The thesis of forum #242319 is that, other tags notwithstanding, we should be able to tag "clearly trans" characters as trans. And I agree.

So, let's codify what that means.

Things that might make a character trans, especially when seen together:

• Mastectomy scars, especially on what we tag as a cuntboy.
• Castration scars (see eunuch), especially on what we tag as a dickgirl.
• An especially large clitoris (I don't believe we have a tag for this?).
• What else?

As always, use common sense. For example, mastectomy scars wouldn't count if there's evidence in the post of breast cancer. That's why these can't be tag implications.

Things that are definitely irrelevant:

• Statements from the character owner or artist
• How the character has been tagged in other posts

I'm open to spelling the tag differently (transgender, transsexual, visibly_trans, ...).

To be clear, the aim is not to tag the character's identity. The aim is not to tag the character's identity! The aim is to tag certain patterns of observable, physical features.

I hope this, at least, is uncontroversial and actionable. Let's keep the scope small, for now, so we can get something done.

imo something along lines visibly_trans would be good because it would be pretty explicit what the tag is meant for. others could easily end up being used based on external knowledge.

Maxpizzle said:
The thesis of forum #242319 is that, other tags notwithstanding, we should be able to tag "clearly trans" characters as trans. And I agree.

...

So, let's codify what that means.

Things that might make a character trans, especially when seen together:

• Mastectomy scars, especially on what we tag as a cuntboy.
• Castration scars (see eunuch), especially on what we tag as a dickgirl.

This formulation is probably not strict enough for accurate tagging.
Suggested revision:

• Mastectomy scars on what we tag as a cuntboy.
• Castration scars (see eunuch) on what we tag as a dickgirl.

(AFAICS they cannot be inferred to mean anything in particular outside of these very particular cases.)

• An especially large clitoris (I don't believe we have a tag for this?).

I'm assuming this is a side effect of taking testosterone?
I'd prefer to lock it down further, and say that this should count as evidence if and only if the character fits the above criteria (mastectomy scars + cuntboy).

I'm still uncertain of it even after that, though. Barring relatively extreme cases, how do you tell it's not simply drawn big because that looks better?

On a slightly different topic, it might seem obvious, but for a wiki entry, I think it should also be explicitly specified that herm and trans are mutually exclusive.

Things that are definitely irrelevant:

• Statements from the character owner or artist
• How the character has been tagged in other posts

+1 :)

I'm open to spelling the tag differently (transgender, transsexual, visibly_trans, ...).

Transsexual is accurate (and transgender is inaccurate) given we are tagging on the basis of clear physical changes.

On the topic of the clitoris, I'd like to also suggest that metoidioplasty as a bit of possible evidence - basically, where a ligament is cut, and the clitoris is separated from the labia minora, allowing it to hang, much like a penis would.

An enlarged clitoris is also evidence. Testosterone can increase the size of the clitoris up two inches long, or so.

These things are not all that commonly seen in art but they are possibilities that should be considered.

How would gender transformation sequences fall into this, would the intermission between male and female and vice versa be considered trans?

Also just for double checking, what is to be done regarding character dialog within images/comics that explicitly describe processes of transsexuality?

And a fair warning regarding enlarged clitorises they do and can appear naturally on females that are not at all related to transsexuality, enlarge clitorises also appear in female bodybuilders and they may also lack breasts but are not trans. Also it likly most if not all depictions of enlarged clitoris here are going be based off of the hyper size fetish aspect of it and not a gender aspect.
And of cource there are the fuw species of female hyenas the have a pseudo penis that is actually a enlarged clitoris.

I would suggest keeping with just scars and not using size of a bodypart to define trans.

Lastly dont think it matter much but thought it be worthwhile pointing it out that mastectomys are not a female only thing, males may also get them for man-boobs or breast cancer, this may also be relevant for MtF transitions who may sometime later choose for what ever reason to reverse the transition after having developed breasts but havnt yet done the bottom operations...

Darou said:
How would gender transformation sequences fall into this, would the intermission between male and female and vice versa be considered trans?

Also just for double checking, what is to be done regarding character dialog within images/comics that explicitly describe processes of transsexuality?

And a fair warning regarding enlarged clitorises they do and can appear naturally on females that are not at all related to transsexuality, enlarge clitorises also appear in female bodybuilders and they may also lack breasts but are not trans. Also it likly most if not all depictions of enlarged clitoris here are going be based off of the hyper size fetish aspect of it and not a gender aspect.
And of cource there are the fuw species of female hyenas the have a pseudo penis that is actually a enlarged clitoris.

I would suggest keeping with just scars and not using size of a bodypart to define trans.

i dont think that the enlarged clit were meant to be defining trait but more like supporting trait that is worth of taking in consideration while tagging this stuff

savageorange said:
This formulation is probably not strict enough for accurate tagging.
Suggested revision:
...
(AFAICS they cannot be inferred to mean anything in particular outside of these very particular cases.)

Okay.

Barring relatively extreme cases, how do you tell [a large clitoris is] not simply drawn big because that looks better?

Often, you can't. But sometimes, through other hints, you can. It's a judgment call.

Transsexual is accurate (and transgender is inaccurate) given we are tagging on the basis of clear physical changes.

Okay. I'd like feedback from trans artists and character owners to confirm this is what they want.

Darou said:
How would gender transformation sequences fall into this, would the intermission between male and female and vice versa be considered trans?

Good question. My gut says that they're separate. Gender_transformation describes a short-lived process, whereas the proposed tag describes a character within a long-lived process.

Ledian said:
i dont think that the enlarged clit were meant to be defining trait but more like supporting trait that is worth of taking in consideration while tagging this stuff

Right. The list just points out possible traits for the tagger to make a holistic judgment.

Maxpizzle said:
Okay.

Often, you can't. But sometimes, through other hints, you can. It's a judgment call.

Okay. I'd like feedback from trans artists and character owners to confirm this is what they want.

Perhaps I should have put this the other way round:

Transgender is, by definition, not TWYS, as it is only definitely concerned with gender, whereas transsexual is TWYS (physically evident). Transsexual is a subset of transgender - not all transgender people are interested in physically transitioning. 'trans' is ambiguous and could be taken as either, which IMO is fine.

We need to just take care not to use words which are definitely technically incorrect (transphobia being another one that has come up in similar context -- phobia is a clinical term with very specific meaning, appending it to 'trans' implies extreme fear rather than bigotry, which is no small difference.)

savageorange said:
We need to just take care not to use words which are definitely technically incorrect (transphobia being another one that has come up in similar context -- phobia is a clinical term with very specific meaning, appending it to 'trans' implies extreme fear rather than bigotry, which is no small difference.)

Suffixes and roots have different meanings depending on context. Though it is not the original meaning, -phobia has taken on a new meaning indicating bigotry, as seen in the words homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, and so on.

A similar thing has happened with -philia. The original meaning of philia was "brotherly love" - which is to say, it refers to platonic love, compared to eros, which refers to romantic love and desire. However, it is pretty well accepted now that the -philia root can have sexual denotations now.

It can have both, in fact. Bibliophilia is the love of books, with no sexual connotations, utilizing a more similar meaning to the original, while zoophilia is love of animals, meaning in the erotic / sexual sense.

To put it simply, language evolves, and this is one area in which the language has evolved. There is no consistent metric which lets you say that a word like transphobia can't refer to discrimination or bigotry.

Would probably be transexual rather than transgender, since the first is seen. Other than that +1.

We do have big_clitoris, enlarged_clitoris, and lesser-used huge_clitoris and hyper_clitoris on that question. But those could sit together on any posts they needed to, and it should probably be pretty clear when it is or isn't supporting evidence to whatever the new tag would be. I think that visibly_trans idea is a pretty decent suggestion. Users are kind of notorious for inventing wikis in their heads before tagging instead of actually reading them, so it's nice when they can declare their meanings.

savageorange said:
Transgender is, by definition, not TWYS, as it is only definitely concerned with gender, whereas transsexual is TWYS (physically evident). Transsexual is a subset of transgender - not all transgender people are interested in physically transitioning. 'trans' is ambiguous and could be taken as either, which IMO is fine.

It's also possible for someone to go through the transition by choice without being transgendered.

I'm gunna be devil's advocate here and say, given the criteria, does there need to be an explicit Trans tag? If all you're doing is looking for mastectomy scars on cuntboys then a search of "cuntboy mastectomy_scars" serves the exact same purpose.

As far as castration scars...many of those images in "eunuch dickgirl" are of canines...could this not just be a reference to neutering dogs? Rather than a signal that they are transitioning to another sex?

Ledian said:
imo something along lines visibly_trans would be good because it would be pretty explicit what the tag is meant for. others could easily end up being used based on external knowledge.

This. Otherwise the tag will be abused by tumblr cancer who try to appropriate 'trans' as the term for their otherkin-like million-hued gender rainbow.

Azula_Arktandr said:
This. Otherwise the tag will be abused by tumblr cancer who try to appropriate 'trans' as the term for their otherkin-like million-hued gender rainbow.

We're having a productive conversation here. I'd personally appreciate it if you could avoid the drama-bait.

Dyrone said:
I'm gunna be devil's advocate here and say, given the criteria, does there need to be an explicit Trans tag? If all you're doing is looking for mastectomy scars on cuntboys then a search of "cuntboy mastectomy_scars" serves the exact same purpose.

As far as castration scars...many of those images in "eunuch dickgirl" are of canines...could this not just be a reference to neutering dogs? Rather than a signal that they are transitioning to another sex?

I think the point of the tag is to appease the LGBT group rather than being a practical one. It sort of admits that "yes, that character is trans because we can see it and don't have to be told he/she/it is." A sort of compromise if you will and one I'm willing to support if the details can be written out by others more knowledgeable and dedicated than myself. Honestly, I think this thread shows more progress than any others so far, let's try to keep it this way.

Ledian said:
imo something along lines visibly_trans would be good because it would be pretty explicit what the tag is meant for. others could easily end up being used based on external knowledge.

I agree with that. Considering the one rule everyone agrees with (so far) is that an artist's or owner's word does not count and previous tags for characters don't count either unless the evidence is consistent in each picture. If this tag eventually passes, I'd suggest attempting to alias trans to visibly_trans to avoid potential misuse.

UnusualParadox said:
If this tag eventually passes, I'd suggest attempting to alias trans to visibly_trans to avoid potential misuse.

Whose gonna monitor the visibly_trans for mistags? Some people will try to add trans even if no physical evidence of present.

BlueDingo said:
Whose gonna monitor the visibly_trans for mistags? Some people will try to add trans even if no physical evidence of present.

I did say alias trans -> visibly_trans. If an individual tags a picture as trans, it will automatically tag the picture as visibly_trans instead. If the character isn't "visibly trans", then the tag was improperly used. At that point, it becomes the responsibility of the average user to report the mistag to administration and either replace or remove the mistag like any other tagging error. Obviously, if it's the same person or multiple people willfully mistagging, they'll be handled like any other spammer. I'm not sure what's unclear about it.

The "visibly" portion of the tag reinforces that the character must have clear evidence of being a trans on their body. It's about as clear and concise as a tag can be.

Clawdragons said:
Suffixes and roots have different meanings depending on context. Though it is not the original meaning, -phobia has taken on a new meaning indicating bigotry, as seen in the words homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, and so on.

While that's true, it's no better morally than the misappropriation of other clinical terms like OCD and ADD; AFAICS people DO use it as if they are talking about a clinical phobia -- which naturally they are grossly incompetent to diagnose.

E621 generally holds itself to a higher standard than that -- vague tags tend to be either invalidated or rectified into clear ones. It'd be nice to shortcircuit that by using clear tags to begin with, where possible.

BlueDingo said:
It's also possible for someone to go through the transition by choice without being transgendered.

.. valid point. Doesn't make any difference to tagging, fortunately.

savageorange said:
While that's true, it's no better morally than the misappropriation of other clinical terms like OCD and ADD; AFAICS people DO use it as if they are talking about a clinical phobia -- which naturally they are grossly incompetent to diagnose.

You perhaps talk to a different sort of person than I do. I don't think I've ever heard it used in that sort of context. But we're getting off topic here, and I apologize. Let's drop this here.

On topic, it might be possible that a dickgirl eunuch character who isn't meant to be trans would be mislabeled by a visibly_trans tag, but then, doesn't that happen with all tags relating to gender? With how often there are arguments about flatchested females, or feminine males, or what have you, it is just something to be expected with these sorts of tags.

Oh, and considering I never mentioned this... I do think visibly_trans is a good solution here. It is similar to the alias of chubby to slightly_chubby, which clarifies its usage and makes it obvious when a mistag has occurred.

UnusualParadox said:
I agree with that. Considering the one rule everyone agrees with (so far) is that an artist's or owner's word does not count and previous tags for characters don't count either unless the evidence is consistent in each picture. If this tag eventually passes, I'd suggest attempting to alias trans to visibly_trans to avoid potential misuse.

that is bad idea. this is because a lot of people will inevitably try to tag their trans characters as trans even when its not visible on the image (like fully dressed characters, images where front side is not visible etc). the alias would just slap visibly_trans on images where character in fact is not visibly trans and this will easily go unnoticed from people who dont spend so much time here fixing tags. this would require that visibly_trans tag is frequently cleaned and maintained. that is not exactly desirable.

Yeah, I think that was BlueDingo's intended point.
Aliasing trans to invalid_tag is a slightly better option - we at least would not be giving a false positive in that case.

Ledian said:
that is bad idea. this is because a lot of people will inevitably try to tag their trans characters as trans even when its not visible on the image (like fully dressed characters, images where front side is not visible etc). the alias would just slap visibly_trans on images where character in fact is not visibly trans and this will easily go unnoticed from people who dont spend so much time here fixing tags. this would require that visibly_trans tag is frequently cleaned and maintained. that is not exactly desirable.

true but it would work with TWYS since relying on what the artist says would be TWYK.

treos said:
true but it would work with TWYS since relying on what the artist says would be TWYK.

i dont understand what you are saying or how its related to the fact that trans -> visibly_trans alias would be bad

Ledian said:
i dont understand what you are saying or how its related to the fact that trans -> visibly_trans alias would be bad

The alias wouldn't be bad, because anybody who's breaking tagging protocol will just get warned, and then tempbanned, and then permabanned if they keep doing it, and it will be stopped fairly quickly.

savageorange said:
Yeah, I think that was BlueDingo's intended point.
Aliasing trans to invalid_tag is a slightly better option - we at least would not be giving a false positive in that case.

That implies that trans hasn't been aliased to invalid_tag already. If that's the case, why hasn't in been put in use by those theoretical users yet? (And, no, I'm not suggesting that if the tag already exists that it should be used, I'm saying if it does why isn't it being abused right now?)

Ledian said:
that is bad idea. this is because a lot of people will inevitably try to tag their trans characters as trans even when its not visible on the image (like fully dressed characters, images where front side is not visible etc). the alias would just slap visibly_trans on images where character in fact is not visibly trans and this will easily go unnoticed from people who dont spend so much time here fixing tags. this would require that visibly_trans tag is frequently cleaned and maintained. that is not exactly desirable.

Rule-breaking out of ignorance is no excuse. If, for all intents, the visibly_trans tag serves as our only "trans" tag, then wouldn't they mean the exact same thing? It's every user's responsibility to read tag wikis and understand how and when tags should used. If they fail to do that, the blame is squarely on them.

Furthermore, by the TWYS policy firmly applies here. Characters can only be tagged trans if they are visibly trans. Anything else would be automatically wrong. Chances are, if a user purposely mistags a character once, they've done it more than that. At that point, records can be given. The message will get across pretty quickly.

UnusualParadox said:
At that point, records can be given. The message will get across pretty quickly.

First and foremost: the message would not get across "quickly", or even slowly. People would have to intentionally find records, which despite being public information needs to be researched due to it not being publicly announced. And such people paying attention to other's records, as well as us taggers and forum-goers, individually would not make a significant enough blip to be called "public". This means that even if any or all of these groups started speaking on the proper tag usage, it'd take a while to get the word thoroughly spread out, which is suboptimal.

Secondly, if such a tag exists that solely gives users neutral or worse records en masse, I'd more believe that the tag would be to blame if the only reason these records are given is a subtle difference in vernacular. This is why I'd support the mandatory learning curve between people tagging trans and people tagging the suggested tag (not naming it in case it's changed). A person would have to realize, either by making the mistake or by fixing another's, that the site has a different expectation between the user's usage of trans and the site's usage of the suggested tag. By keeping trans as an invalid tag, this model will inevitably aid the site by promoting proper tagging, in theory.

To Dyrone and Paradox's points - I do think functionally these sort of rollup tags have a real value sometimes. When you have a set of not-always-overlapping and not-always-all-present traits that add up to a thing people are trying to look for, it can help filter out a lot of noise and misses where either all of the search terms show up on different characters in an image, none of whom fit the mold, or they don't all simultaneously show up on a character who still does. Just helps make the intangible tangible. Easier to do with a tag than a pool when the tag's well-made enough to be used and understood by everyone.

The consensus seems to be that this tag is at least not bad. Let's try it out.

I have created a wiki page (visibly_trans) using feedback from this thread. I will tag the appropriate posts from forum #242319. Please help:

• Discuss improvements to the new wiki page here.
• Add "see also" and "not to be confused with" notices to other wiki pages, as appropriate.
• Get feedback from trans artists, character owners, and other people who have a horse in the race.
• Start tagging.

We can establish a meaningful presence for the tag if we stick with it.

I at least feel somewhat confident and comfortable knowing that some difference has been made. But I still cant figure out a good way to frame my original argument that doesnt come off in a way that seems palattable.

Though I am working on one and an essays worth of discussion with notation/evidence for my point.

I do really like what this current tag does and definitely helps me feel a lot more comfortable in having my characters represented properly and at least semi respectfully.