Hello, A few weeks ago there was concern about the lack of appropriate tags for andromorph and gynomorph characters in this community’s sidebar.

The proposal, which was very sensible proposed the tags [G] for gynomorph, [A] for Andromorph, [H] for intersex (from the word herm) and [U] for ambiguous or unknown.

I did not reply at the time due to personal circumstances, but I did want to acknowledge that it is a valid concern and request.

The issue I see with the [G] tag is that it would clash with the current tag that’s used for male gay characters.

And you might wonder, why is there such a big emphasis on using a single letter?

The rationale between using a single letter [G] to describe a picture that could be [M/M], [M/M/M], [M/M/M/M], etc… is because it make searching and filtering much easier.

A picture tagged as [G] is a picture where there’s only male gay activity represented. A picture tagged as [G-S] is a picture where there’s a group of characters representing a male gay activity and a separate group of characters that represent straight activity.

This makes it possible to easily search or filter posts you’re interested in and it avoids very verbose titles with lots of letters, especially if it’s an orgy that’s being depicted.

My proposal for representing Andromorphs and Gynomorphs is with the following tags: [G*] for Andromorphs and [L*] for Gynomorphs.

This means that andromorphs are effectively treated as male and gynomorphs are effectively treated as female. I believe this could be especially important for the fursonas of trans furries. The asterisk is there to indicate the same nuance that we’d find in written language with the wording ‘trans male’ and ‘trans female’ which to my knowledge is acceptable and not considered derogatory or representative of a lesser form of gender in any way.

[G*] would be used if at least of one the characters in andromorph. For solo pictures [M*] can be used. [M*/M] or [M*/M*] would also be acceptable for more characters although with more than two characters I’d say [G*] would be preferrable.

[L*] would be used if at least of the characters is gynomorph. For solo pictures [F*] can be used. [F*/F] or [F*/F*] would also be acceptable for more characters although with more than two characters I’d say [L*] would be preferrable.

Finally we’d have [I] for Intersex, when characters share both male and female genitals such as a penis and a vagina at the same time. To my knowledge intersex is an acceptable term.

Finally [A] can then be used for “ambiguous”.

The reason I wanted to bring this up with all of you first and just propose it for now is because I want to make sure that what I’m proposing is sensible and respectful. I wouldn’t want to make assumptions about what’s acceptable or what’s disrespectful and make a faux pas.

Please let me know your feedback! Thank you!

  • Wander@yiffit.netOPMEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    I think it would be difficult to tag based on context since often we can’t know a character’s personality, story, beliefs, identity, etc… just what we can see. At least most of the time.

    In this case, the terms ‘andromorph’ and ‘gynomorph’ literally translates to ‘male form’ and ‘female form’, and I believe that it is referring to the physical sex instead of gender, especially since ‘form’ in this case is alludes to the physical representation of the character.

    What I’m trying to say is that the terms ‘andro’ and ‘gyno’ refer in this case to the physical sex and are translated as ‘male’ and ‘female’. In this sense it would make sense to use [M*] and [F*] since the original [M] and [F] tags are also related to physical sex instead of gender, since the gender of a character can’t be determined by just the character’s physical traits. A character with breasts and a vagina might very well be the fursona of a trans male furry and he feels it better represents him because it’s closer to his physical appearance.

    Wait a second…

    Please stand by…

    googling

    Okay, I think I got it.

    Here’s the definition for the term ‘prime’ used in mathematics:

    "In mathematics, the prime is generally used to generate more variable names for similar things without resorting to subscripts, with x′ generally meaning something related to (or derived from) x. For example, if a point is represented by the Cartesian coordinates (x, y), then that point rotated, translated or reflected might be represented as (x′, y′). "

    Thus the most respectful way of tagging andromorphs and gynomorphs could be [M′] and [F′], since it does indicate that an element such as a function in mathematics is derivated, differentiated but by no means does it indicate that it’s inferior in any way. Technically the prime character ′ is it’s own character but I think that using apostrophes will suffice.

    I would still like to campaign for [G’], [S’] and [L’] because I think it’s a way simplify tags when there’s 3+ characters. Most of the time when you browse yiff what matters to you is the orientation of the characters / scene, instead of the amount of characters by counting the number of Ms and Fs.

    Thus, how about this:

    • [M], [F], [M’], [F’], [I], [A] for solo pictures
    • [M/F], [M/M], [M/F’], etc… for two characters The above categories probably encompass the vast majority of yiff and they’re easy to understand. Then we relegate group tags such as [G], [L], [S], [G’], [L’], [S’], [Bi], [Bi’] ONLY for pictures with 3+ characters as an optional representation that can save you from having to write many letters and making searching and filtering easier. (G-L-S-Bi notation would change from being discouraged for pictures with just two characters where two letters can give us full precision at a minor extra cost of a single letter and from now on only encouraged for pictures with 3+ characters)

    In this case I realize that some precision is lost, but pictures with 3+ characters aren’t the majority, it’s optional and it could be tidier in many circumstances where you care about the orientation.

    I think we might be getting close to having a solution? What do you think?