Topic: Tag Implication: disembodied_hand -> ambiguous_gender

Implicating disembodied_hand → ambiguous_gender
Link to implication

Reason:

Seeing as disembodied_penis implies male it would make sense for this to imply ambiguous_gender.

It can be really easy to tell if it's a man's hand.

And what if there's a disembodied man-part below the hands or something?

It was discussed on forum #134072 Consensus seemed to be to leave it genderless.

https://e621.net/forum/show/134072

edit: crap, beat me to the punch.

Durandal said:
It can be really easy to tell if it's a man's hand.

And what if there's a disembodied man-part below the hands or something?

From what I've notice, those tend to just get tagged either faceless_male or disembodied_penis (whether technically correct or not), but it's still worth considering.

Denied.

Now I can see the point being raised here, and for many images it seems a valid point. But I have to agree with the previous discussion (forum #134072) that there really isn't any search benefit for putting those under ambiguous_gender. Most of the time they are technically ambiguously gendered, but disembodied_hand is really the most accurate tag for what they are. And people looking for that already use disembodied_hand to find them. And people using ambiguous_gender to find other types of ambiguously gendered characters aren't really looking for that. So technically it would work for most images, but the benefit from doing so seems pretty debatable. I think it's better to leave it UNimplicated for now.

Plus, its teasing me, but I swear I have seen at least one image with a disembodied_hand that was very distinctly feminine, with painted nails, slender fingers, and a fancy bracelet. And I know I've seen a few that looked more definitively like muscular "man hands". So even though the majority are undetailed and completely ambiguous hands (or even floating gloves), there are some times when it's not ambiguously gendered. And of course there's times where there's dialog to go along with it, or paired with a disembodied_penis that's pretty clearly implying a male even though all the rest of their body is apparently invisible. So I think there's a small percentage of images that wouldn't be as ambiguous as the majority are. So it's denied for all of those reasons. Completely reasonable to wonder about though.

Noted.

So for tagging purposes we should probably just leave ambiguous_gender off of it unless absolutely necessary? I'm asking because I've tagged some random images with ambiguous_gender during my more zealous days as a way of pulling images out of gender/gender searches temporarily so that I could ensure they were all tagged (I'm only just now getting to the end of herm but the rest should be smoother; there were a lot of dickgirls in there to fix) and want to know if I should clean up after myself as I'm coming to a good stopping point.