NotMeNotYou said:
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.

Secretly there are no anthros just very very intricate fursuits

NotMeNotYou said:
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.

The problem with your argument is that we also host intersex that those same exact traits also apply to and by no means is the mixture of traits between sexes rare nether in real life and even less so in art were artists in this community are often not mindful of secondary traits

And no it wouldnt because it isnt visible that its a costume. Which is again, you are keep assuming to know while i am seeing only what is clearly visible, and what is visible is ether colored skin or a body thats painted on.

Ruku said:
The problem with your argument is that we also host intersex that those same exact traits also apply to and by no means is the mixture of traits between sexes rare nether in real life and even less so in art were artists in this community are often not mindful of secondary traits

And no it wouldnt because it isnt visible that its a costume. Which is again, you are keep assuming to know while i am seeing only what is clearly visible, and what is visible is ether colored skin or a body thats painted on.

A person who wants to see cuntboys in their searches won't really enjoy having a masculine character with nothing suggesting he's got a pussy (if they did, they would be searching ~male ~cuntboy instead) but a person who wants to see male will enjoy the image with the "Maybe cuntboy" because there's no evidence present that he's actually got a pussy. These tags are so that the viewer can find things they'll enjoy, after all.

If all you see is a penis, can you assume that it's actually a maleherm? Some few individuals might, but most people don't.

Furrin_Gok said:
A person who wants to see cuntboys in their searches won't really enjoy having a masculine character with nothing suggesting he's got a pussy (if they did, they would be searching ~male ~cuntboy instead) but a person who wants to see male will enjoy the image with the "Maybe cuntboy" because there's no evidence present that he's actually got a pussy. These tags are so that the viewer can find things they'll enjoy, after all.

If all you see is a penis, can you assume that it's actually a maleherm? Sure, the individual can, but for tagging purposes, no, we don't.

mind you c-boys are already not tagged as such if they are clothed unless there is something clearly implied as such so i dont see that search example being realized.

If you just see a penis on a character in that particular post then it is male because that is all you can see. If you dont see a penis(and no other genitalia) then its masculine/andromorphic(or...) + ambiguous_sex.
Again strictly tagging what you see, not what you assume to know. same rules should be for all sexes, no exceptions for male or female to not be bound by twys(this is what you presently enforce, twyk specifically for male or female).

And mind you viewers could still find what they are looking for when tagging by actual bodytype when genitalia isnt visible. people arnt going care about genitalia/sex when searching for something clothed.

Ruku said:
And no it wouldnt because it isnt visible that its a costume. Which is again, you are keep assuming to know while i am seeing only what is clearly visible, and what is visible is ether colored skin or a body thats painted on.

In a fantasy world where artists can portray fantastic things you don't believe it could be a perfectly intricate costume?
Not only that, but in art where people can draw what they want, how they want, where they, for example, could draw unrealistic bodies and ignore secondary sexually traits it's completely impossible for them to ignore the signs a costume should have?

NotMeNotYou said:
Except that masculine and feminine features are masculine and feminine features because they are predominately present in either the male or female biological sex.

You're missing the point. "Predominately" implies some reference group, which you silently assume to be generic modern Western human society. That's the background knowledge (aka lore) that goes into your tagging, without you admitting it.

NotMeNotYou said:
Just throwing that in here but Lopin has canonically female features despite being male, because that is how some of the yinglets are built

Canonically Lopin has no feminine features whatsoever. Unless you start playing with words, taking the features from one canon and "feminine" tag from another. Within his own canon, Lopin is a very typical male.

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.

Yinglets in-universe seldom follow that form either, regardless of gender. All seen so far are were more like bird-shaped or kangaroo-shaped. Wide stance, wide hips, narrow everything else.

To say the hips look "wide", you need some reference point. Wider than a typical male human, or maybe a typical male bird or kangaroo. No reason why it should be human. Same goes for clothing. Loose pants (pants! not skirt) and sleeveless shirt, some reference is needed to call that feminine.

hslugs said:
You're missing the point. "Predominately" implies some reference group, which you silently assume to be generic modern Western human society. That's the background knowledge (aka lore) that goes into your tagging, without you admitting it.

Yes, the same "background knowledge" we need to tag things like "human", "blue_skin", "grass", "trees", "beach", or literally any other tag.
The assumption that every user understands the english language and has a high school education is hardly "background knowledge".

Unless you have an idea how to tag portrayed features without the use of human created concepts to describe them we're kind of stuck with using tags that require "background knowledge" of a human language.

hslugs said:
Canonically Lopin has no feminine features whatsoever. Unless you start playing with words, taking the features from one canon and "feminine" tag from another. Within his own canon, Lopin is a very typical male.

Yinglets in-universe seldom follow that form either, regardless of gender. All seen so far are were more like bird-shaped or kangaroo-shaped. Wide stance, wide hips, narrow everything else.

To say the hips look "wide", you need some reference point. Wider than a typical male human, or maybe a typical male bird or kangaroo. No reason why it should be human. Same goes for clothing. Loose pants (pants! not skirt) and sleeveless shirt, some reference is needed to call that feminine.

No. As is clearly explained by the author in The Val Salian Regional Field Guide 02 and Field Guide 04 female yinglets have shorter, rounder snouts and a tuft of fur at their end of the tail, as well as that those traits are considered feminine traits in males.
Further, all in-universe portrayals of Lopin drawn by Valsalia have similar hip and and shoulder widths, while the post in question has greatly exaggerated proportions reminiscent of a human female.

NotMeNotYou said:
Yes, the same "background knowledge" we need to tag things like "human", "blue_skin", "grass", "trees", "beach", or literally any other tag.
The assumption that every user understands the english language and has a high school education is hardly "background knowledge".

Unless you have an idea how to tag portrayed features without the use of human created concepts to describe them we're kind of stuck with using tags that require "background knowledge" of a human language.

+1
Postmodernism has it's limits. Reducing the practical application of words to near-zero is one I'm seeing in this thread.

Yeah, TWYS is not culture-free. What it is is lowest-common-denominator -- it uses culture that is easily come by for a majority of E6's users.

NotMeNotYou said:
Yes, the same "background knowledge" we need to tag things like "human", "blue_skin", "grass", "trees", "beach", or literally any other tag.

Try to spell the criteria you use to call gender on this picture. There's no "feminine clothes" entry in my dictionary, and for a good reason.

female yinglets have shorter, rounder snouts and a tuft of fur at their end of the tail, as well as that those traits are considered feminine traits in males.

Yeah, and Lopin has exactly how many of those traits?

Further, all in-universe portrayals of Lopin drawn by Valsalia have similar hip and and shoulder widths, while the post in question has greatly exaggerated proportions reminiscent of a human female.

http://www.valsalia.com/comic/prologue/11/ top left panel.
And why human female as a reference? It would make sense for anthros, but yinglets aren't.

savageorange said:
Yeah, TWYS is not culture-free.
What it is is lowest-common-denominator -- it uses culture that is easily come by for a majority of E6's users.

Applied to entities well beyond the scope of this common culture.
Current TWYS policy: take a look at this (whatever), forget it's (whatever), use your imagination to see a human from your immediate surrounding there instead, and tag gender accordingly. Do not forget to defend the result viciously as the one and only true.

TWYS sounds nice and logical until you try it on corner cases, then it just stops making sense. But the policy is written as if it were a perfect definition. That's what OP was complaining about: I try to apply it but it does not work! Well duh, that's how you find broken policies dude.

Lopin was a clear corner case I used to illustrate the point. People liked him so much this thread is now about Lopin lol. Scarla/-ette wasn't so lucky, poor creature. Still, it's not about tagging Lopin as such, it's how to handle corner cases.

hslugs said:
Try to spell the criteria you use to call gender on this picture. There's no "feminine clothes" entry in my dictionary, and for a good reason.

Yeah, and Lopin has exactly how many of those traits?

http://www.valsalia.com/comic/prologue/11/ top left panel.
And why human female as a reference? It would make sense for anthros, but yinglets aren't.

Are we actually talking about the same submission (for reference it's this one )? Or are you trying to argue the point in general?
Because you linking the comic to defend the point that Lopin doesn't look female in post #921460 doesn't make sense.

NotMeNotYou said:
In a fantasy world where artists can portray fantastic things you don't believe it could be a perfectly intricate costume?
Not only that, but in art where people can draw what they want, how they want, where they, for example, could draw unrealistic bodies and ignore secondary sexually traits it's completely impossible for them to ignore the signs a costume should have?

What i believe is irrelevant, what is seen shows no visual indication that can definitely be defined as a costume, same would be for a body that has no genitalia shown, whats seen can be defined as masculine but there is nothing visible to define the body as male, female, dickgirl, herm, male-herm or c-boy.

essentially by this statement your validating the hundreds of people that mistag fur, feathers and scales based off lore and disallowed outside information, things that are not visible in the image but are described in lore and other disallowed outside information.

"...draw what they want, how they want..." And wouldnt this defeat your argument for using secondary characteristics to define a characters sex since artists can, you know apply them to anything irregardless for the characters sex.

NotMeNotYou said:
Yes, the same "background knowledge" we need to tag things like "human", "blue_skin", "grass", "trees", "beach", or literally any other tag.
The assumption that every user understands the english language and has a high school education is hardly "background knowledge".

Unless you have an idea how to tag portrayed features without the use of human created concepts to describe them we're kind of stuck with using tags that require "background knowledge" of a human language.

thing is in the case of things like human, blue_skin and such it is clearly visible as being just that and nothing else its universal across the world what blue or human actually looks like. were as secondary characteristics used for defining one as masculine or feminine or between are not universal in their implication to the sex and tell absolutely nothing about the sex since they can apply to any, decisions based purely on what your specific society has taught you what exists and does not to exist, not whats seen. Attaching secondary characteristics to a specific sex is not a humanwide construct but a societal based construct, that changes from society to society.

by the way according to you humanoids would have to be merged with human because they mostly have just human traits.

Also bit of a hyperbole to include the language this site operates as an excuse, sence twys policy pertains to just tagging posts by whats seen within, not what language this site operates on. we do have Chinese and Japanese script based tags among other languages. that this site and its twys is in english is just a happenstance of the founders, not so much the result of assuming everyone in the world can speak and read common English.

Ruku said:
What i believe is irrelevant, what is seen shows no visual indication that can definitely be defined as a costume, same would be for a body that has no genitalia shown, whats seen can be defined as masculine but there is nothing visible to define the body as male, female, dickgirl, herm, male-herm or c-boy.

essentially by this statement your validating the hundreds of people that mistag fur, feathers and scales based off lore and disallowed outside information, things that are not visible in the image but are described in lore and other disallowed outside information.

"...draw what they want, how they want..." And wouldnt this defeat your argument for using secondary characteristics to define a characters sex since artists can, you know apply them to anything irregardless for the characters sex.

You completely miss the point of my argument by a mile.
I am actually not able to further simplify what I said beforehand so if you aren't able to understand that I can't help you.

Ruku said:
thing is in the case of things like human, blue_skin and such it is clearly visible as being just that and nothing else its universal across the world what blue or human actually looks like. were as secondary characteristics used for defining one as masculine or feminine or between are not universal in their implication to the sex and tell absolutely nothing about the sex since they can apply to any, decisions based purely on what your specific society has taught you what exists and does not to exist, not whats seen. Attaching secondary characteristics to a specific sex is not a humanwide construct but a societal based construct, that changes from society to society.

Wrong, secondary sexual features that differentiate between the masculine and feminine features are identifying features. Sexual dimorphism in humans is real and used in science to identify people.
You can tell from a partial skeleton what sex the person had without using DNA, you can tell from clothed pictures that don't fully hide outlines of body parts what sex that person is.
Your entire argumentation that it's "society based" is completely and absolutely wrong.

Ruku said:
by the way according to you humanoids would have to be merged with human because they mostly have just human traits.

Humanoid are human like, but not pure humans.
I guess animal features like dog tails or cat ears are features of a human now? Because last time I checked they aren't.

Ruku said:
Also bit of a hyperbole to include the language this site operates as an excuse, sence twys policy pertains to just tagging posts by whats seen within, not what language this site operates on. we do have Chinese and Japanese script based tags among other languages. that this site and its twys is in english is just a happenstance of the founders, not so much the result of assuming everyone in the world can speak and read common English.

And yet again you miss the entire point by a mile. It's neither hyperbole nor excuse, it's an explanation.
The language picked in my argumentation is merely a vehicle to get the point across that we absolutely need outside knowledge to able to do anything.
If you want to tag "blue skin" you need to know what those words mean, that is strictly speaking outside knowledge.

NotMeNotYou said:
-snip-

I'm sorry that this is something of a necro, but I felt like most of this thread seems to be neglecting the point underlying all of this; searchability.

TWYS makes perfect sense to avoid loading up images with irrelevant or questionable tags, and for the vast majority of images, there's not a thing wrong with it. It streamlines searching, and improves accuracy more often than not. I can't argue against it in most situations.

On the other hand, you end up with outliers where the gender of the character or some other aspect of the image is unambiguously known, but either can't be tagged or is tagged "inaccurately" because it's not apparent within the context of that single file. It might seem okay if you're casually browsing and don't really care about images' lore, and that may be the case for many of the admins and users, but the fact that it's in dispute at all is a pretty strong indication that no smaller number of people actually do care about that context.

Hell, some tags would in fact be woefully underpopulated without outside context, such as incest; by removing that tag from images that don't outright state its presence, you'd actually be reducing search accuracy and satisfaction by a staggering degree. There'd be thousands of images dropped from the search, and it'd be nearly impossible to find, with even the highest-rated images of it not showing up.. That's an example of how rules can fail horribly at their purpose if you don't give them flexibility to adapt to situations that can't be reasonably covered ahead of time.

That said, it's tricky to actually give them that flexibility. Until the database can support a separate tagging category, there are very few options to keep both complete searching accuracy and TWYS in these situations. That's why I'd like to suggest, in the interest of a compromise between both camps, an amendment of the ambiguous_gender tag to cover images like the Lopin example with outside context taken into account; if a character is known (verifiably, as with names) by outside context to be a certain sex, but appears to be another sex without genital confirmation, it should be tagged ambiguous_gender along with girly or manly as appropriate to allow it to show up in the relevant searches.

It's not optimal, of course, but it still seems like it'd be closer to optimal than the current situation.. Half of this thread and half of that image's comments probably wouldn't exist if it could just stay as ambiguous, and I'd imagine the number of hostile arguments, reports, and even tag wars would drop off pretty well, too.

Imuthes said:
On the other hand, you end up with outliers where the gender of the character or some other aspect of the image is unambiguously known, but either can't be tagged or is tagged "inaccurately" because it's not apparent within the context of that single file.

< ..snip.. >

That's why I'd like to suggest, in the interest of a compromise between both camps, an amendment of the ambiguous_gender tag to cover images like the Lopin example with outside context taken into account; if a character is known (verifiably, as with names) by outside context to be a certain sex, but appears to be another sex without genital confirmation, it should be tagged ambiguous_gender along with girly or manly as appropriate to allow it to show up in the relevant searches.

Characters can (and often are) drawn as gender other than their canon one. So going by what is visible is still the better option. And in cases of characters where it is well know what they are... people have option of searching for the character directly and sorting it out their self.

Problem with any sort of exceptions is that they tend to lead to *more* arguments and mistagging as people either misinterpret the limits of the exceptions, or decide that if it's an exception in one case it should be an exception in another. Etc, etc.

To me this is a case where it's better to wait for a system specifically designed for the tagging rather than trying to jury-rig a loophole into current system that could easy confuse or be abused.

The whole Tag what you see always have been a good idea to me, but there have been many case over years that I've noticed some people ; Mainly one guy who is very prone to tag pretty much anything that has the slightest hint of "feminity" ; that would tag a lot of pictures as female, mostly due because, from what I observed by looking at the very humongous blacklist the guy's bearing, has something against female characters and wants them out of sight as soon the dude is seeing something remotely female.

Best example I can still remember is post #943442 Everyone is agreeing that person looks like a male, or at least ambiguous, not because he is male, but because his actual physique is closer to a male than a female - Ambiguous at best - but this dude really needs to nitpick on everything like those thighs being big, which is because that same person seems to have really bad knowledge on human physique because that character basically has the same physique as me, and I'm male, and if I drop my pants down and look at my thighs, they're pretty damn big as it is on the picture. Then you see that guy arguing about freakin' eyelashes. Last time I've looked at my stupid face on the mirror, I've seen myself with eyelases. Wait, then... I've been lied all my life about my gender. Big thighs, eyelashes... I, I must be transgender in disguise then, obviously

There is also this same case I mentioned months earlier on post #665857 where the guy's arguing that strip looking legs = female, because obviously cartoony characters are all drawn with realistic muscled legs when they're male. However the most hilarious excuse that I've heard for that picture was when [the dude drew lines where the body should continue, completely exaggerating the right side of the body] which is hilarious on itself because it's "Tag what you see" and here, you can't see those thighs, which makes the dude's argument sound extremely ironic. The dude then goes on how pink dress + sissy pose = female, because that is obviously how Tag what you see works.

Very recently too, this same person went on a rampage, tagging anything with eyelashes as female, especially Weavile since the original design has them. Since that person is obviously right on anything's been doing, I'll suggest a tag alias to ease the work load on that person, sparing the sight of horrible feminine traits :

Any picture with solo + eyelashes - male - female - any other gender : Add the female tag

Also, I've never seen eyelashes being listed on the How to: Tag genders Wiki guide. Oops.

The one detail I've noticed about all that is it seems that the guy's getting special favor from all that, since very often I would see an admin rule to's favor, even though everyone else would argue the character isn't remotely female at all and at best ambiguous.

Neitsuke said:
post #943442
post #665857

The examples you noted I'd have tagged female if I came across them or uploaded them given I have no knowledge of the characters.

Why am I not surprised to see a familiar name behind those edits?

You gotta admit: Doing everything in your power to exclude females and femininity entirely from your searches to the point of intentionally mistagging things for this purpose alone does sound kinda misogynistic.

That's good then, since I'm not seeing the reasoning to why they would be female. Probably the same as this other guy.
Well alright then. I guess I should keep in mind that anything pink and chubby-round looking that exerts a sort of feminine pose should be tagged as female, like Clefairy, Jigglypuff and Audino. I guess that does make sense in the end. I've never seen a male with a balloon face and with big chibi eyes, even less with fairy wings behind their back

But that's how gender works. Obviously, anything and everything with eyelashes, fairy wings and/or thick thighs is clearly female without exception. Males never ever have those features.

Neitsuke said:
That's good then, since I'm not seeing the reasoning to why they would be female.

Admin call was made for both posts, that's why.
(Hudson was an admin at the time, and as far as I know, stepping down doesn't invalidate those).

Wodahseht said:
Characters can (and often are) drawn as gender other than their canon one. So going by what is visible is still the better option.

To me, that part is actually in favour of ambiguous, and why I worded the suggestion the way I did. Point being, we wouldn't actually know if they were genderbent or just drawn with a different style. The magic of ambiguous_gender is that it doesn't outright claim one way or the other, and can accommodate multiple perceptions without them needing to fight for dominance.

Also, could we focus on thinking up solutions instead of roasting each other? If what I suggested doesn't work, there has to be something that does. Things feel too unbalanced to just leave them as they are.

If nothing else, maybe official calls could err on the side of neutrality? Picking one or the other is guaranteed to get people stirred up.

Not sure why an admin ruling would matter here. He said that he would have tagged them as female with no knowledge of the characters, not that they are tagged as female by an admin so he's following their lead.

Since that Meowstic has been tagged female because he, oh pardon me here, she, is doing a tail sign with the tails, and [since males' tails muscles cannot obviously be doing that at the risk of killing their masculinity] I'll imagine that Pikachu with a heart-shaped tail would also be tagged as female- [Hmmm wait a minute]

Neitsuke said:
Not sure why an admin ruling would matter here.

Consider it a form of supreme court. The case was discussed, handled, and closed. It doesn't really matter if you agree with their reasoning or not, the decision is final either way.

^{(From what I remember, the decision to tag that one as female was unanimous. And had nothing to do with tails.)}

Fortunately, with the new tag locking feature, those will be less of a problem.

What the hell does the admin ruling on the tags has anything to do with how that person thinks the character is female or not.

"Nah the characters look female to me" He's saying that because the admins decided that they're tagged female ? What's going on now. You're almost making it sound like everyone's being brainwashed to the admins' decisions

Neitsuke said:
What the hell does the admin ruling on the tags has anything to do with how that person thinks the character is female or not.

"Nah the characters look female to me" He's saying that because the admins decided that they're tagged female ? What's going on now. You're almost making it sound like everyone's being brainwashed to the admins' decisions

This may come as a surprise to you but Mutisija is a pretty good artist with a very firm grip on anatomical details, chances are when he and Ratte agree on something then it is actually depicted that way.

I also highly recommend you lose the sarcasm.

But there isn't any sarcasm here. I don't think he's understanding that person said that they look female to him - as an opinion, because they look female to him - not because he was looking at the tags and then claimed that they are tagged female because an admin decided so. I have no idea why he jumped to the conclusion about admins ruling when the person gave his opinion on what gender they look like. That's why I then said that it would have been better if he would have a reasoning to why they look female to him because he gave none. Because previously hearing that stripped legs = female, wearing a female dress and not able to draw the legs under the skirt properly to claim that he has wide hips, are not what I would call valid reasons to identify them as female.

Genjar must have read his response way too quickly, thinking that he said they are tagged female, and not that he personally thinks that they look female to him. That's about it.

A good grip on anatomy does make the situation sound kind of even more funny, because every time I see that happen, that's because of a sissy pose, female clothing, simple cartoon legs that are apparently a female-only detail these days and eyelashes - nothing about being anatomically correct. The only one time I've seen an actual anatomy reasoning was with this post #943442 where he clearly has no clue that thighs on a skinny male human - me being an excellent example I can consult at any time - are big like that

Neitsuke said:
But there isn't any sarcasm here. I don't think he's understanding that person said that they look female to him - as an opinion, because they look female to him - not because he was looking at the tags and then claimed that they are tagged female because an admin decided so. I have no idea why he jumped to the conclusion about admins ruling when the person gave his opinion on what gender they look like. That's why I then said that it would have been better if he would have a reasoning to why they look female to him because he gave none. Because previously hearing that stripped legs = female, wearing a female dress and not able to draw the legs under the skirt properly to claim that he has wide hips, are not what I would call valid reasons to identify them as female.

Genjar must have read his response way too quickly, thinking that he said they are tagged female, and not that he personally thinks that they look female to him. That's about it.

The admin ruling matters in that it's final, the fact that Mutisjia and we agree on the gender is just a thing that happened.

Neitsuke said:
A good grip on anatomy does make the situation sound kind of even more funny, because every time I see that happen, that's because of a sissy pose, female clothing, simple cartoon legs that are apparently a female-only detail these days and eyelashes - nothing about being anatomically correct. The only one time I've seen an actual anatomy reasoning was with this post #943442 where he clearly has no clue that thighs on a skinny male human - me being an excellent example I can consult at any time - are big like that

Or you are wrong and he is right.

Yes, they are final. That's it. I really have no idea why it is so hard for now, two people to understand that he gave his opinion on the characters being female, because he himself thinks the characters are female, not because they are tagged female. It's not about the admins having decided on the genders at all.

The examples you noted I'd have tagged female if I came across them or uploaded them given I have no knowledge of the characters.

Just for the love of sanity, read what he said. He gave his opinion on the pictures I linked, he's saying that they indeed look female. He's not saying that they look female because the admins decided that they are female. How is that so hard to understand.

And well, maybe in the end I am wrong. Maybe I'm not from the same world, where males tend to have squared hips, no eyelashes at all and are unable to pose like a girl due to muscles constraints not present where I live. I don't know anymore at this point ; I'll leave the real experts doing what they know best and hope I won't get any negative records because I didn't tag a character as female because they happen to be doing this very sissy pose or wearing a dress that males cannot possibly wear

Neitsuke said:
[...]

i believe more people would understand where you're coming from if you make your ideas known in simpler terms. i cannot help you with that, because i've read through your posts and i don't understand them myself.

fewrahuxo said:
i believe more people would understand where you're coming from if you make your ideas known in simpler terms. i cannot help you with that, because i've read through your posts and i don't understand them myself.

This is a 7(?) month old discussion about our gender tagging guidelines. You can check the old threads for more information.

I don't know how you want me to be clearer on my statements. I've been repeating that some pictures have been tagged as female over really silly reasons that do not make much sense, like "That character has curvy hips so it's female" as if only females have that feature. Basically, most of the time, that guy's been tagging lots of characters as female for either a really small feminine detail (Eyelashes) or because the character is doing a sissy pose and/or wearing female clothing, which should have 0 impact on deciding on the character being male or female.

If that's about that admin ruling nonsense, then I'll just re-enact in brief what happened and just maybe they will finally understand

Wodahseht : I've looked at your examples and they look female to me. I would have tagged them myself as female if I would have uploaded them.

Me : For what reasons are you thinking they're female then ? You gave none, so I guess they're the same as this other guy, which aren't really good reason to use to claim that they are female

Genjar : He's saying they're female because the admins ruled they are female.

Me : ??? What the hell are you tagging about now, it has nothing to do with the admins ruling

NotMeNotYou said:
-snip-

Should I just post a new thread for my earlier suggestion? It seemed like it fit this old topic better than a new one, since it was so full of relevant discussion, but then it just got drowned by people yelling about things that'll probably never change. :/

Imuthes said:
Should I just post a new thread for my earlier suggestion? It seemed like it fit this old topic better than a new one, since it was so full of relevant discussion, but then it just got drowned by people yelling about things that'll probably never change. :/

Your proposed change would not be implemented.

NotMeNotYou said:
Your proposed change would not be implemented.

Any particular reasons? Is it disliked? Would it just not work? Have similar changes been discussed previously? Too much red tape?

I understand that suggestions rarely get approved, and I didn't expect it to be workable right off the bat, but it'd be great to at least explore alternatives to it that might actually work. There are too many dissatisfied users to just leave absolutely no room for compromise.