I always found silly and pointless the need to add the tag ambigusous_gender on the safe pictures, as I since never tagged my safe uploads with this tag. I however noticed some people editing the pictures tags and add that tag to some of the safe stuff I uploaded. I understand the use of this tag on the explicit pictures, when there is no way to specify a character's gender, but I never got the point to use it on the safe pictures. I just feel it's absolutely not needed at all since nothing sexual is happening.

It doesn't matter whether the image is safe or not, you should tag the gender, or use amiguous_gender if you can't tell. It has nothing to do with sex.

As far as I know, the rule is that you have to include a gender tag when there's one or more characters in the image. Safe images are no exception.

Raiden_Gekkou said:
It doesn't matter whether the image is safe or not, you should tag the gender, or use amiguous_gender if you can't tell. It has nothing to do with sex.

This. That has ALWAYS been the case; not doing it is poor tagging.

Tag genders always. Image rating has nothing to do with it.

How does one find pictures like post #228845 post #228522 post #225962 without gender tags? :P

Gender is sometimes a grey area but I think when I have specific information from the artist I should be able to tag it as such instead of this stupid "tag only what you see" rule. Sometimes it's necessary.

Sometimes you need the artist's help to draw your attention to things that indicate gender -- oh yeah, she does have a bit of boob! but it's not fair to the users of the site to 'pollute' the tags with images that are not true to the idea of the tag.

(note: all of these are randomly made up examples and have no basis in reality)

post #187106 It isn't fair, for example, to say the blue one is actually a herm but hir cock is hidden in an invisible slit because shi's not turned on right now. Nor is it fair to suggest that the brown one is a herm, but you can't see hir pussy because it's between hir legs.

post #228574 Hir cock is underwater! hir pussy can't be seen at this angle

post #227858 shi's being fucked in the pussy!

post #223247 the one on the bottom is a cuntboy.

post #221378 The one behind is actually also a cuntboy and is fingering the other.

See what I mean? But despite those possibly being tagged as herm, cunt boy, etc, they wouldn't have very much interest to someone interested in seeing post #227675

This is why we tag what we see.

hg3300 said:
Gender is sometimes a grey area but I think when I have specific information from the artist I should be able to tag it as such instead of this stupid "tag only what you see" rule. Sometimes it's necessary.

nope.avi

Taggest what thou doth see, not what thou doth know. If thou dost knoweth a character to be female, but the image lacks direct evidence of such gender, do not tag it female, for doing so 'tis heresy.

There are many defining characteristics of either gender and general stereotypical looks. You don't need to find explicit/sexual characteristics to label a gender alone. Males typically have more muscular upper bodies, shorter hair, etc. Females have longer hair, boobs/nipples, etc.

And if it's not known there's absolutely no reason why you can't use the artist's information to clear it up. "ambiguous gender" is stupid and should only be used if you can't find ANYTHING about the character or image.

Test-Subject_217601 said:
nope.avi

Taggest what thou doth see, not what thou doth know. If thou dost knoweth a character to be female, but the image lacks direct evidence of such gender, do not tag it female, for doing so 'tis heresy.

I disagree, Olde English Speaker.

Test-Subject_217601 said:
As far as I know, the rule is that you have to include a gender tag when there's one or more characters in the image. Safe images are no exception.

Yet some get away with that...

hg3300 said:
There are many defining characteristics of either gender and general stereotypical looks. You don't need to find explicit/sexual characteristics to label a gender alone. Males typically have more muscular upper bodies, shorter hair, etc. Females have longer hair, boobs/nipples, etc.

And if it's not known there's absolutely no reason why you can't use the artist's information to clear it up. "ambiguous gender" is stupid and should only be used if you can't find ANYTHING about the character or image.

I disagree, Olde English Speaker.

Make the rules, I do not. I simply recount them in laughably over the top Olde English dialect.

hg3300 said:
There are many defining characteristics of either gender and general stereotypical looks. You don't need to find explicit/sexual characteristics to label a gender alone. Males typically have more muscular upper bodies, shorter hair, etc. Females have longer hair, boobs/nipples, etc.

And if it's not known there's absolutely no reason why you can't use the artist's information to clear it up. "ambiguous gender" is stupid and should only be used if you can't find ANYTHING about the character or image.

Ambiguous gender should be used when things are actually AMBIGUOUS. If it's got hips and curves, then it's probably a girl. You're absolutly correct in that you don't need expliciet sexual characteristics to determine gender. you just need at your eyes. does it look likee a girl? okay. female. a guy? male. does the person generally cause personal confusion and debate? then, ambiguous fits.

we're an IMAGE board. we are not a character database. If people search for ambiguous gender, they're looking for pictures where the subjects of an image are not clearly gendered.

post #224931 as an example. too tired to dig up more. but we are an image board. what we see is the most important thing possible.

ambiguous_gender is not when we don't KNOW the character's gender, it's for when we can't TELL what their gender is in the image, even if we really do know that it's actually a female or whatever.

Mario583 said:

Yet some get away with that...

We're working on putting a stop to that.

I just want to explain myself a little more about that.
What I mostly meant by this is about the safe pictures with characters with no gender identities, Pokémon for example. I really don't see the point of tagging ambiguous_gender on pictures that simply have no gender at all. The gender is not ambiguous, just not present/neutral.

Neitsuke said:
I just want to explain myself a little more about that.
What I mostly meant by is the safe pictures with characters with no gender identities, Pokémon for example. I really don't see the point of tagging ambiguous_gender on pictures that simply have no gender at all. The gender is not ambiguous, just not present/neutral.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No hints toward gender do not mean there is no gender, simply that we have no way of telling what it is, therefore it's ambiguous.

Test-Subject_217601 said:
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No hints toward gender do not mean there is no gender, simply that we have no way of telling what it is, therefore it's ambiguous.

A cookie to this user.

Princess_Celestia said:
A cookie to this user.

Yay!