• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

A possible new rule for gender sections in our character profile pages

Status
Not open for further replies.
AS someone who doesn't identify with their assigned gender-

Just label them as their preferred gender. Nothing more nothing less. I really don't see why this is such a big discussion.
Well, it wasn't intended to be a big issue, but it has an inherently explosive nature currently, and we needed to create a new rules text via our usual standard procedure.
 
Note: For vs debating, vsbattles.fandom views genders specific Hax (Fictional powers wielded by individuals or concepts) to only effect the gender those that identify themselves as such.
That seems like an unusual enough circumstance to not need a specific regulation. It also feel a bit insensitive to mention.
 
What's your method? I don't think biological sex is irrelevant information since it can be a factor in a match.
A bajillion different things can be a factor in a match, my Alliance section addition could've been a factor in a match, a character's greatest fear can be a factor in a match, their relatives can be a factor im a match, their mental conditions can be factor in a match, their species can be a factor in a match.

It's not an excuse to jam in every single thing we can think of to be a factor in the match, onto the file.
And in our case, we mostly use gender and sex as one and the same thing.
No. There isn't your case. You aren't Shakespeare where you can invent your own definitions, AKM, in fact it's offensive for you to suggest so.
Sex in most profiles is implied to be the same as gender since mentioning it twice would be redundant.
How unfortunate, so I suppose we should just not list a character's sex then.
If you have a method that doesn't list it under gender, but also does not omit the detail, I'm all ears. Perhaps we can just mention it in the summary section. Wikipedia pages generally note this under trivia but we don't have that.
We are NOT WIKIPEDIA, we are VERSUS BATTLES WIKI. 90% of the matches biological sex is just not a factor.

You're inventing an issue where isn't one, nobody will be completely inept in understanding a character's dynamics if they don't know if their **** are real or something.
 
Again, stop being so hostile. AKM and Damage have tried to be as polite as they can manage.
Having minor colored responses isn't hostilities, in that way alot of things I can paint as hostilities.

I haven't insulted either of their capabilities, and have addressed their points, but if their logic is ridiculous then I cannot help if me pointing it out makes them look worse.
 
I am self aware I am not a staff member, but I like to point out Fandom also has a guideline for the LGBTQIA+ community as well. https://community.fandom.com/wiki/LGBTQIA+_Resources
We should since VS Battle Wiki is literally a indexing wiki and been subject to Fandom’s guidelines. I do not want us to provoke Fandom staff if they deem it necessary to intervene.
There is also the fact we need this listed on our site rules
 
I'm fine with the suggested draft as long as we make a mention of their biological sex in the summary with full context, whether it is part of their early life or any given key, since I feel the information is relevant for gender-specific powers.
 
I'm fine with the suggested draft as long as we make a mention of their biological sex in the summary with full context, whether it is part of their early life or any given key, since I feel the information is relevant for gender-specific powers.
Gender specific powers barely get used in a Vs. Debate sphere, I'm active on the wiki forum, it's irrelevant, so no I disagree with unnaturally forcing trans characters to be outed somewhere on the file.

If a user want to do that it's fine, but it isn't something to be ******* mandated lol
 
Characters can't be "outed" on an indexing wiki. That's like complaining that a spy character has their true name revealed on their profile when the character is supposed to be undercover. On a wiki for fictional characters, that kind of thing is irrelevant.
 
Gender specific powers barely get used in a Vs. Debate sphere, I'm active on the wiki forum, it's irrelevant, so no I disagree with unnaturally forcing trans characters to be outed somewhere on the file.
“Barely” means it’s used, therefore it’s included into all. What are we to do when someone uses a gender-specific Hax in a debate? Ignore them, trash them, shame them for using a power in a vs debate?
 
Characters can't be "outed" on an indexing wiki. That's like complaining that a spy character has their true name revealed on their profile when the character is supposed to be undercover. On a wiki for fictional characters, that kind of thing is irrelevant.
Wow Damage congrats on nitpicking my terminology and voiding my entire response's context.

It's annoying to do that, to be blunt, especially when I'm arguing two different users at once right now with barely any support.
 
How do you out a fictional character on an indexing wiki? That's dumb.
Wow AKM congrats on nitpicking my terminology and voiding my entire response's context.

It's annoying to do that, to be blunt, especially when I'm arguing two different users at once right now with barely any support.
I don't think the actual message is hard to comprehend, if it is I can repeat it for you.
 
So something like this:

"Always consistently use the preferred pronouns of transgender characters in their character profile pages, and only list the gender that they identify as in this section of the pages in question, not anything further. Any further details can be provided in the summary if need be."
 
Are you aware of slippery slope fallacy, Elixir?
Sure… (having that as your response kinda ticked me off)

… but who is using fallacy here? I don’t think I am by being someone who is trying to keep in mind for all possibilities is being the one using fallacy and I’m not calling things irrelevant cause I said so.
 
It's annoying to do that, to be blunt, especially when I'm arguing two different users at once right now with barely any support.

I'm sorry that I've annoyed you, but just because you're discussing something with another user doesn't mean a second user can't jump in.
 
Impress, you are still being unnecessarily aggressive in my view. AKM and Damage mentioned that most transgender people do not seem to consider Fandom's standards offensive, given that they were approved by representative organisations and are officially used in most international companies. Those are valid fact-based arguments, even though I personally prefer to show consideration towards the minority that do find this offensive and also try to maintain a peaceful environment here by doing so.
 
“Barely” means it’s used, therefore it’s included into all. What are we to do when someone uses a gender-specific Hax in a debate? Ignore them, trash them, shame them for using a power in a vs debate?
This is a strawman of the argument.
 
So something like this:

"Always consistently use the preferred pronouns of transgender characters in their character profile pages, and only list the gender that they identify as in this section of the pages in question, not anything further. Any further details can be provided in the summary if need be."
Well, that would likely offend a considerable part of our trans-members as well.
 
@Antvasima; why would that be offensive? That is the exactly same wording proposed earlier in the thread but with the addition that any extra details can be added in the summary section.
 
Impress, you are still being unnecessarily aggressive in my view.
I'm sorry that I've annoyed you, but just because you're discussing something with another user doesn't mean a second user can't jump in.
Damage attempting to now lecture me for my minor ass exasperations.
How do you out a fictional character on an indexing wiki? That's dumb.
Literally calls something I said dumb when I said beforehand it was a minor terminology error.

But besides that if my method of speaking causes someone offense when I don't even levy insults at them then I think the debate site needs to realize people have different ways of talking sometimes.
AKM and Damage mentioned that most transgender people do not seem to consider Fandom's standards offensive, given that they were approved by representative organisations and are officially used in most international companies.
In different contexts. I demonstrate that, they still double down on it, and I am addressing it. Stop acting like I cannot address them especially when they're inconsiderate of the context at hand.
So something like this:

"Always consistently use the preferred pronouns of transgender characters in their character profile pages, and only list the gender that they identify as in this section of the pages in question, not anything further. Any further details can be provided in the summary if need be."
Completely disagree with the lastmost part, again, a user can add them, mandating it is the exact same issue as listing it in Gender section.
 
This is a strawman of the argument.
What strawman? I’m not preventing changes from being made. I’m trying to raise a voice for a minority of fictions that does have gender-specific Hax. We should take those abilities into account for all standards if we are indexing all of fiction, not only making policies to the loudest voices in the room.

I’m advocating gender-specific Haxes on vsbattles.fandom only effect what someone identifies as and making a note of that.
 
What strawman? I’m not preventing changes from being made. I’m trying to raise a voice for a minority of fictions that does have gender-specific Hax. We should take those abilities into account for all standards if we are indexing all of fiction, not only making policies to the loudest voices in the room.

I’m advocating gender-specific Haxes only effect what someone identifies as.
...mate it should just be case-by-case and discussed on the thread itself.
 
Well, that would likely offend a considerable part of our trans-members as well.
By summary I meant the summary section.

Completely disagree with the lastmost part, again, a user can add them, mandating it is the exact same issue as listing it in Gender section.
The last phrase is "if need be". It's not mandatory. People need to know where to mention any details if they want to, if the need arises. The need can arise depending on context about a key or a character's past life.
 
What strawman? I’m not preventing changes from being made. I’m trying to raise a voice for a minority of fictions that does have gender-specific Hax.
You're advocating for a specific listing of AMAB or AFAB with said argument in mind, but are attempting to appeal to an extreme by saying that because people do not want this listing, that they would also trash or shame people for bringing up said gender-specific power in the middle of a debate despite people never saying this. You aren't tackling the argument and instead conjured up your own and attacked that as if it was their argument.
 
...mate it should just be case-by-case and discussed on the thread itself.
But that leaves it open to be discussed about in terms of biology and I can already see the toxic arguments getting someone banned from the wiki… sigh, nevermind. We could always use the entertainment. :/
 
@Antvasima; why would that be offensive? That is the exactly same wording proposed earlier in the thread but with the addition that any extra details can be added in the summary section.
Well, I thought that the idea of including any form of information about the assigned by birth gender was stated to be considered offensive here.

Anyway, just to clarify Damage's and AKM's motivations here, to prevent further false accusations, it definitely isn't remotely about transphobia, it is just about that they are high-level (borderline professional) extremely dedicated wiki editors who want to include all valid information about characters, and follow the established regulations to the letter. That's it.

Many of us are basically nerds here, in a good way. We are fixated on organising and listing facts all day long, and deliberately removing such information can feel very unnatural to our mentalities due to this.
 
The last phrase is "if need be". It's not mandatory. People need to know where to mention any details if they want to, if the need arises. The need can arise depending on context about a key or a character's past lives.
It's still implied to be encouraged. It shouldn't be encouraged.

No need to unnaturally attempt to address it on the file.
 
Anyway, just to clarify Damage's and AKM's motivations here, to prevent further false accusations, it definitely isn't remotely about transphobia, it is just about that they are high-level (borderline professional) extremely dedicated wiki editors who want to
Not to be the person but like, again, that's ignorance if they're being persistent in their beliefs yet still.
 
Damage attempting to now lecture me for my minor ass exasperations.

I would say that isn't an attempt at a lecture from me... but that'll sound like another lecture, so whatever.

Stop acting like I cannot address them especially when they're inconsiderate of the context at hand.

People having a different opinion to you doesn't mean they're being inconsiderate or disrespectful. You just seem ultra-fixated on your perspective being the only correct one.

Not to be the person but like, again, that's ignorance if they're being persistent in their beliefs yet still.

We're not ignorant. We just see things differently to you. Just because somebody sees something differently to you doesn't mean they're missing some vital information or belief that will adjust them to the "correct" viewpoint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top