Love the dragon, ass boi there looks a little silly.

Are there any clues as to why this was tagged gynomorph/male? I see male/male here.

foorjee said:
Are there any clues as to why this was tagged gynomorph/male? I see male/male here.

Going from Danza's post and reply to a similar question over on IB, The Dragon topping is the gynomorph here, although the other set of genitals aren't visible from this position. It could be seen that the head is meant to be a bit softer with more of the stereotypical feminine tropes to cover the distinction of gynomorph in this case. Otherwise this could be seen as an example of "tag what you see" limiting what positions certain characters can get into an thus spreading pictures throughout the site until its given a character tag to try and corral it all together.

valgorn said:
Going from Danza's post and reply to a similar question over on IB, The Dragon topping is the gynomorph here, although the other set of genitals aren't visible from this position. It could be seen that the head is meant to be a bit softer with more of the stereotypical feminine tropes to cover the distinction of gynomorph in this case. Otherwise this could be seen as an example of "tag what you see" limiting what positions certain characters can get into an thus spreading pictures throughout the site until its given a character tag to try and corral it all together.

Doesn't matter as per the site rules:

Most artists and character owners are used to using websites where they can build their own personal collection of artwork and have direct control over it. This allows them, to an extent, to have control over how the artwork is presented and what additional information should accompany the artwork, if any. They often use the site's own tagging/keyword system to relay that additional information. For example, if a picture contains a fully clothed character that appears to be female, the artist may add "herm" as a tag on the post to clue people in that the character is actually a herm instead of a female. On those sites, this is fine; if the artist wants to draw things in a way that they look like something else, that's entirely their own creative decision to do so.

However, this is NOT the intended purpose of tags on e621.net.

E621's tagging system is intended to relay virtually NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION or context about an image. Therefore, for every post on the site, it can be assumed that e621's tagging system is actually saying "this post appears to contain X" rather than "this post definitely contains X".

The very fact that e621's policy is "Tag What You See" INTRINSICALLY means that all tags on a post are only claims as to what's visible in an image, not what "actually is" in an image. Claiming what "actually is" in an image is often far more subjective than just saying what an image appears to contain, so we use the less-subjective method of TWYS.

This is quoted from the TWYS page

nyahmyah said:
Doesn't matter as per the site rules:

Most artists and character owners are used to using websites where they can build their own personal collection of artwork and have direct control over it. This allows them, to an extent, to have control over how the artwork is presented and what additional information should accompany the artwork, if any. They often use the site's own tagging/keyword system to relay that additional information. For example, if a picture contains a fully clothed character that appears to be female, the artist may add "herm" as a tag on the post to clue people in that the character is actually a herm instead of a female. On those sites, this is fine; if the artist wants to draw things in a way that they look like something else, that's entirely their own creative decision to do so.

However, this is NOT the intended purpose of tags on e621.net.

E621's tagging system is intended to relay virtually NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION or context about an image. Therefore, for every post on the site, it can be assumed that e621's tagging system is actually saying "this post appears to contain X" rather than "this post definitely contains X".

The very fact that e621's policy is "Tag What You See" INTRINSICALLY means that all tags on a post are only claims as to what's visible in an image, not what "actually is" in an image. Claiming what "actually is" in an image is often far more subjective than just saying what an image appears to contain, so we use the less-subjective method of TWYS.

This is quoted from the TWYS page

Gotcha gotcha, suppose if any pictures like this come up again the artist would just have to draw the character to be even more feminine looking to get the point across. Otherwise it can just be a back n forth on what one person sees vs. another on each others own standards of what is and isnt x or y. And if that fails slap a bubble somewhere on the image to show another angle for confirmation of gender, if an artists original goal was to have a certain pose or what have you that would lead to situations like the one above.

valgorn said:
Gotcha gotcha, suppose if any pictures like this come up again the artist would just have to draw the character to be even more feminine looking to get the point across. Otherwise it can just be a back n forth on what one person sees vs. another on each others own standards of what is and isnt x or y. And if that fails slap a bubble somewhere on the image to show another angle for confirmation of gender, if an artists original goal was to have a certain pose or what have you that would lead to situations like the one above.

Some characters have different gender versions that exist so simply having the character simply look feminine wouldn't count, it would need to actually display the sexual characteristics otherwise it would just fall under the girly tag. In such cases the bubble for the angle to display would work(except in the case of some feral gynomorphs).

I believe there is also a "insert sex"_(lore) tag which can be used for when other sources specify the sex in an image, however in the case of intersex you have to specify herm, maleherm, gynomorph, or andromorph.

nyahmyah said:
Some characters have different gender versions that exist so simply having the character simply look feminine wouldn't count, it would need to actually display the sexual characteristics otherwise it would just fall under the girly tag. In such cases the bubble for the angle to display would work(except in the case of some feral gynomorphs).

I believe there is also a "insert sex"_(lore) tag which can be used for when other sources specify the sex in an image, however in the case of intersex you have to specify herm, maleherm, gynomorph, or andromorph.

Ill have to keep all this in mind if I ever end up pulling the trigger and getting into getting artwork n such. Thanks for going into detail and explaining things, hopefully ill be able to get it all down for that distance chance of wanting to get art and upload it here n such :P . In unrelated bits, is there a spot where it would show replies to comments on here? I never seem to find yours and just have to keep checking this image everyday or so which seems a little odd if you post comments on multiple images and happen to forget how to get to them X3

Wall of text regarding the rules aside, I really enjoy that this dragon has installed a dedicated fuck pole across this section of his cavern for mounting people more comfortably.

nyahmyah said:
Doesn't matter as per the site rules:

Most artists and character owners are used to using websites where they can build their own personal collection of artwork and have direct control over it. This allows them, to an extent, to have control over how the artwork is presented and what additional information should accompany the artwork, if any. They often use the site's own tagging/keyword system to relay that additional information. For example, if a picture contains a fully clothed character that appears to be female, the artist may add "herm" as a tag on the post to clue people in that the character is actually a herm instead of a female. On those sites, this is fine; if the artist wants to draw things in a way that they look like something else, that's entirely their own creative decision to do so.

However, this is NOT the intended purpose of tags on e621.net.

E621's tagging system is intended to relay virtually NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION or context about an image. Therefore, for every post on the site, it can be assumed that e621's tagging system is actually saying "this post appears to contain X" rather than "this post definitely contains X".

The very fact that e621's policy is "Tag What You See" INTRINSICALLY means that all tags on a post are only claims as to what's visible in an image, not what "actually is" in an image. Claiming what "actually is" in an image is often far more subjective than just saying what an image appears to contain, so we use the less-subjective method of TWYS.

This is quoted from the TWYS page

TWYS is moronic because there aren't obvious contextual limitations and it's all based on human perspected biases. Breastless females are apparently argued to be cuntboys to some to fuel people's fetishes like how they argued over charr where we needed a specific tag for female in "lore." It's the dumbest shit - what normal browser of this site is going to ever use those tags aside from the 1% who fervently gets off more on the rules than the actual imagery despite this being for all intents and purposes, a porn site?

Man this shit is annoying and stupid as hell. Have some nuance.