fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6982 ]

[ SECRET POST #6982 ]

⌈ Secret Post #6982 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 25 secrets from Secret Submission Post #997.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

This os sich a dumb comment. Well duh, they're not in canon relationships. That's why you tag the ship. Doesn't mean they're not canonically cis. That's why you shouldn't need to tag that.

SA fuck you autocorrect.

So... what's the big deal about also tagging what variety of slash it is, so people looking only for cis/cis slash can find it? It's such a little thing that hurts no one and would help people?

The more I read in this thread, the more I begin to think this is less about taking 2 seconds to add a tag that people can search for, and more about a moral stance that rejects de-centralizing cis which oh boy fandom is not ready to even talk about yet hahaha

DA

No, we're just trying to explain to you that cis is already implied and no one is actually going to do it. If your solution relies on "people should just..." then that's a solution that is never going to happen. People just aren't going to do it.

If you're finding surprise vagina in your slash tags, it de facto is not implied, though?

???? what?

Hahaha, I'm just saying what you think, or wish slash implies - always cis/cis -

and what it seems to imply in reality to lots of other people - which is often cis/cis, but sometimes surprise vaginal that people here are complaining about -

don't seem to match up.

Your logic is really messed up, man. The fact is that most people are cis. Most characters are cis. People are going to assume cis unless stated otherwise, so until the source material says someone is trans they are assumed cis. There's no point to tagging that a character is cis. Do you also want to tag that their eye color, hair color, build, age, etc etc? These are things everyone who has seen the source material already knows, so there is no point in tagging them. The M/M part is tagged by the tagging of the pairing, since we already know that in the source material the two characters are male and the fic author is tagging them in a relationship, thus tagging that it's slash. There's no point in tagging cis. It's like tagging "Harry/Draco, slash, m/m, boylove, BL, gay, yaoi." Like, ok, you're an idiot who doesn't know how to tag, did you also want to mention that it's homosexual? What's the point of that? Reach? Guess what, most people go for fandoms. They don't search for "gay," they search for the characters they already know. Tagging gay does absolutely nothing. Adding on BL m/m boylove yaoi is inane and expecting other people to do that is naive at best.

It's not even a point of surprise vagina although that is something that thankfully is getting better as people push back into place the cultural norm of tagging things that are different than canon.

It's the existence of vaginal anything in M/M in the first place. I love that they're tagging it so I can avoid it but why is it there AT ALL? People who want vaginal stuff can go to M/F or F/F. People who want just dicks only have M/M and even that is getting vagina in it. THAT is the issue. Not tagging.

Hahaha that's a whole lot of text to exaggerate a lot of things I never said.

"Harry/Draco + cis/cis" would be exactly what you're looking for, and "Harry/Draco + cis/trans" is not what you're looking for. No need to tag their hair color, no need to tag Hermoine who appears in chapter 3 briefly as cis. If a character in a canon is canonically trans but in a ship with a cis person they also fall under "cis/trans" no need to tag them alone as trans, and it's really simple?

M/M, F/F, M/F. Cis/cis, cis/trans, trans/trans. "Cis/cis" and "cis/trans" are both widely popular varieties of slash, popular enough for people who don't like the latter to unfortunately come across all the time and vent about it, so...

But:

"It's the existence of vaginal anything in M/M in the first place. I love that they're tagging it so I can avoid it but why is it there AT ALL? People who want vaginal stuff can go to M/F or F/F. People who want just dicks only have M/M and even that is getting vagina in it. THAT is the issue. Not tagging."

If you're simply morally against trans male fic being considered slash or M/M, that's a whole different thing and you're talking about something completely different than discussing how tags should be used. I wish you had said that at the start so I could not have bothered to make a good faith attempt at the latter.

i mean to be fair f/f has the same problem. people who only want vaginas are finding dicks in the f/f tags too.

SA

Plus, if your proposed solution is "people should just... (tag trans)" that also is never going to happen because "people should just" doesn't happen, I guess.

Oh well, I'm on neither side of the cis/cis or cis/trans fandom so you have my sympathy about an impossible situation.

No, because it's always been the standard in fandom to tag for anything diverting from canon. I do my part in enforcing this standard for newcomers who can't be bothered to learn our culture.

I don't think standards are, or ever were, so rigid as you say. If someone tags a mafia canon with "mafia" it's not a diversion, it's a descriptor tag of the canon genre. It's not only diversions that are tagged. Cis/trans, cis/cis, and trans/trans would all be a content descriptors like mafia. Not necessarily diversions.

Descriptors are great and I'm for more of them :)

I'm in a mafia canon. No one tags mafia. It's like tagging cannibalism for Hannibal. No one does that. We already know. You tag if there isn't mafia or cannibalism, because those things are expected.

Bingo. I'm in a horror canon fandom and no one there tags for violence or gore because those things are present in canon. Everyone knows that fics for this canon are probably going to involve that because you can't consume the canon in the first place if those things squick you.

"It's like tagging cannibalism for Hannibal. No one does that."

https://archiveofourown.org/works?work_search%5Bsort_column%5D=revised_at&work_search%5Bother_tag_names%5D=Hannibal+%28TV%29&work_search%5Bexcluded_tag_names%5D=&work_search%5Bcrossover%5D=&work_search%5Bcomplete%5D=&work_search%5Bwords_from%5D=&work_search%5Bwords_to%5D=&work_search%5Bdate_from%5D=&work_search%5Bdate_to%5D=&work_search%5Bquery%5D=&work_search%5Blanguage_id%5D=&commit=Sort+and+Filter&tag_id=Cannibalism

At least 6,481 works would prove otherwise? And that's only AO3...

We don't need MORE tags if those tags are unnecessary, redundant and don't actually do anything.

If you click cis/cis and got only cis/cis slash I think that'd be a great thing that does something, though. Berating people to add trans tags seems to also not be doing enough. It'd be cool if people doubled up so readers can be sure what they're getting.

Hopefully you're not the anon above that thinks vaginas of any kind do not belong in any M/M because obviously a character with a male gender means no vaginas!! because I'd rather not interact with them any more, oof

No I'm not that anon.
But I still don't agree it would be any use. People who don't tag the trans/cuntboy content also wouldn't use the cis tags. So the issue remains - the people who won't tag properly won't start just because there's now a cis tag. In general, unless you make certain tags mandatory, the problem will always be the people who refuse to tag their vagina content in slash fic.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #6982 ]

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?

Re: Do you have any squicks?