this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
54 points (81.4% liked)

[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation

6599 readers
1 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.


RULES

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

🫃

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlatFootFox@lemmy.world 49 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Ah yeah, the Unicode Consortium ran into an issue a while back where they realized their emoji descriptors weren’t specific enough and were leading to confusion in cross-platform conversations. Apple used to have a woman in a red dress for “Dancer”, while most Android distributions showed a man in a disco suit. They started getting more specific in their emoji definitions and in 2016 and introduced a few emoji pairs like “Woman Dancing” and “Man Dancing” to clear up the existing confusion.

By 2019 the emoji concepts which were gendered (dancing, etc.) and non-gendered (skiing, surfing, etc.) had become pretty arbitrary. They decided to standardize offering a male, female, and generic version of every human emoji. It’s, you know, a standard, so they generally don’t make that many exceptions. Even emoji like “Santa Claus” have a female “Mrs. Claus” and a generic “Claus” options.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 42 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Plus some trans men can still get pregnant so it's not like it's that ludicrous an inclusion.

[–] FlatFootFox@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Hell yeah. 🙌

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

To expand on that, the way they decided to implement emoji in a simple, flexible and extendable way, was to combine emoji codes.

You have the code for pregnant person and combine it with the code for the male or female symbol emoji, to make the pregnant man or women emoji. So in a way, it's easier to support all variations than only some.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 months ago

So in a way, it's easier to support all variations than only some.

Words to live by really