Posted under General
So we have a girly tag and a manly tag yet they both specifically exclude females, why? There are manly bodied and girly bodied females as well like males yet there is not tag for ether while there is for male on both ends of the spectrum. There is the extra tomboy tag however, that also specifically does not include physique that the other 2 do cover. So where exactly would manly females go? Are they resigned to not be searchable, taggable?
Updated
ryu_deacon said:
So we have a girly tag and a manly tag yet they both specifically exclude females, why? There are manly bodied and girly bodied females as well like males yet there is not tag for ether while there is for male on both ends of the spectrum. There is the extra tomboy tag however, that also specifically does not include physique that the other 2 do cover. So where exactly would manly females go? Are they resigned to not be searchable, taggable?
Wouldn't what you're looking for be tomboy muscular_female? Or is it andromorph you're looking for ?
kamril said:
Wouldn't what you're looking for be tomboy muscular_female? Or is it andromorph you're looking for ?
No because because not all manly females are also exceptionally muscular, a body can be masculine while not having exceptionally large or defined musculature. Tomboy as I have said does not cover anatomy, it is specified to only cover clothing worn in relation to the character's sex and behaviors. And manly women can still have breasts while andromorphs do not.
post #1209738 post #1560414 post #1640650 post #3581252
post #3950692 post #1881381 post #4965876 post #3033549
these all while not distinctly muscular or athletic are male bodied. And would be considered Andromorphs if they simply lacked female breasts. They cannot or should not be tagged tomboy because they are not clothed or behaving in a particular manner and cannot be tagged manly because that tag specifically excludes females regardless of their manlyness.
I must admit, those examples kinda confuse me. Apart from a tendency to short hair, for most of them I struggle to see anything particularly masculine in them.
quenir said:
I must admit, those examples kinda confuse me. Apart from a tendency to short hair, for most of them I struggle to see anything particularly masculine in them.
facial structure,male jawline, broad shouldered, hip structure, harsh body shapes(not curvaceous/voluptuous) , eye shape and detailing..
ryu_deacon said:
facial structure,male jawline, broad shouldered, hip structure, harsh body shapes(not curvaceous/voluptuous) , eye shape and detailing..
What? Are we looking at the same images? You might be better off making a set for whatever your criteria is.
regsmutt said:
What? Are we looking at the same images? You might be better off making a set for whatever your criteria is.
I would ask you that, I am essentially using the same criteria specified in manly and andromorph, aside from the exclusion in ether for 'female' and 'breasts'
The principle argument does not change, we have a tag to cover both manly and girly males but there is no such thing for females even through they also fall on a spectrum between girly and manly like males.
ryu_deacon said:
I would ask you that, I am essentially using the same criteria specified in manly and andromorph, aside from the exclusion in ether for 'female' and 'breasts'The principle argument does not change, we have a tag to cover both manly and girly males but there is no such thing for females even through they also fall on a spectrum between girly and manly like males.
If you removed the breasts and faces they would still not be tagged manly because there isn't anything manly about them.
In theory I think a tag for masculine women would be great. In practice, I worry about the tag getting filled with stuff like post #3950692 because there is clearly a large variation in what people think a 'masculine woman' looks like.
ryu_deacon said:
facial structure,male jawline, broad shouldered, hip structure, harsh body shapes(not curvaceous/voluptuous) , eye shape and detailing..
I don't see anything masculine at all in most of your examples.
ryu_deacon said:
these all while not distinctly muscular or athletic are male bodied. And would be considered Andromorphs if they simply lacked female breasts. They cannot or should not be tagged tomboy because they are not clothed or behaving in a particular manner and cannot be tagged manly because that tag specifically excludes females regardless of their manlyness.
these go as far as tomboy levels tbh.
when i think of "manly" women of what manly tag is occupied with, i think of these:
post #2130139 post #489516 post #3501035 post #4951889 post #3501086
thanks for the food
snake-girl said:
these go as far as tomboy levels tbh.when i think of "manly" women of what manly tag is occupied with, i think of these:
post #2130139 post #489516 post #3501035 post #4951889 post #3501086
thanks for the food
snake-girl said:
these go as far as tomboy levels tbh.when i think of "manly" women of what manly tag is occupied with, i think of these:
post #2130139 post #489516 post #3501035 post #4951889 post #3501086
thanks for the food
I don't disagree that some of these might be manly, however if the choice of manly is simply on the basis of being muscular than why do we have a manly tag for something that is already covered by muscular? Rather redundant don't you think? There are other criteria specified to be masculine on the wikis and I showed that however it seems most people simply use manly as a stand-in for just muscular. That mind you seems to be a bigger prescient problem ragsmutt than the hypothetical mistags as a result of including females in manly that have many of the traits of being male besides just having muscles.
PS:never the less some of these still can't be tagged tomboy because they arnt all wearing male clothing or behaving in a masculine manner and can't be tagged manly because they are simply female.
The responces so far have indicated that people just consider musculature and nothing else when tagging manly. Which begs the question should it just be aliased away to muscular?
So essentially, to use anime terms, you're talking about reverse-traps, yes? Characters that are like Yuu Kashima ?
That's what I'm getting from this entire exchange tbh.
popoto said:
So essentially, to use anime terms, you're talking about reverse-traps, yes? Characters that are like Yuu Kashima ?That's what I'm getting from this entire exchange tbh.
Kinda, the simplest definition that most people could understand are "andromorphs but with breasts" given that people do seem more able to tell the difference between flat chested females and andromorphs considering other male features without relying on just muscles yet seem unable to see anything but muscles as male bodied when it comes to applying manly.
Updated
Here's some that aren't especially muscular, but I'd still consider their builds and presentation more masculine:
post #4477044post #1857261post #2884737post #2512001post #4587342
And bonus ferals since those are hard-mode when it comes to gender presentation:
post #4659536post #4168331post #3396898
regsmutt said:
Here's some that aren't especially muscular, but I'd still consider their builds and presentation more masculine:
post #4477044post #1857261post #2884737post #2512001post #4587342
That second one, maybe (though that's also musclegut, which is definitionally muscular). That fourth one, the character on the left with the backwards cap, I'd call more tomboyish than "manly". The rest I wouldn't say are masculine/manly (particularly the third and fifth; if they were male, they'd be tagged femboy in a heartbeat).
regsmutt said:
And bonus ferals since those are hard-mode when it comes to gender presentation:
post #4659536post #4168331post #3396898
I wouldn't call any of those masculine/manly. That third one is showing male-oriented features for the species, but masculine/femboy/etc are supposed to be based on human standards, rather than the sexual dimorphic features of the species. A female lion with a mane wouldn't constitute tagging manly/masculine, just as a male pikachu with a tail-cleft wouldn't constitute tagging femboy/feminine.
to be honest i feel like there's enough tags to cover this kinda thing already
ryu_deacon said:
I don't disagree that some of these might be manly, however if the choice of manly is simply on the basis of being muscular than why do we have a manly tag for something that is already covered by muscular? Rather redundant don't you think? There are other criteria specified to be masculine on the wikis and I showed that however it seems most people simply use manly as a stand-in for just muscular. That mind you seems to be a bigger prescient problem ragsmutt than the hypothetical mistags as a result of including females in manly that have many of the traits of being male besides just having muscles.
manly tag has pretty much cultivated to muscular/musclegut/overweight characters with very (stereotypical) masculine traits and behaviors influenced by western values. think of bashful american dad for a lack for the better example. this is not exclusive tag for just muscular tag as i implied the aforementioned body types.
PS:never the less some of these still can't be tagged tomboy because they arnt all wearing male clothing or behaving in a masculine manner and can't be tagged manly because they are simply female.
checking the featured posts, most of these have no edit history of having tomboy included/excluded and subjectively speaking, those posts have characters with femininity outway the masculinity traits, regardless if they lack or have short hair makes you believe it effects their masculinity, which you can stick with searching short_hair female anyway.
snake-girl said:
[...]this is not exclusive tag for just muscular tag as i implied the aforementioned body types.
Well I am going disagree because all your examples are literally muscular. If manly is not just a stand in for muscular than examples should be able to found that are physically masculine without muscles while still being more than just a average male. Might add obesity or being overweight is not a masculine trait.
This also does not change the fact that no matter how masculine/male bodied a female is they are not allowed to be tagged manly.
In regards to 'western values' they have no bearing on the physical characteristics that are defined under manly besides the exclusion of female which seems arbitrary or rooted in the same faulty conservative ideology that proclaims that females also cannot possibly be muscular and anyone that is must secretly be male.
snake-girl said:
checking the featured posts, most of these have no edit history of having tomboy included/excluded and subjectively speaking, those posts have characters with femininity outway the masculinity traits, regardless if they lack or have short hair makes you believe it effects their masculinity, which you can stick with searching short_hair female anyway.
Now besides my examples lacking muscles they have all of the same masculine characteristics that your examples have. If you cannot see that than that does suggest that for you, being physically manly or masculine is simply just a matter of being muscular and nothing else. As for short hair, these were not selected on the basis of short hair, one of the examples I gave literally has long hair:/
manwhoexists said:
to be honest i feel like there's enough tags to cover this kinda thing already
what might those tags be?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a reminder that the point of this thread is that there are multiple options for specifically defining the masculinity or femininity of males while there are no such options for females. Let me clarify in particular that tomboy as we presently define its use as a tag is not an option as it requires characters to be clothed or show specific masculine behaviors, physical masculinity is insufficient. Were than do nude masculine/manly females go.
And anyone bringing up muscular_female as a solution to this issue is just eluding back to the notion that manly just serves as a stand in for muscular, a tag that dose not cover females that while lacking muscles are otherwise masculine( with breasts or flat chested).
I think the main issue with this tag and other, similar gender-related tags like it is the fact that there really aren't enough of them or that they're very poorly defined - and what ones we do have for female characters get misused and often aliased away because people have incredibly different views on what constitutes such a thing as "manly" for a woman. Characters outside of regular gender norms are difficult to tag, and I'll use my own guy here as an example:
The little lizard dude is for all intents and purposes male. He is a masculine character with a broad nose, strong chin, chin spikes/goatee, thick eyebrows, piercings, and a gruff expression. Under his clothes he has male genitalia. But due to the presence of breasts and no visible penis, he needs to be tagged as female.
Tomboy is, based on its wiki definition, an inapplicable tag for him because he doesn't really exhibit any traits of being a tomboy - he's just a dude with tits wearing normal clothes [a jacket and pants]. Tomboy being so limited in its usage brings more issues especially because anything to do with "masculine female" has been aliased to tomboy. If we're going to have a tag for female characters that are genuinely masculine or look almost indistinguishable from men, the current definition of tomboy isn't going to cut it.
So, with that out of the way, there are a couple options here:
>Invalidate manly entirely because it is an essentially useless tag [almost being synonymous with muscular in its usage]
or
>Re-define manly to allow inclusion of extremely manly females
or
>Re-validate masculine_female and apply it to characters who are TWYS female, but otherwise indistinguishable from men
or
>Re-define tomboy to be more inclusive of near-indistinguishably male-looking female characters
Gender presentation tags and the definitions they have are very frequently extremely flawed! It makes properly tagging gender-nonconforming characters a whole lot harder if we don't know the extent of what each tag means.
moonlit-comet said:
>Invalidate manly entirely because it is an essentially useless tag [almost being synonymous with muscular in its usage]
[...]
>Re-define tomboy to be more inclusive of near-indistinguishably male-looking female characters
I'd combine these too options. Invalidate manly for the reason mentioned, and expand tomboy to include masculine-looking females (which would pair well with femboy being the opposite, feminine-looking males).
