Not Always: Always Female

Yeah it shouldn't be about just character types. It should be about all tropes that are one 100% Always Female no chances for male examples without Crossdressing or a sex change (this would include fashion or Breast Tropes and such.) Then the Mostly Female would be mostly about stuff like Genki Girl and Emotionless Girl which are mostly connected to females but can rarely be males if they meet the right criteria.

There is a decent debate on if you can Spear Counterpart a Magical Girl series so that it has mostly guys (and uses all the tropes assoicated to Magical Girl) and is actually aimed at guys Here Which mostly goes to Sentai in an actual work even though its not really the same thing. Everything else has elements that put it into an entirely different genre. So that would be one of those it could happen but doesn't.

edited 6th May '11 10:21:59 AM by Raso

Absolutely right about these not having to be characters; it's historically been the case but there's no reason for it to continue to be.

Alright, so should we have another crowner to decide how to hard split Always Female? Sorry, given that the current crowner is closed, I am not sure how to go about doing that. I guess I might need a moderator's help.

From what I can tell we do not seem to have a clear consensus on whether we should just rework Always Female and create a Mostly Female index or whether we should rework Always Female into Inherently Female Tropes and Feminine Tropes.

Also, I am correct to think that we will be doing something similar to Always Male after we decided what to do with Always Female or should we make a separate topic for that?

edited 9th May '11 4:20:17 PM by LouieW

I don't see why we wouldn't keep Always Male parallel to Always Female.

A separate topic would be more convenient, but there is no reason I can see to not give them both the same treatment.

Crowner.

It lists non-excusive suggestions that were mentioned in this thread.

Bump for more votes.

On the Gender-Inverted choice why not do both? I mean things can be listed on more than one index.

Also where is the Always Female vs Mostly female split option? It flat out keeps it simple...

edited 19th May '11 7:27:04 PM by Raso

<Mod Hat ON>

I'm taking the "What to do with Always Male?" Option off of the crowner. It's a separate question, about a separate page, and should have its own discussion. Deciding it in a thread that gives no indication it's being considered, with no tag on the page is a sneaky way around following standard procedure.

<Mod Hat OFF>

This is a thread about both tropes. I stated the OP with this comment: "Everything I'll say applies to Always Male as well"

They are not just snowclones, but for all intents and purposes, an index family.

It's not uncommon that threads and page actions concern more pages than the one that can fit in the title link. (e.g. all merge threads, for one thing). The only reason why it wasn't brought up in the thread more, is exactly because everything that was said about Always Female makes the same logical sense said Always Male, so it would be redundant.

And anyways, even if formally it would make what would be the point of that? Do you honestly expect that there is a bunch of people who would have different reasonings for page action with Always Male than with Always Female? Or that the people in this thread only voted that suggestion up unilaterally, because they have their own agendas about secretly taking away power from these others who want to keep Always Male, but don't even want to read a thread about Always Female.

Read my earlier posts about Gender Inverted Trope Counterparts. The idea behind that subpage's existence is that things like Distressed Damsel aren't really Inherently Female, (as the same thing can happen with males, even if that is on a different page), and not Feminine Trope either, (as formally, these don't list male examples), so they need to be treated in their own format.

Otherwise, creating a new sub-index from parts of bigger ones isn't even a TRS issue, even if here the crowner would vote against that, you could go to the YKTTW and start one that doesn't involve redefining other tropes.

About your missing option: Splitting Always Female into those two was already voted in the previous crowner, so if you vote all the suggestions about more sub-indexes and superindexes down, it will basically do that, logically we'll end up with only two tropes, Inherently Female Tropes (Always Female) and Feminine Tropes (Mostly Female).

I interpreted the thread's earlier parts as mostly everyone agreeing that using new names like this would make sense, (whether Inherently Female would be a new page, or a rewritten, redirected version Always Female), just to sign that changes have been done.

If you disagree about that, and insist about the subpages having the names you suggested, I guess you could add an entry about them in this crowner, or wait for a third one specifically about the names.

How come on the crowner the "what to with Distressed Damsel / Distressed Dude, etc." only has two options—split, or lump with Inherently Female? Lumping it with Mostly Female / Feminine Tropes/ whatever was also discussed, and IMO would make the most sense.

Because entries can only be voted two ways.

I reworded the title to include that as well. Now, in case Gender Inverted Trope Countrerparts get's voted down, we also need a seventh crowner, to figure out where to lump it.

Well not all of the Mostly Female tropes are not truly "Feminine" Tropes some tropes in the Mostly Female category don't have female connotations besides the fact that they are just mostly used on Females like Dark Magical Girl, Clingy Jealous Girl, Dojikko, Hot Scientist ect. Nothing is stopping people from inverting these (And there is nothing wrong with it if they do invert it) they just do it rarely if at all.

edited 21st May '11 2:12:58 AM by Raso

"It's a separate question, about a separate page" - Madrugada

It's connected, though, because it's the Spear Counterpart. The standards we apply to one should apply to the other.

Though I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean it has to result from this thread either. Should a separate TRS thread be created?

Well, putting aside Biggus Dickus what Literally Always Male tropes do we have?

There are quite a few tropes related to facial hair, and also men being influenced by the idea of MANLINESS in ways women aren't, like Real Men Wear Pink (that isn't a direct equivalent of Real Women Never Wear Dresses either), Rated M for Manly, or Sissy Villain (that is unmanly, not simply feminine), and even some clothing tropes, like Man in a Kilt, or Shirtless Scene.

Regardless of how many Literally Always Male tropes there are, that page does have some rather bad choices. The latest one I saw: Dogged Nice Guy, which actually has a "Dogged Nice Girl" redirect and has many female examples, but there's plenty of other tropes that have similar issues.

Yeah, if the other-gender term exists as a redirect I think that's a pretty clear sign the trope isn't Always Male or Always Female as the case may be.

Not always as people just add a gender inverted redirect when the trope is created even if it didn't have a single gender inverted example. ~90%+ of the examples a single sex would get on the Mostly Female or Mostly Male index IMO.

Apparently nothing has actually happened with this, so perhaps I can propose a simple solution: Rename Always Female to "Usually Female" or "Almost Always Female".

Sounds pretty good to me.

Of the two names, "Almost Always Female" would be the best, given that it provides minimal disruption of alphabetization and the phrase has already been used several times in this thread.

That, and it provides a nice little bit of hyperbole if you're familiar with probability theory.

Bump. Discussions with a clear crowner consensus should not be left to rot.