Would it be appropriate to use the post description to add "Actually, X" to posts where there is a conflict between what's fact, and how the image has to be tagged to comply with the TWYS rule?

For example, I recently saw a post where the character is factually male, but is tagged female (and those who tag it otherwise shall be silenced), merely due to having female proportions (which, as a trap character, is entirely the point).

I think it should be allowed if it doesn't effect the tags.

I've asked Notme about this before. So long as you do not fuck with the tags (either by trying to go against TWYS or by adding fake tags like "canon_in_description", etc.), you can add canonical information in the description. It is one of the many reasons the description field is there and is useful.

I want to specifically address this:

Untamed said:
I recently saw a post where the character is factually male, but is tagged female (and those who tag it otherwise shall be silenced), merely due to having female proportions (which, as a trap character, is entirely the point).

Tagging an image that appears female and exhibits no clear male characteristics as male is a technical error. Correction of it is equally technically motivated, over any social or political motivation that 'silenced' might imply. E621 defines what these tags mean; if you don't tag in accordance with that, then in a very clear, pragmatic sense, you're tagging wrongly.

(some people, I think, make comments like 'actually male', which are easily interpreted as 'should be tagged male', compared with the picture content, and consequently downvoted. On a related case, the truth value of 'factually male' is ambiguous, given that we are talking about fictional characters. 'Canonically male' is probably the most truthful phrasing and IMO also the least likely to be downvoted)

From what I've understood, it's fine to include that in the description as long as you don't make up anything. For instance, if the artist has tagged a character as a female on FA, but it's ambiguous here, you can include a note about that.

But if it's just something like 'this character is known to be female', then that gets iffy. A lot of artists occasionally draw crossgender versions of their characters.

In case anyone was wondering what pic I'm referring to
post #943442

canonically_male is not a valid tag but you can write it in the description.

Character tags are one tags that can be put in from external information and all tags can have wiki page, so you can also put in as much information of the character in the wiki page as you want.

And regarding thread topic, they aren't "incorrect" tags. They are correctly tagged with the system in use. For someone who has no idea who that character is or from where, that's clear flatchested female.

It does seem like japanese based boorus do actually prioritize canon over visuals as only images with visible genitalia for this character are tagged with 1girl in gelbooru and danbooru. But do also consider that "traps" (not sure is this considered offensive term these days, no offense to anybody) as in characters which look flatchested females but have full male genitalia are insanely much more common in japanese artwork, almost to the point where it's common trope, where e621 is based on US where that kind of character traits are mostly known from anime.

Mario69 said:
Character tags are one tags that can be put in from external information and all tags can have wiki page, so you can also put in as much information of the character in the wiki page as you want.

And regarding thread topic, they aren't "incorrect" tags. They are correctly tagged with the system in use. For someone who has no idea who that character is or from where, that's clear flatchested female.

It does seem like japanese based boorus do actually prioritize canon over visuals as only images with visible genitalia for this character are tagged with 1girl in gelbooru and danbooru. But do also consider that "traps" (not sure is this considered offensive term these days, no offense to anybody) as in characters which look flatchested females but have full male genitalia are insanely much more common in japanese artwork, almost to the point where it's common trope, where e621 is based on US where that kind of character traits are mostly known from anime.

I don't think trap is offensive, at least i never saw it that way.

Mario69 said:
"traps" (not sure is this considered offensive term these days, no offense to anybody)

p much its offensive only if you use it to describe trans people (because it would imply that them being trans is an attempt to deceive and mislead people), i believe that its fine to use in most of other contexts.

The wiki for ambiguous_gender seems to describe this situation pretty closely. "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.)."

Like Savage said, things are pretty clearly laid out, so with one like that, whoever tagged it female was just wrong to do so, regardless of what was canon for the character. As depicted, it's ambiguous.

notnobody said:
The wiki for ambiguous_gender seems to describe this situation pretty closely. "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.)."

Like Savage said, things are pretty clearly laid out, so with one like that, whoever tagged it female was just wrong to do so, regardless of what was canon for the character. As depicted, it's ambiguous.

It's female, as was decided by staff months ago.

notnobody said:
The wiki for ambiguous_gender seems to describe this situation pretty closely. "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.)."

Like Savage said, things are pretty clearly laid out, so with one like that, whoever tagged it female was just wrong to do so, regardless of what was canon for the character. As depicted, it's ambiguous.

There are no mixed signs. IT's pretty cut and dried female.

Ledian said:
p much its offensive only if you use it to describe trans people (because it would imply that them being trans is an attempt to deceive and mislead people), i believe that its fine to use in most of other contexts.

So a male who identifies as male presents as female and calls himself female is deceiving, but a male who identifies as female presents as female and calls himself female is not deceiving? What he identifies as doesn't change the "male calling himself female" part, which is misleading.

BlueDingo said:
So a male who identifies as male presents as female and calls himself female is deceiving, but a male who identifies as female presents as female and calls himself female is not deceiving? What he identifies as doesn't change the "male calling himself female" part, which is misleading.

If a person considers themselves female, presents as female, and calls themselves female, I would say that person is female. To me, then, a female calling herself female is not deceptive in the slightest.

If anything, calling such a person male would, to my mind, be deceptive. In other words, in this scenario you've described, to my mind, the only person being deceptive is you, BlueDingo.

Clawdragons said:
If a person considers themselves female, presents as female, and calls themselves female, I would say that person is female. To me, then, a female calling herself female is not deceptive in the slightest.

If anything, calling such a person male would, to my mind, be deceptive. In other words, in this scenario you've described, to my mind, the only person being deceptive is you, BlueDingo.

Duck Duck Go - 1st definition
Merriam-Webster. - 1st definition
Wikipedia

There's 3 sources that say you're wrong. I can find 20 more for you if you want.

A male who calls himself something else is still a male and the same goes for females. I'm not deceiving anyone.

BlueDingo said:
So a male who identifies as male presents as female and calls himself female is deceiving, but a male who identifies as female presents as female and calls himself female is not deceiving? What he identifies as doesn't change the "male calling himself female" part, which is misleading.

Your curve ball has nothing to do with this thread, or with Mario's question, so drop it.

If a user has no prior knowledge of said character, and searches for females, this looks female, so faps potentially ensue. Happy user.

Most pics on e621 are posted with no context, and are tagged for what it 'literally' looks like. Just common sense tagging really. I'm fine with admins enforcing common sense.

Do you think someone would feel cheated if they jerked off to it and someone told them the character's actually a guy? I don't have a larger point, I'm just mildly curious.

Strikerman said:
Do you think someone would feel cheated if they jerked off to it and someone told them the character's actually a guy?

Only if they don't like being lied to, otherwise no.

Strikerman said:
Do you think someone would feel cheated if they jerked off to it and someone told them the character's actually a guy? I don't have a larger point, I'm just mildly curious.

There's this funny little thing called "Imagination." If you want "true" females and can't handle knowing something's canonically male, then your search could be female -desc:canon*male.
The one big drawback is the fact that these "canon tags" lack a means of searching spaces outside of wildcard. I just tried %20 and that didn't work, so anything saying "This other character is canonically female too" would also be grabbed.

BlueDingo said:
So a male who identifies as male presents as female and calls himself female is deceiving, but a male who identifies as female presents as female and calls himself female is not deceiving? What he identifies as doesn't change the "male calling himself female" part, which is misleading.

The point of a trap is that it's a male that looks like an attractive female. The "identifies" and "calls" part of your definition are completely irrelevant.