Topic: remove implication disembodied_penis -> male

The bulk update request #5752 is pending approval.

remove implication disembodied_penis (67477) -> male (2967050)

Reason: while in the grand majority of cases a disembodied_penis would be considered male, there are a few edge cases where through context in a single post it can be shown to belong to an intersex character.

example: post #1331018

more discussion @ topic #39248

For your example, that's obviously trio, duh

topic #27262
Surprisingly you've voted against it in the past, though you did play devil's advocate (with that same image).

snpthecat said:
For your example, that's obviously trio, duh

topic #27262
Surprisingly you've voted against it in the past, though you did play devil's advocate (with that same image).

Are you sure about that? Op has been on this site for less than a year, and that discussion was 3 years ago. User called darryus played the devils avocado.

snpthecat said:
For your example, that's obviously trio, duh

topic #27262
Surprisingly you've voted against it in the past, though you did play devil's advocate (with that same image).

yeah, that probably should have been a :/ vote rather than a -1, either way I think my philosophy on tagging has shifted a bit over time.

edit: for quite a while was more for larger amount of accurately tagged posts, even if there were a few edge cases, that fell through the cracks. these days I'm leaning more towards the idea of a striving towards a sort of "perfect world" where every post is tagged properly.

drato said:
Are you sure about that? Op has been on this site for less than a year, and that discussion was 3 years ago. User called darryus played the devils avocado.

das me, I have two accounts so I can have two separate CSS stylesheets for desktop and mobile.

juansanchez said:
das me, I have two accounts so I can have two separate CSS stylesheets for desktop and mobile.

Ah, i see. Sorry to bother you guys, carry on!

I wasn’t involved in the original discussion (topic #39248 ), so forgive me if I am addressing the obvious.

This subject is a very grey area, IMO, because we are also questioning the broad concept of gender (on e621, at least). No offence, but ‘gender’ makes this issue more confusing than necessary.

Sure, most people might associate a penis with a male, but for those who are into intersex, they will also associate it with a gynomorph, herm, and/or maleherm.

One might say to avoid using the general gender tags (or simply use the ambiguous_gender tag) and rely on the ‘lore’ tags instead, but those are only reserved for characters who are visible in the artwork and are canonically known to be a particular gender.

There isn’t much to go off with just a penis and no body. For all we know, it might be a dildo. IDK! 🤷‍♂️

I’m giving this a neutral vote, because it’s a 50/50 situation here. I can’t say much for others and rather not, because this is a sensitive topic to some people and eveyone should have their own perspective on this matter.

The ideal solution imo would be having some sort of feature that allowed overriding aliases/implications by adding individual posts as an exception.

Out of the 50,000+ disembodied penis images this post is always the one given as an example.

Not trivial, but people searching posts with the male tag are more likely to be looking for something (else/)more than just a disembodied penis. Not tagging all disembodied penises with that tag would save them from using male -disembodied_penis combination.

faucet said:
The ideal solution imo would be having some sort of feature that allowed overriding aliases/implications by adding individual posts as an exception.

Out of the 50,000+ disembodied penis images this post is always the one given as an example.

It's the one that's give as an example because I'm the one always giving it as an example and it's the one that I can find easily because I know how to search for it and also it's a fairly simple image whose elements are all very clear even from a thumbnail view. _{and also a large portion of them are/were feral MLP characters and a discussion on gender tagging for them is kind of beyond the scope of what I want to talk about.}

if you want some more, here:
post #591506 post #1313890 post #1247657 post #3698581 post #2278391 post #3556289 post #2979549 post #3255153

urielfrys said:
Not trivial, but people searching posts with the male tag are more likely to be looking for something (else/)more than just a disembodied penis. Not tagging all disembodied penises with that tag would save them from using male -disembodied_penis combination.

no, dude, no. we have to tag characters that are featured in a post as something, even when there's only their penis visible. not dealing with it that way would be a massive change to the tagging standards, and I don't think it'd be a positive change. users having to add -disembodied_penis occasionally is better than potentially breaking how those posts are dealt with.

disembodied_pussy doesn't implicate female + male and female tags are reserved to characters. If there are 5 disembodied penises it doesn't make it into a group according to the site's own rules.

wolfmanfur said:
If there are 5 disembodied penises it doesn't make it into a group according to the site's own rules.

yes they do, the only exceptions to character count tags are ambient_creatures and tentacles.

the group wiki states:

Any creature present within the scene, in whole or in part (including things like disembodied hand and disembodied eyes).

(unless it was clear that all the penises belonged to a singlular character.)

wolfmanfur said:
disembodied_pussy doesn't implicate female

well, then disembodied_penis shouldn't implicate male

Maybe the standards should be reworked so these examples shouldn't be tagged disembodied_penis at all? Since they do sort of have a body, there's just a cutaway

cloudpie said:
Maybe the standards should be reworked so these examples shouldn't be tagged disembodied_penis at all? Since they do sort of have a body, there's just a cutaway

But the penis is disembodied, but we just know who it belongs to. The wiki also specifically states this:

... but the rest of the character could just be out of the frame.

Which is exactly what a cutaway is, see mostly_offscreen_character

cloudpie said:
Maybe the standards should be reworked so these examples shouldn't be tagged disembodied_penis at all? Since they do sort of have a body, there's just a cutaway

I feel like this'd be a weird exception In the other direction, since if the post does contain a penis that is visibly not attached to a body, not tagging it as disembodied_penis seems wrong, even if the, uhh, host is visible in another part of the image... and also you still have potential for cases like this:
post #2160518
where disembodied penis is accompanied by a pussy as part of the same character, so it'd warrant a herm tag. _{obviously this post wouldn't be effected by the implication change since there are also characters that are male by TWYS, but I can't find many great examples, so just imagine if those weren't there.}

juansanchez said:
I feel like this'd be a weird exception In the other direction, since if the post does contain a penis that is visibly not attached to a body, not tagging it as disembodied_penis seems wrong, even if the, uhh, host is visible in another part of the image... and also you still have potential for cases like this:
post #2160518
where disembodied penis is accompanied by a pussy as part of the same character, so it'd warrant a herm tag. _{obviously this post wouldn't be effected by the implication change since there are also characters that are male by TWYS, but I can't find many great examples, so just imagine if those weren't there.}

ok, what if we just created a new tag for when a penis and pussy are detached, but part of the same body part? i'm not against removing the implication from disembodied_penis to male, mind you, but what i was thinking of was that a disembodied pussy was logically adjacent to a disembodied penis, in such a fashion that you could determine the character to be a herm. i don't think people searching for a disembodied penis would like to see that thing...

juansanchez said:
_{obviously this post wouldn't be effected by the implication change since there are also characters that are male by TWYS, but I can't find many great examples, so just imagine if those weren't there.}

here's another example

post #3190281

juansanchez said:
if you want some more, here:
post #591506 post #1313890 post #1247657 post #3698581 post #2278391 post #3556289 post #2979549 post #3255153

pleaseletmein said:
here's another example

post #3190281

ok fine i'm convinced enough, 👍

siral_exan said:
ok, what if we just created a new tag for when a penis and pussy are detached, but part of the same body part? i'm not against removing the implication from disembodied_penis to male, mind you, but what i was thinking of was that a disembodied pussy was logically adjacent to a disembodied penis, in such a fashion that you could determine the character to be a herm. i don't think people searching for a disembodied penis would like to see that thing...

We could have disembodied_intersex_penis. It would require a wiki page for explaining the proper use cases, and would be highly susceptible for TWYK mistaggings.

Would it be possible to have both disembodied_intersex_penisand disembodied_intersex_penis_(lore)? (Another question is, would it be smart or would it just be confusing?)

So many downvotes with no explanation when the thread is littered with proof that disembodied penises aren't enough to implicate male...

siral_exan said:
ok, what if we just created a new tag for when a penis and pussy are detached, but part of the same body part? i'm not against removing the implication from disembodied_penis to male, mind you, but what i was thinking of was that a disembodied pussy was logically adjacent to a disembodied penis, in such a fashion that you could determine the character to be a herm. i don't think people searching for a disembodied penis would like to see that thing...

urielfrys said:
We could have disembodied_intersex_penis. It would require a wiki page for explaining the proper use cases, and would be highly susceptible for TWYK mistaggings.

Would it be possible to have both disembodied_intersex_penisand disembodied_intersex_penis_(lore)? (Another question is, would it be smart or would it just be confusing?)

we normally only do that for character attributes/statuses, like your muscular_females, your pregnant_males, your dominant_intersexs, etc.. it'd be quite odd to gender a single feature like this. and, honestly, I don't really see how it'd help anything, it'd just add a new tag that no one would know about and the previous tag would still be added to future unfitting posts.

if we wanted to do something similar, I think the better route would be to expand the faceless_character tag family slightly so that it'd be applicable to characters tagged as disembodied_*.

I'm bumping this because I think a definitive decision needs to be made by the collective staff on how disembodied limbs as a whole should be treated in regards to gender tags.

nin10dope said:
I'm bumping this because I think a definitive decision needs to be made by the collective staff on how disembodied limbs as a whole should be treated in regards to gender tags.

A decision is not being made how to treat disembodied limbs with gender tags, that decision has already been made and isn't changing
The implication (which is not valid in select scenarios) is the only thing changing here
Please do not drag your existing discussion into this topic, keep it in that topic where it already is contained

donovan_dmc said:
A decision is not being made how to treat disembodied limbs with gender tags, that decision has already been made and isn't changing
The implication (which is not valid in select scenarios) is the only thing changing here
Please do not drag your existing discussion into this topic, keep it in that topic where it already is contained

This is related as it contains a disembodied part and it's implication of a gender tag. I have not seen this decision you speak of.

nin10dope said:
This is related as it contains a disembodied part and it's implication of a gender tag.

It isn't related, nothing about tagging genders is changing here
If you take some time to read the topic you'd see that disembodied penises are very much still being tagged with genders, there are just situations where male is not the gender that applies. All of male, gynomorph, herm, and maleherm could apply, which makes the male implication invalid under specific circumstances

nin10dope said:
I have not seen this decision you speak of.

Look around? The valid tags you removed were undone and you were given a record for those changes. They count as characters, and all characters get a gender tag. If you're still using that opinion of an admin from a decade ago to "prove" something, you're clearly arguing in bad faith. Are you expecting an admin, or better yet multiple staff to come down and explicitly confirm this thing that multiple users have told you, a thing you should also be able to confirm from reading wiki pages?

donovan_dmc said:
It isn't related, nothing about tagging genders is changing here
If you take some time to read the topic you'd see that disembodied penises are very much still being tagged with genders, there are just situations where male is not the gender that applies. All of male, gynomorph, herm, and maleherm could apply, which makes the male implication invalid under specific circumstances

Look around? The valid tags you removed were undone and you were given a record for those changes. They count as characters, and all characters get a gender tag. If you're still using that opinion of an admin from a decade ago to "prove" something, you're clearly arguing in bad faith.

The only bad faith here is your reply and attitude towards me.

nin10dope said:
The only bad faith here is your reply and attitude towards me.

The irony is staggering

Please don't detract
I made a comment to bump this thread back to relevancy
The rest of the comment was simply to give context to why I bumped it
I believe making a decision here is a potential starting point for similar discussions

nin10dope said:
The only bad faith here is your reply and attitude towards me.

yeah, good one. hit 'm with the "Nuh-uh".

nin10dope said:
Please don't detract
I made a comment to bump this thread back to relevancy
The rest of the comment was simply to give context to why I bumped it
I believe making a decision here is a potential starting point for similar discussions

it really isn't a similar discussion, though. the character-ness of disembodied bits is a subject that has long since been solidified (they do).

you cited a few comments that are over half the site's age, on threads containing users who no longer actively participate, threads that were created before we even had concepts like ambient_creature. tagging philosophy in general has shifted pretty significantly in that same time and we now have a much more solid concept for what defines a "character". pretty much nobody involved in tagging discussions now agrees with the stance of those threads.

Please stay on topic, thank you.

   _?
ϵ(⁰‎ࡇ‎⁰ ϶)ɞ
   ^{?   ?}

dba_afish said:
   _?
ϵ(⁰‎ࡇ‎⁰ ϶)ɞ
   ^{?   ?}

The bur lol
I like the fish emojis, honestly
It adds a lot more than when people just hit you with the "???"

nin10dope said:
Please stay on topic, thank you.

The irony is once again staggering

donovan_dmc said:
The irony is once again staggering

Just stop.

nin10dope said:
Just stop.

Hijacking a topic to forward your own narrative then complaining that others aren't cool with that is pretty rude, dude

Except I'm not
I wanted to bump this because it's a year old and the decision made on it could give some guidance on similar things down the line.

I prefer to keep the implication, it’s just that in the op’s example it is not desembodied, since you can clearly see the body it belongs to.

romanicyte2 said:
I prefer to keep the implication, it’s just that in the op’s example it is not desembodied, since you can clearly see the body it belongs to.

what about the examples like this? post #3190281

also, I'd argue that they still are disembodied because in the image they're not seen attached to any body, even if the character they belong to is to is identifiable. it also seems like users are intent on tagging things this way, as well.

this is why I suggested expanding faceless_character. being able to differentiate when a post has a body to go along with the disembodied penis would also improve being able to find or filter similar posts containing male characters.

nin10dope said:
Except I'm not
I wanted to bump this because it's a year old and the decision made on it could give some guidance on similar things down the line.

How? Literally how. Nothing is changing here about tagging genders. How many times does it need to be repeated. The only thing changing here is removing an implication which is not always valid, disembodied penises are still characters and will still be tagged with genders

romanicyte2 said:
I prefer to keep the implication, it’s just that in the op’s example it is not desembodied, since you can clearly see the body it belongs to.

It is still disembodied if you cannot see the attachment to the rest of the body

Bumping this since it was briefly brought up earlier in another discussion as an exacerbating factor.

disembodied_penis implicating male results in the male tag being flooded with large quantities of art that's just a woman, gynomorph, etc plus a floating penis, which itself may be part of a gynomorph as they're extremely numerous now (220k).
That is not what people searching 'male' are generally looking for.

If penis doesn't implicate male, why would disembodied_penis? disembodied_pussy also doesn't implicate female, either...

Looking at the votes it does seem like it's a supermajority in the direction of removing the implication, and has been for a long time. Would be nice to see it put to rest.

listlesssky said:
disembodied_penis implicating male results in the male tag being flooded with large quantities of art that's just a woman, gynomorph, etc plus a floating penis
That is not what people searching 'male' are generally looking for.

Need people be reminded that this topic is not changing whether disembodied parts are considered characters (they are), removing the implication doesn't change that
The implication needs to be removed because disembodied penises can in rare cases be herm (and in even rarer cases possibly gynomorph), nothing more

listlesssky said:
If penis doesn't implicate male, why would disembodied_penis?

A penis can be attached to a body with other gender defining attributes, a disembodied penis cannot

listlesssky said:
disembodied_pussy also doesn't implicate female, either...

Considering the tag had zero implications before being aliased to the current disembodied_vulva, which still has under 100 posts, this is in no way a fair comparison (also once more this topic is trying to remove the implication, why would an implication be made on one side which is being removed from the other)

donovan_dmc said:
Need people be reminded that this topic is not changing whether disembodied parts are considered characters (they are), removing the implication doesn't change that

Yeah, I wasn't trying to imply otherwise.
My point was that there is no visible indication those disembodied_penis characters are male.
That means it contributes to the problem of flooding the 'male' tag with images not containing a visible male character, violating TWYS.

donovan_dmc said:
A penis can be attached to a body with other gender defining attributes, a disembodied penis cannot

Assuming it belongs to a male by default until proven otherwise because "most penises are male" isn't TWYS, hell it's barely even TWYK.

Gynomorphs and herms are 220k and 50k respectively, totaling around 10% of characters with a dick on the site. That is not particularly rare, and is far too much to pretend doesn't exist.

listlesssky said:
My point was that there is no visible indication those disembodied_penis characters are male.
That means it contributes to the problem of flooding the 'male' tag with images not containing a visible male character, violating TWYS.

A penis is the #1 indicator of a character being male: howto:tag_genders

listlesssky said:
Assuming it belongs to a male by default until proven otherwise because "most penises are male" isn't TWYS, hell it's barely even TWYK.

That's actually exactly what every gender tagging flow says, assume male when a penis is present unless something else (vulva, breasts) is present, again: howto:tag_genders

This is explicitly how TWYS works, disembodied penises are characters and characters need a gender tag
A penis and nothing else results in male

listlesssky said:
My point was that there is no visible indication those disembodied_penis characters are male.

The fact that the character has a penis without visible breasts or a vulva is visible indication the character is male, that's how the tag is applied to characters. So as long as a disembodied penis is considered a character, then that character's sex is tagged according to what we see them possess and not possess.

listlesssky said:
Assuming it belongs to a male by default until proven otherwise because "most penises are male" isn't TWYS, hell it's barely even TWYK.

What makes this male/female:
post #6003676
but not this:
post #5998789
In both cases, you can't see whether the penis-having character also has breasts or a vulva or not, but saying one is male and the other isn't wouldn't be very consistent, and saying both aren't male wouldn't be helpful to anyone.

donovan_dmc said:
That's actually exactly what every gender tagging flow says, assume male when a penis is present unless something else (vulva, breasts) is present, again: howto:tag_genders

Honestly, all you've convinced me is that "unknown genital implies m/f" itself is a violation of TWYS. We don't see whose it is. Game over. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
So why does the chart say that ambiguous genitals should be tagged m/f? Other ambiguous cases later on are tagged ambiguous_gender. And herms and gynomorphs are not rare, as mentioned above.

listlesssky said:
Honestly, all you've convinced me is that "unknown genital implies m/f" itself is a violation of TWYS. We don't see whose it is. Game over. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
So why does the chart say that ambiguous genitals should be tagged m/f? Other ambiguous cases later on are tagged ambiguous_gender. And herms and gynomorphs are not rare, as mentioned above.

it-- it's not a violation of TWYS. it's tagged exactly how we've all almost unanimously agreed that the tags ought to be used.

a tag's use is defined by consensus, and a tag's true definition _is_ that consensus.

listlesssky said:
Honestly, all you've convinced me is that "unknown genital implies m/f" itself is a violation of TWYS. We don't see whose it is. Game over. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
So why does the chart say that ambiguous genitals should be tagged m/f? Other ambiguous cases later on are tagged ambiguous_gender. And herms and gynomorphs are not rare, as mentioned above.

I never said any gender is rare overall, I said they are rare in disembodied penis, which they are

Male and female are the defaults, if nothing is present to narrow it down (genitals, secondary sex characteristics), then body type would be used to determine gender
However if a penis is present, then it cannot be female, andromorph, or ambiguous gender
Similarly if a vulva is present, then it cannot be male, gynomorph, or ambiguous gender
And in the same vein if breasts are present it cannot be male, andromorph, maleherm, or (in most cases) ambiguous gender

This shouldn't really be rocket science, gender tags are based explicitly on what can be seen, if we can only see a penis and nothing else then there is no ground to aruge on - only male is valid

dfn-451 said:
it-- it's not a violation of TWYS. it's tagged exactly how we've all almost unanimously agreed that the tags ought to be used.

a tag's use is defined by consensus, and a tag's true definition _is_ that consensus.

If you've come to a consensus about defaulting to tagging something you can't see (and you can't see what a disembodied dick belongs to), then you've come to a consensus that breaks TWYS.

And for what? Barely any images fall under that specific little branch of the gender tree except disembodied dicks at 70k.
Which means that decision has basically no consequences across the site except for shoving all the disembodied_dick posts into the 'male' tag, arbitrarily filling it with 70k works that almost all have 0 actual visible males.
How does that benefit usability? Does that give users the expected result when searching?

This site sacrifices a ton in exchange for upholding TWYS, including totally alienating trans artists.
If you're going to misgender us and tag us with slurs, the least you can do is give us a self-consistent and predictable tagging system in exchange.

Donovan DMC said:
I said they are rare in disembodied penis, which they are

This is circular logic. If you arbitrarily declare that all ambiguous dicks as male, then you can't use that as proof "they're all male" to justify that rule in the first place.

Donovan DMC said:
gender tags are based explicitly on what can be seen, if we can only see a penis and nothing else

Then tag it penis and nothing else. I don't even get why this is controversial. Tagging a male when you do not see that it is attached to one breaks TWYS, because you are tagging something you do not see. How could it possibly not be?

listlesssky said:
If you've come to a consensus about defaulting to tagging something you can't see (and you can't see what a disembodied dick belongs to), then you've come to a consensus that breaks TWYS.

How many times and people need to say that a penis is the primary factor in tagging masculine genders

listlesssky said:
If you're going to (...) tag us with slurs

...what? Many efforts have been made to remove anything that could resemble a slur from tagging, and in no way is that relevant to the discussion at hand

donovan_dmc said:
Many efforts have been made to remove anything that could resemble a slur from tagging, and in no way is that relevant to the discussion at hand

Herm? Even dickgirl still shows up in the redirects, and being called a "male gynomorph" is hardly any less dehumanizing.

The relevance is that misgendering us is a sacrifice the site makes in exchange for upholding TWYS, which is undermined by an arbitrary guideline breaking TWYS in a way that doesn't even improve the site.

listlesssky said:
Herm?

herm is not a slur, hermaphroditism is a real thing

listlesssky said:
Even dickgirl still shows up in the redirects,

Okay? So do actual slurs against various races, nothing can be done about that
Aliases exist to ensure those names cannot be used, I'm not sure what you want here
We aren't going to erase words and make them disappear into the void when anyone attempts to tag them

listlesssky said:
and being called a "male gynomorph" is hardly any less dehumanizing.

Where is anything referred to like that? I'd also like to quote the howto:tag_genders page:

Tags are just a reflection of what's visible in an image, not a label of a character's actual gender. Such information should be written in the post's Description, the character’s Wiki page, and/or represented with lore tags instead. Tags in the general category must describe only what is visible in the post, as they are meant to be used for searching and blacklisting based strictly upon visual appearance, NOT for describing facts about the character.

In the real world the average user doesn't care what a character identifies as, they care about what they see and that's all the tags are

listlesssky said:
The relevance is that misgendering us is a sacrifice the site makes in exchange for upholding TWYS, which is undermined by an arbitrary guideline breaking TWYS in a way that doesn't even improve the site.

At this point I'm convinced you aren't reading any of what anyone has said about tagging genders so I'm just not going to even bring it up again

donovan_dmc said:
herm is not a slur, hermaphroditism is a real thing

And the appropriate term for it is 'intersex'.

donovan_dmc said:
Where is anything referred to like that?

Essentially every single trans character on this entire site has the 'male' and 'gynomorph' tags. Hardly any actually use the stupid lore labels. Hell, even trans characters in totally sfw art still get slapped with 'gynomorph_(lore)' despite their body type never being specified.

donovan_dmc said:
In the real world the average user doesn't care what a character identifies as, they care about what they see and that's all the tags are

In the real world nobody looks at a feminine character with massive boobs, eyelashes, lipstick, and a feminine body type, and sees them as a man just because they have a dick. A gay man is not going to be into them regardless of what parts they have. Nobody attracted to men wants the 'male' category to be full of blatant women, and the only reason people attracted to women tolerate the inclusion of trans men in the female category is because art of masculine looking trans men is vanishingly rare here. The idea literally nothing about a character factors into how they are seen except their genitals is absurd.

donovan_dmc said:
At this point I'm convinced you aren't reading any of what anyone has said about tagging genders so I'm just not going to even bring it up again

All you've done is restate "it's that way because the guide page says so". You've never once explained why it should be that way, why tagging 'male' is appropriate under TWYS when you literally can not see whether they are male or gynomorph. Simply repeating dogma again and again is useless.

listlesssky said:
And the appropriate term for it is 'intersex'.

No, the term for hermaphroditism is hermaphroditism
intersex is a broad term for many deviations in sexual characteristics

listlesssky said:
In the real world nobody looks at a feminine character with massive boobs, eyelashes, lipstick, and a feminine body type, and sees them as a man just because they have a dick. A gay man is not going to be into them regardless of what parts they have. Nobody attracted to men wants the 'male' category to be full of blatant women, and the only reason people attracted to women tolerate the inclusion of trans men in the female category is because art of masculine looking trans men is vanishingly rare here. The idea literally nothing about a character factors into how they are seen except their genitals is absurd.

That's literally not how it works? Did you even read the howto:tag_genders wiki page that has been linked multiple times? You clearly did since you referenced parts of it that fit your narrative, but did you actually read it fully? Like the parts where body type absolutely does matter? Along with secondary sexual characteristics and overall appearance?

listlesssky said:
All you've done is restate what the rule is, you've never once explained why tagging 'male' is appropriate under TWYS when you literally can not see whether they are male or gynomorph. Simply repeating dogma again and again is useless.

It's literally as simple as disembodied penises being a character, and seeing a penis and no other factors resulting in male, there is no "dogma" or whatever else you want to label it as

donovan_dmc said:
That's literally not how it works? Did you even read the howto:tag_genders wiki page that has been linked multiple times? You clearly did since you referenced parts of it that fit your narrative, but did you actually read it fully? Like the parts where body type absolutely does matter? Along with secondary sexual characteristics and overall appearance?

I did in fact! And I made a thread pointing out that the 'consensus' of tagging trans characters with both 'male' and 'gynomorph' is in direct violation of that exact section.

Nobody cares though, and there is absolutely no way I can go through the tens of thousands of violations on my own, much less properly apply trans_woman_(lore) to all hundreds of thousands of applicable characters. Even if I did, chances are it'd just get arbitrarily reverted. One person can't change the culture of an entire website.

donovan_dmc said:
It's literally as simple as disembodied penises being a character, and seeing a penis and no other factors resulting in male

I never disputed them being a character, the question is why no other factors = male instead of no other factors = ambiguous, since TWYS is based on sight and we literally can not see it.

listlesssky said:
I did in fact! And I made a thread pointing out that the 'consensus' of tagging trans characters with both 'male' and 'gynomorph' is in direct violation of that exact section.

That's mistagging, not a consensus
No character should have more than one gender tag

listlesssky said:
I never disputed them being a character, the question is why no other factors = male instead of ambiguous since you literally can not see it.

If a primary sex characteristic is present then ambiguous gender is not possible, there is nothing further to prove or explain, if you think that's "dogma" then that's on you
You don't need to see anything else, else a lot of penis shot posts would also be ambiguous, and if you argue they wouldn't then why? Is there some percentage of a visible body that goes from being ambiguous to suddenly being male?

Also some disembodied parts absolutely can be ambiguous, most disembodied hand posts are ambiguous

donovan_dmc said:
That's mistagging, not a consensus
No character should have more than one gender tag

When it happens to 50k+ works it becomes a consensus. As dfn said:

dfn-451 said:
a tag's use is defined by consensus, and a tag's true definition _is_ that consensus.

donovan_dmc said:
If a primary sex characteristic is present then ambiguous gender is not possible, there is nothing further to prove or explain

Changing a line of text in a guide page is absolutely possible:
unk ─ [ambiguous_gender]

The rule should be updated to obey TWYS by not tagging male if it's unknown.
Again, why is this even so controversial?

listlesssky said:
Changing a line of text in a guide page is absolutely possible:
unk ─ [ambiguous_gender]

That's not what I meant and you know it

listlesssky said:
The rule should be updated to obey TWYS by not tagging male if it's unknown.
Again, why is this even so controversial?

Sigh

donovan_dmc said:
That's not what I meant and you know it

It's what I mean, though. You're acting like it's impossible to change, written in stone by god. But it's just one entry in a table.

I genuinely do not understand why people are this protective of a guideline that we implicitly assume every dick is male instead of just leaving what we can't see ambiguous, to the point they're not even willing to consider alternatives.

Like god, you claim y'all are moving heaven and earth to beat the site's transphobia allegations. Isn't not assuming dick = male an easy win, fully compatible with the current gender tag system that allows gynomorphs to have them too?

dfn-451 said:
The bulk update request #5752 is pending approval.

remove implication disembodied_penis (67477) -> male (2967050)

Reason: while in the grand majority of cases a disembodied_penis would be considered male, there are a few edge cases where through context in a single post it can be shown to belong to an intersex character.

example: post #1331018

Then that post could be tagged as gynomorph instead of male, it seems like that would be preferable under twys. We see a disembodied white penis, and we can infer it belongs to the character in the cutout.

listlesssky said:
The rule should be updated to obey TWYS by not tagging male if it's unknown.
Again, why is this even so controversial?

If we don't see it, we don't assume it could be there and hold off judgement, otherwise:
post #6004328 couldn't be male since they may have breasts we can't see
post #6004296 couldn't be male since they may have a vulva we can't see
post #6004247 couldn't be female since they may have a penis we can't see
post #6004302 couldn't be gynomorph since they may have a vulva we can't see
would all have to be ambiguous_gender?

watsit said:
If we don't see it, we don't assume it could be there and hold off judgement, otherwise:

would all have to be ambiguous_gender?

This is very well said.

I'd rather not have the tagging gender guidelines operate work like this, it would be no good.

listlesssky said:
When it happens to 50k+ works it becomes a consensus.

gynomorph male solo returns 2050 posts.

gynomorph male -solo returns 44741 posts.

dinbyy said:
Then that post could be tagged as gynomorph instead of male, it seems like that would be preferable under twys. We see a disembodied white penis, and we can infer it belongs to the character in the cutout.

that's what I'm saying?

watsit said:
If we don't see it, we don't assume it could be there and hold off judgement, otherwise:
-
-
-
-
would all have to be ambiguous_gender?

That's a fair point. I don't necessarily think they would though.
If all that was changed was swapping the first unk - male to unk - ambiguous_gender, then:

The only way 1 could be a gynomorph is if the body type was ambiguous, however it has a pretty obvious masculine body fat and muscle distribution.

2 would still be male since he has a dick and no breasts. However, the PoV character would be ambiguous by those rules. I think that's relatively harmless just like disembodied_penises, since it's basically one step removed from being one.

3 would still be female because she has a pussy and breasts

4 would still be a gynomorph because she has a dick and breasts

Of course that begs the question of "if we aren't assuming penis - male, then how can we assume literally anything ever". I think striking a balance with some assumptions is fine though. I just think the current cutoff point is in the wrong spot given how numerous gynomorphs and disembodied_penises are, and how disruptive they are to the 'male' tag.

voltage-controlled said:
gynomorph male solo returns 2050 posts.

gynomorph male -solo returns 44741 posts.

There's an enormous amount of 'gynomorph male -solo' that just have multiple gynomorphs and/or women. Unfortunately, many are also mistagged solo when they shouldn't be.

listlesssky said:
The only way 1 could be a gynomorph is if the body type was ambiguous, however it has a pretty obvious masculine body fat and muscle distribution.

That's questionable, given they are also tagged femboy indicating a less masculine body type. Visible genitalia takes priority for tagging a character's physical sex. If that character moved their arm up or turned their upper body a little bit to expose breasts, they would unquestionably be tagged gynomorph irrespective of their body type, so tagging them male here means you're assuming they don't have breasts you can't see, just as we assume a disembodied penis character doesn't have breasts we can't see.

listlesssky said:
Of course that begs the question of "if we aren't assuming penis - male, then how can we assume literally anything ever".

More that "if we don't assume a character doesn't have what we can't see, how can we reliably tag most characters' physical sex?" We'd basically need to see the perineum, crotch, and chest all in the same post to tag any character's sex.

listlesssky said:
I think striking a balance with some assumptions is fine though. I just think the current cutoff point is in the wrong spot given how numerous gynomorphs and disembodied_penises are, and how disruptive they are to the 'male' tag.

The problem is, if we can't assume something like this is male/female:
post #5998789 post #6003676
then we couldn't assume this is male/male:
post #5998609 post #5995836
which would be very detrimental to almost everyone. People who prefer and are looking for straight or gay sexual pairings would not find many posts that otherwise look like male/female or male/male, meanwhile people who don't like and blacklist straight or gay sexual pairings would have posts like those get through that are obviously what they don't want to see, because the character that the disembodied penis belongs to might also have breasts and/or a vulva we can't see.

watsit said:
so tagging them male here means you're assuming they don't have breasts you can't see

No, because the 'unknown' breasts is itself a special case on the chart where it defers to body type, which itself contains an alternate path to gynomorph he could follow if he had a feminine body type. however....

watsit said:
they are also tagged femboy indicating a less masculine body type

A skinny femboy body type on a man is still different from a female body type in very important and visible ways, the hips are one of the most obvious regions. Working out and eating certain foods can add or remove fat and muscle, but nothing can change the specific ways it is distributed except HRT... but that tends to cause breast growth as one of the very first effects (since it is also the direct result of body fat redistribution), which would make him a gynomorph, not a femboy.

watsit said:
People who prefer and are looking for straight or gay sexual pairings would not find many posts that otherwise look like male/female or male/male, meanwhile people who don't like and blacklist straight or gay sexual pairings would have posts like those get through

Like I said, I don't support throwing out assumptions completely. I think not tagging those male/female or male/male is fine though. Those who want disembodided dicks + their gender of choice can simply search for that, and those who don't want them can simply blacklist them.

Heck, the situation you are afraid of is already true: Even right now a ton of disembodied_penis posts already have the second character tagged ambiguous_gender, quite often only their head is visible. Gay men already can't block posts like this! At the very least removing the male tag would stop it from being included in their male search results, causing it to only be shown to those who intentionally include ambiguous characters in theirs.

listlesssky said:
and those who don't want them can simply blacklist them.

This is the solution for the minority that don't want these in their search
Or in other words, disembodied penises getting tagged with genders is not causing anywhere near the problems you think it is with searching

listlesssky said:
Heck, the situation you are afraid of is already true: Even right now a ton of disembodied_penis posts already have the second character tagged ambiguous_gender, quite often only their head is visible. Gay men already can't block posts like this! At the very least removing the male tag would stop it from being included in their male search results, causing it to only be shown to those who intentionally include ambiguous characters in theirs.

You can find some percentage of mistags within every tag, that doesn't mean the inclusion is bad or that removing it will solve anything

Also putting some numbers to actually clearing off gender tags if they were suddenly ambiguous rather than male, that's 67,000 posts to check and possibly edit
A normal user can edit up to 150 posts an hour, with 67,000 posts that's nearly 3 weeks straight of required effort (assuming no sleep, eating, bathroom breaks, etc)

Even for a privileged user which has no tag edit limit but with ratelimits would likely get off at most 1 edit every 0.75 seconds, that's still almost 14 straight hours of editing posts, no pausing for even a second (and also assuming you can open a post, edit, delete tags, type tags, submit, and receive the response all back in less than a second)

Now that could be a tagme project but realistically no dent will be made in it for months if ever

Mistags happen, but that doesn't mean we need to throw out a concept which has been well understood for years

donovan_dmc said:
This is the solution for the minority that don't want these in their search

The problem is that even if you blacklist female and gynomorph, you still see disembodied penises fucking characters that are obviously girls in the 'male' tag that slip through, because the second character is 'ambiguous_gender' due to being obscured.

https://e621.net/posts/4844866
https://e621.net/posts/4948618
https://e621.net/posts/5961697
https://e621.net/posts/5605868
https://e621.net/posts/4710584
https://e621.net/posts/5468292
https://e621.net/posts/3880289
https://e621.net/posts/3937225

It's a catch-22: You could block ambiguous_gender entirely to prevent this leakage, but that would mean blocking lots of works with a fully visible male a gay viewer might want to see, just because the work also has an ambiguous_gender character they're ambivalent to.

Disembodied_penis isn't the only thing that causes 'leakage' like this, but it is frequent enough to be annoying.
If the dick was ambiguous then these would not show up in 'male' by default in the first place, but would still be accessible if you search for the gender of the second character.

donovan_dmc said:
A normal user can edit up to 150 posts an hour, with 67,000 posts that's nearly 3 weeks straight of required effort

That is ridiculous. I suspect automation tools would not be particularly helpful here either, since plenty of posts with disembodied_penis do also have other males and thus would need to keep that tag.
Perhaps it's not worth it then.

listlesssky said:
-a lot of stuff over multiple posts-

let me just say flatly: if I'm searching for ambiguous_gender I want to see fully gender-neutral, androgynous characters. I do not want to see a buncha posts that are just big-titted chicks and musclebound dudes gettin bukakke'd by floting penises/faceless guys.

listlesssky said:
The problem is that even if you blacklist female and gynomorph, you still see disembodied penises fucking characters that are obviously girls in the 'male' tag that slip through, because the second character is 'ambiguous_gender' due to being obscured.

https://e621.net/posts/4844866
https://e621.net/posts/4948618
https://e621.net/posts/5961697
https://e621.net/posts/5605868
https://e621.net/posts/4710584
https://e621.net/posts/5468292
https://e621.net/posts/3880289
https://e621.net/posts/3937225

these are, like, _all_ femboys, my dude.

dfn-451 said:
let me just say flatly: if I'm searching for ambiguous_gender I want to see fully gender-neutral, androgynous characters. I do not want to see a buncha posts that are just big-titted chicks and musclebound dudes gettin bukakke'd by floting penises/faceless guys.

You had to blacklist or - muscle dudes and big breast chicks either way, because just searching for ambiguous_gender pulls up a million posts with an androgynous character plus one of the types you don't want.

dfn-451 said:
these are, like, _all_ femboys, my dude.

Only one has the tag, the rest literally just look like women. Obviously there's subjectivity, but body fat distribution and even things like head shape are pretty distinct. Most femboys don't have pink hair, eyelashes, etc. If someone looks literally indistinguishable from a woman, then the -boy part becomes meaningless.

listlesssky said:
You had to blacklist or - muscle dudes and big breast chicks either way, because just searching for ambiguous_gender pulls up a million posts with an androgynous character plus one of the types you don't want.

that's not what I'm saying. I don't want to blacklist anything, I don't have problems with seeing characters of any gender or any presentation. my problem would be with tagging ambiguous_gender on nearly every faceless penis-haver on the site, and therefore diluting the pool of actually gender ambiguous characters.

listlesssky said:
because just searching for ambiguous_gender pulls up a million posts with an androgynous character plus one of the types you don't want.

Approximately 371000 posts are tagged ambiguous_gender.

voltage-controlled said:
Approximately 371000 posts are tagged ambiguous_gender.

Obvious exaggeration is obvious

dfn-451 said:
my problem would be with tagging ambiguous_gender on nearly every faceless penis-haver on the site, and therefore diluting the pool of actually gender ambiguous characters.

This is understandable, but is also why I don't want them diluting the pool of actually male characters either. This feels like a recurrant problem with the site, people who are interested in non-men categorizing everything they dislike into 'male' so they don't have to see it.

ambigous_gender already has tons or extremely gendered characters anyway that just don't have visible genitals or other identifying body parts, like in the posts linked. If you want an androgynous character, there is a tag for androgynous characters. You could in theory also search based on the nonbinary lore tag, if it was actually properly applied to more than a tiny fraction of the appropriate posts.

The fact people neglect both these tags is something I sympathize with, but isn't the problem of ambiguous_gender.