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

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.

You keep focusing on the people who don't tag their trans but they're not who I mean. Those people are a lost cause and don't give a shit, and I'm not on their side.

I mean the people who DO tag appropriately and want to help others sort through fic. They might write cis/cis and not tag anything because they figure they don't have to tag since canon is cis/cis so why flag it? But that results in: nobody tags anything then it's all a big guessing game which ends in surprise vaginas.

If people who already do tag, start tagging cis/cis, when you see it there, you know for sure what it is and it no longer blends into the sea of untagged trans. It's a guarantee that it is cis, and if vagina content writers don't want to tag vagina then whatever, it bypasses them completely. That's what I was getting at

The people who tag appropriately are literally not the problem, though. When I click on one of their fics, I get exactly what is on the tin (the characters as they are in canon) and there is no problem there. Adding another tag isn't going to change that fact.

It doesn't matter if the taggers are tagging correctly if the other people refuse to tag. What you end up with in practice, like right now, is a mass of untagged fic that may or may not contain surprise vagina.

The ones who have demonstrated they do not want to tag, will never tag. We cannot change these people. They don't care. The untagged vagina fic will continue.

However, the ones who have demonstrated they ARE willing to tag can start tagging cis/cis then the uncertainty diminishes. They are now not a mass of untagged fic, there is a "bunch of untagged fic" and "a bunch of fic tagged cis/cis by people who have demonstrated they are willing to tag appropriately." This would help people find what they want to find. The problem does not continue because now things have a cis/cis tag you can look for.

Sometimes if you want to resolve a problem, the solution has be implemented by people who are not the cause of the problem. Often it has to be that way, because the problem people won't change. It doesn't make it not their fault, but they don't care it's their fault.

I'm not sure how else I can explain it to you. We can agree to disagree but you seem to not understand what I'm trying to say.

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?