My only mildly knowledgeable guess would be that those are more "pregnant person" and as part of the work to add gender modifiers to emojis they just added male/female versions of a whole block that happened to include those.
Would definitely love if the linked chart had a reason for rejection column
Uneducated guess--somewhere someone will have archived the discussion--but I wonder if the technical complexity was also a factor. If you've made the combining characters for gender, and you've designated which characters can combine with them, but you didn't plan for characters that must be combined only in certain ways, then you're looking at having to specify all that out, and then implementers will have do their thing, and it just... wasn't worth it.
But that's not the system. They should be sticking to consistently using the ZWJ + gender to modify a base emoji and they aren't. Consuming three codepoints when one will do is silly.
There's some evidence of support at the end of it, many of which were angry Twitter posts. Some of those posts seem like satire/shitposts, but it's hard to say without context.
Just like how eggplant and peach emoji are used for representing things other than fruit and vegetables, I'd expect pregnant man to find its own niche in time. It doesn't take a genius to guess that it will be used by a lot of guys who just ate an enormous burrito.
Why is it appropriate for you to suggest how guys will use that emoji, but it’d be wrong for me to suggest how girls may learn to use a different emoji?
This is not how the guys I know use this emoji, btw.
"It is time for the UTC to own up to their mistakes. This whole ordeal has gone on for way too long. I am not asking for much; the solution to this problem is laughably easy. The current gender situation in Unicode is discriminatory, end of discussion. It excludes transgender people by pretending that only women can get pregnant. It excludes non-binary people by treating the third gender option as secondary to male and female, and by neglecting it for virtually all current human- form emoji. It excludes gender non-conforming people by carefully avoiding gendered sequences for characters like BEARDED PERSON."
> it excludes gender-non-conforming people by carefully avoiding gendered sequences for characters like BEARDED PERSON.
I don't understand this part. Isn't it a good thing that those emojis lack gendered sequences? Or is it that they should have modifiers to make them appear the way that a person wants to present themselves?
Would definitely love if the linked chart had a reason for rejection column