First I'd like to suggest a clarification on the intent offered for these rules. Gender is more effectively the mental state of a subject's sex, it is not something which can be defined by any characteristic that can be captured within in image. It is possible to determine the sex, or biological equipment type, from visible characteristics.

Bug/Requested solution 1: In the rules mission statement use the correct grammar of "sex" instead of "gender" OR reword with separate policies towards "sex" and "gender" (likely an inference from characteristics such as effeminate / girly clothing or the inverse: however I believe that those tags are not actually gender tags just related proxies).

https://e621.net/wiki/show/e621:rules#taggingabuse

The purpose for this is to prevent users from abusing the system that for easy searching/indexing of the posts. This enforces the site’s “Tag What You See” rule, in that you cannot tag an image as “male” or “female” unless there is visible evidence of that. Even if another site has the same character with better visibility of its gender, that post uniquely must contain those elements. Mistagging, adding invalid tags, or removing valid tags are not punishable for a one-time offense, but they will be disciplined if they produce a pattern of tagging abuse.

Bug 2 : The rules/policy do not define what is reasonable / correct and leave it to interpretation: of both users and individual admins/moderators.

• 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

From a visual sex identification perspective the possible combinations are:

However that's assuming perfect knowledge, what happens when it is unclear? If you cannot, for example, definitively say (from a single image) if a subject has a vagina or not?

Are breasts + penis always either of Herm or Dickgirl? Or could it be either one due to the lack of data?

Is a flat chested subject without breasts female (in sex) or are they a 'c boy'; if there's scarring did they have breasts before?

I believe that the current policy means to say plausible where it says reasonable. I believe that on a single image basis any sex that can be isolated based on visible criteria is valid to tag.

However, I'd also like to go further. Is it 'reasonable' to base the determination off of data from other artwork of that subject within a pool? Is it reasonable, if the subject is a recognized character, to base it off of the sex(es) they typically have?

Care to break this down into simpler terminology? I feel like this is a rant about how tags work in comparison to the image, where there can be only one, finite gender/sex per character, where the closest representation of the image's depiction is tagged, and nothing else.

We have a gender chart, if someone else can provide it...

*edit* here is the gender charts (I forgot it was plural...)

tl;dr "I think gender and gender identity are the same thing therefore you should stop saying gender."

Nice job using the bug reporting feature to "report" something that isn't a bug.

BlueDingo said:
tl;dr "I think gender and gender identity are the same thing therefore you should stop saying gender."

Nice job using the bug reporting feature to "report" something that isn't a bug.

Actually gender is a mental identity.

Sex is a set of physical characteristics.

IE: The farming industry sexes chicks (this is the actual literal name of the process for determining if a chick is a hen or a rooster).

Ketsueki said:
Actually gender is a mental identity.

I've already explained this before.

BlueDingo said:
I've already explained this before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity
gender identity is a real existing thing and you have one too.

lets imagine that we had the technology to transfer people's mind into some sort of mechanical cube. if you were removed from your body and placed into one of these cube, would your gender suddenly change? would you suddenly want to be referred with gender neutral pronouns because you do not have physical sexual characteristics or... do you perhaps have a gender identity that doesnt rely on whats between your legs.

I'm over here laughing at "null" gender.

We have ambiguous for when there's really no way to tell.

The genetic base genders are Male and Female, so tags default to those unless evidence suggests otherwise.

Bug 2 : The rules/policy do not define what is reasonable / correct and leave it to interpretation: of both users and individual admins/moderators

The rules for genders are not open to interpretation.
https://e621.net/wiki/show/howto:tag_genders

Random said:
I'm over here laughing at "null" gender.

We have ambiguous for when there's really no way to tell.

The genetic base genders are Male and Female, so tags default to those unless evidence suggests otherwise.

The rules for genders are not open to interpretation.
https://e621.net/wiki/show/howto:tag_genders

Thank you for linking that.

It SHOULD be linked from here as well then:

https://e621.net/wiki/show/e621:rules#taggingabuse

However those flowcharts are still inexact, particularly in cases where one genital type is exposed by the other possibility is blocked.

A better determination is logically evaluating which POSSIBLE sexes can be ELIMINATED from my table by violating a condition. This gives the possibly valid sexes for an image in a logical way.

Otherwise 'ambiguous gender' is the only correct result in many cases (that I care about) but that isn't useful for searching since I feel it describes a different case.

It would be more valid to tag many pics where from exposed features something is a herm OR dickgirl (but otherwise ambiguous) as such so that it shows up in both results (since if you can't see otherwise it COULD be either way) and things where if it's a girl or c-boy similarly for the same reasons.

After reflecting in it further, I believe there are two reasons that tags should be added. The first is pragmatic, out of utility for our selves and others so that it is easier to find that which we seek when others follow the same rules. The second is actually more important; tagging to respect for those who created and/or funded the creation of the work.

It becomes more clear that most tags have an implicit "looks like (a)" in front: to a casual observer this isn't obvious.

Respect for recognizable characters and data from sequential art (comics/etc) as a combined set should be used when resolving unclear tags.

• 1 Tagging for a character confirmed by an account owned by that character's player should be the highest priority, even if it contradicts less specific policies. (May be based on tags at referenced sources.)

• 2 Tagging made by a content creator (if not the content owner) should be the next highest priority, even if it contradicts less specific policies. (May be based on tags at referenced sources.)

• 3 Otherwise tags should have a solid basis of visible evidence. Features may be partially obscured making it difficult to tell if a tag is accurate or not. In that case a "looks like (a) X" rule should be used. Does it look like it could be X? Then that is a valid tag. The goal is not to arrive at a single tag, which may be inaccurate, but to describe what the image LOOKS like even if there are multiple possible views. An unknown character may have multiple valid tags for their sex (possible set of body parts).

For the lowest priority tagging case (3) I still say that my above table (first thread post) should be used, with contradictions eliminating rows as possibilities. It may need to be expanded or otherwise have allowance for anthropomorphic creatures which do not typically express mammary glands as breasts or which are not even of a mammalian basis (and thus would traditionally be classified as having male/female/mixed parts with a looser basis).

Ketsueki said:

• 3 Otherwise tags should have a solid basis of visible evidence. Features may be partially obscured making it difficult to tell if a tag is accurate or not. In that case a "looks like (a) X" rule should be used. Does it look like it could be X? Then that is a valid tag.

post #972361 <- This could be a herm.

post #559925 <- This could be a buff and flat-chested female.

post #74982 <- This looks like a female wearing a strap-on.

Your "tag it as everything" approach will only lead to people finding things they don't want and blacklisting things they do want via countless mistags.

BlueDingo said:
post #972361 <- This could be a herm.

post #559925 <- This could be a buff and flat-chested female.

post #74982 <- This looks like a female wearing a strap-on.

Your "tag it as everything" approach will only lead to people finding things they don't want and blacklisting things they do want via countless mistags.

Using ONLY the third criteria.

• Example one: //missing// breasts, therefore fails my proposed criteria for herm.

• Example two: You are correct in that someone COULD plausibly tag that as a flat chested female.

• Example three: Yes, this could be a female with a strapon, a dickgirl, or a herm. All of those should be reflected in the tags.

Using the super-ceding criteria:

• Example one: This is tagged male on the referenced inkbunny page (criteria 1 or 2) and thus the equivalent sex:male tag is correct.

• Example two: This is tagged cboy on the referenced page (criteria 1 or 2) and thus the equivalent sex:cuntboy tag is correct.

• Example three: This is tagged herm on the referenced page (criteria 1 or 2) and thus sex:herm is the CORRECT tag for e621.

The intersex tag is used on several of these pics and I personally feel that were I any of these characters it would be both insulting and incorrect. More pragmatically the tag is also quite vague https://e621.net/wiki/show/intersex in terms of what it selects, so I don't actually see how it's a useful filter criteria.

Ketsueki said:

• Example one: //missing// breasts, therefore fails my proposed criteria for herm.

maleherm

Something I bet you didn't consider: If a solo image is tagged as female and herm, what if a user searches one of those while blacklisting the other? They miss out on something they may want just because someone couldn't make a decision.

This proposal does nothing but destroy the current system for the sake of proposing random, baseless possibilities that could be extrapolated to anything else in the image. How in the world is that helpful, especially with blacklisting? We also do not care about what something is tagged at the source post, we care about tagging according to what can be seen in the image and nothing else, minus character names. If you can't see a vagina on a character with a penis and breasts, it's a dickgirl. Just because there could be the possibility the character canonically has a vagina is irrelevant.

I see this being nothing but a problem if implemented, especially because of blacklisting.

Ratte said:
This proposal does nothing but destroy the current system for the sake of proposing random, baseless possibilities that could be extrapolated to anything else in the image. How in the world is that helpful, especially with blacklisting? We also do not care about what something is tagged at the source post, we care about tagging according to what can be seen in the image and nothing else, minus character names. If you can't see a vagina on a character with a penis and breasts, it's a dickgirl. Just because there could be the possibility the character canonically has a vagina is irrelevant.

I see this being nothing but a problem if implemented, especially because of blacklisting.

If someone has blacklisted something, they probably don't want things that look like that thing either.

Thus, if someone has, for example, blacklisted dickgirl or herm, but wants the other then it would depend on either the character's default sex being confirmed or the tagging on external authoritative input being sufficient to eliminate the incorrect tags.

As far as I can see this logically enhances that picky user's experience, just as it also enhances the experience of the character's player by respecting them.

Ketsueki said:
If someone has blacklisted something, they probably don't want things that look like that thing either.

Are you saying people who blacklist herm don't want to see females? I bet there are a lot of straight guys who would disagree with that.

Ketsueki said:
Thus, if someone has, for example, blacklisted dickgirl or herm, but wants the other then it would depend on either the character's default sex being confirmed or the tagging on external authoritative input being sufficient to eliminate the incorrect tags.

If someone blacklists one and wants the other, then they can just enter one of the following in one line on the blacklist:

dickgirl -herm
herm -dickgirl

Ketsueki said:
If someone has blacklisted something, they probably don't want things that look like that thing either.

...Uh, that's a really broad assumption to make, and not one we're willing to follow.

Ketsueki said:
Thus, if someone has, for example, blacklisted dickgirl or herm, but wants the other then it would depend on either the character's default sex being confirmed or the tagging on external authoritative input being sufficient to eliminate the incorrect tags.

There is really no "default sex being confirmed" because we do not tag by lore aside from character name. If something is originally tagged herm on some outside site while you can only see a penis and breasts in the image itself, it will be tagged dickgirl. Hence, Tag What You See.

Ketsueki said:
As far as I can see this logically enhances that picky user's experience, just as it also enhances the experience of the character's player by respecting them.

It...It really doesn't. It spits in the face of the whole basis of our tagging system. That's really all it does.

Ratte said:
...Uh, that's a really broad assumption to make, and not one we're willing to follow.

There is really no "default sex being confirmed" because we do not tag by lore aside from character name. If something is originally tagged herm on some outside site while you can only see a penis and breasts in the image itself, it will be tagged dickgirl. Hence, Tag What You See.

It...It really doesn't. It spits in the face of the whole basis of our tagging system. That's really all it does.

Tagging what you SEE: something which COULD BE a DICKGIRL OR HERM (or maybe even a female with a strapon).

Ketsueki said:
Tagging what you SEE: something which COULD BE a DICKGIRL OR HERM (or maybe even a female with a strapon).

Then that isn't Tag What You See.

Ketsueki said:
Tagging what you SEE: something which COULD BE a DICKGIRL OR HERM (or maybe even a female with a strapon).

Then they could just enter this:
female strapon
dickgirl
herm

You can combine terms in blacklists to only blacklist things that match both at once, and you can also enter exceptions, as shown in my previous post.

Ketsueki said:
Tagging what you SEE: something which COULD BE a DICKGIRL OR HERM (or maybe even a female with a strapon).

...did you just try to twist how reality works?
If I see two images where on both I can only see character with breasts and dick from front. Without any external info, I see them both as dickgirls, meaning I will tag them as I see them. Also both of them could be herms, but I can't see them being outside external sources, which shouldn't be used.

This would mean almost every single dickgirl tagged post on this site would also get herm tag, making the whole system fall.

If you want to see both herms and dickgirls which could easily be herms, you can always search using ~herm ~dickgirl instead of trying to ruin completely objective system.

Ketsueki said:
Tagging what you SEE: something which COULD BE a DICKGIRL OR HERM (or maybe even a female with a strapon).

You can't see a vagina so it isn't used to influence the tags. Period.

Ketsueki said:
The intersex tag is used on several of these pics and I personally feel that were I any of these characters it would be both insulting and incorrect. More pragmatically the tag is also quite vague https://e621.net/wiki/show/intersex in terms of what it selects, so I don't actually see how it's a useful filter criteria.

It's an umbrella tag. It's broad, not vague. "intersex" is shorthand for "~dickgirl ~cuntboy ~herm" (and -intersex is shorthand for "-dickgirl -cuntboy -herm"). I certainly find that shorthand useful pretty often.

If you want to see both herms and dickgirls which could easily be herms, you can always search using ~herm ~dickgirl instead of trying to ruin completely objective system.

I do wish there was a search for herms and dickgirls which could easily be herms but not dickgirls which clearly aren't herms (post #1107877 vs post #1107533, to pull a couple of examples off the first page of search results), but I don't see a way to do that without adding some sort of maybe_herm tag (which is dumb) or ruining the ability to find herms that are definitely herms.

Snowy said:
It's an umbrella tag. It's broad, not vague. "intersex" is shorthand for "~dickgirl ~cuntboy ~herm" (and -intersex is shorthand for "-dickgirl -cuntboy -herm"). I certainly find that shorthand useful pretty often.

I do wish there was a search for herms and dickgirls which could easily be herms but not dickgirls which clearly aren't herms (post #1107877 vs post #1107533, to pull a couple of examples off the first page of search results), but I don't see a way to do that without adding some sort of maybe_herm tag (which is dumb) or ruining the ability to find herms that are definitely herms.

I think I take issue more with the implicit judgement call of the phrase; it sounds like it is implying that ONLY Male and Female are valid. If it were a factual phrasing without any connotations I'd not feel slighted by it.

As an example: non_binary_sex

Longer, but zero implied judgement.

Going over the replies that descent with my viewpoint I'm seeing several failings in logic.

• Only one tag for sex should be assigned.
• This assumes that there is only one valid answer. If information is lacking it is possible that the set of potential valid answers is not singular.
• Frequently dickgirl and herm are mistakable
• as are cuntboy and female (too young or of a species that might not have breasts).
• For tagging what you see, cuntboy shouldn't be non_binary_sex or intersex or whatever you happen to want to call that. I know of no definitive way to tell apart a cuntboy and a female that happens to not have breasts. That would also resolve the 'females that might be cuntboys are blacklisted' argument.
• A cross-dressing picture COULD also look like a Female even if the subject is actually Male.

• Assigning multiple sex tags is bad for filtering.
• Assigning all of the tags that an image COULD have as potential descriptions allows those searching for any of those things to find an image that looks like what they want.
• As a user somewhat inexperienced with the politics of e621, it had never previously occurred to me to find pictures I would expect to have a tag of herm by instead looking up dickgirl.
• Conversely, if someone does not want such a thing (EG: has herm or strapon in their blacklist) an image which they have indicated a preference for avoiding will be censored from their results.

• That because multiple sex tags are ALLOWED for a questionable image they must ALL be assigned.
• It is true that in my suggestion for a more logical policy they are all valid.
• However just as many images are under-tagged our of, let me say lack of uploader knowledge of tags, they could also be under-tagged because it is more reasonable based on situation specific hints that one of the potential valid tags is more likely to be valid.
• This still doesn't mean that someone disagreeing with that speculation and ADDING a different valid tag isn't violating any rules. They are just adding one more image to a list of things that look like X.

• The term 'maleherm' has also been brought up.
• Ok, it should be added to the table.
• Also, looking at the definition page, it implies 'herm' for searches anyway, but is so rarely applied due to the present policies that I had no idea it even existed.

I would be happy to know why it would be a bad thing to tag //all the things// an image looks like. So far I have not seen any reason or evidence for that other than what can be restated as: it's tradition.

So far I have not seen any reason or evidence for that other than what can be restated as: it's tradition.

Chesterton's fence

Nuff said.

savageorange said:
Chesterton's fence

Nuff said.

Thank you for linking that, I'm definitely bookmarking that for future use.

Ketsueki said:
I would be happy to know why it would be a bad thing to tag //all the things// an image looks like. So far I have not seen any reason or evidence for that other than what can be restated as: it's tradition.

This is an archive, the entire tagging policy revolves around describing what is visible in the image as closely and as concisely as possible. This in turn means that tags are explicitly only added when something is visible in the image itself.

Herm means a vagina and a penis are visible on the same character, if this is not the case the character is not a herm.

This is the entire crux of the argument and why your policy will not be implemented as long as I am Lead Admin. Your policy would literally degrade the search system by allowing "but maybe" tags. A tag that is not visible in the image has nothing to do on that page. It'd be like classifying LOTR as Sci-fi because "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

NotMeNotYou said:
This is an archive, the entire tagging policy revolves around describing what is visible in the image as closely and as concisely as possible. This in turn means that tags are explicitly only added when something is visible in the image itself.

Herm means a vagina and a penis are visible on the same character, if this is not the case the character is not a herm.

This is the entire crux of the argument and why your policy will not be implemented as long as I am Lead Admin. Your policy would literally degrade the search system by allowing "but maybe" tags. A tag that is not visible in the image has nothing to do on that page. It'd be like classifying LOTR as Sci-fi because "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

I think a better example is Shannara. Lesser known, but the series takes place after World War 3, making it in a way "Science Fiction," but given it involves the use of Fantasy races and swords and sorcery rather than technology, you'll find that Libraries stick it into the Fantasy section. "Sort what you see, not what you know," in other words, which is comparible to what we do with tags.

NotMeNotYou said:
This is an archive, the entire tagging policy revolves around describing what is visible in the image as closely and as concisely as possible. This in turn means that tags are explicitly only added when something is visible in the image itself.

Herm means a vagina and a penis are visible on the same character, if this is not the case the character is not a herm.

This is the entire crux of the argument and why your policy will not be implemented as long as I am Lead Admin. Your policy would literally degrade the search system by allowing "but maybe" tags. A tag that is not visible in the image has nothing to do on that page. It'd be like classifying LOTR as Sci-fi because "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

You mention character, yet most of the rest of this discussion has been about images without other context. Yet I also agree that the character of a subject should be considered. If a character is identified and that character has previously been identified as having sexes those should also be valid tags. I (now) know that it violates the ivory-tower policy of not describing a character, but that is PRECISELY how the average user views the tags and expects them to work, no quantity of education is going to change that.

Someone that wants to find artwork of herms is not going to be disappointed to find a dickgirl in a pose that make it ambiguous if they're a herm or dickgirl. In that respect I cannot fathom how having multiple sex tags is a bad idea, and I also have not thought of or seen a case where that is a bad idea.

Looking over the comments again though I CAN now see what BlueDingo was getting at with 'male herm' as a sex tag. If it's also valid for pictures of males then those seeking males but not herms would have issue. He didn't hit me with a sufficiently clear blow from a clue by four.

For sex a good policy might also be the application of Occams Razor: some sexes are simply more likely to be seen than others and therefore they are preferential.

I don't think that anyone would argue that a randomly selected subject within a randomly selected image on e621 is most likely to be either Male or Female by a large preponderance. It is only in the case that of non_binary_sex subjects where a deviation from either of those more typical sexes calls in to question the actual sex of the subject.

Based on the above discussions I've re-sorted the table by weight of 'most likely' assuming conditions are met.

• Each bias priority level is considered in descending order of bias.
• All possible matches on of a priority are considred simultainously.
• Conditions that are req (required true) or req-false (required false) must be seen.
• Conditions that are yes, no, or N/A are assumed to be met if unseen and otherwise must match.

Applying the above criteria to the test images BlueDingo mentioned above:

• A: score 45: sex:male
• (vagina area not visiable, assumed to not have; penis seen; breasts not apparant)
• B: score 10: sex:cuntboy
• (vagina seen; cock /not/ present; breasts not apparant) (not any of: herm, male herm, or ambiguous_(sex))
• C: This is a special case.

The debate for C is going to revolve around one question for any system. Is it more believable that they are wearing a strapon OR are they wearing a G-string and is that a cock? If the crotch area obscured by the top of the geans were instead visiable a more nuanced argument might be made. HOWEVER it's equally valid that the 'camera' could be on the other side of this body.

• If that green line weren't there:
• C: score 10: sex:ambiguous_(sex) + sex:dickgirl + sex:herm
• It isn't clear if there's a vagina or not; without the strap-line this is more likely to be a dick; there are breasts
• Since the green line IS there and suggestive of it being a strapon:
• C: score 50: sex:ambiguous_(sex) + sex:female
• vagina not seen; is that a strapon/toy or a dick? It more meets the requirement than not but we're not completely convinced; yes there are breasts
• The debate between it being a feeldoe (or similar) and a dick could still be made: since it isn't a perfect match ambiguous_(sex).

Edit note: Expanded the dickgirl secondary matches for breast criteria; also for consistency of req-false naming.

That third image is obviously a dickgirl, no question about it. There's no evidence that the green strap connects to the penis, we see a penis and boobs, the penis looks like an actual penis, end of story.
If somebody wants to see any characters with a feminine form, here's a good search: ~dickgirl ~female ~herm. Throw in other tags as you please.

Furrin_Gok said:
If somebody wants to see any characters with a feminine form, here's a good search: ~dickgirl ~female ~herm.

This. If you want all possible genders matching a preferred appearance within the results, fuzzy search them. Overtagging genders will mess up users who blacklist genders.

Furrin_Gok said:
If somebody wants to see any characters with a feminine form, here's a good search: ~dickgirl ~female ~herm. Throw in other tags as you please.

does not work because maleherm implies herm (which is imo dumb. there should be separate tags for feminine herms, ambiguous herms, masculine herms and blanket tag for all herms). ~dickgirl ~female ~herm -maleherm would work

Ketsueki said:
You mention character, yet most of the rest of this discussion has been about images without other context. Yet I also agree that the character of a subject should be considered. If a character is identified and that character has previously been identified as having sexes those should also be valid tags. I (now) know that it violates the ivory-tower policy of not describing a character, but that is PRECISELY how the average user views the tags and expects them to work, no quantity of education is going to change that.

Are you serious?

I specified "on the same character" because simply having a vagina and a penis visible in the image could mean they're murals on a wall, one male and one female character, a tentacle monster with penis and vagina tentacles, one Moe's creations genitalia in places where should be none, or any other scenario that has nothing to do with the discussion.
Also, before you make wild claims about how the average user expects things to work please supply your data so I can review it because you clearly know things we don't.

And no, your suggestions still don't make sense. Occam's razor is already used to great effect and the result is our current tagging policy. What a surprise.

Maybe you should try a different approach to the problem? Adhering to the current policy instead of trying to change it so you don't have follow it in the first place will yield much better results and faster.

BlueDingo said:
This. If you want all possible genders matching a preferred appearance within the results, fuzzy search them. Overtagging genders will mess up users who blacklist genders.

Please clarify how that is the case. The revised table and Occams Razor inspired set of priority tiers should more solidly put things that look just male or female in to those categories alone.

Everything else is based on observed facts; particularly of importance to /me/ (someone with a //herm// character) images that don't happen to be crotch shots would still be tagged with sexes that I feel are logical mistakes. The dickgirl tag still makes assumptions as would herm for any image where it isn't clear which one it should be and thus there is no compelling argument for picking one over the other.

Ketsueki said:
Please clarify how that is the case. The revised table and Occams Razor inspired set of priority tiers should more solidly put things that look just male or female in to those categories alone.

Everything else is based on observed facts; particularly of importance to /me/ (someone with a //herm// character) images that don't happen to be crotch shots would still be tagged with sexes that I feel are logical mistakes. The dickgirl tag still makes assumptions as would herm for any image where it isn't clear which one it should be and thus there is no compelling argument for picking one over the other.

If you dislike a particular character, blacklist that character. Somebody who blacklists only herm will only want characters who are obviously hermaphrodites to be blacklisted, not chicks with dicks.

If you're complaining that characters are being tagged against lore, consider the audience: We don't know these characters, when we run a search we want things that look exactly like what we searched for. If we run a search for a hermaphrodite, we want only characters who obviously are, not some guy with boobs (Dickgirls).

Furrin_Gok said:
If you dislike a particular character, blacklist that character. Somebody who blacklists only herm will only want characters who are obviously hermaphrodites to be blacklisted, not chicks with dicks.

If you're complaining that characters are being tagged against lore, consider the audience: We don't know these characters, when we run a search we want things that look exactly like what we searched for. If we run a search for a hermaphrodite, we want only characters who obviously are, not some guy with boobs (Dickgirls).

Yes, but how can you tell guy with boobs apart from a herm? What if the shot is a side view and includes anal penetration from behind? What /objective/ characteristic is reasonable? I assert that 'reasonable' is anything SOMEONE could see. Just because you happen to see something different from someone else, can you not understand /why/ they might disagree with that view?

It sounds like by your logic the herm tag should imply the pussy tag; however it does not (currently).

The rules should provide clarity for "don't be a dick" tagging, I shouldn't have to reference the rules at all if I'm tagging //in good faith//. If I see something as X, then that's actually what /I/ see. The initial table (and cross out rows on it) was my initial attempt at exporting my OWN logic process. Based on subsequent discussion the merits of helping out those whom are a bit sensitive about sexes and blacklist things I modified the logic process to accommodate that; however I still believe it is wrong to snap to a SINGULAR sex when it cannot be proven to be the case.

Further, you are making an assumption about WHY someone might blacklist herm. It seems more clear to me that why they are presently trying to exclude is any picture with a visible pussy in it. I honestly can't find it logical to expect valid results from a search like: ~dickgirl ~female -herm. At least, I can't expect that to have good results without accepting EXTERNAL TAGGING or tagging based on the character (a recognizable logical entity with a set of images) instead of a subject selected from a single image and excluding any other context.

Similarly, under my proposed method, if someone wanted to find images that under the old methods matched herm they only need add the pussy tag, which is a far more instinctive thing for casual and inexperienced users to do.

Ketsueki said:
Yes, but how can you tell guy with boobs apart from a herm? What if the shot is a side view and includes anal penetration from behind? What /objective/ characteristic is reasonable? I assert that 'reasonable' is anything SOMEONE could see. Just because you happen to see something different from someone else, can you not understand /why/ they might disagree with that view?

It sounds like by your logic the herm tag should imply the pussy tag; however it does not (currently).

The rules should provide clarity for "don't be a dick" tagging, I shouldn't have to reference the rules at all if I'm tagging //in good faith//. If I see something as X, then that's actually what /I/ see. The initial table (and cross out rows on it) was my initial attempt at exporting my OWN logic process. Based on subsequent discussion the merits of helping out those whom are a bit sensitive about sexes and blacklist things I modified the logic process to accommodate that; however I still believe it is wrong to snap to a SINGULAR sex when it cannot be proven to be the case.

Further, you are making an assumption about WHY someone might blacklist herm. It seems more clear to me that why they are presently trying to exclude is any picture with a visible pussy in it. I honestly can't find it logical to expect valid results from a search like: ~dickgirl ~female -herm. At least, I can't expect that to have good results without accepting EXTERNAL TAGGING or tagging based on the character (a recognizable logical entity with a set of images) instead of a subject selected from a single image and excluding any other context.

Similarly, under my proposed method, if someone wanted to find images that under the old methods matched herm they only need add the pussy tag, which is a far more instinctive thing for casual and inexperienced users to do.

You're the one making assumptions here. People have all sorts of different ideas on how things work, so we objectify exactly what is in the image.
The reason we don't imply pussy is because an image of a character we only see boobs and a penis upon could also feature a cutaway showing the womb or cervix.
post #724680
This very image, for example, fits that. The cutaway shows that there is a womb to the bound character, making her a herm, not a dickgirl.

Furrin_Gok said:
You're the one making assumptions here. People have all sorts of different ideas on how things work, so we objectify exactly what is in the image.
The reason we don't imply pussy is because an image of a character we only see boobs and a penis upon could also feature a cutaway showing the womb or cervix.
post #724680
This very image, for example, fits that. The cutaway shows that there is a womb to the bound character, making her a herm, not a dickgirl.

A cutaway with a womb is also one way of objectively showing that the character has a pussy and having one should in fact imply that such an object exists within the image; you're just viewing the inside of it.

Ketsueki said:
A cutaway with a womb is also one way of objectively showing that the character has a pussy and having one should in fact imply that such an object exists within the image; you're just viewing the inside of it.

Read the pussy wiki. It's for only when the opening is visible, not some cutaway of the womb.

Furrin_Gok said:
Read the pussy wiki. It's for only when the opening is visible, not some cutaway of the womb.

So you're being obtuse about pointing out /why/ herm does not imply the pussy tag? Or is this some kind of emotionally insensitive Turing test?

Ketsueki said:
Or is this some kind of emotionally insensitive Turing test?

Ah, so you're a robot.

So you're being obtuse about pointing out /why/ herm does not imply the pussy tag?

If you're failing to understand a simple explanation, that's on you, not me. It's been repeatedly pointed out that your proposal is bad for our system and so you seem to be trying to come up with all sorts of other things to make up for it, but they are also bad for our system.

Ketsueki said:
So you're being obtuse about pointing out /why/ herm does not imply the pussy tag? Or is this some kind of emotionally insensitive Turing test?

Herm does not imply genitalia because of bulge, penis_outline, or camel_toe, etc. since there may be more that I do not know of. This follows suit for any other intersex character. You just need to see enough visible evidence, which the prior three suffice as well as the actual genitals.