2
I can understand why all the other things would be listed here, and I would understand if sexuality in general was considered inappropriate for children, but why homosexuality in particular? This is strange to me.
<content_rating type="oars-1.1">
<content_attribute id="violence-cartoon">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-fantasy">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-realistic">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-bloodshed">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-sexual">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-desecration">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-slavery">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-worship">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="drugs-alcohol">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="drugs-narcotics">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="drugs-tobacco">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-nudity">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-themes">none</content_attribute>
<!-- this line here -->
<content_attribute id="sex-homosexuality">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-prostitution">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-adultery">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-appearance">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="language-profanity">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="language-humor">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="language-discrimination">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-chat">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-info">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-audio">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-location">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-contacts">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="money-purchasing">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="money-gambling">none</content_attribute>
</content_rating>
EDIT: as one commenter pointed out, an explanation can be found in a commit on the git repo and the tag has been removed.
Rationale
***
Certain attributes in the specification require some explanation as to why they
are present. This list is not exhaustive and may be added to in future.
* `sex-homosexuality`: As of 2020,
[various countries](https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/)
have laws which criminalise lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)
people. In order for software and content to be distributed in those
countries without breaking the law, and possible reprisal, it is necessary to
be able to tag software and content which contains LGBT references, so that
it can be hidden in those countries.
However, in other countries (for example, the EU), discrimination laws
explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender or sexuality. So
while LGBT tagging may be available in OARS data, consumers of that data must
only apply it in countries where the law requires that.
It is still strange to me that anyone would add this tag to an age ratings service, if it is a legal issue and not related to age appropriacy. Anyway, thanks for all the answers (except for those who failed to stay civil and/or brought up american politics for no reason).
Because by law in certain countries, homosexuality is persona non grata, and a filter needs to be there to legally operate in such countries.
Thank you for actually providing an answer to the question, without insulting anyone.
Do these backward shepherds that stone their wives need computers?
I too think that it would be better for everyone if the USA was cut off from technology.
The Republican culture war being waged against the LGBT+ community should make it completely clear that your skin color or brand of religious nonsense doesn't make you immune to bigotry.
if the democrats would stop drumming up as much hatred as possible towards us it wouldn't have become such a large issue in the first place, People feel like it is getting worse, because it is. People who never even cared about whether someone was gay or not now has a strong negative association towards us because democrats have the incessant need to shove it everywhere they go.
It's no surprise that people are starting to hate gay folk when they get shit for so much as looking away when they see gay people kiss in public. The amount of time's I've had to say "I'm not one of those gay people" is absurd.
The far-right is not the Democrats fault and I don't know why you're bragging about selling out your community.
it's not the "far right" that's the issue, it's the fact that the far left is generating high amounts of animosity from anyone relatively centrist.
"Thanks for pushing normal people to the far-right" is an overt strategy passed around 4chan and far-right chat channels, intended to both discourage the left from defending their views and create the idea that being bigoted is something "normal people" support.
I disagree that it it's bigoted to for instance, not like games which have rewritten characters to fit a certain demographic, whether it be sexuality or race.
"Defending your rights" and being as loud as possible for the sake of it are 2 completely different things.
The two closest homosexuals in my life are my favorite uncle and my best friend, that happens to be my attorney. My uncle is openly gay, my attorney is married to another woman. This has absolutely NO impact in our interactions. Why? Simple, that's their business, and everyone in their environment understands this.
Guess why I don't have more gay people in my environment. Because I don't like people, precisely because of this incessant need to be loud about irrelevant shit like sexuality. You lack so much of everything else that the only way you have to be seen is your sexual preference? That's the saddest shit ever. That level of emptiness has to be grueling.
If you have to be constantly "defending" your sexuality, you need to examine the environment you have chosen to participate in.
The problem here is not sexual preference, the problem is that sexual preference, for reasons I can't begin to understand, has become the defining factor for people, instead of principles, moral, honesty and just flat out being nice.
When was the last time you saw a "heterosexual" parade, specially with a bunch of people swinging it all out?
Whatever happened to "you do you, I do me"?
Literally the sentence before that one was you being critical of pride parades, so I guess you mean "You do you (but only with my rubber stamp of approval)"
Pretty much.
If you're still bigoted towards gay people I don't want you on our side tbh and if you're now on the right I don't think you were centrist in the first place. General "you," of course.
I think people are really underestimating how bad some people are starting to feel about it. It's constantly being talked about it the news in fairly negative circumstances. Constantly being shoved in peoples faces, "Pride Parades" where people are walking around almost, (and in many cases fully) nude in the middle of the day. Media constantly being changed (and often for the worse) to accommodate the inclusiveness etc.
a lot of people are fine with this, but even I as a man who likes men, think it's absolutely disgusting to be walking down a public street with your dick and balls, or a woman's crotch fully exposed. but being against this makes me a "heterosexual bigot" somehow.
People are doing so much to generate as much animosity as possible against, and I'm really starting to hate this term myself, LGBT folk. Folk who just want to mind their own business, aren't allowed to anymore. and all of negative bullcrap, people ruining old media, walking down the streets naked, screaming at people for trying to mind their own buisness etc. all winds up getting tied to LGBT stuff.
This is what I mean when I have to tell people that I'm not one of "those gays" because I don't think it's right to do any of this garbage. And this garbage does make people hate the "LGBT" community.
The news is the only thing that cares. I've never seen one.
Often done for diversity's sake at the cost of quality, yes. This is executive meddling and generally doesn't work as intended.
You totally are, just avoid media hype.
I don't even think you're necessarily wrong, but I'm arguing that in the absence of media amplification and/or existing bigotry, this would not be a problem.
I do agree that media amplification is not only part of the problem, but a significant portion of it. but the media influence has started to regretfully show its effects
Or they can be a big boy and suck it the fuck up
funny how this only ever works one way regardless of who you talk to.
Lmao, I can assure you that to people who hate gay people, you will ALWAYS be one of those people no matter how pathetically you grovel at their feet, the democrats have nothing to do with that.
no, they didn't. this is behavior I've observed in person for multiple people.
Wow, thYs some victim blaming right there.
Not really. some people like things and some people don't, getting in trouble for so much as not liking something and trying to distance yourself from it is absolutely insane. I don't like watching straight couple make out in public. im not a bigot for looking away, but when it's someone straight who looks away from a gay couple doing it all the sudden they are the some of the worst people.
utterly absurd.
This situation doesn't exist outside your imagination.
I have had the unfortunate privilege of witnessing it happen to a friend.
Sure. "It happened to a friend".
Yes I admit I don't have evidence, because unlike the modern tards of today's society, when a friend of mine is getting shit for some stupid reason, im not going to just sit and record it.
You're really bad at staying mask on.
im not sure I understand.
Shocking nobody.
I dunno, why don't you ask, eg: Russia?