@waydence.bsky.social
There's a timeline of investigation on artist page: e621.net/artists/108844 which I don't find particularly convincing. But lack of any attempt to disprove the allegation is kind of suspicious.
March 25, 2026 at 4:22 PM
There's a timeline of investigation on artist page: e621.net/artists/108844 which I don't find particularly convincing. But lack of any attempt to disprove the allegation is kind of suspicious.
So like
Are you interested or not
Are you interested or not
February 14, 2026 at 11:19 PM
So like
Are you interested or not
Are you interested or not
That is indeed what happened, probably because you didn't understand how site works, or how tags are supposed to be used. I wouldn't mind explaining that, if you're interested of course.
February 14, 2026 at 10:33 PM
That is indeed what happened, probably because you didn't understand how site works, or how tags are supposed to be used. I wouldn't mind explaining that, if you're interested of course.
According to edit history, you put "female" there. "They" only removed gynomorph (character with penis and breasts), intersex (character with mixed sex characteristics) and intersex/female (romantic interaction between female and intersex characters), all of which were inappropriate for this post
February 14, 2026 at 3:28 PM
According to edit history, you put "female" there. "They" only removed gynomorph (character with penis and breasts), intersex (character with mixed sex characteristics) and intersex/female (romantic interaction between female and intersex characters), all of which were inappropriate for this post
If you think that your discomfort is more important than discomfort of other people, you should make an argument as to why it's the case. This is something that's not inherently obvious to everyone.
February 14, 2026 at 2:51 PM
If you think that your discomfort is more important than discomfort of other people, you should make an argument as to why it's the case. This is something that's not inherently obvious to everyone.
e6 gender tags work because they describe character's appearance as a whole. Bodypart tags are not reliable because they can be spread over multiple characters.
Comprehensive tagging is not something that's enforced. The minimum amount of tags is 10.
Comprehensive tagging is not something that's enforced. The minimum amount of tags is 10.
February 14, 2026 at 2:51 PM
e6 gender tags work because they describe character's appearance as a whole. Bodypart tags are not reliable because they can be spread over multiple characters.
Comprehensive tagging is not something that's enforced. The minimum amount of tags is 10.
Comprehensive tagging is not something that's enforced. The minimum amount of tags is 10.
This only works when there's only one character per picture. When there's more, you get a ton of irrelevant results. There are 100s of thousands of posts that don't have anatomy tagged, so you'll get some results you didn't want, and skip some results that you wanted.
February 12, 2026 at 12:35 PM
This only works when there's only one character per picture. When there's more, you get a ton of irrelevant results. There are 100s of thousands of posts that don't have anatomy tagged, so you'll get some results you didn't want, and skip some results that you wanted.
*Gender tags on e621 describe the anatomical matchup of a character (genitalia, presence/absence of breasts), with fallback to gender presentation if those aren't visible. OP makes no argument for why this approach to gender should be removed.
February 12, 2026 at 9:40 AM
*Gender tags on e621 describe the anatomical matchup of a character (genitalia, presence/absence of breasts), with fallback to gender presentation if those aren't visible. OP makes no argument for why this approach to gender should be removed.
Male ≠ man. Anyway.
Having a way to find/avoid characters with certain physical traits is also a problem that matters to a lot of people, one solved by gender* tags. This is at odds with OP's problem, and they made made no case for why their interests should be prioritised over everyone else's.
Having a way to find/avoid characters with certain physical traits is also a problem that matters to a lot of people, one solved by gender* tags. This is at odds with OP's problem, and they made made no case for why their interests should be prioritised over everyone else's.
February 12, 2026 at 9:40 AM
Male ≠ man. Anyway.
Having a way to find/avoid characters with certain physical traits is also a problem that matters to a lot of people, one solved by gender* tags. This is at odds with OP's problem, and they made made no case for why their interests should be prioritised over everyone else's.
Having a way to find/avoid characters with certain physical traits is also a problem that matters to a lot of people, one solved by gender* tags. This is at odds with OP's problem, and they made made no case for why their interests should be prioritised over everyone else's.
Ok, give an example
February 12, 2026 at 9:08 AM
Ok, give an example
They never were called a man. Where did you get that idea?
February 12, 2026 at 3:29 AM
They never were called a man. Where did you get that idea?
OP is ignoring that gender is a complex concept with multiple ways to approach it. e621 accommodates two major ones relevant to the site (identity and appearance). OP is demanding to drop support for second one, which is not very nice, because a lot of people care about it.
February 12, 2026 at 2:37 AM
OP is ignoring that gender is a complex concept with multiple ways to approach it. e621 accommodates two major ones relevant to the site (identity and appearance). OP is demanding to drop support for second one, which is not very nice, because a lot of people care about it.
On e621, gender tags describe the anatomical matchup of a character (genitalia, presence/absence of breasts), with a fallback to gender presentation if those aren't visible.
Anatomy interaction tags can't fill that role.
Anatomy interaction tags can't fill that role.
February 12, 2026 at 1:31 AM
On e621, gender tags describe the anatomical matchup of a character (genitalia, presence/absence of breasts), with a fallback to gender presentation if those aren't visible.
Anatomy interaction tags can't fill that role.
Anatomy interaction tags can't fill that role.
It is a problem, and gender tags solve it.
February 12, 2026 at 1:00 AM
It is a problem, and gender tags solve it.
It only works for solo pictures. If there's more than one character, penis/breasts usually belong to separate characters.
February 12, 2026 at 12:15 AM
It only works for solo pictures. If there's more than one character, penis/breasts usually belong to separate characters.
This doesn't work when picture features more than one character
February 12, 2026 at 12:07 AM
This doesn't work when picture features more than one character
If you actually tried doing that, you would've quickly found that it breaks when there's more than 1 character in the picture, with penis and breasts usually belonging to separate characters.
February 11, 2026 at 11:58 PM
If you actually tried doing that, you would've quickly found that it breaks when there's more than 1 character in the picture, with penis and breasts usually belonging to separate characters.
trans_female is ambiguous + will misgender any character who doesn't identify as such
feminine_body does not cover the full definition of "gynomorph"
altersex and related terms describe states of mind, not body, and don't have anything matching the definition either
feminine_body does not cover the full definition of "gynomorph"
altersex and related terms describe states of mind, not body, and don't have anything matching the definition either
January 19, 2026 at 9:42 AM
trans_female is ambiguous + will misgender any character who doesn't identify as such
feminine_body does not cover the full definition of "gynomorph"
altersex and related terms describe states of mind, not body, and don't have anything matching the definition either
feminine_body does not cover the full definition of "gynomorph"
altersex and related terms describe states of mind, not body, and don't have anything matching the definition either
I don't necessarily disagree that _(lore) suffix might be unnecessary. But I don't think it's reasonable to ascribe malice to it.
I think it's there to make it clear that tags of that category are applied based on author's word, not on speculation or headcannon. Or appearance, like general tags.
I think it's there to make it clear that tags of that category are applied based on author's word, not on speculation or headcannon. Or appearance, like general tags.
January 19, 2026 at 9:42 AM
I don't necessarily disagree that _(lore) suffix might be unnecessary. But I don't think it's reasonable to ascribe malice to it.
I think it's there to make it clear that tags of that category are applied based on author's word, not on speculation or headcannon. Or appearance, like general tags.
I think it's there to make it clear that tags of that category are applied based on author's word, not on speculation or headcannon. Or appearance, like general tags.
Not sure where you got that trans tags are not allowed, they've been implemented ~5y ago.
I'm guessing your character is in e621.net/posts/5704560? If so, the term was applied accurately to site's definition.
But ok, you don't like it. How then would describe a character with breasts and penis?
I'm guessing your character is in e621.net/posts/5704560? If so, the term was applied accurately to site's definition.
But ok, you don't like it. How then would describe a character with breasts and penis?
January 18, 2026 at 8:11 PM
Not sure where you got that trans tags are not allowed, they've been implemented ~5y ago.
I'm guessing your character is in e621.net/posts/5704560? If so, the term was applied accurately to site's definition.
But ok, you don't like it. How then would describe a character with breasts and penis?
I'm guessing your character is in e621.net/posts/5704560? If so, the term was applied accurately to site's definition.
But ok, you don't like it. How then would describe a character with breasts and penis?
I agree, repurposing of real biological terms was quite suboptimal. Unfortunately, no one came up with anything better, and demand to search characters by appearance/anatomy (regardless of what their gender identity is) didn't disappear, so that's what we're stuck with.
January 18, 2026 at 8:11 PM
I agree, repurposing of real biological terms was quite suboptimal. Unfortunately, no one came up with anything better, and demand to search characters by appearance/anatomy (regardless of what their gender identity is) didn't disappear, so that's what we're stuck with.
I'm curious, why do you resent that tag, exactly?
January 18, 2026 at 4:11 PM
I'm curious, why do you resent that tag, exactly?