It's time again for another one of those topics. Much as I'd love to just leave it alone, I'm getting more than a little tired of this sort of thing coming up in my searches:
post #1297490
post #1316217
Both of these images have a wide-hipped, flat-chested character depicted, yet one of them was locked to crossdressing male despite appearing female in every way but cup size, while the other was locked to female despite appearing very much like a crossdressing male or an ambiguous gender at minimum. Otherwise, the first one should be not be tagged male, since the same logic has been used to determine female pretty frequently for a long time.. but there's a dissonance here that needs to be addressed before it spreads.

At this point, I realise that pushing for different gender-tagging standards is like moving the moon, but could we at least be consistent about enforcing what's already been decided? If one image is locked to female because of wide hips and eyelashes, that should apply to all images where those are the primary indicators, regardless of personal opinion. Otherwise we're just making an already-unreliable search even more of a headache.

To be honest, I'm surprised no one's tried to tag that first one as cuntboy yet. This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't try so hard to make male characters look female and vice-versa.

Side note: That second guy's name is Muscle Mouse. Should that name be disambiguated on the count of it being almost identical to Muscles Mouse, a Tom and Jerry character?

BlueDingo said:
Side note: That second guy's name is Muscle Mouse. Should that name be disambiguated on the count of it being almost identical to Muscles Mouse, a Tom and Jerry character?

As long as they're not actually occupying the same tag, it's probably fine as-is. Also, you're definitely right on the androgyny thing, but it's still something a lot of people like - androgynous characters are an inevitability, and it's generally easier to change how something is handled after creation than change the habits of hundreds of independent creators.

Imuthes said:
Also, you're definitely right on the androgyny thing, but it's still something a lot of people like - androgynous characters are an inevitability, and it's generally easier to change how something is handled after creation than change the habits of hundreds of independent creators.

That second image is not so much androgyny as it is "make this male look almost entirely female to throw people off". It's also interesting to note that despite this character being tagged as female 6 times, muscle_mouse_(character) crossgender returns 0 results.

Also, if Muscle is feminine enough to be tagged as female when his dick isn't showing, wouldn't he also be feminine enough to be tagged as a dickgirl when his dick is showing?

BlueDingo said:
Also, if Muscle is feminine enough to be tagged as female when his dick isn't showing, wouldn't he also be feminine enough to be tagged as a dickgirl when his dick is showing?

The dick should tip it into girly male, and that at least seems to be pretty solid. The problem is when genitals aren't actually visible, and locking tags becomes less enforcing TWYS and more of a guessing game - that's the part I think should be addressed for consistency.

Also, what happens when a user looks to tag-locked images as an example of how things are supposed to be tagged? Whichever way they choose to emulate, it runs the risk of being deemed incorrect by the admins, meaning more work for them when they have to clean it up... and more inconsistency in our searches.

Threw on a tag and a reason. I may be in the wrong, but I think that the image features a penis_base.

Furrin_Gok said:
Threw on a tag and a reason. I may be in the wrong, but I think that the image features a penis_base.

Looks more like a sketch line to me. The image has lots of them.

Furrin_Gok said:
Threw on a tag and a reason. I may be in the wrong, but I think that the image features a penis_base.

I don't know whether it qualifies as a penis base or not, but I do know that as long as it's tagged with penis_base it ought to be rated explicit. So I fixed that for you.

BlueDingo said:
Looks more like a sketch line to me. The image has lots of them.

Have to agree, also if there was a penis there then i would think a sketch line would be visible on both sides of the crotch not just on the characters left.

Darou said:
Have to agree, also if there was a penis there then i would think a sketch line would be visible on both sides of the crotch not just on the characters left.

There would also be a bulge. That bikini bottom looks too flat to house a penis.

I'm honestly very close to looking into the DNP process. What the hell is the point of the girly, cross-dressing, ambiguous gender, etc tags?

Current rules are no genitalia and if it looks feminine its female ignore all evidence to the contrary and vice versa. Which WOULD make a lot of sense If not for the fact that furries are NOT human and do not have 100% accurate gender appearance to humans. There are literally multiple fetishes based around non gender conformity, cuntboys girly boys ETC. Anyone who wishes to browse these tags or blacklist them is currently fucked by this ignorant system.

Whats worse there is a fix that is so painfully simple No visible genitalia? Gender unknown? Well shit there's literally a tag for that its called ambiguous gender. But I have to ask why the hell does it even exist if its only used for slime or other clearly gender less creatures. Why not have a Gender less tag for gender less things and an ambiguous gender tag for ambiguous genders? Does that make too much fucking sense or something?

Grey570 said:

I'm honestly very close to looking into the DNP process. What the hell is the point of the girly, cross-dressing, ambiguous gender, etc tags?

Current rules are no genitalia and if it looks feminine its female ignore all evidence to the contrary and vice versa. Which WOULD make a lot of sense If not for the fact that furries are NOT human and do not have 100% accurate gender appearance to humans. There are literally multiple fetishes based around non gender conformity, cuntboys girly boys ETC. Anyone who wishes to browse these tags or blacklist them is currently fucked by this ignorant system.

Whats worse there is a fix that is so painfully simple No visible genitalia? Gender unknown? Well shit there's literally a tag for that its called ambiguous gender. But I have to ask why the hell does it even exist if its only used for slime or other clearly gender less creatures. Why not have a Gender less tag for gender less things and an ambiguous gender tag for ambiguous genders? Does that make too much fucking sense or something?

Y'know, if you step back and check up the site's tagging methods, you may be able to understand the clash between you and the site's rules. To list off points in order of occurrence:

Now, as I said I would, let me clarify what posts are: they do not represent the image therein, nor do they give absolutes on the image. Just because the post is tagged X, doesn't mean the image is X. So, if a post is tagged Female, yet the image is that of a Cuntboy, then that means nothing more than the post is tagged female, but not the image contains a female. If this sounds weird, it is because we do allow users to use the description field to say what the image actually contains. Therefore, you can use the description field to say that the "female" is actually a cuntboy. No need for quarrels so long as the tags aren't messsd with...

But by all regards, an admin can probably say this better.

Grey570 said:
I'm honestly very close to looking into the DNP process. What the hell is the point of the girly, cross-dressing, ambiguous gender, etc tags?

Current rules are no genitalia and if it looks feminine its female ignore all evidence to the contrary and vice versa. Which WOULD make a lot of sense If not for the fact that furries are NOT human and do not have 100% accurate gender appearance to humans. There are literally multiple fetishes based around non gender conformity, cuntboys girly boys ETC. Anyone who wishes to browse these tags or blacklist them is currently fucked by this ignorant system.

Whats worse there is a fix that is so painfully simple No visible genitalia? Gender unknown? Well shit there's literally a tag for that its called ambiguous gender. But I have to ask why the hell does it even exist if its only used for slime or other clearly gender less creatures. Why not have a Gender less tag for gender less things and an ambiguous gender tag for ambiguous genders? Does that make too much fucking sense or something?

Tags are assigned literally by how characters appear. If it looks like a female, it's going to be tagged as a female. There are several gender tags, those being:

male
female
ambiguous_gender
the intersex umbrella tag which includes
cuntboy
dickgirl
herm and maleherm

as well as 'modifier' gender tags, those being girly and tomboy
and for characters which are obviously one gender but wearing the clothing of the opposite gender, there is crossdressing

The entire appearance and its key points are considered, not just genitals. They're considered when they're present, just like any other point (facial structure, body type/proportions, hip width, chest size/curvature, upper body/shoulders, to name the most-used). The ambiguous_gender tag is not just used for "genderless" characters/posts, it is used when a gender cannot be discerned from how the character appears in the given image. You would know this if you ever looked for yourself, just like every other non-point you've described.

Ratte said:
Tags are assigned literally by how characters appear. If it looks like a female, it's going to be tagged as a female. There are several gender tags, those being:

male
female
ambiguous_gender
the intersex umbrella tag which includes
cuntboy
dickgirl
herm and maleherm

as well as 'modifier' gender tags, those being girly and tomboy
and for characters which are obviously one gender but wearing the clothing of the opposite gender, there is crossdressing

The entire appearance and its key points are considered, not just genitals. They're considered when they're present, just like any other point (facial structure, body type/proportions, hip width, chest size/curvature, upper body/shoulders, to name the most-used). The ambiguous_gender tag is not just used for "genderless" characters/posts, it is used when a gender cannot be discerned from how the character appears in the given image. You would know this if you ever looked for yourself, just like every other non-point you've described.

I'm well aware of the current rule set. My point is said ruleset is deeply flawed. Blacklists exist to allow people to choose not to see something. Hate traps? blacklist them. And the entire female sex I guess since if a trap is clothed its female, so just don't go off site I suppose.

Want to look up traps? Cool but only if they are naked otherwise they don't exist.

Grey570 said:
I'm well aware of the current rule set. My point is said ruleset is deeply flawed. Blacklists exist to allow people to choose not to see something. Hate traps? blacklist them. And the entire female sex I guess since if a trap is clothed its female, so just don't go off site I suppose.

Want to look up traps? Cool but only if they are naked otherwise they don't exist.

And how would you know if a trap is a trap instead of female?

Oh, right, by outside information nobody cares about. Hence, Tag What You See, you tag what is seen, not what someone said on a site entirely unrelated to the one you're on.

Siral_Exan said:
Y'know, if you step back and check up the site's tagging methods, you may be able to understand the clash between you and the site's rules. To list off points in order of occurrence:

points

No genitals and looks female doesn't mean disregard all other evidence, there are tags that take into effect if a feminine figure has masculine traits. It's just not often tagged;
Furries are not 100% human, but anatomy exists for both and we must stay reasonably true to the understanding of anatomy. If something has a body trait, that trait needs to be tagged so the post (touched on later) is represented appropriately;
You are only fucked if the post is not tagged appropriately or if you are not using the tags correctly. This is why users can edit post tags and why there are tag wikis;
You mistake "no gender" with "unknown gender". Since gender is not just genitals, there are only a few cases where ambiguous gender is alright for humanoid beings of any description;
Every being should have a gender tagged on the post. Knowing that, say, slimes have no gender is not the same as seeing a slime with no gender, and if you can't see a gender then you tag it ambiguous (with subtle exceptions, but those are case-to-case);
"Gender less" would not be helpful for searching or blacklisting, as par what I said previously, you only know there is no gender. Slimes and etc. can have genders, so saying that they are genderless is not always correct;
Perception is not 100% reality, or more specifically "what you see and believe in, is not always true". This site clearly has some values you disagree with, so saying "this doesn't make sense" is the same as saying "I disagree with what is before me". Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it's not reality, and in this case the way these tags work is so any singular user can understand them at a given time, unlike other tagging methods which cannot boast the same.

Now, as I said I would, let me clarify what posts are: they do not represent the image therein, nor do they give absolutes on the image. Just because the post is tagged X, doesn't mean the image is X. So, if a post is tagged Female, yet the image is that of a Cuntboy, then that means nothing more than the post is tagged female, but not the image contains a female. If this sounds weird, it is because we do allow users to use the description field to say what the image actually contains. Therefore, you can use the description field to say that the "female" is actually a cuntboy. No need for quarrels so long as the tags aren't messsd with...

But by all regards, an admin can probably say this better.

My point in short with less salt is, the tag system is good for searching and blacklisting. The current gender tagging means searching for or blacklisting traps as a prime example is deeply flawed. Clothed traps are female so if you don't like falling for traps don't ever look at the source which isn't the end of the world. But if you like traps who wear cloths? Find a website that caters to you, since this one does not.

Ratte said:
And how would you know if a trap is a trap instead of female?

Oh, right, by outside information nobody cares about. Hence, Tag What You See, you tag what is seen, not what someone said on a site entirely unrelated to the one you're on.

I see a dick bulge and no breasts I tag it male, someone else sees a feminine face and no dick they tag it female. Under these rules both of us are correct and we can go back and forth tagging it female and male and both be 100% correct and by the rules till an admin locks the picture.

Grey570 said:
I see a dick bulge and no breasts I tag it male, someone else sees a feminine face and no dick they tag it female. Under these rules both of us are correct and we can go back and forth tagging it female and male and both be 100% correct and by the rules till an admin locks the picture.

No, only one of you would be correct-- that would be a male, likely a girly one.

I have no idea what about this is such a hard concept.

Ratte said:
No, only one of you would be correct-- that would be a male, likely a girly one.

I have no idea what about this is such a hard concept.

My commissions are constantly set to female and one recently has been locked by you, I might add as female. I see a dick bulge and no breasts clearly, you don't. We both SEE something different.

Grey570 said:
I see a dick bulge and no breasts I tag it male, someone else sees a feminine face and no dick they tag it female. Under these rules both of us are correct and we can go back and forth tagging it female and male and both be 100% correct and by the rules till an admin locks the picture.

If there is a bulge how can the second person not see that bulge?

I don't think we're able to create a rule set that would take into account people that just tag based on whatever clues entice them in any given image.

Grey570 said:
My commissions are constantly set to female and one recently has been locked by you, I might add as female. I see a dick bulge and no breasts clearly, you don't. We both SEE something different.

I looked at every one of these: https://e621.net/post?tags=user%3AGrey570 and saw no gender tagging inconsistencies or locked tags.

Do I have to look at all of these too? https://e621.net/post/index/1/lucia_(character)

Throw some examples in here.

NotMeNotYou said:
If there is a bulge how can the second person not see that bulge?

I don't think we're able to create a rule set that would take into account people that just tag based on whatever clues entice them in any given image.

Let me start off by saying I'm bitchy about this, which I'm sure is obvious. So I'm sorry I am being salty and rude. I just find this particular topic extremely frustrating as I find being misgendered personally very frustrating. This is colouring my opinions and arguments.

A pronounced bulge is easy but at a certain angle or if its smaller it can easily be dismissed as a vaginal mound or similar. Which once more brings the gender into question at which point one person says ah its a vagina mound. Female. They are correct, someone else goes well there's not breasts and the mound it pretty round so could be a dick? Male. Now these is an argument. Current rule-set the first person wins, its female.

If this was simple to fix I don't believe it would still be an issue. Tag what you see is meant as I understand to be exactly as it sounds. What appears in the image is to be tagged to allow for searching and blacklisting. I like traps, I see a bulge and no breasts on a feminine furry I start looking for signs they are male. Someone sexually attracted to females will focus on the more feminine traits.

As a result traps are often retagged as female. So searching traps, crossdressing, girly, male yields less results. I -Personally- find this website to be significantly less useful as a result. I also have met people who get angry about falling for a trap. Though in this case as I mentioned that is a non issue as they must leave the site to be "bothered"

The gender tagging system is honestly fine, if not for the fact that there exists a fetish around males who look female and females who look male. Transgender is on the rise and I honestly do not feel sorry for what drama the tagging issues involved in that will bring. Same issue, different name.

Lance_Armstrong said:
I looked at every one of these: https://e621.net/post?tags=user%3AGrey570 and saw no gender tagging inconsistencies or locked tags.

Do I have to look at all of these too? https://e621.net/post/index/1/lucia_(character)

Throw some examples in here.

No issues there, wrong character though my issue is with my fursona a girly boy trap, Grey. All the below have no breasts, I wrote the tagged gender followed by a brief note on "gender" traits.

https://e621.net/post/show/1312144 Female (Shirt could be mistaken for breasts, extremely feminine, less defined bulge I could see someone arguing that is a vaginal mound)
https://e621.net/post/show/1021186 Male (no gender characteristics but wearing female clothing)
https://e621.net/post/show/1262815 Male (defined bulge clearly male)
https://e621.net/post/show/908018 Male (very feminine parent post has exposed penis)
https://e621.net/post/show/786652 Male (less defined bulge I could see someone arguing that is a vaginal mound)

https://e621.net/post/index/1/grey_(character)

Grey570 said:
My point in short with less salt is, the tag system is good for searching and blacklisting. The current gender tagging means searching for or blacklisting traps as a prime example is deeply flawed. Clothed traps are female so if you don't like falling for traps don't ever look at the source which isn't the end of the world. But if you like traps who wear cloths? Find a website that caters to you, since this one does not.

A site that caters to "everyone" serves no one. It would be a unruly, haphazard place where finding something very specific would be difficult if not impossible; sort of like looking for a needle in a haystack, but more like looking for a straw of hay in a stack of needles, since a lone needle would stick out. Think about how much people complain about sites like "furaffinity":www.furaffinity.net and inkbunny. Their tagging systems are vague, poorly regulated, and placed only by artists uploading the artwork. Our system may not be perfect, but hell if it ain't thorough.

Also, as rude as it may sound, if you don't like how this site is managed, you could always leave. No one's forcing you to stay here or use our tag system.

Edit: I rescind my last statement since you apologized for potentially coming off as rude. Allow me to apologize in return.

UnusualParadox said:
A site that caters to "everyone" serves no one. It would be a unruly, haphazard place where finding something very specific would be difficult if not impossible; sort of like looking for a needle in a haystack, but more like looking for a straw of hay in a stack of needles, since a lone needle would stick out. Think about how much people complain about sites like "furaffinity":www.furaffinity.net and inkbunny. Their tagging systems are vague, poorly regulated, and placed only by artists uploading the artwork. Our system may not be perfect, but hell if it ain't thorough.

Also, as rude as it may sound, if you don't like how this site is managed, you could always leave. No one's forcing you to stay here or use our tag system.

Edit: I rescind my last statement since you apologized for potentially coming off as rude. Allow me to apologize in return.

Honestly I take this issue too personally. I'm likely best off doing as you say since I already told myself to ignore it, and here I am having a blow up over it... At the end of the day if it was a simple issue it would have been fixed by now.

Grey570 said:
Honestly I take this issue too personally. I'm likely best off doing as you say since I already told myself to ignore it, and here I am having a blow up over it... At the end of the day if it was a simple issue it would have been fixed by now.

Taking an issue personally isn't a problem. Blowing up about it is. When people are willing to discuss a topic calmly and rationally while being considerate of different viewpoints, miracles can happen. When emotions are high and people begin ignoring other perspectives entirely, it starts to come off as a child throwing a tantrum. No one wants to see that.

Like I said, I take back my remark. It came out harsher than I intended.

Grey570 said:
No issues there, wrong character though my issue is with my fursona a girly boy trap, Grey. All the below have no breasts, I wrote the tagged gender followed by a brief note on "gender" traits.

https://e621.net/post/show/1312144 Female (Shirt could be mistaken for breasts, extremely feminine, less defined bulge I could see someone arguing that is a vaginal mound)
https://e621.net/post/show/1021186 Male (no gender characteristics but wearing female clothing)
https://e621.net/post/show/1262815 Male (defined bulge clearly male)
https://e621.net/post/show/908018 Male (very feminine parent post has exposed penis)
https://e621.net/post/show/786652 Male (less defined bulge I could see someone arguing that is a vaginal mound)

https://e621.net/post/index/1/grey_(character)

You know, the easiest way to stop a character from being misgendered is to stop making them look like the opposite gender. If you keep making him look female, people are going to treat him as female until his dick steps in to say otherwise. Also, you can find some of the misgendered ones by searching flat_chested -rating:e.

They don't call 'em traps for nuffin.

The first image in the original post of this thread...
There is NO BULGE in the bikini/no dick poking out of the bikini of the character on the right. TWYS thus means they are a flat-chested female. It could be a cuntboy, but... There are not enough butch characteristics on the character to fit that.

The second one...
There are NO obvious genitalia, and the character is flat-chested. As such, it should be tagged ambiguous_gender and MAYBE girly.

People can hate it if they want, but not even mods are exempt from the site's tagging rules. I'm sorry if that comes across as rude, but that's just my two cents on the matter.

Azula_Arktandr said:
The first image in the original post of this thread...
There is NO BULGE in the bikini/no dick poking out of the bikini of the character on the right. TWYS thus means they are a flat-chested female. It could be a cuntboy, but... There are not enough butch characteristics on the character to fit that.

The second one...
There are NO obvious genitalia, and the character is flat-chested. As such, it should be tagged ambiguous_gender and MAYBE girly.

People can hate it if they want, but not even mods are exempt from the site's tagging rules.

genitals, breast or their lack is NOT the only thing that you are supposed to take in consideration. body shape and facial features count too. this was literally stated in this same thread few comments above
https://e621.net/forum/show/242619

Ledian said:
genitals, breast or their lack is NOT the only thing that you are supposed to take in consideration. body shape and facial features count too. this was literally stated in this same thread few comments above
https://e621.net/forum/show/242619

I know that. For the first I made note that there weren't really many butch characteristics obvious to me. The only thing I can see that implies masculinity is the width of the shoulders. Just because the other character has an exaggeratedly-thin waist doesn't mean that the 'male' one has a masculine waistline. Anatomical accuracy is not a style.

For the second... All right, on a second look I suppose that's fair, it has far more effeminate hallmarks than male ones; justifying a female tag over ambiguous.
My mental hangup was that traditionally, balloons are used by males pretending to be female; woman trying to make their breasts look bigger more often use padded bras and such things.

Isn't the whole point of a "trap" to appear female until you see the genitals?

Getting tagged 'female' would imply that it did the job.

Random said:
Isn't the whole point of a "trap" to appear female until you see the genitals?

Getting tagged 'female' would imply that it did the job.

This. There are certain outfits known for being worn by a male character to look female, such as breath of the wild's Vai clothing, which people tag as trap because of that, but that's TWYK. If it looks female, it's female here.

Ratte said:
And how would you know if a trap is a trap instead of female?

Oh, right, by outside information nobody cares about.

Lots of people care, just not the ones with the power to do anything about it.

That said, outside context shouldn't even be necessary to tell, for example, that the Vimhomeless one in the OP is a male pretending to be female; "her" breasts are literally balloons. If waist-to-hip ratio and eyelashes are enough to tag that as female, why is the Seely one tagged male when that body structure is even more feminine?

The fact that it's in dispute makes it the very definition of ambiguous, but I've more or less given up on pushing for that one. All I'm asking is, could the controversial definition at least be applied consistently?

Here's what I think.

- Different people see things differently, because we're stateful creatures and we interpret the world based on what we know.
- TWYS works really well for 99% of what it gets used for here. See a toaster, tag a toaster.
- However, all this tag madness exists so people can find things they like, and the reason people like things extend beyond merely how they look.

Consider sergals. You might not know off the top of your head, but, sergal females don't always have breasts. It's a documented, oft-cited fact about the species.

post #452125 post #950137 post #1168656 post #1063154 post #1076513 post #915519

People sometimes add them anyway, so if they ARE present, it's almost certainly female (or dickgirl), but the absense of breasts conveys no information.

I KNOW this, and it influences my tagging decisions. But someone who DOESN'T know this might make the easy mistake of assuming any ambiguously gendered sergal without boobs looks male. These are differences in what we see based on what we know a male or female to look like.

The same logic extends to characters too. Some characters trick people a lot, like arith, who is a maleherm with a prehensile_penis:
post #663143
He's sometimes mistaken for a sergal, or a female, based on how an image is cropped.

Given that this argument happens all the time, and we never hear "Gee, I love having to sift through my search results to make sure what I searched for is actually there because it might just be something else that looks like it", it seems to me like the sensible solution would be to identify issues that cause problems the most (gender and species being the two big ones everyone constantly gripes about) and special case them, given that we know the system works poorly for them, given what people expect from the site?

Can we tag them something like maleherm_character or gryphon_character, if we don't want to change the whole universe underneath everyone?

Gender is tagged according to appearance as compared to the real world, not according to lore.

Would the Pokemon be of relevance here? They are only tagged according to genitalia or other male/female-centric details while ignoring any gender differences that originate from the franchise (the logic, I assume, being that people who aren't familiar with the franchise shouldn't be expected to know this and that it's entirely possible for an artist to draw a male Pokemon that looks like a female and vice-versa).

Ratte said:
Gender is tagged according to appearance as compared to the real world, not according to lore.

That, basically.

Strikerman said:
Would the Pokemon be of relevance here? They are only tagged according to genitalia or other male/female-centric details while ignoring any gender differences that originate from the franchise (the logic, I assume, being that people who aren't familiar with the franchise shouldn't be expected to know this and that it's entirely possible for an artist to draw a male Pokemon that looks like a female and vice-versa).

That, basically.

Gender differences weren't introduced until the 4th generation (Diamond/Pearl/Platinum) of Pokemon, so you'd have to assume that any pikachu without a cleft tail is automatically male even though the art is simply from before those games were a thing. Those who want to cite the existence of male and female nidorans should be aware that they are treated as two different species of pokemon, not just dimorphic variations of the same one. This gets pretty convoluted as allowing either to breed with a ditto can result in the opposite gender species. Nidorina and Nidoqueen are also entirely incapable of breeding due to their place in the Undiscovered egg group while nidorino and nidoking are capable of breeding without a problem.

There is also the matter of a lot of feral-type animals (and animal-like things, such as pokemon) have only genitals to distinguish gender anyway, and even pokemon with high resemblance to real-world animals don't follow the same kind of sexual dimorphism rules as their real-world counterparts. See: stantler, sawsbuck, pyroar.

Another issue is that some pokemon are canonically always one gender, the other gender, or neither. How do you tag a mewtwo with tits and a penis when mewtwo is canonically genderless? A latios with a pussy, though latios is always male? Chansey with a dick? List goes on.

Hell, there's even the spiky-eared pichu which is always female, even though pichu in general are 50/50.

This kind of shit is why we stick to real-world examples instead of lore.

Hypothetically, there's no reason a spiky eared pichu couldn't be male, it's just that the one specific one depicted wasn't. It is merely a specific pichu. As long as you don't try to claim that all spiky eared pichus featured in any art are depictions of the same spiky eared pichu individual, having them with different genders seems fine.

If you had a mewtwo depicted "realistically", whatever that means for a pokemon, it would probably be tagged ambiguous_gender. If you take a mewtwo and add tits and a penis, you've already left the realm of real-life human gender classification because such complete hermaphoditism is exceedingly, exceedingly rare (at least in humans). Such a thing is tagged based on human standards, but only because nothing better exists.

Real animals that are not mammals don't have breasts, and it's reasonable to say that for those animals, the presence of breasts probably means it's a female (or maybe a dickgirl) but the absence of breasts isn't a reliable indicator of gender.

If I were to tag a crocodile lady with boobs, I'd probably tag it female and anthrofied (indicating it's more human-centric than usual). One without boobs, but a vagina? Still a female. I apply the same rule for sergals because they're not real animals, sure, but neither are dragons, and those don't always have boobs either.

Ratte said:
Gender is tagged according to appearance as compared to the real world, not according to lore.

The real world has females without a lot of breast mass too. The fact that it's possible to walk into a grocery store, see a person, and be surprised about their gender when they turn around or speak, tells me that the real world isn't immune from this issue either, so perhaps it's not the best model to use in this case.

The human standards aren't going anywhere and they will continue to be the standards for gender tagging in the future.

The spiky-eared pichu, canonically speaking, is always female. Drawing it with a penis doesn't make it a dickgirl just because it's canonically female, which is my point. Same thing with how a herm mewtwo is no longer ambiguous_gender since now there are traits used to identify gender. A latios with a pussy is a female and not a cuntboy even though latios is always male just like a chansey with a dick isn't a dickgirl even though chansey is always female. Given there are really no real-world traits to use with pokemon, they are regarded as ambiguous unless those traits are present (though this is easier with some pokemon more than others, such is life). The same goes for feral animals unless some kind of sexual dimorphism is present, such as antlers on a deer, mane on a lion, or a stripe of blue on the rear wings of a tiger swallowtail butterfly.

Breasts and genitals are not the only factors used to determine gender with anthro animals. Face structure, shoulder and hip proportions, torso shape, and other secondary/tertiary factors are also considered. An anthro reptile with a pussy an a flat or undefined chest is probably going to get the female tag without a problem, but an anthro reptile with a pussy, defined pectorals, and broad shoulders is probably going to get the cuntboy tag. These same things go for fictional species-- tag what you see, not what you know.

Ratte said:
Hell, there's even the spiky-eared pichu which is always female, even though pichu in general are 50/50.

The spiky-eared pichu is one specific female pichu. That's why it's a character tag.

Ratte said:
Gender differences weren't introduced until the 4th generation (Diamond/Pearl/Platinum) of Pokemon, so you'd have to assume that any pikachu without a cleft tail is automatically male even though the art is simply from before those games were a thing. Those who want to cite the existence of male and female nidorans should be aware that they are treated as two different species of pokemon, not just dimorphic variations of the same one. This gets pretty convoluted as allowing either to breed with a ditto can result in the opposite gender species. Nidorina and Nidoqueen are also entirely incapable of breeding due to their place in the Undiscovered egg group while nidorino and nidoking are capable of breeding without a problem.

If the gender system and sexual dimorphism existed in Gen 1, male and female nidoran would've been the same species. They were originally split because the gender system didn't exist at the time.

Snergal said:
If you had a mewtwo depicted "realistically", whatever that means for a pokemon, it would probably be tagged ambiguous_gender.

Actually, this would be true for most pokémon. The only one I can think of that has an unambiguously female body part on it is Miltank (the udders).

Edit: Actually, two. Kangaskhan has a pouch.

BlueDingo said:
The spiky-eared pichu is one specific female pichu. That's why it's a character tag.

Yes, I know. I was referring specifically to that pichu. :p

BlueDingo said:
If the gender system and sexual dimorphism existed in Gen 1, male and female nidoran would've been the same species. They were originally split because the gender system didn't exist at the time.

Again, yes, I know. This doesn't magically mean the introduction to proper sexual dimorphism wasn't the 4th generation. Before in gen 2 and 3, the only telltale was the gender symbol (if applicable) by the level marker. It would have been nice to have that be a thing, but with all the extra content/features they managed to cram into gen 2, with the much lower-resolution sprites of that period, I guess I don't mind too much.

Ratte said:
Yes, I know. I was referring specifically to that pichu. :p

Yeah, I realised that after I hit refresh.

In general lore is not considered when tagging the sex of fictional species. See forum #239784 for a more comprehensive review.

Ratte said:
Breasts and genitals are not the only factors used to determine gender with anthro animals. Face structure, shoulder and hip proportions, torso shape, and other secondary/tertiary factors are also considered.

Again, why is the Seely image in the OP forced to male, then? She has no breasts, but that's not enough; the rest of her body is so unambiguously female that a male IRL would have to be taking hormones to resemble her. Those are the epitome of female hips, in fact.

This isn't even about whatever the above people think should be changed about the rules. This is about making sure the rules we already have are applied as you're describing them.

The first (made by me) picture i ever posted was raided by Ratte. https://e621.net/post/show/1428567/2017-3d_-artwork-ambiguous_gender-anthro-blue_eyes

He locked the tags Ambiguous gender and locked the removal of male and male/female tags, but left the female tag in, despite the source clearly proves Flaros is male and Cefca is female. It's as if he wants Flaros (my character) to be seen as female REALLY badly. Like i know my character is hated everywhere but jeez, at least let me edit and give the reason. Tag locking is stupid.

milanise7en said:
The first (made by me) picture i ever posted was raided by Ratte. https://e621.net/post/show/1428567/2017-3d_-artwork-ambiguous_gender-anthro-blue_eyes

He locked the tags Ambiguous gender and locked the removal of male and male/female tags, but left the female tag in. It's as if he wants Flaros (my character) to be seen as female REALLY badly. Like i know my character is hated everywhere but jeez, at least let me edit and give the reason. Tag locking is stupid.

I could not care less about your character. I don't even know who you are.

The latios looks ambiguous and the primarina looks female. The tags were locked accordingly.

milanise7en said:
the source clearly proves Flaros is male and Cefca is female

Hello and welcome to e6! Here we tag character's sex based on appearance only, not the source. This is because we emphasize user functionality, particularly the ability to search for art based on what something looks like not necessarily what the artists says it is.

Ratte said:
I could not care less about your character. I don't even know who you are.

The latios looks ambiguous and the primarina looks female. The tags were locked accordingly.

Mind you but i see nothing that is female about ether character, at best the primarina is androgynous which would be ambiguous_gender under e621's existing tags. Both are ambiguous_gender by the human standard we ultilize.

More over Latios together with Latias are one of those fuw species pairs that are gender specific, mainly based off of color pallette, the former(Latios) being all male and the latter(Latias) being all female. This is a default state, not a retroactively added feature like the cleft tail controversy a couple months ago.

Darou said:
Mind you but i see nothing that is female about ether character, at best the primarina is androgynous which would be ambiguous_gender under e621's existing tags. Both are ambiguous_gender by the human standard we ultilize.

More over Latios together with Latias are one of those fuw species pairs that are gender specific, mainly based off of color pallette, the former being all male and the latter being all female. This is a default state, not a retroactively added feature like the cleft tail controversy a couple months ago.

The primarina looks plenty feminine enough for the female tag and the latios exhibits no useful non-lore gender characteristics from either side to be tagged anything but ambiguous. I'm very familiar with Pokemon, and even then that is not how things work here. The tags will remain locked as per our gender tagging system.

Ratte said:
The primarina looks plenty feminine enough for the female tag and the latios exhibits no useful non-lore gender characteristics from either side to be tagged anything but ambiguous. I'm very familiar with Pokemon, and even then that is not how things work here. The tags will remain locked as per our gender tagging system.

ratte what is feminine about it, describe the details that you use to make your case.

Do i have to point out that you use lore to bind gender tagging rules for charrs and certain other fictional species, that are consistent in their lore specific traits that define gender?

Darou said:
ratte what is feminine about it, describe the details that you use to make your case.

Do i have to point out that you use lore to bind gender tagging rules for charrs and certain other fictional species, that are consistent in their lore specific traits that define gender?

Eyelashes, long hair, pear shaped body. Charr only get their "lore" based tags if they don't interfere or contradict our established tagging guidelines^[1].

NotMeNotYou said:
Eyelashes, long hair, pear shaped body. Charr only get their "lore" based tags if they don't interfere or contradict our established tagging guidelines^[1].

I am unclear what eyelashes you speak of, all i see is a jagged brow ridge surrounding the upper right quarter of the eye, that long hair also seems more like a head_tail with tightly bound beaded reefs, long hair also is not at all something that exclusively feminine figures wear, a pear shaped body is also a common trait among many biped pokemon regardless of gender that have a torso and are not drawn in anthro(humanoid skeleton). squat legs with a wide crotch and small chest.

Those guidelines are by definition bending the gender tagging rules used for everything else including what you both are using right here for milanise7en's submission. Charrs are anthros but these guidelines demand that we treat them as ferals instead, it also restricts the application of the cuntboy tag much more then its application on any other species. "canon characteristics may influence gender tagging..." That is non existent for other species, that is exactly what you are opposing here in regards to the latias/latios paired species

Yes, the jagged crown things emulate eye lashes, no the hair does not look like a "head tail", yes the body shape is feminine in the area we can see.

No, we treat their lack of breasts with less impact than we do with standard anthro characters, that's a huge difference to "treating them as ferals". If the charr looks masculine and has a pussy they're still going to get the cuntboy tag, regardless of present other features. The charr rule is very clearly defined to help fringe cases where no other traits are visible that we usually use. In this case there are traits we use to define a gender.

NotMeNotYou said:
Yes, the jagged crown things emulate eye lashes, no the hair does not look like a "haid tail", yes the body shape is feminine in the area we can see.

And il state again that the shape is not at all indicative of any gender and that what is seen in this specific post is not hair, there is a clear difference when you compare this post being discussed to other posts with this Pokemon species(primarina)that do clearly defined hair, we dont tag traits in one post just because they happened to appear in a different post with the same character or species but dont appear here. You do admit that there are no eyelashes, "jagged crown things emulate 'X'". A "crown things" emulating is not the same as being, eye lashes also are not triangle shaped ~^^^^>>.
Is a row of tiny horns or hard barbs along the edge of the eylids the same as the hairs we call eyelashes?

No, we treat their lack of breasts with less impact than we do with standard anthro characters.

Is that not binding the rules, because you treat them diferently with that. Also treating them as(akin to) ferals is the definition specified in the guidelines you linked to.

If the charr looks masculine and has a pussy they're still going to get the cuntboy tag regardless of present other features.

that would be true if wasnt for the fact that charrs that clearly have a masculine shape and have no female traits except for a pussy and no breasts are still in mass retagged as female by admins, and then we have the wiki specificly applying canon based traits as the differences between males and females, many of them rather arbitrary in nature(like size of the muzzle or amount of muscle)...

PS: the 2 right examples used for female in the wiki i would consider cuntboys

Darou said:
And il state again that the shape is not at all indicative of any gender and that what is seen in this specific post is not hair, there is a clear difference when you compare this post being discussed to other posts with this Pokemon species(primarina)that do clearly defined hair, we dont tag traits in one post just because they happened to appear in a different post with the same character or species but dont appear here. You do admit that there are no eyelashes, "jagged crown things emulate 'X'". A "crown things" emulating is not the same as being, eye lashes also are not triangle shaped ~^^^^>>.
Is a row of tiny horns or hard barbs along the edge of the eylids the same as the hairs we call eyelashes?

I hope you're aware that just restating what you said already is not going to magically make us see anything different in the image.
We simply disagree with your assessment of the features in the image and tag as we see it.

Darou said:
Is that not binding the rules, because you treat them diferently with that. Also treating them as(akin to) ferals is the definition specified in the guidelines you linked to. that would be true if wasnt for the fact that charrs that clearly have a masculine shape and have no female traits except for a pussy and no breasts are still in mass retagged as female by admins, and then we have the wiki specificly applying canon based traits as the differences between males and females, many of them rather arbitrary in nature(like size of the muzzle or amount of muscle)...

PS: the 2 right examples used for female in the wiki i would consider cuntboys

Your feedback on the wikipage has been noted.

NotMeNotYou said:
I hope you're aware that just restating what you said already is not going to magically make us see anything different in the image.
We simply disagree with your assessment of the features in the image and tag as we see it.

Your feedback on the wikipage has been noted.

Im aware, im also aware that keep saying a certain shape -that can appear on any gender in equal amounts- is feminine just because you feel like it does not make it true or right.
Also conveniently ignoring the facts i pointed out that invalidate the other traits you assert are there to point to the character as feminine.
Agree to disagree, for the one in power must always be right, for he is god, being wrong is a impossibility no matter what.

Your sarcasm and ad hominem would be more effective if I didn't have a track record, in public no less, of admitting when I do make a mistake.

NotMeNotYou said:
Your sarcasm and ad hominem would be more effective if I didn't have a track record, in public no less, of admitting when I do make a mistake.

its not sarcasm, its a fact, you believe your right and you have the power to ignore or suppress anyone who proves you wrong as a admin of the site we communicate on. Its the nature of the position you are in. Being a admin (a authority) by default has people supporting your statement or opinion over that of a regular user.
A track record does does not mean much, it can state you rarely are as such but it does not conclude a never.

I was surprised when I saw this kind of thread bumped.

Darou said:
Charrs are anthros but these guidelines demand that we treat them as ferals instead

Yeah! Let's treat anthropomorphism as a binary scale! Anything without TITS is male or feral!/s

in mass retagged as female by admins

Still better than the previous en masse detagging by users in the past.

PS: the 2 right examples used for female in the wiki i would consider cuntboys

You could probably argue for the middle one, but for the rightmost I think the multi-nipples combined with the waist-hip curve would hold it in the female tag.

Not that body ratios tend to hold a lot of weight when it comes to tagging female vs cuntboy.
post #1375810 post #1331563

SHITPOST MODE ACTIVATE
post #829662

Darou said:
its not sarcasm, its a fact, you believe your right and you have the power to ignore or suppress anyone who proves you wrong as a admin of the site we communicate on. Its the nature of the position you are in. Being a admin (a authority) by default has people supporting your statement or opinion over that of a regular user.

The regular users who tend to get in notable conflict with admins, in practice tend to be self-absorbed and make unjustifiable leaps in logic.
So, yeah, admins do get some level of deference by default, but you can usually leave admin posts out of it entirely and still easily conclude that the complainer is unreasonable.

Case in point.

you believe your right

is mindreading. There's nothing reasonable about mindreading. Assuming that he must have that attitude because he is an admin is simply treating him like a stereotype rather than an individual.

The counterpart of

A track record does does not mean much, it can state you rarely are as such but it does not conclude a never.

is rather obvious:

A track record does does not mean much, it can state you often are as such but it does not conclude an always.

Which I think adequately illustrates the problem with using that assertion like it is an actual argument; it works just as well in reverse.

MagnusEffect said:
Yeah! Let's treat anthropomorphism as a binary scale! Anything without TITS is male or feral!/s

nope, i did not say that magnus, obviously you do not need breasts to be female. what i am saying is that charrs that are masculine, non-breasted and have a pussy and exhibit no other feminine traits are tagged female just because canonically charrs are flat-chested when in fact they are to be tagged cuntboy from what is visible.

Still better than the previous en masse detagging by users in the past.

How so, the confusion only started when a interest group that was supporting the enforcement of charr cannon was complaining in mass and forced staff to make a compromise exception in the tagging rules that separates charrs from any other species on this site as far tagging goes. If this is not a exception then these guidelines would not exist exclusively for charrs. People were detagging images for what they see by e621s definition of cuntboy.

You could probably argue for the middle one, but for the rightmost I think the multi-nipples combined with the waist-hip curve would hold it in the female tag.

Umm multi nipples are found in males as well as cuntboys, not realy something that denotes gender and obviously they can have a bottom-wide figure too as you have seen your self below.
The character in your left post by the way is one of the most fought over character on e621 as far as their gender goes...

Not that body ratios tend to hold a lot of weight when it comes to tagging female vs cuntboy.
post #1375810 post #1331563

savageorange said:
The regular users who tend to get in notable conflict with admins, in practice tend to be self-absorbed and make unjustifiable leaps in logic.
So, yeah, admins do get some level of deference by default, but you can usually leave admin posts out of it entirely and still easily conclude that the complainer is unreasonable.

Case in point.
is mindreading. There's nothing reasonable about mindreading. Assuming that he must have that attitude because he is an admin is simply treating him like a stereotype rather than an individual.

I conclude from their actions savage, they do not prove their decisions and facts given are ignored or deflected, they disagree with me without contesting facts. I am not trying to get into someones mind and did not assume just on their position as admin.

The counterpart of
is rather obvious:

Which I think adequately illustrates the problem with using that assertion like it is an actual argument; it works just as well in reverse.

I apologise but i do not really see what you are getting at with this:?

Darou said:
Umm multi nipples are found in males as well as cuntboys, not realy something that denotes gender and obviously they can have a bottom-wide figure too as you have seen your self below.

It's been used as grounds for the dickgirl tag on charr in the past, notably by the admin involved with most of the tag-locking this thread is about.

How so, the confusion only started when-

It got to the point that a vagina+obscured or ambiguous body was enough to tag cuntboy.

one of the most fought over character on e621 as far as their gender goes...

There's a reason I picked a picture where her hips are twice the width of her waist.

Darou said:
I conclude from their actions savage, they do not prove their decisions and facts given are ignored or deflected, they disagree with me without contesting facts.

I am not contesting any "facts" or "arguments" because you have not given any. All you make is claims, and then you don't present anything as to why your claims are true.

But don't just believe me:

Head Tail

Darou said:
that long hair also seems more like a head_tail with tightly bound beaded reefs,

Darou said:
And il state again that the shape is not at all indicative of any gender and that what is seen in this specific post is not hair, there is a clear difference when you compare this post being discussed to other posts with this Pokemon species(primarina)that do clearly defined hair,

The first quote is you stating your own observation, the second is just the same but with more words. With the addendum that "we don't use other posts to tag things", but directly referencing this being a head tail based on other posts.
Where are the arguments that it is a head tail? What are you seeing that this makes you say "this can't be hair"?
How am I supposed to present an adequate counter argumentation when you present no arguments for your claims?

The same goes for the eye ridges / eye lashes and the body form. If you're willing to provide actual arguments I am willing to actually present adequate counter arguments. If all you're doing is an appeal to "because I say so" then I have no reason to spend time doing anything else than that.

Darou said:

Give up. Just, give it up.
You're not the first. You're not going to be the last, unfortunately, either; e621 has seen people like you come and go by the dozens.

People who demand the site's systems and practices adhere strictly to what they believe and, when shot down due their not understanding why such systems are put into place, resort to progressively more hostile behavior to try and 'make a point.'

This hostility will not help you prove anything. It will not help communicate any points, and it most certainly does not legitimize your arguments -- particularly when you insult and accuse staff.
Particularly staff a lot of the site's users actually like, since they're competent and give a shit about the well-being of e621's continuing quality and functionality.
People don't support an authority figure because that figure is authority, they do it for personal gain. They have nothing to lose in showing support towards the catch-all "rules enforcement and quality control" team which handles the site.

Give up.

Found an example of this here: https://e621.net/post/show/1347923/

Felix Argyle is canonically male. There is no breasts or vag in the picture. Yet the tags about gender are locked (probably by people denying being gay).

Cat1778 said:
Found an example of this here: https://e621.net/post/show/1347923/

Felix Argyle is canonically male. There is no breasts or vag in the picture. Yet the tags about gender are locked (probably by people denying being gay).

"Canonically"...
This site using Tag What You See. You literally suggest that females need breasts and/or a pussy in order to be tagged female, and that is simply not the case. If the character has feminine details, which is what's pictured, and no masculine details then they will be tagged female.

And no, I'm not gay. my artistic preferences are not my sexual preferences. Know the difference.

Cat1778 said:
Found an example of this here: https://e621.net/post/show/1347923/

Felix Argyle is canonically male. There is no breasts or vag in the picture. Yet the tags about gender are locked (probably by people denying being gay).

RIP bumping a 9 month old thread with an example that doesn't really match the thread context.

I have my own reservations about some specific implementations of TWYS but it pains me to know the admins likely pay less attention to any new discussion the more people just reiterate "but canooooooooon."
But here we go headed for another thread lock.

Siral_Exan said:
"Canonically"...
This site using Tag What You See. You literally suggest that females need breasts and/or a pussy in order to be tagged female, and that is simply not the case. If the character has feminine details, which is what's pictured, and no masculine details then they will be tagged female.

We do not tag canon/lore but cat1778 is correct non the less that the locked tag is incorrect. there is no visual evidence that the character is female. Might i also point out that males can be effeminate the same way females can be masculine. Speak of TWYS, specify what clearly is female and not simply a feminine male? The flat chested tag also is compromised by the fact that the chest is clothed(entirely covered) which means its simply believed not actually seen.

And for reference this is in the context of this thread, mods asserting their own bias as to what constitutes female or male regardless if their preferences break twys, Or happen to apply lore where it shouldn't be.

Please note that i consider this to be ambiguous_gender as it does fit the conditions specified under its wiki and does align with some other content posted to the tag older than 6 months.

Darou said:
And for reference this is in the context of this thread, mods asserting their own bias as to what constitutes female or male regardless if their preferences break twys, Or happen to apply lore where it shouldn't be.

Some cases are bound to be subjective, so what do you do with posts where 33% thinks it's female and 33% thinks it's male and 34% thinks it's male because they know the character?

It's nothing more than adult coming in over fight of who gets to play with the toy and decides that. Of course the side that doesn't get the toy gets upset over the situation, but all users here should be adults and understand that there shouldn't be this massive battlefield over single tag, but that still sometimes happen, even before admin ruling and tag locking.

Characters are always tagged and there's ? next to character tag, you can write pretty much anything you want there, including if the character is canonically male or female, but somehow nobody is doing this but are focusing their efforts on individual posts.

Mairo said:
Some cases are bound to be subjective, so what do you do with posts where 33% thinks it's female and 33% thinks it's male and 34% thinks it's male because they know the character?

It's nothing more than adult coming in over fight of who gets to play with the toy and decides that. Of course the side that doesn't get the toy gets upset over the situation, but all users here should be adults and understand that there shouldn't be this massive battlefield over single tag, but that still sometimes happen, even before admin ruling and tag locking.

Characters are always tagged and there's ? next to character tag, you can write pretty much anything you want there, including if the character is canonically male or female, but somehow nobody is doing this but are focusing their efforts on individual posts.

I dont consider it to be tagged as ether, i see it as falling under ambiguous_gender from the standpoint of tagging what you see in the particular image. And im referencing to the ambiguous_gender wiki that general is carefully watched over by mods/admins, Not the character wiki.

I'd have to agree, actually.

Female : "Characters who appear to be visually female, with no conflicting features."

Ambiguous_gender : "Used when the gender of a character in the image is not apparent from the image (no genitals or other clues are visible), and/or when there are mixed signs as to whether the character is male or female (wide hips plus broad shoulders, etc.)."

IMO the jawline is a conflicting feature, but not unmistakably so (eg. Siral implies that they didn't perceive it as masculine). It's a less obvious conflict than wide hips vs broad shoulders.

Darou said:
And for reference this is in the context of this thread, mods asserting their own bias as to what constitutes female or male regardless if their preferences break twys, Or happen to apply lore where it shouldn't be.

The OP arguably excludes character canon context via making only loose implications to the canon sexes of its examples. "Lore"/character canon in the specific context of admin tagging decisions didn't come up until page 2.
This new example ignores prior discussion of body types to only consider whether the character displays breasts or specific genitalia, alongside a statement of character canon.

Yes, I'm aware that body type is the most subjective aspect of gender tagging. I feel like that's why it's also the most-ignored.

I will agree that this image of Felix Argyle is pretty ambiguous, but it looks like I'll be the first to say it's mostly because he looks like he's been drawn with the build of a preteen.

MagnusEffect said:
The OP arguably excludes character canon context via making only loose implications to the canon sexes of its examples. "Lore"/character canon in the specific context of admin tagging decisions didn't come up until page 2.

pardon me but i am unclear what you mean here as the OP of the thread never refers to canon or is trying to bend it.

This new example ignores prior discussion of body types to only consider whether the character displays breasts or specific genitalia, alongside a statement of character canon.

That could likely be because there are no clearly defined body type features in this image to go off of, and the head shape including the jawline you mention is of a pretty generic anime style, quite certain no one could say male or female if the hair and clothes were taken off...

Yes, I'm aware that body type is the most subjective aspect of gender tagging. I feel like that's why it's also the most-ignored.

well that makes sense considering TWYS is supposed to be objective.

I will agree that this image of Felix Argyle is pretty ambiguous, but it looks like I'll be the first to say it's mostly because he looks like he's been drawn with the build of a preteen.

-----
Just for comparison these are other images under girly, ambiguous_gender or both:
post #452018 post #915684 post #1707453 post #985228 post #1366622 post #608837 post #1459772 post #141335 post #393116

And the addressed subject post #1347923

there are more thru only added those that best match the posing/context...

Darou said:
pardon me but i am unclear what you mean here as the OP of the thread never refers to canon or is trying to bend it.

The loose implication to canon sex being

Imuthes said:
the other was locked to female despite appearing very much like a crossdressing male or an ambiguous gender at minimum.

regarding a post featuring enormous hips on a character who is most frequently drawn as male.

Darou said:
well that makes sense considering TWYS is supposed to be objective.

But it's also notably a part of how we're supposed to tag genders.

It becomes subjective because due to what you can depict in artwork not being directly tied to reality, people have vastly differing opinions on what even constitutes terms such as masculine or feminine.
Sometimes people can't agree and admins have to step in. I don't agree with every single admin decision myself, but the more arguments revolve around just screeching the same things, the less the admins are going to bother reading everything else.
I'm sure my own posts on the matter already don't get much more than a brief skim-over for the sake of potential community conduct breaches.

Darou said:
That could likely be because there are no clearly defined body type features in this image to go off of, and the head shape including the jawline you mention is of a pretty generic anime style,

I'm interpreting their intent as more along the lines of "This character is a male, there are no visible features to conflict with this knowledge, therefore they should be tagged male."
It is a pretty generic anime style, and I'm sure the admins have a reason for selecting female over ambiguous that is unlikely to enter public record lest people find it insufficient and just complain more.