I'm going to try and introduce a new concept for tagging. The images I'm talking about are generally few and far spread. This isn't a super big issue and the TWYS policy and rules work very well in pretty much every other case.
So let's jump right into it and look at this image: https://e621.net/post/show/383189 Let's say it doesn't have any tags, how should we tag it? If we go and look at the rules, it says we should tag what is either clearly visible or reasonably assumed. Person number 1 would tag it; dickgirl, male, anal, dickgirl/male, renamon; Mostly because they have a dickgirl fetish, but they're also pretty sure those things can be reasonably assumed. Now person number 2 comes along who looked at the source and sees the artist says it's a herm and a male, they add the tags; herm, herm/male; and delete; dickgirl, dickgirl/male;. Then, person number 3 (who has read and strongly believes in the TWYS policy) comes to tag; ambiguous_gender, penetration, ambiguous_penetration, ambiguous/ambiguous; and deletes; herm, herm/male, anal; Their reasoning being renamon could be wearing a strap on, there could be a double sided dildo, the other character could be a cuntboi, etc and we don't really know because it's out of view.
So, who is right? Well, person number 3 is the most correct, while person number 1 and 2 want to tag two different possibilities. But, which one is the most useful? I'd say person number 3's tags are the least useful because not very many people have an "ambiguous gender fetish". While the other two groups are kinda useful because people that search for dickgirl/male or herm/male may enjoy this image. By the current policy/rules, an admin would make the final decision if there was an argument.
Now we finally get to my idea, the tagging of multiple possibilities (which actually isn't covered at all by the rules or policies and is technically allowed already if you just go by the rules). What I mean is to go by usefulness, and tag all the "most reasonable" possibilities. The renamon image could be tagged; dickgirl, male, female, flatchest, cuntboy, strap_on, female/male, female/cuntboy, dickgirl/male, dickgirl/cuntboy, anal, vaginal, ambiguous_gender, ambiguous_penetration, ambiguous/ambiguous;. To cover the possibility that it's a female with a strap on fucking a male anally, a female with a strap on fucking a cuntboy anally, a female with a strap on fucking a cuntboy vaginally, a dickgirl fucking a male anally, a dickgirl fucking a cuntboy anally, or a dickgirl fucking a cuntboy vaginally (the ambiguous tags are there to point out that no one actually knows what gender the characters are or what is penetrating what). Now this gets pretty complicated, you can see I left out the possibility that it's a female fucking a male/cuntboy with a double dildo or that it's a herm fucking a male/cuntboy. I left these out because I'm pretty sure you'd really want to see the dildo if you searched for "double_dildo" and you'd really want to see a vagina and penis on one character if you searched for "herm". Now that seems pretty subjective, but I really do think it would be the "most useful" way of tagging the renamon pic. "most useful" Meaning the tags you'd come up with if you imagined whether someone would want this image to come up or not if they searched for a each tag.
Now let's look at some less complicated more common implications of this concept where naughty bits aren't hidden from view. https://e621.net/post/show/824671 https://e621.net/post/show/822575 https://e621.net/post/show/792844 https://e621.net/post/show/789218 https://e621.net/post/show/784202 https://e621.net/post/show/775885 https://e621.net/post/show/764631 https://e621.net/post/show/746259 all of these are (in my opinion) quite arbitrarily tagged "girly" and "male", that is certainly one possibility but I definitely think they could also be "flat_chest" and "dickgirl". For both people who want to see flat chested dickgirls and people who want to see girly boys might enjoy these pics. Not that one person has to try and think of all the "useful" possibilities of a picture they upload, I imagine it working more like this. One person uploads an image and tags it with one possibility, and when someone comes by and thinks of another possibility, they tag it and don't delete the other person's tags understanding either one makes sense. As for the rules and TWYS policy, the whole thing with the renamon pic is against TWYS but the rules have this part "Adding a tag to a post that is not either clearly visible, or reasonably assumed, Removing a valid tag, either as part of a dispute/argument, or to place one that is not correct" that is super subjective. While the girly/dickgirl thing is technically allowed by the TWYS policy and rules.

That post is kind of long, but I'd guess TWYS would mean that post #383189 gets tagged renamon lynx female ambiguous_gender female/ambiguous blush rating:questionable. There's no actual penetration depicted.

post #824671, I definitely do not see a feminine frame in it but I suppose that is a valid point to debate. The rest of them are definitely girly, as the frame is feminine but otherwise entirely male. The tag dickgirl isn't supposed to be applied to flat_chested images, as a "Flat-chested dickgirl" is a girly male.

PS: Actually, could I get confirmation that flat-chested dickgirls should instead be tagged as male girly?

I think there's a misunderstanding of TWYS going on here.

TWYS does not mean that you ignore all indications of gender just because you can't see the genitals. It does not mean that "well they could have..." is a valid tagging reason.

The character on the bottom should unambiguously get the male tag. If you think that it should be labelled ambiguous_gender under TWYS, I think you misunderstand TWYS. Male body shape, no indication of breasts, nothing confounding those previous points...

As for the character on top... Admittedly, this is outside of my realm of expertise, as intersex characters are usually not relevant to my interests. But nonetheless, let me explain my thoughts.

I would not tag it as herm. The criteria required for the character to be labelled as a herm are not met. That much I'm confident about.

The question is between "dickgirl" and "female". As it stands, the character has no visible penis, even if penetration may be implied, so I would tag the character as female. Especially as there are no visible sexual fluids either, this could simply be interpreted as a female humping a male.

However, given the contentiousness of the post at this point, I would refrain from changing the tags, and would probably request an admin to come solve the issue. Even now, I hope an admin can correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.

post #666665

No. To pretty much all of that.

The correct tagging under tag what you see (for your first example) is your Number 1: Dickgirl on male.

Herm on male and anything on cuntboy is out of the question because you can't see any female genitalia on either character. For cuntboys and herms those are a must in almost all cases.

Ambiguous_gender is also out of the question because we are still able to see some gender defining features that aren't contradicted. For renamon those are a female physique, which means she is either female, dickgirl, or herm. For the lynx those are a male physique so either male, cuntboy, or maleherm.
With the above possibilities established we pick the option with the least assumptions. For renamon it's dickgirl because apparently they are having sex which requires a penis in this position, for the lynx it's male because this could definitely be anal, which is a "normal" possibility for a male person.
Ambiguous_gender simply doesn't get used at all here because: All characters have defining characteristics that are not contradicted on the image itself.

Now to your actual proposal to tag multiple potential options: That could cause a lot of problems, even though it's a rather sensible approach, but it goes directly against tag what you see because the way gender is supposed to be tagged is rather strict. Under tag what you see renamon simply can't be a herm, because we can't see that she has both sets of genitalia.

went blind trying to read that

NotMeNotYou said:
things

So I guess I was incorrect on the dickgirl point. To be fair, I did say this was outside of my realm of expertise, and at least I was right about definitely male and definitely not herm.

Just for my own understanding, I hope you don't mind if I ask a stupid question. I just want to clarify to make sure I would not make a mistake tagging in this manner on future posts. What you are saying is if a character which otherwise appears female is in a position which implies they are penetrating another character, it is fair to assume they are a dickgirl and penetration is indeed happening? Rather than defaulting to female on the possibility of "fruitless humping"?

I guess this is anti-intuitive to me because females mounting and humping is a fairly common behavior in some species (like cows and dogs, for instance).

Clawdragons said:
So I guess I was incorrect on the dickgirl point. To be fair, I did say this was outside of my realm of expertise, and at least I was right about definitely male and definitely not herm.

Just for my own understanding, I hope you don't mind if I ask a stupid question. I just want to clarify to make sure I would not make a mistake tagging in this manner on future posts. What you are saying is if a character which otherwise appears female is in a position which implies they are penetrating another character, it is fair to assume they are a dickgirl and penetration is indeed happening? Rather than defaulting to female on the possibility of "fruitless humping"?

I guess this is anti-intuitive to me because females mounting and humping is a fairly common behavior in some species (like cows and dogs, for instance).

That was lewd

Clawdragons said:
So I guess I was incorrect on the dickgirl point. To be fair, I did say this was outside of my realm of expertise, and at least I was right about definitely male and definitely not herm.

Just for my own understanding, I hope you don't mind if I ask a stupid question. I just want to clarify to make sure I would not make a mistake tagging in this manner on future posts. What you are saying is if a character which otherwise appears female is in a position which implies they are penetrating another character, it is fair to assume they are a dickgirl and penetration is indeed happening? Rather than defaulting to female on the possibility of "fruitless humping"?

I guess this is anti-intuitive to me because females mounting and humping is a fairly common behavior in some species (like cows and dogs, for instance).

Pretty much guaranteed to be dickgirl unless there is evidence that it's really a female. Do remember that the largest volume on posts on here concern anthro characters, so feral behavior is not as prevalent over all.

Also, my post was not meant in response to you, but the OP.

NotMeNotYou said:
post #666665

No. To pretty much all of that.

The correct tagging under tag what you see (for your first example) is your Number 1: Dickgirl on male.

Herm on male and anything on cuntboy is out of the question because you can't see any female genitalia on either character. For cuntboys and herms those are a must in almost all cases.

Ambiguous_gender is also out of the question because we are still able to see some gender defining features that aren't contradicted. For renamon those are a female physique, which means she is either female, dickgirl, or herm. For the lynx those are a male physique so either male, cuntboy, or maleherm.
With the above possibilities established we pick the option with the least assumptions. For renamon it's dickgirl because apparently they are having sex which requires a penis in this position, for the lynx it's male because this could definitely be anal, which is a "normal" possibility for a male person.
Ambiguous_gender simply doesn't get used at all here because: All characters have defining characteristics that are not contradicted on the image itself.

Now to your actual proposal to tag multiple potential options: That could cause a lot of problems, even though it's a rather sensible approach, but it goes directly against tag what you see because the way gender is supposed to be tagged is rather strict. Under tag what you see renamon simply can't be a herm, because we can't see that she has both sets of genitalia.

So, what about flat_chested dickgirls, do those get tagged as girly male instead?

NotMeNotYou said:
Pretty much guaranteed to be dickgirl unless there is evidence that it's really a female. Do remember that the largest volume on posts on here concern anthro characters, so feral behavior is not as prevalent over all.

Also, my post was not meant in response to you, but the OP.

I knew it was in response to the OP. I still wanted clarification though because my understanding was shown to be flawed, and I tag things, so I want to be tagging them correctly. Especially because I'm currently in the middle of a major tagging project which involves genders.

Sorry if that was unclear.

Furrin_Gok said:
So, what about flat_chested dickgirls, do those get tagged as girly male instead?

If the character in question has a female physique but small breasts then it's a flat_chested dickgirl, if it is a very feminine male it get's tagged as a girly male.

I didn't really want it to be mostly about the renamon pic(it was kind of a bad example and I talked about it too much)more of what I was looking to say was in the part about the images tagged girly. To go down the list of what you guys have said. Furrin Gok, it is a good point that images with a "flatchested dickgirl" should just all be tagged as girly for ease of searching. Clawdragons, I don't think I misunderstand TWYS, I think we have different interpretations of TWYS. Either character in the renamon pic could be intersex, upper male body can still mean lower female body. You also just brought up a new possibility, a female humping a male. NotMeNotYou, I do like the idea of using the possibility that takes the least assumptions though that isn't really stated anywhere in the rules or policies that I kind find. I completely understand why it shouldn't be tagged herm and already said it in my own way. I know the whole thing about the renamon pic goes against the TWYS policy but there are pics where people can simply see different things(My example in the big essay thing was girly occasionally being the same as a flatchested dickgirl. I'll see if I can find other examples).

It's very subjective whether a character is a very feminine male or a flat_chested dickgirl though :v

Rakah said:
NotMeNotYou, I do like the idea of using the possibility that takes the least assumptions though that isn't really stated anywhere in the rules or policies that I kind find. I completely understand why it shouldn't be tagged herm and already said it in my own way. I know the whole thing about the renamon pic goes against the TWYS policy but there are pics where people can simply see different things(My example in the big essay thing was girly occasionally being the same as a flatchested dickgirl. I'll see if I can find other examples).

Go the the Wiki homepage -> Tagging Guidelines -> howto:tag genders. Simply read that page and try using one of the flow charts, I recommend Parasprite's at the bottom or the vertical one.

Ah I get it, so "flat_chested" doesn't mean "flat chested", it means "flat-ish chested". So https://e621.net/post/show/376240 should be tagged as girly and male not flat_chested and dickgirl?

Rakah said:
Ah I get it, so "flat_chested" doesn't mean "flat chested", it means "flat-ish chested". So https://e621.net/post/show/376240 should be tagged as girly and male not flat_chested and dickgirl?

According to Parasprite's, if there's any level of boobs, it's a dickgirl. If it's feminine but flat, it's a girly male. That image doesn't have any boobs whatsoever, either chest-based or crotch-based, so girly, yes. Crossgender too, since Pinkie Pie is canonically female.

Also, what about https://e621.net/post/show/772816, is that also tagged incorrectly?

Furrin_Gok said:
According to Parasprite's, if there's any level of boobs, it's a dickgirl. If it's feminine but flat, it's a girly male. That image doesn't have any boobs whatsoever, either chest-based or crotch-based, so girly, yes. Crossgender too, since Pinkie Pie is canonically female.

I don't think it should be tagged crossgender, that uses outside information.

Rakah said:
I don't think it should be tagged crossgender, that uses outside information.

Canonical information on popular characters or species can be used for the sake of determining crossgender, just not to say "It is this gender" if it's ambiguous.

Rakah said:
Also, what about https://e621.net/post/show/772816, is that also tagged incorrectly?

That one's tricky. It's got a feminine body to me.

It's tagged as a girly cuntboy, but using the strict definition shouldn't it be female?

Also, I found a huge amount of "feral" "mlp" "dickgirl" pics that aren't tagged correctly by this definition https://e621.net/post/show/824569 https://e621.net/post/show/823179 https://e621.net/post/show/819956 https://e621.net/post/show/818806 https://e621.net/post/show/818787 https://e621.net/post/show/818781 https://e621.net/post/show/809251 to link just a few.

Rakah said:
Ah I get it, so "flat_chested" doesn't mean "flat chested", it means "flat-ish chested". So https://e621.net/post/show/376240 should be tagged as girly and male not flat_chested and dickgirl?

• female face (compare with known male and female FiM characters)
• female body proportions (hip width > shoulder width)
• probably no boobs in evidence, since balls are in the way of where they should be on an MLP feral character.

The main problem here is that breasts are normally *not* drawn on MLP ferals. (In cases where they are, they're almost always crotchboobs, like other ferals)

So you think parasprite's definition should be changed in some way?

Rakah said:
Also, I found a huge amount of "feral" "mlp" "dickgirl" pics that aren't tagged correctly by this definition https://e621.net/post/show/824569 https://e621.net/post/show/823179 https://e621.net/post/show/819956 https://e621.net/post/show/818806 https://e621.net/post/show/818787 https://e621.net/post/show/818781 https://e621.net/post/show/809251 to link just a few.

Here's a tip: Do you see that number at the end of the url? Enter the phrase post \#824569 and it becomes post #824569.

savageorange said:

• female face (compare with known male and female FiM characters)
• female body proportions (hip width > shoulder width)
• probably no boobs in evidence, since balls are in the way of where they should be on an MLP feral character.

The main problem here is that breasts are normally *not* drawn on MLP ferals. (In cases where they are, they're almost always crotchboobs, like other ferals)

This is actually quite an anthro image, but like I said above, it lacks even crotchboobs.

But copy and pasting is easier :3

Flat_chested and the presence of boobs to determine gender is almost entirely left to human like creatures, and not feral creatures.

In the case of "canon" mlp images (aka feral) we tend to give body and head shapes more weight than we give the absence of crotch boobs, teats, or normal boobs.

So, again, it doesn't work like that.

Also:
post #376240 is a female looking pony with a penis, thus dickgirl. Tags reversed.
post #772816 has a male physique (square shoulders, only slight hips), thus cuntboy.

So where is the "howto:tag_feral_genders". Also, uuuhh, "slight" hips? His/her/it's hips are twice as wide as his/her/it's abdomen. This is all seeming rather subjective and arbitrary.

Rakah said:
So where is the "howto:tag_feral_genders". Also, uuuhh, "slight" hips? His/her/it's hips are twice as wide as his/her/it's abdomen. This is all seeming rather subjective and arbitrary.

I meant the waist, sorry. The ratios between shoulders, waist, and hips are more appropriate for a male then they would be on a female.

That's a pic the could be tagged with both possibilities, if I tag what I see it will be different then if you tag what you see, and I think people looking for a male having sex with a female may would enjoy this pic as well.

NotMeNotYou said:
Flat_chested and the presence of boobs to determine gender is almost entirely left to human like creatures, and not feral creatures.

In the case of "canon" mlp images (aka feral) we tend to give body and head shapes more weight than we give the absence of crotch boobs, teats, or normal boobs.

So, again, it doesn't work like that.

This is so confusing!

Rakah said:
So where is the "howto:tag_feral_genders".

We definitely need one. Also, an explanation about how bipedal ponies still count as feral despite, y'know, standing on two legs like a monkey when their feral forms are quadrupedal.

Rakah said:
But copy and pasting is easier :3

Please don't. It's very headache inducing to see half a dozen URL's in the same post. If you absolutely must, then try something like "this\":\https://e621.net/post/show/824569 to get this.

Furrin_Gok said:
We definitely need one. Also, an explanation about how bipedal ponies still count as feral despite, y'know, standing on two legs like a monkey when their feral forms are quadrupedal.

They also do that in the show every now and then. These damn ponies are crazy, man.

NotMeNotYou said:
They also do that in the show every now and then. These damn ponies are crazy, man.

post #131888

Confound these ponies.

Yeah I'm pretty confused, faces define gender except when bodies define gender except when genitals define gender except when it's actually based on how one views them self, except we're talking about things that don't exist and all we really care about is typing something in a search bar and having kinky pictures show up except that everyone's idea of a kinky picture is different.