Tagging IRL transgender people

feline_lump said:

If one of the most notable real-life transgender porn stars doesn't meet our tagging criteria for transgender people, that represents a problem with our tag definitions, not real life.

"don't tag things based on outside knowledge rather than what one can see in the post." straight from the tagging guidelines.

Traze said:

"don't tag things based on outside knowledge rather than what one can see in the post." straight from the tagging guidelines.

A transgender woman is easily visible in this post.

nonamethanks said:

I sure as hell am not going to go look at IRL gay porn whenever someone decides a character is being misgendered

You're welcome to wield your blacklist against any newhalf images that look "gay" to you, but that's simply not an excuse for sloppy tagging. Let's consider the wiki:

Tagging Notes: This tag should be used if you can either visually confirm the character has no vulva or there is information that clearly supports that the character doesn't have one, such as the tags used in the source, the artist's commentary or indicators in the art itself that confirms the character is a newhalf. When in doubt use the futanari tag instead.

This is disambiguating things with futanari and not otoko no ko, but it's what we have at the moment, so let's go with it. Tags in the source are "futa" and "trans". The artist commentary, already reprinted here, indicates the character's gender. Her breasts are visible and already tagged by the original poster (although there is no actual rule that a newhalf or futa can't be flat-chested). If you do choose to look her up, you'll be able to confirm that she is transgender and much of her content is tagged as "shemale" (aliased to newhalf on Danbooru), but there really is enough information here to make the correct tag clear.

Gender identity is a can of worms we really don't want to open. If we do, all of these posts will look like this. Is this the future you want?

There's a reason we've always sticked to "tag what you see".

That's the present for these posts, as it stands. The issue is being opened by the artists whether we want it or not. If we want to actually tackle this, we need to start setting standards.

We have a standard for otoko no ko posts, for instance, and that's tagging their canon gender. Porn posts are very unambiguous, of course, but we also have to account for the tons of worksafe posts that look exactly like girls, as well as the rare cases of breast padding, manboobs, bulges that look like cameltoes, and other things that would lead uninitiated users into mistagging. I can't think of any outstanding cases where people have wandered on and insisted their interpretation is correct in the face of artist clarification. This leads me to think that we could extend the "Word of God" idea to more unorthodox characters, as long as we're effectively accounting for it in the tags. Not overusing yaoi and yuri (or even hetero) as mentioned earlier would be a part of that - futa and newhalf are already granted their own orientation tags.

Yeah, sorry, but in post #4656301 you can even see the pectoral lines. Those are not breasts, they're manboobs. It's a drawing of a cross-dressing man and it's meant to depict that no matter how much you try to juggle that around.
If the artist had really meant to draw a woman upper body they should not have drawn a male chest.

The character has male anatomy, is engaged in gay anal sex, and is no different from any random post under crossdressing otoko_no_ko anal. It should get 1boy.

I'm going to do the unspeakable and quote e621 here, because even they figured this out.
From https://e621.net/wiki_pages/3294:

Disclaimer: Tags are just reflection of what's visible in an image, not the label of character's actual gender. Such information should be written in the post's Description or their Wiki instead. Tags are meant to be used for searching and blacklist, Not and Never for describing the character.

What you're trying to do here is describe the character, not the picture. Sure, the actual person in real life identifies as a woman. Good for them. But the drawing we're talking about depicts two men engaged in yaoi. If someone with no knowledge of the characters saw that picture, that's the conclusion they'd come to, and that's how it should be tagged.

The artist clearly intended to draw a trans woman's breasts as they appear in real life, as supported by the tags, commentary, and real-life reference. I understand that the newhalf tag doesn't have a lot of small- or flat-chested characters to reference, and that it is reasonably possible to mistake the character for a man, but it is what it is. We're not going to sit here and say fictional porn is more "real" than real life when a tag describes a non-fictional concept.

Again, we already allow canon overrides for otoko no ko if it's a grey area. We "see" breasts in post #1651426, but it's padding. We "see" a cameltoe in post #4558494, but it's tucking. post #2730575 and tons of others have "female" proportions, but no one's interested in putting that under a microscope. No one has edit wars about this, as far as I've seen, they just see it and move on.

nonamethanks said:

If someone with no knowledge of the characters saw that picture, that's the conclusion they'd come to, and that's how it should be tagged.

I have no knowledge of the character in, say, post #4665805. I'd probably tag it rabbit ears if I didn't look it up, and someone would fix it. But what I'd probably do in the first place is look it up.

nonamethanks said:
[...]

Wow, you're really going to triple-down on the bigotry, huh?

Maybe we should go ahead and mark every post in 1girl flat_chest as cuntboy next, huh?
Because you have to have breasts to be a woman, apparently.

otoko no ko gets the 1boy tag because people searching for that tag WANT to see cross-dressing men. It's a fetish tag, of course we have to tag the sex. It doesn't matter whether there's breast pads or the dick is not visible, if you're searching for that tag you want to see men crossdressing as women.

Also, none of your posts are explicit. You don't see anyone trying to argue that post #4626749 or post #4662034 or post #4482538 are not yaoi, do you? You keep dodging this question. Why would post #4656301 not be yaoi if it's visually identical?

feline_lump said:

I have no knowledge of the character in, say, post #4665805. I'd probably tag it rabbit ears if I didn't look it up, and someone would fix it. But what I'd probably do in the first place is look it up.

We've been considering throwing away a lot of animal_ears tags because they're always canon-tagged and almost useless (forum #190329, topic #18773), so this is not really helping your argument.

nonamethanks said:

Also, none of your posts are explicit. You don't see anyone trying to argue that post #4626749 or post #4662034 or post #4482538 are not yaoi, do you? You keep dodging this question. Why would post #4656301 not be yaoi if it's visually identical?

As I answered already, newhalf is not yaoi and is essentially never tagged as such. The character has visible breasts and is identified as a newhalf. Whether someone can mistake a character for another gender is not relevant to how we ultimately apply gender or sexuality tags.

kia'ra said:

Wow, you're really going to triple-down on the bigotry, huh?

This is not twitter, that argument is not going to work. The only thing that will happen if you throw around "bigot" and "transphobic" as your debate points is a thread lock.

BTW you might want to have a look at the posts under cuntboy. They all have something women lack: a male body and a male head. A cuntboy is a man with a pussy instead of a penis, with nothing else changed. This argument is akin to trying to merge male futanari and cuntboy based on some arbitrary decision someone had on twitter, despite the two things being completely different.

feline_lump said:

As I answered already, newhalf is not yaoi and is essentially never tagged as such. The character has visible breasts and is identified as a newhalf. Whether someone can mistake a character for another gender is not relevant to how we ultimately apply gender or sexuality tags.

No, if it was so evident that it was a newhalf we wouldn't have had this warring from the very first day the post was uploaded. To several users that looks like a man, and this is why this whole topic started.
And we can't avoid the TWYS like we do with the selected cases of otoko no ko, because in this case the entire chest area and genitals are on full display.

I guess the actual point of debate here would be whether that chest looks like a man's or a woman's. Several people disagree, so I'd like to see more opinions.
If the majority or evazion decides that looks enough like breasts to get the newhalf tag then I'll accept that even though I disagree.
What I strongly disagree with and I've been arguing against however (and I guess the thread went a bit off topic from that) is tagging the gender a priori without even looking at the picture in cases like these, which is what the OP of the topic is talking about. Specifically the line

Real-life transgender women should not be tagged as men. Same for vice-versa.

That's just nonsense and too broad a statement. No two pictures look the same after all.

Those look more breast like than "man boob" like to me. I se no problem with having small breasts and 2boys.

If we where discussing a photo of a trans girl I might have agreed with Kia'ra but this is an artistic representation of Mars, obviously not done with a reference photo of anything other than her face. One could even argue that this is a genderswap (ftm) (not asking for this tag to be added) by the artist.

Please remove the Newhalf to futanari implication. They are all but oposites.

feline_lump said:

A transgender woman is easily visible in this post.

I'm surprised no one picked up on this absurd line right here, which feline didn't even attempt to defend. I'm almost sure it was written to irritate people and nothing more. No, if you were shown 20 images of (anime) men and pre-transition "trans women", you would not be able to tell them apart better than random chance. You are not a medium.

feline_lump said:

Tags in the source are "futa" and "trans".

This is not, has never been and never should be what futanari means. Futanari is a fantasy. Trans pics couldn't be farther from what I'm looking for with the futanari tag. Do not co-opt tags, especially popular fetish tags like this one, you're only going to anger more people.

feline_lump said:

If we want to actually tackle this, we need to start setting standards.

There already are working standards in place. There's no need to set new ones.

I think its worth to note that the tagging notes in newhalf wiki only serve to identify possible futanari posts that are actually shemale/newhalf (because again, they're visually similar most of the time).

ion288 said:

Please remove the Newhalf to futanari implication. They are all but oposites.

Is the issue with newhalf purely the name and association with real-world trans people? Would changing the name to shemale or something generic like "futanari_with_no_vagina", a horrible name, change the nay-sayer's stance? Would that be what it takes for everyone to stop calling Danboour bigots, at least for this?

Veradux said:

Is the issue with newhalf purely the name and association with real-world trans people? Would changing the name to shemale or something generic like "futanari_with_no_vagina", a horrible name, change the nay-sayer's stance? Would that be what it takes for everyone to stop calling Danboour bigots, at least for this?

e-hentai's tag is called shemale and it's in the female category, and they still have endless shitstorms about it. It's just a inherently controversial argument.

Veradux said:

Is the issue with newhalf purely the name and association with real-world trans people? Would changing the name to shemale or something generic like "futanari_with_no_vagina", a horrible name, change the nay-sayer's stance? Would that be what it takes for everyone to stop calling Danboour bigots, at least for this?

I do think newhalf being implicated to futanari is the wrong move. "Newhalf" implies that half of their body is changed and, therefore, new, while futanari are generally presumed to have been born with all of their "gear" and are unchanged.

This is not, has never been and never should be what futanari means. Futanari is a fantasy. Trans pics couldn't be farther from what I'm looking for with the futanari tag. Do not co-opt tags, especially popular fetish tags like this one, you're only going to anger more people.

I do agree that the post in question should not have the futanari tag, but it was originally applied by default by our newhalf to futanari implication, so we'd have to tackle that. Even though the author also tagged this "futa", I would not advocate taking that literally, since a lot of artists double-dip in tags for exposure.

Veradux said:

Is the issue with newhalf purely the name and association with real-world trans people? Would changing the name to shemale or something generic like "futanari_with_no_vagina", a horrible name, change the nay-sayer's stance?

That's going all in on the "subtype of futanari and nothing else" angle, which I think isn't the popular opinion because the tag was originally built around characters like Poison. We seem to be coming in on a consensus that the implication should just be gone.

feline_lump said:

The good thing is that we don't use random chance as a gold standard for tagging when things are visually ambiguous. If you ever struggle to tag something, you can often double-check the source tags and artist commentary to add context, look things up, or defer to someone more knowledgeable. In other words - "Tag what you see" is not an accurate diagnosis of the original problem, since the character's naked body is completely visible, it's just a matter of how that gets tagged.

I don't think you understand what I was saying. You said "A transgender woman is easily visible in this post." Taking "post" to mean "image", this itself is absurd and outright false.

feline_lump said:

We seem to be coming in on a consensus that the implication should just be gone.

The votes were almost completely split in forum #185526. There's no consensus anywhere to be seen.

nonamethanks said:

The votes were almost completely split in forum #185526. There's no consensus anywhere to be seen.

Not saying it means there is a consensus, but I feel like a lot of the dissent on that would have come from the changes related to "dickgirl"