Aliasing neuter → invalid_tag
Link to alias

Reason:

Alright, I've been thinking about this for a while. While this may not be as huge of deal as it was a while ago, it still comes up every now and then, and it's still mentioned in the wikis. What do I propose?

First of all, ignore the wiki. It was last updated in 2010 and we've already established it conflicts with a lot of things, including (most importantly) how most people actually use it. Previous discussions: forum #138787 forum #101670 forum #133985

Second, I'm ignoring any intersex for the moment, because it's easier to explain that way.

Third, before anyone brings this up, here's the definition of neuter for convenience:

Summary from definition above:

• A neuter (cat) - The cat has no balls
• A neutered (cat) - The cat has no balls
• To neuter a (dog) - The removing of balls
• (Fluffy) was neutered - The balls were removed
• (Sam) has no sexual characteristics; they are neuter - For whatever reason, they just never came with any

Neuter is pretty much used to imply the character has no balls, leaving castration for the act/fetish of actually removing the balls. However that second definition of "genderless" has gotten mixed in a bit and it's so far been unhelpful.

Proposal:

• neuter --Alias-> invalid_tag

• neutered - Definition: A character whose balls have been removed (needs evidence, like a scar)
• eunuch --Alias-> neutered (I actually like this word because it lacks conflicting definitions, however not everyone knows how to spell or even remembers it)
• eunich --Alias-> neutered (I suspect other people misspell this as much as I do)
• gelding --Alias-> neutered (horse with balls removed; species-specific)

• penectomy - Definition: Removed penis, or removing penis (balls irrelevant) (unfortunately we don't really have a second tag for the act itself)
• castration - Definition: The act of removing balls (penis irrelevant)
• neutering --Alias-> castration

• nullo - Definition: Removed penis and balls (needs evidence, like a scar)
• featureless_crotch - Definition: It's bald and there's possibly an anus present present or something but no scars (I haven't really got this one down quite yet, but you get the picture)
• ambiguous gender - Definition: Can't tell (already established)
• male, female, dickgirl herm, maleherm, cuntboy (however we already use them)

Of note: Unfortunately, most of these don't work as implications. A picture with both castration and penectomy should be nullo as well is my current thoughts. Note that these tags should probably work well enough to include intersex.

Summary:

• Balls + has a penis = normal male (already established)]]
• Balls + removed penis = penectomy (with scar)
• Removing penis = penectomy
• Removed balls + has a penis = neutered (with scar)
• Removing balls = castration
• Removed balls + removed penis = nullo (with scar)
• Removing balls + removing penis = castration, penectomy, and eventually nullo
• Can't tell? = ambiguous_gender (already established)
• No scars or anything but no genitals? = featureless_crotch (think angels), not really intended for safe posts though otherwise we'd have a lot more of these.

The only thing I'm really not sure about is...

• nullification = invalid_tag? nullo?
• nullification --implies-> castration + penectomy?

But what if they legitimately are nongendered? Not that you can't tell, not that they're just not shown with crotch features, but that their crotch is supposed to be, and is, lacking anything. Are we going to just make nongender a tag?

Furrin_Gok said:
But what if they legitimately are nongendered? Not that you can't tell, not that they're just not shown with crotch features, but that their crotch is supposed to be, and is, lacking anything. Are we going to just make nongender a tag?

*rolls some dice*]{they all land on the corner}

I don't really have the energy to try and debate this again.
But all I care about is to de-implicate certain words so that there is a difference between castrated characters, and actual castration. Fuckin' tired of seeing a neutered character being tagged with castration.

Edit: Other than that, skimming over parasprites post, it looks good.

Furrin_Gok said:
But what if they legitimately are nongendered? Not that you can't tell, not that they're just not shown with crotch features, but that their crotch is supposed to be, and is, lacking anything. Are we going to just make nongender a tag?

"Supposed to be, and is, lacking anything" is visually the same as a crotch without any features on it. The only difference is intention and background story, neither of which is taggable. So functionally, they still get tagged with featureless_crotch the same as any other crotch without any features. The meaning behind it may be different, but the visible result is the same so they still get tagged with the same tag.

Basically, we don't tag the reason they weren't drawn with genitals, just the fact that none are present where normally they would be found. What you see; not what you know. The crotch is featureless = featureless_crotch (regardless of the reason).

furrypickle said:
"Supposed to be, and is, lacking anything" is visually the same as a crotch without any features on it. The only difference is intention and background story, neither of which is taggable. So functionally, they still get tagged with featureless_crotch the same as any other crotch without any features. The meaning behind it may be different, but the visible result is the same so they still get tagged with the same tag.

Basically, we don't tag the reason they weren't drawn with genitals, just the fact that none are present where normally they would be found. What you see; not what you know. The crotch is featureless = featureless_crotch (regardless of the reason).

I understand, but we're still without a gender tag. Is it going to stay that way?

Furrin_Gok said:
I understand, but we're still without a gender tag. Is it going to stay that way?

What type of character would you consider genderless? The only thing I can think of is angels, which still get tagged visually regardless of lore.

Ambiguous_gender has come to mean "unable to be placed in one of the other tags" and unfortunately this doesn't really leave room for a "nongendered" tag. Ironically, nongendered is actually one of the few things that fits neatly into ambiguous_gender since it's so hard to clearly define.

The current flowchart in howto:tag_genders proposes one model, however it has a huge flaw right at the onset in that it prioritizes the presence of genitals over any other characteristics. This leaves rating:s characters who are not wearing clothes to all get thrown into neuter (which is obviously not what is done). It's also ridiculously busy, confusing to read, and seems to be heavily biased to anthro/humanoid characters.

Edit: Changed flowchart to reflect featureless_crotch instead.

I generally follow something closer to this:

• Penis or pussy?
• Penis -> male, dickgirl, male + girly
• Breasts or feminine body?
• Breasts -> dickgirl
• Feminine -> male + girly
• Both -> dickgirl
• Neither -> male
• Pussy -> female, cuntboy
• Breasts or feminine body?
• Breasts -> female
• Feminine -> female
• Both -> female
• Neither -> cuntboy
• Both -> herm, maleherm
• Breasts or feminine body?
• Breasts -> herm
• Feminine -> herm
• Both -> herm
• Neither -> maleherm
• neither or rating:s -> male, female, ambiguous_gender
• Masuline or feminine body?
• Masculine -> male
• Feminine -> female
• Neither/unsure -> ambiguous_gender

Masculine human (anthro): Broad shoulders, thicker/flater eyebrows, squared jaw, prominant "adams apple", body fat distributed mostly to lower torso ("beer gut"/"apple shape"), facial hair (mustache, beard), thicker arm and body hair.

Feminine human (anthro): Usually smaller in proportion to masculine characters, wide hips and pelvis, more arched eyebrows, smaller hands/feet, breasts, body fat distributed to lower/mid torso and thighs ("pear shape").

Feral: Highly dependant on species.

• Teats, udders, coloring, size, body shape.
• Presence of a big mane (in lions), psuedo-penis (spotted hyena).
• Artist's style may introduce some human characteristics as well (arched eyebrows).

Other: Clothing choice, pose, dialog, elaborate transformations.

There's probably hundreds of things I could throw in the bottom part, but the top part should follow TWYS fairly closely. Even if it tends to get ignored for certain established characters (eg, digimon).

Peekaboo said:
I don't really have the energy to try and debate this again.
But all I care about is to de-implicate certain words so that there is a difference between castrated characters, and actual castration. Fuckin' tired of seeing a neutered character being tagged with castration.

Edit: Other than that, skimming over parasprites post, it looks good.

Yeah...that bugs me too. And I don't even seek castration/genital removal pictures.

There were 26 neuter posts. 25 were tagged as "male character with penis and no balls", the other was a crotch shot and rating:s. I moved most of those over to eunuch for the moment since it has less definitional baggage. I'm going to go through the castration tags right now this weekend and throw any that aren't showing graphic removal of the testicles into eunuch as well. We can rename and make aliases later if needed.

Right away I am starting to wonder if gelding should be aliased to eunuch (or whatever tag it ends up being).

parasprite said:
Right away I am starting to wonder if gelding should be aliased to eunuch (or whatever tag it ends up being).

Eunuch would work.
Pretty sure in my old castration/penectomy/neuter thread, I debated aliasing gelding to eunuch. Don't know why nothing ever came of it.

Peekaboo said:
Eunuch would work.
Pretty sure in my old castration/penectomy/neuter thread, I debated aliasing gelding to eunuch. Don't know why nothing ever came of it.

I suspect most people try to keep the removing of genitals out of their mind, so it was easily forgotten.

A tweaked model (excluding female for the moment)

• Balls + has a penis = normal male (already established)
• Removed penis + balls = penectomy
• Removing penis = penectomy
• Removed or no balls + has a penis = eunuch (works for herm as well, as an indirect pseudo-futanari tag)
• Removing balls = castration
• Removed balls + removed penis = nullo (implicates eunuch and penectomy)
• Removing balls + removing penis = nullification (implicates castration and penectomy).
• Nothing there (may have anus/urethra) = featureless_crotch
• Probably can be used with nullo and rating:s.

parasprite said:

• Balls + has a penis = normal male (already established)
• Removed penis + balls = penectomy
• Removing penis = penectomy
• Removed or no balls + has a penis = eunuch (works for herm as well, as an indirect pseudo-futanari tag)
• Removing balls = castration
• Removed balls + removed penis = nullo (implicates eunuch and penectomy)
• Removing balls + removing penis = nullification (implicates castration and penectomy).
• Nothing there (may have anus/urethra) = featureless_crotch
• Probably can be used with nullo and rating:s.

That all sounds great.

Soooooooo

What happened to all the neuter gender tags on posts?
-
Somewhat related is forum #140749 , which can be used to come up with a less ambiguous tag for the neuter gender

See the note on this post: forum #184506

-

parasprite said:
Summary:

Other than the whole 'invalidate-neuter-without-having-a-discrete-replacement-gender-first' thing, that sounds good. +1

-

I'm not sure about using the term eunuch for a post-castration character, since the definition is ambiguous:

A eunuch (/ˈjuːnək/; Ancient Greek: εὐνοῦχος) is a man who (by the common definition of the term) may have been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences.

Also:

In some ancient texts, "eunuch" may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate, or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate.

but there are no better suggestions currently in mind

-

The only thing I'm really not sure about is...

Nullification could be used when both castration and penectomization are present

• nullification --implies-> castration + penectomy?

Sure, makes sense if we do the above

parasprite said:
Ambiguous_gender has come to mean "unable to be placed in one of the other tags" and unfortunately this doesn't really leave room for a "nongendered" tag.

Which is kinda stupid by the way. "Unable to place into ..." is neatly expressed by not tagging the post with any other tags. Even its description in the wiki clearly shows that it's a blend of two unrelated concepts.

Maybe take it as a reason to edit the wiki?

hslugs said:
"Unable to place into ..." is neatly expressed by not tagging the post with any other tags.

Try finding something that's not tagged

titanmelon said:
Try finding something that's not tagged

Finding what?

Images not tagged with male, female or herm, well that's "-male -female -herm".
Characters with trurly ambiguous gender? No luck, sorry.
A certain picture of a recurring fox character I remember to be female, standing near a river? "ambiguous_gender fox standing river" of course, because that was a clean picture.

hslugs said:
Finding what?

Images not tagged with male, female or herm, well that's "-male -female -herm".
Characters with trurly ambiguous gender? No luck, sorry.
A certain picture of a recurring fox character I remember to be female, standing near a river? "ambiguous_gender fox standing river" of course, because that was a clean picture.

Find an image that is tagged with those that has another character that can't be tagged as either of the three but isn't tagged with ambiguous gender.

Oh also, I think it might be safer to invalidate nullification after all, since the term is also ambiguous, and people might use it as a verbal noun for void shields or warp holes, or some other time-space context

Furrin_Gok said:
Find an image that is tagged with those that has another character that can't be tagged as either

If it can't be tagged as either, why would that come up as a search term?

That's like trying to find a trio where one has horns, one has hooves, and one is a bird, with "horns hooves no_horns_and_no_hooves".

Would your example invalidate trying to find (a) character(s) with no horns and hooves?

hslugs said:
If it can't be tagged as either, why would that come up as a search term?

That's like trying to find a trio where one has horns, one has hooves, and one is a bird, with "horns hooves no_horns_and_no_hooves".

Unlike gender, we aren't overly invested in making sure horn and hooves are actually tagged on most/all images.

hslugs said:
If it can't be tagged as either, why would that come up as a search term?

That's like trying to find a trio where one has horns, one has hooves, and one is a bird, with "horns hooves no_horns_and_no_hooves".

Think a little harder on that. The bird does have a tag that says "Probably doesn't have horns and hooves:" "Avian."
Also:

parasprite said:
Unlike gender, we aren't overly invested in making sure horn and hooves are actually tagged on most/all images.

You'd probably have to search something like ~Bovine ~Equine Cervine Avian

parasprite said:
Unlike gender, we aren't overly invested in making sure horn and hooves are actually tagged on most/all images.

Current policy on gender tags says something very different.

Compare canine, feline and unknown_species, which are tagged on most applicable images, but also have their own type and allow background checks. Same goes for artists tags vs unknown_artist. In both cases, unknown_* option is discouraged. Gender tags, like horn and hooves, are generic and follow TWYS.

I'm not saying gender: should be a type, but I do think ambiguous_gender is overused and should be discouraged except for really weird cases.

hslugs said:
but I do think ambiguous_gender is overused

Agreed; it's kind of useless right now outside of being a type of umbrella tag

Furrin_Gok said:
Think a little harder on that. The bird does have a tag that says "Probably doesn't have horns and hooves:" "Avian."

Well that's the point. You're tagging "avian" (positive feature, something that is depicted), not "no_horns_and_no_hooves" (negative feature, something that is missing from the picture). Except for gender, where the equivalent of no_horns_and_no_hooves is encouraged.

hslugs said:
I do think ambiguous_gender is overused and should be discouraged except for really weird cases.

It's not "For really weird cases," it's for "Cases where we legitimately aren't sure or cannot tell." That's what the unknown_* tags are for, too, but those ones may end up being solved, whereas gender, as a Tag What You See type of tag, and thus cannot be "solved."