What suggest it being a female?

papercat said:
What suggest it being a female?

It's the same character as this, which is female.
post #584196

DeltaFlame said:
It's the same character as this, which is female.

Tag what you see still applies though.
I don't see any primary or secondayr gender indicators, nor does the character look particularly like a male or female (at least to me).

I'd personally (and according to https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=howto%3Atag_genders ) remove the gender tag and add ambiguous_gender, but I'm not confident enough with this one to do that.

Calimero000 said:
Tag what you see still applies though.
I don't see any primary or secondayr gender indicators, nor does the character look particularly like a male or female (at least to me).

I'd personally (and according to https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=howto%3Atag_genders ) remove the gender tag and add ambiguous_gender, but I'm not confident enough with this one to do that.

According to the artist's blog, the character's name is Audrey and is 100% female.

Is it still a dakimakura if its just a body pillow without a cover?

DeltaFlame said:
According to the artist's blog, the character's name is Audrey and is 100% female.

We do not use outside info when tagging.

See https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=e621%3Atag_what_you_see_%28explained%29

Short version is that e6 only tags what is explicitly seen in the picture.

This is not a slight at the artist or anything, but simply the best way to have a tagging system that works properly. Now, if you wish to argue that the facial features look female, that would have merit, as it does :o

Yep, only names can be tagged from outside sources.
Though this character looks so feminine that if I was tagging this, it would've never occurred to me to tag this as anything but female.

CamKitty said:
We do not use outside info when tagging.

See https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=e621%3Atag_what_you_see_%28explained%29

Short version is that e6 only tags what is explicitly seen in the picture.

This is not a slight at the artist or anything, but simply the best way to have a tagging system that works properly. Now, if you wish to argue that the facial features look female, that would have merit, as it does :o

Really? You're going to insist that a character isn't female even when it's proven to be? Just because a character isn't showing any genitalia doesn't mean that it needs to be a trans/herm/cuntboy/genderless character, it's like saying that Brian Griffin for example isn't male just because his penis isn't showing even though it's common knowledge that he's a male. But if it really comes down to it, I would say that, if nothing else mentioned counts, the long eyelashes of this character is a gender indicator of her being female.

DeltaFlame said:
Really? You're going to insist that a character isn't female even when it's proven to be? Just because a character isn't showing any genitalia doesn't mean that it needs to be a trans/herm/cuntboy/genderless character, it's like saying that Brian Griffin for example isn't male just because his penis isn't showing even though it's common knowledge that he's a male. But if it really comes down to it, I would say that, if nothing else mentioned counts, the long eyelashes of this character is a gender indicator of her being female.

As I said, tagging is on a per pic basis. Peter Griffin look male otherwise, so he would be tagged male. If someone made him look ambiguous then yes, there would be discussion on what it should be tagged as.

The classic example the site has used before is: say an artist draws an apple but for all intents and purposed they drew an orange. If we tagged using outside info, people searching apple would get an orange in their results. Then our tagging system is not worth a damn.

We don't make assumptions from outside info.

Again, that link I posted explains it better then I can

itc people arguing over the gender of a lizard person so they can jerk off without being gay about it

Come on, don't deny people searching for female argonian booty their cute prize just because you want it to be male argonian booty.

Actually, this is more like an artist drawing an apple on a table, then shortly afterward drawing that apple on the table except slightly hidden and someone saying it MIGHT be an orange instead.

The whole "we don't make assumptions from outside info" <i>is not valid</i> for identifying <i>who</i> a character is (it's in the rules, bro), and it's insane to baselessly assume that an internally-established character is not the gender they have always been in every image they're in on <i>this</i> site, not even considering what external sites have to say on the matter. Are you saying that we can't even reference non-external information, either? I guess all of these pool editors are dirty rulebreakers.

I get it, e621 is mostly visually-based males who aren't interested in what something actually <i>is</i>, only what it shallowly <i>looks like</i>. I probably have no right to interfere with some male/male guy jacking off to a girl's ass because boobs aren't visible (which to me is akin in logic to "balls aren't touching, not gay"), but I just wanted to share my opinion regarding this particular image since it's rather frustrating to me - mostly for the reasons clarified in the following paragraph.

TL;DR: it's like tagging Peter Griffin as "ambiguous" if he gets drawn as a stick figure; the burden of proof SHOULD BE (according to rationality, which may not be applicable here) on the people suggesting he's inexplicably grown a uterus. If you want a tagging system that isn't worth a damn, try making one that is uselessly vague for searchers... like this, because apparently a female character won't show up in searches for 'female' simply because her breasts aren't visible from the angle she's visible.

Imuthes, can you please use the collapse format next time. Sheesh!

Ahhh, so cute. :)