I noticed that post #3160431 had been tagged with the ambiguous_gender tags for the bottom, so after reviewing the rules which say "unknown genitals + no visible breasts + facial hair = male" I undid the changes that marked him as ambiguous

My question is, the reverted changes also included the change from anal_penetration to ambiguous_penetration and I'm not 100% sure how to proceed in this case. On one hand we can't see the character's genitals to be able to tag anal but on the other we have body features that identify him as a male, so is there a transitive property here that automatically makes it so we can assume anal penetration? I'm leaning yes, but I wanted to check it just in case

Also as a smaller partially related question, is tone of voice a valid gender disambiguation argument? howto:tag genders makes a small mention of "dialogue" but I'm not too clear on what it means by it

See also: topic #30456

I'm of the opinion still that if you can't tell where it's going in (or that it is at all), ambiguous penetration fits, but there's other arguments there worth reading.
In your example, the Orc's hips are positioned properly for anal penetration, but we don't know that he's not just hotdogging.

I think the policy is male + anal_penetration over andromorph/herm + ambiguous_penetration. So that image should be anal_penetration.

Gok is correct about the hotdogging argument in general; I think in this case it should still be anal_penetration because the orc makes an orgasm face around 9 seconds in, and we don't see any cumshot.

mabit said:
I noticed that post #3160431 had been tagged with the ambiguous_gender tags for the bottom, so after reviewing the rules which say "unknown genitals + no visible breasts + facial hair = male" I undid the changes that marked him as ambiguous

My question is, the reverted changes also included the change from anal_penetration to ambiguous_penetration and I'm not 100% sure how to proceed in this case. On one hand we can't see the character's genitals to be able to tag anal but on the other we have body features that identify him as a male, so is there a transitive property here that automatically makes it so we can assume anal penetration? I'm leaning yes, but I wanted to check it just in case

I would say yes, anal_penetration is one of those tags where you can assume given evidence that the character is indeed male and is being penetrated (even when no actual penetration can be seen).
In regards to the post, I would say that it should be tagged with anal_penetration + obscured_penetration and not ambiguous_penetration.

Why? According to the obscured_penetration wiki, it states that "if the character being penetrated ... is clearly a male or gynomorph by our gender tagging guidelines, this usually means that penetration is not ambiguous."
The penetrated character can be classified as male because of the gender tagging guidelines. Following the flowchart, no genitals or breasts can be seen, but the character has an "obviously masculine" appearance. Thus, making him male unless shown otherwise.

Also as a smaller partially related question, is tone of voice a valid gender disambiguation argument? howto:tag genders makes a small mention of "dialogue" but I'm not too clear on what it means by it

Dialogue is a visual tag to denote text in a post, so it should be considered different from audio/voices in posts.
In dialogues, it is possible for a character to refer or describe another (otherwise ambiguous_gender) character as female, but it's really scraping the bottom of the barrel and should not be considered the only criteria for determining gender.

When applying to audio-based cues, I would also say to use it very sparsely and base your criteria on other more visible traits as per TWYS.
The only scenario I think that purely audio-based cues can be used to determine gender is when two characters are literally having sex in pitch-black darkness and all you can hear is male grunting and female moaning, then it can be reasonable to assume male/female instead of ambiguous/ambiguous.

Got it, thanks for clearing it up!