To my knowledge of gendertagging, if a character doesn't have a visible vagina (even if it cannot be determined, e.g. the area is covered) you go with the "dickgirl" tag, assuming it's got a penis and upper ladybits. However, the wiki articles don't make any mention of this - it only points out that characters without a visible penis shouldn't be tagged as "herm".

Is there some official position on this that I can refer to, or can an admin edit the wiki pages to clarify? I am sadly sub-admin scum and cannot edit such glorious protected pages. Or, perhaps, have some kind of meta-page with a flowchart for gender tagging to eliminate confusion.

We are working on cleaning up and updating the wiki, as it is very outdated on most pages.

Yes, if there are breasts and a penis but no visible vagina then it is a dickgirl.

No breasts + penis = male
Breasts + vagina = female
No breasts + vagina = cuntboy
Breasts + penis = dickgirl
Breasts + penis + vagina = herm
No breasts + penis + vagina = herm

That's the flow chart so far, if you can't tell then tag ambiguous_gender

Rainbow_Dash said:
We are working on cleaning up and updating the wiki, as it is very outdated on most pages.

Yes, if there are breasts and a penis but no visible vagina then it is a dickgirl.

No breasts + penis = male
Breasts + vagina = female
No breasts + vagina = cuntboy
Breasts + penis = dickgirl
Breasts + penis + vagina = herm

That's the flow chart so far, if you can't tell then tag ambiguous_gender

Stuck so people can always see this . Also, I added "Male based herms" To that list, rare, but they do occur.

Princess_Celestia said:
Stuck so people can always see this . Also, I added "Male based herms" To that list, rare, but they do occur.

fffff! i made a forum post erlier last week with the hopes it gets stickied...all i got was someone telling me there was already a (really fucking complex) flow chart.... :( got ignored by the admin

http://e621.net/forum/show/49229

Rainbow_Dash said:

No breasts + vagina = cuntboy

See, there's a problem with that. There are characters like Mikhaila, which is a female with a flat chest. Obviously, flat-chested fems are tagged with flat_chest, but still.

JoeX said:
See, there's a problem with that. There are characters like Mikhaila, which is a female with a flat chest. Obviously, flat-chested fems are tagged with flat_chest, but still.

Alright I'll clarify

no breasts, male physique, masculine features + vagina = cuntboy

Basically an otherwise male figure with a vagina

Here's MaShCr's handy-dandy flowchart, stolen from forum #39607:

MaShCr said:
...based on the rules I've seen so far

Discussion is absolutely welcome. Hopefully we can come to some sort of consensus.

y     = explicitly present
n/non = explicitly absent
mas   = obviously masculine
fem   = obviously feminine
bot   = both masculine and feminine
u/unk = unknown, obscured or ambiguous
 
Genitals? ┬ non ─ [neuter]
          ├ mas ─ Breasts? ┬ y ─ [dickgirl]
          │                ├ n ─ [male]
          │                └ u ─ Body type? ┬ mas ─ [male]
          │                                 ├ fem ─ [dickgirl]
          │                                 └ unk ─ [male]
          ├ fem ─ Breasts? ┬ y ─ [female]
          │                ├ n ┬ Body type? ┬ mas ─ [cuntboy]
          │                └ u ┘            ├ fem ─ [female]
          │                                 └ unk ─ [female]
          ├ bot ─ Breasts? ┬ y ─ [herm]
          │                ├ n ┬ Body type? ┬ mas ─ [maleherm]
          │                └ u ┘            ├ fem ─ [herm]
          │                                 └ unk ─ [herm]
          └ unk ─ Breasts? ┬ y ─ [female]
                           ├ n ┬ Body type? ┬ mas ─ [male]
                           └ u ┘            ├ fem ─ [female]
                                            └ unk ─ [ambiguous_gender]

Rainbow_Dash said:
We are working on cleaning up and updating the wiki, as it is very outdated on most pages.

Yes, if there are breasts and a penis but no visible vagina then it is a dickgirl.

No breasts + penis = male
Breasts + vagina = female
No breasts + vagina = cuntboy
Breasts + penis = dickgirl
Breasts + penis + vagina = herm
No breasts + penis + vagina = herm

That's the flow chart so far, if you can't tell then tag ambiguous_gender

Something just occurred to me while browsing sergals: true sergal females have no breasts, and yet there are mis-tagged posts. Do people know that true sergal females have no breasts. They still have nipples and they swell with milk when nursing but not to the normal of non-sergals.
How do we go about tagging such things?

AshuraK said:
Something just occurred to me while browsing sergals: true sergal females have no breasts, and yet there are mis-tagged posts. Do people know that true sergal females have no breasts. They still have nipples and they swell with milk when nursing but not to the normal of non-sergals.
How do we go about tagging such things?

Does it look like a breast?

Did Trancy Mick ever draw a lactating sergal? I don't think I've ever seen such an image. In the original design, Mick was very clear that sergals do not have breasts -- at all.

Mick experimented very briefly with some alternative renderings of sergals which included, among other things, human-like breasts on females, but abandoned this and returned to the original design.

I'd say if it's a well-known sergal character (i.e. Rain Silves) then you tag it "female", since everyone should already know her gender. Otherwise, it should be "ambiguous_gender" unless you can clearly see breasts, a penis, or a prehensile clitoral hood, in which case it's a "female", "male", and "female", in that order.

Speaking of which, there is one sergal image tagged with "prehensile_clitoris". Someone still doesn't know sergal anatomy. This tag should be invalidated, or perhaps aliased to "prehensile_clitoral_hood", which is used to tag other female sergals.

RedRaven said:
Did Trancy Mick ever draw a lactating sergal? I don't think I've ever seen such an image. In the original design, Mick was very clear that sergals do not have breasts -- at all.

Mick experimented very briefly with some alternative renderings of sergals which included, among other things, human-like breasts on females, but abandoned this and returned to the original design.

I'd say if it's a well-known sergal character (i.e. Rain Silves) then you tag it "female", since everyone should already know her gender. Otherwise, it should be "ambiguous_gender" unless you can clearly see breasts, a penis, or a prehensile clitoral hood, in which case it's a "female", "male", and "female", in that order.

Speaking of which, there is one sergal image tagged with "prehensile_clitoris". Someone still doesn't know sergal anatomy. This tag should be invalidated, or perhaps aliased to "prehensile_clitoral_hood", which is used to tag other female sergals.

No, you tag what you see, period.

There are situations in which the TWYS rule can be mediated by common sense. I've been told this, personally, by an administrator (relative to a tagging project I'm working on) and I've seen comments to that effect in the forums, as well. This was my basis for stating that Rain Silves, a very well-known character should be tagged "female".

Indeed, there are already quite a few images of Rain Silves which are tagged "female" even though no obvious indications of her gender are seen. I think this sets adequate precedent. If the administration, here, thinks otherwise, then perhaps someone needs to review all of the Rain Silves images and re-tag them.

RedRaven said:
There are situations in which the TWYS rule can be mediated by common sense. I've been told this, personally, by an administrator (relative to a tagging project I'm working on) and I've seen comments to that effect in the forums, as well. This was my basis for stating that Rain Silves, a very well-known character should be tagged "female".

Indeed, there are already quite a few images of Rain Silves which are tagged "female" even though no obvious indications of her gender are seen. I think this sets adequate precedent. If the administration, here, thinks otherwise, then perhaps someone needs to review all of the Rain Silves images and re-tag them.

Tag what you see (as it applies to gender) is an absolute and never bends regardless of a character

Tagging characters can be common sense in terms of recognizing key features that make it that character

I think we're on the same page, here, Rainbow. Some characters, like Rain Silves, for instance, have uniquely-identifiable markings, and we know that she's a "she". Your second sentence seems to indicate that it's OK to tag images of her as "female" even if her prehensile clitoral hood is not visible. Yes? No? Up for grabs? Um, I mean the idea, not the clitoral hood. I don't relish the consequences of annoying a sergal.

RedRaven said:
I think we're on the same page, here, Rainbow. Some characters, like Rain Silves, for instance, have uniquely-identifiable markings, and we know that she's a "she". Your second sentence seems to indicate that it's OK to tag images of her as "female" even if her prehensile clitoral hood is not visible. Yes? No? Up for grabs? Um, I mean the idea, not the clitoral hood. I don't relish the consequences of annoying a sergal.

No, what Rainbow is saying is that those unique identifiers allow you to tag it as "Rain Silves".
RD is also saying that where gender is concerned it's always TWYS, period.

What I mean by the second statement is that if you can recognize key features of a character, then you can safely tag said character, but this does not apply to their gender, as that is determined solely, completely without outsider information or assumptions. However, if they are fully clothed and "appear" male or female, then they are tagged appropriately.

For example, if we see curves, smaller frame, perhaps makeup, longer hair, and no indication otherwise, then they are tagged female. On the contrary, if you know a character is female because they are almost always depicted as such, that does not mean you can tag them female if you can not see enough features to distinguish if they are male or female, thus you tag them ambiguous_gender

Understood. In the case of Rain Silves, assuming a canon treatment of anatomy and build, there are likely quite a few images that are improperly tagged "female" since the males and females look practically identical once you get them dressed up in clothing and/or armor.

Perhaps some examples would be nice, so we can all see what to do with them

Here's just a few that were obvious from just glancing through the first bunch of thumbnails with a search on "rain_silves rating:safe -breasts".

post #145822
post #44477
post #43940
post #43601
post #43411

RedRaven said:
Here's just a few that were obvious from just glancing through the first bunch of thumbnails with a search on "rain_silves rating:safe -breasts".

Alright I am going to lead by example on some of these

post #145822
This I would tag ambiguous

post #44477
male

post #43940
ambiguous

post #43601
ambiguous

post #43411
and male

I have never seen this character before, I know nothing about them, so I just tag whatever gender I see before me

These five renderings of the same character are all done according to Trancy Mick's original design for sergal -- what I called "canon", earlier. There are actually very minor differences in body conformation between males and females, but I seriously doubt anyone but Micks actually draws them like that.

The two you would tag "male", though, do not show any naughty bits at all, so by tagging "what you see", rather than "what you don't see", would seem (at least to me) to render all of these "ambiguous".

You can't judge sergal by human (or even Earthly) standards. They are an entirely alien race, and not even mammalian, so you can't really assume that a flat chest means "male". This would be analogous to tagging a quadrupedal lizard as "male" just because you can't see breasts. We know they don't have breasts (Ever tried to sex a lizard? It's pretty difficult for the ones with identical markings for both genders.) We also know that sergal don't (or at least shouldn't) have breasts.

I know what I just said conflicts with the "tag what you see and not what you know", rule. Just because we "know" sergal don't have breasts doesn't mean we can use that information, right? However, to make an analogy, say we have a picture in which a feral monitor lizard is the center-point. What gender do you tag it? You tag it "ambiguous_gender" and not "male". Why? We "know" monitor lizards don't have breasts.

It's based mostly on the actual physical build appearance. Where body is shown well, it's obviously buff, squarish, and generally not feminine, thus male.

On an anthro character we tend to apply human based characteristics of genders