I have a question about what constitutes the sex of a person in a video as far as forum labeling is concerned. Recently, I reported a video for having the wrong sexual classification. It is technically a male getting wammed by a female. The store is owned by a female, yet the female never gets messy. The store owner had it classified as male and then it was classified as coed by a moderator, yet it showed up under female settings in the forum.

What goes into defining the content of the movie? Does it go by the sex of all the people who appear in the movie? I like that producers of content are trying to serve as many interests as possible.

I think MM said once that as long as the scene has a female in it, it's all good, messy or not.

There seems to be a fairly big crossover out there with straight guys who like to see women getting messy who also love to kind of imagine themselves in the place of a guy in the scene getting messily dominated by the female, and if that content went into the strictly male category they might never find it

Exactly - and if there's men and women, it's classed as 'coed' which is why the moderator will have changed it.
And since 'coed' means 'contains a woman and a man' it shows up when you filter on 'female'.

If you never want to see a guy in a scene at all, you can hit the 'strict' button in your preferences, and it'll filter out all coed scenes. Bear in mind that this means you won't see men messing up women, however.

On UMD that's how it works. The gender is inferred automatically based on the models attached to the scene.

I made up the term "one-sided wam" to address this coed situation. From the FAQ https://umd.net/about_us#gender-tagging

"One-sided wam" is what we call it when content contains a male and female interacting together, but only one gets wet or messy. Whether to label this coed or not is left to the discretion of the author because to many, the person delivering the wam is just as relevant, whether they stay clean or not.

Messmaster

Yeah, if you turn on the strict filter, a lot of that coed stuff should go away.

However... pero, toutefois, sin embargo,

I can turn on "strict" under female only for instance and still see a LOT of cock because the authors of those pics "feel" (crossdresser) or "identify" (trans) as female etc. even if they list themselves as male or even indicate they are a man in their profile.

As it stands now, UMD labeling is ambiguous at best and based on whatever the author wants it to be at that given moment in time. This usually means "gender" and not "physical sex".

My experience has been that very few transpeople use the "trans" setting here I think because they find it insulting as they ARE what they say they are based their chosen identity: male or female rather than they bits they were born with or currently have. While I agree, This is definitely more frustrating in the setting of a sexual site or forum than everyday life because in everyday life you're generally not looking at someone's genitals.

Furthermore, no one wants to have the conversation, because everyone has a different opinion on it, and some tend to get very heated. While many people can have a candid discussion, not everyone is there yet. For instance I have a trans friend we'll call (Juanita) that identifies as "transexual" and NOT "transgender" and feels that "transgender" people that don't claim to have some level of body dysphoria are what they call "transtrenders". She doesn't hate those people, but her personal opinion is they are either "confused" or "faking it". My even SAYING that here could cause a flame war though.

You CAN flag things if you think they are incorrect, but whether or not they are changed is left up to MM. And unless he changes tagging to be things like "Cis Male", "Cis Female", "Trans Male", Trans Female", "Intersex", "Non-binary", etc. you're going to run into dicks when on "strict female" and vajayjays under "strict male". That's just how things are right now.

Also this is interesting to me, as you're indicating the original creator of the content (a woman) tagged it as "male" since it was one-sided WAM, but a mod or someone of that level changed it to coed. Based on the things that MM has said, I don't see why this was changed as it was the author's prerogative.

As far as showing up under female settings. It WOULD do that once it was tagged as "coed" if you don't have the "strict" filter checked. If it was coming up under female before the change was made...well that would be a bug or something if it were tagged as "male".

Potatoman, I totally get what you mean with how people in the LGBTQ community feel. It is strange to me that they would care about it as much as they do. I have seen some pretty bad back and forth about the way people have identified because there are no set in stone definitions and people have their own definitions. My thought has always been to each their own have at and be happy. I think the different tags to include everyone is a great idea.

IMO the coed tag should only apply to coed and not one sided wam. To me the person/people getting wammed is the one the tags should follow. Thanks for the explanation MM!!

For the record, I agree it's a lot more complex than my short post suggested. And as Potatoman says even just picking from 'M/F/T' erases a lot of the subtlety of human identity.

It's not possible for the UMD to cater to every possibility - and perhaps controversially I believe it should not even try. As Potatoman says people might identify as one of the options, but other people view them as something else. We will never get everyone to agree on that, and so trying to enforce it via a list of tickboxes is doomed to end in arguments, flagging and nonsense.

I think the current system is fine, and complicating it any further will just make these situations worse. Just try and come up with a list of every possible option for how someone might tag their content, and a set of checkboxes for what you're willing to see... The current system confuses enough people who say they asked for female content but they see men sometimes...

The current system is the best compromise I can see - but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

I browse (as my screenshot showed) on 'show me anything' and that shows me what each post is tagged as. I usually skip the male stuff but I find it interesting to see what's out there. Maybe because of this I find it hard to get bent out of shape if something's ambiguous and might arguably be tagged differently....

Live and let live.

PS This is in no way a dig at the original poster, who asked a fair question! It just illustrates that even three checkboxes and a 'strict' setting are confusing already.

It does say somewhere that classification here is expected to be related to visual appearance, so broadly any content tagged female should feature people who look largely as we expect women to look, and content tagged male should feature people who look largely as we expect men to look. Of course there is a vast range within each of those, including crossovers (cis female butch lesbians, for example, may often dress and present an image that is a lot more "manish" than some more effeminate cis men do) so at best it's only ever going to be a guideline.

Exactly, my personal rule is, if it's one person and they got a dick hanging out, or clearly showing tucked somewhere it should probably be tagged as "male" and vice versa. But alas, many don't do that.

This! honestly, it might cut out a lot of the mixed-up crossover when used with a consistent visual appearance line of judgement.

I have mine set to show only strict female because regular female does have those 'landmines' where it's actually a girl messing a guy but shows up as female.