hslugs said:
mikhaila
yinglets

I made some posts about these but the thread's only capable of talking about one thing at a time
post #1902515

Anonomn said:
Penisgirl just sounds silly, and for reasons of;
(Quote from page 7)
It'd have to be 'pussyboy', which has entirely unrelated, but still negative, connotation.
If it wasn't for that, strictly speaking yes that would work. Even if I couldn't guarantee we're just gonna wind up in the same boat as with dickgirl and cuntboy in the future if they were to gain wider spread use.

Silly to whom and on a porn site i might add? It's no worse (more silly) than "gynomorph" in any case.

Wait, the word vagina is ruled out on a technicality based argument (bullshit) around a super strict reading of its precise and exact technical dictionary definition (again.. for a porn site content tag), but gynomorph and andromorph get a novel discretionary pass and use... for reasons?!

Negative connotation?! How exactly is that possible? No, more importantly, why does that matter here with this issue (once again) having nothing at all to do with the thing you're likely alluding to?! This is about "vulgarity" remember? The words "dickgirl" and "cuntboy" specifically. (not to mention quite exclusively)

1. Only if they get used in playground level name-calling. (remember, the so-called source of the "problematic" nature with the original terms)

2. Only if we choose to play the game of "who's the bigger idiot, the person REEEEing over words or the person who indulges them?"

3. Again.. about "vulgarity", not REEEEEing. ^

FurZ said:
Because with TWYS, they aren't males with vaginas or women with penises.This is as close as they can get without coining a new phrase.

We are ALREADY doing that here if you haven't noticed!

The whole point of x_morph is that it's not a new phrase.

Drkfce0 said:
...

Generally silly, though strictly speaking that's a matter of personal opinion. Does it sound like the kind of term that can be taken seriously when said aloud though?

Makes no sense to me either, as I don't think vagina specifically gets tagged, nor do most people seem to have a problem with referring to the entire external area as vagina, but I was trying to be consistent with previously established tags.

Vulgarity, negative connotation, in this context they're pretty synonymous. While pussyboy is hardly going to top "Worst words and phrases in the english language", it barely even qualifies or even registers as one for most people, if we're going to switch out cuntboy and dickgirl for reasons of it being a 'heinous swear word' for people (despite being incredibly inconsistent as far as the legitimacy of being a genuine insult between different people go), we really should be consistent about it, and not introduce replacements that also are some form of swear word, regardless of how obscure or mild currently.

FurZ said:
The whole point of x_morph is that it's not a new phrase.

Which is completely irrelevant if the term is super obscure and/or was NEVER explicitly (arguably even implicitly) defined in such a way before! It means "having a specific form", what it doesn't do is rule out said thing actually BEING of that form, nor do they imply having characteristics of any other form. These are not really literal descriptive terms, they are more conceptual and only used as part of a description. (i.e. "a gynomorphic female/male" etc) Which literally rules them out as even a somewhat functional replacement for the original terms.

Secondly. I'd argue that the more common use of "morph" is a much bigger issue. As it's used almost exclusively in the "to change/transform" sense. When combined with "gyno" it all starts to get really confusing and clearly implying something other than TWYS!

Penisgirl and vaginaboy are perfect fits. They use medical terms, perfectly descriptive and lack the "troublesome history" of the original terms! Everyone keeps saying that we're stuck with these terms until we come up with something better. What they really mean is 'invent' something better.. But then refuse to even look into the options of doing so. But a preexisting term is not better if it doesn't even meet the most basic needs (i.e. description) of what you want to use it for. So at the very best, it's only no worse than just coming up with a new term!

Anonomn said:
Generally silly, though strictly speaking that's a matter of personal opinion. Does it sound like the kind of term that can be taken seriously when said aloud though?

Makes no sense to me either, as I don't think vagina specifically gets tagged, nor do most people seem to have a problem with referring to the entire external area as vagina, but I was trying to be consistent with previously established tags.

Vulgarity, negative connotation, in this context they're pretty synonymous. While pussyboy is hardly going to top "Worst words and phrases in the english language", it barely even qualifies or even registers as one for most people, if we're going to switch out cuntboy and dickgirl for reasons of it being a 'heinous swear word' for people (despite being incredibly inconsistent as far as the legitimacy of being a genuine insult between different people go), we really should be consistent about it, and not introduce replacements that also are some form of swear word, regardless of how obscure or mild currently.

Oh ok.. Now I understand where you were coming. sorry about that. And generally agree.

My only problem with that line of reasoning is that we aren't allowed to suggest that this had anything at all to do with those types of issues. So going off the current reasoning, we should only be considering issues related to vulgarity of the terms, or at most, , and to put it simply, whether or not they are actual insults right now.

It then all really comes back to the basic point that if offense of any amount alone, irregardless of history, makes a term "vulgar", then any term at all describing or implying anything even remotely close to what the original terms describe, is "vulgar" by default. Under TWYS, there was NEVER really any room to not do/say/imply exactly what is seen as being so offensive to begin with. So the only justifiable argument for vulgarity, rests solely in the realm of the explicit, not in semantics/concept.

Drkfce0 said:
Which is completely irrelevant if the term is super obscure and/or was NEVER explicitly (arguably even implicitly) defined in such a way before!

: An organism with female physical characteristics; female mimic.

: An organism with male physical characteristics; male mimic.

: (biology) To take on the appearance of another, for protection or camouflage. / An imitation.

The terms, as they are being used on e621, are within the definitions given. Specifically: an organism mimicking the physical form of the opposite sex.

Sad people think wikipedia is a real source. You all would fail in college.

Especially when the linked "definitions" are still not actually covering what the originally word entailed

CamKitty said:
Sad people think wikipedia is a real source. You all would fail in college.

Especially when the linked "definitions" are still not actually covering what the originally word entailed

Other sources list these definitions as well, they are not limited to wikipedia (which, by the way, often in itself has directly referenced sources) Related: the definition of gynomorphic, from multiple sources, means "having the shape of a woman".

Just because wikipedia was used to show and explain the definition doesn't suddenly mean it was made up by wikipedia and completely wrong and fake