformation or trans-related tags may also not be applicable if it's not a transformation, there's no visible transformation signs, and/or the character is not trans.
It's still not useful for pinpointing which specific character has which tags, but it's still a way to determine which flavours of sex/gender discrepancy are present in a post.

Granted, something like male_woman would still be a bad tag in this left-open situation of an androgyny-related tagging discrepancy in the same way that crossgender is. There should still be a gender-to-gender equivalent tag for such cases though once lore tags come into effect, if only to stay consistent with crossgender, transformation, and transition tag formats.

Edit:
Added strikeout to an irrelevant sidenote I didn't realise anyone was going to latch onto.

I think it's positive that lore tags will complement the TWYS system.

I had some issues with my main character and fursona here as he (intersex male/andromorph) is ambiguous in some pictures and was tagged as female or male according to the TWYS rule.

For me it is very annoying to see a big discrepancy between my character's gender (lore) and the TWYS rule. I had two choices as the character owner: ignore it or use takedowns. I decided to take the takedowns (it's around 55 takedowns for now), but I was never really pleased with it. It has one positive side effect: Character thievery of my character decreased rapidly. But I might hurt artists and other character owners with it.

I have one question:
Who defines what lore gender is? e.g. you have a character which you defined to have a 'Apache helicopter' gender or something completely inconsistent. If someone changes the lore gender tag to something completely different than the character owner wanted, who is right with the lore gender tag?

The character owner?
The guy who changed the lore gender tag?
Any admin/mod that "tag what you think" (TWYT) the lore gender of the character is?

Pretty sure NMNY addressed that earlier; the general gist was 'whoever can produce the most credible citation of the artist's stated intention. If some links are dead, then the most credible of those that are still live.'

So normally you the artist making a publically[1] accessible statement would be enough. But I think it would be somewhat better if you had already made the statement previously, and then merely cite it, since that would indicate you weren't just fucking with things on a whim.

[1] to the degree that eg. FA is public, ie. requires at most a trivial account signup procedure.

MagnusEffect said:
Late to the party.

Getting out of trans-specific context, but hypothetical ^{kind of silly} tag gymnastics time
Let's say you have a three-character image tagged ambiguous_gender female male_(lore) female_(lore), with two characters of ambiguous_gender and one female.
It would be impossible to determine from these tags alone whether the ambiguous-tagged characters are one male and one female, or whether the apparent-female character is intended to be male, but is instead tagged female.
It's important to note that this specific scenario would likely be solved by the crossgender tag, but from what I've seen crossgender is normally reserved for intentional depictions of swapped sex, and was rarely applied to infamously-androgynous characters such as mikhaila_kirov and reggie_(whygena). Other tags such as transformation or trans-related tags may also not be applicable if it's not a transformation, there's no visible transformation signs, and/or the character is not trans.
It's still not useful for pinpointing which specific character has which tags, but it's still a way to determine which flavours of sex/gender discrepancy are present in a post.

Granted, something like male_woman would still be a bad tag in this left-open situation of an androgyny-related tagging discrepancy in the same way that crossgender is. There should still be a gender-to-gender equivalent tag for such cases though once lore tags come into effect, if only to stay consistent with crossgender, transformation, and transition tag formats.

In the tagging, there's no concept of quantity. The more characters there is on a picture, the less you can identify which tag applies to whom.

And I don't see any issue with that. Tags tells you what is on a picture. We tag pictures, not characters.

gobo-bobo said:
Well
It's rather me myself considering myself a transphobe internally because I'm trying not to surface it publicly
Because I feel uncomfortable both with fictional and real trans
I might have a kind of paranoia too
But I don't want to suddenly turn this thread about me so I probably shouldn't have started talking in the first place
But I guess there might be some others with similar problem, albeit very few if any I believe

Not sure what kind of lunatics/zealots would want to get mad at you for not wanting to date a trans person (or any kind of legal age consenting adult). Your life your choice.

kamril said:
In the tagging, there's no concept of quantity. The more characters there is on a picture, the less you can identify which tag applies to whom.

And I don't see any issue with that. Tags tells you what is on a picture. We tag pictures, not characters.

Relating specific tags to particular characters would still be useful with telling you what's in a picture. For instance, if you wanted to pictures of female lucario, each tag being separate makes this impossible to do reliably. Searching for female lucario is just searching for pictures that have a female and a lucario, but not necessarily a female lucario.

kamril said:
In the tagging, there's no concept of quantity. The more characters there is on a picture, the less you can identify which tag applies to whom.

Thanks for quoting the entire post to refute half a sentence that's mostly there as a side-note.
Guess I'll go edit that if it's the one line people are going to grab.

I wonder how this conflicts with tag what you see... Only for story/comic submissions that in a series? Because we have plenty of characters that are not consistent between different posts.

darryus said:
bustyboy (and its probably excessive amount of alternate spellings) is a thing that people call their characters sometimes, it's not a valid tag for normal tagging but it should be considered for lore tags.

+1 to this idea, there are a boatload of people on FA and Twitter who refer to their characters as bustyboys and who have been hesitant to have art of them uploaded here if they won't be tagged in the way they consider to be correct.

Also, could it be possible to implement a function where character owners or those speaking on their behalf can create tag implication suggestions to have their character's name implicate the proper lore: tag(s); with that tag(s) automatically being locked on whatever image the character's name is tagged on?

sirgallade said:

Also, could it be possible to implement a function where character owners or those speaking on their behalf can create tag implication suggestions to have their character's name implicate the proper lore: tag(s); with that tag(s) automatically being locked on whatever image the character's name is tagged on?

Crossgender/transformation exists in canon, so implicating characters to gender/species/etc. Is a bad idea.

I love comming here and seeing over-progressist people constantly stumble on their own values, it's so beautifull.

I miss the good old times when it was simply tag what you see: gay, bisexual, straight, or lesbian, and simply male/female or >intersex< >dickgirl< >cuntboy< and the rest goes in what_has_science_done or tags of the like.

And that was it. But it was just too simple wasn't it?

socialjusticedragon said:
I love comming here and seeing over-progressist people constantly stumble on their own values, it's so beautifull.

I miss the good old times when it was simply tag what you see: gay, bisexual, straight, or lesbian, and simply male/female or >intersex< >dickgirl< >cuntboy< and the rest goes in what_has_science_done or tags of the like.

And that was it. But it was just too simple wasn't it?

shut the fuck up boomer.

I just find it kind of annoying we're making up random terms because admins think it's progressive for a minority. At least we can still functionally use the old terms as if there was no change.
The worst thing that could happen is lumping in specifics together in some sort of tag merge.

In a topic of discussion on trans tags it feels frustrating as hell when a bunch of ostensibly not trans individuals are still pushing things like "I saw someone tag x as bustyboy once so lets make it a Trans tag" when God it was such a long uphill battle to get the old slurs and ridiculous nomenclature removed as it was.

On top of that. The other argument that keeps cropping up "Im not trans but I identify as a pussyboy!" And other continued nonsense like that is such a croque.

Lets get real here and let's actually talk about why that argument sucks.

First lets talk about functional use cases.

Lets create three hypothetical people.
Person A is not trans, but has trans similar or actually trans characters. They want their character to be respected.

Person B is not trans, has no characters who these apply to, and doesnt really care what words are used. They may even be frustrated that the words were changed.

Person C is trans and has trans characters and intersex characters with characteristics that make them unique from birth.

All three now have access to the new lore tag system. While any user can add those tags, only admins can add them to the actual lore tag bracket.

In this thread Person C suggests trans_man and Trans_woman and maybe Trans_Nonbinary because to them its a straightforward and simple codifier.

Person A suggests that they should bring back the Cuntboy or Dickgirl tag for their own use because their characters are special and they for whatever reason cannot bring themselves to update their language because it is comforting to them.

Person B says thats a great Idea but says were gonna go higher and were gonna piss on the moon. As soon as they get an opportunity they suggest 20 subtags which are all theoretically helpful speciations of the word dong mixed with the word breast. And the word Pussy mixed with the word Pecs. Great! Lots of work.

The admins take all of these in to consideration. What choices do they have to make and what choices Should be made.

Usage Case 1:
The admins do the simplest set of lore tags. Taking person C suggestion. After all this is the trans lore tags and all three tags have trans_x in them it doesnt get simpler and more to the point than that.

People outcry and say its not specific enough.

What can we do to fix that:

Option A:
Talk some more and add more tags like AMAB AFAB FMAB what have you. Tags that denote a person's state as an individual which is both in line with the SPIRIT of tag what you see and the method of implementation. In fact we can add as many tags as we need as language evolves. We can also add specific words for intersex or from birth characters later on with the idea that they will work with those community members to keep them respectful.

What problems or solutions does this bring:
Solution: Character owners can now tag their characters respectfully and properly tag their trans characters as such. Other people familiar with the characters can also assign those tags.

Problem: Fringe usage that exists in every fandom will spring debate on whether or not a character is trans at all. Especially in pop culture character cases. Where we are guaranteed to have debates. This is inevitable with any system. Especially where sometimes characters are debated on what physical sex they are in canon. Nevermind their gender presentation.

Option B: Add suggestions from person A because they really miss those tags.

Solution: Person A can tag characters with trans_X. They can tag their own characters with Cuntboy and etc because "they identify with those words"

Problem: Now that those tags are legitimized. Again. Anyone can tag them! Now all the strictly trans characters will be tagged with those tags. It doesnt even have to be malicious just ignorant. And now every transman and woman are being called the same slurs we removed for being vulgar all over again.

Option C: We add ALL of the tags suggested. Just whenever. So we can ensure our dongladies can breast boobily down the tags.

Solutions: Anybody can tag whatever they want and nobody can complain they cant use a specific word.

Problems: Anybody can tag whatever they want and lore tags are now literally meaningless keyword soup. Nevermind the issue of actual trans tags were past that. We Furaffinity now.

Before we move on. Let me adress one more thing.

Why the "but I identify as X" argument doesnt hold weight and why its such an issue to take seriously:

Someone makes a post on the forum. That someone identifies as Cloverqueer. Or calls themselves a trap, bonus hole boy, tranny, cboy, dgirl and the list goes on. They say it empowers them to do so as a Gay man or something to that effect.

The argument here is that I should be ultra tolerant and immediately say "hey great".

But when this individual continues to use a slur at best and at worst a literal fetish tag to describe themselves I have to wonder *why* they choose to do that. They are also by proxy going to refer to other individuals by these terms. Sometimes even if told not to. Sometimes especially if told not to.

This argument cant hold water any more than something like "I identify as (an attack helicopter/motorbike, etc)"

Especially when the words I Identify As X have themselves become a buzz phrase.

Its so much an issue that as a trans individual it has become impossoble for me to actually say the words I Identify as X without someone assuming Im being facetious or worse. On the flip side. Because they are using the Dialogue of our communities. To blend in.

Bad actors have made discussion nearly impossible. By at every turn making arguments whos intention is not to provoke thought or reasoned debate but to, by using PC language tell other individuals to sit down and shut up.

This virtue signalling thing is part of the reason everyone assumes tumblr is some sort of insane politically broken hellpit. Because the adoption of the same dialogue the center and left use by alt right individuals has made it impossible to take rational discussion seriously.

All aside.

Random cismcguy has every right to be heard and listened to and considered. But when the group that is literally BEING talked about is saying "hey we really dont jive with that" perhaps the people the topic is about should be listened to.

We dont need "bustyboy" and all the ridiculous side partners it spawns because one random person on fA used it once. Or because someone. Likely acting in bad faith says "they are upset they cant call themselves a trap" cloaking malicious intent in the dialogue most others are using in good faith copy pastad from a preexisting list of ways to argue with people.

I WILL admit that some people. Some people genuinely out there do Identify with and use those words to rep themselves. But the numbers of those who are actually doing so because they genuinely feel that way are so slim its beyond astronomical to believe its even real or just very dedicatedly pointedly obsessed over it.

Its ludicrous that half of these suggestions and arguments are even being taken seriously at all.

Weve had what we needed for the most part near the very beginning of this thread.

lunacy said:
I just find it kind of annoying we're making up random terms because admins think it's progressive for a minority. At least we can still functionally use the old terms as if there was no change.
The worst thing that could happen is lumping in specifics together in some sort of tag merge.

It's largely being done to bring more art onto the sight and increase traffic/ad-revenue.

A lot of artists have ordered their entire galleries to be taken down because of tag what you see, less art means less page views in total which means less ads are being viewed. It's not that they actually care, it's just them trying to increase ad-revenue

demesejha said:
In a topic of discussion on trans tags it feels frustrating as hell when a bunch of ostensibly not trans individuals are still pushing things like "I saw someone tag x as bustyboy once so lets make it a Trans tag" when God it was such a long uphill battle to get the old slurs and ridiculous nomenclature removed as it was.

On top of that. The other argument that keeps cropping up "Im not trans but I identify as a pussyboy!" And other continued nonsense like that is such a croque.

Lets get real here and let's actually talk about why that argument sucks.

Agreed, although (as someone that is trans) i'm not a huge fan of tag suggestions that assign genders to trans people as somehow seperate or inferior. Thanks for the high effort post. I really like the idea of just using trans_(gender) as the most versatile and least offensive tag.
First lets talk about functional use cases.

Lets create three hypothetical people.
Person A is not trans, but has trans similar or actually trans characters. They want their character to be respected.

Person B is not trans, has no characters who these apply to, and doesnt really care what words are used. They may even be frustrated that the words were changed.

Person C is trans and has trans characters and intersex characters with characteristics that make them unique from birth.

All three now have access to the new lore tag system. While any user can add those tags, only admins can add them to the actual lore tag bracket.

In this thread Person C suggests trans_man and Trans_woman and maybe Trans_Nonbinary because to them its a straightforward and simple codifier.

Person A suggests that they should bring back the Cuntboy or Dickgirl tag for their own use because their characters are special and they for whatever reason cannot bring themselves to update their language because it is comforting to them.

Person B says thats a great Idea but says were gonna go higher and were gonna piss on the moon. As soon as they get an opportunity they suggest 20 subtags which are all theoretically helpful speciations of the word dong mixed with the word breast. And the word Pussy mixed with the word Pecs. Great! Lots of work.

The admins take all of these in to consideration. What choices do they have to make and what choices Should be made.

Usage Case 1:
The admins do the simplest set of lore tags. Taking person C suggestion. After all this is the trans lore tags and all three tags have trans_x in them it doesnt get simpler and more to the point than that.

People outcry and say its not specific enough.

What can we do to fix that:

Option A:
Talk some more and add more tags like AMAB AFAB FMAB what have you. Tags that denote a person's state as an individual which is both in line with the SPIRIT of tag what you see and the method of implementation. In fact we can add as many tags as we need as language evolves. We can also add specific words for intersex or from birth characters later on with the idea that they will work with those community members to keep them respectful.

What problems or solutions does this bring:
Solution: Character owners can now tag their characters respectfully and properly tag their trans characters as such. Other people familiar with the characters can also assign those tags.

Problem: Fringe usage that exists in every fandom will spring debate on whether or not a character is trans at all. Especially in pop culture character cases. Where we are guaranteed to have debates. This is inevitable with any system. Especially where sometimes characters are debated on what physical sex they are in canon. Nevermind their gender presentation.

Option B: Add suggestions from person A because they really miss those tags.

Solution: Person A can tag characters with trans_X. They can tag their own characters with Cuntboy and etc because "they identify with those words"

Problem: Now that those tags are legitimized. Again. Anyone can tag them! Now all the strictly trans characters will be tagged with those tags. It doesnt even have to be malicious just ignorant. And now every transman and woman are being called the same slurs we removed for being vulgar all over again.

Option C: We add ALL of the tags suggested. Just whenever. So we can ensure our dongladies can breast boobily down the tags.

Solutions: Anybody can tag whatever they want and nobody can complain they cant use a specific word.

Problems: Anybody can tag whatever they want and lore tags are now literally meaningless keyword soup. Nevermind the issue of actual trans tags were past that. We Furaffinity now.

Before we move on. Let me adress one more thing.

Why the "but I identify as X" argument doesnt hold weight and why its such an issue to take seriously:

Someone makes a post on the forum. That someone identifies as Cloverqueer. Or calls themselves a trap, bonus hole boy, tranny, cboy, dgirl and the list goes on. They say it empowers them to do so as a Gay man or something to that effect.

The argument here is that I should be ultra tolerant and immediately say "hey great".

But when this individual continues to use a slur at best and at worst a literal fetish tag to describe themselves I have to wonder *why* they choose to do that. They are also by proxy going to refer to other individuals by these terms. Sometimes even if told not to. Sometimes especially if told not to.

This argument cant hold water any more than something like "I identify as (an attack helicopter/motorbike, etc)"

Especially when the words I Identify As X have themselves become a buzz phrase.

Its so much an issue that as a trans individual it has become impossoble for me to actually say the words I Identify as X without someone assuming Im being facetious or worse. On the flip side. Because they are using the Dialogue of our communities. To blend in.

Bad actors have made discussion nearly impossible. By at every turn making arguments whos intention is not to provoke thought or reasoned debate but to, by using PC language tell other individuals to sit down and shut up.

This virtue signalling thing is part of the reason everyone assumes tumblr is some sort of insane politically broken hellpit. Because the adoption of the same dialogue the center and left use by alt right individuals has made it impossible to take rational discussion seriously.

All aside.

Random cismcguy has every right to be heard and listened to and considered. But when the group that is literally BEING talked about is saying "hey we really dont jive with that" perhaps the people the topic is about should be listened to.

We dont need "bustyboy" and all the ridiculous side partners it spawns because one random person on fA used it once. Or because someone. Likely acting in bad faith says "they are upset they cant call themselves a trap" cloaking malicious intent in the dialogue most others are using in good faith copy pastad from a preexisting list of ways to argue with people.

I WILL admit that some people. Some people genuinely out there do Identify with and use those words to rep themselves. But the numbers of those who are actually doing so because they genuinely feel that way are so slim its beyond astronomical to believe its even real or just very dedicatedly pointedly obsessed over it.

Its ludicrous that half of these suggestions and arguments are even being taken seriously at all.

Weve had what we needed for the most part near the very beginning of this thread.

Agreed! Thanks for the high effort post. Personally i'm highly in favor of just using trans_(gender) tags. Since its the least offensive to all parties, makes the most sense, and is the more accepted nomenclature.

mr._spooky said:
It's largely being done to bring more art onto the sight and increase traffic/ad-revenue.

A lot of artists have ordered their entire galleries to be taken down because of tag what you see, less art means less page views in total which means less ads are being viewed. It's not that they actually care, it's just them trying to increase ad-revenue

That's pretty cynical, considering:

• e6 admins are unpaid volonteers
• There are NO payment requiring features on the site (except for advertisement, obviously)

mynameisover20charac said:
That's pretty cynical, considering:

• e6 admins are unpaid volonteers
• There are NO payment requiring features on the site (except for advertisement, obviously)

It's not that cynical to say we want more traffic, considering that more art is beneficial and the best way to increase traffic is to simply increase available art.

Getting a boost to how many ads we can show is a bonus on the side.

demesejha said:
We dont need "bustyboy" and all the ridiculous side partners it spawns because one random person on fA used it once. Or because someone. Likely acting in bad faith says "they are upset they cant call themselves a trap" cloaking malicious intent in the dialogue most others are using in good faith copy pastad from a preexisting list of ways to argue with people.

I'm about to agree with the rest of your post so let me just precede this by saying I'm disappointed you went to a different topic to continue vaguely calling me a troll, or more insultingly, to imply that the posts I spent literally hours at a time writing to make sure they're well argued and don't come across as rude are "copy pastad". I was doing my best to explain my stance and understand yours, and I find it quite hurtful that that's all you gathered from our exchange.

That said, on all other points I'm inclined to completely agree with you. Most of all, I think it's important for lore tags to be informative and their pool to be as limited (but inclusive) as possible. Terms such as "trap", "tranny", "cuntboy", "dickgirl", "bustyboy", should not be separate lore tags. e621 already has words for "cuntboy" and "dickgirl" - they're "andromorph" and "gynomorph". They're aliased for a reason - because for the purposes of this site, they are equivalent terms, and the site should prefer non-slang terms where possible. I believe dickgirl_(lore) should be an alias for gynomorph_(lore) (for characters who are gynomorphs but it's not visible in the picture). Splitting them would be extremely counterproductive. "Trap" is not a gender and not specific enough to be informative. The proper tags to use for it, if it's not obvious from the picture, would generally be male_(lore) and girly_(lore). "Tranny" is widely considered a slur by the actual community it was coined to refer to, and at the same time is a catch-all term that's not even specific enough to be useful. I'm not sure where "bustyboy" fits into this because I'm not very familiar with such characters, but I assume they should be tagged with some combination of TWYS and lore tags for male, trans, non-binary, and/or gynomorph, depending on identity and appearance.

I think my key point here is that the tagging system should not permit multiple words for the same thing just because someone prefers one word over the other, because even with this update, the primary objective of tags should be to make searching the art archive easier, not to grant comfort to artists. The information about the actual gender of a character is meaningful to many people. The information that your character loves being called a "dickgirl" while really they're a gynomorph or a woman is something you can keep to yourself, not tag material.

the tagging system should not permit multiple words for the same thing just because someone prefers one word over the other, because even with this update, the primary objective of tags should be to make searching the art archive easier

+1. The thread hasn't gone terribly, but establishing this very clearly as a rule right at the start might have helped significantly.

s-35 said:
I'm about to agree with the rest of your post so let me just precede this by saying I'm disappointed you went to a different topic to continue vaguely calling me a troll, or more insultingly, to imply that the posts I spent literally hours at a time writing to make sure they're well argued and don't come across as rude are "copy pastad". I was doing my best to explain my stance and understand yours, and I find it quite hurtful that that's all you gathered from our exchange.

I find it incredibly important to note that it actually explicitly wasnt you to which I was referring but other users who have since cropped up FROM your thread saying similar things among other things I have seen repeatedly on and off site for literally years.

I ask you to forgive my cynicism and mistrust when there are entire movements built on derailing topics actually made by and for trans folk that are REGULARLY pushed in that direction because people feel the need to use slurs like that consistently and how it has affected people of what is now nearly 50 years of change and evolution in dialogue towards trans folks. All of the discussion gets flatly shut down.

s-35 said:
Most of all, I think it's important for lore tags to be informative and their pool to be as limited (but inclusive) as possible.

I think my key point here is that the tagging system should not permit multiple words for the same thing just because someone prefers one word over the other, because even with this update, the primary objective of tags should be to make searching the art archive easier, not to grant comfort to artists.

That is fundamentally correct but its not so much about a goal of "granting" comfort to artists. As much as explicitly not INSULTING them at the same time.

And yes. There should only be one tag for each thing because there is absolutely no reason to stockpile. Redundancy is bad unless youre a filesystem manager.

Lastly.

s-35 said:
I believe dickgirl_(lore) should be an alias for gynomorph_(lore) (for characters who are gynomorphs but it's not visible in the picture). Splitting them would be extremely counterproductive.

Splitting them isnt just counterproductive it misses the entire point but thats gonna. For as long as I breath, get a flat no from me on using dickgirl as a tag again especially to legitimize it as a "trans" tag.

Im more than fine with Gynomorph and Andromorph being used as lore tags in addition to their normal tag purpose to distinctualize trans characters from intersex or "born that way" characters.

But as I mentioned with literally insulting people. Theres a VERY long 3 year old discussion among several others as to why dickgirl and cuntboy should Never come back

demesejha said:
Im more than fine with Gynomorph and Andromorph being used as lore tags in addition to their normal tag purpose to distinctualize trans characters from intersex or "born that way" characters.

What? How would this make sense? "Gynomorph" et al. are used to refer to body types regardless of trans status, which is a separate concept. Similarly, as lore tags, they do not "distinctualize" anything other than a character's canonical body parts. For example, since safe-rated images can't have genitals visible in them, the TWYS guidelines mean that gynomorphs can only get tagged as female in safe images, but now we'll be able to add gynomorph_(lore) to them as well for clarification. This has nothing to do with whether any of those characters are trans (some are and some aren't), just whether they have a dick and whether we can see it. Due to TWYS, since you can't tell whether someone is trans or how they identify just by their body parts, there currently isn't any way to indicate whether a character is trans or cis or what their gender identity is. Now that we're getting lore tags, the purpose of this thread is to give input on what we think the new trans-related tags should be. It seems that those of us who've made concrete suggestions are broadly in agreement, so once the gender lore tags are implemented, we'll have trans_[insert_gender_here] tags in addition to the gynomorph etc tags. It all seems cut-and-dry to me, so what's the debate still raging for? The mods have made it very clear that we aren't replacing any existing tags, and that we aren't reopening the debate on dickgirl vs gynomorph, so I don't understand what you're trying to argue against. Am I just missing a debate carried over from some other thread, or what? Seriously, I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here.

Heyo, sorry for being pretty silent in this topic so far.

is pretty much what we want, but I'm not sure if a distinction between trans_woman and trans_gynomorph would really be necessary? Do we have characters like that? Or does one of you know characters would identify like that?

notmenotyou said:
Heyo, sorry for being pretty silent in this topic so far.

trans_<gender_here>

pretty much what we want, but I'm not sure if a distinction between trans_woman and trans_gynomorph would really be necessary? Do we have characters like that? Or does one of you know characters would identify like that?

Trans gynomorph would never be necessary no. If it were used for lore reasons it would likely be cis_gynomorph and cis_andromoprh to specifically distinctualize *from birth* body types.

Trans_woman trans_man and trans_nonbinary are really all that's needed. For characters who are distinctively born that way they wouldnt get a trans tag since to be trans, not cis, your identity differs from your assigned at birth gender.

I feel like there could be a distinctualization to list that a character WAS born that way and is not explicitly trans, but Im not sure if they'd need one.

We can add other options later but generally, genuinely the only things that fit/make real sense are those basic three tags, as theyre just gender codifiers.

notmenotyou said:
I'm not sure if a distinction between trans_woman and trans_gynomorph would really be necessary? Do we have characters like that? Or does one of you know characters would identify like that?

I've never heard of a single actual person who calls their own gender "gynomorph". (As an aside, that's actually why those terms have kind of grown on me, even though I'd never heard of them before the tags were changed. They refer only to current sexual anatomy, having no connotations about identified gender or trans status in the way that terms like "dickgirl" do.) There certainly are plenty of people (a lot, but not all, of them trans) whose ideal (and sometimes actual) body type is tits+dick-vag, but that's body type, not gender.

The main goal here is to have trans_<gender> and corresponding cis_<gender> tags (and also just trans, cis, and <gender> by themselves), right? The only <gender> options that I think anyone really needs are man, woman, genderless, nonbinary, and agender, as I wrote in the compilation post a while back. There are all kinds of other middling terms that people use, but "nonbinary" is a widely-accepted catch-all for them. gynomorph, though, is an anatomical sex, not a gender. So, trans_gynomorph should only be added if we're going to add all other combinations of trans_<sex> and cis_<sex>, which I don't recommend since that'll get confusing really quickly.

I'm currently trying to put together some tables to organize and prioritize the suggestions gathered in the compilation post, so hopefully that'll help clear things up.

Dunno what the need for the massively overprecise expansive list is. Agender and Genderless are literally identical words; and while Agender is a nice term to have it also fits under the blanket of Nonbinary.

Anyway as mentioned before trans_(gender) and optionally cis_(gynomorph/andromorph) would be the main applications here.

notmenotyou said:
-snip-
trans_<gender_here> pretty much what we want, but I'm not sure if a distinction between trans_woman and trans_gynomorph would really be necessary? Do we have characters like that? Or does one of you know characters would identify like that?

Disagree with the conflation of sex and gender with stuff like trans_gynomorph and trans_andromorph.

gender identity is easy to fully encompass in 8-9 tags because it is infinitely arbitrary(_lore suffix implied)
cis_male, cis_female, cis_agender, cis_nonbinary and
trans_male, trans_female, trans_agender, trans_nonbinary
and the 9th optional tag, unknown_gender
No aliases or implications necessary. HOWEVER

The other interest is carrying over the SEX-based tags, as a tool to bypass TWYS (male, female, maleherm, herm, andromorph, gynomorph, and neuter)
UNLIKE gender identity, these are not entirely arbitrary in the sense that by bypassing TWYS they imply knowledge of an objective characteristic (this character has XYZ genitalia even though you can't see them)

I tried coming up with some implications but they still conflated sex with gender
(gynomorph/andromorph/herm/maleherm -> cis_nonbinary and neuter->cis_agender)
So it seems the next best thing is to try and have NO aliases/implications and overlap the two groups where they meet at the binary.

SEX LORE
herm
maleherm
andromorph
gynomorph
neuter
BINARY SEX/GENDER IDENTITY OVERLAP
cis_male
cis_female
TRANS LORE:
trans_male
trans_female
trans_nonbinary
trans_agender

Does the above list fall in line with what the thread currently agrees on?

demesejha said:
I find it incredibly important to note that it actually explicitly wasnt you to which I was referring but other users who have since cropped up FROM your thread saying similar things among other things I have seen repeatedly on and off site for literally years.
(...)

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification.

demesejha said:
That is fundamentally correct but its not so much about a goal of "granting" comfort to artists. As much as explicitly not INSULTING them at the same time.
(...)
Splitting them isnt just counterproductive it misses the entire point but thats gonna. For as long as I breath, get a flat no from me on using dickgirl as a tag again especially to legitimize it as a "trans" tag.
(...)
But as I mentioned with literally insulting people. Theres a VERY long 3 year old discussion among several others as to why dickgirl and cuntboy should Never come back

You're right. Some time after posting I actually realized I started my response with "I agree" and then proceeded to say something completely different, so I apologize if I accidentally twisted your words at any point, but essentially I think we arrived at the same conclusion with different approaches, yours humanitarian (some tags are bad because they insult people) and mine utilitarian (the same tags are bad because they litter and reduce the usability of the tagging system). So you chose being kind and respectful to people as your priority, and I chose functionality of the website as an art archive as mine, because I'm a bit of a dick like that, and we reached the same conclusion. I consider that a success.

kyuuuuu said:
"Gynomorph" et al. are used to refer to body types regardless of trans status, which is a separate concept. Similarly, as lore tags, they do not "distinctualize" anything other than a character's canonical body parts.

kyuuuuu said:
I've never heard of a single actual person who calls their own gender "gynomorph". (As an aside, that's actually why those terms have kind of grown on me, even though I'd never heard of them before the tags were changed. They refer only to current sexual anatomy, having no connotations about identified gender or trans status in the way that terms like "dickgirl" do.)

I think this might actually be an important point to address, because my impression is that not everyone shares your opinion about these tags. If you read the forum topic announcing that gynomorph and andromorph would replace the old tags (link, not a very fun read), you may find that many trans people were unhappy with the new terms. They're borrowed from biology and refer to sexual mimicry, and some trans women expressed their concerns about being referred to with a word they interpret as "man with feminine features", or as Wiktionary puts it, "female mimic". I was under the impression that we don't want to refer to actual trans characters as "gynomorphs" as much as we don't want to refer to them as "dickgirls", it's just what we do for the sake of a consistent TWYS system and lore tags are being introduced to correct it.

just keeping dickgirl/cuntboy is the simplest, this is a lot of overanalyzing

iliketuttles said:
just keeping dickgirl/cuntboy is the simplest, this is a lot of overanalyzing

This thread is about new, trans specific, tags. Not reinstating older ones and creating new problems where there don't need to be any.

This is getting exhausting to constantly re-explain over and over.

s-35 said:
I was under the impression that we don't want to refer to actual trans characters as "gynomorphs" as much as we don't want to refer to them as "dickgirls", it's just what we do for the sake of a consistent TWYS system and lore tags are being introduced to correct it.

This is the essence of it.

demesejha said:
Agender and Genderless are literally identical words; and while Agender is a nice term to have it also fits under the blanket of Nonbinary.

The distinction between agender and genderless is the same as with neuter and sexless, respectively. The former mean having a distinct lack of a gender/sex despite it being typical to have one, while the latter mean that the absence of gender/sex is typical. A human with no gender and no genitals is agender and neuter, and thus nonbinary and intersex, and may be trans or (hypothetically?) cis. A (non-android) robot with no gender and no genitals is genderless and sexless, and it wouldn't make sense to call it "nonbinary" or "intersex" or to classify it as cis or trans. That's the main reason to make the distinction; one is a subset of NB/intersex and the other isn't.

demesejha said:
cis_(gynomorph/andromorph)

I really don't think that this would be a good idea. A character being tagged as cis_gynomorph tells you about two somewhat unrelated things, the sexual anatomy that they currently have and that whatever their gender is, they're cis (i.e. not trans), but it tells you nothing about what their identified gender actually is. Though they're most likely either nonbinary or a woman, they could hypothetically have any gender, so without that context, what's the use of knowing that they're cis? The other thing that combining anatomical sex with cis/trans status would do is have a bunch of pre-transition trans women tagged as trans_male, which is often done IRL deliberately to offend, and is also confusing given that trans people are generally talking about trans men when we say "trans male".

zavros-periculum said:
No aliases or implications necessary.

should imply <gender>, and cis_* and trans_* should respectively imply cis and trans. Same reason that hyper_breasts implies breasts and hyper.

zavros-periculum said:
Does the above list fall in line with what the thread currently agrees on?

Not really, no. I don't mean to be rude, but you read back a bit, you'll see that I've already covered the points you've brought up exhaustively. If you disagree with anything I've suggested or have anything else to add, let me know once you get up to speed?

s-35 said:
They're borrowed from biology and refer to sexual mimicry, and some trans women expressed their concerns about being referred to with a word they interpret as "man with feminine features", or as Wiktionary puts it, "female mimic".

Interesting, I hadn't heard of that usage. At least it's relatively new to the world of porn? FWIW, no one's ever creeped on me with "andromorph" like they do with "cuntboy", so I still consider it an improvement, if not ideal.

s-35 said:
I was under the impression that we don't want to refer to actual trans characters as "gynomorphs" as much as we don't want to refer to them as "dickgirls", it's just what we do for the sake of a consistent TWYS system and lore tags are being introduced to correct it.

One of the main things I've been trying to make clear here is that what we really, really don't want to do is to conflate trans or cis status with the anatomical sex tags, because it doesn't matter how benign of a euphemism anyone comes up with, it will be inevitably offensive (and frequently incorrect) if it's used to reduce being trans to a set of body parts.

There are some people who are trans women and whose anatomy is such that this website would call them "gynomorphs", though not all trans women are gynomorphs and not all gynomorphs are trans women. Since some of the people that it technically applies to don't like it, we could try to argue on whether to replace gynomorph with some other euphemism or even get rid of such terms entirely, but I'm pretty sure that the mods consider that debate fairly closed. In any case, that isn't the point of this thread.

Screw tables, the formatting is killing me. (Edited to clean up formatting and add some clarifications.)

Necessary:

Lore counterparts to the current tags for anatomical sex:

female_(lore)
male_(lore)
intersex_(lore)
    herm_(lore)
    maleherm_(lore)
    gynomorph_(lore)
    andromorph_(lore)

Basic tags for identified gender:

woman
man
nonbinary

Cis/trans umbrella tags:

cis
trans

Combinations of cis/trans with the gender tags (should imply their components):

cis_woman
cis_man
cis_nonbinary
trans_woman
trans_man
trans_nonbinary

Recommended:

Expanded sex and gender tags to elaborate on the distinction between neuter/agender and sexless/genderless:

female_(lore)
male_(lore)
intersex_(lore)
    herm_(lore)
    maleherm_(lore)
    gynomorph_(lore)
    andromorph_(lore)
    neuter_(lore)
sexless_(lore)

woman
man
nonbinary
    agender
genderless

For things like Machokes that get tagged as male even though they could canonically be female:

ambiguous_sex_(lore)

Different types of transitions(/transformations):

willing_gender_transition_(lore)
forced_gender_transition_(lore)
realistic_gender_transition_(lore)
fantastical_gender_transition_(lore)
external_gender_transition_(lore)
identified_gender_transition_(lore)

Different stages of transition:

post-op_trans
pre-op_trans
non-op_trans
    non-transitioning_trans
pre-transition_trans
mid-transition_trans
post-transition_trans

Probably helpful, but a lot of work:

woman/woman
woman/man
man/man
woman/nonbinary
    woman/agender
man/nonbinary
    man/agender
nonbinary/nonbinary
    nonbinary/agender
        agender/agender
genderless/woman
genderless/man
genderless/nonbinary
    genderless/agender
genderless/genderless

female/female_(lore)
female/male_(lore)
male/male_(lore)
female/intersex_(lore)
    female/herm_(lore)
    female/maleherm_(lore)
    female/gynomorph_(lore)
    female/andromorph_(lore)
    female/neuter_(lore)
male/intersex_(lore)
    male/herm_(lore)
    male/maleherm_(lore)
    male/gynomorph_(lore)
    male/andromorph_(lore)
    male/neuter_(lore)
intersex/intersex_(lore)

i/h   i/mh   i/g   i/a   i/n
----------------------------
h/h   h/mh   h/g   h/a   h/n
 .   mh/mh  mh/g  mh/a  mh/n
 .     .     g/g   g/a   g/n
 .     .      .    a/a   a/n
 .     .      .     .    n/n

    intersex/herm_(lore)
        herm/herm_(lore)
        herm/maleherm_(lore)
        herm/gynomorph_(lore)
        herm/andromorph_(lore)
        herm/neuter_(lore)
    intersex/maleherm_(lore)
        herm/maleherm_(lore)
        maleherm/maleherm_(lore)
        maleherm/gynomorph_(lore)
        maleherm/andromorph_(lore)
        maleherm/neuter_(lore)
    intersex/gynomorph_(lore)
        herm/gynomorph_(lore)
        maleherm/gynomorph_(lore)
        gynomorph/gynomorph_(lore)
        gynomorph/andromorph_(lore)
        gynomorph/neuter_(lore)
    intersex/andromorph_(lore)
        herm/andromorph_(lore)
        maleherm/andromorph_(lore)
        gynomorph/andromorph_(lore)
        andromorph/andromorph_(lore)
        andromorph/neuter_(lore)
    intersex/neuter_(lore)
        herm/neuter_(lore)
        maleherm/neuter_(lore)
        gynomorph/neuter_(lore)
        andromorph/neuter_(lore)
        neuter/neuter_(lore)

sexless/female_(lore)
sexless/male_(lore)
sexless/intersex_(lore)
    sexless/herm_(lore)
    sexless/maleherm_(lore)
    sexless/gynomorph_(lore)
    sexless/andromorph_(lore)
    sexless/neuter_(lore)
sexless/sexless_(lore)

gender_transition_(lore)

    ftm_transition_(lore)
    fti_transition_(lore)
        fth_transition_(lore)
        ftmh_transition_(lore)
        ftg_transition_(lore)
        fta_transition_(lore)
        ftn_transition_(lore)
    fts_transition_(lore)
    mtf_transition_(lore)
    mti_transition_(lore)
        mth_transition_(lore)
        mtmh_transition_(lore)
        mtg_transition_(lore)
        mta_transition_(lore)
        mtn_transition_(lore)
    mts_transition_(lore)
    itf_transition_(lore)
        htf_transition_(lore)
        mhtf_transition_(lore)
        gtf_transition_(lore)
        atf_transition_(lore)
        ntf_transition_(lore)
    itm_transition_(lore)
        htm_transition_(lore)
        mhtm_transition_(lore)
        gtm_transition_(lore)
        atm_transition_(lore)
        ntm_transition_(lore)
    iti_transition_(lore)

iti  | hti   mhti   gti   ati   nti
-----+------------------------------
ith  |  .    mhth   gth   ath   nth
itmh | htmh    .    gtmh  atmh  ntmh
itg  | htg   mhtg    .    atg   ntg
ita  | hta   mhta   gta    .    nta
itn  | htn   mhtn   gtn   atn    .

        ith_transition_(lore)
            mhth_transition_(lore)
            gth_transition_(lore)
            ath_transition_(lore)
            nth_transition_(lore)
        itmh_transition_(lore)
            htmh_transition_(lore)
            gtmh_transition_(lore)
            atmh_transition_(lore)
            ntmh_transition_(lore)
        itg_transition_(lore)
            htg_transition_(lore)
            mhtg_transition_(lore)
            atg_transition_(lore)
            ntg_transition_(lore)
        ita_transition_(lore)
            hta_transition_(lore)
            mhta_transition_(lore)
            gta_transition_(lore)
            nta_transition_(lore)
        itn_transition_(lore)
            htn_transition_(lore)
            mhtn_transition_(lore)
            gtn_transition_(lore)
            atn_transition_(lore)
        hti_transition_(lore)
            htmh_transition_(lore)
            htg_transition_(lore)
            hta_transition_(lore)
            htn_transition_(lore)
        mhti_transition_(lore)
            mhth_transition_(lore)
            mhtg_transition_(lore)
            mhta_transition_(lore)
            mhtn_transition_(lore)
        gti_transition_(lore)
            gth_transition_(lore)
            gtmh_transition_(lore)
            gta_transition_(lore)
            gtn_transition_(lore)
        ati_transition_(lore)
            ath_transition_(lore)
            atmh_transition_(lore)
            atg_transition_(lore)
            atn_transition_(lore)
        nti_transition_(lore)
            nth_transition_(lore)
            ntmh_transition_(lore)
            ntg_transition_(lore)
            nta_transition_(lore)

    its_transition_(lore)
        hts_transition_(lore)
        mhts_transition_(lore)
        gts_transition_(lore)
        ats_transition_(lore)
        nts_transition_(lore)
    stf_transition_(lore)
    stm_transition_(lore)
    sti_transition_(lore)
        sth_transition_(lore)
        stmh_transition_(lore)
        stg_transition_(lore)
        sta_transition_(lore)
        stn_transition_(lore)

On tag group:genders in the wiki there are a lot more lists of tags like these that could use lore counterparts, but it's all the same idea.

Other suggestions I've seen that I don't personally endorse:

Assigned gender tags:

afab
amab
anab
nagab

In case a character canonically has an intersex condition that isn't anatomical, since the current "intersex" tag only refers to anatomy (I figured that someone out there might want it?):

medically_intersex

Pronouns:

pronouns_he
pronouns_she
pronouns_they
pronouns_it
pronouns_neo

For those people salty about stuff like the changes to dgirl/cboy:

self-id_<whatever>

demesejha said:
This thread is about new, trans specific, tags. Not reinstating older ones and creating new problems where there don't need to be any.

This is getting exhausting to constantly re-explain over and over.

This is the essence of it.

i know the "problem" but it is making a problem where there isn't one. note i didnt request an explanation.

kyuuuuu said:
agender, genderless, neuter, and sexless

Not necessarily related to the argument I snipped these from, the keywords just got me thinking.
(Again not all of this is strictly trans-relevant, but when you start getting into sex vs gender when talking about fiction a lot of this is going to pop up. Not to mention the general lore tags thread isn't putting much emphasis on sex/gender tags)

• If a sexless individual identifies with a gender, are they trans? If so, are they still trans if they have identified with that gender from the beginning of their sapience?
• If a genderless individual has a sex, how is this classified?
• Are artificial constructs (eg. robots) considered lore-sexless? (If they have characteristics indicating a sex-analogue, do they get a TWYS sex/gender tag and sexless_(lore)?)
• If a canonically sexless artificial construct is explicitly depicted as having a sex, does crossgender now apply? (I'm looking at you, renamon)
• If a natural-born character is sexless but possesses sexual characteristics, do they get to be considered canonically sexless?
• Do we need an ambiguous_sex_(lore) tag for when there's an entire species which has canonically-ambiguous depictions and where artwork will often not be depicting a specific character? (eg. Most pokemon)
• What about cases of the above where the default form resembles a human sex enough to almost always be given a non-lore sex tag with no visible genitalia, but their canonical sexes share this form?
• Do we need a tag for cases where an artist or character owner's lore-statements are based on misrepresentation of explicitly notable anatomical and/or gender standard deviations in a species which is either real-world or created by somebody else? (eg. someone draws their spotted_hyena character with a male-functional penis and testicles, ejaculating semen, and says "this is a normal natural-born cis female")
• A big question here is at which point does artist-intent supersede creator intent when it comes to entities which canonically diverge from the anthropocentric standards the tagging system is based around?

kyuuuuu said:
Transition (aka Transformation)
forced_gender_transition_(lore)

This is a niche tag for transformations that include mind_control and not something to get slapped onto every forced gender_transformation image, right?
I've been operating under the assumption that a change of sex does not equal a change of gender.
Or is this meant to be for characters who are already trans-identifying, but did not want to physically transition and somebody forced them?
This might be where things start getting mixed up by the long-standing terminological lack of distinction between sex and gender.

magnuseffect said:
Not necessarily related to the argument I snipped these from, the keywords just got me thinking.
(Again not all of this is strictly trans-relevant, but when you start getting into sex vs gender when talking about fiction a lot of this is going to pop up. Not to mention the general lore tags thread isn't putting much emphasis on sex/gender tags)

• If a sexless individual identifies with a gender, are they trans? If so, are they still trans if they have identified with that gender from the beginning of their sapience?

I'm gonna say "no" to this one. And also it sounds like something that e621 needs to make an official definition of for people to refer to when tagging.

• If a genderless individual has a sex, how is this classified?

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

But seriously, that sounds like there should just be no lore tagging for that case; TWYS is kind of perfect for this case.

• [1] Are artificial constructs (eg. robots) considered lore-sexless? ([2] If they have characteristics indicating a sex-analogue, do they get a TWYS sex/gender tag and sexless_(lore)?)

1. I don't think they should? This is like the distinction between presumably-not-X and definitely-not-X. Lore should refer to positive information and avoid this kind of 'defaulting', IMO.
(also if you want to give this kind of default you have to define the boundaries of 'artificial construct', which is probably a headache)

2. I'm not sure I understand this question as it sounds self-contradictory.

• If a canonically sexless artificial construct is explicitly depicted as having a sex, does crossgender now apply? (I'm looking at you, renamon)

No, that's too confusing. Crossgender should apply only when there is an X and it became Y, not when there is no X and now there is a Y.

• If a natural-born character is sexless but possesses sexual characteristics, do they get to be considered canonically sexless?

I think this probably needs a concrete example to discuss it properly. Do you mean possessing secondary sexual characteristics (eg. breasts) but not primary sexual characteristics (genitals)?

If so, I would go with 'definitely not "sexless"; but I don't know what *positive* tags should be applied'

(wasn't there a 'neuter' tag.. which kind of covers this general region?)

• Do we need an ambiguous_sex_(lore) tag for when there's an entire species which has canonically-ambiguous depictions and where artwork will often not be depicting a specific character? (eg. Most pokemon)

For things like this I'm inclined to say the lore tags should be on the wiki page, not on the posts, for the same reason that you can't sensibly implicate to 'crossgender', or that 'furry' is an invalid tag.

• What about cases of the above where the default form resembles a human sex enough to almost always be given a non-lore sex tag with no visible genitalia, but their canonical sexes share this form?

I'm gonna say 'needs a concrete example' again on this one. My imagination is struggling with it.

• Do we need a tag for cases where an artist or character owner's lore-statements are based on misrepresentation of explicitly notable anatomical and/or gender standard deviations in a species which is either real-world or created by somebody else? (eg. someone draws their spotted_hyena character with a male-functional penis and testicles, ejaculating semen, and says "this is a normal natural-born cis female")

I'd say the rule here should be 'more well established lore should trump less well established lore', ie. this should still be male_(lore) because the "canon" properties of hyenas supercede someone's headcanon of how hyenas are or should be.

If I were an artist who this might affect, I would probably choose to explicitly respeciate (ie. make a species that is sufficiently like hyenas to satisfy me, while being sufficiently unlike hyenas to justify the alternate biology)

• A big question here is at which point does artist-intent supersede creator intent when it comes to entities which canonically diverge from the anthropocentric standards the tagging system is based around?

Do you mean "if someone commissions an artwork, which of the artist or commissioner get final say on what is canon?" Or also when fanart is made, and there is no explicit connection between artist and original canon?

I'm inclined to do a similar thing as with the hyena case : 'priority of canonicness' should be proportional to the uniqueness of the work, so very AU fanart should have more say about what is canon. This is loosely connected to what I know of copyright.

Note that this still hasn't defined the exact point, but this is how I think we should decide what the exact point should be.

savageorange said:
No, that's too confusing. Crossgender should apply only when there is an X and it became Y, not when there is no X and now there is a Y.

More clearly, crossgender should apply only when there's a character that's normally X, but is instead depicted as Y. If a character was X and became Y, that would fall under [implied/after]_transformation instead. Though shouldn't sexless-to-female crossgender be just as valid as male-to-herm crossgender? But I could see it becoming a problem when popular species of no or unspecified sex (e.g. renamon) are so often depicted with a sex. Hmm...

I'm gonna say 'needs a concrete example' again on this one. My imagination is struggling with it.

Perhaps Machoke or Machamp would be a good example. They're always depicted with a masculine body (big muscles, square body, flat chest), and both males and females look that way canonically. Or Gardevoir... a very lithe and feminine body, but both males and females look that way canonically. So a normal machamp or gardevoir would typically get saddled with the male or female TWYS tags because of their body type, but lore wise it's unknown/ambiguous what they are if you can't see their genitals.

Perhaps the most prudent option is to just not tag a lore sex/gender if it's not known. Unlike TWYS, there's no requirement to have lore tags, so if you don't know if a character is male, female, or something else lore-wise, just don't tag it with one.

Though there's another interesting case here. What if a created species is drawn with conflicting sexually dimorphic attributes? For example, a feral/on-model pikachu with a flat tail (canonically male), but with a pussy instead of a penis? Would that be an andromorph_(lore) or female_(lore)? What if the artist simply didn't know about the tail thing and meant them to be female? What if it was a drawing from before the tail thing became established canon? Or more extreme... an anthrofied pikachu, big masculine body, flat chest, penis on full display with no pussy... but a heart-shaped tail. male_(lore) or gynomorph_(lore)?

savageorange said:

1. I don't think they should? This is like the distinction between presumably-not-X and definitely-not-X. Lore should refer to positive information and avoid this kind of 'defaulting', IMO.
(also if you want to give this kind of default you have to define the boundaries of 'artificial construct', which is probably a headache)

2. I'm not sure I understand this question as it sounds self-contradictory.

post #1554630
How about if a robotic character is shaped in a gendered manner enough to get a TWYS tag, but displays a clear lack of sexual anatomy/functionality both within the image, and with no indication they were ever intended to have such functionality?

post #1997673
Or in the other direction, would a character with a more generic-robot shape end up as ambiguous_gender male_(lore) or just male_(lore) with no TWYS tag?

I think this probably needs a concrete example to discuss it properly. Do you mean possessing secondary sexual characteristics (eg. breasts) but not primary sexual characteristics (genitals)?

If so, I would go with 'definitely not "sexless"; but I don't know what *positive* tags should be applied'

Either for general form or genitalia.
Just off the top of my head, Sylvari from Guild Wars 2 are very clearly gendered, but do not have the ability to reproduce and for all we know don't even have genitals (though obviously this isn't going to apply to porn depictions of them.)

I don't have a specific example for sexless w/genitalia, but it's hypothetically possible to design a character who, superficially, has "genitalia" that doesn't have function beyond being in the form of genitalia. In this instance, would appearing to have genitalia be enough to force them to be considered lore-gendered instead of sexless-by-lore + gendered-by-TWYS?

I'm gonna say 'needs a concrete example' again on this one. My imagination is struggling with it.

post #1032854 Could canonically be female, and will be tagged male by default.
post #829662 is a favourite to bring up in tagging threads. Someone flipped it back to female since the last time, and it hasn't been locked yet.
post #1594633 Braixen and Delphox tend to get tagged female because their fur grows in the shape of a dress/robe
post #1049167 here's an official_art female primarina. I've seen arguments about Primarina tagging on the forums in the past, too.
I'd throw Renamon in here as an example again but here I'm trying to focus on species that explicitly have sexes (with no dimorphism) in their source material.

But the point is TWYS isn't going to stop doing this just because we have lore tags now, and it might be better to pick out an ambiguous_gender_(lore) or unknown_gender_(lore) tag than just leave the TWYS-tag in a state where the lack of a lore tag implies it's correct.

I'd say the rule here should be 'more well established lore should trump less well established lore', ie. this should still be male_(lore) because the "canon" properties of hyenas supercede someone's headcanon of how hyenas are or should be.

I personally agree on principle, but it conflicts with the point of having the lore tags, especially if we're using them to declare identified gender.
Pouched male marsupials are another common culprit, and the only thing stopping me from retagging them to gynomorph is the certainty that I'd get my first record for it.

Do you mean "if someone commissions an artwork, which of the artist or commissioner get final say on what is canon?" Or also when fanart is made, and there is no explicit connection between artist and original canon?

More like which of the artist/commissioner or original creator get final say on what is canon?
In this example we're still talking about spotted hyena, and original_creator is your pick between The Universe and ol' big-G.

watsit said:
But I could see it becoming a problem when popular species of no or unspecified sex (e.g. renamon) are so often depicted with a sex. Hmm...

I guess one pitch would be that with a sexless-to-male-crossgender tag it would finally be possible to search for straight male renamon art (assuming it's even allowed to be applied to a species)

magnuseffect said:
But the point is TWYS isn't going to stop doing this just because we have lore tags now, and it might be better to pick out an ambiguous_gender_(lore) or unknown_gender_(lore) tag than just leave the TWYS-tag in a state where the lack of a lore tag implies it's correct.

I don't think lack of a lore tag on something implies the TWYS tag is lore-correct. TWYS is just that, tags on the visual elements of a picture, and says nothing about lore regardless of any lore tags that may or may not be there.

magnuseffect said:
I personally agree on principle, but it conflicts with the point of having the lore tags, especially if we're using them to declare identified gender.

It declares known sex rather than strictly visible sex (both separate from gender identity, i.e. trans_*, cis_*, etc). Given my understanding of what NMNY has said, the lore tags will still match visual depictions (e.g. a male depiction of Krystal will be tagged male_(lore), even through Krystal is a cis female character), but allows external knowledge to fill in what you can't see (e.g. a character that appears male or ambiguous can be tagged trans_woman_(lore) and/or maleherm_(lore) if it's known that's what they are).

magnuseffect said:
I guess one pitch would be that with a sexless-to-male-crossgender tag it would finally be possible to search for straight male renamon art (assuming it's even allowed to be applied to a species)

Assuming a species is canonically always one sex/gender, I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed. It would also affect salazzle (always female) and a number of legendary pokemon (some are canonically sexless, IIRC).

watsit said:
I don't think lack of a lore tag on something implies the TWYS tag is lore-correct. TWYS is just that, tags on the visual elements of a picture, and says nothing about lore regardless of any lore tags that may or may not be there.

Which is a potential serious problem actually (I don't trust people to consistently make the above distinction, IMO they are pretty likely to tag and argue on the basis that the lack of a lore tag DOES mean the TWYS is correct lorewise. Well.. my general observation is that people do not reliably distinguish between positive and negative evidence, which we already see some examples of in bad TWYS tagging (eg. the assertion that ambiguous_gender applies to characters whose sex is not obvious, as opposed to characters who have precisely *no* indicators of sex)).

I guess we will see how that goes.

I nested the last bunch of comments to make the discussion easier to follow, and added some more here and there.

, genderless, neuter, and sexless

Transition (aka Transformation)
forced_gender_transition_(lore)

stop trying to pander to these people. we had a simple, functional tag system and you're just making it complicated to pander to a minority of retards with a political agenda. stop. they dont care about your site.

you cannot have an accurate system where you tag based on peoples feelings, its antithesis to the "tag what you see" philosophy.

berylium said:
stop trying to pander to these people. we had a simple, functional tag system and you're just making it complicated to pander to a minority of retards with a political agenda. stop. they dont care about your site.

Lore tags are not intended to affect TWYS tags at all, they are essentially a parallel system which covers some of the things which TWYS cannot cover.
So whether your assertion is true or false, you still don't understand what is actually going on here.

kyuuuuu said:
The wiki clearly states that it does NOT count as "crossgender" to depict an individual of a canonically single-sex species as having a different sex, so for the sake of consistency, depicting a sexed individual of a canonially sexless species shouldn't count either.

That rule is because the current TWYS standard doesn't allow using outside knowledge (e.g. salazzle are always female) for tagging. That technically means the crossgender tags were never valid, but whatever, AFAIK they're going to (or really should) become lore tags. With lore tags using known information rather than visual information, I don't see why an all single- or no-sex species shouldn't be tagged in accordance with that knowledge.

watsit said:
That rule is because the current TWYS standard doesn't allow using outside knowledge (e.g. salazzle are always female) for tagging. That technically means the crossgender tags were never valid, but whatever, AFAIK they're going to (or really should) become lore tags. With lore tags using known information rather than visual information, I don't see why an all single- or no-sex species shouldn't be tagged in accordance with that knowledge.

I do agree that crossgender should've been considered lore all along.

A possible issue with tagging a picture of a salazzle named Alex in which it appears to be male as crossgender is that it's ambiguous as to whether crossgender applies only because Alex is a salazzle or if Alex, as someone's OC, is canonically female as an individual. IDK how much that distinction matters to anyone, though.

watsit said:
It declares known sex rather than strictly visible sex (both separate from gender identity, i.e. trans_*, cis_*, etc). Given my understanding of what NMNY has said, the lore tags will still match visual depictions (e.g. a male depiction of Krystal will be tagged male_(lore), even through Krystal is a cis female character), but allows external knowledge to fill in what you can't see (e.g. a character that appears male or ambiguous can be tagged trans_woman_(lore) and/or maleherm_(lore) if it's known that's what they are).

Pulling from the beta is nearing completion thread (wait, is Header text userlevel locked now??)

notmenotyou said:

Lore Tags!

Lore tags will be made into their own category, and contain all information that might be relevant to the viewer, but can't be seen inside the image. This will include things like relationship status of the characters, canon gender (if differing from visible), transgender identity, incest related tags, and possibly more.

But with your logic, taken literally, cases like mikhaila_kirov are still going to be under fire because her male/andromorph taggings are based on the visible information that she's masculine-bodied.
I mean, I get that a crossgender male krystal could get a male_(lore) tag (if it wasn't a clearly visible case, that is), as it makes sense for the artist intent to be a male Krystal. I just think that's a case where artist-intent and TWYS mesh as intended.

It might sound messy to separate from the argument that led to this, so I'll reiterate that lore-male Krystal meshes with e621 syntax: Male visible gender + male intended gender + no curveballs = A-OK!
but male visible gender (or let's face it, we're talking about a case that's gonna get TWYS gynomorph) + non-intersex female intended gender + intent is based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the species/character's established anatomy, while ALSO being a deviation from the anthropocentric standards TWYS is based in (ie, standard human anatomy is standard) = ????

I don't think lack of a lore tag on something implies the TWYS tag is lore-correct.

Well, due to general tagging inconsistencies it's going to be less about "is there a lore tag here?" than "does a lore tag apply here?" We're talking about a case where we have some form of ambiguous_character, as the individual is 100% indistinguishable from any other generic individual of its species. If there cannot be a lore tag for such cases (whether it is a specific character of that species, or if it's there as a representation of the entire species) then as far as lore tagging goes we're back to square one as long as it's an ambiguous character.

kyuuuuu said:
I figured that "transition" and "transformation" are fairly interchangable terms, but I don't really get the whole "TF" scene, so what do I know?

With sex and gender being inherently linked in site terminology, I think any application of transition lore tags should be limited to cases where in-image information or artist/writer statements show there is transgender context involved.

Is it just artistic license for the sake of modesty, or is it supposed to show an explicit lack of genitals? That's one thicc robot you've linked there, but the image is rated safe, so of course you can't see any explicitly sexual features. Maybe there's a hidden vagina compartment somewhere in there, who knows. That kind of lore would have to be obtained from word of god.

Would it though? Say there's a complete lack of Word Of God, it's from a property that features little-to-no sexual content overall, and it's anthropomorphic only in general structure and not to the point of being fully anthro-shaped? TWYS would only consider it gendered because having an anthropo-dimorphic form requires the application of the gender tag that matches that general shape, but if we're drawing a distinction between sex and gender within lore tagging, does a TWYS-based gender tag override a case where the character's logically-assumable in-universe function does not include possessing sexual anatomy?

I just don't think it should be the "normal" to assume that, outside of porn contexts, any SFW-depicted robot is inherently hiding genitalia in the same way that we can assume a clothed organic character is hiding genitalia. We might be talking about a lot of porn, but e621 still isn't inherently a pornsite.

Why are you talking about lore tags like they're just extra-prescriptive TWYS? A robot is sexless_(lore) if it canonically does not have a sex (example: a realistic depiction of a mars rover). If it does have equivalents of sexual traits, then no, it shouldn't be tagged as sexless_(lore) just because it's a bot.

To detach this more clearly from other points I might have been mixing it with, if a SFW-only robot character is gendered in aesthetics only (and TWYS uses aesthetic resemblance as evidence of sexual traits), but not function, why would being lore-gendered also apply a matching lore-sex? Would that itself not be "extra-prescriptive TWYS"?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck

If it looks like a duck and squeaks like hollow plastic, is it a duck or a rubber_duck?
We do already have a pseudo-penis tag. Sure, in the absence of word-of-god, if a phallic appendage is not shown to not be male-functional we can assume it's a good ol' classic penis, but what about when there's hard lore-evidence that it's not? Are real-world species with non-standard genital anatomy only valid because they're real-world?

@kyuuuuu
Transformers and robots can have canon genders. The entire argument that "sfw" characters should be tagged with something like "sexless" is self defeating to literally every argument that's been made in the thread so far and gross.

Genuinely don't know why you're over-complicating this to hell and back and man, a lot of what you're saying is self contradicting things you've said earlier on in the thread.

Transitioning and Transformation are not at all the same thing and I dont even know where to begin on that front.

Youve made a tons of posts insinuating youre speaking for trans folks but have consistently ignored, the actual trans opinions and then say that??

Anyway these tags are EXPLICITLY removed from tag what you see so theres literally no reason to ever consider them as such.

And lastly, as Ive brought up multiple times before, intersex people exist, and so do intersex characters. I dont know what is hard about that to understand as a concept but in essence, if a character has a certain configuration to it from birth, that does not mean they are trans. the cis_(tag) classifications are literally just there to denote, hey yeah this character might have this body type but is distinctly not trans and there is literally nothing wrong with that. That doesn't necessarily automatically make their Gender "nonbinary" or some variation of.

Stop being reductionist please.

What is your genuine motivation? When adding that many tags? What value is there?

What is your motivation in consistently trying to shut down discussion of a utilitarian approach, or an approach that seeks to harm the least amount of people?

Overspeciation leads to overcomplication and ultimately a breakdown of any system its part of. We do not need to cloud the tags were adding here with a million and one micro tags that all mean the same thing.

magnuseffect said:
Pulling from the beta is nearing completion thread (wait, is Header text userlevel locked now??)

It seems to be a parsing bug, header text under a line with text doesn't get properly formatted, but it works at the top of the post, quote, or after a blank line:

Test1

Test2

magnuseffect said:
But with your logic, taken literally, cases like mikhaila_kirov are still going to be under fire because her male/andromorph taggings are based on the visible information that she's masculine-bodied.

Though as I said, the lore tags can use external information to fill-in for what can't be seen. Essentially, as long as what you see doesn't contradict a lore tag, it's all good. In the case of Mikhaila, you have a flat-chested character that looks more masculine-bodied than feminine according to some, however, so long as they don't have a penis or balls or such on display, it's entirely possible for a female to look that way, thus wouldn't contradict being tagged female_(lore). As I alluded to, the TWYS tags and lore tags are separate and don't imply anything of each other; that Mikhaila may be tagged male or andromorph by TWYS, because that's what they visually look closest to (that "closest to" being key, being tagged male doesn't mean it's impossible to not be male, just that it's the most likely option given what we see), that has no bearing on whether female_(lore) can apply.

I really wish I could find the post where NMNY mentioned lore tags still follow what's depicted, so I can double-check myself to make sure I'm not misinterpreting or misremembering it, but discussion on this topic was all over the place after the announcement and I can't seem to search by poster name to find the response I'm thinking of.

magnuseffect said:
We're talking about a case where we have some form of ambiguous_character, as the individual is 100% indistinguishable from any other generic individual of its species. If there cannot be a lore tag for such cases (whether it is a specific character of that species, or if it's there as a representation of the entire species) then as far as lore tagging goes we're back to square one as long as it's an ambiguous character.

I'm not sure I see the issue. If the character is completely generic and we don't know what their sex/gender is, why would an ambiguous_gender_(lore) tag need to be applied? An ambiguous_gender_(lore) tag would to me mean a character's sex/gender is affirmatively ambiguous (e.g. Robin from Alterity is explicitly ambiguous; the subject is constantly dodged in the story and the creator has said they purposely made them ambiguous and will never say what their sex/gender is). Compared to an image of a generic character that could be anything and we simply don't know what the creator would say, like these official depictions.

magnuseffect said:
With sex and gender being inherently linked in site terminology, I think any application of transition lore tags should be limited to cases where in-image information or artist/writer statements show there is transgender context involved.

Well, yeah. Is there any case where either transformation or transition (whether of sex or gender) would be tagged with neither in-image info nor word of god as evidence? Or do you just mean to keep transition and transformation as distinct, un-aliased counterparts? I still can't really think of a consistent way to distinguish between what counts as one or the other, and given that people already have a hard time maintaining a distinction between penis_growth and penis_expansion, I think transition and transformation are best aliased (or we could just not use the former). The fact that the tag is gender_transformation when it should technically be sex_transformation (and other things like ambiguous_gender technically referring to ambiguous sex) is an inconsistency, but oh well.

Maybe we could have another simple pair of tags (in addition to forced vs willing and fantastical vs realistic) to distinguish between TF where the character's actual identified gender changes and TF where it's just their body and/or presentation? Something like identified_gender_transformation vs external_gender_transformation?

magnuseffect said:
Would it though? Say there's a complete lack of Word Of God, it's from a property that features little-to-no sexual content overall, and it's anthropomorphic only in general structure and not to the point of being fully anthro-shaped? TWYS would only consider it gendered because having an anthropo-dimorphic form requires the application of the gender tag that matches that general shape, but if we're drawing a distinction between sex and gender within lore tagging, does a TWYS-based gender tag override a case where the character's logically-assumable in-universe function does not include possessing sexual anatomy?

- TWYS tags and lore tags are not in conflict and do not "override" each other. TWYS will continue to work as it has, and lore tags will be added on top of them. It's perfectly fine for TWYS and lore to give conflicting information; in fact, that's what the lore tags are for.

- What exact definitions of "sex" and "gender" are you using here, anyway? TWYS doesn't tag identified gender, it tags (presumable) anatomical sex (or the closest match based on superficial appearance).

- Indeed, a character does not have to have a complete set of all possible biological characteristics of a certain sex visible in order to be tagged as that sex by TWYS. This extends from the reasonable case of a clothed character who canonically has genitals inside of their pants, to the case of a character who's never been seen naked but could reasonably be assumed to have reproductive organs in-universe, to a toon character that doesn't even wear pants and has a featureless_crotch, and then to the case of robots built to have proportions reminiscent of sexed living creatures. At what point you think that stops being reasonable depends on your opinion, and so does the extent to which sex lore tags should match this standard, though they can at least sometimes rely on word of god to skip the ambiguity.

Put simply, I don't see any problem with having a vaguely feminine humanoid robot tagged as both female and sexless_(lore). Those tags tell you that it's a sexless robot that just looks sort of like a female.

magnuseffect said:
I just don't think it should be the "normal" to assume that, outside of porn contexts, any SFW-depicted robot is inherently hiding genitalia in the same way that we can assume a clothed organic character is hiding genitalia. We might be talking about a lot of porn, but e621 still isn't inherently a pornsite.

Makes sense, but what's your point here? Like, so how should this practically inform how we tag things?

magnuseffect said:
To detach this more clearly from other points I might have been mixing it with, if a SFW-only robot character is gendered in aesthetics only (and TWYS uses aesthetic resemblance as evidence of sexual traits), but not function, why would being lore-gendered also apply a matching lore-sex?

Where did I imply that <gender1>_(lore) should imply <sex1>_(lore), for robots or otherwise?

magnuseffect said:
If it looks like a duck and squeaks like hollow plastic, is it a duck or a rubber_duck?
We do already have a pseudo-penis tag. Sure, in the absence of word-of-god, if a phallic appendage is not shown to not be male-functional we can assume it's a good ol' classic penis, but what about when there's hard lore-evidence that it's not? Are real-world species with non-standard genital anatomy only valid because they're real-world?

That's what I've gathered is the dysfunctional standard for this site. A female hyena's fleshy phallic appendage gets tagged as a pseudopenis while a biologically sexless robot's mechanical phallic appendage gets tagged as a penis. I don't necessarily agree, but I'm not gonna try to tackle that whole issue here, since this discussion is kind of veering off track.

demesejha said:
Transformers and robots can have canon genders. The entire argument that "sfw" characters should be tagged with something like "sexless" is self defeating to literally every argument that's been made in the thread so far and gross.

One, where did I write that transformers can't have canon genders? Two, to which argument is it "self-defeating", and how? And more importantly, where does it look like I implied that, because I haven't tried to.

demesejha said:
Genuinely don't know why you're over-complicating this to hell and back and man, a lot of what you're saying is self contradicting things you've said earlier on in the thread.

Can you quote an example of my self-contradiction? And in what way am I over-complicating things?

demesejha said:
Transitioning and Transformation are not at all the same thing and I dont even know where to begin on that front.

Ok, if it's so important and clear cut, could you give an explanation?

demesejha said:
Youve made a tons of posts insinuating youre speaking for trans folks but have consistently ignored, the actual trans opinions and then say that??

I've made several posts in which I mention the fact that I'm trans, but where have I ignored "the actual trans opinions" or tried to speak over other trans people?

demesejha said:
Anyway these tags are EXPLICITLY removed from tag what you see so theres literally no reason to ever consider them as such.

What tags? Could you please quote what you're responding to?

demesejha said:
And lastly, as Ive brought up multiple times before, intersex people exist, and so do intersex characters. I dont know what is hard about that to understand as a concept but in essence, if a character has a certain configuration to it from birth, that does not mean they are trans. the cis_(tag) classifications are literally just there to denote, hey yeah this character might have this body type but is distinctly not trans and there is literally nothing wrong with that. That doesn't necessarily automatically make their Gender "nonbinary" or some variation of.

Did you just completely miss where I mentioned that I'm also intersex? Where have I implied that someone being born intersex automatically makes them trans or nonbinary?

demesejha said:
Stop being reductionist please.

Again, I have no idea what you're responding to here. How am I being reductionist?

demesejha said:
What is your genuine motivation? When adding that many tags? What value is there?

What is your motivation in consistently trying to shut down discussion of a utilitarian approach, or an approach that seeks to harm the least amount of people?

Overspeciation leads to overcomplication and ultimately a breakdown of any system its part of. We do not need to cloud the tags were adding here with a million and one micro tags that all mean the same thing.

Where am I trying to shut down discussion, aren't you the one just arguing with people here? I'm just compiling the suggestions and participating in the discussion. I'm not the cause of the number of sex tags that already exist and could therefore get lore versions. Why are you so angry at the existence of tedious lists in a tagging system? Can't you go and bother the people who want tags for every colour of fingernail instead?

They're mostly projecting pretty hardcore. I certainly didn't see you claiming to be a representative of 'trans people', but they do have a notable, and, it seems, continuing, history of pretending to speak for 'trans people'. They complain about bad faith actors poisoning the discourse, while still engaging in this idpol offense-mongering. I hope they get over this, but making allowances for them would be completely inappropriate.

Most of the people in this discussion seem pretty clearly to me to be treating this as a near-pure language problem. (or taxonomical problem, if you'd prefer). It is possible to get bogged down in that committee-style (I don't think we need an exhaustive list of tags, we're unlikely to get that before the actual implementation of lore tags, even if we try, IMO), but the taxonomic approach seems to me to be fundamentally the correct approach to this problem. We just need to define a reasonable stopping point. Things have gotten a bit complex but I don't think we have reached that point yet. My head is only spinning slowly ;)

What_have_we_become should be a tag now

@kyuuuuu @demesejha

Timeline of events:
@demesjha responds to S-35'S comment.
@kyuuuuu hones in on a line @demesejha used. (sidenote: it's pretty clear demesejha was using "distinctualize" in place of the word "distinguish" for whatever reason, second language, forgetting, etc., and in extension, "distinctualization" = "distinction")

@demesejha and S-35 brought up an interesting case - a sfw drawing of a character with canonical tits+dick. @demesejha rightfully noted that one of the prime usages for a lore tag of gynomorph would be for a situation where it is unclear if the character is gynomorph from birth or some variant of trans woman (in the process, decided they're more comfortable with both tits+dick, etc.)
@kyuuuuu claims there would be absolutely no need for a lore gynomorph tag and writes a convoluted paragraph about it (lack of usage of the enter key makes this particularly difficult to grasp.) The "contradiction" appears to be in the comment that labelling a pre-transition trans woman "trans male" is used to attack them, while also apparently disagreeing about using a lore gynomorph tag that would help to keep this distinct.

@kyuuuuu, there is a point earlier on this page, in your explanation of your views on agender vs genderless, where you refer to "A (non-android) robot" as inherently genderless and sexless. That appears to be what demesjhe is referring to in their first line. They're reaching for straws with that one, and are pretty clearly upset that they don't agree with you on the cis_gyno/andromorph topic.

Transitioning v. transformation: generally a distinction of realistic vs. fantastical. Hormones vs. magic. The line is blurred with fantastical settings wherein one could magically undergo a transition. Some rules of thumb:
-transition usually takes a longer time than transformation
-transition would imply non-reversible, transformation would imply reversible
-transition implies premeditation, whereas transformation doesn't - "forced transition" would imply emotional abuse and physical abuse, whereas "forced transformation" would generally imply forcing a magical procedure.
-transformation implies either physically painless or extremely painful, whereas transition implies the more long-term effects associated with hormones.
One of the keys here is that "transformation" is often used to refer to animorph-style transformation between human/anthro and feral. Especially in the furry community, that draws heavy connotations.

Pretty much everything else from that pair of rants is demesjha being frustrated, and kyuuuuu being stubborn. The main disagreement seems to be about:
A "cis" gynomorph being non binary or not, and therefore whether it makes sense to have a tag meaning "cis" i.e. comfortable in their assigned body, and "trans" i.e. not comfortable in their assigned body and taking steps to address that.

It's all largely moot though since, in the "necessary tags" post kyuuuuu has made, the lore tag of gynomorph IS included. I'm not sure demesejha cottoned on to that.

leroy_fontaine said:
Transitioning v. transformation: generally a distinction of realistic vs. fantastical. Hormones vs. magic. The line is blurred with fantastical settings wherein one could magically undergo a transition.

Though there is a subset of transformation being realistic/scientific. Like this:
post #1979898
(that's species instead of gender, but I'm sure there are similar examples of the latter)

leroy_fontaine said:
-transition usually takes a longer time than transformation
-transition would imply non-reversible, transformation would imply reversible
-transition implies premeditation, whereas transformation doesn't - "forced transition" would imply emotional abuse and physical abuse, whereas "forced transformation" would generally imply forcing a magical procedure.
-transformation implies either physically painless or extremely painful, whereas transition implies the more long-term effects associated with hormones.
One of the keys here is that "transformation" is often used to refer to animorph-style transformation between human/anthro and feral.

Things to consider, "transformation time" is not always apparent in a picture, similar for reversibility and premeditation (also, 'forced' anything would likely imply emotional and physical abuse regardless).

What exactly do you mean by "animorph-style"? When I think of animorphs, I think of cheesy 90s CG morphing, but I don't want to assume that's what you mean. Though just to put it out there, "transformation" is certainly not just that kind of morphing.

@leroy_fontaine

Thank you for that because I honestly have given up trying to elaborate at this point.

I had noticed the lore tag listing of gynomorph but find it important to note that due to the point of these lore tags in the first place just having lore_gynomorph is functionally useless as it is identical to the tag in current use for twys defeating the purpose of having a second tag thats identical.

Furthermore as you wouldnt (if you didnt have to) refer to a trans woman as a Gynomorph the term trans_gynomorph feels semi sour to say. Not that you couldnt. You would likely just say trans woman.

Leaving characters who are intersex or otherwise magically endowed or its just their species or whatever bullshit explanation, in a lurch where their primary configuration is a body like that and they are happy with that.

That DOES NOT MAKE THEM NONBINARY.
We are not here to force a gender identity on anyone or their characters and the insinuation that we do is what I highly object to.

Anyway thank you for politely putting it a way I no longer the patience to.

demesejha said:
@leroy_fontaine

I had noticed the lore tag listing of gynomorph but find it important to note that due to the point of these lore tags in the first place just having lore_gynomorph is functionally useless as it is identical to the tag in current use for twys defeating the purpose of having a second tag thats identical.

Outside of trans contexts, this argument is missing that only male, female, or ambiguous_gender can be TWYS-tagged without genital information. Thus it's useful for the same reasons male_(lore) is useful for a character who is intended-male but can't be tagged as such.