It's funny how far artists can stretch the "it's really a guy!" thing. It seems like no matter how narrow the waist or how wide the thigh gap, nothing short of female genitalia will convince us to tag this character as a girl.
It's funny how far artists can stretch the "it's really a guy!" thing. It seems like no matter how narrow the waist or how wide the thigh gap, nothing short of female genitalia will convince us to tag this character as a girl.
Well... the character IS male. Being a damn good trap is Astolfo's main charm point.
Canonically male, but indistinguishable, appearance-wise, from a female. The point is, we're supposed to tag based on what we see rather than outside knowledge. We generally make an exception to this rule when what we know about a character's sex conflicts with how they're drawn, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. In this case, we're confronted with a character with a build more feminine than most women, yet we still tag 1boy and male_focus just because the naughty bits aren't showing. It seems a bit silly to stubbornly cling to canonical gender when all the evidence in the image points so strongly in the other direction.
Canonically male, but indistinguishable, appearance-wise, from a female. The point is, we're supposed to tag based on what we see rather than outside knowledge. We generally make an exception to this rule when what we know about a character's sex conflicts with how they're drawn, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. In this case, we're confronted with a character with a build more feminine than most women, yet we still tag 1boy and male_focus just because the naughty bits aren't showing. It seems a bit silly to stubbornly cling to canonical gender when all the evidence in the image points so strongly in the other direction.
The "Tag what you see" rule is inherently flawed and there are tags that auto break said rule in the first place. Tags like spoiler or trap rely on canon info in the first place.
The point of tagging is so other people can also easily find said pictures in searches. based on what their criteria is. Remember the huge argument about Magica_Madoka? Back when Homura was revealed with glasses, people argued on whether or not to tag the spoiler tag or canon tag on Homura cause they wanted to avoid spoilers.
Bridget and Jun from Guilty Gear or Happiness also are high on the Trap scale.
The "Tag what you see" rule is inherently flawed and there are tags that auto break said rule in the first place. Tags like spoiler or trap rely on canon info in the first place.
I'm not debating this point. As I already stated, there are exceptions to the rule. The question is how far we're willing to go to make those exceptions.
The point of tagging is so other people can also easily find said pictures in searches. based on what their criteria is.
Because if someone is searching for male focus, then this is exactly what they want to find, right? /sarcasm
The whole thing about otoko no ko is that the characters are feminine males. The character in the image above is not male. Everything about her proportions unambiguously screams "female". This is a case of an artist taking the lazy route and drawing a character as a girl while saying she's a guy, yet we buy it anyway because Word of God trumps everything. If they drew an orange and said it was an apple, would you expect us to tag it as an apple?
Let me clarify by adding that I have no problem with the above tags when visual evidence at least allows for the possibility that the tags might be correct. There are numerous examples of artists getting it right (post #2759368, post #2767490, and post #2775686, for starters) and drawing this character ambiguously enough to look like he might really be a biological male convincingly passing as female. That is simply not the case here.
Good Traps in real life do exist you know. post #1169805
You must also really hate characters like Jun or Hideyoshi then since even in their official art, they are drawn normally like this. post #90944 post #579634
I think you're misunderstanding how we really apply "tag what you see". The above is not an "exception", it's the fact that "word of god" takes precedence over "what you see" when what you see doesn't actually give you 100% confirmation of something. In this case the image doesn't actually give you 100% confirmation of the character's sex because you can not actually see their genitals. You're assuming based on secondary sex characteristics the character's sex (which are also mostly concealed), but as there is room for doubt (however slim that truly is) then that means that "word of god" takes priority.
Good Traps in real life do exist you know. post #1169805
You must also really hate characters like Jun or Hideyoshi then since even in their official art, they are drawn normally like this. post #90944 post #579634
How is any of that relevant? None of those images address the point I was making.
If you can find a case of real "traps" with proportions resembling the post above, by all means link to it and I'll be happy to keep up this debate. Otherwise you're wasting my time.
NWF_Renim said:
I think you're misunderstanding how we really apply "tag what you see". The above is not an "exception", it's the fact that "word of god" takes precedence over "what you see" when what you see doesn't actually give you 100% confirmation of something. In this case the image doesn't actually give you 100% confirmation of the character's gender because you can not actually see their genitals. You're assuming based on secondary sex characteristics the character's sex (which are also mostly concealed), but as there is room for doubt (however slim that truly is) then that means that "word of god" takes priority.
I understand the policy just fine. I just don't happen to think there is any room for doubt in this case. There is no possible way a biological male can have a figure like the character in this post. That's as good as 100% confirmation for me. If that isn't enough to convince you this character is a girl, then I don't see how visible genitals would make a difference either; even if she had a vulva showing you could simply say she's a cuntboy. Disregarding secondary sex characteristics altogether makes no sense when they all point toward the same conclusion.
Meh... I agree with iridescent slime that the artist did a piss-poor job off drawing a boy dressed as a girl, however for the sake of tagging consistency in my opinion a character known as a particular gender should be tagged as such unless primary sexual characteristics are visible or visibly pronounced.
