The bulk update request #1985 has been rejected.

create implication maleherm_(lore) (1411) -> intersex_(lore) (1493)
create implication gynomorph_(lore) (4256) -> intersex_(lore) (1493)
create implication andromorph_(lore) (2515) -> intersex_(lore) (1493)
create implication trans_man_(lore) (12377) -> intersex_(lore) (1493)
create implication trans_woman_(lore) (20327) -> intersex_(lore) (1493)
create implication herm_(lore) (8837) -> intersex_(lore) (1493)
create implication male_(lore) (20284) -> lore_gender (0)
create implication female_(lore) (13170) -> lore_gender (0)
create implication intersex_(lore) (1493) -> lore_gender (0)
create implication nonbinary_(lore) (18812) -> lore_gender (0)

Reason: It seems it would be sensible to me to have an umbrella for both the intersex, as well as lore gender tags in general. Giving users a quick and easy way to find it all, or hide it all if it's something they wish to blacklist.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1985 (forum #326720) has been rejected by @Versperus.

versperus said:
create implication maleherm_(lore) -> lore_gender
create implication herm_(lore) -> lore_gender
create implication gynomorph_(lore) -> lore_gender
create implication andromorph_(lore) -> lore_gender

These would be unnecessary since the intersex_(lore) -> lore_gender implication already does it.

The intersex_(lore) tag seems fine to me to add, though I'm less sure about lore_gender. Is there really a use-case for that? Since whether or not a character's "lore_gender" is tagged is based solely on whether the image has their sex correctly tagged, which can change if different people disagree on whether TWYS gets their sex right or not. And it's more stuff to clean up if a character's lore tag gets removed due to someone thinking TWYS got their sex right.

By my count, after the intersex_(lore) tag is added, it would be possible to blacklist all posts with a less-than-apparent gender with five lines:

male_(lore)
female_(lore)
intersex_(lore)
trans_(lore)
nonbinary_(lore)

I don't think it's necessary to add an umbrella tag on top of that.

Also, you forgot to add a category change for intersex_(lore). Looks good otherwise.

wat8548 said:
By my count, after the intersex_(lore) tag is added, it would be possible to blacklist all posts with a less-than-apparent gender with five lines:

I don't think it's necessary to add an umbrella tag on top of that.

Also, you forgot to add a category change for intersex_(lore). Looks good otherwise.

I also forgot the trans lore tags

watsit said:
These would be unnecessary since the intersex_(lore) -> lore_gender implication already does it.

The intersex_(lore) tag seems fine to me to add, though I'm less sure about lore_gender. Is there really a use-case for that? Since whether or not a character's "lore_gender" is tagged is based solely on whether the image has their sex correctly tagged, which can change if different people disagree on whether TWYS gets their sex right or not. And it's more stuff to clean up if a character's lore tag gets removed due to someone thinking TWYS got their sex right.

woops, set it up wrong. I've got the sick and have been getting things a little shuffled. I'll admit I didn't know if that was the best tag but couldn't think of a better one to use for it

First of all, if your BUR has been rejected before, you should not just re-create it and try again: BUR #117.

Secondly, I'm not entirely sure if we need an umbrella tag for "lore tags explaining the character's gender".
I don't see many people wishing to blacklist all of those tags. And if they wanted to do that, it's not that difficult to do so already, as wat8548 pointed out.

bitwolfy said:
First of all, if your BUR has been rejected before, you should not just re-create it and try again: BUR #117.

Secondly, I'm not entirely sure if we need an umbrella tag for "lore tags explaining the character's gender".
I don't see many people wishing to blacklist all of those tags. And if they wanted to do that, it's not that difficult to do so already, as wat8548 pointed out.

I'll be honest I forgot I made this before, sorry. Also the thought process was that given there isn't any sort of real connection between the tags people wouldn't know what tags to actually blacklist/search for.

The bulk update request #1985 (forum #326720) has been rejected by @Versperus.

versperus said:
I'll be honest I forgot I made this before, sorry.

The intersex implications probably would have been fine still. You could have just edited out the lore_gender implications.

scaliespe said:
The intersex implications probably would have been fine still. You could have just edited out the lore_gender implications.

I already rejected this BUR though, I'm going to rest on it until tomorrow. See what the site staff comments in regards to that before I make a move to re-create that part of the BUR suggestion.

versperus said:
I already rejected this BUR though, I'm going to rest on it until tomorrow. See what the site staff comments in regards to that before I make a move to re-create that part of the BUR suggestion.

I think that intersex_(lore) is a pretty reasonable tag to have.
Although, I'm not entirely sure what the procedure is for lore tags, or if I'm allowed to approve new ones. I'll have to bring it up with NotMeNotYou.

bitwolfy said:
I think that intersex_(lore) is a pretty reasonable tag to have.
Although, I'm not entirely sure what the procedure is for lore tags, or if I'm allowed to approve new ones. I'll have to bring it up with NotMeNotYou.

sounds like a plan

bitwolfy said:
I think that intersex_(lore) is a pretty reasonable tag to have.

I would caveat this that trans men and women should not be included in it, as they were in the last revision of this BUR. As this is lore and not TWYS, trans people are not intersex.

wat8548 said:
I would caveat this that trans men and women should not be included in it, as they were in the last revision of this BUR. As this is lore and not TWYS, trans people are not intersex.

ya I was on the fence whether I should add that in, not really 100% if it's a valid addition or not.