No trans_male tag?

Sylva_Luca said:
No trans_male tag?

lmao no. this site transphobic as fuck pal.

IAMCARBONDOG said:
Not everything has to be a complete specification. Intersex/male works perfectly okay

"trans_male" would describe a person (furson?) who identifies as male but was 'born a woman'.

BoarsLores was (I think) referring to how using the term "cuntboy" (or "dickgirl") is transphobic because it's sexualizing/dehumanizing, unlike "trans male" or "trans female".

From a categorizing perspective, though, "trans_male" may be less effective because A) a lot of people still don't really understand what it means to be trans and B) trans men can have breasts and a vagina and still identify as a man, but the site is largely focused on visual descriptions and being trans isn't always visual. That being said, I wish there were a less offensive tag for instead of "cuntboy" because it is quite unsavory.

BrokenClock said:
"trans_male" would describe a person (furson?) who identifies as male but was 'born a woman'.

BoarsLores was (I think) referring to how using the term "cuntboy" (or "dickgirl") is transphobic because it's sexualizing/dehumanizing, unlike "trans male" or "trans female".

From a categorizing perspective, though, "trans_male" may be less effective because A) a lot of people still don't really understand what it means to be trans and B) trans men can have breasts and a vagina and still identify as a man, but the site is largely focused on visual descriptions and being trans isn't always visual. That being said, I wish there were a less offensive tag for instead of "cuntboy" because it is quite unsavory.

You get it!

BoarsLores said:
You get it!

speaking as a trans girl, fucking thank you both

dngafk said:
the problem is that some people have characters born with one set of genitals but who have the brain and go through the puberty of the opposite sex as to what their genitals are.

buddy i'm pretty sure that's still being trans lmao

BrokenClock said:
"trans_male" would describe a person (furson?) who identifies as male but was 'born a woman'.

BoarsLores was (I think) referring to how using the term "cuntboy" (or "dickgirl") is transphobic because it's sexualizing/dehumanizing, unlike "trans male" or "trans female".

From a categorizing perspective, though, "trans_male" may be less effective because A) a lot of people still don't really understand what it means to be trans and B) trans men can have breasts and a vagina and still identify as a man, but the site is largely focused on visual descriptions and being trans isn't always visual. That being said, I wish there were a less offensive tag for instead of "cuntboy" because it is quite unsavory.

I'm trans and absolutely agree! I wish we had much less offensive gender tags. Hopefully in the future we'll come to a solution with better named tags.

Everyone is getting riled up about the "cuntboy" and "dickgirl" tags because it's sexualizing/dehumanizing to trans people

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that using such language is very wrong when describing a real person, the tags are referencing a fetish, not real people
"Cuntboys" in furry porn describe how the character in question is a male, but has a pussy instead of a dick, and so on and so forth. They're meant to be degrading, dehumanizing and sexual because guess what, people like it

Leave the tags alone, but I do agree that in the situation in the image above would call for a more accurate tag like "transgender" and "trans_female"

little_timmy said:
Everyone is getting riled up about the "cuntboy" and "dickgirl" tags because it's sexualizing/dehumanizing to trans people

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that using such language is very wrong when describing a real person, the tags are referencing a fetish, not real people
"Cuntboys" in furry porn describe how the character in question is a male, but has a pussy instead of a dick, and so on and so forth. They're meant to be degrading, dehumanizing and sexual because guess what, people like it

Leave the tags alone, but I do agree that in the situation in the image above would call for a more accurate tag like "transgender" and "trans_female"

Fucking thanks dude. Glad someone has some damn sense. Not everything is about identity politics. 'I'm trans and you're oppressing me with your fetish wahh' Way to come across as someone with legitimate concerns guys. I'm sure if you scream louder you'll get all the ice cream and hugs you can handle.

TIP said:
Where are these "offended" people then?
Can't they speak for themselves?

Such "accurate" tags could be used, but they're just not needed.
It's words. On the internet.

Not only can we speak for ourselves, we in fact are.

little_timmy said:
[The term "cuntboy" is] meant to be degrading, dehumanizing and sexual because guess what, people like it

There definitely are also a lot of posts where "cuntboys" are degraded, but what about the post above?
There are tons of posts where men with vaginas are not degraded (eg post #800324) and some are even not very sexual (eg post #1149725). So if a man with a vagina isn't being degraded, wouldn't "cuntboy" be a misnomer according to your definition that it's meant to be degrading?

little_timmy said:
the image above would call for a more accurate tag like ... "trans_female"

you mean "trans_male", dude. google it

Daneasaur said:
... the tags are more simplified and don't bend to the 27 pronouns ...

You're talking about non-binary people. Changing the name of the "cuntboy" tag or even tagging "trans_male" would still exclude people with non-binary people, so I don't know why you're bitching about that.

Daneasaur said:
I've seen many many variations of a "trans" character, anything from a character that, by all looks, is 100% female but the artist insists that the character is male/dickgirl/a bowl of wax fruit.

Changing the name of the "cuntboy" tag would not affect the "tag what you see" rule. Tagging "trans_male" could hypothetically affect it, but only if "male" was defined by gender indentity, which no one in this thread is suggesting, so stop bitching.

Daneasaur said:
...You have to go by the rules the place has ...

But the rules here are fairly fluid and reflect the most utilitarian approach to identifying images.

Also, if you want to look at it from a purely utilitarian perspective, there are artists who are on the DNP list because they don't want the trans character they draw (that may be based on themselves, their friends, or their clients) referred to as "cuntboy" or "dickgirl". So if volunteers (such as myself) put in the work to making the change (that would be completely nominal), I can only see positive benefits.

BrokenClock said:
You're talking about non-binary people. Changing the name of the "cuntboy" tag or even tagging "trans_male" would still exclude people with non-binary people, so I don't know why you're bitching about that.

I'm not bitching or intending to be "bitching", though if I appear to be coming off that way, I apologize.

Changing the name of the "cuntboy" tag would not affect the "tag what you see" rule. Tagging "trans_male" could hypothetically affect it, but only if "male" was defined by gender indentity, which no one in this thread is suggesting, so stop bitching.

Going back to what another user said; tags here are meant for "even the most basic" to understand, use, and search for. You're suggesting a change of "cuntboy" to be aliased under "trans_male". The question I have is, why? Because "cuntboy" is offensive? Trans_male is offensive to some, and I know some folks who'll rip you a new one if you don't use the term "vagentlman". Changing a tag on the basis that it's "offensive" is quite silly. Maybe we should remove the "white_skin" tag and turn it into the "caucasian_american_skin" tag on those same grounds.

But the rules here are fairly fluid and reflect the most utilitarian approach to identifying images.

The rules have never been fluid for the expanse of time I've been here. They have been very straight laced and lean towars using the most common usage of the term, ESPECIALLY since, while this place allows SFW art, it IS primary pornographic, thus pornographic themed tags, especially on NSFW images, are generally the rule.

Also, if you want to look at it from a purely utilitarian perspective, there are artists who are on the DNP list because they don't want the trans character they draw (that may be based on themselves, their friends, or their clients) referred to as "cuntboy" or "dickgirl". So if volunteers (such as myself) put in the work to making the change (that would be completely nominal), I can only see positive benefits.

Then they can choose to host their art elsewhere if simple "mis-labeling" is so damaging to them.

The tag of "trans_male" is TOO lax. How far IS trans in your definition? I ask one person and it's what we file under "tomboy" where a female character looks somewhat butch, but should be clearly tagged female, yet they won't post here because "they aren't respecting my character identity". I ask another and it's only if you can see the mastectomy scars; all other facts become secondary.

I understand your desire to have a tag changed so that it would be more "correct" as I have been trying to push for the same thing on another topic. Namely, the Naga creatures. By definition, the lower body is that of a snake, so the sex organs should not be at the "human hips", thus rendering the entire snake body useless. It's a peeve of mine and it infuriates me as much, if not moreso than some folks get mad at mis-sexing a character. I love the concept of Nagas but strive to see snake anatomy with them, but every time I see the sex organs at the human hips, I want to blacklist it, but it isn't possible. For this reason, I volunteered to personally go through ALL naga tags and add a tag to the sex-organs-at-the-hips "sleepingbag_anatomy", since it's no different than a person with their legs in a sleeping bag.

However, No, the tag or any similar suggestion is a no-go. for what reason? Likely because it wasn't important to the moderation.

THAT SAID, I'm obviously not one in charge of the tags. Go ahead and vouch for them, but don't be surprised if the administration ends up being as staunch as they have been before.

Eh, from here on out I'll just say nothing. Choose to be offended or not. Either way, I'm out.

Offense in this case is taken, not given.

Cuntboy is effective for tagging because it accurately describes the character with two slang words that most people are familiar with. A male with a vagina, or a boy with a cunt: cuntboy. The same could be said for dickgirl. A female with a penis, or a girl with a dick: dickgirl.

These terms are distinct and well known, even if not entirely appreciated by some. They are used to identify what we see in the image, not a state of being that is not clearly visible in the image (or as clearly defined in previous pages of a comic).

Someone could appear to be entirely female, having undergone zero visibly noticeable steps in their transition, and still be what would be called a "transman." As such, that tag is not appropriate for the image.

Also, considering you are free to edit the tags, I see no harm in using some of the already established tags that fit that exact purpose, such as "visibly_trans".

The site is not transphobic because it refuses to capitulate to impossible and impractical tagging standards to appease the delicate sensibilities of a few who get offended by a word.

Personally, when it comes to 'tag what you see', I would tag this as trans and not cuntboy for the simple reason that 'cuntboy' implies 'physically born that way' and there are visible top surgery scars in this one. It's a meaningful distinction.

haxxx said:
Fucking thanks dude. Glad someone has some damn sense. Not everything is about identity politics. 'I'm trans and you're oppressing me with your fetish wahh' Way to come across as someone with legitimate concerns guys. I'm sure if you scream louder you'll get all the ice cream and hugs you can handle.

yo maybe if yall want to indulge in porn about these people you could learn to fucking respect them you fucking cunts

BrokenClock said:
There definitely are also a lot of posts where "cuntboys" are degraded, but what about the post above?
There are tons of posts where men with vaginas are not degraded (eg post #800324) and some are even not very sexual (eg post #1149725). So if a man with a vagina isn't being degraded, wouldn't "cuntboy" be a misnomer according to your definition that it's meant to be degrading?

you mean "trans_male", dude. google it

Yeah I'm kinda stupid and thought "Trans Male" simply meant you're Transgender but born male or whatever

And with the change from "cuntboy" to "andromorph" everything became right in the world

BrokenClock said:
And with the change from "cuntboy" to "andromorph" everything became right in the world

You mean the special snowflakes got catered to so that 3-4 people would stop mass spamming the messagboards?

Daneasaur said:
You mean the special snowflakes got catered to so that 3-4 people would stop mass spamming the messagboards?

uhhhh ye