Read the rules before proceeding!

Topic: [Beta] Help us find our transgender tags

Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions

Reminder that the only* current use-case for any lore: tag as pure identity-definition is trans_man_(lore) and trans_woman_(lore) being applicable without requiring physical signifiers, and that's notably only for the context of binary transgender identities. Every other lore tag the administration has approved at this time is for tagging in-universe physically-factual information that is merely not visually apparent.

andromorph_(lore) is exclusively for in-universe-naturally-male-bodied-with-female-genitalia depictions of characters in which TWYS rule requires application of a contradictory tag. This inherently excludes any character state other than in-universe-naturally-male-bodied-with-female-genitalia depictions, and when combined with the TWYS tag it is theoretically possible to filter out the TWYS-mistagged-as-andromorph posts provided that those also have their relevant lore tag applied.
Screaming for an additional non-trans identity-based tag for something that effectively already exists is not likely to go places, as I doubt site administration is interested in dividing a functional tag definition into distinct one-or-the-other tags, and if either andromorph or andromorph_(lore) was still a requirement for every proposed cuntboy_(lore) post then it's a redundant tag.

I predict the furthest any non-binary lore tags will go is a simple nonbinary_(lore) for characters who explicitly identify as not-locked-to-their-birth-sex but without a specific male/female identity in place of that.
But this post isn't going to do anything for anyone anyway.

*Actually, it looks like nonbinary_(lore) has been implemented already, it just hasn't been placed in the lore category for some reason. (So that the wiki can be figured out before it locks to admin-only?)

magnuseffect said:
Reminder that the only* current use-case for any lore: tag as pure identity-definition is trans_man_(lore) and trans_woman_(lore) being applicable without requiring physical signifiers, and that's notably only for the context of binary transgender identities. Every other lore tag the administration has approved at this time is for tagging in-universe physically-factual information that is merely not visually apparent.

andromorph_(lore) is exclusively for in-universe-naturally-male-bodied-with-female-genitalia depictions of characters in which TWYS rule requires application of a contradictory tag. This inherently excludes any character state other than in-universe-naturally-male-bodied-with-female-genitalia depictions, and when combined with the TWYS tag it is theoretically possible to filter out the TWYS-mistagged-as-andromorph posts provided that those also have their relevant lore tag applied.
Screaming for an additional non-trans identity-based tag for something that effectively already exists is not likely to go places, as I doubt site administration is interested in dividing a functional tag definition into distinct one-or-the-other tags, and if either andromorph or andromorph_(lore) was still a requirement for every proposed cuntboy_(lore) post then it's a redundant tag.

I predict the furthest any non-binary lore tags will go is a simple nonbinary_(lore) for characters who explicitly identify as not-locked-to-their-birth-sex but without a specific male/female identity in place of that.
But this post isn't going to do anything for anyone anyway.

*Actually, it looks like nonbinary_(lore) has been implemented already, it just hasn't been placed in the lore category for some reason. (So that the wiki can be figured out before it locks to admin-only?)

Thank you.

Doesn't this kind of go against the entire concept of TWYS? If a character is a trans woman but appears male then would you still tag it as male despite having the trans_woman tag?
Edit: nevermind that question was answered already

I just don't really get the point of transgender lore tags. As the TWYS page states:

TWYS's end-goal is to make sure that when you search for something, you find only posts where you can actually see what you're searching for in the picture. Think about it: if you search for "balloons" on Google's Image Search, you expect it to display pictures that contain balloons, cause why should it show anything other than what you're searching for? Likewise, on e621.net, if you search for "herm", we want to make sure that the results presented to you are ones that actually appear to contain herms; we want to make sure you find exactly what you're searching for.

Since this isn't a tag based on appearance, it's not really anything anyone would actually use when searching. And if it's not used, then it's completely worthless as a tag.
I personally don't really care; it doesn't affect me or the site's functionality, but I just don't get why people are putting time and effort into this.

Much like other untaggable things via TWYS (like incest or character interrelationships) it does serve a purpose for folks who want to find the content specifically but cannot otherwise search for it without these tags.

Ie: Trans folks who want to find trans representation instead of just fetish content.

It's been a oft requested feature for years for a reason.

TWYS isnt perfect. This covers those weakspots.

demesejha said:
Much like other untaggable things via TWYS (like incest or character interrelationships) it does serve a purpose for folks who want to find the content specifically but cannot otherwise search for it without these tags.

Ie: Trans folks who want to find trans representation instead of just fetish content.

It's been a oft requested feature for years for a reason.

TWYS isnt perfect. This covers those weakspots.

But my point is it's not an actually visible trait, so what's the point in searching for it? You could look at pretty much any character and think that they're trans.

dickard said:
But my point is it's not an actually visible trait, so what's the point in searching for it? You could look at pretty much any character and think that they're trans.

You could, but that's not how lore tags are supposed to work. They're supposed to be based on what is canonical according to the artist.

Personally, I think the concept is broken, and for similar reasons to you (eg. if you can't just see it but have to know it, that that highly restricts the number of people who could possibly tag it). But tags like crossgender were also kind of broken within the context of TWYS, so I can appreciate that a partially impure approach is probably needed -- even if this particular approach turns out to be a dead end)

Ultimately I think this choice on the part of e621 amounts to 'well, in pursuit of managing to archive more art and less melodramatic comments,perhaps it would be better to play a *little* politics' (politics in this case being : giving a nod to artist intent, but without allowing it to impinge on normal search functionality).