If we look at Mikhaila, we see, like for example here:

post #226865 post #354221 post #352568

that she isn't much of a she, visually. There aren't even breast bumps as per 'normal' anthro characteristics (and in the third and first she is downright masculine, chest-wise); in the first and second, she looks pretty neuter or at least ambiguous to me, without a sexual organ in sight, while in the third she seems to be the very definition of cuntboy. Yet, if we look across the majority of her images, we see she is in fact usually tagged female. Following both the definition of female that we use in the wiki and TWYS, this is simply incorrect. do we fix this and similar issues, or is gender slowly becoming another exception to TWYS?

Not a cuntboy it doesn't even look like that

blackbirdt said:
Not a cuntboy it doesn't even look like that

You must be kidding right?

blackbirdt said:
Not a cuntboy it doesn't even look like that

It has a girlish face, but the chest is male (absolutely no female breast flesh, just pectorals), its body is slim and lacks curves like a male, and it has a vagina. Yes, I'm aware that her species is said to lack those sexual traits, but that's outside knowledge not contained within the images, and further isn't even reflected properly across all images she's drawn in. Some she does have breasts, even if small ones, others she has a more girlish figure that couldn't be mistaken for male.

The primary thing is that, going by how we define female visually, she's not female.

123easy said:
It has a girlish face, but the chest is male (absolutely no female breast flesh, just pectorals), its body is slim and lacks curves like a male, and it has a vagina. Yes, I'm aware that her species is said to lack those sexual traits, but that's outside knowledge not contained within the images, and further isn't even reflected properly across all images she's drawn in. Some she does have breasts, even if small ones, others she has a more girlish figure that couldn't be mistaken for male.

The primary thing is that, going by how we define female visually, she's not female.

Flat chested female....it could fit that.

Conker said:
Flat chested female....it could fit that.

And how can you tell it's a female from a cuntboy? You can't. There's no secondary visual characteristics to determine its gender that are separate from those associated with cuntboy. And before anyone decides to try to argue she's tomboyish- "tomboy female flat_chested" search returns three images.

post #238240 post #220807 post #125830

In the first, totally dressed up in a suit, looks just like a male. In the second, slit is visible, but otherwise looks like a girly male. Hell, I've seen girly males look girlier than Mikhaila here >.< Third one genitals are covered so you can't even tell if she has a slit, a sheath, or just rod n' tackle, though the shirt's trailing section is really wonkily drawn o.O

As for flat-chested female:

post #409010

This image is a flat-chested female. You can see the nipples and the general figure of the character is female in dimensions (shoulders, waist, hips).

post #398786

As above, this image shows a flat-chested female, with nearly non-existant breasts, but you can see they don't follow the same lines as a male's pectoral. There is also definitely the slight swell of breast flesh that ou can see above her ribs.

post #391968

Once again, "flat-chested", slight swell of breast, easily hidden, but obvious to the naked eye. Not a male pectoral, and waist curves inwards then flares out to hips femininely.

We would not tag Andrej Pejic as male in this image, because he looks like a woman and is dressed like one, even having some apparent cleavage. We also would tag him as female here or here because once again look, clothes, and general physical appearance are female. However, if we look here we can see he lacks natural cleavage, has obvious male pectorals, and a very obvious package in those briefs. He's just a very girly man in reality. You can see what I mean about male pectorals further in this image where he is all three people in the image, left depicted as a female, the middle as some sort of robot (?) and the right as a topless girly male.

123easy said:
And how can you tell it's a female from a cuntboy? You can't.

Actually you can. Ask Ippiki if you dont believe me. From what I have seen its judged on how manly or male looking it is, if its too female looking it gets the female tag, if not and showing a pussy than cuntboy. Its tag what you see, and by case by case due to how some people draw. Thats all.

It reminds me of a image awhile ago, artist said its cuntboy but it looked too female without showing breast and was tagged female due to tag what you see. Artist threw shit,s nuked tags but it was decided due to how non manly it was, it was female and they had to deal with it. Its just tag what you see

I think she looks pretty female, the stomach area and curves are pretty feminine.

Moon_Moon said:
I think she looks pretty female, the stomach area and curves are pretty feminine.

What in https://e621.net/post/show/220807 (just look at the top half of the body) looks female, exactly?

123easy said:
What in https://e621.net/post/show/220807 (just look at the top half of the body) looks female, exactly?

Its case by case, we tag what we see in that pic not all of them drawn differently.

Conker said:
Its case by case, we tag what we see in that pic not all of them drawn differently.

This is my point. Most people are just ignoring that and tagging Mikhaila female even if she looks male or cuntboy. She's not the only one getting tagged as such; manly physique with a vagina seen from the rear diagonal gets tagged female, even when you can see lack of breasts and otherwise masculine form. Yes, it's not bara masculine, but it's still plenty masculine or at least androgynous enough to not be definitively female.

123easy said:
This is my point. Most people are just ignoring that and tagging Mikhaila female even if she looks male or cuntboy. She's not the only one getting tagged as such; manly physique with a vagina seen from the rear diagonal gets tagged female, even when you can see lack of breasts and otherwise masculine form. Yes, it's not bara masculine, but it's still plenty masculine or at least androgynous enough to not be definitively female.

Than fix the tags when you see it, if they keep changing it after the fact then make a ticket about it to stop the tag abuse.

Yep. I'm with Conker on this one. Tag them case by case.
Most of those look like obvious females to me, at the first glance. Then again, I'm mostly interested in non-mammals, so I don't generally pay much attention to breasts anyway..

An argumentative point to the cuntboy and flat chested female sides seems to be decided on hips and torso. Most cuntboy images i have seen lack the curvature of the larger hips that we females possess. Also the flat chest females tend to possess a slight hourglass physique due to the combination of larger than male hips and the shape of the sternum. Call me crazy but what ive seen all suggests that tsampikos' creation and depictions of mikhaila are indeed female lacking mamory glands and labia ... in accordance to all that biology has to offer.

IvoryWolf said:
An argumentative point to the cuntboy and flat chested female sides seems to be decided on hips and torso. Most cuntboy images i have seen lack the curvature of the larger hips that we females possess. Also the flat chest females tend to possess a slight hourglass physique due to the combination of larger than male hips and the shape of the sternum. Call me crazy but what ive seen all suggests that tsampikos' creation and depictions of mikhaila are indeed female lacking mamory glands and labia ... in accordance to all that biology has to offer.

That's it exactly; body proportions and curvature. Some images she does indeed possess the curvature of hips and waist, but quite a few she does indeed lack them, and other images also lack them, or don't display enough of them to conclusively say it's 100% female and couldn't be a cuntboy, or at the least ambiguous_gender. This is why I asked if we're slowly changing gender into an exception to TWYS rather than strict TWYS.

123easy said:
That's it exactly; body proportions and curvature. Some images she does indeed possess the curvature of hips and waist, but quite a few she does indeed lack them, and other images also lack them, or don't display enough of them to conclusively say it's 100% female and couldn't be a cuntboy, or at the least ambiguous_gender. This is why I asked if we're slowly changing gender into an exception to TWYS rather than strict TWYS.

I recall similar discussion over tags on some mikhaila artwork in the past and under the most circumstances its tag what you see, unless said artist has specified the character as certain gender. Tsampikos i believe dubbed mikhaila as female which settled the previous tag war. You are correct as tag what you see is generally the answer though. Hope this helps.

That's exactly counter to TWYS though, which is why I'm bringing it up. Thanks for the info, though.

123easy said:
That's exactly counter to TWYS though, which is why I'm bringing it up. Thanks for the info, though.

It is... if one perceived her as a cuntboy etc. Sadly tag what you see can only be good as the saying "truth is in the eye of the beholder". Unfortunately ita just another rule like every other in life... theres always an exception, or but, or what if scenario that can throw a wrench in a perfect system otherwise.

IvoryWolf said:
It is... if one perceived her as a cuntboy etc. Sadly tag what you see can only be good as the saying "truth is in the eye of the beholder". Unfortunately ita just another rule like every other in life... theres always an exception, or but, or what if scenario that can throw a wrench in a perfect system otherwise.

Well that's why we have the ambiguous_gender tag, so I really don't know why it wasn't just used instead, in those cases. This is on of the times I wish that androgynous wasn't aliased away to it.