Yeah, there's definitely no need to make it even more complicated.

I prefer Danbooru's gender definitions: there's only male, female and futanari (intersex). If someone wants to find dickgirls, they can search for futanari+penis+breasts. It's simple, and there's no constant tag wars or complaints.

Yet you folks fail to adress the issue of wanting to find a masculine intersex with a male body and breasts. My whole point about this, that you guys wanting to lump them in with dickgirls despite them having a very clearly masculine bodyshape and form, just the chest being the sticking point of being different. After all the dickgirl tag does clearly say wholly feminime in body with a dick, and that cannot be applied in this case as its a misnomer.

Granted id be satisfied with a more neutral shemale. Or a variant upon intersex. Its just the dickgirl tag I am protesting.

Nefer said:
Yet you folks fail to adress the issue of wanting to find a masculine intersex with a male body and breasts. My whole point about this, that you guys wanting to lump them in with dickgirls despite them having a very clearly masculine bodyshape and form, just the chest being the sticking point of being different. After all the dickgirl tag does clearly say wholly feminime in body with a dick, and that cannot be applied in this case as its a misnomer.

Granted id be satisfied with a more neutral shemale. Or a variant upon intersex. Its just the dickgirl tag I am protesting.

Variant upon intersex already exists: https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=muscular_intersex
That's the current solution to the problem you are talking about, it also gets the dickgirl tag for the sake of searching, people who want a character with boobs+dick would still want it showing up in the search.

Hammie said:
Variant upon intersex already exists: https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=muscular_intersex
That's the current solution to the problem you are talking about, it also gets the dickgirl tag for the sake of searching, people who want a character with boobs+dick would still want it showing up in the search.

That is a reasonable response, I thank you for phrasing it in this way instead of being beligerent about it like some of the earlier posters.

Nefer said:
That is a reasonable response, I thank you for phrasing it in this way instead of being beligerent about it like some of the earlier posters.

No one was being belligerent.

ippiki_ookami said:
No one was being belligerent.

I was, but my excessively sarcastic tone didn't translate over the internet.

Rule is still extremely backwards-ass as all whopsy-fuck and probably only exists as some glory-stricken admin's wild exertion of power.

Let the people that aren't wholly retarded do the research and gender tag CORRECTLY (I know some of you might need a dictionary here), how's them apples?

Duqe said:
Rule is still extremely backwards-ass as all whopsy-fuck and probably only exists as some glory-stricken admin's wild exertion of power.

Let the people that aren't wholly retarded do the research and gender tag CORRECTLY (I know some of you might need a dictionary here), how's them apples?

Go ahead and start tagging outside the TWYS rules, we'll see how long that lasts.

Duqe said:
Rule is still extremely backwards-ass as all whopsy-fuck and probably only exists as some glory-stricken admin's wild exertion of power.

Let the people that aren't wholly retarded do the research and gender tag CORRECTLY (I know some of you might need a dictionary here), how's them apples?

I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say but I highly recommend trying to explain your point instead of mindless swearing because you currently look like a self-glorified bigot.

Duqe said:
Rule is still extremely backwards-ass as all whopsy-fuck and probably only exists as some glory-stricken admin's wild exertion of power.

Let the people that aren't wholly retarded do the research and gender tag CORRECTLY (I know some of you might need a dictionary here), how's them apples?

And when that evidence disappears from the internet (which it eventually will, cause people delete things), how should it be tagged then? You're saying that e621.net, which has tags that any user can edit at any time, should act as an authority on declaring which sexes are "REALLY" being portrayed in an image, as opposed to what you can actually see for yourself?

How about artwork that looks like cub artwork but the artist claims it isn't? Should we just go with the artist's word just because, or should we make the determination ourselves whether or not something looks like cub artwork?

e621.net doesn't care what you said you drew, what did you ACTUALLY DRAW? Because that's how it's going to end up tagged, because not everyone is going to be familiar with the "extra information" that the artist provides on their own page somewhere that's going to end up deleted at some point anyways.

You should give the twys page a read if you haven't already.

Char said:
And when that evidence disappears from the internet (which it eventually will, cause people delete things), how should it be tagged then? You're saying that e621.net, which has tags that any user can edit at any time, should act as an authority on declaring which sexes are "REALLY" being portrayed in an image, as opposed to what you can actually see for yourself?

How about artwork that looks like cub artwork but the artist claims it isn't? Should we just go with the artist's word just because, or should we make the determination ourselves whether or not something looks like cub artwork?

e621.net doesn't care what you said you drew, what did you ACTUALLY DRAW? Because that's how it's going to end up tagged, because not everyone is going to be familiar with the "extra information" that the artist provides on their own page somewhere that's going to end up deleted at some point anyways.

You should give the twys page a read if you haven't already.

So what you're saying is;

It's alright to speculate despite what is the truth, as long as you personally see something different in it you can state that it is. Despite that interpretation differs for everyone and thus is an extremely unreliable means to base judgement on?

How does that work better than stated fact by the artist, then? Answer it, it truthfully does not. If you look hard enough at anything, you can see whatever the hell you want, see the theory of finding Biblical allusions in Moby Dick.

In essence, you're preferring something stable over something entirely whimsical and majorly flawed, simply for the sake of convenience (read; laziness and ignorance), because you don't actually want to do research, or even allow others with proper knowledge of the image at hand to utilize that knowledge in tagging the damn picture.

Duqe said:
So what you're saying is;

It's alright to speculate despite what is the truth, as long as you personally see something different in it you can state that it is. Despite that interpretation differs for everyone and thus is an extremely unreliable means to base judgement on?

How does that work better than stated fact by the artist, then? Answer it, it truthfully does not. If you look hard enough at anything, you can see whatever the hell you want, see the theory of finding Biblical allusions in Moby Dick.

In essence, you're preferring something stable over something entirely whimsical and majorly flawed, simply for the sake of convenience (read; laziness and ignorance), because you don't actually want to do research, or even allow others with proper knowledge of the image at hand to utilize that knowledge in tagging the damn picture.

Wrong on all accounts, we tag what is visible in the image itself, without outside knowledge. We see a Zebra with a penis and an otherwise female body, thus it gets the tag Dickgirl.
We do not "speculate" what is visible in the image, thus there is no differentiation in what someone is seeing, the interpretation of what is visible may differ, but we have guidelines to help us narrow this down far enough that personal opinion is nearly ruled out.

This is as if someone wants to sell you a vacuum but is saying that this vacuum is in fact a steam cleaner. Who do you trust? The salesman trying to disguise his vacuum as a steam cleaner or someone who took apart the device and came to the conclusion that it is not a steam cleaner?

NotMeNotYou said:
Wrong on all accounts, we tag what is visible in the image itself, without outside knowledge. We see a Zebra with a penis and an otherwise female body, thus it gets the tag Dickgirl.
We do not "speculate" what is visible in the image, thus there is no differentiation in what someone is seeing, the interpretation of what is visible may differ, but we have guidelines to help us narrow this down far enough that personal opinion is nearly ruled out.

This is as if someone wants to sell you a vacuum but is saying that this vacuum is in fact a steam cleaner. Who do you trust? The salesman trying to disguise his vacuum as a steam cleaner or someone who took apart the device and came to the conclusion that it is not a steam cleaner?

Equally wrong, on almost every account. I don't think website could run more unequally if Putin was in charge of it.

Where did the DNP list go, by the way?

Duqe said:
Where did the DNP list go, by the way?

https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=avoid_posting ?

Duqe said:
Equally wrong, on almost every account. I don't think website could run more unequally if Putin was in charge of it.

Where did the DNP list go, by the way?

I do not think the word "wrong" means what you think it means, I gave you the short version of our TWYS-rule, which is correct.

We try to tag as objectively for the enduser as possible, if someone wishes to see a herm, he will probably want to see a herm, not a dickgirl. If he wishes to see both, the tag intersex will work wonders.
Why you believe we are stepping on your toes because of an objective tag used to help search a specific thing in our database is beyond me.

Duqe said:
So what you're saying is;

It's alright to speculate despite what is the truth, as long as you personally see something different in it you can state that it is. Despite that interpretation differs for everyone and thus is an extremely unreliable means to base judgement on?

How does that work better than stated fact by the artist, then? Answer it, it truthfully does not. If you look hard enough at anything, you can see whatever the hell you want, see the theory of finding Biblical allusions in Moby Dick.

In essence, you're preferring something stable over something entirely whimsical and majorly flawed, simply for the sake of convenience (read; laziness and ignorance), because you don't actually want to do research, or even allow others with proper knowledge of the image at hand to utilize that knowledge in tagging the damn picture.

I'm assuming you're not familiar with this artwork? http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/files/2013/01/margritti-this-is-not-a-pipe.jpeg (the caption reads "This is not a pipe")

Tell me, is that a pipe, or no? The artist clearly says it's not, but what does it look like to you? How should that image be tagged on e621? Should it get the "pipe" tag?

(Granted, this is not the original intent of how the artwork should be interpreted, since the artist was only trying to say that it's merely a representation of a pipe, and not a real, tangible pipe. It still works as an example for this discussion though.)

Char said:
I'm assuming you're not familiar with this artwork? http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/files/2013/01/margritti-this-is-not-a-pipe.jpeg (the caption reads "This is not a pipe")

Tell me, is that a pipe, or no? The artist clearly says it's not, but what does it look like to you? How should that image be tagged on e621? Should it get the "pipe" tag?

(Granted, this is not the original intent of how the artwork should be interpreted, since the artist was only trying to say that it's merely a representation of a pipe, and not a real, tangible pipe. It still works as an example for this discussion though.)

Oh god, can I post that pic?
I really want to post that pic.

Halite said:
Oh god, can I post that pic?
I really want to post that pic.

That (along with Char's explanation) would fit nicely on the TWYS wiki , no?