It doesn't matter how long I look at post #110513, I cannot agree that it's the male anatomy what I'm seeing. Especially looking at Light's hypnotizing and perfectly round... DAT ASS (duh) and his (her?) hips. The case with L's anatomy is similar.
Drawing conclusions from this I suggest: + genderswap - crossdressing - yaoi + 2girls + yuri The last two (2girls and yuri) may seem a little overboard, but we already have such precedents, for example in post #478088
In fact I wanted to apply those changes outright by myself, but seeing tag history and the tag lock cooled my head a liitle. And this leads to another, maybe most important question - am I beating a dead horse here by chance?
Umm, it's ok to make this argument, and I can see where you are coming from (trying to figure out genderswap/crossdressing/traps in anime art can be impossible).
This isn't the place to make your point though. It should have gone in the post's comments.
Regardless of "dat ass," without proof of presence of breasts, proof of no penis, and/or proof that the artist labeled it genderswap you can't make the claim it's an actual genderswap. It's not all that uncommon for artists to draw male/trap characters with such feminine forms that were it not for the artist saying it's male, everyone would label it female.
This isn't the place to make your point though. It should have gone in the post's comments.
You're probably right, but I really wasn't sure if there was already some kind of consensus achieved in this matter (on the forum)
NWF_Renim said: Regardless of "dat ass," without proof of presence of breasts, proof of no penis, and/or proof that the artist labeled it genderswap you can't make the claim it's an actual genderswap.
Sorry, but that's simply not true, because genderswap is not an another (final?) stage of crossdressing as you suggest. They are different matters and both are mutually exclusive. And if we use your method to distinguish them, then unless the character in doubt is naked with obligatory breasts (how big?) and perfectly shaped vagina you'd still say "sorry, but it's only crossdress". Which is absurd. The algorithm we should use is: 1. check if artist explicitly states his/her intentions. If not then 2. check if crossdress or genderswap with this character occurs in original series. If not then 3. check character's anatomy. Of course genitals are most important one, but if they are not visible or we cannot be sure of them, other parts of body do count. And its 50/50, equal chances for both of possibilities at the begining, not "ha! I can't see his/her groin, then it must be a trap"
To sum things up: while I admit there may exist posts when distinguish crossdress with genderswap will still be close to impossible, in case of post #110513 the situation is very clear for me. We have female hips, female butt, female legs, even faces looks feminized. On the other hand, I cannot find any part of their bodies which would be undoubetly (or even close to) male ones. And it's true, there is no genitals neither breasts visible, but that's no valid argument for both cases.
Honestly, in a case like this, where it's genuinely ambiguous between two tags and the image can be validly viewed as either, I would suggest just tagging with both. Chances are the image is going to be of interest to anyone searching on either one.
I'm in favour of tagging such cases as both. This is the same reason I oppose notions such as "traps don't get flat_chest". I honestly don't care if in the backstory they're 500 years old robot descendants of the Elder Ones from the future, if they look like flat-chested girls, they are flat-chested girls for the purpose of tagging.
่ๆ, that's exactly what I'm saying: if they look like a women they should be tagged as such. (Un)fortunatelly, in case of genderswap and crossdress you still have to accept these two points when you're overruled: by artist saying "oh, this only my (stupid) style" (point 1) or by plot from original work (point 2). That's because both genderswap and crossdress refer to original work by their definition.
And I'd refrain from taking it too easy and tagging both, when only slightest kind of ambiguity arises. In case of this picture, the only ambiguity comes from the fact that Death Note is widely known title and both charas are imprinted in viewers' minds as males. Bah, not only typical males, but alpha males with lots of GAR, thus very strongly imprinted and that's why it's only natural to react first by saying "hey, it's Light and L in drag" But, if you show this picture to other unsuspecting anything people, who don't know anything about Death Note, neither their main characters I can guarantee you that most of them would say they see two women. Not two men who are wearing female lingerie or clothes, but two women.
That could in part be because most of us are not conditioned that men would even want to wear a dress, much less look feminine. The average person would assume the status quo unless told otherwise. This is proven to a degree with games like Metroid.
I think in these things ambiguity is often the point. They are called traps for a reason. In some cases, the artist may or may not have even explicitly chosen the gender they meant to convey. When they do, they'll often be the opposite of what you end up deciding.
Unless stated intent, context, or precedent gives one something to go on, or the gender is otherwise somehow obvious, I usually refrain from classifying these androgynous and ambiguous cases. Not to say they shouldn't be classified somehow, but I'm at a loss for how to do it.
I've always felt that unless the gender (or cd/trap/gs status) is stated by the artist, it's based purely on appearance. As I understand it, the idea is to tag what you see, and as has been stated stated men and women look different in more ways than just their genitals. It seems practical to me, then, to use those differences to make a decision. Borderline cases are something I think the androgynous tag covers well. For the record, I'm not against using multiple sets of tags in cases where the result is ambiguous. I just don't think we should use them is cases where a single set of tags would be properly descriptive just because the image seems to be a genderswap but depicts gender through physical characteristics that are not breasts or genitalia (such as shoulder-to-hip ratio). I personally don't think gender is ambiguous in such cases. The artist's intent might be, but that's another story.
I recognize there are cases in anime/manga where an artist will, for example, draw a character looking like a woman and say it's a guy for whatever reason, but that tends to be the exception rather than the rule. We'll drive ourselves crazy trying to create a system that accurately divines or accommodates for an artist's intent when it hasn't been stated.
Suiseiseki, I don't know anything about Metroid, but yup, that's probably the case.
Eld said: I recognize there are cases in anime/manga where an artist will, for example, draw a character looking like a woman and say it's a guy for whatever reason, but that tends to be the exception rather than the rule.
Agreed here. ...even though, right off the bat I can think about miyanokouji_mizuho example. In anime and game: trap, but what we often see is close to perfect genderswap. Even on original artworks.
We'll drive ourselves crazy trying to create a system that accurately divines or accommodates for an artist's intent when it hasn't been stated.
No, why? Artist's intentions usually are known at once or never. I'd be more afraid of the endless discussions, when somehow artist's intention contradicts with what we see on screen.
Shinjidude said: I think in these things ambiguity is often the point. They are called traps for a reason.
Except not all of them can be called traps :) Hm, maybe all those cross-gender definitions are not so obvious as I thought. Please excuse me then if I become captain obvious for a while and summarize them below: (for sake of simplicity I write about most common case, i.e. man->woman) genderswap - character is (as much as we can tell) anatomic woman. crossdress - character is wearing female clothes, except either his anatomy or his behaviour reveals us that he's a man. trap - character's anatomy looks very (if not perfectly) feminine, except... a crucial detail. And it doesn't have to be clearly visible penis, it may be unreasonable big bulge in pants, manly hands, adam's apple etc.
In all above cases the character in original anime/manga was a man (at least in part of it). The only exception is when it's an original character and it's case of "obvious" crossdressing. In all above cases I suggest - for sanity sake - at least strongly take into consideration artist's intentions and anime/manga plot. Genderswap and crossdress are mutually exclusive. Genderswap and trap are mutually exclusive. Trap usually implicates crossdress, but not always. For example trap may wear gender neutral clothes or none whatsoever, thus no crossdressing. Crossdress may implicate trap, but not always. If he somehow clearly (duh) reveals that he's a man, then of course he isn't a trap.
richie said: No, why? Artist's intentions usually are known at once or never. I'd be more afraid of the endless discussions, when somehow artist's intention contradicts with what we see on screen. ...
In all above cases I suggest - for sanity sake - at least strongly take into consideration artist's intentions and anime/manga plot.
...
I was essentially referring to those "never" situations. To clarify, I mean illustrations where the artist hasn't commented specifically his or herself and not of a character that would give insight into the matter (such as miyanokouji_mizuho or watarase_jun). In those circumstances, I think we should tag the image based on the gender the character(s) seem to be.
I suppose what I suggest is pretty much a hierarchy of information. What artist has explicitly said of image > What image explicitly shows > What we know of character/image from other sources > what the image seems to depict.
Oh, and since we're on the subject, looking up miyanokouji_mizuho brought me to post #426585. While I'm not very familiar with the property, I'm guessing that image qualifies as a genderswap.
Just a comment on "unless the artist overrides": no. We've been consistently stating that tagging is meant to be visual and everything contained in the backstory is at best secondary for tagging, if reflected at all. Which means traps should be treated as the target gender (unless there's clear visual indication they're indeed traps) when tagging.
่ๆ said: We've been consistently stating that tagging is meant to be visual and everything contained in the backstory is at best secondary for tagging, if reflected at all.
This rule is widely ignored with traps. Many posts are tagged trap simply because the character is canonically a trap, or otherwise known to be male, despite there being no indication in the image itself that the character is not really female.
I was essentially referring to those "never" situations. To clarify, I mean illustrations where the artist hasn't commented specifically his or herself and not of a character that would give insight into the matter (such as miyanokouji_mizuho or watarase_jun). In those circumstances, I think we should tag the image based on the gender the character(s) seem to be.
Hmm.. not quite. Their appearances in original anime are very important too. I'd say when you're about to distinguish gs from traps it's like that: - when there is no artist/anime crossgender reference you proceed by relying on what you can see - when there are artist/anime crossgender references then you take them as starting point, and they are valid unless picture can clearly negate them.
As for post #426585, I know miyanokouji_mizuho is a trap in both anime and game, and I strongly suspect it's just another picture from otoboku game CG set (others: post #354378post #251239). Still, I haven't personally played this game, and I can't be 100% sure if he was trap all the time, even worse we have censorship here and I really don't know if this one isn't simply shopped. So I guess I'd just refrain from tagging it this time as it seems controversial for me, though slightly inclining towards gs (because even with mosaic it's hard to imagine penis out there...)
่ๆ said: And that is not a good thing.
It's not only good thing, it's something called common sense, because *ding dong* suprise suprise: all cross-gendering tags are secondary ones because they do (more or less) strictly rely on what's happened with the character in orignal work and/or what original artist wanted to do with them. Just how do you expect to tag genderswaps, when what you see onscreen is perfect healthy woman and you don't know that in anime she was a man? The answer is - you can't. The same goes with traps. I was writing before about some crucial details of their anatomy, but the truth is the vast majority of traps we know about, are traps only because we know they were traps in original anime/manga/game. The point is, if we don't know original work then we often have no slightest reasons to tag it as any crossgender whatsoever - and that's perfectly fine, just don't interfere and allow to do it those who - in this case - know it better than you.
่ๆ said: Just a comment on "unless the artist overrides": no. We've been consistently stating that tagging is meant to be visual and everything contained in the backstory is at best secondary for tagging, if reflected at all. Which means traps should be treated as the target gender (unless there's clear visual indication they're indeed traps) when tagging.
Okay, the order was originally only three sources long, but then I thought of an exception and I played with it without thinking it through, and looking back I screwed it up. It should have been, generally: We go by what the image explicitly shows first and in uncertain cases go to what the artist said and what we know of the series. If I understand correctly you're saying the current rules run contrary to this, and that's fine. I'll abide by them, but permit me a bit of an... I don't know, epistemological inquiry?
In many cases, the extra-picture information (xpi) actually makes the picture. It sounds bizarre, I know, but in many cases, xpi is necessary to understand the picture. This is something we all accept, but rarely think about since it usually requires xpi that's taken for granted. As Richie mentioned, a genderswap isn't a genderswap unless the character was originally of the opposite gender, which requires xpi to know. This isn't just done for genderswaps either. If you have a picture of Aeris_Gainsborough, Tifa_Lockheart, and a girl that looks a lot like Kuchiki_Rukia, you might think it was Rukia if you were unfamiliar with FFVII (And wonder who the other two were), but I don't think we'd ever advocate tagging her as Rukia unless it were somehow clear it was a crossover. Similarly, when I first saw post #565488, I honestly thought it was a picture of Mia_Fey. It wasn't, though, but I would have never been able to tell that from the image itself. Knowing that it isn't, though, I wouldn't want it tagged that way even if would probably have never known otherwise. I think, then, the argument is how much a role the meta-information should play and when rather than whether it should play a role at all.
