Maybe worth editing the title of this post to reflect that?

– In this comment I assume a gender binary for clarity. Arguments extend naturally to gender spectrum! –

I think you brushed on the most important detail here:

It gets even more complicated when you start considering things like gender.

I don’t think (and correct me if I am wrong) the term “futa” makes any assertion, a priori, on the gender of the character it references. The problem with our terminology in English is multifaceted:

• There are not great distinctions in terminology between gender identifiers and sex identifiers. Some people use “woman/man” to refer to gender and “female/male” to refer to sex, but this is not a consensus in practically any community.
• There are not great terms to refer to anything outside of the sex binary. There is intersex, but this is not useful for the case you describe as it does not describe genitalia consistently.

So, unfortunately, we are stuck with either

1. Inventing new words
2. Using loan words
3. Using phrases

The first is nearly impossible for obvious reasons. The second is what we currently do with “futa” in combination with the third. I’ve seen “full-package futa” to refer to a character with a vagina, penis, and testicles, for example.

I understand that people have different preferences for what they’re attracted to: people could want to see any combination of the three genitalia above, and so terms to refer to any such combination is reasonable. As long as it refers to non-real people (that does not allow artistic depictions of real people, to be clear), and is not used as a sole term¹ for characters with canonical gender identities involving their assigned gender at birth², “<adjective> futa” seems like a fine term to me.

1: At this point, I am working within the framework that “<adjective> futa” is a sex identifier, not a gender identifier; thus, there is no reason to object to its use in conjunction with a gender identifier so long as it does not take the place of said gender identifier as appropriate.

2: As a logical consequence one would also not like for “<adjective> futa” to be used in exclusion of “<adjective> futa woman”, where woman refers to gender. That being said, I am unsure if this is really necessary as it is unclear to me if one’s attraction to a “futa” character actually involves the gender of the character or only their sexual characteristics (after all, “futa” does describe sexual characteristics, so it would make sense that gender is not necessarily a factor for attraction here). As such, I only assert that it is problematic to use “futa” as a sole identifier when gender is made clear in the story. I mention assigned gender at birth since pronoun usage implicitly identifies a gender, more or less, which is a facet of language more than story-telling, and thus shouldn’t be the determining factor.

Keep in mind, I am a transgender woman, not an intersex person or a transgender person who has had bottom surgery resulting in a set of genitalia differing from the sex binary. I think those groups can identify more closely with characters who are called “futa” in pornography, so I would love to hear from someone in either of those groups!

PB is indeed not the only one!

Sure! First, did you see my reply to rinkan, in the comments that were lost to the time warp? If so, which of the three uses would you like me to clarify?

Their reverse order list empowers them!

If you like that new community name, I find it reasonable!

I feel I should clarify: To describe art, if the character being described is a futa, I have no problem calling them that. My issue with the term is when it is used to:

1. Describe real people,
2. Describe canonically transgender characters (e.g. Bridget from Guilty Gear), or
3. Describe all FPPWP as a catch-all (overlap with 2 here).

So I think the current post title is completely fine (assuming 2 does not apply; I do not recognize the character if so). Contrast this with terms like “trap,” which I would prefer to never see in any context, for the reason I mentioned in my reply to PB’s comment. Better terms for that do exist (femboy seems fine)!

Thanks again for making this post. It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while, but I didn’t want to bring it up myself for fear of being “annoying,” or similar.

That’s true, and neither are futas necessarily (or “dick-girl”, for that matter). Despite that, both are frequently used to describe transgender women; “trap” in particular often hatefully¹, so I figured it was worth including.

1: In the context that “trans women are trying to lure straight men into being gay.” That’s a sentiment that has lead to a lot of violence and several murders.

Awesome!

Cross-post: https://burggit.moe/post/296021. I changed my mind on the SFW thing, it would be awkward.

This is going to be a wall of text because I have a lot to say!

For starters, would you mind if I cross-post this to !lgbt@burggit.moe, tweaked a bit to be SFW? I think part of this discussion would have value there.

I am transfemme and have complicated feelings on this. I’ll probably end up giving you more questions than answers, but I’m glad you made this post because I think it is a worthwhile discussion to have. I’m going to fix some nonstandard terminology here so that reading this post is not tedious: FPWP = Feminine presenting with a penis, FPPWP = Feminine presenting person/people with a penis.

I identified three main points in your post:

1. Is FPWP content acceptable to cross-post if there are no explicit rules against it?
2. Should FPWP content outside of designated communities be tagged as such?
3. What is inclusive terminology we can use for FPWP content?

— 1 —

I don’t really have anything interesting to say about the first item. Personally, in the rare event that I am browsing Burggit with NSFW content enabled, I like seeing FPWP content regardless of the community (who doesn’t like seeing content they can identify the most with?). If there aren’t rules against it, I say go for it and see what happens. Worst case is you get told off and the rules are clarified.

— 2 —

For the second item, my personal take is that it doesn’t matter, as I use the tampermonkey script to auto-expand images (and I enjoy the content anyway). Let’s suppose that there is someone out there that absolutely abhors FPWP content and could filter out posts with an appropriate tag, for the sake of argument. I could see why they would benefit from tagging these posts. We have to balance that against the interesting point you made: is tagging FPWP content fetishizing FPPWP? That’s a tough question to answer so I’ll just present my thoughts on all sides.

• No: there are many communities outside of Burggit (for example, on Reddit) which will flair posts as depicting someone presenting masculine or feminine (usually [M] or [F]), especially in specialized fetish communities where it doesn’t make sense to segregate (say, for population reasons) and in r4r communities. Many people use these flairs not to actively seek out content depicting masculine or feminine presenting people but to actually filter out what they dislike: quite the opposite of fetishization.
• Yes: the argument laid out above doesn’t apply to FPWP content as masc/fem presentations are not fetishized in the same way that content involving transgender women is. While people do actively seek out content displaying cisgender women far more than cisgender men, and cisgender women are historically objectified, it is not a minority class and thus cannot be considered a fetish in any reasonable sense of the term.
• Yes, but this is not an issue: why would there be? Fetishizing (real) FPPWP in a context in which they are sexualizing themselves is reasonable and not problematic. Do (reasonable) people generally take issue with (real) Asian content, another historically fetishized class? No, not when everyone is consenting to the acts and the filming. Why should it be different from FPPWP? The issue with fetishizing any class is when this escapes designated acceptable areas. If I were to post a nude selfie in !fem_penis_3d@burggit.moe, I have no right reason to be upset if people view that content expressly because I am a FPPWP. But if I am walking down the street, I certainly do not want to be harassed about this (even if I have invited such interaction in other areas of my life). I feel replacing (real) with (art) above doesn’t really change much of the argument, morally speaking.

I have mostly talked myself into the third point above, though there are reasonable people who take issue with Asian fetishization in pornography, I do not see it as such a big issue. There is no other way to categorify it and people should not feel ashamed for their attractions if nobody is being harmed.

— 3 —

Lastly, what is inclusive terminology we can use for FPWP content? As a disclaimer, I use what is perhaps aggressive language here, but I am in no way attacking you personally. Any usage of “you” as follows refers not literally to you, but rather a hypothetical person (English sucks: 2nd person singular impersonal).

.

So that begs the question: what is better terminology? Well, FPWP is essentially perfect as far as using standard inclusive language goes, but it is not at all recognizable to those who don’t know it and thus essentially worthless as a quick-reference term (such as for tags). Trans-girl/trans-woman is recognizable, but also exclusive of trans women who have undergone bottom surgery (and intersex people AFAB and any other person who might present feminine and have a penis). Despite that, I think this is a good option for a compromise between recognizability and inclusivity. Perhaps something like fem-penis could work: we do have a community named this way and it is practically the same as FPWP, so I think that is my favorite option so far. Maybe others have better recommendations?

Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Please feel free to share your thoughts on what I have to say, even if you are not yourself trans or queer in any way. Also, something to keep in mind is that I do not frequent booru or similar sites, so I don’t have much to say RE: that culture. I don’t really see this as a problem because a lot of those sites have some pretty disturbing cultural behaviors anyway.

How’d you make your text pink like that?

Welcome!

Woooooooo! Come join us we are all very cool and very fun ;)

And! The content is (mostly) sfw. So if that is something you are interested in, maybe the Matrix space is the place!

Are we federated with db0?

I don’t think I’m explicitly into/actively seek out anything too far from the mainstream (and don’t let anyone tell you CNC isn’t mainstream!), but I am “unbothered” by most fetishes. Is anyone else like this?

It appears to just be a “reservation” in the event that they exile.

It isn’t even close. I’m glad this makes the decision so easy!

I’m already collecting the mental illnesses, so why not!

I wonder if this is the first DMCA based defederation.

Legality in the US is a little unclear, in their defense. That being said, it is probably just signaling.

I’m not sure to what extent pro-c people actually do any c-ing versus just believing that it should be legal. Does anyone know?

I don’t agree with pro-c’ers, but I’m not sure to what extent the latter is problematic. I guess being “problematic” is subjective, so anything you strongly disagree with is then “problematic.” From a more objective perspective, though, the latter does not cause any harm*, so I wouldn’t call it that.

*There is a caveat here: perhaps being vocally pro-c would encourage others to actually c. I don’t know.

Unliked your own comment, what a move