Currently this image:

post #928065

Is tagged as male. I wasn't sure whether to change that to cuntboy or not though. In that position, it should be nearly impossible not to see his penis, if he's got one, but it's not visible.

I wasn't sure what should be done in circumstances like this, so, I figured I'd ask.

Clawdragons said:
Currently this image:

post #928065

Is tagged as male. I wasn't sure whether to change that to cuntboy or not though. In that position, it should be nearly impossible not to see his penis, if he's got one, but it's not visible.

I wasn't sure what should be done in circumstances like this, so, I figured I'd ask.

Id say just use ambiguous_gender as based on the artists other works of the same human,he can both gendershift and shapeshift.

Some hes male while others he is a maleherm and very fuw depict him as a C-boy. in some penis is like a human in others it come out of a genital slit which is why this is not neccarly a depection of a c-boy but could also be a male that simply hasnt gotten erect much yet...

R'D said:
Id say just use ambiguous_gender as based on the artists other works of the same human,he can both gendershift and shapeshift.

Some hes male while others he is a maleherm and very fuw depict him as a C-boy. in some penis is like a human in others it come out of a genital slit which is why this is not neccarly a depection of a c-boy but could also be a male that simply hasnt gotten erect much yet...

Outside information (The artist's other pictures using this human) isn't valid evidence. In this particular image, the human has stubble, and his crotch is out of view, so I'd say male. While his form is thin, it's not feminine, either, so no tag for that.

Furrin_Gok said:
Outside information (The artist's other pictures using this human) isn't valid evidence. In this particular image, the human has stubble, and his crotch is out of view, so I'd say male. While his form is thin, it's not feminine, either, so no tag for that.

you are aware that not all c-boys are depicted efeminate are you?
there is no way to clearly verify male, c-boy or even maleherm for that matter, as such it is ambiguous by this websites own tagging rules. Do you suggest breaking those rules?

Furrin_Gok said:
Outside information (The artist's other pictures using this human) isn't valid evidence. In this particular image, the human has stubble, and his crotch is out of view, so I'd say male. While his form is thin, it's not feminine, either, so no tag for that.

The thing is even if he's not erect. He's facing forward, and his legs appear to be directly beneath him, or perhaps even going back a bit, but not forward. His genitalia, then, should either be flaccid, and hanging directly down, or erect, and pointing slightly forward, and in either case, should be visible, I think.

Edit:

R'D said:
there is no way to clearly verify male, c-boy or even maleherm for that matter, as such it is ambiguous by this websites own tagging rules. Do you suggest breaking those rules?

That's... not how this works at all. By your logic, any image tagged as male without a visible bulge or visible genitalia should be tagged as ambiguous gender, because they might have a vagina in those pants.

I might not know how this image is tagged, but I know that's not how this works.

Clawdragons said:
The thing is even if he's not erect. He's facing forward, and his legs appear to be directly beneath him, or perhaps even going back a bit, but not forward. His genitalia, then, should either be flaccid, and hanging directly down, or erect, and pointing slightly forward, and in either case, should be visible, I think.

Edit:

That's... not how this works at all. By your logic, any image tagged as male without a visible bulge or visible genitalia should be tagged as ambiguous gender, because they might have a vagina in those pants.

I might not know how this image is tagged, but I know that's not how this works.

Tag what you see, wasnt that the prenciple of your whole tagging system, what i see is a fairly average body that considering the content on this site can be anything from a male to maleherm. Why tag male if you cant see a penis, why tag c-boy if you cant see a slit. making exceptions invalidates the system. And as ive mentioned earlyer a penis could be coming from a genital slit and it isnt neccessarly vissible in that case when not fully erect but from our vantage point we cant definitly classify the sex

R'D said:
you are aware that not all c-boys are depicted efeminate are you?
there is no way to clearly verify male, c-boy or even maleherm for that matter, as such it is ambiguous by this websites own tagging rules.

Tag what you see, not tag what might be.

Ambiguous only applies if there's either no signs, or mixed signs. Since the character appears masculine with no feminine features, male seems to be the best fit. Though even a flaccid penis should be at least barely visible from that angle, so that does muddle it a bit.

A visible pussy or camel toe is required for tagging said character as cuntboy. As the wiki says. I suppose there is no exception. Or are you saying this could be a exception? This could simply be featureless_crotch.

male featureless_crotch urakata5x rating:e

It seems like everyone is leaning towards male here.

Which is frustrating to me, because if I were looking for cuntboy images, I wouldn't mind seeing that show up, but it would seem wrong to me if I were searching for male/male images...

Yeah I'd definitely tag that cuntboy myself. There's clearly no penis. Or, to be on the safe side, ambiguous_gender.