> All this talk of "users mass-leaving because of 1 gender change" just feels like a load of internet hysteria [snipped]
Hah, that's not what I said at all. I said that a bad decision by admins would essentially lead to a slippery slope. This isn't a political issue, and I'm not American so I am not going to comment on the politics of America's right wing. I hope the staff majority make the right choice and don't listen to the agenda pushers
> still have not found a definition of "woke"
Woke is a term referring to neo-social upheaval agendas aimed at upsetting the status quo of society. It usually involves making a minority group out as "oppressed" and the majority (status quo) as an oppressor. That's my understanding of the term. In this context, wokeness refers to attempts to break down definitions of male and female, the roles of women and men, and to introduce new, meaningless categories, which bleeds into this reply:
> They're androgynous. In fact, they've transcended human existence. Just like me.
There's no word for "they" here, as Japanese (like Chinese) is topic-comment. There is no singular they in these languages, just he/she/it, which isn't explicitly stated here. So if you wanna say "it's androgynous" go for it, but it's probably a bit redundant. Gears aren't human, so the second comment can mean "Testament is no longer human" in the same manner. The last statement is clearly a humor attempt. I can sit here and slice and dice your translation some more, but it's important to note that it's really easy to manipulate facts using poor understandings of a language and mining out quotes.
Androgyny doesn't mean nonbinary, it predates the term. Are we supposed to now suddenly consider any effeminate man or masculine/tomboyish woman as a nonbinary because they don't conform to Western idealized men and women? Seems kinda... /Sexist/ if you ask me, kek.
> without peppering said rebuttal with snide insults would go even further.
I am passive aggressive because the notion of this topic is hilarious. Nothing more nothing less :) that said let me consider your proposal:
It does seem like an attempt at compromise, but would disrupt tagging further. So my rhetorical question in response is "is this not going to just make everything more complex and try to skirt the larger problem here entirely?"
The current policy aligns with the current rules of danbooru, end of story. Attempts to change it would essentially require making exceptions to the rules which quickly gets complex and ridiculous. Rather than trying to indulge people who probably don't care and cater to a minority of site users, maintaining the status quo and putting this BUR in the refuse pile is probably for the best.
