Topic: sex vs gender

this is just another one of e621's confusing vocabulary that makes me sigh. things like male, female, andromorph, gynomorph, ambiguous_gender are called genders instead of sexes.

i have ideas for how to clean things up but this is mostly to get a conversation going (again?), like i did with intersex tags. Not making this an actual BUR, but here's something:

alias male -> male_(sex)
alias male_(lore) -> male_(gender) (while remaining a lore tag, so the tag-what-you-see policy remains)
alias female -> female_(sex)
alias female_(lore) -> female_(gender)
imply trans_male_(lore) -> male_(gender)
imply trans_female_(lore) -> female_(gender)
alias nonbinary_(lore) -> nonbinary_(gender)
etc.

This is just a foundation, very rough draft, and if things happen i expect it to be a slow process

forest1985 said:
alias male_(lore) -> male_(gender) (while remaining a lore tag, so the tag-what-you-see policy remains)

Lore tags must have a _(lore) suffix, and non-lore tags can't have a _(lore) suffix. It's enforced by the system.

To quote the FATAL RPG rulebook:

² Though sex usually refers to biological differences and gender usually refers to environmental differences, gender is chosen for this chapter because sex may be confused with sexual acts.

I'm still complete newbie when it comes to tags/aliases
cis_male_(lore) would be more consistent since we already got trans_male_(lore)

A few things:

1. Nonbinary isn't a sex, it's implied to be a gender. Changing the tag to nonbinary_(gender) is redundant.
2. This would make tagging a confusing mess for the uninitiated (not just the malicious) with basically no benefit over changing existing references from gender to sex for the male and female tags, as they're already implied to be sexes by the existence of their lore tag counterparts, which are by extension implied to be gender and not sex.
3. Some people aren't attracted to trans characters, and others specifically want to see them. How would you otherwise search for or filter out a trans male, for example, given both cis males and trans males would have the male_(gender) tag in that case, implying good tagging? I feel like removing trans_male_(lore) and trans_female_(lore) would harm searchability.

Also having this granular terminology really isn't productive. Like this isn't going to make anyone's life meaningfully better if that's the intention; it comes off as performative to me.

EDIT: Read an implication as an alias. Oops.

forest1985 said:
Not making this an actual BUR, but here's something:

even so i would still recommend doing one for the other people in the back that doesn't reply to the forums but still give feedback, it grants a wider range of "what do people think of this"

the BUR doesn't have to be approved or reject, it can stay as it is to make a point or something, like how topic #62928 is just 1 singular alias instead of a wholely planned bur

watsit said:
Lore tags must have a _(lore) suffix, and non-lore tags can't have a _(lore) suffix. It's enforced by the system.

oh

There was a huge convo about this a few months ago.

TL;DR: 'Male', 'Female', etc are in an awful spot because they are dual-use tags, referring to presentation, genitalia, and breasts. This is also redundant since we already have tags for genitalia and breasts.

Currently the order of precedence for deciding which gender tag to use is
1) Genitals?
2) Breasts?
3) General appearance

1 and 2 already have independent tags, making this system clunky and redundant. The proposal was to change male/female/etc to be only about general appearance, which matches how people normally refer to gender.

This has the added benefit of matching what users expect, because if a gay user filters with "-female" they typically aren't happy when their results are full of a million extremely feminine trans women who are tagged the ridiculous "gynomorph" instead. It also opens the way to other presentation-based tags.

However it'd also require a massive tag rework campaign, and plenty of users here are actively hostile toward anything they see as trans-inclusive, so I wouldn't hold your breath on anything of the sort happening.

See topic #62124

What about renaming the lore tags man_(lore) woman_(lore) trans_man_(lore) trans_woman_(lore)

lust_demon_laz said:
What about renaming the lore tags man_(lore) woman_(lore) trans_man_(lore) trans_woman_(lore)

Why would we assume that andromorphs and gynomorphs are consistently trans? Why don't maleherms and andromorphs count as men? Why don't herms and gynomorphs count as women? Why would we do this at the cost of making the existing trans/gender lore tags more ambiguous? Why wouldn't trans_man_(lore) imply man_(lore), and trans_woman_(lore) imply woman_(lore)?

lafcadio said:
Why would we assume that andromorphs and gynomorphs are consistently trans? Why don't maleherms and andromorphs count as men? Why don't herms and gynomorphs count as women? Why would we do this at the cost of making the existing trans/gender lore tags more ambiguous? Why wouldn't trans_man_(lore) imply man_(lore), and trans_woman_(lore) imply woman_(lore)?

I never said any of that

I wouldn't (and generally try to avoid (without violating twys)) assume any character's gender. They can be any gender. Anyone can have any gender (with the exception of culturally/religiously exclusive ones). How would this make the existing tags more vague? I never said anything about implications, but since you ask, yes trans_man_(lore) and trans_woman_(lore) should imply man_(lore) and woman_(l9re)

I suggested the tags as an alternative to the proposed male_(gender) etc tags, as those aren't possible with the system because it requires lore tags to have the _(lore) suffix and are less clunky than male_gender_(lore)

lust_demon_laz said:
What about renaming the lore tags man_(lore) woman_(lore) trans_man_(lore) trans_woman_(lore)

man_(lore) and woman_(lore) could be useful if it means detangling the mess that male_(lore) and female_(lore) is. Maybe not those words specifically, but something to separate "intended anatomy" from "identifies as".

male_(lore) and female_(lore) (and gynomorph_(lore), herm_(lore), etc) were originally intended function as a backup for when various body parts being unseen "changed" a character's sex tag. For instance, a herm being tagged gynomorph because their breasts and penis/crotch were visible but you couldn't see their vulva, you can tag herm_(lore) if they're intended to have the "full package", so to speak. Or a character looking ambiguous and being tagged ambiguous_gender, can be tagged male_(lore) if the artist intends them to have a penis, no vulva, and no breasts.

But at some point, the definitions were extended to also include when the character identified as the given gender, irrespective of their anatomy. So a character that identifies as a man could also be tagged male_(lore) even if they're meant to have a vulva and breasts without a penis, making it more ambiguous what it's meant to indicate. A single character could be tagged ambiguous_gender, male_(lore), and female_(lore) all at the same time, but does that mean the artist meant them to appear male and identify as a woman, or appear female and identify as a man? Along with the fact that lore tags shouldn't be tagged when the matching general tag is (e.g. a character tagged male should not also be tagged male_(lore)), which confuses things even more. So a character could be tagged female because you only see their breasts from the chest up, gynomorph_(lore) because they're also intended to have a penis without a vulva... and identify as a woman despite having a gynomorph body, but you can't tag female_(lore) as their identity since they're already tagged female for their appearance.

Separating "intended anatomy" from "identifies as" would really help clear up what's meant when these tags are used. Though I don't know what you'd call "identifies as a gynomorph/herm/maleherm/andromorph" to separate it from "intended anatomy of a gynomorph/herm/maleherm/andromorph".

cinder said:
To quote the FATAL RPG rulebook:

² Though sex usually refers to biological differences and gender usually refers to environmental differences, gender is chosen for this chapter because sex may be confused with sexual acts.

I don't think that's such a risk when it comes to tags like male_(sex).

watsit said:
Lore tags must have a _(lore) suffix, and non-lore tags can't have a _(lore) suffix. It's enforced by the system.

How hardcoded is that (and why)? Still possible is something like gender:male_(lore), as much as that seems.

lust_demon_laz said:
What about renaming the lore tags man_(lore) woman_(lore) trans_man_(lore) trans_woman_(lore)

This is probably better though.

furrin_gok said:

How hardcoded is that (and why)? Still possible is something like gender:male_(lore), as much as that seems.

Very hardcoded and it won't change, it's like that so lore tags always have to be distinct

furrin_gok said:
How hardcoded is that (and why)? Still possible is something like gender:male_(lore), as much as that seems.

Anything can change, it's not that difficult.
Adding new tag categories is logistically more difficult.

But any kind of change like this would require a consensus.