that's an awfully flat chested female. you sure that's not a cuntboy?

treos said:
that's an awfully flat chested female. you sure that's not a cuntboy?

I'm pretty sure women are allowed to have a small breast size.

treos said:
that's an awfully flat chested female. you sure that's not a cuntboy?

Have you seen the tags on the image itself on FA? Exactly the reason why I think the term "cuntboy" is pointless.

"cat feline fucking cboy flat-chested girl with crown while glaring and cumming uwu"

It's both a "cuntboy" and a "flat-chested girl with crown", apparently.

Reian said:
Have you seen the tags on the image itself on FA? Exactly the reason why I think the term "cuntboy" is pointless.

"cat feline fucking cboy flat-chested girl with crown while glaring and cumming uwu"

It's both a "cuntboy" and a "flat-chested girl with crown", apparently.

But we don't use tags from FA.

Esme_Belles said:
But we don't use tags from FA.

But this is the whole issue that people seem to have with gendering on furry sites. This is both a cuntboy and a flatchested dickgirl, or a flat-chested girl and a guy, or any combination of the two. It could be m/m with a vagina, f/f with a penis, or m/f depending on intent.

It's Schroedinger's Genders here. "Tag what you see" only goes so far when you can't conceivably "see" gender identities.

Honestly she's not really flat chested. The artist just drew the actual physics of the boobs, so they're off to either side and spread out instead of round and perky and drawn without physics.

Esme_Belles said:
But we don't use tags from FA.

ty, that's what i was going to say.

Iamasword said:
But this is the whole issue that people seem to have with gendering on furry sites. This is both a cuntboy and a flatchested dickgirl, or a flat-chested girl and a guy, or any combination of the two. It could be m/m with a vagina, f/f with a penis, or m/f depending on intent.

It's Schroedinger's Genders here. "Tag what you see" only goes so far when you can't conceivably "see" gender identities.

and with a pic like this, all i see intersex (the cuntboy there) when going by appearance alone.

you can't exactly "see" what a person/fictional characters gender identity is visually, now can you? and since external info (tags from the source pic over at FA for example) isn't typically used here (think i've seen a few exceptions before but not many and even then, that was probably regarding tags and the wiki pages.) TWYS is about the best you can do here.

First of, the tags I use on FA are a joke, don't use those for relevance, it's 'tag what you see'.

Second, as described before, it's hard to define if it's either/or when you're only able to judge by your perception. I can assure you that the owner of the character has defined them as a flat-chested girl, which is the actual defined gender here. But, seeing as we cannot define this gender by simply seeing them as a female, with the added possibility of them being a cuntboy due to looking like one, we'll have to tag them as BOTH a flat-chested female AND a cuntboy.

It's illogical within itself but those are the rules. Apparently you're not a girl on e621 if you don't have obvious tits to show for, hah. Dicks and pussies are TOTALLY not gender definable due to the ever looming presence of dickgirls and cuntboys around here, so we have to judge the gender by the tits here!

P.S., I do wonder how we're going to define the nature of sexual intercourse here... do we need to tag it as both male/female and male/male now, when the cuntboy tag remains?

The owner of the character has flat stated that it is a flat chested girl. I don't give a flying fuck what you idiots think are the "rules." It's not a cuntboy, it's not a dickgirl, it is a 100% female chatracter that simply has a flat chest. Period. If the owner didn't say anything, I could understand using both tags, but she has stated the gender multiple times. Ignoring by mislabeling her character in order to appeal to the people who search "cuntboy" is completely disrespectful.

AarkTheDragon said:
The owner of the character has flat stated that it is a flat chested girl. I don't give a flying fuck what you idiots think are the "rules." It's not a cuntboy, it's not a dickgirl, it is a 100% female chatracter that simply has a flat chest. Period. If the owner didn't say anything, I could understand using both tags, but she has stated the gender multiple times. Ignoring by mislabeling her character in order to appeal to the people who search "cuntboy" is completely disrespectful.

It is not about appealing to anyone, nor is it being disrespectful, it is simply the rules for this website. Nor is it mislabeled. The description box is for entering information that may not be used in the tags should it be so needed.

Also you should actually give a flying fuck about the rules since your also bound by them, we all are. The only ones who are not are the admin and staff... and even they must have a definite valid reason for breaking one.

AarkTheDragon said:
Ignoring by mislabeling her character in order to appeal to the people who search "cuntboy" is completely disrespectful.

It's not to appeal to people. It's to make searching easier.
Imagine a perfect world where everybody had the source-information and knew exactly what they were looking at.
And now think about how far we are from that. I'd expect less than 1% of people to ever bother looking up ALL (yes, people do search for other pictures too!) characters they could possibly want to search for.

Now ponder this. What is easier, more efficient, faster: Making everybody carefully read the tags so they see what gender the character is.
Or allowing people to just quickly assume information for convenience.

Aight so i can tell you as the owner of this character she is a flat chested female which believe it or not do exist in the real world so I really dont think she needs to be labeled as a "cuntboy"
It has also never seemed to come up as an issue on any other pictures of my character where she is marked as flat chested and female.

AarkTheDragon said:
The owner of the character has flat stated that it is a flat chested girl. I don't give a flying fuck what you idiots think are the "rules." It's not a cuntboy, it's not a dickgirl, it is a 100% female chatracter that simply has a flat chest. Period. If the owner didn't say anything, I could understand using both tags, but she has stated the gender multiple times. Ignoring by mislabeling her character in order to appeal to the people who search "cuntboy" is completely disrespectful.

Not abiding by the posted rules is disrespectful.

The administrative staff are reviewing this tag discussion currently.

After some discussion, we've decided that the female tag should stay.

Esme_Belles said:
But we don't use tags from FA.

I only mentioned those tags to illustrate my point in that "gender identity", in artwork specifically, is both subjective and objective.

You can look at this and say "I see a cuntboy" where I can look at this and say "I see a flat-chested female" and we can both be right because of the subjective element to gender identity in art.

Females are allowed to have flat chests but everyone is also allowed to be intersex in this fantasy realm we call furries. Getting so worked up over the concept of dominantly male intersex characters, suggesting their mere existence is an insult to another gender, is just as disrespectful and ignorant as suggesting flat chested characters aren't women. It's about time we allowed "cuntboys" merely to exist, otherwise we're no better than the people who mock us for being furries. Maybe someday we can all agree on a new, less controversial name for both them and dickgirls. Until then, please, just stop getting offended just because some people want to see or identify with this particular sex/gender combination.

PretentiousPeer said:
Females are allowed to have flat chests but everyone is also allowed to be intersex in this fantasy realm we call furries. Getting so worked up over the concept of dominantly male intersex characters, suggesting their mere existence is an insult to another gender, is just as disrespectful and ignorant as suggesting flat chested characters aren't women. It's about time we allowed "cuntboys" merely to exist, otherwise we're no better than the people who mock us for being furries. Maybe someday we can all agree on a new, less controversial name for both them and dickgirls. Until then, please, just stop getting offended just because some people want to see or identify with this particular sex/gender combination.

i don't know what your talking about but this small fuss was tag related (and partly related to the TWYS rule as well), not anyone getting offended over gender identity.

treos said:
i don't know what your talking about but this small fuss was tag related (and partly related to the TWYS rule as well), not anyone getting offended over gender identity.

That IS what I was talking about. Notice I said interSEX, not CrossGENDER. It is related to TWYS. Intersex still falls under TWYS rule, evidenced clearly by the fact that it is now the norm (and is enforced) to tag "dickgirls" and "herms" as such.

I suppose I should have specified "sex" rather than "gender in this sentence (fragment): "... suggesting their mere existence is an insult to another gender...". I didn't count on someone misconstruing the entire argument because I said the word gender once. Clearly, that was my one mistake. My argument still stands.

PretentiousPeer said:
That IS what I was talking about. Notice I said interSEX, not CrossGENDER. It is related to TWYS. Intersex still falls under TWYS rule, evidenced clearly by the fact that it is now the norm (and is enforced) to tag "dickgirls" and "herms" as such.

I suppose I should have specified "sex" rather than "gender in this sentence (fragment): "... suggesting their mere existence is an insult to another gender...". I didn't count on someone misconstruing the entire argument because I said the word gender once. Clearly, that was my one mistake. My argument still stands.

If you want to be COMPLETELY technical, ANY image featuring a male character - and I mean outwardly completely male with no obvious female characteristics - can still be considered "Intersex" because in order to be considered "Intersex" one simply needs to have genitalia characteristics belonging to the non-dominant gender. What am I hinting at? The rare occasion where a male is born with ovaries. For all intents and purposes the individual is visibly male HOWEVER because of the fact that ovaries are present he is "Intersex".

Would you still bemoan a case such as this, under tag-what-you-see, as incorrect tagging?

Just because you see a vagina and pectoral muscles with no obvious breasts doesn't mean it's automatically a "cuntboy" or "intersex" character. I mean, females have pectoral muscles as well, they are just TYPICALLY covered by large sacks of fat.

Reian said:
If you want to be COMPLETELY technical, ANY image featuring a male character - and I mean outwardly completely male with no obvious female characteristics - can still be considered "Intersex" because in order to be considered "Intersex" one simply needs to have genitalia characteristics belonging to the non-dominant gender. What am I hinting at? The rare occasion where a male is born with ovaries. For all intents and purposes the individual is visibly male HOWEVER because of the fact that ovaries are present he is "Intersex".

Would you still bemoan a case such as this, under tag-what-you-see, as incorrect tagging?

Just because you see a vagina and pectoral muscles with no obvious breasts doesn't mean it's automatically a "cuntboy" or "intersex" character. I mean, females have pectoral muscles as well, they are just TYPICALLY covered by large sacks of fat.

Unless a cut-away or "x-ray" image of those ovaries are shown, one couldn't see them and so they wouldn't fit under TWYS rule. So, yes, unless the above is pictured, it would be incorrect tagging.

Just because you see a vagina doesn't mean it's automatically a female character, either. I mean, transsexual people exist. Some female dominant transsexuals keep their male genitalia. Some male dominant transsexuals (born female) have their developed mammary glands removed but keep their female genitalia. Some male dominant transsexuals (born male) simply choose to turn their male genitalia into the closest form of female genitalia current medicine and technology can offer.

Of course, these people likely don't refer to themselves as "dickgirls" or "cuntboys". That's why I suggested a general consensus on new terms for these individuals that could be less problematic. Still, these two particular combinations of intersex exist in reality. So, to suggest a flat-chested character with a vagina is automatically entirely female is just as wrong as suggesting they are automatically not. That is what I've been saying. Both are equally wrong and we, as a community, need to stop vilifying people who ask legitimate questions regarding a notably ambiguous character's sex. We need to stop pulling diatribes out of our asses, yelling at people for asking questions or noting valid observations. We need to stop degrading these people (either verbally or by this stupid voting system) for being reasonably inquisitive.

Otherwise, why aren't we getting equally worked up over hermaphrodites?

Do we automatically assume they're female because they have vaginae? Developed feminine breasts? Do we berate everyone who suggests the character could be a hermaphrodite "just" because it has a penis? All of this nonsense is not even really about what the thing is but whether or not anyone is allowed to question it. Apparently, questioning it is an insult. But the fact that suggesting it could be something else is insulting... is insulting to whomever identifies with or prefers that something else.

So, why don't we take a step back and really examine why we're not allowed to ask questions or make observations?

PretentiousPeer said:
Unless a cut-away or "x-ray" image of those ovaries are shown, one couldn't see them and so they wouldn't fit under TWYS rule. So, yes, unless the above is pictured, it would be incorrect tagging.

Just because you see a vagina doesn't mean it's automatically a female character, either. I mean, transsexual people exist. Some female dominant transsexuals keep their male genitalia. Some male dominant transsexuals (born female) have their developed mammary glands removed but keep their female genitalia. Some male dominant transsexuals (born male) simply choose to turn their male genitalia into the closest form of female genitalia current medicine and technology can offer.

Of course, these people likely don't refer to themselves as "dickgirls" or "cuntboys". That's why I suggested a general consensus on new terms for these individuals that could be less problematic. Still, these two particular combinations of intersex exist in reality. So, to suggest a flat-chested character with a vagina is automatically entirely female is just as wrong as suggesting they are automatically not. That is what I've been saying. Both are equally wrong and we, as a community, need to stop vilifying people who ask legitimate questions regarding a notably ambiguous character's sex. We need to stop pulling diatribes out of our asses, yelling at people for asking questions or noting valid observations. We need to stop degrading these people (either verbally or by this stupid voting system) for being reasonably inquisitive.

The problem is simply that different folks will see different things even though what they're looking at is the same. One person will see a flat-chested female as intersex while another will simply see a female. Under "tag what you see" that solves nothing and we come back to this current topic of discussion.

Would it not simplify things to simply use "Ambiguous Gender"?

Reian said:

Would it not simplify things to simply use "Ambiguous Gender"?

not really, ambiguous gender refers to having No[/I] gender traits. since you can see a vag it cant be ambig...

Esme_Belles said:
not really, ambiguous gender refers to having No[/I] gender traits. since you can see a vag it cant be ambig...

While I understand your point I am only going to say that "Ambiguous", by definition, fits.

am·big·u·ous
amˈbiɡyo͞oəs/
adjective
adjective: ambiguous

(of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
"the question is rather ambiguous"
unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.

... But wait. It doesn't matter that much because, Porn...

Waaaait.. does this show her with two tails?