Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 79
  1. #61
    Junior SpottyJaguar's Avatar
    Weasyl
    SpottyJaguar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4
    Made an account just to post this, yay!

    I am someone very displeased by this change and this wording choice, and I am also someone who is affected by it, being a dude with breasts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiz View Post
    - Change it to remove gendered terminology, and have it say something closer to "defined breasts including areola and nipple".

    This might be our best bet so far, but people just may view the word 'defined' and think that it means large, so perhaps there is better wording for this one. Any suggestions?
    I believe this is, without question, your best option. The long and short of it is that not only is the current wording is very transphobic and cissexist, but also that it is just plain unnecessary. Unless there is a clause in whatever relevant laws that says this subject matter must be described as "female," this remains a rule about displaying breasts, and little more, which means there is zero need for there to be anything inherently gendered about any of this.

    However, let me quickly add that I don't think you should use "defined," as anything can be defined, but, rather "developed," as that is more specific. If necessary, go in further and specify a that you mean post-pubescent breasts, and specify the showing of nipples, etc.

    For example, "May contain partial nudity (e.g. breast cleavage and exposed buttocks). May not include clearly defined genitalia, or developed and/or post-pubescent breasts showing nipples and/or areola (including prominent definition through clothing)." This makes it much more clear what we're talking about, and makes this a much less problematic and more enforceable rule. You could obviously tweak the wording some, if there is a need to, but, again, the point is that gendered language should not be necessary.

    Honestly, and this is my main issue with what's been done, I could argue that there's a huge vagueness in simply saying "female breasts," and that it is a problem waiting to happen. What does that mean? Where exactly have you drawn the line? The current wording does not explain much.

    I could be a teeny bit of a jerk and post a trans guy character, decide that his are male breasts - which I get to do, as they belong to a male person - and say that they're not breaking any rules! Of course, they would be, as this rule is/should be about exposure of breasts/nipples in and of themselves, but my actions would make the rule unenforceable without resorting to transphobia and cissexism. As it is, the rule cannot be enforced without deciding that someone's body parts are this or that; you would be forced to say that my character's breasts are female, as opposed to simply "the rule is about breasts with nipples, and these are breasts with nipples, so please change the rating."

    Would many people do this? Perhaps not, but the fact that it is so incredibly possible due to the new wording is another example of why the wording should be changed.

    This alternative is not only worlds more respectful, but more specific. I totally understand that Weasyl can't have breasts in and of themselves labeled as less than nudity because of current US laws, and I am not here to say that you should stand up to those laws*, or that, inversely, you should make any and all nipples, ever, at all, warrant a mature rating. Again, the core of this issue is not that some depictions of breasts shouldn't be considered nudity and warrant a mature rating, but rather that the change to the wording of the guidelines has become incredibly problematic when there is no apparent reason for it, and when it may actually be worse than non-problematic language.

    I care greatly about Weasyl and do not wish any harm to the site. If you need to uphold laws, please do so! But I think myself and many others would be a lot more comfortable if you did so without also telling us that our body parts are inherently this or that.

    * those laws are problematic themselves, because of the hopefully obvious problems (read: lots of sexism and cissexism and other uncool things) in policing breasts as they currently are, but I acknowledge that few, if any of us here are in a position to do anything about that at this time.
    Last edited by SpottyJaguar; 06-17-2014 at 03:26 PM.

  2. #62
    Premium User Runefox's Avatar


    Weasyl
    Runefox
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    NL, Canada
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Fiz View Post
    Reminder this thread isn't about discussion of personal opinions regarding gender and sex. Please don't derail the thread. Thanks.
    That's funny, I'm pretty sure some posts earlier on (and the one right above mine!) were about exactly that - And are currently why you're "try(ing) to collaborate to try to fix this!"

    Let's say I'm an average member, looking at the new guidelines. I see "Female nipples" - okay nipples on breasts, got it. I know the term refers to sex and not gender. If I see an alternative explanation like "Nipples on characters which display obvious, defined breast tissue with areola(e) which is not caused by a character's weight or body fat, regardless of gender identity"... uhhh... wait, so if a character is male but has breasts from a glandular thing is that still mature? Is this just talking about female breasts? I'm just gonna upload this as general because there's no areolae, just the nipples. Also her chest is flat so it's all good.

    US law is clear: Female (as in sex) nipples are indecent. It's an archaic law that should be changed, but it's the law nonetheless and people have been and still do get arrested for it, even as a form of protest. The law doesn't care about gender, and there is no gender-neutral way to describe someone who is female-sexed. The notion of the separation of gender and sex in terms of language is a relatively new one due to society's widening acceptance of trans, intersex and genderqueer people, and as a result there is still a massive wave of confusion over how to define it in words.

    So, when describing anatomy, the term "female" applies to characteristics mainly specific to the female side of the sex spectrum, whereby referring to "female sex organs" cannot be construed as meaning anything other than sex organs typical of natal females. Saying "female nipples" should therefore refer to the physical traits that nipples on the female sex exhibit - That being typically large but sometimes insignificant areola(e), a range of breast tissue supporting it, and typically more prominent structure than that on the male sex. An intersex individual by definition has traits of both sexes, and as a result can have female breasts with a male body structure, or no breasts but having a vagina or combination of vaginal and penile tissue. Transgendered individuals by definition are individuals whose sex does not match their gender, and as a result describing a pre-transition MtF as physically being male sexed is accurate. Any other description until completion of transition is not accurate.

    What all this means in a nutshell is that no matter how you phrase this, you are going to inevitably end up still referencing physical sex or otherwise muddling the rules and making it harder on everyone. Therefore, my suggestion is simply to not change the wording at all, especially because reference is already made to US law regarding the subject.
    Last edited by Runefox; 06-17-2014 at 02:58 PM.

  3.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #63
    Sentimental Machine Fiz's Avatar

    Weasyl
    Fiz
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,476
    Thanks muchly Spotty! "Developed" seems like a lot better descriptor for this, along with post-pubescent.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Runefox View Post
    What all this means in a nutshell is that no matter how you phrase this, you are going to inevitably end up still referencing physical sex or otherwise muddling the rules and making it harder on everyone. Therefore, my suggestion is simply to not change the wording at all, especially because reference is already made to US law regarding the subject.
    At this point, not changing the wording isn't really any option. Leaving it as is will, and is already, causing groups of people to be very uncomfortable, which was not our intention and is a big problem.

  4. #64
    Rattlesnake Flavored RedSavage's Avatar
    Weasyl
    RedSavage
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    293
    Ohai don't mind me. I'm a transgender. MtF. I have no issue with any said terminology.

    Everyone up in arms about the distinction of "female nipples". I'm sorry---but what exactly do you call nipples on top of full breasts? Female! They're a female sex organ! They're not talking about gender standards or conformity! They're being purely biological!

    I'm sorry but to the folk who are shouting on about it, playing pedantics on mere terminology, YOU'RE the reason why trans-folk have a hard time being taken as serious, rational people when it comes to IMPORTANT ISSUES.

    Grow up a bit. Please.

  5. #65
    Premium User Runefox's Avatar


    Weasyl
    Runefox
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    NL, Canada
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Fiz View Post
    Thanks muchly Spotty! "Developed" seems like a lot better descriptor for this, along with post-pubescent.
    What about flat-chested females? Breast cancer survivors? Males with glandular problems? Fat males? Fat females?

    At this point, not changing the wording isn't really any option. Leaving it as is will, and is already, causing groups of people to be very uncomfortable, which was not our intention and is a big problem.
    So what would make things comfortable? Would you go into great detail describing what a female sexed nipple looks like? Explain each fringe case that needs to be discussed in detail? Inundate the reader with a wall of text so that the general meaning of the rule no longer makes any sense?

    Oh hey, maybe just add the term "sexed" after "female".

  6. #66
    Regular Zalcoti's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Zalcoti
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    67
    Until our language evolves to include nonbinary words (which means most of the population would use said terminology and know what you are talking about) it's going to be very hard to pinpoint with vague phrases.

  7. #67
    Rattlesnake Flavored RedSavage's Avatar
    Weasyl
    RedSavage
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by XoPachi View Post
    This is a joke.
    You really know how to sum it all up in a single sentence.

  8. #68
    Junior tacticalsnake's Avatar
    Weasyl
    tacticalsnake
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Georgia
    Gender
    male
    Posts
    3
    I do feel the new ToS/Guidelines would benefit from better clarification. As they say, it is better to be clear and concise. The dispute over nipples is exemplary here-- Either get rid of the "explanatory" paragraph because it is, in fact, totally unnecessary besides being grossly offensive, OR replace it with a SHORT line stating that this distinction is required by US/Delaware law as it currently stands, and that the server being located in Delaware makes it beholden to both Delware's laws and those of the United States. End of story. If you are really that worried about arguments from the Q and T people on the site, then use the right terms-- say Female Presenting. Please do not use offensive terminology because you think it is "more accurate." It's not. Definitely do not try to pile on as much as you possibly can. Whatever that paragraph is, it's a train wreck and it should not stay.

    I disagree that there cannot be distinctions drawn between broad categories such as Anthro vs Feral, as those distinctions are rather important, particularly in terms of showing a character's bits for whatever reason (it's far more likely for the former to be "suggestive" than the latter). Again, this only requires a line stating such, not a book defining it. My suggestion is that ratings as they stand are fine for anthro, and that feral doesn't get pushed up until it's clearly sexual-- for illustrations (in written material mentions will obviously bump up the ratings either way since you don't need to mention sexy bits unless sexy sentiments and actions are going on).

    I also feel that the allowance for "incidental nudity" in (animal) photographs is problematic. Long story short, it ignores how the medium of Photography works: You are supposed to take an enormous number of a particular scene in order to ensure a handful of viable images. For example, I usually tend to do like 20 of a single subject in a set, especially if I care about it, in hopes of getting like one or two images I can use and like. In the main, the photographer is not helpless and forced to deal with whatever they get because you exercise a certain level of control over what appears in your image. Therefore, it's not really "incidental" to post an image with, I don't know, a dog with an erection, because they could have freely chosen a better angle, cropped the image while working on it on the computer, examined it better before posting, or even waited for the dog to cease being aroused before taking pictures etc. This is in line with the minimum requirements for quality imposed on other media for this site.

    Now, I do think that what's most important to remember is that it's better to assume the userbase can figure things out and exercise good judgement and so avoid lengthy discussions within rules posts that either make things confusing or encourage a Big Brother sort of site-culture (that is, people going well out of their way to report everything that might be considered against the rules, or worse, what they just don't like and want to be against the rules), which I've seen on other sites who decided meticulous rules were the best way to go. No matter what, rules will require explanation to some, and it's better that one just be encouraged to ask staff whose job is to explain than it is to try to preemptively cut off questions within the rules. It just creates more. This will also create a dialogue and rapport between users and staff.

    I am glad to see that there is some acknowledgement of this in the thread so far as I have seen, and that there is interest from the staff in amending things if necessary. I did want to add in my thoughts because I do feel that the edits are in need of some revision, mostly in language (which is almost always true of any new terms posted unless you have a lawyer (or two) and specialized writers on staff!).

    OH, also is there some site history concerning the importance of having tags that I'm missing because I don't understand why tags are supposed to be so important here. Principally I don't know why one is supposed to allow others to add tags to their work, as it feels obtrusive and presumptuous, but it seems that there are statutes here which rely on the history of the site (such as the immutable distinction between Mature and Explicit). This may just be my thing since I can be a bit territorial but since they were touched on I feel it's worth asking.

  9. #69
    Premium User Runefox's Avatar


    Weasyl
    Runefox
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    NL, Canada
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by tacticalsnake View Post
    If you are really that worried about arguments from the Q and T people on the site, then use the right terms-- say Female Presenting. Please do not use offensive terminology because you think it is "more accurate." It's not. Definitely do not try to pile on as much as you possibly can. Whatever that paragraph is, it's a train wreck and it should not stay.
    The problem with "female presenting" is that it's just that - Presentation. it doesn't describe them physically, it describes the way they act and present themselves to the world. By that definition, a FtM transgendered individual who has not transitioned (is still physically visibly of the female sex) is definitely not allowed to bare their chest by law. While there isn't a single word that describes someone who is physically female or has female characteristics, "female sexed" I personally feel sums it up enough.

    If we did have separate words in our language to differentiate between gender and sex, then this wouldn't have happened. The intent behind the writing is obviously not transphobic if you read the asterisked explanation, but the distinction between sex and gender can be difficult to make going by context alone.
    Last edited by Runefox; 06-17-2014 at 03:40 PM.

  10. #70
    Rattlesnake Flavored RedSavage's Avatar
    Weasyl
    RedSavage
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    293
    Words in themselves are not offensive.

    It's the individual that attaches meaning and connotation. It's the individual that takes offense.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •