Larger version of post #921460.

Everything you say?

What‘s up with the locked tags @Ratte?
There are no definitive female traits. Please remove the lock and revert to ambiguous_gender.

And to anyone arguing for female or male: obviously the percieved character‘s gender is different depending on who you ask so leave it at ambiguous.

Clawdragons said:
Read the comments of the previous version. The decision was that Lopin is a female according to our tagging rules in this image. Whether or not you agree with that ruling, given how much it was argued on the previous post, I don't think you're going to change their minds.

Feminine face, wide hips, narrow waist - if you didn't know who Lopin was or details about Yinglet biology (both of which can't be taken into consideration due to the TWYS policy), you'd probably see a female here.

I, for one, have no problem with this being tagged as female. I think Lopin wouldn't mind being seen as a so pretty lady - heck, he might even appreciate it.

I've read the comments and looked at the tagging history before uploading this post.

To sum it up:

In the tag-edits there are
- 2 users for female
- 4 users for male
- 4 users for ambiguous

In the comments there are
- 4 users for female with a summed score of -73
- 5 users for male with a summed score of -2
- 2 users for ambiguous with a summed score of +34

I think it's quite obvious, which gender tag is appropriate.

I agree with Aureolen, this should be tagged as male. Female appearances or not Lopin is a male yinglet. And based on the TWYS rule it should be tagged male based on this species gender tail distinction (females have a tuft of fur at the end of their tails while males do not)

Autumn-Ferret said:
I agree with Aureolen, this should be tagged as male. Female appearances or not Lopin is a male yinglet. And based on the TWYS rule it should be tagged male based on this species gender tail distinction (females have a tuft of fur at the end of their tails while males do not)

Specific details of a species can’t be TWYS because a picture should be tagged from an outsider‘s perspective.

According to the howto:tag_genders if there are no obvious gender clues (genitalia, breasts) a character is supposed to be categorized by their body type. Assuming an anthropomorphic body human standards are to be used (wide hips + shallow shoulders = female).

That beeing said, I still think this should be tagged ambiguous_gender as does the average viewership of this image.

Worth mentioning is that most of the other Lopin posts here are tagged female as well without obvious features. I think those should be tagged ambiguous_gender, too, to let the viewer decide for themselves.

Aureolen said:
Specific details of a species can’t be TWYS because a picture should be tagged from an outsider‘s perspective.

This is correct, but unless I'm very much mistaken, only for fictional species. Real species, particularly ferals, can still be distinguished as male or female based on clear sexual dimorphism (a lion's mane, a peacock's coloration, etc.).

Obviously that's not relevant in this particular case, since Yinglets are a fictional species, but I just wanted things to be clear for Autumn-Ferret.

Clawdragons said:
This is correct, but unless I'm very much mistaken, only for fictional species. Real species, particularly ferals, can still be distinguished as male or female based on clear sexual dimorphism (a lion's mane, a peacock's coloration, etc.).

Obviously that's not relevant in this particular case, since Yinglets are a fictional species, but I just wanted things to be clear for Autumn-Ferret.

This is legitimately more stupid than "gm ruling, deal with it". At least the latter defers to the power of the mod. This is saying "the gm said the rules of that image are different from the rules of this one. Why? NO FUCKING REASON."

If there is legitimately a dimorphism ruling, it should either not exist or it should apply across the board for every race that has a clearly defined set of dimorphic traits (whether those traits are defined in a biology book or a comic book).

For an idea on why this rule is dumb, can everyone you know correctly tell you every species of bird with colorful males?

BanishedDragon said:
This is legitimately more stupid than "gm ruling, deal with it". At least the latter defers to the power of the mod. This is saying "the gm said the rules of that image are different from the rules of this one. Why? NO FUCKING REASON."

If there is legitimately a dimorphism ruling, it should either not exist or it should apply across the board for every race that has a clearly defined set of dimorphic traits (whether those traits are defined in a biology book or a comic book).

For an idea on why this rule is dumb, can everyone you know correctly tell you every species of bird with colorful males?

The issue with fictional species is this:

Take the example of Pikachu. For a long time, Pikachu was just a Pikachu. Artists drew them as they looked, and gave them whatever genitals were appropriate.

Later on, sexual dimorphism was added. Female Pikachu have a heart-tail rather than the flat-edge tail of males.

Do you think that all images of female Pikachu created before this ought to changed to be tagged with cuntboy instead of female?

Fictional species are subject to change. And while technically so are real species, at least that time scale is on the order of tens of thousands of years.

Maybe instead of assuming that there is no reason for the difference, next time you can look into or ask about the reason.

Clawdragons said:
The issue with fictional species is this:

Take the example of Pikachu. For a long time, Pikachu was just a Pikachu. Artists drew them as they looked, and gave them whatever genitals were appropriate.

Later on, sexual dimorphism was added. Female Pikachu have a heart-tail rather than the flat-edge tail of males.

Do you think that all images of female Pikachu created before this ought to changed to be tagged with cuntboy instead of female?

Fictional species are subject to change. And while technically so are real species, at least that time scale is on the order of tens of thousands of years.

Maybe instead of assuming that there is no reason for the difference, next time you can look into or ask about the reason.

Yes, those pikachus should be considered either genderswap or whatever with a real dimorphism rule. It's not like it would be the first time on this site something was inappropriately gendered because of a rule, and it would at least be somewhat consistent, since I don't see game freak changing gender stuff again.
And it's not like I'm expecting the rule to change just because of 1 argument (since the gms seem content to ride the "don't care, obey the rules" stance regardless of how nonsensical those rules are).

BanishedDragon said:
Yes, those pikachus should be considered either genderswap or whatever with a real dimorphism rule. It's not like it would be the first time on this site something was inappropriately gendered because of a rule, and it would at least be somewhat consistent, since I don't see game freak changing gender stuff again.
And it's not like I'm expecting the rule to change just because of 1 argument (since the gms seem content to ride the "don't care, obey the rules" stance regardless of how nonsensical those rules are).

The thing is that the rules are designed to help people find what they want to see.

People looking for cuntboys are probably not looking for forty-thousand old pictures of Pikachu.

Your idea would be incredibly anti-user. So I'm glad it's not a thing.

Clawdragons said:
The thing is that the rules are designed to help people find what they want to see.

People looking for cuntboys are probably not looking for forty-thousand old pictures of Pikachu.

Your idea would be incredibly anti-user. So I'm glad it's not a thing.

well, being as Pikachu is honestly the only example of this, you can easily make pikachu an exception to these rules.

Just saying.

shadowslick said:
well, being as Pikachu is honestly the only example of this, you can easily make pikachu an exception to these rules.

Just saying.

There are 62 Pokemon from Generations 1 through 3 that had gender differences added in Generation IV.

Just because I gave a single example doesn't mean that it is the only example.

You want another example?

Yinglets. Including Lopin.

Lopin and some other Yinglets were introduced in the comic before Valsalia revealed the canonical gender differences of the species. Sure, admittedly there wasn't much fanart at that time, but my point is this isn't a problem with one or two species, it's a problem with a LOT of fictional species at one point or another.

I mean heck, it's implied that there are gender differences for Baxxid, also from the same comic, but thus far those differences haven't been revealed (and might never be revealed, though who knows?).

What would you say when the gender differences are slight? For instance, female Meganium have slightly shorter antennae than male Meganium. If someone draws a Meganium with a vagina, but the antennae seem a bit short, should that be a "cuntboy"? Do you think that's what people searching for cuntboy are looking for?

And do you think it's reasonable to make taggers look up that information when trying to tag any fictional species?

Do YOU want to have to look up the gender differences of Pokemon constantly, or to have to memorize all of them, no matter how minor?

I mean honestly I could much more easily see the argument for "we should ignore all species-specific gender differences, regardless of their real or fictional" than I could see taking fictional gender differences into account.

Your attempt at oversimplification of this issue does it a disservice.

Clawdragons said:
There are 62 ...

...
Your attempt at oversimplification of this issue does it a disservice.

Ok, Ill shut the fuck up then.
Thanks for educating me, O, privileged one.

shadowslick said:
Ok, Ill shut the fuck up then.
Thanks for educating me, O, privileged one.

That last line of mine stepped way over the line into "rude" territory, I think, and I apologize for that. It was actually... Kind of an inside joke to something else, but yeah, I shouldn't have included it, and I apologize.

I really didn't want to make you feel like your opinion wasn't wanted, I just wanted to explain some of the problems inherent to this question, and why the decision was made as it was.

Again, I'm sorry for the way I came off.

OH GAWD, E6 PPL MADE THIS MALE INTO A TRAP

edit and footnote: i found this after reading the out of placers comic, than going to e6 to look up "yingling"
now the discussions here hurt my brain becuse all i can see are mistags.
i could never see this as female.
the idea seems absurd.

At least people who know the comic and world it plays in, do know what the right genders for the characters are. Who cares about a image boards rules in the face of that. I for sure do not.

Good lord. amazing how much of a shit storm can arise from visual opinion. After looking at a bunch of Yinglet pictures..... i can honestly say that they ALL look feminine to me. They all seem to have fairly feminine shaped hips/legs, they all stick their chest out so breasts don't really seem to be an identifiable trait, and eyelashes aren't a female exclusive thing so i wouldn't say that really counts. So how does one tag gender for a race that for the most part looks universally female to human standards. even though it is not human in every single obvious way.

Not trying to argue as even i think this, like every other male/female/ambiguous yinglet looks feminine, looks feminine. But just how are you supposed to tag gender something completely inhuman if it's genitals aren't showing? Or you know, actual animals that are proven to have an unusual set of genitals.

Adarako said:
At least people who know the comic and world it plays in, do know what the right genders for the characters are. Who cares about a image boards rules in the face of that. I for sure do not.

because admins are the power, therefore they are always right!

Clawdragons said:
That last line of mine stepped way over the line into "rude" territory, I think, and I apologize for that. It was actually... Kind of an inside joke to something else, but yeah, I shouldn't have included it, and I apologize.

I really didn't want to make you feel like your opinion wasn't wanted, I just wanted to explain some of the problems inherent to this question, and why the decision was made as it was.

Again, I'm sorry for the way I came off.

your claims of Lopin and the gender ruling for the Yinglets being made so far apart is very wrong. the denotions of the differences between the males and females was made very apparent very early in the series and very close to when Lopin made the scene. not only this, but the first Field Guide page that revealed the differences and set it in stone for these species was made less than 10 pages after Kass's change into one, of which was only a few pages after Lopins first appearance. thus that argument is flawed, and if you had paid any attention to the comic, you'd know that. secondly, the first bit of fan art ever posted to this site is roughly 2 years old. the Field Guide page in question is over 3 years old. again, that is very obvious if you admins paid even the slightest attention and did even the smallest research. but, seems 'hurdur I admin, I see pretty lady, must be pretty lady' is the only defensive stance you guys have. well, going tag what I see, as that will inevitably be shoved in my face, I see a beautiful MALE Yinglet strutting HIS gorgeous assists to make a sale. enjoy.

TrinityCrossZ said:
stuff

I'm well aware of the canonical differences in gender between male and female yinglets (I've read the comic thrice now - it's my favorite comic at the moment), and I fully agree that by those standards Lopin is male.

However! That is irrelevant because this site's policy is that we do not consider those things when tagging gender. We have a "tag what you see" policy here, not a "tag what you know" policy.

All the information you just described is irrelevant because of that policy.

Strutting in here, determined to show my ignorance, you've only exposed your own.

character is male and girly tag exist for a reason. that is all

Months later, and this is still tagged wrong. This character is not female, is not showing female traits for the species, and is most definitely showing male traits. People looking for female characters, they are not looking for a male character.

I still dont understand myself why pleople think Lopin is female, he is a male yinglet no matter how girly he is.
In fact the male yinglets are all bisexual a.k.a. there are many girly yinglets who wants to get fucked by a male.

Chochi here, sorry for my intromission on this topic, but some clearance seems to be necessary : Lopin is MALE. Half of the joke is his fanciness and the way he puts so much effort in looking the part. I'd be grateful to the mods or admins if they could leave the "male" tag unlocked since that is the canon sex/gender of this character in particular.

Thanks again and hope you all have a nice day.

I just love how Lopin has the people in the comments over themselves with whether to tap it or not. It's like Guilty Gear Bridget all over again.

This image is proof that while TWYS sounds good on paper (like communism... SHWACKED ), it doesn't really work in execution, because every tag is based on an ounce of knowledge.

Let me put it this way, if there was a picture of a feral lion with a mane and no visible genitalia, you'd still tag it as male because you are aware that male lions have manes, if we worked off of a true Tag What You See system, the image would be tagged as ambiguious_gender. As for the argument that Yinglet's are fictional and are subject to change, shouldn't the same apply for Sergal's and Charr's? Just typing "~sergal ~charr flat_chested female solo -rating:e" brings up a handful of images that from an outside-looking-in perspective contain characters that look masculine and/or ambiguous, but we don't tag them as such because we are familiar with those species.

So using this breakdown of the how images are actually tagged, we should be able to tag Lopin as male as we can see he doesn't have a tail tuft or breasts despite both being present on most Yinglet females.

Well, that and the combination of both the female and crossdressing tags doesn't reflect this image at all, it's literally polar opposite, anything would be better.

*Sees ambiguous_gender tagged.
*Also sees crossgender tagged.

Hmmm..

Now that Lore tags are a thing(?), Mammal should probably be changed to Monotreme (or w/e a platypus is)

thorkil13 said:
Now that Lore tags are a thing(?), Mammal should probably be changed to Monotreme (or w/e a platypus is)

Whyfore? Monotremes are still mammals.

clawdragons said:
Read the comments of the previous version. The decision was that Lopin is a female according to our tagging rules in this image. Whether or not you agree with that ruling, given how much it was argued on the previous post, I don't think you're going to change their minds.

Feminine face, wide hips, narrow waist - if you didn't know who Lopin was or details about Yinglet biology (both of which can't be taken into consideration due to the TWYS policy), you'd probably see a female here.

I, for one, have no problem with this being tagged as female. I think Lopin wouldn't mind being seen as a so pretty lady - heck, he might even appreciate it.

I prefer not to have another Reggie fiasco, hm?

Took like over 4 years but it appears that the proper tags are finally here, if ever there was a case to be made that twys doesn't work and that this site and its mods are inconsistent and bend rules when it suits them this whole everything would be it. It's seemingly done and I'm glad

Lovely little cutie!