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).
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