The tag implication #34013 skipsy_dragon_(character) -> nonbinary_(lore) has been rejected.

Reason: More recent art and statements from artist who owns this OC either imply or outright state that Skipsy Dragon is non-binary. I believe it is fitting for this implication to reflect that.

EDIT: The tag implication skipsy_dragon_(character) -> nonbinary_(lore) (forum #296377) has been rejected by @Millcore.

Do you think it's possible that Skipsy Dragon has been drawn as a strictly male character at some point in the past, or might be drawn as a strictly male/female character in the future?

leomole said:
Do you think it's possible that Skipsy Dragon has been drawn as a strictly male character at some point in the past, or might be drawn as a strictly male/female character in the future?

Given that it's a lore tag, that wouldn't really matter. Also "A non-binary gender generally has nothing to do with anatomy" according to the nonbinary_(lore) wiki page, so I don't think this specific implication would hurt anything if it went through.

That said, the site doesn't generally have character tags implicate gender tags in any case (that I've seen).

We already have characters implicate things like fan character, something like this shouldn't be too out of the question.

Wouldn't it be possible to depict a version of the character that's not non-binary? An AU story or some such.

strikerman said:
We already have characters implicate things like fan character, something like this shouldn't be too out of the question.

Except we try to avoid redundancy. If their character is depicted in such a way that they appear to be non-binary, then the lore tag is not to be tagged... a huge emphasis on if, though, since I don't know how that'd work.

strikerman said:
We already have characters implicate things like fan character

Which is something I think is a mistake to do. Take for example, Azzilan, who as a Charizard is qualified for being a pokemon fan character as he's "a character that is based off of a franchise, series, or other copyright but is not a canon character". For the longest time, that's all he was depicted as. Then one day he appeared in a different story not as a charizard, and has no apparent franchise or series connection, thus not deserving the fan_character tag. I see no reason any other fan character couldn't similarly be depicted in a way that they're no longer based on a pre-established franchise, making such implications invalid.

Since it's only a lore tag this could probably work out, but I feel like it'll end up being a slippery slope that'll cause more problems in the long run than just adding the tag to all the posts manually.

watsit said:
Which is something I think is a mistake to do. Take for example, Azzilan, who as a Charizard is qualified for being a pokemon fan character as he's "a character that is based off of a franchise, series, or other copyright but is not a canon character". For the longest time, that's all he was depicted as. Then one day he appeared in a different story not as a charizard, and has no apparent franchise or series connection, thus not deserving the fan_character tag. I see no reason any other fan character couldn't similarly be depicted in a way that they're no longer based on a pre-established franchise, making such implications invalid.

Tbh I think the fan character implications are a mistake too, but (for better or for worse) that's been the standard on this site.

siral_exan said:
If their character is depicted in such a way that they appear to be non-binary, then the lore tag is not to be tagged.

?

Aren't lore tags for describing the character regardless of what the image shows? Hence tags like male (lore) or trans female (lore).

strikerman said:
Aren't lore tags for describing the character regardless of what the image shows? Hence tags like male (lore) or trans female (lore).

For describing a character as the artist intends them, yes. While appearance has nothing to do here (non-binary gender identity isn't a visible trait), it's still based on what the artist says. So even if the character is normally non-binary, if someone draws a version of them saying they're not non-binary in this particular image, they shouldn't be tagged nonbinary_(lore) for that post. So this implication would force an incorrect tag on such a post.

The tag implication skipsy_dragon_(character) -> nonbinary_(lore) (forum #296377) has been rejected by @Millcore.