I suggest that robots with only sexual characteristics such as chest bulges should not be labeled as male or female. Robots without reproductive ability can only be classified as either female or male in terms of psychological gender. Unless they truly have sexual characteristics such as breasts and penis, gender classification should not be labeled

Isnt ambiguous_gender better to tag then male or female?

gender is based on presentation, not on ability to reproduce.

characters can present as a gender without genitals. robots, elementals, ani-inis, nulls, whatever, we tag them all the same; if it looks like a girl it's a girl if it looks like a boy it's a boy, if it looks like neither it's ambiguous.

sipothac said:
gender is based on presentation, not on ability to reproduce.

characters can present as a gender without genitals. robots, elementals, ani-inis, nulls, whatever, we tag them all the same; if it looks like a girl it's a girl if it looks like a boy it's a boy, if it looks like neither it's ambiguous.

also, male_impregnation is a thing, soooo

wolfmanfur said:
Isnt ambiguous_gender better to tag then male or female?

I didn't expect this, so it's best to label robot characters as ambiguous in gender

wolfmanfur said:
Isnt ambiguous_gender better to tag then male or female?

I'm almost certain I've brought up the need for a tag for characters who innately lack a sex in the past. ambiguous_gender assumes on some level or other that there is a defineable sex somewhere, it's just deeper than what's visible in the image. But that's not the case for something that was designed and built lacking any sexual characteristics.

sipothac said:
gender is based on presentation, not on ability to reproduce.

characters can present as a gender without genitals. robots, elementals, ani-inis, nulls, whatever, we tag them all the same; if it looks like a girl it's a girl if it looks like a boy it's a boy, if it looks like neither it's ambiguous.

It makes at least some sense for characters designed to emulate the sexual characteristics of known organic lifeforms (which tends to extend to whether they resemble human male or female skeletal/muscle/fat-distribution forms,) but I don't think it makes as much sense to argue hmm yes this character is definitely male or female bodied but I just can't tell which from this image in particular when that isn't immediately apparent.
post #3757549 post #3873755 post #4190392 post #3910472 post #3652064

magnuseffect said:
I'm almost certain I've brought up the need for a tag for characters who innately lack a sex in the past. ambiguous_gender assumes on some level or other that there is a defineable sex somewhere, it's just deeper than what's visible in the image. But that's not the case for something that was designed and built lacking any sexual characteristics.

It makes at least some sense for characters designed to emulate the sexual characteristics of known organic lifeforms (which tends to extend to whether they resemble human male or female skeletal/muscle/fat-distribution forms,) but I don't think it makes as much sense to argue hmm yes this character is definitely male or female bodied but I just can't tell which from this image in particular when that isn't immediately apparent.

for tagging purposes ambiguous_gender is for any character who lacks visible primary (genitals) or secondary (tits, body shape) sexual features. it is both for characters whose gender is unidentifiable as well as characters with undefined gender since, by TWYS, the two concepts are essentially identical.

every character in every post on the site will fall into one of the 7 gender categories, with no exceptions.

magnuseffect said:
I'm almost certain I've brought up the need for a tag for characters who innately lack a sex in the past.

Some kind of null_(lore) tag has been suggested in the past. It would almost certainly need to be a lore tag, since the distinction between a character that doesn't have their genitals visible is visually indistinguishable from a character that doesn't have genitals "in lore". The current null tag, self-described as a 'quasi-gender', is essentially based on assertion and not anything visible.

But my question is, do we NEED to tag a gender at all in this type of cases? Is it not possible to leave it blank, I don't think it makes sense to tag something that isn't even there.

If TWYS can't identify the gender, nor there is any lore at source, why bother putting a gender tag, seems like forcing the issue.

azero said:
But my question is, do we NEED to tag a gender at all in this type of cases?

yes, if a tag is valid to a post than it should be applied.

every post that contains any amount of characters should be tagged with at least one of the 7 gender tags, period.

sipothac said:
[[howto:tag_genders|every character in every post on the site will fall into one of the 7 gender categories, with no exceptions.]]

howto:tag_genders

• Note: The following diagrams/flowcharts are guides, not rules, and as with all guides—there will be some exceptions.

If administration has said something about it elsewhere I'm interested in seeing official rulings, but honestly it comes up so infrequently (likely because so much of the art here is pornographic) that I personally haven't seen it really talked about.
I also understand that this is essentially the way it is used, but what I'm putting down is that the tag name implies there is a sex but we're just lacking confirmation. That might make sense when we're looking at sexually-charged artwork of robots designed to realistically resemble some kind of animal, but it's a bit of a weird take for not a porn site to see a robot design straight outta real life and effectively say 'okay so we can't tell what's going on in its pants here...'
(This is also where I point out again that what we tag is actually sex, and any gender presentation outside of body form could technically be against TWYS.)

magnuseffect said:
If administration has said something about it elsewhere I'm interested in seeing official rulings, but honestly it comes up so infrequently (likely because so much of the art here is pornographic) that I personally haven't seen it really talked about.
I also understand that this is essentially the way it is used, but what I'm putting down is that the tag name implies there is a sex but we're just lacking confirmation. That might make sense when we're looking at sexually-charged artwork of robots designed to realistically resemble some kind of animal, but it's a bit of a weird take for not a porn site to see a robot design straight outta real life and effectively say 'okay so we can't tell what's going on in its pants here...'
(This is also where I point out again that what we tag is actually sex, and any gender presentation outside of body form could technically be against TWYS.)

from my understanding the "there will be some exceptions" is pretty much saying "there are going to be some flatchested gynonorphs and there are going to be some girly andromorphs (also ferals and stuff)" and not "there are some characters that fit none of the gender tags".

think of it this way: let's start with paring tags, (you know the x/y tags) and we'll work our way back to the standard single gender tags.
if we have a post with let's say a straight up vanilla, lore-accurate piranha_plant sucking off some guy. this post should be tagged with a paring tag right? so, this post would be tagged with male/ambiguous, because there is a male character interacting with a second character who lacks any visible sexual characteristics.
now we remove the guy from that post, so now it's just a piranha plant chilling on its own. should the fact that the character with no visible sexual characteristics is on their own mean that it no longer gets tagged with a gender tag? I would say that doesn't make any sense and it should still be tagged ambiguous.

sipothac said:
think of it this way: let's start with paring tags, (you know the x/y tags) and we'll work our way back to the standard single gender tags.
if we have a post with let's say a straight up vanilla, lore-accurate piranha_plant sucking off some guy. this post should be tagged with a paring tag right? so, this post would be tagged with male/ambiguous, because there is a male character interacting with a second character who lacks any visible sexual characteristics.
now we remove the guy from that post, so now it's just a piranha plant chilling on its own. should the fact that the character with no visible sexual characteristics is on their own mean that it no longer gets tagged with a gender tag? I would say that doesn't make any sense and it should still be tagged ambiguous.

If there were a tag for non-sexed entities there could be an orientation tag set for it and it wouldn't have to use male/ambiguous. I'm not calling for the total abolition of ambiguous_gender, because there are many cases of characters being extremely likely to have a sex.

magnuseffect said:
If there were a tag for non-sexed entities there could be an orientation tag set for it and it wouldn't have to use male/ambiguous. I'm not calling for the total abolition of ambiguous_gender, because there are many cases of characters being extremely likely to have a sex.

I think that the seven gender tags we have now are fine and they're pretty well defined and consistent. I don't think we really need to split ambiguous_gender into like ambiguous_gender and something like undefined_gender, I'm also not sure these two concepts are really possible to define distinctly under TWYS.

it sounds like what you want is almost "null, but it's for dire_machines and stuff", if we were to have a tag like that it'd pretty much have to be a lore tag, which is more or less how null currently functions already.

sipothac said:
yes, if a tag is valid to a post than it should be applied.

every post that contains any amount of characters should be tagged with at least one of the 7 gender tags, period.

i find it kinda... weird to tag something that doesn't need the gender tag, with ambiguous_gender. like, example:
post #4224993
does this really need the ambiguous_gender tag on it? i mean, sure it's valid but how many are gonna try and find this through ambiguous_gender

benjiboyo said:
i find it kinda... weird to tag something that doesn't need the gender tag, with ambiguous_gender. like, example:
post #4224993
does this really need the ambiguous_gender tag on it? i mean, sure it's valid but how many are gonna try and find this through ambiguous_gender

This is exactly what ambiguous_gender is for. The gender of that character is ambiguous. What do you think it's for?

benjiboyo said:
i find it kinda... weird to tag something that doesn't need the gender tag, with ambiguous_gender. like, example:
post #4224993
does this really need the ambiguous_gender tag on it? i mean, sure it's valid but how many are gonna try and find this through ambiguous_gender

tags serve purpose beyond searching and browsing, property tagged posts are also a collection of data points, and everyone knows data analytics is the coolest fetish.

but also, like, they might? there's 28 pages of blue_fur feline rating:s solo and only 5 when you specify ambiguous, so it'd be a pretty big help if someone was trying to find that post.

cloudpie said:
This is exactly what ambiguous_gender is for. The gender of that character is ambiguous. What do you think it's for?

to me its context. posts like my example seem pointless to add that tag, obviously, it would be doing it's purpose, but i don't see people going crazy over posts like these needing ambiguous gender.

to me, the more ""important"" use of it is for more Q or E rated posts.

benjiboyo said:
to me its context. posts like my example seem pointless to add that tag, obviously, it would be doing it's purpose, but i don't see people going crazy over posts like these needing ambiguous gender.

to me, the more ""important"" use of it is for more Q or E rated posts.

it's always important, there's a reason why it's literally the second thing you're prompted to add on the upload form after the artist's name.

sipothac said:
it sounds like what you want is almost "null, but it's for dire_machines and stuff", if we were to have a tag like that it'd pretty much have to be a lore tag, which is more or less how null currently functions already.

null:
This tag can be inferred if:

• The area where genitals would otherwise be is interacted with. Stimulating or touching are common.
• The lack of genitals is mentioned by text in the image.
• The area where genitals would be is a focal point of the image, like with a pov close to it, or a character posing to present it.

Null is centred around characters where the expectation is that they would otherwise be a genital-haver. (For the sake of the other argument playing out, personally I can understand the expectation that a blue anthro cat would have genitals, as cats normally have genitals to the point that otherwise would be unexpected, and further, anthrofication is a significant enough alteration from such a creature's typical form that I may expect it to align closer to human standards even if it is stylistically given a featureless_crotch.)
But it doesn't make sense that elevation from mere machinery to character: status adds the expectation that an entity that doesn't have an area where genitals would be must now slot into the sex-tagging system without being modified in design to the point that it's obviously intended.

Thinking about it... What I'm actually asking for is closer to the inverse of null tagging: tagging sex for machinery only if the presence of genitalia is shown or otherwise heavily implied by the content of the post.