I'm not suggesting it because the wiki seems to be well written so I assume the intentions are also well fitting for it to be like this.

But it's bothering me a little bit, I'd like to know how you guys go about tagging penises from well-known characters that aren't male. My issue is that I just wanted to tag it, but the automatically added "male" deterred me, and it's just weird to me, especially when the fully pictured character isn't male either. TWYS and everything right, so "male" really wouldn't make sense at all, or something, idk.

So I just didn't tag it, I could've tagged "red_penis" and maybe the character tag, but let's pretend it could be a floating dildo or something, yeah, how about that.

It's tagged as male because there is a male character in the image (by TWYS, it would be impossible to tell if the character was a herm or gynomorph from just their penis) and anything that's in an image is tagged, no matter how inconsequential it is to the main piece.

post #3046086
With one female character and four disembodied penises, that's a total of five characters. It's tagged with male, female, group/group_sex, male/female, etc.

But some people will point out that the focus is all really on the female character: that's why it's also tagged with female_focus and solo_focus.

if you can't see the character's body or face a penis is always going to be male, since it's impossible to know if a post is crossgender or if it is crossgender it's impossible to know if it's ftm_crossgender or ftg_crossgender. so, that is to say "tag what you see, not what you know"...

however, this tag being implied to male, does have some fairly rare problems, spesifically in comic pages where a character's whole body is visible in one panel and just their penis in another, or in disembodied_penis posts where there is also a where there's a cut-in of the character's face.

EDIT: example: post #1331018

I also have always found it goofy that we assume the owner of a disembodied penis is male.

Doesn't the ambiguous_gender tag exist precisely for situations in which we don't know the gender of a character -- like the owner of a disembodied penis?

From the wiki page for ambiguous_gender:

Used when the gender of a character in the image is not apparent from the image

The gender of a character is not apparent from a disembodied penis alone.

monroethelizard said:
I also have always found it goofy that we assume the owner of a disembodied penis is male.

Doesn't the ambiguous_gender tag exist precisely for situations in which we don't know the gender of a character -- like the owner of a disembodied penis?

From the wiki page for ambiguous_gender:
The gender of a character is not apparent from a disembodied penis alone.

if a character has a penis they have to be either male, gynomorph, herm, or maleherm. male is the default, without any other primary or secondary sexual features visible that's what has to be tagged.

I don't know what ambiguous_gender has to do with anything since that can only be tagged on characters with no genitals and no distinct secondary sexual features.

darryus said:
...
I don't know what ambiguous_gender has to do with anything...

My argument is that the gender of a penis-owner is not apparent from the penis alone. It doesn't have to be over-complicated, because I think the idea is quite intuitive for most people: a penis alone does not tell you the sex/gender of the penis's owner. Multiple genders could potentially be the owner of that penis. That's the intuitive argument. But just in case it is not intuitive, I'll lay the point out in more detail, below:

Key
y     = Explicitly present
n/non = Explicitly absent
mas   = Obviously masculine
fem   = Obviously feminine
bot   = Both masculine and feminine
u/unk = Unknown, obscured or ambiguous
 
Genitals?
          ├ mas ─ Breasts? ┬ y ─ [gynomorph]
                           ├ n ─ [male]
                           └ u ─ Body type? ┬ mas ─ [male]
                                            ├ fem ─ [gynomorph]
                                            └ unk ─ [male]

Genitals?
          ├ mas ─ Breasts? ┬ y ─ [gynomorph]
                           ├ n ─ [male]
                           └ u ─ Body type? ┬ mas ─ [male]
                                            ├ fem ─ [gynomorph]
                                            └ unk ─ [ambiguous_gender]

I hope that, even if you disagree with me, this makes it clearer what I am arguing for, and what ambiguous_gender has to do with anything.

EDIT:
Final thought: I'll just refer again to the definition of the ambiguous_gender tag on its wiki page:

Used when the gender of a character in the image is not apparent from the image

Most people, I suspect, feel that the presence of a disembodied penis does not make the gender of the penis-owner apparent on its own.

monroethelizard said:
*snip*

nah, that's stupid. that'd completely fuck the all of the gender tagging standards for literally no reason.

I cannot see a single bit of utility from tagging a character with a penis posts as ambiguous_gender ever. in fact, there's actually negative utility since finding posts with actual ambiguous chatcters would be more difficult.

Wonder is there any examples for penises shows up from well-known characters but they aren't male? 🤔️

watchdog22 said:
Wonder is there any examples for penises shows up from well-known characters but they aren't male? 🤔️

If a character is known to be male but the male tag can't be applied to an image due to twys, please tag male_(lore) :)

cloudpie said:
If a character is known to be male but the male tag can't be applied to an image due to twys, please tag male_(lore) :)

Your reply is unrelated to my question, as OP said the penis is shown individually so disembodied_penis applied, and he insisted 1) people can tell the character by penis 2) it's a famous character and he is not male.

I was asking is there any example for that

watchdog22 said:
Your reply is unrelated to my question, as OP said the penis is shown individually so disembodied_penis applied, and he insisted 1) people can tell the character by penis 2) it's a famous character and he is not male.

We use Tag What You See, a character's canonical sex doesn't factor into it. A character that has penis without breasts or a pussy is tagged male. So a character that you can only see a penis, as is typically the case for disembodied_penis, is tagged male.

However, Darryus brought up a relevant counter-example where an implication can't work: post #1331018. There is a disembodied_penis, but there's also a cutaway of the character showing they have breasts, making it gynomorph by TWYS and not male.

watchdog22 said:
Wonder is there any examples for penises shows up from well-known characters but they aren't male? 🤔️

uhh... ftm_crossgender disembodied_penis? I mean, pretty much any series with a lot of female characters is going to have a lot of posts on here that show canonically female characters with a penis.

My main "issue" is that a mere penis doesn't really count as a character? Throw the thing with known characters out, does "male" mean just penis, or a character with just a penis?

I get arguing how much of a character has to be present to count as one opens a can of worms, but let's be real, would you think of these as "male"? It's just balls.

gusta_cz said:
My main "issue" is that a mere penis doesn't really count as a character?

It does:

disembodied_penis wiki says:

• Disembodied parts count as characters, so in most cases this should not be combined with solo.

A disembodied penis penetrating another character is sex, and sex can never be solo.

sipothac said:
uhh... ftm_crossgender disembodied_penis? I mean, pretty much any series with a lot of female characters is going to have a lot of posts on here that show canonically female characters with a penis.

ftg_crossgender, she has breasts in that image

monroethelizard said:
[Discussion of an argument for why disembodied_penis should imply ambiguous_gender instead of male]

The less extreme position, which I think is probably even more sensible, is that disembodied_penis shouldn't imply any gender tag whatsoever.

The only compelling argument I've seen for keeping the implication is:

watsit said:

[disembodied_penis] wiki says:

• Disembodied parts count as characters, so in most cases this should not be combined with solo.

A disembodied penis penetrating another character is sex, and sex can never be solo.

(I recognise that the quote from Watsit is in a slightly different context, but I see people taking this same exact reasoning as an argument to keep the disembodied_penis -> male implication.)

I think that this argument is erroneously combining a few different issues. A picture with a disembodied penis penetrating a female character can and should be tagged duo (or more) and sex as well, but it is up for discussion whether it should be tagged male/female if it's not obvious that the penis belongs to a male. These are separate issues.

Most compellingly, none of us see a male when we see a disembodied penis. Images like
post #1331018
do not depict a male, yet they are tagged as male due to this implication.

It's only for the convenience of tagging -- not in accordance with TWYS -- that these images are currently tagged as male in automatic fashion. If we are tagging what we see, we don't automatically see a male when see a disembodied_penis. So male should be unimplied from disembodied_penis.

monroethelizard said:
I think that this argument is erroneously combining a few different issues. A picture with a disembodied penis penetrating a female character can and should be tagged duo (or more) and sex as well, but it is up for discussion whether it should be tagged male/female if it's not obvious that the penis belongs to a male. These are separate issues.

They're related issues in this case. Howto: tag genders lays out the rules: a character with a visible penis and no visible breasts or pussy is male for tagging purposes. A disembodied penis is considered a character. Ergo, a disembodied penis by itself is a male character since it is a character with a visible penis and no visible breasts or pussy. A character can't be ambiguous_gender if their genitals are visible, and if they're not ambiguous_gender, they have to be one of the others.

The issue with the implication is that a disembodied penis can be accompanied by other visual aspects of the character, such as a cutaway showing the character has breasts. In that case, there is still a disembodied_penis, but we also see other parts of the character to tell it's not male. But if it's just the disembodied_penis itself, it is male as much as any other character that only has a penis visible.

EDIT:
Saying that, though, I bothered to read the wiki:

disembodied_penis wiki says:
When there is a penis in view, but the character that it may be a part of is not.

By this reasoning, the given example is mistagged; either it's not a disembodied_penis since the character it's part of is visible, or it's trio and the penis is its own (male) character with two female characters. In this way, the implication is valid. But I think that's silly. I think disembodied_penis should be valid as long as it's not directly connected to a body, whether or not other parts of the body are visible.

watsit said:
Saying that, though, I bothered to read the wiki:
By this reasoning, the given example is mistagged; either it's not a disembodied_penis since the character it's part of is visible, or it's trio and the penis is its own (male) character with two female characters. In this way, the implication is valid. But I think that's silly. I think disembodied_penis should be valid as long as it's not directly connected to a body, whether or not other parts of the body are visible.

well, then the post would be solo and duo, treating the chatacter in the cut in as a separate image.
but generally we assume some amount of continuity between content in an image and only treat stuff as seperate if there's a clear scene transition. otherwise we'd have to treat every panel in a comic and every single frame in an animation individually, which would probably not be very useful.

also, disembodied_penis disembodied_pussy herm.
if we want to exclude the arguments I gave above, I believe that this is an even more definitively clear-cut example of why this implication has problems.

if both of the genitals come as a single disembodied piece they ought to be considered a single character, so herm would apply and male wouldn't.