Okay so here's my conundrum, I had posted the following art and was planning to post more from the same artist
post #1068
However I noticed that the human character was the same throughout the artworks.
I assumed this was a character from the Pokemon anime (I do not watch it), and so looked into it and was correct,
however in doing so discovered that this character's Meowscarada was canonically female.
So I have refrained from posting the rest of the art until there i can get a consensus on this.
The issue comes down to this,
I cannot tell that an on-model Pokemon (that has no gender differences) is male or female in an image where genitalia is not present, based on said image alone.

My question is:
Do we disallow art like this where the monster is canonically female, but otherwise appears with ambiguous gender in the specific artwork?

How do we define a monster as male in safe for work contexts if it is not obvious?

As for my personal opinion I don't think art like this should be disallowed, although maybe something like a tag denoting lore inaccuracy may be necessary,
but I personally don't want to do this sort of research for every time this sort of thing appears in artwork
however I can also admit I am definitely biased, as someone who is primarily interested in female human x male Meowscarada art, of which there is a considerable lack of

what are your thoughts?

This has been on my mind as well.
I would actually prefer e621's philosophy of seeing everything ambiguous as ambiguous, regardless of what the tags or descriptions say but we don't do that here, so here's my thoughts and decisions.

post #337

When it comes to games, then I don't think people bother opening up Bulbapedia to check if [insert gym leader]'s monster is a boy or a girl.
Many times, they just draw what sex they want, or a monster without thinking about their sex at all.
I don't think we should disallow these submissions because we would have to ask the artist every single time if the depicted Pokemon is male. That is just not feasible.
Sometimes, artists even ignore the canon. Just look at all the male Garchomp art with Cynthia.

Random example: Not being able to upload Swanna x Skyla art, even though its not tagged as yuri, just seems dumb to me.

Now for the anime..
I didn't see the new anime either, so I can't say how "known" it is that the Pokemon is female.
I just looked up a random comment section on Youtube, and people call it a she, so maybe for Meowscarada, it's just very known..
Does it make sense to see it differently for Pokemon that have a main role in the show vs. Pokemon that have a minor role, or are just part of the games?
I mean, I went through my life thinking Pikachu was a girl because of the female voice actor.. Tail differences did not exist.

I would say we could just allow it as long as the sex is kept ambiguous. That means no obvious signs it could be a girl in the artist's image like long eyelashes or girl clothes.
I approved the image because the Pokemon has no eyelashes and the picture isn't said to be yuri by the artist. It just says "Masuriko," so "Liko x Meowscarada".
When it comes to Pokemon or Digimon with a main role in the anime, then I'm okay with both either keeping these or banning them.

Basically

We could just do e621's approach of seeing them as ambiguous/allowing them and just reject the ones that are visibly too female, or said to be female by the artist.
At least, that's how I've been handling this. Right now, I will simply continue approving these images with those rules.

I agree that we should just have a tag for this, like anime_lore_female or such..