this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
56 points (81.8% liked)

[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation

6470 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
[–] [email protected] 50 points 9 months ago (3 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

Hell yeah. 🙌

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

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

Words to live by really

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

They also did the same regarding race. Used to be that person emojis were always non-descript in that regard. Most implementations used Simpsons-yellow skin, and Android used a green, non-humanoid character.

Nowadays, the more recent human emojis tend to have a bunch of realistic skin tone options as well as Simpsons-yellow default, but they haven't gone back and made those options for many of the older emojis.