The bulk update request #8705 is pending approval.

remove implication anatomically_correct_genitalia (23799) -> genitals (2202385)
create implication anatomically_correct_genitalia (23799) -> animal_genitalia (469061)
remove implication anatomically_correct_penis (10252) -> penis (1513018)
create implication anatomically_correct_penis (10252) -> animal_penis (325426)
remove implication anatomically_correct_pussy (12253) -> pussy (876824)
create implication anatomically_correct_pussy (12253) -> animal_pussy (48672)

Reason: Anatomically_correct* is only used for non human animals, so their respective tags should imply animal_* instead, and if it is a fictional creature, the anatomically_correct* family of tags would not apply. (Anatomically_correct_cloaca and anatomically_correct_genital_slit (which i'll suggest later) don't have a human variant, so there's no need for animal_cloaca)

On the topic of anatomically_correct, what should we do with anatomically_correct_anus and anatomically_correct_balls? if we want to keep them, why is animal anus aliased away and animal balls completely empty? If there isn't enough difference between human and animal variant, should their anatomically_correct* tags exist? Would marsupial_balls be enough to justify animal balls and/or anatomically_correct_balls?

Lastly, should there be an anatomically_correct_slit/genital_slit tag?

I think anatomically_correct_balls is pretty justified. The shape and carriage can vary a lot between species. You have lemon_testicles, cats' high and tight pompoms, fat rodent nuts, dogs' sideways scrotums, and so on.

The anatomically_correct_anus tag is mostly horses, which do have a pretty distinctive butt. Other than that I'm not seeing too many really unique butts. Ass is ass.

I almost feel like the anatomically_correct tags should be aliased away in favor of animal_x and related. As terms for genitals, they seem to have largely originated as a means to distinguish when anthros have genitals matching the species they're based on as opposed to normal boring human genitals. We already have animal_genitalia and related tags, which is for non-human genitals from real animals (not fantasy animals with made-up genitalia), which makes the anatomically_correct tags redundant compared to x species + x_genitalia, in my view.

It's not helped that the anatomically_correct tags have restrictions on using it in places people expect or want to, like a dragon having genitals similar to what some lizards or reptiles have. Some people simply use it as a synonym for animal genitalia (with animal genitalia sometimes getting used as a synonym for non-human genitalia), and the waters are further muddled by recent changes that allow it to be used on some fantasy species if they're close enough to their real-life inspirations (without any clarity for where that line is; a houndoom with canine genitalia is close enough to be tagged anatomically_correct apparently, but are ninetales, arcanine, decidueye, or incineroar close enough to their respective inspirations? does every depiction of such a species count even when they look less like their real kin, or only on some depictions? how can we tell what counts?).

On top of that, anatomical correctness is taken very loosely:
post #4274994 post #3003471 post #4371294
To say those are "anatomically correct" is to stretch the term way outside of its actual meaning, which adds to the misinterpretation and confusion. Is it for depictions of genitalia that look accurate to real-life anatomy (as opposed to a furry artist's stylized interpretation of another furry artist's stylized interpretation of another furry artist's stylized interpretation)? Is it just for something sorta resembling real-life animal genitalia on a species that would have it? Is it for something resembling real-life animal genitalia on a species that looks similar to some species that could have it?

This is also where I get concerns with anatomically_correct_anus, anatomically_correct_balls, anatomically_correct_cloaca, and anatomically_correct_genital_slit. The actual correctness of the thing in question can end up very loosely interpreted, and largely end up being used for what people think is like real anatomy but is rather far off, and not give much value beyond animal_x at best, bordering on vanity tags at worst. Most people don't have references of the real things to compare against, which would result in things being tagged "anatomically correct" because they feel it should be as opposed to because it actually is.

watsit said:
I almost feel like the anatomically_correct tags should be aliased away in favor of animal_x and related. As terms for genitals, they seem to have largely originated as a means to distinguish when anthros have genitals matching the species they're based on as opposed to normal boring human genitals. We already have animal_genitalia and related tags, which is for non-human genitals from real animals (not fantasy animals with made-up genitalia), which makes the anatomically_correct tags redundant compared to x species + x_genitalia, in my view.

It's not helped that the anatomically_correct tags have restrictions on using it in places people expect or want to, like a dragon having genitals similar to what some lizards or reptiles have. Some people simply use it as a synonym for animal genitalia (with animal genitalia sometimes getting used as a synonym for non-human genitalia), and the waters are further muddled by recent changes that allow it to be used on some fantasy species if they're close enough to their real-life inspirations (without any clarity for where that line is; a houndoom with canine genitalia is close enough to be tagged anatomically_correct apparently, but are ninetales, arcanine, decidueye, or incineroar close enough to their respective inspirations? does every depiction of such a species count even when they look less like their real kin, or only on some depictions? how can we tell what counts?).

On top of that, anatomical correctness is taken very loosely:
post #4274994 post #3003471 post #4371294
To say those are "anatomically correct" is to stretch the term way outside of its actual meaning, which adds to the misinterpretation and confusion. Is it for depictions of genitalia that look accurate to real-life anatomy (as opposed to a furry artist's stylized interpretation of another furry artist's stylized interpretation of another furry artist's stylized interpretation)? Is it just for something sorta resembling real-life animal genitalia on a species that would have it? Is it for something resembling real-life animal genitalia on a species that looks similar to some species that could have it?

This is also where I get concerns with anatomically_correct_anus, anatomically_correct_balls, anatomically_correct_cloaca, and anatomically_correct_genital_slit. The actual correctness of the thing in question can end up very loosely interpreted, and largely end up being used for what people think is like real anatomy but is rather far off, and not give much value beyond animal_x at best, bordering on vanity tags at worst. Most people don't have references of the real things to compare against, which would result in things being tagged "anatomically correct" because they feel it should be as opposed to because it actually is.

I'm mixed on this. There's a lot of variation in genitalia and creating a penis/vulva/slit/cloaca tag for each species doesn't seem super productive. Plus there's a number of animals with very generic looking dicks that would be better served by something like tapering_penis than a specific species tag. For these, specifying anatomically_correct helps separate when this is done because it's what that species has instead of when it's done because "generic pink cone" is the default when someone doesn't know what a species' penis looks like.

But yeah, it could probably have a better name. "Anatomically correct" implies things that just aren't true to how the tag is used.

I think the idea of renaming this concept should be considered. "Anatomically_correct" imo isn't necessarily intuitive (a common misunderstanding is people not realizing that it's ONLY about genitals or anuses) or an accurate description of what the tag is.

Species_accurate_genitalia or species_matched_genitalia? These aren't as pretty, but might be more clear. It would exclude anuses, but the edges of where it applies to buttholes is blurry anyway.
Species_accurate/matched_features could also work as an umbrella tag. It'd have room to expand into non-sexual features like nose leather and paws.

regsmutt said:
I think the idea of renaming this concept should be considered. "Anatomically_correct" imo isn't necessarily intuitive (a common misunderstanding is people not realizing that it's ONLY about genitals or anuses) or an accurate description of what the tag is.

Species_accurate_genitalia or species_matched_genitalia? These aren't as pretty, but might be more clear. It would exclude anuses, but the edges of where it applies to buttholes is blurry anyway.
Species_accurate/matched_features could also work as an umbrella tag. It'd have room to expand into non-sexual features like nose leather and paws.

Love the species-accurate idea. Conversely we could have tags like species-atypical_wings (or species-inaccurate but atypical sounds a bit nicer to me) for say, cats with wings.