In this question edits, there is a debate about the usefulness of the tag. I think it's better to discuss it here, together.

What are your thoughts about it? Do we need the tag?

  • 1
    If we want to have separate tags based on sex, I'd prefer we go with male and female to keep things a bit more biological and avoid gender exclusion.
    – nloewen
    Mar 9 '17 at 20:43
  • 1
    @nloewen I think "male" and "female" can be equally fraught. It all depends on context...
    – Zanna Mod
    Mar 9 '17 at 20:49
  • @Zanna absolutely. In general I think male and female are less fraught though. We could go with male-biology and female-biology to make it more explicitly non-gender based. Or my personal preference, just use biology for everything!
    – nloewen
    Mar 9 '17 at 20:57
  • 1
    I strongly feel there is no need. There is only one question with the tag. Veganism and Vegetarianism is not limited to men or women. So I don't see any need of the tag.
    – Nog Shine
    Mar 11 '17 at 2:21


What would this tag be used for? The way I see it, there are a few options.

  • Questions related to (human) biology

This would include questions about how different diets affect the male body. I.e,"Does not eating meat affect males more than females?" In this case, the tag would be better off as or some variation of that.

  • Questions related to (animal) biology

I'm having trouble thinking of examples, but much like the above.

  • Questions related to male animals

This would include questions such as "Is there any difference in the effect of meat production if I eat male animals over female animals?" This would be a tag such as... nope, I don't think a tag would be useful here.

So in any case, I would not have a tag. It's too broad, and unclear what it would be used for.

  • Note: I'm not an expert in the scope of the site, so if I chose bad examples, please tell me.
    – Mithical
    Mar 9 '17 at 21:29
  • 1
    The trouble I see with tags like human-male-biology is that they are overly specific, complicated and will not be used for asking questions nor for searching for them, therefore losing the reason for their existence as tags altogether. Mar 9 '17 at 21:34
  • @AlexanderRossa in that case, maybe consider some synonyms.
    – Mithical
    Mar 9 '17 at 21:36
  • 1
    @Mithrandir That is the thing. The human-male-biology thing is far too specific to even allow for synonyms. I personally do not like the tag men that much either but relating to the question, it seems to me much better than compound and overly specific constructs. In that case, I would be in favor of not having such tags at all. Mar 9 '17 at 21:39
  • @AlexanderRossa it could be that a tag such as human-male would be better, dropping the part about biology, and opening up what it would be used for a bit. (Also, I'm not here as a regular user; I'm just here to see how Riker does and post on meta, so take my stuff with a grain of salt :P)
    – Mithical
    Mar 9 '17 at 21:43
  • 1
    I'm not sure we even need a [human-male-biology], maybe only [human-biology] or just plain [health].
    – Riker
    Mar 10 '17 at 14:11
  • Why [human-male-biology] rather than [men] (I don't think either are free of gender trouble as Judith Butler might say)? Tags are supposed to help people find things if I'm not wrong. Are you veg*n yourself? If not, maybe there are a lot of questions this community might have that you aren't immediately able to imagine. We can attempt to deal with gender trouble in the tag wiki if that's the concern
    – Zanna Mod
    Mar 12 '17 at 23:57

No: because there's only one question which uses it and I don't foresee many others like it.

Most questions about V are (I'd guess) not gender-specific.

Tags are useful for identifying groups of questions (not individual questions), especially when that group cannot be found using Search.

Maybe you should avoid an unnecessary proliferation of tags initially, and add them later as needed (when categories of topic become apparent).


The social implications are clearly difficult but I think it may be necessary in some cases to discuss issues specific to either sex. May I suggest ? Clearly concerns about prostate cancer or hormones are specific to them.

  • Hmm, yes. What with the differences of hormone balance and the dietary requirements thereof, and physiological foundations which produce such distinctions, I can see at least dietary and cultural aspects which could foster questions. E.g. living in a culture which associates carnivorous diets with masculinity; meeting the necessary quantity of a complete amino acid complement for the masculine body. Apr 10 '17 at 18:15
  • I'm a geneticist so I had differing metabolic and nutrient requirements in mind but yeah, sure that too. Whatever the cause, men are at risk of different dieseases and will have specific health and social concerns.
    – Tom Kelly
    Apr 10 '17 at 20:42

I am not sure whether we need a tag or not myself, but I regret removing the tag: I didn't see the edit history. I suggest we just leave the tag, since the post author obviously strongly feels it's necessary. Possibly other people will find uses for it in the future.

  • The post author does not get to decide on how to organise the site with tags. May 17 '17 at 11:43
  • @Carpetsmoker no but the post author is part of the small community of people using the site and avoiding edit wars is a good thing...
    – Zanna Mod
    May 17 '17 at 11:48
  • Sure, don't disagree, but "post author obviously strongly feels it's necessary" on its own is not a very good reason to keep a tag, IMHO. May 17 '17 at 11:50

I think it's alright to leave it as it is for now. It certainly classifies something and carries meaning that may be attached to and used to search for questions.

As for it being only a one question tag (as Riker's suggested reason for its removal in the edit history), while tags for one question are generally bad idea, I think we are far too young as a site to avoid this. I mean, there is almost twice as much users as questions, of course some tags will be unique, that does not mean they are not meaningful or useful.

  • Agreed. We can give the tag some time.
    – Zanna Mod
    Mar 13 '17 at 0:03

The most probable on-topic questions would likely be about men's grooming products, men's clothing, or male health (as the question referred to is) ... or maybe, just maybe, about men's behaviour/psychology/ethics (slippery ... slope ... into ... a ... pro... or ... anti ...social ... justice ... site ... bias ...) ....

For the three (or four) categories, firmly establishing a canonical tag now might be a good idea.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .