Both of the forum posts in the disembodied_hand wiki are over 10 years old, but it was generally agreed by an admin and former staff that while technically correct, adding ambiguous_gender is unhelpful and detracts from people who are actively searching for ambiguous characters. I'll specify further by saying that aside from the hand(s) there are no other factors to apply to this theoretical person.

They count as characters and are thus correctly tagged as ambiguous
If you want to argue gender tagging here you'll also likely be arguing up against disembodied penis counting as male character

donovan_dmc said:
They count as characters and are thus correctly tagged as ambiguous
If you want to argue gender tagging here you'll also likely be arguing up against disembodied penis counting as male character

They count as characters for the purpose of things like duo and *_focus but, in the words of an Admin themselves on those forums, the ambiguous_gender tag is only technically correct and serves no purpose. It is detracting from the authenticity and usefulness from people actually searching for ambiguous_gender. This is something that people will have to calm their collective autism over and realize that the tag should be used for its user-intended purpose, not semantics.

And also I do believe that disembodied_penis should not implicate male because there are an infinite amount of arguments that could be made of "how do you know it's a male's dick?" and "how do you know it's not a realistic sex toy that can pump cum?".

donovan_dmc said:
They count as characters and are thus correctly tagged as ambiguous
If you want to argue gender tagging here you'll also likely be arguing up against disembodied penis counting as male character

okay, but like, to be honest...

dba_afish said:
okay, but like, to be honest...

I'm not talking about the implication, I absolutely agree the implication needs to go
But, that doesn't mean we suddenly stop tagging them with genders

dba_afish said:
okay, but like, to be honest...

Yes, I wholeheartedly support that too
I can't speak for all the different potential disembodied parts there are, but as a baseline I believe they don't necessitate a gender tag. People looking for those gender tags aren't looking for art that has miscellaneous and disconnected body parts typically.

nin10dope said:
They count as characters for the purpose of things like duo and *_focus but, in the words of an Admin themselves on those forums, the ambiguous_gender tag is only technically correct and serves no purpose. It is detracting from the authenticity and usefulness from people actually searching for ambiguous_gender. This is something that people will have to calm their collective autism over and realize that the tag should be used for its user-intended purpose, not semantics.

And also I do believe that disembodied_penis should not implicate male because there are an infinite amount of arguments that could be made of "how do you know it's a male's dick?" and "how do you know it's not a realistic sex toy that can pump cum?".

Tag What You See does necessarily make assumptions to fill in gaps to make stuff make as much sense as possible. sometimes that's tagging penetration when you can't actually see the penis entering an orifice but from the context it's obvious, sometimes that's tagging characters who are known to be intersex from outside knowledge as male/female/ambiguous because their genitals aren't visible, or, _only_ their genitals are visible.

donovan_dmc said:
I'm not talking about the implication, I absolutely agree the implication needs to go
But, that doesn't mean we suddenly stop tagging them with genders

I'll clarify myself a little more. I'm not saying disembodied parts are unable to have a gender, lest we get too abstract, but generic featureless hands is a very simple answer of don't give them a gender unless the viewer knows (can see) who they're attached to.

dba_afish said:
Tag What You See does necessarily make assumptions to fill in gaps to make stuff make as much sense as possible. sometimes that's tagging penetration when you can't actually see the penis entering an orifice but from the context it's obvious, sometimes that's tagging characters who are known to be intersex from outside knowledge as male/female/ambiguous because their genitals aren't visible, or, _only_ their genitals are visible.

I'm all about context, that's why I made my arguments. I agree with the penetration bit, because it is obvious or contextually factual. But as one of the million potential arguments, what if the disembodied penis also had a vagina where the disembodied taint would be? If you saw floating Mickey Mouse gloves, those wouldn't have a gender, but you would refer to them as disembodied hands for tagging

nin10dope said:
They count as characters for the purpose of things like duo and *_focus but, in the words of an Admin themselves on those forums, the ambiguous_gender tag is only technically correct and serves no purpose. It is detracting from the authenticity and usefulness from people actually searching for ambiguous_gender. This is something that people will have to calm their collective autism over and realize that the tag should be used for its user-intended purpose, not semantics.

And also I do believe that disembodied_penis should not implicate male because there are an infinite amount of arguments that could be made of "how do you know it's a male's dick?" and "how do you know it's not a realistic sex toy that can pump cum?".

When you're going to reference something someone has said you really should link to and/or quote it
I believe you're talking about forum #154182, half of which is specifically talking about an implication which would definitely not be valid 100% of the time
I also disagree to the premise that ambiguous gender has any helpfulness to begin with, it exists as a "necessary evil" of our existing tagging system (which could definitely be reformed in certain ways to not need that "necessary evil" and instead have an unknown or something, which would line up much more with what is being expressed here) so I sincerely doubt people are specifically searching for this

Not to mention this is also a decade ago, sentiments from the community (and a single person, which should not be used as the sole decider) can change
I think it's a very reasonable thought that conversations so long ago we have a word other than years to refer to them by should bring their validity/application to the current site into question

nin10dope said:
If you saw floating Mickey Mouse gloves, those wouldn't have a gender

yeah, they would, ambiguous_gender, the tag used for when a character is in a scene but their gender is undeterminable, that's exactly what the tag's for. arguably faceless_ambiguous if we ever figure out where those lines are drawn, but either way, it's a character, they add to the character count, they get used in pairing tags, everything.

donovan_dmc said:
When you're going to reference something someone has said you really should link to and/or quote it
I believe you're talking about forum #154182, half of which is specifically talking about an implication which would definitely not be valid 100% of the time
I also disagree to the premise that ambiguous gender has any helpfulness to begin with, it exists as a "necessary evil" of our existing tagging system, which could definitely be reformed in certain ways to not need that "necessary evil" and instead have an unknown or something, which would line up much more with what is being expressed here

Not to mention this is also a decade ago, sentiments from the community (and a single person, which should not be used as the sole decider) can change

I invite you to reread the top post in this forum, as it may answer your vapid suggestions
Except for the bit about helpfulness/necessary evil. I'm sure there's hundreds of thousands of posts that even the artist never intended of having any gender. Sometimes you just want to look at a thing. A very helpful tag for artists and people who want to look at something without genitals (i.e. almost Every pokemon ever just to give you a general starting point)

nin10dope said:
They count as characters for the purpose of things like duo and *_focus but, in the words of an Admin themselves on those forums, the ambiguous_gender tag is only technically correct and serves no purpose.

It does, if for example I want to look for males being fingered by characters of some apparent sex: "male_fingered -ambiguous_fingering". But if disembodied_hand alone doesn't count as ambiguous_gender, I'd get posts like these:
post #5221399 post #5197422
Characters of some unknown sex fingering males, exactly what I didn't want. I'd otherwise have to OR together the sexes male_fingered ~male_fingering ~female_fingering ~intersex_fingering (assuming intersex_* tags don't go away, in which case it's male_fingered ~male_fingering ~female_fingering ~andromorph_fingering ~maleherm_fingering ~herm_fingering ~gynomorph_fingering), and in either case that won't work if I'm already ORing other tags.

If disembodied hands alone don't count count as ambiguous_gender, it would prevent certain sex acts from having a proper x/y pairing tag. Posts like these:
post #5448325 post #5429544
could only be tagged male despite only one character being identifiable as male and another character's sex being unknown/ambiguous.

As with disembodied_penis, I can agree that disembodied_hand shouldn't forcefully imply ambiguous_gender, since it can be depicted in a way to indicate that a disembodied hand belongs to a character who's penis, breasts, and/or pussy are also visible, but without that being visible, it is a character, and that character's sex is ambiguous, so should be tagged as such to get proper search results.

dba_afish said:
yeah, they would, ambiguous_gender, the tag used for when a character is in a scene but their gender is undeterminable, that's exactly what the tag's for. arguably faceless_ambiguous if we ever figure out where those lines are drawn, but either way, it's a character, they add to the character count, they get used in pairing tags, everything.

Read the forum discussions mentioned in the beginning. There's no search benefit of adding ambiguous_gender to every post that has disembodied, featureless hands. It causes needless bloat of a valid tag and inconveniences people actually looking for ambiguous bodies

got jumpscared opening the wiki to see my art as an example lol.

anyways most people are not searching for ambiguous_gender on it's own. and even then, ambiguous_gender -disambodied_hand is a pretty solid search option, or ambiguous_gender +solo

there's no reason not to count them as ambiguous, because you can't usually tell the gender of a character just from disembodied hands.

post #5094837

can you tell the gender of these hands? I could tell you they're a male, because it's my husband's sona, but that's not something that's able to be discerned from the image alone.

watsit said:
It does, if for example I want to look for males being fingered by characters of some apparent sex: "male_fingered -ambiguous_fingering".

The answer to your rather creative fictional scenario is male_fingered and male/male (if male was the apparent other sex you wanted). That's such an unbelievably hyper-specific scenario and it took less than a second to figure out how to search for what they wanted.

manitka said:
anyways most people are not searching for ambiguous_gender on it's own.

That's a big unverifiable claim, people can look for references all of the time. And you're putting the inconvenience and impetus on those people for no reason other than semantics. Why should they have to cull out an unrelated tag? Because it's "technically correct"? That's foolish. The point of a tag is for a user to search for it, not to have a massive cross-linking encyclopedia of technical correctness.

manitka said:
there's no reason not to count them as ambiguous

Except I already gave the reason. Useless bloat and user's searching intentions.

nin10dope said:
That's a big unverifiable claim, people can look for references all of the time. And you're putting the inconvenience and impetus on those people for no reason other than semantics. Why should they have to cull out an unrelated tag? Because it's "technically correct"? That's foolish. The point of a tag is for a user to search for it, not to have a massive cross-linking encyclopedia of technical correctness.

i said most people I didn't say that a indisputable fact lmao. yes people can look for references but what is even the argument here??? there's no inconvenience. adding a tag to your search is free and takes about 5 seconds.

it's not "useless bloat" every tag has a reason. If you cannot tell a character's gender they are ambiguous, it's literally the definition of ambiguous.

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

nin10dope said:
The answer to your rather creative fictional scenario is male_fingered and male/male (if male was the apparent other sex you wanted). That's such an unbelievably hyper-specific scenario and it took less than a second to figure out how to search for what they wanted.

That's not what I was looking for there. "males being fingered by characters of some apparent sex", not "males being fingered by males".

nin10dope said:
And you're putting the inconvenience and impetus on those people for no reason other than semantics. Why should they have to cull out an unrelated tag?

What inconvenience is added by correctly tagging a character's sex as being ambiguous/unknown when it is, visually, ambiguous/unknown? More to the point, what reason is there to not tag ambiguous_gender for a character who's sex is visually ambiguous?

nin10dope said:
Except I already gave the reason. Useless bloat and user's searching intentions.

you could just, like: ambiguous -disembodied_hand -faceless_ambiguous

manitka said:
i said most people I didn't say that a indisputable fact lmao. yes people can look for references but what is even the argument here??? there's no inconvenience. adding a tag to your search is free and takes about 5 seconds.

it's not "useless bloat" every tag has a reason. If you cannot tell a character's gender they are ambiguous, it's literally the definition of ambiguous.

Yes, you said "anyways most people are not searching for ambiguous_gender on it's own." That is called a claim. And it is also a very broad and purposefully unverifiable one, just so you can backpedal on it.

Here's a hypothetical:
Someone wants to find fanart of some official franchise species that is inherently genderless or ambiguous in appearance, and not oc's or smut. The easiest answer is ambiguous_gender and species. They find the search results bloated with posts that have disembodied bodyparts unrelated to their search. What's the purpose of those body parts having that tag?

I can make it simpler: remove the specific desire of any one particular species. They just want to see art of furries/scalies/what-have-you with no gender-defining traits. The easy answer is ambiguous_gender. Instead they will find a large proportion of their results having plenty of gender-defining traits just because some shitty floating hands are touching someone's dick. What's the purpose of those hands having the tag?

watsit said:
That's not what I was looking for there. "males being fingered by characters of some apparent sex", not "males being fingered by males".

It's amazing how you can pretend that I didn't cover that in the very post you quoted in the parenthesis immediately following male/male

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

furrypickle said:
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.

user_59725 said:
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.

ippiki_ookami said:
I'd be fine with leaving them genderless. I don't think anyone searching ambiguous_gender would care to see images like the ones linked.

awdip said:
With an issue such as this, I personally feel using ambiguous_gender is pointless and inaccurate. Regardless of the gender, disembodied_hands is a tag for that. The hands might not even be attached to a body, they could be magical.

nin10dope said:
Here's a hypothetical:
Someone wants to find fanart of some official franchise species that is inherently genderless or ambiguous in appearance, and not oc's or smut. The easiest answer is ambiguous_gender and species. They find the search results bloated with posts that have disembodied bodyparts unrelated to their search. What's the purpose of those body parts having that tag?

Or, the more realistic scenario: they find nothing they want because gender tagging applies in all directions, just because a character is meant to be ambiguous does not mean their gender will not be assumed based on any remotely masculine or feminine features

nin10dope said:
Yes, you said "anyways most people are not searching for ambiguous_gender on it's own." That is called a claim. And it is also a very broad and purposefully unverifiable one, just so you can backpedal on it.

Here's a hypothetical:
Someone wants to find fanart of some official franchise species that is inherently genderless or ambiguous in appearance, and not oc's or smut. The easiest answer is ambiguous_gender and species. They find the search results bloated with posts that have disembodied bodyparts unrelated to their search. What's the purpose of those body parts having that tag?

I can make it simpler: remove the specific desire of any one particular species. They just want to see art of furries/scalies/what-have-you with no gender-defining traits. The easy answer is ambiguous_gender. Instead they will find a large proportion of their results having plenty of gender-defining traits just because some shitty floating hands are touching someone's dick. What's the purpose of those hands having the tag?

look, I get it. I like gender ambiguous characters too, but making a change like what you're suggesting to tags that have been used like this with next-to no controversy for a decade would cause massive waves for no real reason.

you can already negate tags from your search, that mostly solves the problem you're describing right there. as I said above and I've said before, broadening the use of the faceless_* tags to also be applied to disembodied bodyparts would also help to alleviate the problem even more. but the answer isn't to stop tagging characters as characters, especially ones that are included as part of the action of the post, just because you think a semi-arbitrary line should be drawn at floating limbs.

nin10dope said:
Yes, you said "anyways most people are not searching for ambiguous_gender on it's own." That is called a claim. And it is also a very broad and purposefully unverifiable one, just so you can backpedal on it.

Here's a hypothetical:
Someone wants to find fanart of some official franchise species that is inherently genderless or ambiguous in appearance, and not oc's or smut. The easiest answer is ambiguous_gender and species. They find the search results bloated with posts that have disembodied bodyparts unrelated to their search. What's the purpose of those body parts having that tag?

I can make it simpler: remove the specific desire of any one particular species. They just want to see art of furries/scalies/what-have-you with no gender-defining traits. The easy answer is ambiguous_gender. Instead they will find a large proportion of their results having plenty of gender-defining traits just because some shitty floating hands are touching someone's dick. What's the purpose of those hands having the tag?

I mean. Just do -disembodied_* and you can get rid of them. "Can't tell the sex because the body isn't visible" is a valid use. Should headshots not be ambiguous because an ambiguous body isn't visible? Ferals are very, very frequently tagged as ambiguous because that's what most of them are without visible genitals. Adding -feral to ambiguous_gender knocked out 63 of 150 results on the first page. If someone is searching for an anthro character through ambiguous_gender (species) then they're probably going to get swamped with ferals. Should ferals not be tagged ambiguous because they fill up so much of the tag and don't fit under criteria used for anthro or human characters? Or should people wanting to avoid them refine their search?

dba_afish said:
look, I get it. I like gender ambiguous characters too, but making a change like what you're suggesting to tags that have been used like this with next-to no controversy for a decade would cause massive waves for no real reason.

you can already negate tags from your search, that mostly solves the problem you're describing right there. as I said above and I've said before, broadening the use of the faceless_* tags to also be applied to disembodied bodyparts would also help to alleviate the problem even more. but the answer isn't to stop tagging characters as characters, especially ones that are included as part of the action of the post, just because you think a semi-arbitrary line should be drawn at floating limbs.

The only thing further I have to say at this moment is that I'm not calling to action to unmake every instance of disembodied_hand on a post that also has ambiguous_gender because yeah, that would be a metaphorically logistical nightmare. This is more to remind people of the set precedent for when that ambig- tag gets removed from a post where it wasn't necessary for the user searching. And also to put it out there for people who either don't know or are on the fence. As always use your best judgement because (randomly) a floating hand could be some grizzly detailed dude hand. But remember that the point of adding these tags is for the people looking for that specific tag at any given time, no more and no less. If they want one thing, they should never be required to subtract another thing just to see the first thing more accurately. Those admin, user, and former-posts phrased it best, with the mindset of serving the people

nin10dope said:
Here's a hypothetical:
Someone wants to find fanart of some official franchise species that is inherently genderless or ambiguous in appearance, and not oc's or smut. The easiest answer is ambiguous_gender and species. They find the search results bloated with posts that have disembodied bodyparts unrelated to their search. What's the purpose of those body parts having that tag?

Even if you remove the disembodied hands, they'll still also get images of that species with a very apparent sex, because some other character unrelated to their search is visible that is ambiguous_gender. Disembodied hands aren't doing anything that isn't already being done.

nin10dope said:
I can make it simpler: remove the specific desire of any one particular species. They just want to see art of furries/scalies/what-have-you with no gender-defining traits. The easy answer is ambiguous_gender.

That's not a good search. Searching ambiguous_gender doesn't mean you'll only see ambiguous_gender characters. Each post will have at least one ambiguous_gender character, but it says nothing about how many other characters with clear gender-defining traits are also visible. You'll want to search "-male -female -intersex" instead for that, regardless of anything disembodied_hands related.

But really, I'm honestly curious. disembodied_hand counts as a character, but you think it isn't enough to dictate said character being tagged ambiguous_gender and shouldn't have their sex tagged at all. So what would need to be visible before ambiguous_gender can apply to a character? If we're to change the rules about this, how should they be changed in your opinion?

watsit said:
Even if you remove the disembodied hands, they'll still also get images of that species with a very apparent sex, because some other character unrelated to their search is visible that is ambiguous_gender. Disembodied hands aren't doing anything that isn't already being done.

That's not a good search. Searching ambiguous_gender doesn't mean you'll only see ambiguous_gender characters. Each post will have at least one ambiguous_gender character, but it says nothing about how many other characters with clear gender-defining traits are also visible. You'll want to search "-male -female -intersex" instead for that, regardless of anything disembodied_hands related.

But really, I'm honestly curious. disembodied_hand counts as a character, but you think it isn't enough to dictate said character being tagged ambiguous_gender and shouldn't have their sex tagged at all. So what would need to be visible before ambiguous_gender can apply to a character? If we're to change the rules about this, how should they be changed in your opinion?

I'll play along with the curiosity, thank you for asking, genuinely
I think maybe a full-blown silhouette or just the appearance of an actual character, not a disembodied part.
Of course there's edge cases but that would be case-by-case. Cuz one could argue something that has detached body parts as a part of its anatomy could cause conflict.
At the end of the day, it's what would necessitate that post having for someone searching a tag to want to see it. People searching ambiguous_gender probably just want to see full-blown characters that are ambiguous.

let me hit you with a hypothetical:
sometimes I just want to view posts with at least one character whose gender I don't need to think about engaging in sex acts, and I don't care how much or how little of the ambiguous character is visible.

dba_afish said:
let me hit you with a hypothetical:
sometimes I just want to view posts with at least one character whose gender I don't need to think about engaging in sex acts, and I don't care how much or how little of the ambiguous character is visible.

Assuming you care about the other character's gender, like most straight guys would do when searching for porn, you just search female and whatever sex act you want. Breasts_groped anally_penetrated whatever action you desire. Although the hypothetical is slightly spoiled when this reply shows what tags you used for the link lol. If you want to make it more specific after that, then you can clarify your search, but it should be minimalistic by default.
I'm more convinced now than ever that most disembodied limbs and possibly genitals should not be treated as another character by the default. Like a girl with a silhouette of a dick in her butt would still be tagged with all of the anal penetration tags, but the hypothetical of what is that dick attached to is irrelevant.
Edit for clarity: things that are character defining like a head and/or torso are most likely the biggest exceptions, before anyone asks

nin10dope said:
Assuming you care about the other character's gender

The point is they don't. For bi and pan people, the specific gender can be less relevant. And in some cases, not knowing the gender of one of the participants can be a turn-on as you can imagine it to be whatever you want even as your mood changes.

watsit said:
The point is they don't. For bi and pan people, the specific gender can be less relevant. And in some cases, not knowing the gender of one of the participants can be a turn-on as you can imagine it to be whatever you want even as your mood changes.

That's not the point. It was an example on how he could make the hypothetical search. You're not contributing. And if you're purposely not wanting to know the gender, that's entirely why you search ambiguous_gender, not disembodied_hand.

nin10dope said:
And if you're purposely not wanting to know the gender, that's entirely why you search ambiguous_gender, not disembodied_hand.

Which is why disembodied hands alone should count as ambiguous_gender, otherwise it would leave out posts like these:
post #5456156 post #5360849 post #5296052 post #5449986 post #5424617
characters having sex with someone (or multiple someones) of unknown/ambiguous gender, exactly what the search is looking for.

watsit said:
Which is why disembodied hands alone should count as ambiguous_gender, otherwise it would leave out posts like these:
post #5456156 post #5360849 post #5296052 post #5449986 post #5424617
characters having sex with someone (or multiple someones) of unknown/ambiguous gender, exactly what the search is looking for.

No it's not. That's just objectively untrue.

nin10dope said:
Assuming you care about the other character's gender, like most straight guys would do when searching for porn, you just search female and whatever sex act you want. Breasts_groped anally_penetrated whatever action you desire. Although the hypothetical is slightly spoiled when this reply shows what tags you used for the link lol. If you want to make it more specific after that, then you can clarify your search, but it should be minimalistic by default.
I'm more convinced now than ever that most disembodied limbs and possibly genitals should not be treated as another character by the default. Like a girl with a silhouette of a dick in her butt would still be tagged with all of the anal penetration tags, but the hypothetical of what is that dick attached to is irrelevant.
Edit for clarity: things that are character defining like a head and/or torso are most likely the biggest exceptions, before anyone asks

I don't know how much clearer I could make it than "at least one character whose gender I don't need to think about" along with a link to the search ambiguous sex duo. should I have said "participant" rather than "character"?

alright, let me flesh out the hypothetical a bit more: in the previously mentioned hypotetical situation I'm bi/pansexual and non-binary, I want a character in the post who's ambiguous because I want a character to project onto that dosn't have any visual gender pointers. and, to reiterate, I don't care how much or how little of said character is visible; hand, finger, arm, tongue, whatever.

dba_afish said:
I don't know how much clearer I could make it than "at least one character whose gender I don't need to think about" along with a link to the search ambiguous sex duo. should I have said "participant" rather than "character"?

alright, let me flesh out the hypothetical a bit more: in the previously mentioned hypotetical situation I'm bi/pansexual and non-binary, I want a character in the post who's ambiguous because I want a character to project onto that dosn't have any visual gender pointers. and, to reiterate, I don't care how much or how little of said character is visible; hand, finger, arm, tongue, whatever.

you're asking a rhetorical question because, like I mentioned the first time you posed it, you put the answer in it by linking those three tags

nin10dope said:
you're asking a rhetorical question because, like I mentioned the first time you posed it, you put the answer in it by linking those three tags

okay well, I said what I wanted, and I gave a reason why I'd want disembodied limbs to be included. I really don't know what else to say...

The tag is there so the searcher gets shown what has that tag in it. Random disembodied limbs are not visible characters. Therefore they have no gender. All of these hypothetical scenarios are you adding further wants and desires on top of everything, so you should be the one adding more tags to your search for your specific scenarios. Someone searches for ambiguous_gender, they should only be shown characters in which you cannot see the gender of. Disembodied limbs are not characters for this purpose, it's been stated by an admin, former staff, and other users who care about adding tags. I've quoted them from the very beginning.

nin10dope said:
The tag is there so the searcher gets shown what has that tag in it. Random disembodied limbs are not visible characters. Therefore they have no gender.

okay well, I disagree.

dba_afish said:
okay well, I said what I wanted, and I gave a reason why I'd want disembodied limbs to be included. I really don't know what else to say...

You did not say you want disembodied limbs. You tried very hard to insinuate a very veiled connection between that and ambiguous_gender, but it's not there by default. The tags aren't here for a small set of users to play jigsaw with and connect every piece they think fit together.

Straight from the mouth of an administrator, aka someone who works for the business that is this website.

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.

nin10dope said:
(...)

You're still quoting posts from a decade ago? Need you be reminded that opinions can change, one person's opinion does not overrule everyone else, and that no one has agreed with you here
This is just going around in pointless circles with you refusing to accept any other opinion or point of view, insisting you are right and pointing at someone's words from a decade ago

nin10dope said:
You did not say you want disembodied limbs. You tried very hard to insinuate a very veiled connection between that and ambiguous_gender, but it's not there by default. The tags aren't here for a small set of users to play jigsaw with and connect every piece they think fit together.

  _?
ϵ( ⁰-⁰ ϶)ɞ

dba_afish said:
I don't care how much or how little of the ambiguous character is visible.

dba_afish said:
[...] hand, finger, arm, tongue, whatever.

dba_afish said:
  _?
ϵ( ⁰-⁰ ϶)ɞ

Not caring and wanting to see something are two different things.

I'll even throw out a caveat for everyone who disagrees: if a character is addressing the potential owner of said limbs, then by all means that's fair game for ambiguity. Because that makes the owner of the limbs relevant and gives a feeling of why the additional tag should be there.

Until someone shows me a more recent and just as relevant post/quote from staff, then yeah I'll keep citing an old quote. I even acknowledged the age of the quotes in the very first post.

nin10dope said:
Until someone shows me a more recent and just as relevant post/quote from staff, then yeah I'll keep citing an old quote. I even acknowledged the age of the quotes in the very first post.

I feel like you're fundamentally misunderstanding the role that staff plays in these matters, at least in this stage of the game. they're closer to judges, they don't really define individual tags like this.

the usage of the tag by taggers and the wider userbase is what defines a tag. the staff will make decisions on AIBURs, but those are created and discussed by the userbase. this has been how the site has functioned since ~2019 with the introduction of user-created BURs and a proper voting system, but even prior to that the all of this tagging nerd shit was very much in the purview of the normal forum-goer.

Can you at bare minimum stop constantly removing the ambiguous gender tags I apply on posts with disembodied hands? If you need staff weighting on this situation, at least wait until you actually get a response. You can't just randomly start undoing bunch of tags that have had an established way of use for years just because you don't personally agree with it, and prefer relying on one singular admin's decade old opinion.

ruppari said:
Can you at bare minimum stop constantly removing the ambiguous gender tags I apply on posts with disembodied hands? If you need staff weighting on this situation, at least wait until you actually get a response. You can't just randomly start undoing bunch of tags that have had an established way of use for years just because you don't personally agree with it, and prefer relying on one singular admin's decade old opinion.

I'm only taking a page from your book, I don't see how you can complain.

nin10dope said:
I'm only taking a page from your book, I don't see how you can complain.

Bro I have been just undoing incorrect reverts you have been doing to tag changes I have made, and posts I have checked out on first few pages. I regularly check my own edit history to see If I have made mistakes or if someone is messing with my tagging. I am not especially snooping through your tag history and checking through any random post you edit.

I really would prefer to not bring this to public, but my tickets are yet to be processed and this is getting way too far: You really need to stop doing this. I know you are especially targeting my tag edits. I know you especially started doing all of this just because you are holding a grudge against me. I know this all started just because we disagreed about gender tagging on your posts, I asked staff to weight in, and they ruled in my favor and locked them as ambiguous gender. I am not an idiot. I know that only after this you mysteriously started caring so much about application of ambiguous gender tag, and exclusively on posts I have edited. Jesus fucking Christ.

nin10dope said:
I'm only taking a page from your book, I don't see how you can complain.

yeah, what you're doing right now is outright tag vandalism, quit it.

dba_afish said:
yeah, what you're doing right now is outright tag vandalism, quit it.

Just when I thought this discussion couldn't get worse, they've pulled out just about the worst way to get people on your side

nin10dope said:
Not caring and wanting to see something are two different things.

by the way, I literally did say it was something I wanted.

dba_afish said:
I want a character in the post who's ambiguous [...] I don't care how much or how little of said character is visible; hand, finger, arm, tongue, whatever.

nin10dope said:
Until someone shows me a more recent and just as relevant post/quote from staff, then yeah I'll keep citing an old quote. I even acknowledged the age of the quotes in the very first post.

if you want a more recent statement from staff, here's Genjar explicitly stating that ''hands and other disembodied body parts'' are considered characters. Genjar was staff at the time of this statement.

since we've discussed this, can we now say that we did, in fact, "bring this up anywhere" like I was apparently prompted to do 4 years ago, and finally remove those forum discussion links from the disembodied_hand wiki?

dba_afish said:
since we've discussed this, can we now say that we did, in fact, "bring this up anywhere" like I was apparently prompted to do 4 years ago, and finally remove those forum discussion links from the disembodied_hand wiki?

I'm confused by what that link means, it shows me two old versions of the wiki made by a former staff with one saying 'did you bring this up anywhere?'

nin10dope said:
I'm confused by what that link means, it shows me two old versions of the wiki made by a former staff with one saying 'did you bring this up anywhere?'

they were edits restoring the forum links to the wiki page which had been removed about a year prior because I thought that the discussions were outdated and ran counter to how the tags were actually being used in 2020 and leaving them in was bound to cause some confusion at some point.