Definitions of gore may vary, but the definition google pulls up (itself from Oxford Dictionary) is this: "blood that has been shed, especially as a result of violence.". I don't believe it's possible to mutilate without blood shed, and whilst self mutilation may not always be violant per se, it certainly captures the essense of what one intuitively thinks of as gore.

ketchupee1 said:
I don't believe it's possible to mutilate without blood shed...

Possibly by burns, such as via acid, fire, or friction.

clawstripe said:
Possibly by burns, such as via acid, fire, or friction.

A good time example would be lightsabers, which cauterize the wounds as they cut in most of the movies

From a blacklisting perspective if not a purely technical one, I think having mutilation imply gore would be ideal. Either that, or have both those tags imply some umbrella tag for that sort of thing. They’re both very closely related either way, and I can’t imagine why someone who wants to blacklist one of them would not want to also blacklist the other.

Note: “technically speaking,” gore is just the “blood from a wound that has become thick or clotted.” This is not how we use the term on this site, however. But in a more general sense, it is also used simply as a synonym for violence. So in that sense, bloodshed is not necessarily required.