The bulk update request #11638 has been rejected.

create implication andromorph_(lore) (2500) -> intersex_(lore) (1484)
create implication gynomorph_(lore) (4235) -> intersex_(lore) (1484)
create implication herm_(lore) (8740) -> intersex_(lore) (1484)
create implication maleherm_(lore) (1407) -> intersex_(lore) (1484)

Reason: To match the implications of the non-lore versions.

The locked wiki page says "Note this tag should not be used on its own, one of its more specific variants should be used", indicating that this tag is only possible to have when another more specific tag is also used, indicating that users shouldn't manually tag this and instead it should be handled by implications.

EDIT: The bulk update request #11638 (forum #458233) has been rejected by @spe.

aaronfranke said:
The bulk update request #11638 has been rejected.

create implication andromorph_(lore) (2500) -> intersex_(lore) (1484)
create implication gynomorph_(lore) (4235) -> intersex_(lore) (1484)
create implication herm_(lore) (8740) -> intersex_(lore) (1484)
create implication maleherm_(lore) (1407) -> intersex_(lore) (1484)

Reason: To match the implications of the non-lore versions.

The locked wiki page says "Note this tag should not be used on its own, one of its more specific variants should be used", indicating that this tag is only possible to have when another more specific tag is also used, indicating that users shouldn't manually tag this and instead it should be handled by implications.

Not every member of these groups has to identify as intersex, and since these are lore tags, what matters most is the creators opinion on this matter. If a creator deems that their character identifies as an andropmorph but not as intersex, we shouldn't force the intersex label to also be placed on these tags.

We can't make an argument for Tag What You See here ether; lore tags are beyond TWYS because they iron out misconceptions that TWYS tags will cause - which is why certain implications will exist on the TWYS tags but not on the lore tags.

pookashifts said:
Not every member of these groups has to identify as intersex, and since these are lore tags, what matters most is the creators opinion on this matter.

They still have definitions, though. By definition, an andromorph is intersex, so you can't tag one without the other; being a lore tag doesn't change what it is, only what information you can use to tag it. Kinda like saying mother_and_son_(lore) shouldn't be tagged parent_and_child_(lore) if the creator says not to.

The most compelling argument against this though, is that lore tags only apply when they aren't properly reflected in the general tags. You wouldn't tag a character male_(lore) if they're already tagged male, for instance. Here, as an example, it could be the case that a character is a herm but appears as a gynomorph, so you'd tag gynomorph and herm_(lore). If herm_(lore) implied intersex_(lore), while gynomorph implies intersex, that would result in intersex and intersex_(lore) both being tagged, which they shouldn't be.

pookashifts said:
Not every member of these groups has to identify as intersex, and since these are lore tags, what matters most is the creators opinion on this matter. If a creator deems that their character identifies as an andropmorph but not as intersex, we shouldn't force the intersex label to also be placed on these tags.

We can't make an argument for Tag What You See here ether; lore tags are beyond TWYS because they iron out misconceptions that TWYS tags will cause - which is why certain implications will exist on the TWYS tags but not on the lore tags.

Out of curiosity, and to maybe have an explanation ready if this kind of request ever comes up again: what would it imply about a character's lore (or their world, or their species) if they were considered an andromorph, gynomorph, herm, or maleherm, but not intersex?

so, I think this tag is supposed to be for characters who actually canonically have an intersex condition, or at least that's what I remember people saying in the past. it's unlike the other gender lore tags who are more like "character is actually <x> even though they don't really look it here".

so, like, trans characters who would normally fit one of the "intersex" categories, but are currently in a state where that can't be seen, could be tagged with one of the other lore tags, but not necessarily intersex_(lore).

topic #45978
topic #39872
topic #32308 (technically, though the intersex lore tag seemed to have not existed in any capacity then, and the primary objective was different)

4th time's the charm

The bulk update request #11638 (forum #458233) has been rejected by @spe.

watsit said:
They still have definitions, though. By definition, an andromorph is intersex, so you can't tag one without the other; being a lore tag doesn't change what it is, only what information you can use to tag it. Kinda like saying mother_and_son_(lore) shouldn't be tagged parent_and_child_(lore) if the creator says not to.

The most compelling argument against this though, is that lore tags only apply when they aren't properly reflected in the general tags. You wouldn't tag a character male_(lore) if they're already tagged male, for instance. Here, as an example, it could be the case that a character is a herm but appears as a gynomorph, so you'd tag gynomorph and herm_(lore). If herm_(lore) implied intersex_(lore), while gynomorph implies intersex, that would result in intersex and intersex_(lore) both being tagged, which they shouldn't be.

A character designer might plausibly decide their characters identity based on another real world definition where it's a form of mimicry - as in how some female damselflies have the outward appearance of a male damselfly - or they may just do it through sensitivity of some kind that makes them feel uncomfortable with using one term over the other - perhaps they're attempting to avoid misappropriation of some kind. As such, these tags being separated for lore but not by this sites TWYS rules makes sense, or at least that's how I rationalise it to fit my understanding.
This website defines all gynandromorphs as intersex, but irl that's not always the case; the andromorphic female damselflies I mentioned are not intersex because their polymorphism isn't related to their reproductive organs, but they're still considered andromorphs because of their resemblance to the opposite sex and how that gives them advantages and disadvantages within their species. I understand why the tags defines these terms the way it does though, and I'm never raising a cause to reverse that at all, I was just using it to demonstrate how my brain initially rationalised saying no to this proposal.

I fully agree with your argument too, and I wish I had thought of it myself. My thinking borders on mental gymnastics and is way more liable to cause confusion in hindsight since it's playing on definitions we don't use here lmao but it still satisfies my brain

I know I am late to the party, but gender lore tags can be used however the character owner wants to. So, an implication as we have it for the general tags would be a bad idea.
And the info that they are only used when TWYS contradicts the characters lore is outdated.

aaronfranke said:
The locked wiki page says "Note this tag should not be used on its own, one of its more specific variants should be used"

That line on the wiki page does need to be removed

I'm mildly annoyed that I'm the one that added the line when I standardized the wiki page definitions

dubsthefox said:
I know I am late to the party, but gender lore tags can be used however the character owner wants to. So, an implication as we have it for the general tags would be a bad idea.
And the info that they are only used when TWYS contradicts the characters lore is outdated.

I'm glad you put it in an unambiguous way for future reference

dubsthefox said:
And the info that they are only used when TWYS contradicts the characters lore is outdated.

Is it? So a character should/can be tagged both male and male_(lore) at the same time? Or do you just mean intersex and intersex_(lore) together?

watsit said:
Is it? So a character should/can be tagged both male and male_(lore) at the same time? Or do you just mean intersex and intersex_(lore) together?

That's not what he said.

watsit said:
Is it? So a character should/can be tagged both male and male_(lore) at the same time? Or do you just mean intersex and intersex_(lore) together?

Yeah. The quote in forum #453598 is exactly what NotMeNotYou said when I asked him.

dubsthefox said:
Yeah. The quote in forum #453598 is exactly what NotMeNotYou said when I asked him.

That sounds like a problem waiting to happen. That would mean x_(lore) can be tagged on a character that is visibly ambiguous but intended to appear x whether or not they identify as x (the original intended use), and on a character that identifies as but is visibly not x (a use-case added soon after the tags were added), and on a character that is visibly and intended to appear as x whether or not they identify as x (this new use-case). People could mass tag x_(lore) on posts tagged x and flood out posts where it would give any useful information. I really don't see that being useful or straightforward for anyone if it can mean these separate things while giving largely equivalent results to the non-lore tag.

watsit said:
That sounds like a problem waiting to happen. That would mean x_(lore) can be tagged on a character that is visibly ambiguous but intended to appear x whether or not they identify as x (the original intended use), and on a character that identifies as but is visibly not x (a use-case added soon after the tags were added), and on a character that is visibly and intended to appear as x whether or not they identify as x (this new use-case). People could mass tag x_(lore) on posts tagged x and flood out posts where it would give any useful information. I really don't see that being useful or straightforward for anyone if it can mean these separate things while giving largely equivalent results to the non-lore tag.

You're wildly overthinking a simple concept. If someone is already tagged as x, then there's no reason to also add x_(lore). If the artist/character owner wants to add the lore version, then they can do that if they feel like it, which is how lore tags already are dictated by. The only thing that would change is that people can't tell them that that's not how lore tags work.

nin10dope said:
If someone is already tagged as x, then there's no reason to also add x_(lore).

But also no reason not to. The whole point of this change is specifically to allow x_(lore) to be tagged for characters that are already tagged x, and there's nothing to stop someone from tagging x_(lore) on posts that have x, since that is the creator's intent the majority of the time. And once someone adds it, it shouldn't be removed since it's a valid tag on the post. It's pretty simple:
Is the character intended to look like x? x_(lore) is valid, even if they are already tagged x.
Does the character identify as x? x_(lore) is valid.
So the only posts x_(lore) shouldn't be on are when it shows no character that's intended to look like or identify as x.

watsit said:
But also no reason not to. The whole point of this change is specifically to allow x_(lore) to be tagged for characters that are already tagged x, and there's nothing to stop someone from tagging x_(lore) on posts that have x, since that is the creator's intent the majority of the time. And once someone adds it, it shouldn't be removed since it's a valid tag on the post. It's pretty simple:
Is the character intended to look like x? x_(lore) is valid, even if they are already tagged x.
Does the character identify as x? x_(lore) is valid.
So the only posts x_(lore) shouldn't be on are when it shows no character that's intended to look like or identify as x.

If I see that a lore tag is on a post, what I infer from that is that the artist/owner has openly clarified that the character is of the tagged identity. If someone wanted to add the lore tag on a post despite the fact that TWYS had it covered, then sure, it wouldn't be necessary, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be there

Which is to say that if there is no lore on these subjects, I don't think the lore tag ever applies. Like if I made a random new character that I made to look male, but otherwise put zero thought into if that character actually identifies that way, then I probably would not put the male_(lore) tag on it because there isn't any lore to draw from. And if I saw some other artist draw such a piece and wanted to upload that art here, I wouldn't add an "identity_(lore)" tag without the artists clarification because it'd be unfair of me to just presume that the artist had that intent with the character and then force it onto the character myself in the form of a lore tag.

That said I'm pretty new to tagging conversations lol I could be completely speaking out of my ass

pookashifts said:
If I see that a lore tag is on a post, what I infer from that is that the artist/owner has openly clarified that the character is of the tagged identity. If someone wanted to add the lore tag on a post despite the fact that TWYS had it covered, then sure, it wouldn't be necessary, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be there

Which is to say that if there is no lore on these subjects, I don't think the lore tag ever applies. Like if I made a random new character that I made to look male, but otherwise put zero thought into if that character actually identifies that way, then I probably would not put the male_(lore) tag on it because there isn't any lore to draw from. And if I saw some other artist draw such a piece and wanted to upload that art here, I wouldn't add an "identity_(lore)" tag without the artists clarification because it'd be unfair of me to just presume that the artist had that intent with the character and then force it onto the character myself in the form of a lore tag.

That said I'm pretty new to tagging conversations lol I could be completely speaking out of my ass

No you're right, that is accurate

pookashifts said:
If I see that a lore tag is on a post, what I infer from that is that the artist/owner has openly clarified that the character is of the tagged identity. If someone wanted to add the lore tag on a post despite the fact that TWYS had it covered, then sure, it wouldn't be necessary, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be there

Which is to say that if there is no lore on these subjects, I don't think the lore tag ever applies.

The original intent of male_(lore), female_(lore), etc, was to help clarify what a character was meant to be depicted as, when TWYS would cause them to be tagged differently. For example, if you have a comic where on one page you see a character with a penis, no breasts, and no vulva, they get tagged male, then on the next page you don't see enough of them to tag what sex they look like, so you tag ambiguous_gender for that character with male_(lore) to indicate they're intended to be male. The problem was that people have a habit of continuing to tag the character male even when they should be ambiguous_gender, so the lore tags were a way to help cut down on that kind of mistagging and avoid potential confusion by giving a way to indicate what the character is meant to be when they end up tagged differently on different posts. Importantly, male_(lore) wouldn't apply when the character was clearly not intended to look male (an example given was Tails, a character we know is male but can often look ambiguous (if not feminine) without visible genitalia, so would be tagged male_(lore)+ambiguous_gender; but if they're drawn mtf_crossgender, would not be tagged male_(lore) when they clearly look female). Or another issue with characters being tagged herm even when their vulva and/or penis isn't visible and they should be tagged gynomorph or female, there's herm_(lore) when they can't be tagged herm. Or andromorph vs flat_chested female.

But at some point, they started getting used for a character's identity irrespective of what they're intended to look like. So that example of fem-Tails could be tagged male_(lore) if the artist says they still identify as a guy while clearly appearing female. This creates a problem since the tags are pulling double-duty, essentially working as both an indicator of the character's genital set when not visible, and as their self-identity regardless of what they're meant to look like. Consequently, you can have a single character tagged ambiguous_gender, male_(lore), and female_(lore), with no indication about which is which (are they meant to look male and identify as female, or look female and identify as male?).

Now, given NMNY's musing on allowing lore tags alongside their general/TWYS counterpart, it creates another level of ambiguity. A character can be tagged male, female_(lore), and male_(lore), where the character can appears male, but intended to look female (i.e. with a vulva and no penis), while identifying as male -- or appear male and intended to look male (i.e. with a penis and no vulva), while identifying as female. A character can be tagged male and male_(lore), where it's ambiguous if that means they appear and are intended to look male while not saying anything about their identity, or they appear male and identify as male while not saying what they're intended to look like, or they appear, are intended to look like, and identify as male. That latter bit is the majority of male posts, and is a valid interpretation of male+male_(lore), which in turn can bury posts that use male_(lore)'s other meanings. As it is, many tags have an issue where it's not clear who they apply to, but at least before, if a post was tagged male_(lore) you could be sure it was referring to a character that didn't look male, but now it can. This makes the tags less useful and less straightforward, as you can't know what it means or who it applies to.

watsit said:
The original intent of male_(lore), female_(lore), etc, was to help clarify what a character was meant to be depicted as, when TWYS would cause them to be tagged differently.

The real problem with this methodology is that's not what lore is, which is probably where that following confusion from tag users came from in the first place. This new methods is more in line with the real world definition of lore, which is just backstory.

watsit said:
But at some point, they started getting used for a character's identity irrespective of what they're intended to look like. So that example of fem-Tails could be tagged male_(lore) if the artist says they still identify as a guy while clearly appearing female. This creates a problem since the tags are pulling double-duty, essentially working as both an indicator of the character's genital set when not visible, and as their self-identity regardless of what they're meant to look like. Consequently, you can have a single character tagged ambiguous_gender, male_(lore), and female_(lore), with no indication about which is which (are they meant to look male and identify as female, or look female and identify as male?).

I don't agree. How I read it is if a male character is trying to appear female in a piece of work and the artist ends up conveying ambiguity instead, you would tag ambiguous_gender and male_(lore), leaving out the female lore tag because it doesn't appear that way and the character doesn't identify that way. The artist's intent was making a male identifying character look female, and that male identity is taking precedence over the unsuccessful depiction (though if we did try to include the intended female expression, it probably wouldn't be "female_(lore)" because that character is still male, so a more fitting tag would be something along the lines of "crossdressing_(lore)", which is a variety of tag that doesn't exist.)

If what matters most while tagging now is what comes across in the image (Tag What You See), and the characters backstory (lore tags), then intent with the image is no longer relevant to tagging, if I'm reading it right.