The bulk update request #3322 has been rejected.

create implication mtf_crossgender (19580) -> crossgender (68818)
create implication ftm_crossgender (5843) -> crossgender (68818)
create implication mtf_crossgender (19580) -> male_(lore) (16811)
create implication ftm_crossgender (5843) -> female_(lore) (11094)

Reason: example: a male character drawn as female is [mtf_(crossgender] also implies [crossgender] also implies [male_(lore)] vise versa for female characters as well; implies [ftm_crossgender] also implies [female_(lore)]

I don't know how to do the other genders, someone else more experienced should do that. I hope I did this one right though, I have a bad habit of getting the order wrong...

EDIT: The bulk update request #3322 (forum #345511) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

closetpossum said:
Reason: example: a male character drawn as female is [mtf_(crossgender] also implies [crossgender] also implies [male_(lore)]

male_(lore) is supposed to be for characters intended to be male but drawn in a way that TWYS doesn't allow to be tagged as such. A normally male character explicitly drawn crossgender as a female shouldn't be tagged male_(lore). Same applies for female_(lore).

watsit said:
male_(lore) is supposed to be for characters intended to be male but drawn in a way that TWYS doesn't allow to be tagged as such. A normally male character explicitly drawn crossgender as a female shouldn't be tagged male_(lore). Same applies for female_(lore).

why? both those sound the same but worded different.

closetpossum said:
why? both those sound the same but worded different.

1, A male character that an artist draws as male, but his back is turned and has an androgynous body, so needs to be tagged ambiguous_gender. male_(lore) would be appropriate here because the character is intended to be male, but was drawn in a way that didn't fit the tag.
2. A male character that an artist draws as female, and is very apparently female and tagged as female. male_(lore) would not be appropriate because the character is tagged exactly as they were intended to be portrayed.

The first two lines already exist. The latter two lines are wrong.

(Also all the crossgender tags should be reclassified as lore since you can't see a character's original gender in the image, but that's a whole other discussion.)

the lore gender tags are to say what the intention of the artist was when drawing the characters in the current post even if by TWYS the characters would be tagged with another gender. like when a character's genitals are obscured _or_ when only the genitals are visible and the bodytype is indeterminable they'd be tagged <gender>_(lore).

however, crossgender is for when a character is deliberately drawn to be a gender they don't show up in in-canon.

I see.

The bulk update request #3322 (forum #345511) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.