The gender tags are mainly to describe the visible body type. They're not for describing a character's self-identification (we use lore tags for that).

Text within the image is unreliable. If it matches what is visible elsewhere in the image, then that can be an added bonus reason to help with tagging. BUT when the text seems different than what is visible in the image, then the visible drawn information is more important.

This is because the tags are always about 'how to describe the visual parts of this image' to make what you search closely match what it looks like as much as possible. The tags are not meant for 'how to describe added knowledge about the character' or 'how to describe the artist's intent'. Those two things go beyond what we use tags for, normally. Although sometimes that information is included in the description, so that people can still enjoy knowing some additional bonus data that is related to whatever they can see in the actual image itself.

The tags will still describe what is visibly drawn in the image though.

This allows the tags to work as a text descriptor of what you will see when you look at the image. So when the text contradicts the drawn image, the drawn parts of the image are more important. Or when the text describes something that is not visible to see in the same image, then at best that information might fit a _(lore) tag or be added to the description...

But the main tags will still describe only what is visibly seen in that image.

This image is not an easy one to tag, because it has an unusual combination of informed/lore data vs shown/visual data. That makes it very interesting and fun to enjoy as a viewer, but it is a challenge to tag it objectively.

So in this image, you see only female traits. And text saying they are male.
- So the main tags to describe what is drawn and visibly shown should say 'female'. Because that is how the drawn parts were made to look in this image.
- And the text says 'male' but this is data we are informed about and not data we are shown. So that gets the 'male_(lore)' tag as the best description for how that information is included in this image. Probably also the 'stated_gender' tag could work, because it is stating a gender regardless of what it does/doesn't appear to match with visually. And both of those tags make it easier to find unusual images like this, while still matching what is visibly shown here.

So for the tags, that is what will be for this image. However, I do love atypically gendered characters. And absolutely none of this stops him from being very bustily awesome in every way!

Boiiiii boooooooooobs...💜💕

Wow, there have come way more pics of PB since I uploaded the first one. Glad to see other people also took a liking to him!
He's certainly a unique character. "cis guy with huge tits" is a pretty underrepresented demographic (for understandable reasons). Wasn't even sure how to tag him in that first upload.

sprucemarten said:
Wow, there have come way more pics of PB since I uploaded the first one. Glad to see other people also took a liking to him!
He's certainly a unique character. "cis guy with huge tits" is a pretty underrepresented demographic (for understandable reasons). Wasn't even sure how to tag him in that first upload.

As a transgirl that thinks gender norms need to stop mattering beyond individual identity, thank you for uploading another lovely bustyboi, and pass on my appreciation to Cake if ya can!

I look forward to a day when the tags won't be so obnoxious as to label a character like this guy as "FEMALE".

uulugus said:
I look forward to a day when the tags won't be so obnoxious as to label a character like this guy as "FEMALE".

I understand the point of the TWYS policy to an extent, but the idea that an image can have a character's gender outright stated in the image and still have it ignored because they "look female" is obnoxiously stupid. If the point is supposedly to make it so that images can only be tagged with information that's verifiable in the image then why can't we take the word of the text in an image?

m18orin said:
I understand the point of the TWYS policy to an extent, but the idea that an image can have a character's gender outright stated in the image and still have it ignored because they "look female" is obnoxiously stupid. If the point is supposedly to make it so that images can only be tagged with information that's verifiable in the image then why can't we take the word of the text in an image?

I feel like it's just the symptom of a system that wasn't made to handle gender nonconforming characters. They're adapting, just way too slow. I'm sure they'll have proper tags for gender some day.

m18orin said:
I understand the point of the TWYS policy to an extent, but the idea that an image can have a character's gender outright stated in the image and still have it ignored because they "look female" is obnoxiously stupid. If the point is supposedly to make it so that images can only be tagged with information that's verifiable in the image then why can't we take the word of the text in an image?

Fixed a bunch of them cause imma be real I’m not gonna respect the rule of it actively misgenders ppl

m18orin said:
I understand the point of the TWYS policy to an extent, but the idea that an image can have a character's gender outright stated in the image and still have it ignored because they "look female" is obnoxiously stupid. If the point is supposedly to make it so that images can only be tagged with information that's verifiable in the image then why can't we take the word of the text in an image?

The female tag is a sex/bodytype tag and is visual, as are most tags. It has nothing to do with gender.
And keep in mind how people search as well. If someone is looking for a "boy" character, the vast majority of the time, they won't be looking for a character that looks like pb. At the very least, they'll be looking for a character without breasts.

Don't get me wrong, twys isn't perfect, but there's nothing stupid about how this image is tagged in that regard.

uulugus said:
I feel like it's just the symptom of a system that wasn't made to handle gender nonconforming characters. They're adapting, just way too slow. I'm sure they'll have proper tags for gender some day.

Lore tags exist for this purpose. Of course, I have no idea how prevalent this "bustyboy" concept is so maybe it's just too small to matter. Or maybe the tags haven't been updated in a while (I see bustyboy is aliased to intersex). Might be worth bringing the idea of a bustyboy lore tag to the forums, if you care enough.

m18orin said:
I understand the point of the TWYS policy to an extent, but the idea that an image can have a character's gender outright stated in the image and still have it ignored because they "look female" is obnoxiously stupid. If the point is supposedly to make it so that images can only be tagged with information that's verifiable in the image then why can't we take the word of the text in an image?

popoto said:
The female tag is a sex/bodytype tag and is visual, as are most tags. It has nothing to do with gender.
And keep in mind how people search as well. If someone is looking for a "boy" character, the vast majority of the time, they won't be looking for a character that looks like pb. At the very least, they'll be looking for a character without breasts.

Don't get me wrong, twys isn't perfect, but there's nothing stupid about how this image is tagged in that regard.

This. If you see a lemon with lime written above it, you tag lemon.

werideatdawn said:
This. If you see a lemon with lime written above it, you tag lemon.

A better comparison for this particular character would be a Lemon painted to look Green, and people tagging it as "Lime" because "It looks green", despite the fact it's a Lemon. The problem with TWYS is that often times people don't know what they're seeing.

I'm late here because I rarely bother to actually log in when I'm on e6.

popoto said:
The female tag is a sex/bodytype tag and is visual, as are most tags. It has nothing to do with gender.

If its a body type tag then it should be a body type. If a tag has nothing to do with gender the tag shouldn't literally be a gender. I understand that the policies are primarily for blacklists and searches, I also understand that this was a system that worked just fine once upon a time before gender non-conforming and trans characters became commonplace, and those communities became larger and more mainstream. But that's the past, and these days tagging the gender a character looks like instead of the one they are isn't quite as harmless and inoffensive as it used to be. I'm not even personally particularly offended by it, but you can't really deny its hardly the best look for the site in this day and age for it to outright enforce misgendering characters.

It really wouldn't be that hard to update the tags to reflect what they actually mean and have female changed to feminine and male changed to masculine. These would be tags that are genuinely about how a character LOOKS, tags that genuinely have nothing to do with the character's actual gender.

throwaway55566 said:
Fixed a bunch of them cause imma be real I’m not gonna respect the rule of it actively misgenders ppl

This is no better than the way the rules currently work. If you're willing to put in the effort to go around and change tags then you should be putting it in being productive and actually trying to get those rules changed. At best you're being a nuisance to the moderators, janitors, or anyone else who fixes your changed tags. At worst you're making change less likely by making people frustrated with your cause.

I'll be entirely honest, I'm not willing to put in the time, effort and dedication to actively fight this rule. It doesn't sit quite right with me, but as I said above I'm also not particularly offended. Commenting on it takes a few minutes of my time at most, so I am willing to do that much. But you must be willing to put in a lot more time and effort to actively go through and search for characters that are misgendered by their tags, so you should be more productive with that time.

pan_those_cakes said:
A better comparison for this particular character would be a Lemon painted to look Green, and people tagging it as "Lime" because "It looks green", despite the fact it's a Lemon. The problem with TWYS is that often times people don't know what they're seeing.

exactly. the casual transphobia that's thrown around here by both the users and moderators/janitors is disgusting.

wretched_throng said:
exactly. the casual transphobia that's thrown around here by both the users and moderators/janitors is disgusting.

Hi, non-binary person here! TWYS isn’t transphobic, because it’s tagging only the visible *sexual* aspects of a character. It’s not referring to the gender, it’s referring to what you can tell from looking at them. Lore tags are for gender. Standard tags are for physical sex.

budderlover said:
Hi, non-binary person here! TWYS isn’t transphobic, because it’s tagging only the visible *sexual* aspects of a character. It’s not referring to the gender, it’s referring to what you can tell from looking at them. Lore tags are for gender. Standard tags are for physical sex.

so it's fine to call a transgender man a woman if he has tits. sure.