weirdoslam said:
nice of u to reduce everything me and fat said as “stuff” and “things”.

I only do that to condense my message, plus my post wasn't directed to any one of your posts, just you and fatdoggeh in general.

Yeeeesh, so frequently see the LGBT crowd so hostile online... more so in the furry fandom. Not surprised in this drama in the least. Regardless, as long as there's aliases that still exist I honestly don't care what you are.

weirdoslam said:
at least be honest with ur intentions and just say “@all_trans_folx pls stfu”

post #1699680
Hey, I didn't tell you to stop, just trying to catch some attention. I'd call the same thing a shitstorm if the subject matter was anything else.

Pretty cool of you to project beliefs onto me though, when do I get sent to the gulag?

Daedius said:
Yeeeesh, so frequently see the LGBT crowd so hostile online...

They're so easy to identify based on their acting like they own the place with their overly-entitled "holier than thou" attitude, throwing the word bigot around as if they're not projecting the worst of themselves onto others.

SnowWolf said:

These were actually the very first suggestions mentioned in the thread I mentioned. It was dismissed because sex isn't gender and gender isn't sex. we can't visually determine if a character is trans based just off of their body. I know many men with breasts and a vulva, and many women with a penis. The body does not indicate the state of mind. we are tagging the BODY, not the mind. That's why we have the visibly trans tag, y'know?

(Not responding to the rest cuz. Well there's nothing to say. You say there was a discussion about it that included trans people, and I can accept that)

I am aware that gender and sex are different. That is the fundamental problem with the tagging system as a whole. By structuring the site around doing everything in your power to tag only by what you can see, you're incentivized to disregard edge cases like the disparity between sex and gender that throw a wrench in the system. But disregarding transgender and intersex people does not change the fact that the site contributes to the fetishization of those groups. In fact, it worsens it. By structuring your site in such a way that you are *unable* to acknowledge the existence of transgender people, you are signalling that we mean more to the site as a fetish than as people. That you are willing to further the erasing of marginalized groups, and contribute to the damage caused by presenting us first and foremost as a fetish. It is a broken policy down to its foundation.

And I know that it would be a monumental amount of work to restructure the site in such a way to decentralize the "tag what you see" policy. I do not care. Being treated as a human being matters more to me than the ease of operation of this website. Being given the bare minimum of respect to *acknowledge* me when you fetishize my body matters more to me than the continued existence of a porn repository. I am unwilling to take into account the difficulty of being socially conscious, because I do not care.

weirdoslam said:
sorry to tell u but ur organizing metadata system is transphobic and this is not a minor problem considering how many trans folks are in the furry community now and this would be something worth “nuking the whole site” over even tho these posts would still be here and would just need new metadata. god y’all fucks are so over dramatic

All 2 million posts would "just" need the new metadata. Considering that approving ~300 posts which is mostly hitting approve button can take hours, that project would take around a year if not more.

Also discussion of how this new metadata is put into posts consistantly and in enforceable manner, including characters without official bio and artwork made by unknown artists. Alternatively giving trans characters specific exclusion from the rule, which would exclude them and raise them above everyone else, which would be prime example "caving in" mentioned at the start of the thread.

The whole purpose of this change is to at least ease the system so it's not slurry and pornographic, that's it. Alternate solution would be to keep exsisting terms for eternity. It is still simply 0 or 1 on database, not alteration of reality.

weirdoslam said:
lol cis bigot triggered more at 11

You're seriously not doing anyone, least of all the people you claim to represent, any good with these antics. Stop adding more fuel to the fire. These tag changes aren't the end-all and be-all, they're just changes. And in my opinion still a good thing.

fatdoggeh said:
(Not responding to the rest cuz. Well there's nothing to say. You say there was a discussion about it that included trans people, and I can accept that)

I am aware that gender and sex are different. That is the fundamental problem with the tagging system as a whole. By structuring the site around doing everything in your power to tag only by what you can see, you're incentivized to disregard edge cases like the disparity between sex and gender that throw a wrench in the system. But disregarding transgender and intersex people does not change the fact that the site contributes to the fetishization of those groups. In fact, it worsens it. By structuring your site in such a way that you are *unable* to acknowledge the existence of transgender people, you are signalling that we mean more to the site as a fetish than as people. That you are willing to further the erasing of marginalized groups, and contribute to the damage caused by presenting us first and foremost as a fetish. It is a broken policy down to its foundation.

And I know that it would be a monumental amount of work to restructure the site in such a way to decentralize the "tag what you see" policy. I do not care. Being treated as a human being matters more to me than the ease of operation of this website. Being given the bare minimum of respect to *acknowledge* me when you fetishize my body matters more to me than the continued existence of a porn repository. I am unwilling to take into account the difficulty of being socially conscious, because I do not care.

The policy is not directed towards you or any other real-life transpeople and it is not meant to fetishize real-life people. It is not to change who you are or etc. The policy applies to the functionality of searching works of fiction, more specifically drawn furry artwork. Nothing more, nothing less. And so far, it is the best system in terms of searching what users are looking for.

Again, what they said:

TheHuskyK9 said:

• None of this is personal or political.

fatdoggeh said:
That is the fundamental problem with the tagging system as a whole. By structuring the site around doing everything in your power to tag only by what you can see, you're incentivized to disregard edge cases like the disparity between sex and gender that throw a wrench in the system.

Considering this is an image board, and images are a visual medium, the tagging system serves to categorize visual elements of the images. This helps people find the kind of images they're looking for. That's what it's designed to do, and it does a great job.

There apparently has been talk of extending the tagging system to include lore (non-visual) information, which could include things like transgender or age disparity (characters that look young but are actually old, or vice versa). Perhaps you could help out in those discussions.

weirdoslam said:
lol cis bigot triggered more at 11

Speaking of yourself with regards to being triggered there, Champ? 😴

Re: "It's not political"

When dealing with matters of oppression (which the fetishization of marginalized groups is an aspect of) refusing to take a side is functionally identical to siding with the oppressors. Nothing is apolitical. Choosing to ignore an issue is in itself a political stance.

I think this is a good change. I also think that most of the outrage, such as it is, will disappear in a couple of weeks once people realize how minor it is. People are, at least in my experience, resistant to change, but get over it quickly.

In the meantime, let's be nice to each other. Recognize that even if you strongly disagree with the change, even if you think they are totally wrong, the people involved are pretty much unarguably trying their best to do right by both the community and the site. A certain level of respect is called for here, and if you're unwilling or unable to meet that level of respect, you'll only do more harm than good.

Edit: That bit about respect applies no matter what side you're on, by the way.

This is a very welcome improvement, thank you.

fatdoggeh said:
Re: "It's not political"

When dealing with matters of oppression (which the fetishization of marginalized groups is an aspect of) refusing to take a side is functionally identical to siding with the oppressors. Nothing is apolitical. Choosing to ignore an issue is in itself a political stance.

No one is fetishizing anyone. The whole "fetishizing" is taken way out of proportion.
With that mentality, you only lose:
A) Don't include and you are considered racist/bigotted/*phobic/etc.
B) Include and you are fetishizing.

Just because I have a character with x traits, does not mean I am fetishizing anyone. If that were the case, is male art fetishizing males? What about female art? What if the artist is whatever is supposedly being "fetishized"?
Fetishizing would be something like pornhub titles like "hot dark chocolate babe gets cream filling".

Less shit that has to be tagged out. Makes uploading easier, thanks.

fatdoggeh said:
(Not responding to the rest cuz. Well there's nothing to say. You say there was a discussion about it that included trans people, and I can accept that)

I am aware that gender and sex are different. That is the fundamental problem with the tagging system as a whole. By structuring the site around doing everything in your power to tag only by what you can see, you're incentivized to disregard edge cases like the disparity between sex and gender that throw a wrench in the system. But disregarding transgender and intersex people does not change the fact that the site contributes to the fetishization of those groups. In fact, it worsens it. By structuring your site in such a way that you are *unable* to acknowledge the existence of transgender people, you are signalling that we mean more to the site as a fetish than as people. That you are willing to further the erasing of marginalized groups, and contribute to the damage caused by presenting us first and foremost as a fetish. It is a broken policy down to its foundation.

And I know that it would be a monumental amount of work to restructure the site in such a way to decentralize the "tag what you see" policy. I do not care. Being treated as a human being matters more to me than the ease of operation of this website. Being given the bare minimum of respect to *acknowledge* me when you fetishize my body matters more to me than the continued existence of a porn repository. I am unwilling to take into account the difficulty of being socially conscious, because I do not care.

It's true, intersex is mainly used as a fetish on this site. But so are males, aka penis, no boobs, no vagina, and identifies as male. The tag male has nothing to do with gender. I'm not trans so if I were uploaded on e6, there would be a tag with the name of my gender. But that's a coincident! Because gender has as little to do with e6 tags as my thoughts, or feelings or offscreen pikachu plush. trans people are not being disrespected, atleast not more than anyone else. A trans person has a penis, no boobs and no vagina->they get the tag male. I have a penis, no boobs and no vagina-> I get the tag male. their gender is male? Irellevant. My gender is male? equally irrelevant.

Genders do not exist on e621, so I believe it is fair to say they are not being disrespected.

Edit: wow, ninja'd af.

fatdoggeh said:
(Not responding to the rest cuz. Well there's nothing to say. You say there was a discussion about it that included trans people, and I can accept that)

Thank you for that. I really appreciate that <3

I am aware that gender and sex are different. That is the fundamental problem with the tagging system as a whole.

It is.

100% truth, it is. It's a problem. but there are nearly 2 million posts. we are an old website. over a decade old! I'm pretty dang old, and the last decade has brought some AMAZING social progress for LGBT+... I remember when gay marriage in america seemed like a distant dream. it's pretty awesome. But... this website is old and was built with older ideas.

The old adage about old dogs not learning new tricks is wrong... but there is..... a tremendous amount of work involved to change some thigns on the website. Every couple months someone comes along and says that X is a problem, but the problem's easy to fix, just do Y. the problem is, sometimes Y is something that basically goes against every rule on the website. Sometimes their solution wouldn't actually sold the problem that they're seeing. Sometimes their solution would create a whole other problem. Sometimes, it's a good idea.... but it's a CRAZY amount of work.

Like... y'know, maybe it would be a good idea to tag female_bear and male_bear and transmale_bear etc.... but that means we'd need to retag every single picture on the website. There are 2 million posts here. I"m not going to do the math right now, but 2 million is a LOT. We have trouble getting penises tagged on every post with a dick, nevermind retagging every single individual picture on the website.

So even if tagging "female_rottweiler" is a great idea... it is... literally impossible to do that. if I could tag every image in 1 second, perfectly and accurately, and gave up all distractions like eating and sleeping, it would take me over 23 days. but I need to sleep, and while a lot of pictures are quick to tag (I mean, most of the pictures in male solo tiger are probably male_tigers ... but not all of them) there are going to be HEAPS of pictures where you have to stop and try and figure out... which one is the collie? what gender is that goat? The tags say there's a bird here somewhere, but where are they?

It would... literally take, like, a year.

The system is bad. but there's not much we can do about it because the system is BUILT. and gosh, I wish we could change it, but, like... that is a crazy amount of time and effort.

Well, we could just, like... tag things from here on forward... but then, that's compromising the system. why have female_squid, if female+squid works better? and if everyone is used to using female+squid because it works better, then female_squid might never get tagged.

It's messy and it's hard.

And I know that it would be a monumental amount of work to restructure the site in such a way to decentralize the "tag what you see" policy. I do not care. Being treated as a human being matters more to me than the ease of operation of this website. Being given the bare minimum of respect to *acknowledge* me when you fetishize my body matters more to me than the continued existence of a porn repository. I am unwilling to take into account the difficulty of being socially conscious, because I do not care.

Yet, others have told me that they do not WANT to be grouped in with the 'fetish characters'. There's no hive mind. it'd make things easier if there was :c

We acknowledge you. we care about you!

but, like... this change is so large that it's not just a case of "we're lazy" ... it's a case of literally not having the man power to do broad sweeping changes to the entirety of the website.

we can and are willing to do smaller scale changes... see also, we're here today trying to move away from some very crude slang. We may chose to make additional changes in the future. I know there are several ideas that have been discussed, but we are moving carefully.

but ultimatly, no one is forced to be here. If it is upsetting to you, to the point that you cna't tolerate it, then please go. I don't say it to be cruel, just... no one should feel the need to expose themselves to something that makes them uncomfortable.

weirdoslam said:

Absolutely no one will take you seriously in the slightest if your entire contribution to a civil discussion - a discussion intended to actually help the reputation and depiction of a niche minority - is to be an offended shrieking child at every little thing.

If you cannot contribute something valid, stop talking -- and no, not because you're trans. Because you, as a person, are obnoxious.

(to preface: Me trans and intersex)

I'm jumping in specificially to talk about the "hermaphrodite" tag, and to clear some misconceptions about it. Because I have seen some talk about it here.

1. There's nothing wrong in it if it is not used related to intersex people. The word "herm" really cannot be used related to the real people, because that condition does not happen IRL with humans. This is the important part.

In real life it's used in relation to the other parts of animal kingdom. Many taxonomic groups of animals (mostly invertebrates) do not have separate sexes. For example, the great majority of tunicates, pulmonate snails, opisthobranch snails, earthworms and slugs are hermaphrodites

2. The thing is, scientifically it means the person has both set of organs, that are functional – and yes, that doesn't happen with real people. This is the thing that you should be mindful of.

But it DOES happen in the art. It's the point of fantasy. For example, chakats are an entire species/race that's hermaphroditic. And their fictional procreation matches the scientific term.

That's it. You should have be mindful of these distinctions.

That's all. The change in itself... I don't know what to say. I'm not sure about it.

NotMeNotYou said:
There's still many characters on here that represent people, so I can definitely see why they would prefer less vulgar terms.

The problem with that logic is, next we'll allow overthrowing TWYS, or the lesser evil of legacy tags

@FurryMcFuzzball We're not getting rid of TWYS.

SnowWolf said:
A lot of things which I am snipping so this post isn't forever big

I do definitely get what you're saying. I stand by my position that I'm not willing to let it affect my stance on the issue, but I am aware of how Herculean the task would be. Frankly, to do it perfectly at this point would probably require a new website.

I think the last point I'd like to make is just... honestly, sometimes things are worth doing poorly if you can't do them well. You can't go back and retroactively retag every image, but you could maybe still change the guidelines for tagging *future* images. introduce new tags, new policies. Keep the old tags searchable so people can find old images, and tell the community that if there's particular images they don't want lost to time, they should move to retag it. Essentially letting go of the past to improve the future, without abandoning that past altogether.

But I've no doubt that suggestion has flaws. It was just off the top of my head. My point is that, while the grand sweeping changes that, in my view, would be ideal may be impossible, it's still worthwhile to take what steps you can. The past should not constrain the future just because it cannot be altered.

As an endnote before I go to bed: thank you for hearing me out. I was, honestly, not expecting there to be any meaningful consideration of what I had to say. I was expecting mostly what the majority of this thread seems to have been, disingenuous questions intended purely to justify one's own unflinching views. I'm obviously not expecting my words to start a revolution, but I am genuinely happy to have been heard. I can leave hopeful that I at least sparked some thoughts, which is really all one can ask for in discussions like these. Debates don't change minds. Minds change themselves. Debates can simply provide that spark to encourage reflection. So yeah, thank you. It was refreshing.

I don't like it.

It still disallows trans characters to be tagged as trans unless they're "visibly trans".

God forbid one bring up Reggie.

KCDodger said:
I don't like it.

It still disallows trans characters to be tagged as trans unless they're "visibly trans".

God forbid one bring up Reggie.

You're not seriously suggesting that Reggie is trans and not just an incredibly girly male, are you?

KCDodger said:
I don't like it.

It still disallows trans characters to be tagged as trans unless they're "visibly trans".

God forbid one bring up Reggie.

No, we do not tag transgender. Nor do we tag the male gender. It would be like tagging autism. Nothing wrong with autism, we just choose not to include that kind of facts in tags.

FurryMcFuzzball said:
It finally happened, we caved to the changed a tag that wasn't inherently offensive because too many people complained.

More seriously, I think the change as described is a step in the right direction, and I think admin deserves some credit for trying to improve the site. Most of all, I deeply appreciate them including transgender people in the discussion. Thank you.

Imagine going to a glorified porn site and getting pissed off at "muh vulgar terms". It almost makes about as much sense as removing the "cum" tag and absorbing it into "bodily fluids". Anyway, this thread went exactly where something like this would go.

fatdoggeh said:
I mean gender isn't a visually discernable thing at all. If you just care about being as accurate as possible why not just completely change the tags so you just tag what genitals you see. "Dick" and "boobs" are visually discernable.

And since I know the response to this will be "the tags are about sex, not gender" 1: dickgirl isn't a sex. If the issue is purely that you want a tag for characters who don't appear to be either binary sex, just use intersex. It's what the word means. and 2: Sex is also not visually discernable! Unless the art includes a zoom in on the character's chromosomes you can't know what their sex at birth was. There is a wide range of ways being intersex can affect your body, and there's trans people who are indistinguishable from cis people.

That's the thing though, we don't tag real people, we tag fantasy people. Specifically mostly fantasy people that aren't even human, or have never been human. It's entirely possible, and mostly happens, for these fantasy people to go against what's possible in real life. Be it true hermaphrodites, people actually born with impossible chromosome expressions (intersex people usually don't look like female bombshells with massive dicks that go up to their knees), or just people using magic to change bodyparts entirely and still have them be functional. The only way we can have an objective tagging system is by trying to classify what's actually in the image.

And that's definitely where the problems start no matter what system you chose.

If you allow word of god you have to deal with the fact that "god" is a living being and might retcon information, lose information (page getting deleted or similar), people trying to speak for god and getting it wrong, etc.

If you don't allow word of god and instead follow death of the author you get to deal with the problems that the transition from brain to (digital) paper is never going to be perfect. This starts at the fact that there's usually things happening outside the image (stories of things leading up to the picture and things happening after), that we only get a 2D slice of a scene that is technically 3D, that art doesn't need to follow any guidelines/science, and that you have to try and classify things as a neutral outsider, which can be extremely hard.

We chose to go with the latter, not because we like oppressing people and pushing our agenda on art, but because no other page exists that even attempts to have a coherent tagging system that tags from the point of the viewer. But even we still have to simplify and streamline certain areas in order to actually have something functional.

However, while tag what you see is not going to go anywhere as long as I am in power, I still want lore tags as soon as the database supports them in a clean and concise manner. We don't have an ETA, we don't know how the implementation will look, but as long as I am the head of this project I will continue to push for it. And once lore tags are actually a thing tags for not visible things, like transgender, can be tagged and searched for.
In the mean time there is a workaround: All descriptions are indexed and can be searched for. If you write in the description field of your character(s) that they're, for example, transmale then every user can search description:transmale and find all submissions that have the word "transmale" in the description. This is one of the reasons why we try to encourage using the description field for these things.

Also, thank you for staying civil. We're all aware this is literally just a new coat of paint instead of a full rework, but we really can't change everything at once even if we wanted to. This change alone will take at least 2 hours of actual work to do, with over 130 aliases and implications needing to be manually changed, then all the wiki pages need to be transferred and updated to including the new terminology.

It would never have occurred to me that "dickgirl" and "cuntboy" could be offensive to real people. Personally, I think everyone should stop taking this all so seriously.

But in the end I think this change is just fine, since some people do seem to care. As long as there are aliases, since some of the newer tags can be quite hard to memorize or type.

And I have to applaud the admins for attempting to make the site better for everyone.

Neki said:
It would never have occurred to me that "dickgirl" and "cuntboy" could be offensive to real people. Personally, I think everyone should stop taking this all so seriously.

These days, people will be offended by the least offensive things, just for the sake of being offended. It's a funny world we're living inn right now, but what you're gonna do about it.

randomguy85 said:
These days, people will be offended by the least offensive things, just for the sake of being offended. It's a funny world we're living inn right now, but what you're gonna do about it.

Interesting how me and pretty much every single trans person who I know (and I know many since I intentionally move a lot in trans circles) consider these terms insulting and dehumanizing, and yet apparently we are just being offended for the sake of being offended. Not to mention that I have personally had people call me as cuntboy multiple times with the intention of insulting me. Like maybe actually talk with trans people once in a while, and maybe do not assume that your own personal perception of the situation is the ultimate truth.

I like this change. I think it cleans some vulgarity out of the tags and the fact the aliases will continue to function will keep tagging easy as it already was.

I see a lot of arguing about the change not going far enough though.

So I'll just say: the tags are for searching images and they represent visual elements within those images.

That's all there is to it, really, it's not an attack on anyone, their identity, or their character. The tags are just what an image looks like and they're there so people can search for or blacklist images effectively.

Preface: I'm a transgirl. I have plenty of transgirl friends. None of them. NONE of them are offended by dgirl and cboy.

So you changed dickgirl, which is to imply: Girl with dick.
And cuntboy, which is to imply: Boy with twat.

To:
Gynomorph, which means: Boy with femme features.
Andromorph, which means: Girl with masc features.

Great, you completely misunderstand the words and their connotations.
Trans women on this site are listed largely as "dickgirl" which now by your terms you're just outing them as men. Come the fuck on.

Hmm... Interesting change. My main concern with it is that there is potential for trans characters (especially those with visibly_trans) to get tagged in ways that are still potentially offensive. What prevents a FtM character from getting andromorph- a tag for females with male characteristics? I understand that one of the root causes of this problem is the fact that someone’s gender identity cannot be visibly discerned, but tagging these male-identifying characters with terms that explicitly refer to them as female seems insensitive. While this change improves the issue of vulgarity (something I don’t think anyone was actually upset about), I think this it will only further alienate trans users.

Concerns aside, I want to thank @SnowWolf for their well-composed and thoughtful responses to this heated topic.

Meh, as long as I can use the old tags and the snowflakes stop complaining I guess.

Although, looking at this thread, people are still offended. Give an inch, want a mile, and all that.

So whatevs, guess it can only help the site by curbing people's complaining

KCDodger said:
I don't like it.

It still disallows trans characters to be tagged as trans unless they're "visibly trans".

God forbid one bring up Reggie.

Yeah let's not, white knighting fans is what made him leave the site

CamKitty said:
Meh, as long as I can use the old tags and the snowflakes stop complaining I guess.

Although, looking at this thread, people are still offended. Give an inch, want a mile, and all that.

So whatevs, guess it can only help the site by curbing people's complaining

So insightful. Are you so adamant in defending the status quo in all issues or just those that don’t affect you?

AShadyZebra said:
So insightful. Are you so adamant in defending the status quo in all issues or just those that don’t affect you?

Got anything better to say then insults?

CamKitty said:
Meh, as long as I can use the old tags and the snowflakes stop complaining I guess.

Although, looking at this thread, people are still offended. Give an inch, want a mile, and all that.

So whatevs, guess it can only help the site by curbing people's complaining

Yeah let's not, white knighting fans is what made him leave the site

I've been down this road enough times to say this: never give in because the type of people who make these complaints are never satisfied.

This isn't about "offense" about a "vulgar term". This is about getting power. Seriously, the site has been around for years and only now people are complaining about the tags? Yeah, seems fucking legit.

Untamed said:
You're not seriously suggesting that Reggie is trans and not just an incredibly girly male, are you?

No, jesus christ.

I was bringing him up as an example of how terribly flawed and inconsistent the tagging system is. It's crazy that a character can be tagged several different things in the same set of images. NOT what I said.

But let's put that aside.

Lyxolf said:
Preface: I'm a transgirl. I have plenty of transgirl friends. None of them. NONE of them are offended by dgirl and cboy.

So you changed dickgirl, which is to imply: Girl with dick.
And cuntboy, which is to imply: Boy with twat.

To:
Gynomorph, which means: Boy with femme features.
Andromorph, which means: Girl with masc features.

Great, you completely misunderstand the words and their connotations.
Trans women on this site are listed largely as "dickgirl" which now by your terms you're just outing them as men. Come the fuck on.

Basically! There's a few reasons I withdrew my character here. The lack of sensitivity towards transfolk is a big one.

CamKitty said:
snowflakes

Oh don't even.

hiekkapillu said:
Interesting how me and pretty much every single trans person who I know (and I know many since I intentionally move a lot in trans circles) consider these terms insulting and dehumanizing, and yet apparently we are just being offended for the sake of being offended. Not to mention that I have personally had people call me as cuntboy multiple times with the intention of insulting me. Like maybe actually talk with trans people once in a while, and maybe do not assume that your own personal perception of the situation is the ultimate truth.

Preach.

hiekkapillu said:
Interesting how me and pretty much every single trans person who I know (and I know many since I intentionally move a lot in trans circles) consider these terms insulting and dehumanizing, and yet apparently we are just being offended for the sake of being offended. Not to mention that I have personally had people call me as cuntboy multiple times with the intention of insulting me. Like maybe actually talk with trans people once in a while, and maybe do not assume that your own personal perception of the situation is the ultimate truth.

Right, now explain to me why <1% of the population should be able to tell everyone else what terms they should and should not be able to use?

TheTundraTerror said:
I've been down this road enough times to say this: never give in because the type of people who make these complaints are never satisfied.

This isn't about "offense" about a "vulgar term". This is about getting power. Seriously, the site has been around for years and only now people are complaining about the tags? Yeah, seems fucking legit.

This is like saying gay advocacy for marital rights only became more vocal because gay people just want power. The truth is that, until recently, they couldn’t demand rights without being skewered (figuratively or literally). The only “power” trans people want is the ability to be treated with dignity. Issues surrounding how they’re treated have become more prevalent because they only recently gained enough acceptance that they can defend themselves on a public platform.

Lyxolf said:
Preface: I'm a transgirl. I have plenty of transgirl friends. None of them. NONE of them are offended by dgirl and cboy.

So you changed dickgirl, which is to imply: Girl with dick.
And cuntboy, which is to imply: Boy with twat.

To:
Gynomorph, which means: Boy with femme features.
Andromorph, which means: Girl with masc features.

Great, you completely misunderstand the words and their connotations.
Trans women on this site are listed largely as "dickgirl" which now by your terms you're just outing them as men. Come the fuck on.

Gynomorph and Andromorph are being used correctly, the root of the word is more interested in the ability of the subject to father or bear children. Which is why a gynomorph has male genitalia but a heavily feminine body, and an andromorph is opposite with female genitalia and a heavily masculine body.

This ties back into the fact that we don't tag thegender, but only the visible configuration of the body.

@CamKitty: @TheTundraTerror: Don't try to start fights, please.

Honestly, TWYS is extremely biased in its enforcement, and this is largely a lateral step. This is why trans and trans friendly people are upset.

You claim that because you can't see a character's 'gender' that you can't tag them as their gender identity or expression as trans.

But you can't really 'see' a cisgender character's 'gender' any more than you can trans! It's no less a 'lore' tag. But you have no problem tagging cisgender people based on that 'lore'.

And you have no problem mis-tagging trans people despite allowing lore for cisgender people. It's this double standard that is making a lot of people upset.

If you really wanted to do TWYS, if you really wanted to reduce all this down to just what you want to see you would do only literally genital tags, and you would use intersex to ONLY mean people who were legitimately intersex (having multiple genitalia), not people who had breasts (or too small of them) or a beard or eyelashes or whatever.

The problem is that you're fine having lore for some characters.. and ignoring it with others. And a large part of this is that, if you're cisgender, your own gender identity and expression is so 'presumed' by society that you just kind of.. forget noticing it. You presume that 'lore' is some obvious inherent normal.

It's similar to how straight people, and etc.; you just kind of forget that a lot of things are catering silently to them, to where you're just presumed 'normal' and everything else is, by definition 'abnormal'.

But literally ALL gender tags are lore tags.

And the idea that all lore tags are bad is kind of ridiculous as well! A lot of essential tags, like the name and often species of the character are pretty much only definable by lore!

The problem with strict TWYS is that a lot of you guys are seeing whatever the hell you want to see in a lot of pictures.

You suggest using secondary and tertiary secondary sexual characteristics but these are so ill defined in both art and reality that pretty much no two people have the same idea of what to tag a lot of the time.

People will sit here and tag characters as female that are in masculine outfits because they have eyelashes. Funny enough sometimes if they're outside of that outfit they're male, but inside of it they're female, even if they have a bulge too, because of eyelashes or face paint.

post #1569340
post #1246241

Even if all you wanted was tags that were useful for fetish masturbation, they're not even great for that!

The cis-female and cis-male tags, for instance could easily be paired with blacklists tags. You want to see penises unless they're on trans women? Sure thing, if you have that tag to do that. Combine them in one blacklist listing so they block when both are in the same image.

You can't really do that now.

While I'm wholly in favor of such a change, I was kinda hoping the masculine_intersex/feminine_intersex pair would be the final decision considering it would set a framework for other similar tag groups, whereas andromorph and gynomorph are single words.

I believe masculine_intersex/feminine_intersex were also the prefered choice last time that discussion came up (see forum #211398, for instance), so what were the reasons for this to be the administration's final decision?

DamienG said:
Honestly, TWYS is extremely biased in its enforcement, and this is largely a lateral step. This is why trans and trans friendly people are upset.

You claim that because you can't see a character's 'gender' that you can't tag them as their gender identity or expression as trans.

But you can't really 'see' a cisgender character's 'gender' any more than you can trans! It's no less a 'lore' tag. But you have no problem tagging cisgender people based on that 'lore'.

And you have no problem mis-tagging trans people despite allowing lore for cisgender people. It's this double standard that is making a lot of people upset.

If you really wanted to do TWYS, if you really wanted to reduce all this down to just what you want to see you would do only literally genital tags, and you would use intersex to ONLY mean people who were legitimately intersex (having multiple genitalia), not people who had breasts (or too small of them) or a beard or eyelashes or whatever.

The problem is that you're fine having lore for some characters.. and ignoring it with others. And a large part of this is that, if you're cisgender, your own gender identity and expression is so 'presumed' by society that you just kind of.. forget noticing it. You presume that 'lore' is some obvious inherent normal.

It's similar to how straight people, and etc.; you just kind of forget that a lot of things are catering silently to them, to where you're just presumed 'normal' and everything else is, by definition 'abnormal'.

But literally ALL gender tags are lore tags.

And the idea that all lore tags are bad is kind of ridiculous as well! A lot of essential tags, like the name and often species of the character are pretty much only definable by lore!

The problem with strict TWYS is that a lot of you guys are seeing whatever the hell you want to see in a lot of pictures.

You suggest using secondary and tertiary secondary sexual characteristics but these are so ill defined in both art and reality that pretty much no two people have the same idea of what to tag a lot of the time.

People will sit here and tag characters as female that are in masculine outfits because they have eyelashes. Funny enough sometimes if they're outside of that outfit they're male, but inside of it they're female, even if they have a bulge too, because of eyelashes or face paint.

post #1569340
post #1246241

Even if all you wanted was tags that were useful for fetish masturbation, they're not even great for that!

The cis-female and cis-male tags, for instance could easily be paired with blacklists tags. You want to see penises unless they're on trans women? Sure thing, if you have that tag to do that. Combine them in one blacklist listing so they block when both are in the same image.

You can't really do that now.

I'm just bringing it up if you didn't know, but it's 100% acceptable and encouraged to put the gender of the character of an image in the post description and wiki of the character. TWYS isn't cataloguing characters into lore groups but visual ques, it's a site admitted imperfect system, which purpose is to group characters into either masculine / ambiguous / feminine. Which in said grouping it does well. And works in most cases.

Ambiguous being when it's legitimately impossible to say a character looks more masculine or feminine, and it only works for characters without visual genitalia.

Than of course there is the mixed cues tags which are currently the ones talking about being implemented.

This would be a whole lot less absurd if literally anyone, anywhere, *ever* will search for gynomorph or andromorph. But they won't -- these are bogus made up newspeak tags that exist only to try and appease -- nobody will ever actually use them.

And I would be remiss if I don't point out the irony of NMNY's profile picture next to a paragraph about why "dickgirl" is too vulger on a furry porn site. I've been around e621 for more than 10 years and have seen a lot of political correctness and snowflake syndrome come and go and it pretty much all boils down to taking this stuff *way* too damn seriously.

But go ahead and change the tags. Then in six months when the goalposts have moved again to "now delete the dickgirl alias, for its existence doth offendeth me" the shitstorm can kick off again.

DrNick said:
This would be a whole lot less absurd if literally anyone, anywhere, *ever* will search for gynomorph or andromorph. But they won't -- these are bogus made up newspeak tags that exist only to try and appease -- nobody will ever actually use them.

And I would be remiss if I don't point out the irony of NMNY's profile picture next to a paragraph about why "dickgirl" is too vulger on a furry porn site. I've been around e621 for more than 10 years and have seen a lot of political correctness and snowflake syndrome come and go and it pretty much all boils down to taking this stuff *way* too damn seriously.

But go ahead and change the tags. Then in six months when the goalposts have moved again to "now delete the dickgirl alias, for its existence doth offendeth me" the shitstorm can kick off again.

In contradiction to what you said, the only time I've ever seen an alias be removed from a tag is when the main tag has been updated and the tags shift to a new, or when the tag is disambiguated. Never have I seen something be removed for the sake of it. It would cause disarray in tagging, searching, and blacklisting.

Versperus said:
In contradiction to what you said, the only time I've ever seen an alias be removed from a tag is when the main tag has been updated and the tags shift to a new, or when the tag is disambiguated. Never have I seen something be removed for the sake of it. It would cause disarray in tagging, searching, and blacklisting.

Using counterexamples is pointless; when someone cries about snowflakes, that almost always indicates they are arguing in bad faith.

AShadyZebra said:
Using counterexamples is pointless; when someone cries about snowflakes, that almost always indicates they are arguing in bad faith.

I'm not going to argue peoples personal feelings because it's a loosing fight. I'll simply do what I can in explaining method to the madness. The only way I can see cuntboy and dickgirl being unaliased from the replacement tags is in the event said replacement tags are changed out for a different tag. and in that event all tags which would be at the time aliased to gynandromorph or andromorph would be shifted to the new alias, including gynomorph and andromorph.

As the staff said, it's not about trans or not trans its about trying to tone down the vulgarity in an effort to make the site more inclusive.

And as we're all well aware its impossible to please everyone, there are people that are happy with the change and there are those that are not. It's why suggestions for alias and implication are always open option in the forum for people to start debates, and state points on a better course of action.

Do I think that automatically calling people names as a response is an appropriate response? No, but unfortunetly forums that are liable to attract attention, attract all attention. From both sides of the argument there are always those which don't exactly say their bit in the most polite of fashion.

DamienG said:
Honestly, TWYS is extremely biased in its enforcement, and this is largely a lateral step. This is why trans and trans friendly people are upset.

You claim that because you can't see a character's 'gender' that you can't tag them as their gender identity or expression as trans.

But you can't really 'see' a cisgender character's 'gender' any more than you can trans! It's no less a 'lore' tag. But you have no problem tagging cisgender people based on that 'lore'.

[...]

You suggest using secondary and tertiary secondary sexual characteristics but these are so ill defined in both art and reality that pretty much no two people have the same idea of what to tag a lot of the time.

Our gender tags don't tag "gender" but a specific combination of primary, secondary, and tertiary sexual characteristics, based on average human people. The average is more than precise enough for our purposes to tag characters as biologically male, female, or other. Just male, female, and intersex doesn't cut it, therefor we have a further tags for the other common match ups. Like for example a feminine body with male genitals.

DrNick said:
This would be a whole lot less absurd if literally anyone, anywhere, *ever* will search for gynomorph or andromorph. But they won't -- these are bogus made up newspeak tags that exist only to try and appease -- nobody will ever actually use them.

And I would be remiss if I don't point out the irony of NMNY's profile picture next to a paragraph about why "dickgirl" is too vulger on a furry porn site. I've been around e621 for more than 10 years and have seen a lot of political correctness and snowflake syndrome come and go and it pretty much all boils down to taking this stuff *way* too damn seriously.

But go ahead and change the tags. Then in six months when the goalposts have moved again to "now delete the dickgirl alias, for its existence doth offendeth me" the shitstorm can kick off again.

"Gynandromorph" has first been used in printing around 1890 according to Merriam-Webster, we've just split the term up so we have a term for either direction.

Fifteen said:
While I'm wholly in favor of such a change, I was kinda hoping the masculine_intersex/feminine_intersex pair would be the final decision considering it would set a framework for other similar tag groups, whereas andromorph and gynomorph are single words.

I believe masculine_intersex/feminine_intersex were also the prefered choice last time that discussion came up (see forum #211398, for instance), so what were the reasons for this to be the administration's final decision?

Someone just reminded me that one of the reason why composed tags like feminine_intersex would actually suck is that you then have a whole lof of situations where those have ot be composed in turn, such as muscular_dickgirl -> muscular_feminine_intersex and maleherm/cuntboy -> masculine_herm/masculine_intersex, which gets out of control very very quickly.

With that in mind, I'm fully in support of gynomorph and andromorph as replacements for the current intersex tags.

I'm not gonna join in on the ongoing discussion because I lack the knowledge required to do so.

Instead, I'll say that I doubt anyone will actually use these new tags for searching (at least I know I won't because they're a mouthful). In the end, this changes nothing.

...that is all. I just hope I didn't start a shitstorm by saying this... Please forgive me in advance.

NotMeNotYou said:
"Gynandromorph" has first been used in printing around 1890 according to Merriam-Webster, we've just split the term up so we have a term for either direction.

I don't doubt the validity of the word(s), just the practicality of the tags. There are plenty of technically-real-words-that-nobody-uses which don't lend themselves to being useful tags.

Versperus said:
In contradiction to what you said, the only time I've ever seen an alias be removed from a tag is when the main tag has been updated and the tags shift to a new, or when the tag is disambiguated. Never have I seen something be removed for the sake of it. It would cause disarray in tagging, searching, and blacklisting.

I hope you're right.

AShadyZebra said:
Using counterexamples is pointless; when someone cries about snowflakes, that almost always indicates they are arguing in bad faith.

I was careful to *avoid* calling names by saying "snowflake syndrome" in the past tense to refer to a very real behavior. Either way, just because you don't like the word I used doesn't mean my post was insincere.

Man these are such garbage replacements. "Gynomorph" and "andromorph" sound like super-broad terms that cover anyone with feminine or masculine features respectively. Nothing about "gynomorph" says "also has a dick", and nothing about "andromorph" says "also has a vagina". We're getting replacements that are less functional and are absolutely going to confuse people who don't keep up with this dramatic gender tagging bullshit. And no, "just read the wiki" isn't an excuse, how many people do you think are gonna read the wiki for every tag with an obtuse name? How many people who casually use this site even know what the little '?' next to the tag names is for?

The best part is the whiners who got this change to happen are, predictably, still whining it up in this thread. And don't tell me it was about making tags less "vulgar", especially not for tags that are only used on porn, especially not on a site with other tag names like cock_vore, abortion_by_cock, or tentacle_rape.

DamienG said:

post #1569340
post #1246241

Hey, as someone who was heavily involved in the Charr discussion, I just want to point out Yinglets aren't going to be a great example for general gender tagging. The gender tagging TWYS guidelines are set up for bodies with human-based anatomy, with no room for anything that's at a point in-between human-structure-level anthro and full feral. Charr only get their special exception because they're juuuuust human-like enough to be able to use body type as an argument. (and let's face it, most artists anthrofy Charr more than people realise in the first place.)

I love seeing non-human-conforming species, but TWYS has no place for them, and that's probably even less likely to change than trans characters getting their own tags.
The only winning move is to stop caring about the tags.

But you can't really 'see' a cisgender character's 'gender' any more than you can trans!

And this is what the site gets for calling it "gender" instead of "sex."
We're not actually tagging gender, we're tagging sexual configuration. But contemporary linguistics have intertwined the two for too long, oops.

NotMeNotYou said:
"Gynandromorph" has first been used in printing around 1890 according to Merriam-Webster, we've just split the term up so we have a term for either direction.

Yeah, and "gynandromorph" works for that because it combines "gyno-" for female and "andro-" for male. If you split off the prefixes you get terms meaning, effectively "female formed" and "male formed", which besides not meaning what they're going to be used for, are also ridiculous neologisms apparently based on an obscure scientific term.

There's only 2 genders, get over it snowflakes!

AlexHusky112 said:
There's only 2 genders, get over it snowflakes!

There's really no need to reply to the thread if you aren't going to contribute something productive to the discussion at hand.

hanzai said:
Man these are such garbage replacements. "Gynomorph" and "andromorph" sound like super-broad terms that cover anyone with feminine or masculine features respectively. Nothing about "gynomorph" says "also has a dick", and nothing about "andromorph" says "also has a vagina". We're getting replacements that are less functional and are absolutely going to confuse people who don't keep up with this dramatic gender tagging bullshit. And no, "just read the wiki" isn't an excuse, how many people do you think are gonna read the wiki for every tag with an obtuse name? How many people who casually use this site even know what the little '?' next to the tag names is for?

The best part is the whiners who got this change to happen are, predictably, still whining it up in this thread. And don't tell me it was about making tags less "vulgar", especially not for tags that are only used on porn, especially not on a site with other tag names like cock_vore, abortion_by_cock, or tentacle_rape.

Aliases are going to stay the same, so those used to old tags will still get the same results. The tags will function exactly the same, just will redirect to a new name automatically. So, no, things will still work fine, shit just has a new name the system redirects it to. Calm down. It's like how dog redirects to domestic_dog, the old tag names will just redirect to the new names.

Also, a good chunk of the "whiners" who got the change to happen are admins themselves.

It's stuff like this and the species changes that make me wish I never got involved with this site.

I just...I don't even know where to begin here.

This is a good change and I support the Admin's decision to implement it. Thank you.

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
Aliases are going to stay the same, so those used to old tags will still get the same results. The tags will function exactly the same, just will redirect to a new name automatically. So, no, things will still work fine, shit just has a new name the system redirects it to. Calm down. It's like how dog redirects to domestic_dog, the old tag names will just redirect to the new names.

Also, a good chunk of the "whiners" who got the change to happen are admins themselves.

Why bother quoting my whole post if almost nothing you're responding with has anything to do with what I said? You're just giving the cookie-cutter response that's been given a couple dozen times already in this thread. I specifically focused on problems that aliasing doesn't do anything to address, because despite what you seem to be assuming, I do know that aliases exist and what they can and cannot do.

hanzai said:
Why bother quoting my whole post if almost nothing you're responding with has anything to do with what I said? You're just giving the cookie-cutter response that's been given a couple dozen times already in this thread. I specifically focused on problems that aliasing doesn't do anything to address, because despite what you seem to be assuming, I do know that aliases exist and what they can and cannot do.

My response is such because the tags will function as before and work the same, so how would that confuse anything? If the old tags alias to the new tags, then 2 and 2 will be put together and "oh, these new tags mean what this was now" will be understood.

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
My response is such because the tags will function as before and work the same, so how would that confuse anything? If the old tags alias to the new tags, then 2 and 2 will be put together and "oh, these new tags mean what this was now" will be understood.

Aliases very notably don't do anything for helping anyone make sense of the tag list, which besides the ability to search for content, is one of the big draws of sites that tag/categorize content like this: if you find something you like or are interested in, you can look over at the list of tags and click on the ones for the relevant parts of the content you like.

The dog -> domestic_dog alias you brought up is a great example of where that isn't a problem, and conversely why this tag is a problem. Someone scanning the tag list won't have any trouble understanding what domestic_dog means and what it's for, and they wouldn't either have trouble understanding tags like cuntboy or dickgirl, which for any "vulgarity" they may have are well-established, descriptive terms. The same absolutely cannot be said for "andromorph" and "gynomorph", which are terms with no major presence on other sites, whose meaning isn't obvious to the average user, and which would probably even mislead the minority who would be familiar with the sciencey synthetic Greek terminology, because going purely off the roots they're constructed from they wouldn't mean what they're planned to be used for.

Unless the admins are going to take an official stance that the tag list, which takes up a good chunk of UI space on every image's page in a very prominent position, is meant only for experienced users who tag a lot of images and read all the wiki pages, it's something aliasing just doesn't do anything to fix. In previous cases this mostly hasn't been a problem because it's been used to replace one straightforward term with another fairly straightforward term, but now it's being used to replace one straightforward term with an obtuse term nobody else uses.

hanzai said:
Aliases very notably don't do anything for helping anyone make sense of the tag list, which besides the ability to search for content, is one of the big draws of sites that tag/categorize content like this: if you find something you like or are interested in, you can look over at the list of tags and click on the ones for the relevant parts of the content you like.

The dog -> domestic_dog alias you brought up is a great example of where that isn't a problem, and conversely why this tag is a problem. Someone scanning the tag list won't have any trouble understanding what domestic_dog means and what it's for, and they wouldn't either have trouble understanding tags like cuntboy or dickgirl, which for any "vulgarity" they may have are well-established, descriptive terms. The same absolutely cannot be said for "andromorph" and "gynomorph", which are terms with no major presence on other sites, whose meaning isn't obvious to the average user, and which would probably even mislead the minority who would be familiar with the sciencey synthetic Greek terminology, because going purely off the roots they're constructed from they wouldn't mean what they're planned to be used for.

Unless the admins are going to take an official stance that the tag list, which takes up a good chunk of UI space on every image's page in a very prominent position, is meant only for experienced users who tag a lot of images and read all the wiki pages, it's something aliasing just doesn't do anything to fix. In previous cases this mostly hasn't been a problem because it's been used to replace one straightforward term with another fairly straightforward term, but now it's being used to replace one straightforward term with an obtuse term nobody else uses.

I mean, for a tag to become well established, it has to be used commonly, so who's to say these new tags won't become well established in short time?

Regardless, I think the solution for this would more or less be more tag categories (aka, like with artist, have sections that say "Position", "Sex", etc) rather than just not changing the tags to less vulgar ones.

parasprite said:
It's stuff like this and the species changes that make me wish I never got involved with this site.

I just...I don't even know where to begin here.

Sincere question, Parasprite, how would you have changed the tags?

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
I mean, for a tag to become well established, it has to be used commonly, so who's to say these new tags won't become well established in short time?

If the peculiarities of e621's approach to tagging caught on that easily, we wouldn't regularly have forum threads and comments and tagging wars based around people not familiar with how e621 runs things thinking it works like every other website. This site absolutely is not influential enough for these terms to overthrow dickgirl and cuntboy "in short time". Like all the other things e621 has changed that other sites have continued to do the same, this is going to stay just another e621 thing.

Regardless, I think the solution for this would more or less be more tag categories (aka, like with artist, have sections that say "Position", "Sex", etc) rather than just not changing the tags to less vulgar ones.

This would help things a lot, but it's also a feature that doesn't exist and has no plans or timeline for existing. Scanning the feature request forum, previous requests for new tag categories don't seem to have gone anywhere. Problems with tag changes shouldn't be brushed away with the reasoning that something that could hypothetically be implemented at some point, but which doesn't seem to be likely to be implemented at any point in the near future, would fix that problem. The changes are being made now, and need to be evaluated in view of how the site does work, not how it could work.

Just a quick question: Are people forgetting that
A) This change won't affect to anyone's searching and tagging in any way because you can still keep using the old words just like before thanks to the aliases. Literally only thing that is changis is what label you see stapled on people's characters.
B) We are not using something like "cuntgirl" and "dickboy" instead of male and female tags (I mean im pretty sure that hell would break loose if we did), why tf everyone is so obsessed with wanting to label these two groups as "cuntboy" and "dickgirl"? Like even if you personally don't consider these as slurs, you still should be able to see the issue when two gender tags get words like this while every other one gets far more neutral terms.

hiekkapillu said:
Just a quick question: Are people forgetting that
A) This change won't affect to anyone's searching and tagging in any way because you can still keep using the old words just like before thanks to the aliases. Literally only thing that is changis is what label you see stapled on people's characters.
B) We are not using something like "cuntgirl" and "dickboy" instead of male and female tags (I mean im pretty sure that hell would break loose if we did), why tf everyone is so obsessed with wanting to label these two groups as "cuntboy" and "dickgirl"? Like even if you personally don't consider these as slurs, you still should be able to see the issue when two gender tags get words like this while every other one gets far more neutral terms.

Finally, someone who gets it

hiekkapillu said:

Just a quick question: Are people forgetting that

A) This change won't affect to anyone's searching and tagging in any way because you can still keep using the old words just like before thanks to the aliases. Literally only thing that is changis is what label you see stapled on people's characters.

B) We are not using something like "cuntgirl" and "dickboy" instead of male and female tags (I mean im pretty sure that hell would break loose if we did), why tf everyone is so obsessed with wanting to label these two groups as "cuntboy" and "dickgirl"? Like even if you personally don't consider these as slurs, you still should be able to see the issue when two gender tags get words like this while every other one gets far more neutral terms.

Yep, spot on.

I'm sure this change will have some growing pains and maybe there are more descriptive terms to use. However, I still think that it's a change for the better.

Maybe this will help get more people involved in coming up with more descriptive terms in the future?

so if your changing these tags because they are "vulgar" are you also going to rename the "fucked_silly" tag because that includes vulgar language as well?
personally i dislike the new tags as they feel less descriptive.
the word "dickgirl" makes me think of a traditional cis female, but with male reproductive organs. and vice-versa for "cuntboy"
now i myself being a cis/hetro male might not understand how these terms make other people feel, but i do believe they get their intended meaning across quite well.
the new terms feel somewhat ambiguous to me.
when i hear the term "gynomroph" i think "gyno as in gynecology, so this means female" and then i think "morph as in transform" and thats where i get confused.
if i hadent read this post, i would think "gynomorph" would be a gender transformation tag to imply any>female (as the character is being morphed into having a vagina) but that would be a completely inaccurate reading.
altogether i feel as if this change is unnecessary and mildly confusing, but since the old tags will still alias i dont think this will have any noticeable negative impact.
my difficulty understanding the new terms may also be because of the fact that i have auspergers syndrome, and i often have difficulties with change and language.
i havent read much of other peoples comments because a lot of it seems to be drama i dont want to get involved with, so i dont really know what other people think of the new terms.
just my two cents.

FurryMcFuzzball said:
It finally happened, we caved to the changed a tag that wasn't inherently offensive because too many people complained.

Lot of tag changes lately. Has there been a change in management? These tags have worked perfectly for years, suddenly everything's getting a new coat of paint, not that it's any surprise of course.

honestly, thousands and thousands of people use this site / those tags with no issue, and because <1% of people complain incessantly, everyone else has to deal with the aftermath.

its about time people realize words are just that - words, and its entirely up to you on how you deal with reading / comprehending those words. Stop forcing your embarrassingly thin skin on other people.

Yeah just wanted to add I think this is a dumb change.
All it does is makes learning tags harder for new users, and confuse current users.

Nobody is gonna look at the wiki to figure it out. The new tags are honestly more offensive than the old ones. It's a porn site, dick and cunt are appropriate terms.

I also prefer the tag dickgirl because it validates that a woman can have a dick.
Maybe it's time to add tag preferences, to display whichever alias you prefer instead of the parent tag.

giamidwi said:
honestly, thousands and thousands of people use this site / those tags with no issue, and because <1% of people complain incessantly, everyone else has to deal with the aftermath.

its about time people realize words are just that - words, and its entirely up to you on how you deal with reading / comprehending those words. Stop forcing your embarrassingly thin skin on other people.

Bro, the majority of admins themselves have wanted this tag change as well. It wasn't due to "small groups complaining", it's been a long time coming for many admins.

Maybe stop projecting this weird mindset you have onto the issue and offer something actually constructive to the conversation.

Sharkiiie said:
It's a porn site, dick and cunt are appropriate terms.

Despite the common misconception, this is NOT a porn site. It is an art archive. A lot of furry works just happen to be NSFW in nature, so a large chunk of content here happens to be porn. However, that doesn't make it 100% porn.

hanzai said:
Aliases very notably don't do anything for helping anyone make sense of the tag list, which besides the ability to search for content, is one of the big draws of sites that tag/categorize content like this: if you find something you like or are interested in, you can look over at the list of tags and click on the ones for the relevant parts of the content you like.

The dog -> domestic_dog alias you brought up is a great example of where that isn't a problem, and conversely why this tag is a problem. Someone scanning the tag list won't have any trouble understanding what domestic_dog means and what it's for, and they wouldn't either have trouble understanding tags like cuntboy or dickgirl, which for any "vulgarity" they may have are well-established, descriptive terms. The same absolutely cannot be said for "andromorph" and "gynomorph", which are terms with no major presence on other sites, whose meaning isn't obvious to the average user, and which would probably even mislead the minority who would be familiar with the sciencey synthetic Greek terminology, because going purely off the roots they're constructed from they wouldn't mean what they're planned to be used for.

Unless the admins are going to take an official stance that the tag list, which takes up a good chunk of UI space on every image's page in a very prominent position, is meant only for experienced users who tag a lot of images and read all the wiki pages, it's something aliasing just doesn't do anything to fix. In previous cases this mostly hasn't been a problem because it's been used to replace one straightforward term with another fairly straightforward term, but now it's being used to replace one straightforward term with an obtuse term nobody else uses.

I just got finished explaining this situation to someone in a chat group on Telegram. I agree 1000% with this, and am happy that this has been brought up by others already (so I'm not alone in this belief).

Personally, I feel like e621 should use tags like female_(male_genitals) and male_(female_genitals). It would place the tags in the same area as the female and male tags currently reside in the tagging list, are both unambiguous and descriptive, and people who are new to the fandom and site will instantly understand them.

Tynach said:
I just got finished explaining this situation to someone in a chat group on Telegram. I agree 1000% with this, and am happy that this has been brought up by others already (so I'm not alone in this belief).

Personally, I feel like e621 should use tags like female_(male_genitals) and male_(female_genitals). It would place the tags in the same area as the female and male tags currently reside in the tagging list, are both unambiguous and descriptive, and people who are new to the fandom and site will instantly understand them.

Formatting it that way would make the tagging format incredibly tedious when it comes to characters who have both a penis and a vagina. That + explicitly gendering the genitalia in the tags (we try to not explicitly gender tags, see for, bull, rooster, etc) is a no from me.