GDelscribe said:
Which bothers me, because if we give content exceptions to that then why not other things?

The issue with charr was that their females tend to have a more feminine face and body structure compared to males. It was pretty easy to tell them apart. Pikachus' only difference is a notch in the tail unless genitals are shown. That really isn't enough evidence to assign gender by our standards.

GDelscribe said:
Which bothers me, because if we give content exceptions to that then why not other things?

What Ratte says, but also that the differences for charr are larger than just a single notch in the tail.

And what's more important: The tail got retconned, the charr differences did not.

Between the pikachu gender disambiguation and the introduction of pikachu as a pokemon are 10 years. If we start to enforce that the tail influences the gender tags we would have to change 10 years worth of fan art wherever a pikachu with a female sex is depicted, potentially changing those females to cuntboys. That is, quite frankly, unacceptable.

Having a break off date where the gender is to be changed based on the tail is also basically unenforceable thanks to the missing year tags, or the simple loss of the source with a creation date.

NotMeNotYou said:
What Ratte says, but also that the differences for charr are larger than just a single notch in the tail.

And what's more important: The tail got retconned, the charr differences did not.

Between the pikachu gender disambiguation and the introduction of pikachu as a pokemon are 10 years. If we start to enforce that the tail influences the gender tags we would have to change 10 years worth of fan art wherever a pikachu with a female sex is depicted, potentially changing those females to cuntboys. That is, quite frankly, unacceptable.

Having a break off date where the gender is to be changed based on the tail is also basically unenforceable thanks to the missing year tags, or the simple loss of the source with a creation date.

That's the opposite of what Pent was suggesting, which was to consider a smooth tail ambiguous (Not masculine), and only the cleft tail as feminine. That would have no effect on the artwork of pikachus from before the gender differences, or artwork from artists who didn't know about it.

However, I disagree that it should be feminine enough that at best a character could only be a dickgirl because of a cleft tail, and instead see it more like eyelashes, where its presence is feminine, but you can still have a girly male.

In regards to the yinglet post, disregarding any knowledge about the character or the species and just going off what you see in the picture: no breasts, no visible genitalia, feminine eyes, feminine clothing, wide hips, nothing stated or shown in the image to imply what gender they are.

Now, I'll search 'rating:s, girly, ambiguous_gender, wide_hips'

post #412608

Oh look, a feminine character wearing feminine clothing in a feminine pose that fits all of the above! While the chest is exposed, you could take that to mean they are a flat chested girl and their breasts are featureless.

Do you see why I have a problem with what you are doing?

Who is "you"?

Siral_Exan said:
Who is "you"?

The council responsible for continuous support of mistags based on "percieved body type" rather than the obvious.

Like. The way gender tagging is handled is kinda borked and comes down to "we arbitrarily decided it's supposed to be this" and any dissenting oppinions are ignored or rendered invalid.

Anyway when someone says you as a nonspecific. It usually means the group/site as a whole.

That would of been the use of "they" or "we", you is singular in that statement. "Do you see why I have a problem with what they are doing" directs it to the party involved, and "do you see why I have a problem with what we are doing" directs it to the people who read it (it ignores the parties, it only bothers who read it).

I'm taking offense to the use of you, if it is plural. Because I'm third party, I'm not a part of you. If it is towards the party intended, or person, then it is on them to take offense, but including other people only brings more problems.

i think that its about the disaster over here
post #921460
and it might be directed to ratte

Mutisija said:
i think that its about the disaster over here
post #921460
and it might be directed to ratte

Apparently clothes are now enough evidence to misgender characters now.

Mutisija said:
i think that its about the disaster over here
post #921460
and it might be directed to ratte

worth noting pretty much all criteria ratte stated can easily apply to males as well....

And just saying, but to me it does very much look like a crossdressing male or c-boy/male_herm.

these repeating tag wars are exactly why the exception of always defaulting to male or female based off of secondary characteristics that any sex can have is problematic and why ive been saying to only tag by visible genitalia to avoid these tag wars. considering these do seem to keep happening quite often the issue isnt exactly irrelevant.

Ruku said:
worth noting pretty much all criteria ratte stated can easily apply to males as well....

And just saying, but to me it does very much look like a crossdressing male or c-boy/male_herm.

these repeating tag wars are exactly why the exception of always defaulting to male or female based off of secondary characteristics that any sex can have is problematic and why ive been saying to only tag by visible genitalia to avoid these tag wars. considering these do seem to keep happening quite often the issue isnt exactly irrelevant.

Also.

Here's a fun one.

If we don't tag lore. Why does the crossgender tag exist?

By its use, this image should be tagged with crossgender since its known to be male but is tagged and is apparently a "female" in this image.

You two sure love stroking each other's egos.

Just throwing that in here but Lopin has canonically female features despite being male, because that is how some of the yinglets are built, and under our rules that is a female until shown otherwise in the picture.

Ruku said:
And just saying, but to me it does very much look like a crossdressing male or c-boy/male_herm.

Males outside of the Out-Of-Placers universe seldom follow an hourglas form if they have any sort of testosterone production, if they "cheat" with hormone therapy it obviously changes.

NotMeNotYou said:
You two sure love stroking each other's egos.

Just throwing that in here but Lopin has canonically female features despite being male, because that is how some of the yinglets are built, and under our rules that is a female until shown otherwise in the picture.

Males outside of the Out-Of-Placers universe seldom follow an hourglas form if they have any sort of testosterone production, if they "cheat" with hormone therapy it obviously changes.

I'm not gonna be able to say much on the ego comment. I'm not gonna dignify that further than I don't see how anybody is doing any ego stroking.

That said. Youre mentioning canon as your example for part of your reasoning. Thats literally the definition of using lore for tagging.

GDelscribe said:

That said. Youre mentioning canon as your example for part of your reasoning. Thats literally the definition of using lore for tagging.

It's not part of the reasoning, at all. It looks female, it gets tagged as female. You guys want that lore influences the tags, even the lore says it looks female.

lets be honest here: literally nobody would even bat their eyes for that being tagged as female if people didnt know that the character is canonically male.

Mutisija said:
lets be honest here: literally nobody would even bat their eyes for that being tagged as female if people didnt know that the character is canonically male.

Agreed.

Mutisija said:
lets be honest here: literally nobody would even bat their eyes for that being tagged as female if people didnt know that the character is canonically male.

about the only thing that threw me off was the lack of female breasts.

NotMeNotYou said:
It's not part of the reasoning, at all. It looks female, it gets tagged as female. You guys want that lore influences the tags, even the lore says it looks female.

No not at all, lore has nothing to do with this, this has to do with you using secondary characteristics that can show up on any sex to default incorectly to male or female and you don't need hormone therapy for males to get these traits, they can very well come naturally irl. I'm suggesting to eliminate exceptions you guys put in your twys for defaulting to female or male when you cannot verify ether, most of these sex based tag wars exist because you decide on something that is just not compatible to the basis of what twys actually stands for. And here we are now trying to downplay issues of twys application by discrediting the people pointing it out as ego stroking...

Care to organize your statement? You are trying to make too many points in that comment, and your last sentence is just the cherry on the top for why I ask...

Siral_Exan said:
Care to organize your statement? You are trying to make too many points in that comment, and your last sentence is just the cherry on the top for why I ask...

lets see, a admin pointing to lore when the argument has nothing at all to do with lore.

a admin avoiding a issue of exceptions that are incompatible with twys -but non the less blindly enforcing them- by trying to discredit those pointing it out in public as just "ego stroking". That the argument in posts themselves keeps coming up with both sides often believing they are in the right of following twys is proof of that issue.

The fact that secondary characteristics that ratte pointed out in the subjected image can appear on all sexes both naturally or artificially both in art and irl and as such arnt actually something that can be used to decide the sex of a character.

That i advocated before for limiting tags of a characters sex to only images were its actually visible to be in line with what twys actually is((tagging by what you can clearly see, not by what you assume to know)) and to avoid these tag wars in addition to removing the unnecessary double standard given between the binary sexes and intersex/non-binary sexes.

If everyone is going keep staunchly supporting the system of "tagging what you see" then it should be enforced completely, not half-assed and loaded with exceptions and double standards based off ones personal subjective preferences, that is what my point in the argument boils down to.

Examples:
-long_neck: we would tag something as long neck when we can see a long neck
-balls: we tag balls when they are clearly visible, if they are clothed we only use bulge because what could be creating the bulge could also be something else.
-canine: we only give this to characters that have clearly visible traits that are in combination unique to canines
-and what about sexes? if genitalia isnt visible we still use other traits that nether alone or in combination unique to any one sex without visible genitalia.
we can only use clearly visible genitalia because there are no other traits or combinations there of that are alone visibly unique to any one sex.

We still tag clothed balls if it's visible that's actually the balls (ie. spandex), we don't assume that it could be a pair of marbles and don't tag them.
The same goes for gender tagging on safe images, if everything else in the image says that it's a female, it gets tagged as one.

Also, we define how TWYS works, not you. And a surprisingly large amount of people prefer our definitions to yours, simply because ours are more practical to the average user.

NotMeNotYou said:
We still tag clothed balls if it's visible that's actually the balls (ie. spandex), we don't assume that it could be a pair of marbles and don't tag them.

from the wiki:

• If the balls are not visible but they are implied to be there (eg, bulge) do not tag with balls.

The same goes for gender tagging on safe images, if everything else in the image says that it's a female, it gets tagged as one.

Also, we define how TWYS works, not you. And a surprisingly large amount of people prefer our definitions to yours, simply because ours are more practical to the average user.

Im again not dictating how twys works, im saying what it literally means. im taking it for what it literally means not for added exceptions and double standards that you dictate.

Ruku said:
from the wiki:

• If the balls are not visible but they are implied to be there (eg, bulge) do not tag with balls.

Im again not dictating how twys works, im saying what it literally means. im taking it for what it literally means not for added exceptions and double standards that you dictate.

If I were you, I wouldn't argue with the admins. If they say something, it goes.

With all due respect you can't call it twys if thats how you're going to handle it but I digress.

Were pointing out egregious double standards and arbitrary rulings that make no sense and are met with just "we make the rules kek"

I mean. There's a certain point when a system stops being objective and just is "hey let's just do what we feel like."

And that'd be fine. But don't call it tag what you see. Because it isn't.

I don't see a girl there. I'm sorry. Ambiguous_gender At worst.

Tag what you see is very simple. Its what it says on the tin.

When you start making special rules and exceptions it stops being twys.

Thats my only issue. The system either needs to be overhauled to deal with pure lore tags (incest and family tags, crossgender/rule 63 and a slough of others)

The technical_incest tag still exists.

Were not "dictating how twys works".

Were telling you the system is broken.

Nikolaithefur said:
If I were you, I wouldn't argue with the admins. If they say something, it goes.

mind you if there was never anyone arguing/debating for opinions or understandings that may differ from a admins or any other official irl or otherwise and always yes-maning and kissing-up then a website/system/staff would never improve, mistakes and incorrect processes would keep happening, because no one wants to point out the faults. FA was crap for years and stagnated, not because the admins couldnt do anything from the code they have or money issues but rather simply because the community was keep kissing-up/hugboxing rather then giving them the initiative to fix and improve the site. If there is no opposing opinions ever then nothing can develop, nothing gets done, nothing is fixed, nothing is improved...

Ruku said:
mind you if there was never anyone arguing/debating for opinions or understandings that may differ from a admins or any other official irl or otherwise and always yes-maning and kissing-up then a website/system/staff would never improve, mistakes and incorrect processes would keep happening, because no one wants to point out the faults. FA was crap for years and stagnated, not because the admins couldnt do anything from the code they have or money issues but rather simply because the community was keep kissing-up/hugboxing rather then giving them the initiative to fix and improve the site. If there is no opposing opinions ever then nothing can develop, nothing gets done, nothing is fixed, nothing is improved...

Yes, but you've been going on about this issue for what feels like ages.

No, I'm not kissing up to the admins. The admins have been trying to explain why they've taken this action about gender tagging, but you have repeatedly ignored them and kept arguing.

Yes, you're arguing.

No, I don't think the admins are going to change their view on this matter based on your arguments.

No, there is nothing wrong with the TWYS system. If it has feminine features and no other features to say otherwise (genitals, etc.), then it is tagged a female. Canonical info has no place here.

Tagging purely tgys would make the system more impractical. There should be some room for exceptions.

Sorrowless said:
Tagging purely tgys would make the system more impractical. There should be some room for exceptions.

But to make more exceptions would make the site more impractical.

For example, if UserA was to be allowed an exception for something, and UserB saw that an admin allowed UserA to do so, UserB would probably throw a temper-tantrum if the admins didn't allow him one. Admins have to have a set of standardized rules to keep the tags accurate and fair for everyone.

As to the matter at hand, if admins started handing out exceptions for artists who provide TWYK (Canonical) information, then the original TWYS system would become extremely diluted.

Nikolaithefur said:
Yes, but you've been going on about this issue for what feels like ages.

obviously because this issue very much exists and isnt made up but non the less is ignored.And is keep being pointed out by posters that barely ever frequent the forum themselves and so arnt inclined to be bias towards staff.

No, I'm not kissing up to the admins. The admins have been trying to explain why they've taken this action about gender tagging, but you have repeatedly ignored them and kept arguing.

i havnt been ignoring them thru but pointing out faults in their explanations. A admin is not infallible.

Yes, you're arguing.

No, I don't think the admins are going to change their view on this matter based on your arguments.

mabye not, dont expect it from just me, but this issue will keep coming up over an over again from others that see themselves as following twys but admins practicing a seeemingly different policy unrelated to twys.

No, there is nothing wrong with the TWYS system. If it has feminine features and no other features to say otherwise (genitals, etc.), then it is tagged a female. Canonical info has no place here.

If anyones ignoring anyone here then it is you niko, again this has nothing to do with lore or any kind of canon.
Also feminine features are just that, feminine. they say nothing at all about the character being female which is whats wrong with the exceptions that are dictated by admins.

Nikolaithefur said:
But to make more exceptions would make the site more impractical.

For example, if UserA was to be allowed an exception for something, and UserB saw that an admin allowed UserA to do so, UserB would probably throw a temper-tantrum if the admins didn't allow him one. Admins have to have a set of standardized rules to keep the tags accurate and fair for everyone.

As to the matter at hand, if admins started handing out exceptions for artists who provide TWYK (Canonical) information, then the original TWYS system would become extremely diluted.

I was thinking more of tags unrelated to artists.

GDelscribe said:
With all due respect you can't call it twys if thats how you're going to handle it but I digress.

Were pointing out egregious double standards and arbitrary rulings that make no sense and are met with just "we make the rules kek"

I mean. There's a certain point when a system stops being objective and just is "hey let's just do what we feel like."

And that'd be fine. But don't call it tag what you see. Because it isn't.

I don't see a girl there. I'm sorry. Ambiguous_gender At worst.

Tag what you see is very simple. Its what it says on the tin.

When you start making special rules and exceptions it stops being twys.

Thats my only issue. The system either needs to be overhauled to deal with pure lore tags (incest and family tags, crossgender/rule 63 and a slough of others)

The technical_incest tag still exists.

Were not "dictating how twys works".

Were telling you the system is broken.

You realize that that is exactly why twys is so obnoxiously rigid and arbitrary, right? People like you go and point to any exception no matter how reasonable and use it as a excuse why they have to be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of whether it is reasonable or not. You are your own worst enemy.

Ruku said:
obviously because this issue very much exists and isnt made up but non the less is ignored.And is keep being pointed out by posters that barely ever frequent the forum themselves and so arnt inclined to be bias towards staff.

If they aren't willing to come to the forums and get educated, then that is their fault.

i havnt been ignoring them thru but pointing out faults in their explanations. A admin is not infallible.

And I agree with that last point you made. Admins aren't infallible. However, when it comes to the TWYS system, it's the most practical system this website has in place right now.

mabye not, dont expect it from just me, but this issue will keep coming up over an over again from others that see themselves as following twys but admins practicing a seeemingly different policy unrelated to twys.

I don't see how the admins are following their own policies unrelated to TWYS. Please elaborate.

If anyones ignoring anyone here then it is you niko, again this has nothing to do with lore or any kind of canon.

Whatever, wrong choice of words. What I meant was TWYK rather than Canonical. And it's Nikolai, not Niko.

Also feminine features are just that, feminine. they say nothing at all about the character being female which is whats wrong with the exceptions that are dictated by admins.

That's not an exception. If there's nothing else to indicate that the character is male, and it has nothing but feminine features, then it's safe to assume that it's female.

Nikolaithefur said:
If they aren't willing to come to the forums and get educated, then that is their fault.

really, just because one does not frequent a forum makes them uneducated?people still do read wikis and stuff... wouldnt really rely on forums as it does seem to be the case that admins arnt always even sure themselves, sometimes its these criteria for defining feminine enough to be a certain sex and sometimes its different traits altogether.

And I agree with that last point you made. Admins aren't infallible. However, when it comes to the TWYS system, it's the most practical system this website has in place right now.

not a excuse to have unnecessary exceptions and double standards

I don't see how the admins are following their own policies unrelated to TWYS. Please elaborate.

Whatever, wrong choice of words. What I meant was TWYK rather than Canonical. And it's Nikolai, not Niko.

That's not an exception. If there's nothing else to indicate that the character is male, and it has nothing but feminine features, then it's safe to assume that it's female.

And that right there is tagging what you know or assume to know nikolai, not tagging what you see and that is what i mean by admins following a different policy. you say it your self that you assume, you cant actually see. And yet again i do not support TWYK.

Ruku said:

• If the balls are not visible but they are implied to be there (eg, bulge) do not tag with balls.

Something can be clothed and still be visible.

GDelscribe said:
With all due respect you can't call it twys if thats how you're going to handle it but I digress.

Were pointing out egregious double standards and arbitrary rulings that make no sense and are met with just "we make the rules kek"

I mean. There's a certain point when a system stops being objective and just is "hey let's just do what we feel like."

And that'd be fine. But don't call it tag what you see. Because it isn't.

Everybody but you, Ruku, and Rothy see a female. When an overwhelming majority tells you you're wrong about something you may want to take a step back and try to see their point of view.

GDelscribe said:
When you start making special rules and exceptions it stops being twys.

Thats my only issue. The system either needs to be overhauled to deal with pure lore tags (incest and family tags, crossgender/rule 63 and a slough of others)

The only exceptions are done for the good of the search system, all of your suggestions would hurt it.

GDelscribe said:
Were not "dictating how twys works".

Were telling you the system is broken.

The system works very well according to most of our users, the people who have a problem with it are drop in a sea of satisfied users.
You aren't pointing out imperfections, you're trying to tell us that a system that works is broken because it won't give you exactly the results you believe it should give you.

Again, maybe you should actually rethink how the average user is going to use the page, both the male and the female tags are the most searched and used tags on the page, and you want us to castrate it to appease some notion a character that appears to be female can't be tagged as such because the genitalia aren't visible.
You should probably consider that we have a lot more exposure to raw data about user habits, problems, and needs of the page than you do.
Yes, the search doesn't work perfectly like you want it to work, but for the one person that is unhappy literally thousands of others prefer the way it is.

As I said before somewhere, we will not change a policy to make a handful of people happy when the change would mean alienating thousands of other users.

Ruku said:
And that right there is tagging what you know or assume to know nikolai, not tagging what you see and that is what i mean by admins following a different policy. you say it your self that you assume, you cant actually see. And yet again i do not support TWYK.

Look at this picture. What do you see?
post #680397

A banana, right? But you can't see inside, so by your logic we should just tag banana_peel. But we won't because we are reasonable people.

so..... based on all these arguments brought up here on against tagging that one image as female, this would need to be tagged as ambiguous gender
post #757859
because we cannot see a penis and you know, women can be muscular and even grow a beard. and if you have ever seen body builder women, they dont usually have tits. also its a fact that sometimes female lions grow a mane.

Mutisija said:
so..... based on all these arguments brought up here on against tagging that one image as female, this would need to be tagged as ambiguous gender
post #757859
because we cannot see a penis and you know, women can be muscular and even grow a beard. and if you have ever seen body builder women, they dont usually have tits. also its a fact that sometimes female lions grow a mane.

But arguably, it has features that are normally on a man. I would see no reason to tag this as ambiguous. As soon as we start making what-if statements is when the TWYS system starts to fail. I see a man in this picture.

Nikolaithefur said:
But arguably, it has features that are normally on a man. I would see no reason to tag this as ambiguous. As soon as we start making what-if statements is when the TWYS system starts to fail. I see a man in this picture.

i was pointing out how the arguments people used on this thread to say that this could not be tagged as female didnt make sense.

Beanjam said:
Look at this picture. What do you see?
post #680397

A banana, right? But you can't see inside, so by your logic we should just tag banana_peel. But we won't because we are reasonable people.

not really, because we cant visually tell if it has a peel for body covering if it isnt peeled open. Banana is also generally applied to the whole body akin to species, not just the the banana_fruit inside. were as sex(in a anatomical context) is based on genitalia, not traits of the whole body. physical traits of the whole body are just feminine, masculine or androgyne.

Mutisija said:
so..... based on all these arguments brought up here on against tagging that one image as female, this would need to be tagged as ambiguous gender
post #757859
because we cannot see a penis and you know, women can be muscular and even grow a beard. and if you have ever seen body builder women, they dont usually have tits. also its a fact that sometimes female lions grow a mane.

first off it isnt just about that image.
and second yes it would in addition to being tagged with masculine -or as was one of the suggestions in the slur tags thread some time ago- andromorph as at that point we would be describing body type thru the mentioned traits, not sex.

PS: Ambiguous_gender is kinda a misnomer by the way as we are talking a characters physical sex, not its physiological gender just sayin>>

PS: Ambiguous_gender is kinda a misnomer by the way as we are talking a characters physical sex, not its physiological gender just sayin>>

And what me and everyone else on this website is saying is just because you have a different point of view does not mean we have to change a perfectly-functioning system. End of discussion, good day.

Nikolaithefur said:
And what me and everyone else on this website is saying is just because you have a different point of view does not mean we have to change a perfectly-functioning system. End of discussion, good day.

Its not a point of view, it literally what ambiguous and gender added together mean, look up a dictionary. And a perfectly functioning system would mean there are no tag wars, there is no reason this debate or any other tags should be coming up, there would be no reason for admins to keep inserting there own opinion when both parties believe they are in fact following twys. whats wrong with calling it sexless.

Ruku said:
whats wrong with calling it sexless.

Because it's scientifically impossible. Plus, it makes search for things people might want to see impossible (hence, alienating users like NotMeNotYou had said.). This is not your website. It's OUR (collectively, not just you and me) website.

Nikolaithefur said:
Because it's scientifically impossible. Plus, it makes search for things people might want to see impossible (hence, alienating users like NotMeNotYou had said.).

really your going there, why do we have herms then, a true perfect hermaphrodite human doesnt exist ether. i should not have to mention anthros.
And how exactly would sexless make searches harder, its just a name change that is easier to write and actually means what its used for. but a digress sexless wouldnt work for literal twys>>

Ruku said:
really your going there, why do we have herms then, a true perfect hermaphrodite human doesnt exist ether. i should not have to mention anthros.
And how exactly would sexless make searches harder, its just a name change that is easier to write and actually means what its used for. but a digress sexless wouldnt work for literal twys>>

I'm not talking about fantasy, I'm talking about the two genders that science has created. Do dragons exist? Do unicorns exist? Do furries exist? Does ambiguous gender exist? No (or at least science hasn't progressed along far enough to produce such wonderful things).

Because anything with prominent male or female features, regardless of genitals, should be tagged accordingly. It's the way this website has existed for as long as I've been on it. You would rather alienate thousands of users because you want to bring your SJW BS onto an art archive? You're just wasting your time. Majority rules.

Ruku said:
not really, because we cant visually tell if it has a peel for body covering if it isnt peeled open. Banana is also generally applied to the whole body akin to species, not just the the banana_fruit inside. were as sex(in a anatomical context) is based on genitalia, not traits of the whole body. physical traits of the whole body are just feminine, masculine or androgyne.

Incorrect. There is a tag for banana_peel, therefore if there was nothing more than the peel visible and we were not allowed to make assumptions, we would tag it so in accordance with TWYS. That is also how we treat feminine and masculine features and gender tags.

Nikolai, intersex people exist irl and as well as people born with no genitalia at all.

Gender has nothing to do with physical sex.

So stop spewing something that you don't clearly know anything about.

Also. Androgyny is a thing as well.

Beanjam said:
You realize that that is exactly why twys is so obnoxiously rigid and arbitrary, right? People like you go and point to any exception no matter how reasonable and use it as a excuse why they have to be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of whether it is reasonable or not. You are your own worst enemy.

I'd actually prefer it to be more rigid. Less arbitrary but more clear and concise. If it followed it's literal definition instead of allowing room for stuff like this in the first place there wouldn't be as many issues or tagging wars at all.

I'm pointing out the fact that as long as we continue to allow there to be lore exceptions there's no reason to not allow other lore exceptions. It should be more or less all or nothing.

Thats a personal oppinion I know but.

If we're going to be rigid about things like this. We should at least maintain some sort of consistency throughout.

Lastly can we stop calling them "gender" tags. Theyre physical sex tags.

Beanjam said:
Incorrect. There is a tag for banana_peel, therefore if there was nothing more than the peel visible and we were not allowed to make assumptions, we would tag it so in accordance with TWYS. That is also how we treat feminine and masculine features and gender tags.

a tag that you most likly just recently made and that doesnt have a wiki, adding that peel in its self is analogous to skin, as such the bananas and lemons would be tagged as having yellow skin. banana/ lemon = visible (fruit) species; yellow_skin = visible body texture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_(fruit)

banana peel specificity is usually only used when the skin is actually peeled away from the fruit flesh. almost all posts in that tag exemplify that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_peel
Tell me would you say this character has scales?

post #966230

"A tag that you most likly just recently made"...

https://e621.net/post_tag_history/index?post_id=842833

March fifth is the last use.

https://e621.net/post_tag_history/index?post_id=27016

December fifteenth, 201?, was the first use. Please, study the tag before accusing people...

Basically a lore tag, but what if we had the tag actually_male for situations like this?

Sorrowless said:
Basically a lore tag, but what if we had the tag actually_male for situations like this?

What's to stop from someone replacing the intended gender tag with just "male", and removing your suggested tag? Since, after all, they are "actually male", so why have the other gender tag?

Siral_Exan said:
What's to stop from someone replacing the intended gender tag with just "male", and removing your suggested tag? Since, after all, they are "actually male", so why have the other gender tag?

The tag itself might please the one wanting to change the gender tag in the first place. That tag is also factual giving less ground for it to be changed and a good reason to report the user should he change it. The regular gender tag will still be based on visuals.

^
canon != factual.

I mean, canonically_male would be better than actually_male (and could be used in implications from character tags), but 'canon' still has the problem is that it's not always clear what's canon. In some cases 'what is canon' is intentionally made ambiguous by the creator(s), which results in it becoming impossible to define canon at all.

savageorange said:
^
canon != factual.

I mean, canonically_male would be better than actually_male (and could be used in implications from character tags), but 'canon' still has the problem is that it's not always clear what's canon. In some cases 'what is canon' is intentionally made ambiguous by the creator(s), which results in it becoming impossible to define canon at all.

If a character has a reason to be listed as a specific gender by their owner then the creator will often state it to be so. It wouldn't be that hard to maintain.

I do like the sound of the "canon" tag. If lore ever becomes properly introduced to the system instead of only as random exceptions. (IE Crossgender tag)

^ If canonically_X was not user taggable, only implicate-able by creators, that might work. It can't be user taggable (because that == tag wars for any case where canon isn't 100% clear)

savageorange said:
^ If canonically_X was not user taggable, only implicate-able by creators, that might work. It can't be user taggable (because that == tag wars for any case where canon isn't 100% clear)

i dont believe that is possible if you consider how the tagging system works.

anyways while canon gender tags might sound good idea, in reality they can be extremely difficult to maintain because

1. they would need to be tagged about often as current gender tags to be useful for blacklisting and searching rather than being something used only when someone doesnt like twys

2. what happens when owner decides that their character is not male anymore and its female now? what happens with characters that can be canonically different genders? what happens with characters that do not fit really in any gender category? is the tags about their genitals or do we take in account the character's actual gender identity? what happens with characters that do not have established gender?

...

That's why I said 'only if it's an implication' (ie. applied for every instance of the character). That obviates 1.

2. (male ->female) Well, we need an implication update system for that. But we need that anyway. If you're a creator and come back later after such a change, and get angry at the seeing wrong canonical_X implication on your post, well, it's entirely your responsibility if the implication you created is not up to date.

2. (canonically different) That means multiple canons -> no implication possible because there is no one true canon.

2. (don't fit, don't have established gender).. they don't get canonically_X implications.

2. (gender ID or genitals) Would have to be genitals - ID would lead to tag proliferation hell.

One thing that implication-only canonical_X would require is, we would need more definite verification of creator id. But this already comes up in takedown requests, so it's probably not too hard.

Mutisija said:
i dont believe that is possible if you consider how the tagging system works.

anyways while canon gender tags might sound good idea, in reality they can be extremely difficult to maintain because

1. they would need to be tagged about often as current gender tags to be useful for blacklisting and searching rather than being something used only when someone doesnt like twys

2. what happens when owner decides that their character is not male anymore and its female now? what happens with characters that can be canonically different genders? what happens with characters that do not fit really in any gender category? is the tags about their genitals or do we take in account the character's actual gender identity? what happens with characters that do not have established gender?

Looking at your and Savage's post, I can't quite see how hard it would be to have a canon gender tag.

1. Why? Wouldn't there be quite few cases where the canon gender tag would be needed? I think there are quite a few who would like to see a character or species true gender (or non thereof) being recognized. For users who don't want to see certain genders have sex (or explicit solos) you could use something like
rating:e female canonically_male -canonically_female

2. Then you change the canon tag. No gender category or unestablished? How about canonically_genderless/unknown_gender and canonically_ambiguous ? Is gender identity even in the tagging system? You could use the tag trans (gender) for that.

After writing all this, I do see that introducing these kind of tags would bring a need for more canon tags than just 2 or 3.

Mutisija said:
2. what happens when owner decides that their character is not male anymore and its female now? what happens with characters that can be canonically different genders? what happens with characters that do not fit really in any gender category? is the tags about their genitals or do we take in account the character's actual gender identity? what happens with characters that do not have established gender?

We have only one post with Mr. Garrison in it, but oh lord, imagine the mess that would be trying to deal with that character.

Was the first thing that popped into my head just now upon reading that.

Alright, my list against canonically_* :

I could go off on a janitor's previous statement about how using secondary male/female terms for tagging genders (in their case, intersex_male & intersex_female) is a bad thing, but this is my list, and these are all my statements...

And, for anything involving factually, this means that multiple people need to know about this, so they can tag appropriately. This is definitely not the case. Quite the opposite, this would only give power to the people who know the gender, and they don't even have to act apon it; they can choose to take offense to it and not help. The general public needs to be able to tag, not a specific (not specified) group.

*off-topic statement* I really like how those section formats look. It looks much more proper than one long comment.

Fanon is irrelevant. If its an oc it's an oc. Fanon doesnt change word of God.

You start tagging things canonically as needed just another tiny tagging project and would lead to a few artists who otherwise have issues with the site maybe coming back here/undoing there takedown requests.

And lastly, word of God changes years down the line? Great that's good. Just a minor tagging project to fix it up "if needed."

GDelscribe said:
Fanon is irrelevant. If its an oc it's an oc. Fanon doesnt change word of God.

You start tagging things canonically as needed just another tiny tagging project and would lead to a few artists who otherwise have issues with the site maybe coming back here/undoing there takedown requests.

And lastly, word of God changes years down the line? Great that's good. Just a minor tagging project to fix it up "if needed."

Fanon is canon to the owners. You treat them differently, you segregate them, and you'll create arguments. So, harsh no.

"Word of God"... Are we deities? Are the admins deities, all equal in power? No. We're not in the house of God, we are on a website designed for furry artwork, and the rules are to reflect that.

Have you ever been in a tagging project? I have, it was *_(disambiguation). Sourcing, trying to find sources, context, TWYS vs TW'sI (Tag What's Implied), and even being helped/corrected by a janitor. This would be no minor tagging project, you will have to source to the artist in order to ask them about their character, maybe even ask if they want their character in here, create their character wiki page, and only then try to imply a alternate gender tag... You have no idea how much that is, in comparison to a normal tagging project.

And, finally, do some research on takedowns. More often than not, DNPs have a personal reason as well, either on site or from the artist words off-site. You wouldn't be able to convince even a minority to change their decision. Said personal reasons are often of comments, or so I've noticed, when it came to genders, and those posts would simply be unhidden, not reposted, so the comments would still be there. Fortunately, most of them weren't as awful as PK when describing it.

Siral_Exan said:
Fanon is canon to the owners. You treat them differently, you segregate them, and you'll create arguments. So, harsh no.

"Word of God"... Are we deities? Are the admins deities, all equal in power? No. We're not in the house of God, we are on a website designed for furry artwork, and the rules are to reflect that.

Have you ever been in a tagging project? I have, it was *_(disambiguation). Sourcing, trying to find sources, context, TWYS vs TW'sI (Tag What's Implied), and even being helped/corrected by a janitor. This would be no minor tagging project, you will have to source to the artist in order to ask them about their character, maybe even ask if they want their character in here, create their character wiki page, and only then try to imply a alternate gender tag... You have no idea how much that is, in comparison to a normal tagging project.

And, finally, do some research on takedowns. More often than not, DNPs have a personal reason as well, either on site or from the artist words off-site. You wouldn't be able to convince even a minority to change their decision. Said personal reasons are often of comments, or so I've noticed, when it came to genders, and those posts would simply be unhidden, not reposted, so the comments would still be there. Fortunately, most of them weren't as awful as PK when describing it.

Fanon is fanon, canon is canon.

In a case of a fan OC, that fan oc is canon to the creator, FANON is when fans abuse an existing character in the lore. Don't mix them up.

Word of god refers to anything the owner has said specifically and is not up for debate. A statement regarding some ambiguous or undefined aspect of a work, the Word of God comes from someone considered to be the ultimate authority, such as the creator, director, or producer. Such edicts can even go against events as were broadcast, due to someone making a mistake.

And I have done some research into dnp's, and asked a lot of folks personally. Don't accuse me of not following up.

I'm starting to work on tagging projects now, personal ones and or otherwise. So yes I know the work involved. It's still a COMPARITIVELY minor task compared to say, cleaning out an ambiguous tag that has 10k+ results.

Sorrowless said:
Basically a lore tag, but what if we had the tag actually_male for situations like this?

Lore has nothing to do with the subject of this whole thread, i dont know why you all keep on inserting lore into a thread that has nothing at all to do with lore, canon, twyk... worth pointing out not even the original OP to this very thread was even talking about lore or twyk.

also nice one misleading by noting actually_male that allows people to continue call something male that isnt visibly male but rather just a masculine/andromorphic body that can belong to any sex when genitalia isnt exposed or visibly implied.

Should i mention that you all are keep referring to gender, something strictly physiological that is invalid under twys?

Ruku said:
Lore has nothing to do with the subject of this whole thread, i dont know why you all keep on inserting lore into a thread that has nothing at all to do with lore, canon, twyk... worth pointing out not even the original OP to this very thread was even talking about lore or twyk.

also nice one misleading by noting actually_male that allows people to continue call something male that isnt visibly male but rather just a masculine/andromorphic body that can belong to any sex when genitalia isnt exposed or visibly implied.

Should i mention that you all are keep referring to gender, something strictly physiological that is invalid under twys?

Hence part of why I asked earlier if we could just collectively stop referring to it as "gender" tags because I think thats what confuses a lot of people.

GDelscribe said:
Fanon is irrelevant. If its an oc it's an oc. Fanon doesnt change word of God.

You start tagging things canonically as needed just another tiny tagging project and would lead to a few artists who otherwise have issues with the site maybe coming back here/undoing there takedown requests.

And lastly, word of God changes years down the line? Great that's good. Just a minor tagging project to fix it up "if needed."

Asking artists about what gender they want their characters to show up as on this website is TWYK, not TWYS. No matter what the artists want, if it looks like a dude, tag it as such.

Nikolaithefur said:
Asking artists about what gender they want their characters to show up as on this website is TWYK, not TWYS. No matter what the artists want, if it looks like a dude, tag it as such.

Ok I mean you can go ahead and completely ignore the relevance of my comment. It was in response to someone's suggestions of a "canon" tag. I was just discussin what such a thing would need to work.

GDelscribe said:
Ok I mean you can go ahead and completely ignore the relevance of my comment. It was in response to someone's suggestions of a "canon" tag. I was just discussin what such a thing would need to work.

And I'm telling you that it wouldn't work. I'm not as dumb as I appear.

My opinion on this subject is this:

Canon and knowledge do not matter. TWYS.

Why do searchers add a gender tag to their searches? Think about it.

If the searcher is not looking for a specific character, then he doesn't care about canon.
If the searcher is looking for a specific character then he would only add gender tag to the search if he specifically wanted to see gender features on the image.
If the searcher is looking for a specific character in canon gender, then he would not add any gender to his search. Or he would try to subtract the canon-opposite gender images from the search.

So, as far as genders go, you only need to tag what you see, so that the searcher will be able to remove images with distinct gender features from his searches.

^ That is a decisive rebuttal.

Nikolaithefur said:
Asking artists about what gender they want their characters to show up as on this website is TWYK, not TWYS. No matter what the artists want, if it looks like a dude, tag it as such.

That's not what the canonically_X idea is about. It's a way of satisfying artists that their character is, in fact, presented as being canonically X, while not compromising on tagging 'looks like a dude' as male. ie. providing context.
For example canonically_male female

Of course, that information could also be provided via wiki. That could be done with more nuance but would also be more prone to edit wars. Implementing recognition of sections in wiki pages -> individual locking of sections, would help, but that's a non-trivial feature.

(the somewhat related idea of tooltips for confusing or debated tags, could also contribute to clarifying this stuff)

GDelscribe said:
Hence part of why I asked earlier if we could just collectively stop referring to it as "gender" tags because I think thats what confuses a lot of people.

I've made that objection before, with the response being that then it would overlap with sex tags (eg. oral_sex, double_penetration, ..). That response is true but I don't think it's a particularly strong argument.
I see no real issue with this section of the tag ontology being divided into 'sex', 'sex act', 'sex position'.. So I'm still +1 on "call sex sex, and don't give the illusion that gender has anything to do with it"

honestly creating an entire tag set just to potentially please people who do not like site's tagging rules is not exactly the best idea. it would be good if it was actually useful for searching and blacklisting but it really isnt when its applied only for few specific cases to calm down someone who got pissy about twys

Mutisija said:
honestly creating an entire tag set just to potentially please people who do not like site's tagging rules is not exactly the best idea. it would be good if it was actually useful for searching and blacklisting but it really isnt when its applied only for few specific cases to calm down someone who got pissy about twys

do i need to say it again that there is nothing wrong with A twys policy, nether i nor the op of this thread had thought such, the problem was and is you and others inserting twyk canon and/or assumptions into it that is not necessary and only causes tag wars and ambiguity in a otherwise sound system. Your worries that it would make searches and backlisting harder i honestly feel are all but blown out of proportion just to conform to a faulty status quo.
Also please the problem by no means is just limited to a handful of users or posts/cases.

This is not about pleasing people, this is about removing TWYK based rules from a otherwise sound TWYS based policy.

@savageorange
compromising is necessary as otherwise you are just assuming in both, a dude that is clothed looks like a male_herm, male, c-boy or even sometimes a tomboyish female/herm, to pick any one sex is to assume you know which is not TWYS.

Canon being stated in character wikis is fine but do not support it as tags of their own.

Mutisija said:
honestly creating an entire tag set just to potentially please people who do not like site's tagging rules is not exactly the best idea. it would be good if it was actually useful for searching and blacklisting but it really isnt when its applied only for few specific cases to calm down someone who got pissy about twys

agreed

Ruku said:
@savageorange
compromising is necessary as otherwise you are just assuming in both, a dude that is clothed looks like a male_herm, male, c-boy or even sometimes a tomboyish female/herm, to pick any one sex is to assume you know which is not TWYS.

Compromise(ie TWYK) or TWYS, pick one.

Like, you are saying that assuming, say, male is TWYK. This is mildly true (cultural stuff informs the judgement that 'this looks like a male'). But if you add character context then you are --adding-- TWYKness (ie. needed cultural reference points), not taking it away. This means you are actively pissing people off by giving them more search results that they regard as wrong, and also, as Siral Exan says, making those who know a given bit of canon more capable of searching + tagging than those who don't.

savageorange said:
Compromise(ie TWYK) or TWYS, pick one.

Like, you are saying that assuming, say, male is TWYK. This is mildly true (cultural stuff informs the judgement that 'this looks like a male'). But if you add character context then you are --adding-- TWYKness (ie. needed cultural reference points), not taking it away. This means you are actively pissing people off by giving them more search results that they regard as wrong, and also, as Siral Exan says, making those who know a given bit of canon more capable of searching + tagging than those who don't.

mind you, you are the one suggesting the use of both. To not compromise existing tagging is to be supporting TWYK.

And im not assuming, its a matter of fact that if genitalia isnt visible then the sex is visibly anything and nothing, all that is visible is a body form(masculine,feminine, andromorph...), no character context is being added here from me. You tag what you can clearly see not what you assume to know. cultural and social concepts are what you are using to call something male and female when only secondary characteristics are avialible that any sex has.

Ruku said:
You tag what you can clearly see not what you assume to know. cultural and social concepts are what you are using to call something male and female when only secondary characteristics are avialible that any sex has.

Except that masculine and feminine features are masculine and feminine features because they are predominately present in either the male or female biological sex.
The fact that they are rarely present (or dominantly expressed) in the opposite sex is not an adequate enough reason to refrain from using them as an indicator of a character's sex.

By your argumentation we shouldn't tag that character in your avatar as Gabriel because it could just be a human in a costume.