Hasn't come up with stuff I posted yet, so I'm unsure how to handle this, and the flowchart didn't help me fully. Case in point: https://e621.net/posts/6248720 Obviously, the recipient is female, but the giver-- well, only the head is visible. Do I tag it as straight (since the character is otherwise male), or do I go for female/ambiguous, with a male_(lore)?
Topic: Unsure how to tag gender if body isn't visible.
Posted under General
Definitely ambiguous_gender. No secondary or primary sex characteristics are visible.
and male_(lore), since the character is?
sadpandainsnow said:
and male_(lore), since the character is?
Yes;
Lore tags are exactly for that situation
Seeing well-articulate and helpful forum dialogue is my fetish. Good job, you two.
moonlit-comet said:
Definitely ambiguous_gender. No secondary or primary sex characteristics are visible.
I mean, a face that looks sufficiently masculine (or feminine), even without being able to see any more of the body, is typically enough to tag it as the appropriate gender. But only if that face doesn't have any conflicting features. Like, a peafowl character's face looking extremely feminine in overall appearance, but having the vibrant blues and greens of a peacock. (Peahens are muted browns and grays.)
So, I guess what I'm saying is, you can use tertiary sex characteristics to determine gender tags, if no primary or secondary ones are visible.
kaleth said:
Yes;
Lore tags are exactly for that situation
post #5302250
Quick question about that: My main peep Max identifies as male while also being canonically Null, Smooth, or genderless.
Would Max be tagged Male or Male_(Lore) or Both?
Been playing on a the bases that Max doesn't need to be fully nude
to identify as Male because he is, Like how you wouldn't tag
Male_(Lore) on fully clothed, safe-for-work pics, ya know, Dood?
'Just wanna make sure, tagging misunderstandings aren't going on
on my end, Dood!
╹‿╹)
asgoreapologist said:
I mean, a face that looks sufficiently masculine (or feminine), even without being able to see any more of the body, is typically enough to tag it as the appropriate gender. But only if that face doesn't have any conflicting features. Like, a peafowl character's face looking extremely feminine in overall appearance, but having the vibrant blues and greens of a peacock. (Peahens are muted browns and grays.)So, I guess what I'm saying is, you can use tertiary sex characteristics to determine gender tags, if no primary or secondary ones are visible.
The problem there is looking at the face alone doesn't cover all the possible body types. You can't look at a face and tell the difference between a female and a gynomorph, for instance. Not without assuming every feminine face is a female. Likewise, you can't assume every artist is going for scientific accuracy either. Using your example, peafowl in particular are a species where artists take greater liberties with, often ignoring the sexual dimorphism of feather colour. So judging faces based on what one might call conflicting facial features is questionable too.
asgoreapologist said:
a peafowl character's face looking extremely feminine in overall appearance, but having the vibrant blues and greens of a peacock. (Peahens are muted browns and grays.)
I will point out that we're on a furry website, and at least, like, 70% of the characters have non-standard body colours.
asgoreapologist said:
Like, a peafowl character's face looking extremely feminine in overall appearance, but having the vibrant blues and greens of a peacock. (Peahens are muted browns and grays.)So, I guess what I'm saying is, you can use tertiary sex characteristics to determine gender tags, if no primary or secondary ones are visible.
physical appearance beyond reproductive organs are still secondary, tertiary would be behavior and clothing
Characteristics in real world species that determine gender really shouldn't be applied to fictional characters, artists often do not know specifics like only male peacocks having vibrant coloring, does not having antlers, etc so they are not reliable for determining gender
A character could also deliberately be using the characteristics of the opposite gender for various reasons
moonlit-comet said:
Definitely ambiguous_gender. No secondary or primary sex characteristics are visible.
I agree. If no discernible male or female characteristics are visible, it needs to be tagged as ambiguous
bird-tm said:
- Is the character referred to in the content by another character, either by text or audio, with which a gender can be determined?
If the character is not visible, they should be tagged ambiguous
Both text and audio are irrelevant to tagging
(some specific audio tags exist, but those are outliers)
bird-tm said:
- Is there any context within the content, or with the character themselves, that can help determine the gender of the character? I.E., bluey_heeler drawn in the bluey_(series) cartoon style may have the visual appearance of ambiguous_gender, but bluey is canonically a female in the series.
This is explicitly against TWYS, canon should not be used for any tagging outside of the lore category
bird-tm said:
The only time where I'd ask myself more questions is when something is being narrated over or told as a story, I.E., Prophecy, by Zummeng, where sometimes you can gain context to a character's gender if it's refereed to by the narration.
This is again not relevant to tagging of genders
donovan_dmc said:
If the character is not visible, they should be tagged ambiguous
If the character's not visible, they shouldn't be tagged at all. No sex tag, no form tag, and not increasing the character count tag.
watsit said:
If the character's not visible, they shouldn't be tagged at all. No sex tag, no form tag, and not increasing the character count tag.
offscreen_character is a thing
donovan_dmc said:
offscreen_character is a thing
Sure, but they still don't count toward the character count tags, and shouldn't be tagged with any sex/form. post #5259202 is duo female for two on-screen females, not group and no ambiguous_gender for the two silhouettes indicating two more offscreen characters. post #6242941 is solo female for one on-screen female, not duo with ambiguous_gender/ambiguous_form for the dialog pointing offscreen indicating (at least) one offscreen character.
popoto said:
The problem there is looking at the face alone doesn't cover all the possible body types. You can't look at a face and tell the difference between a female and a gynomorph, for instance. Not without assuming every feminine face is a female.
That's not how gender tagging works around here. Using that logic, one can't see a penis by itself and assume it belongs to a male, because it could belong to a gynomorph or a herm, instead. But the ruling around here is, if there's a penis, and there's no visible signs it's attached to somebody with titties, you tag male, because that requires the smallest amount of assuming/speculating. Likewise: Yes, actually. If you see a feminine face but can't tell what kind of body it's attached to, then you are, in fact, supposed to tag female. If it canonically belongs to a hermaphrodite, then you add the female tag, but also the herm_(lore) tag. Or gynomorph_(lore) if she's canonically got a dick, but no vag.
popoto said:
Likewise, you can't assume every artist is going for scientific accuracy either. Using your example, peafowl in particular are a species where artists take greater liberties with, often ignoring the sexual dimorphism of feather colour. So judging faces based on what one might call conflicting facial features is questionable too.
donovan_dmc said:
Characteristics in real world species that determine gender really shouldn't be applied to fictional characters, artists often do not know specifics like only male peacocks having vibrant coloring, does not having antlers, etc so they are not reliable for determining gender
Last I heard, when tagging characters who belong to (or are anthropomorphic versions of) real life species, you're supposed to use information about the biology of that species IRL, to determine tags. Regardless of the artist's ignorance on such matters, or intentional ignoring of such (real or assumed). That's why tags like "doe_with_antlers" exist. Admittedly, that could be outdated information, and if that's so, and a staff member reads this, I'd appreciate getting updated information, so I don't tag things incorrectly.
donovan_dmc said:
A character could also deliberately be using the characteristics of the opposite gender for various reasons
And that's what lore tags are for. If the character is using those characteristics so flawlessly that you couldn't tell the difference as long as they have clothes on, then you tag with the gender they appear to be, then add a lore tag for their actual gender.
asgoreapologist said:
That's not how gender tagging works around here. Using that logic, one can't see a penis by itself and assume it belongs to a male, because it could belong to a gynomorph or a herm, instead. But the ruling around here is, if there's a penis, and there's no visible signs it's attached to somebody with titties, you tag male, because that requires the smallest amount of assuming/speculating. Likewise: Yes, actually. If you see a feminine face but can't tell what kind of body it's attached to, then you are, in fact, supposed to tag female. If it canonically belongs to a hermaphrodite, then you add the female tag, but also the herm_(lore) tag. Or gynomorph_(lore) if she's canonically got a dick, but no vag.
It's all based on appearance though. If there's no sign of tits, it's tagged as male because that's what a penis + male body + no breasts is going to appear as.
There's a wiki on how to tag genders
https://e621.net/wiki_pages/3294
My point with the whole face thing was there wasn't enough to go off of. Faces don't provide enough distinguishing information to eliminate other body types as a possibility. It's not sufficient enough alone, which is why you can't use it to determine gender. By contrast, the wiki uses 3 things to tag genders: Genitalia, body type and breasts. And that works to narrow down every possible gender.
asgoreapologist said:
Last I heard, when tagging characters who belong to (or are anthropomorphic versions of) real life species, you're supposed to use information about the biology of that species IRL, to determine tags. Regardless of the artist's ignorance on such matters, or intentional ignoring of such (real or assumed). That's why tags like "doe_with_antlers" exist. Admittedly, that could be outdated information, and if that's so, and a staff member reads this, I'd appreciate getting updated information, so I don't tag things incorrectly.
Tbh it sounds like that rule you heard hasn't been true for a long time or you're misremembering. Because that'd be ignoring a lot of very common artistic liberties with how people draw furries.
Updated
asgoreapologist said:
Using that logic, one can't see a penis by itself and assume it belongs to a male,
topic #41059 :D
asgoreapologist said:
Last I heard, when tagging characters who belong to (or are anthropomorphic versions of) real life species, you're supposed to use information about the biology of that species IRL, to determine tags. Regardless of the artist's ignorance on such matters, or intentional ignoring of such (real or assumed). That's why tags like "doe_with_antlers" exist. Admittedly, that could be outdated information, and if that's so, and a staff member reads this, I'd appreciate getting updated information, so I don't tag things incorrectly.
Common sense will tell you that no one searching or filtering deer ambiguous_gender solo is looking for clearly female deer who happen to have antlers. You seem to understand this because you've edited two different posts featuring a female deer with antlers and didn't take the time to tag them as ambiguous_gender while you were there. Sometimes when you're tagging posts it's better to make sure the tags are actually useful rather than blindly follow whatever you think the rules are.
eightoflakes said:
topic #41059 :D
That topic is removing the implication purely because it can be wrong in a minority of situations, a disembodied penis without anything else attached is still male
eightoflakes said:
Common sense will tell you that no one searching or filtering deer ambiguous_gender solo is looking for clearly female deer who happen to have antlers. You seem to understand this because you've edited two different posts featuring a female deer with antlers and didn't take the time to tag them as ambiguous_gender while you were there. Sometimes when you're tagging posts it's better to make sure the tags are actually useful rather than blindly follow whatever you think the rules are.
There are two reasons I didn't tag either of those posts as ambiguous_gender:
1. That tag is only for when there's a character for whom you can't see any gender-specific traits, or when they have an even mix of traits from two separate genders. So, a single male trait on a body that otherwise looks completely female, doesn't count as ambiguous_gender. It's a female. With a single male trait.
2. The deer characters in both pictures are specifically reindeer. Female reindeer have antlers, too. Not at the same time as the males, mind you (females have antlers during winter when the males are antlerless; while the males have antlers the rest of the year when the females are antlerless), but that's beside the point.
asgoreapologist said:
Last I heard, when tagging characters who belong to (or are anthropomorphic versions of) real life species, you're supposed to use information about the biology of that species IRL, to determine tags. Regardless of the artist's ignorance on such matters, or intentional ignoring of such (real or assumed). That's why tags like "doe_with_antlers" exist. Admittedly, that could be outdated information, and if that's so, and a staff member reads this, I'd appreciate getting updated information, so I don't tag things incorrectly.
In addition to what others have said, we do have mismatched_sexual_dimorphism for these situations