- Last Active
In other words, due to the legacy use of the emoji and the importance of gender in its meaning, coupled with no modifier for non-binary because it's supposed to be the default, we are instead getting two additional independent variants. "Pregnant Man" (U+1FAC3) and "Pregnant Person" (U+1FAC4) will live alongside the original "Pregnant Woman" (U+1F930), breaking with convention.To ensure the integrity of existing gendered emoji and to preserve a long runway for future additions, "person" based emoji should never be encoded with a sex symbol. As such, the "person" and "man" variants' are in the process of being added as atomic charactersThis is where you lost me. I've read this a bunch of times and I still don't understand. What does "legacy use of the emoji" have to do with anything?Why did they not simply add a new symbol for "pregnant person" and allow modifiers for "male" and "female", as (I think, if I'm reading everything else correctly) is the usual course of action? Then they would presumably deprecate use of the old emoji, without ever removing it. To make this clear, you might explain in detail how they handled other initially gendered emoji like the "turban" or "bunny ears" cases mentioned in the ESC comments.
First off, thanks for actually taking the time to read. My big fear is I accidentally whiffed something technical while I was writing this up at 3AM 😬
As per the last bit, I think the two things are connected. Maybe I can think of how to re-phrase it. "legacy use of the emoji" here is referring to backwards comparability. The standard action is not to create a new base emoji and deprecate the old one, but to replace the old one and then create the modifiers on top.
What you are suggesting would certainly be possible, but (from what I can tell) would be a further deviation from the norm. The other caveat to keep in mind is that they themselves do not unanimously consider 'pregnant man' and 'pregnant person' to be the same thing as 'pregnant woman.' So even if they did address it in that fashion (and this is speculation) I'm not sure it would satisfy everyone in the working group.
slow n easy said:twlatl said:There is nothing logical about a pregnant man. Nice attempt to write thousands of words to legitimize it, but a pregnant man emoji is as useful as a emoji of a fish riding a bicycle. Both are pure fantasy.
On a personal level, I agree with that statement. I tried to walk down the middle in the article in hopes that people wouldn't just bomb out halfway through. However, the reality is the emoji mostly exists due to simple beaucracy and adhearence to a system. At least that was the point I was getting at. It's 100% true there is a push within the ESC to be inclusive and representational and I think that should be lauded, but that inclusivity was baked into the system itself.
The 'pregnant man' and the 'pregnant person' emoji exist because they were just filling in the gaps in that system. No one sat down and said "we need to make this emoji to push a specific agenda or ideal." In fact, the original proposition was to not call them pregnant man/person, but that was rejected largely because of something as simple as naming convention.