Topic: [REJECTED] Gender (lore) tags BUR

The bulk update request #5375 has been rejected.

create implication maleherm_(lore) (1711) -> intersex_(lore) (1785)
create implication herm_(lore) (9754) -> intersex_(lore) (1785)
create implication andromorph_(lore) (2920) -> intersex_(lore) (1785)
create implication gynomorph_(lore) (4771) -> intersex_(lore) (1785)

Reason: Just getting the less controversial implications out of the way.

Fitting the gender_(lore) tags with implications similar to their non lore counterparts.

As for any similar BURs, there's https://e621.net/forum_topics/32308?page=1#forum_post_326720, but it got rejected by the creator.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5375 (forum #373822) has been rejected by @spe.

Would like to point out that intersex has a real meaning in the real world for real people that has nothing to do with the fictional gynomorphs/andromorphs/herms, and some intersex people might make their fursonas intersex as well, and I worry this might cause controversy to have both the real meaning and fictional meaning in the same tag. Since these are lore tags and their existence is supposed to sooth controversy, this could be an issue.

I agree with Cloudpie here, the real life definition is very different from how it's used in real life, primarily for TWYS reasons. TWYS isn't a constraint with lore tags, somebody's character may identify with gynomorph_(lore) and not intersex_(lore).

edit 2024-08-12: around a year later I see this post again, "is very different from how it's used in real life" is supposed to be "is very different from how it's used on e621"

The bulk update request #5378 has been rejected.

create implication trans_woman_(lore) (25676) -> female_(lore) (15954)
create implication trans_man_(lore) (15163) -> male_(lore) (24206)

Reason: Now for the implication I thought would be controversial.

trans woman (lore):

...characters who are canonically deemed to be or identify as female despite being assigned a different gender at (in-universe) birth by their creator or owner...

female (lore):

...characters who are canonically deemed to be or identify as female by their creator or owner...

So trans woman (lore) is just a subset of female (lore), just with a different assigned gender at (in universe) birth. Same argument can apply for the male version.

Although I see a reason for keeping them separate. But with the current locked definitions, it should have the implication.

If these implications shouldn't go through, wiki should be reworded that the female_(lore) is only for those born female and identify as such, and trans woman (lore) shouldn't have the female (lore) tag [this might cause some issues though, which the lore tag was made to solve].

I don't understand the situation where the artist would want trans woman (lore) but not female (lore).

EDIT: The bulk update request #5378 (forum #373877) has been rejected by @slyroon.

snpthecat said:
Reason: Now for the implication I thought would be controversial.

It's been mentioned in other discussions that you shouldn't tag male_(lore), female_(lore), etc, if the character is already tagged male, female, etc. That would make this incorrectly tag male_(lore) and female_(lore) in some circumstances.

Though I don't understand male_(lore) and female_(lore) any more. The gender/sex lore tag were initially supposed to fill in for the gaps in TWYS; e.g. a male being tagged ambiguous_gender because his genitals weren't visible and his body was too androgynous, or a herm being tagged female or gynomorph because certain genitals weren't visible in a given image, could be tagged male_(lore) and herm_(lore) respectively irrespective of their identity (which would be covered by the trans tags). Comics and multi-page sequences that would have a character changing between male, female, ambiguous_gender, etc, on different pages could then be tagged male_(lore) on pages they couldn't be tagged male, to help clarify what they're physically intended to be.

But at some point, "identify as" was made part of the tag, which is a completely different purposes and conflicts with some other use-cases. That means a single character can be tagged andromorph+female_(lore)+male_(lore) all at once, or gynomorph+herm_(lore)+female_(lore).

faucet said:
I agree with Cloudpie here, the real life definition is very different from how it's used in real life, primarily for TWYS reasons. TWYS isn't a constraint with lore tags, somebody's character may identify with gynomorph_(lore) and not intersex_(lore).

Did you mean the real life definition is different from how it's used on the site?

If not, how is it usually used in real life and how does Wikipedia's definition differ from it? It says intersex is used to describe people with sex characteristics which do not fit into the gender binary.

Wouldn't gynomorph and the 3 other tags being implied not fit into the binary by definition?

watsit said:
It's been mentioned in other discussions that you shouldn't tag male_(lore), female_(lore), etc, if the character is already tagged male, female, etc. That would make this incorrectly tag male_(lore) and female_(lore) in some circumstances.

Ah that is true, character could already be tagged as such and there shouldn't tag both the non lore and lore version for the same character.

I think this should be mentioned in the wiki pages that it shouldn't have both, and that if it's tagged trans_woman_(lore) it doesn't need female_(lore) if that character already is tagged as such.

The bulk update request #5378 (forum #373877) has been rejected by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #5375 (forum #373822) has been rejected by @spe.