Unicode 12 emoji shortlist includes 55 gender & skin tone combos for couples holding hands...

Posted:
in iPhone
On Thursday the Unicode Consortium -- of which Apple is a part -- announced the 179 candidates that are on the shortlist for emoji in Unicode 12, which should reach iPhones and other mobile devices in the first quarter of 2019.

Unicode 12 couples emoji


In a recent meeting of the Unicode Technical Committee, the Consortium added a candidate emoji for a deaf person, and a full 55 variations of a couple holding hands. The large number of combinations accommodates different genders, skin tones, and sexual orientations.

A service animal vest has meanwhile been changed to a safety vest, but may be attached to a service dog emoji. The shortlist will be finalized at the next Technical Committee meeting in September.

The Consortium is already laying the groundwork for 2020, in fact adding eight more "provisional" candidate emoji for consideration, namely a ninja, military helmet, mammoth, feather, dodo, magic wand, carpentry saw and screwdriver. More candidates will be collected through March 2019, at which point recommendations for draft candidates will begin.

Unicode 11 should arrive on Apple platforms later this year. iOS, macOS, and watchOS will gain over 70 new emoji, presumably alongside the introduction of iOS 12, macOS Mojave, and watchOS 5.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    These “sensitivities” and “political correctness” are getting ridiculous. Who cares if your skin tone isn’t exactly, we don’t need 50 shades of black and countless hair colors.
    tallest skil[Deleted User]mike1buzdots
  • Reply 2 of 16
    roakeroake Posts: 609member
    We have to accommodate people that are very, very confused.
    [Deleted User]
  • Reply 3 of 16
    anomeanome Posts: 1,153member
    simply258 said:
    These “sensitivities” and “political correctness” are getting ridiculous. Who cares if your skin tone isn’t exactly, we don’t need 50 shades of black and countless hair colors.
    Maybe we could get rid of all those white people. That would cut down on the number of variants.
  • Reply 4 of 16
    GG1GG1 Posts: 201member
    roake said:
    We have to accommodate people that are very, very confused sensitive.
    Fixed that for you.
    [Deleted User]
  • Reply 5 of 16
    simply258 said:
    These “sensitivities” and “political correctness” are getting ridiculous. Who cares if your skin tone isn’t exactly, we don’t need 50 shades of black and countless hair colors.
    Why is it ridiculous? How does the addition of characters in the character set harm you? If you were very dark, why wouldn’t you appreciate a tone that was very dark?
    EsquireCats
  • Reply 6 of 16
    roake said:
    We have to accommodate people that are very, very confused.
    Are you suggesting that same-sex partners are confused? In what way?
    minicoffee
  • Reply 7 of 16
    GG1 said:
    roake said:
    We have to accommodate people that are very, very confused sensitive.
    Fixed that for you.
    Funny that it’s always the hetero white males who say people need to stop being so sensitive and accept the historic status quo. I wonder why that is..... Oh yeah because the status quo has always been white heterosexual males.
    edited August 9 minicoffeeanome
  • Reply 8 of 16
    anomeanome Posts: 1,153member
    GG1 said:
    roake said:
    We have to accommodate people that are very, very confused sensitive.
    Fixed that for you.
    Funny that it’s always the hetero white males who say people need to stop being so sensitive and accept the historic status quo. I wonder why that is..... Oh yeah because the status quo has always been white heterosexual males.

    Which is why I say get rid of all the white people emojis, and see who complains then. I mean if representation doesn't matter, then it won't matter if all the emojis are (for example) black.

  • Reply 9 of 16
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Funny that it’s always the hetero white males who say people need to stop being so sensitive and accept the historic status quo. I wonder why that is..... Oh yeah because the status quo has always been white heterosexual males.
    Funny how still you have no argument. Mods, just wipe the comments and lock the thread. Unicode doesn’t need any of this.
    JanNL[Deleted User]
  • Reply 10 of 16
    they could have just had a zoomed in view of two hands together in a few skin tone variations - gender neutral, reduce the emoji count by 3/4 or more. 
  • Reply 11 of 16
    outraged, why is the woman wearing a skirt and the man in trousers!? this is gender stereotyping and I'm going to complain to the guardian newspaper! /s

    https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/tracy-ullman-host-a-hilarious-woke-support-group/ ; :D
  • Reply 12 of 16
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,766member
    adm1 said:
    outraged, why is the woman wearing a skirt and the man in trousers!? this is gender stereotyping and I'm going to complain to the guardian newspaper! /s

    https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/tracy-ullman-host-a-hilarious-woke-support-group/ ; :D
    I agree, the guy and girl should wear skirts, that's the way to go and in many countries it would actually make fashion sense. too.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    QualleyivQualleyiv Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    anome said:
    GG1 said:
    roake said:
    We have to accommodate people that are very, very confused sensitive.
    Fixed that for you.
    Funny that it’s always the hetero white males who say people need to stop being so sensitive and accept the historic status quo. I wonder why that is..... Oh yeah because the status quo has always been white heterosexual males.

    Which is why I say get rid of all the white people emojis, and see who complains then. I mean if representation doesn't matter, then it won't matter if all the emojis are (for example) black.

    White male here—100% in favor of getting rid of all of the white (and every other color) emojis. I have never been the least bit offended by yellow emojis AND I DON’T KNOW A SINGLE OTHER PERSON WHO IS EITHER.
  • Reply 14 of 16
    mike1mike1 Posts: 1,749member
    simply258 said:
    These “sensitivities” and “political correctness” are getting ridiculous. Who cares if your skin tone isn’t exactly, we don’t need 50 shades of black and countless hair colors.
    Why is it ridiculous? How does the addition of characters in the character set harm you? If you were very dark, why wouldn’t you appreciate a tone that was very dark?
    The original bright yellow was just fine.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 5,842member
    Funny that it’s always the hetero white males who say people need to stop being so sensitive and accept the historic status quo. I wonder why that is..... Oh yeah because the status quo has always been white heterosexual males.
    Funny how still you have no argument. Mods, just wipe the comments and lock the thread. Unicode doesn’t need any of this.
    Why does the inclusion of non-whites bother you so much? If you were not a white male, you would likely feel differently about not needing it or finding it adds value to the character set.

    How is that not an argument?
  • Reply 16 of 16
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 5,842member

    mike1 said:
    simply258 said:
    These “sensitivities” and “political correctness” are getting ridiculous. Who cares if your skin tone isn’t exactly, we don’t need 50 shades of black and countless hair colors.
    Why is it ridiculous? How does the addition of characters in the character set harm you? If you were very dark, why wouldn’t you appreciate a tone that was very dark?
    The original bright yellow was just fine.
    Says a non-dark person. The bright yellow was a cartoonish approximation of a white or light-skinned person. So again: how does the inclusion of additional characters in the character set harm you? If you were very dark, why wouldn't you appreciate it? I find it nifty to use emoji that look like me, and cannot fathom your revulsion to it. Well, except the obvious of course.
    edited August 10
This discussion has been closed.