Mainly wondering because there's a lot of characters who are canonically trans but miss the relevant tag in the posts involving them.
Topic: Can/should a character tag implicate lore tags?
Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions
Character tags usually don't imply anything because 99% of the things people want them to imply can easily change post-by-post. Lore tags in particular are (supposed to be) determined by artist intent rather than canon, so if the artist didn't intend to depict a character in a certain way then the tag shouldn't be applied.
Of course there is also the case of cosplay. Bridget from Guilty Gear is canonically trans, but if bridget_(guilty_gear) implied trans_woman_(lore) then a bunch of posts depicting characters who aren't trans cosplaying her would erroneously recieve the tag.
eightoflakes said:
Bridget from Guilty Gear is canonically trans
I'm not too familiar with that fandom and I could be totally wrong, but doesn't that only apply to the remake version of Bridget?
As I remember there was drama some years ago about erasure of femboys because in the original version they weren't trans or something.
If true it's another example of why not to alias lore tags.
If a masculine female_(lore) or trans_woman character is drawn as an actual female, then the lore tags become irrelevant, so no, we don't imply them.
salesdepartment said:
Mainly wondering because there's a lot of characters who are canonically trans but miss the relevant tag in the posts involving them.
You never blindly tag the <gender>_(lore) tags on a character's post by default. It should only be used when their visually-apparent sex/gender differs from that of the "lore".
Moreover, the "lore" may also have several levels. Typically, the artist's lore will supercede the original lore.
Thus, having the <gender>_(lore) tags be implied to the characters themselves is an unreliable way of ensuring the lore tags get used.
Hope this doesn't seem like I'm hijacking this thread, but since we're talking about this:
furrin_gok said:
or trans_woman character is drawn as an actual female, then the lore tags become irrelevant, so no, we don't imply them.
How exactly does this work with the trans aspect? The woman part obviously is redundant with female but the trans part? Especially since trans_(lore) is its own tag? I would think anything that isn't visibly_trans would qualify for trans_(lore) at the very least.
popoto said:
Hope this doesn't seem like I'm hijacking this thread, but since we're talking about this:
How exactly does this work with the trans aspect? The woman part obviously is redundant with female but the trans part? Especially since trans_(lore) is its own tag? I would think anything that isn't visibly_trans would qualify for trans_(lore) at the very least.
Not every depiction of a canonically trans character involves transgender advocacy. A big part of Snoot Game is detransing the nonbinary character Fang, post #5695792 is Kris as a man.
furrin_gok said:
If a masculine female_(lore) or trans_woman character is drawn as an actual female, then the lore tags become irrelevant, so no, we don't imply them.
Pretty sure trans_woman_(lore) applies regardless of the character appearing female or not. It would be female_(lore) that doesn't apply when female does.
watsit said:
Pretty sure trans_woman_(lore) applies regardless of the character appearing female or not. It would be female_(lore) that doesn't apply when female does.
I was going to say the same thing, a post-op trans woman would be indistinguishable from a cisgendered female character by TWYS standards - therefore the trans_woman_(lore) tag could still be applicable.