The bulk update request #1518 is pending approval.

remove alias masculine (0) -> manly (14430)
remove alias feminine (106) -> girly (0)

implicate manly -> masculine
implicate girly -> feminine
implicate gynomorph -> feminine
implicate herm -> feminine
implicate andromorph -> masculine
implicate maleherm -> masculine
implicate tomboy -> masculine
implicate herm/herm -> feminine/feminine
implicate maleherm/herm -> feminine/masculine
implicate herm/andromorph -> feminine/masculine
implicate gynomorph/herm -> feminine/feminine
implicate gynomorph/gynomorph -> feminine/feminine
implicate gynomorph/andromorph -> feminine/masculine
implicate maleherm/gynomorph -> feminine/masculine
implicate maleherm/maleherm -> masculine/masculine
implicate maleherm/andromorph -> masculine/masculine
implicate andromorph/andromorph -> masculine/masculine
implicate andromorph/ambiguous -> masculine/ambiguous
implicate andromorph/ambiguous -> masculine
implicate andromorph/ambiguous -> ambiguous
implicate gynomorph/ambiguous -> feminine/ambiguous
implicate gynomorph/ambiguous -> feminine
implicate gynomorph/ambiguous -> ambiguous
implicate maleherm/ambiguous -> masculine/ambiguous
implicate maleherm/ambiguous -> masculine
implicate maleherm/ambiguous -> ambiguous
implicate herm/ambiguous -> feminine/ambiguous
implicate herm/ambiguous -> feminine
implicate herm/ambiguous -> ambiguous
implicate masculine/masculine -> masculine
implicate feminine/masculine -> masculine
implicate feminine/masculine -> feminine
implicate feminine/feminine -> feminine

Reason: Given the multitude of content with varying types of visual content, and users not necessarily want to be restricted by the genitalia but instead just interested in the characters levels of testosterone/estrogen levels I believe implicates like these would be a very user friendly type of implication. Now, as far as the standard pairings go I think either it would need to be a supplementary tag that gets added on or some sort of implication of "cis" types of tags. Opinions?

Proposal created in reference to https://e621.net/forum_topics/23412?page=1#forum_post_319480

versperus said:
implicate gynomorph -> feminine
implicate herm -> feminine
implicate andromorph -> masculine
implicate maleherm -> masculine
implicate tomboy -> masculine

These aren't always true. Andromorphs can be androgynous or feminine, tomboys can look androgynous, and there's nothing preventing gynomorphs or herms from looking masculine (if you can look feminine despite having a dick, surely you can look masculine despite having breasts), nor is anything preventing a maleherm from looking feminine (if a male can be girly, slap a vagina on them without breasts and they'd be a girly maleherm).

versperus said:
If the gender of something is that obscure it shouldn't be tagged as the definitive but rather just ambiguous or intersex I'd argue I retort. Though I will contest there is no continuity in the wiki and usage of the girly/tomboy tags as they should be used as reverse version of the same tag but tomboy seems to be for anyone crass if the wiki is to be taken to heart which is stupid and should be changed as far as I'm concerned

versperus said:
If the gender of something is that obscure it shouldn't be tagged as the definitive but rather just ambiguous or intersex I'd argue I retort.

It doesn't have to be obscure. If a character has a masculine body with breasts and a penis and no visible vagina, they are clearly a gynomorph and not feminine. Same with a maleherm, if they have a non-masculine body with a penis and vagina and no breasts, they'd clearly be a maleherm and not masculine. I'd consider images like post #2894458 to not be masculine, but they are visually an andromorph. That you can't fit male and female into this setup, because they can obviously break the mold, is indicative of the issue.

watsit said:
It doesn't have to be obscure. If a character has a masculine body with breasts and a penis and no visible vagina, they are clearly a gynomorph and not feminine. Same with a maleherm, if they have a non-masculine body with a penis and vagina and no breasts, they'd clearly be a maleherm and not masculine. I'd consider images like post #2894458 to not be masculine, but they are visually an andromorph. That you can't fit male and female into this setup, because they can obviously break the mold, is indicative of the issue.

Actually no. Masculine body with breasts would possibly by a lore tag and intersex only. I'd also consider that example image to be adequately masculine to enjoy the tag. If a character tagged maleherm was more feminine then masculine it should probably be the herm tag as well instead of maleherm.

versperus said:
Actually no. Masculine body with breasts would possibly by a kore tag and intersex only. I'd also consider that example image to be adequately masculine to enjoy the tag

Nope.

• Penis -> male, gynomorph, male + girly
• Breasts or feminine body?
• Breasts -> gynomorph
• Both -> gynomorph

Feminine body not required for gynomorph.

• Pussy -> female, andromorph
• Breasts or feminine body?
• Neither -> andromorph

Any non-feminine body will do for an andromorph, doesn't have to be masculine.

• Both -> herm, maleherm
• Breasts or feminine body?
• Neither -> maleherm

Any non-feminine body will do for a maleherm, doesn't have to be masculine.

There shouldn't be any instance where you tag intersex only without andromorph, gynomorph, herm, or maleherm.

• This tag is applied automatically by implication. Please avoid manual tagging, and instead use one of the 4 intersex sub-types listed below.

versperus said:
I'd also consider that example image to be adequately masculine to enjoy the tag.

I wouldn't. At most I'd call it androgynous, but it does look more on the feminine side to me. Definitely not masculine, though.

Your interpretation is wrong. Even your quoting of the chart, which I also use is wrong. You certainly can tag intersex only.

versperus said:
Your interpretation is wrong. Even your quoting of the chart, which I also use is wrong. You certainly can tag intersex only.

How so? It's pretty clear... penis+breasts = gynomorph, feminine body not required. Pussy+no breasts and any non-feminine body = andromorph. Penis+pussy+no breasts and any non-feminine body = maleherm. And the intersex wiki explicitly says not to tag it manually, but to use one of the 4 intersex sub-types. How is this wrong?

watsit said:
How so? It's pretty clear... penis+breasts = gynomorph, feminine body not required. Pussy+no breasts and any non-feminine body = andromorph. Penis+pussy+no breasts and any non-feminine body = maleherm. And the intersex wiki explicitly says not to tag it manually, but to use one of the 4 intersex sub-types. How is this wrong?

4. What does the character's body type/shape resemble?
A) Male
4.A.i) Penis - Breasts + Male body = Male
4.A.i) Penis + Unknown breasts + Male body = Male
4.A.ii) Vagina - Breasts + Male body = andromorph
4.A.ii) Vagina + Unknown breasts + Male body = andromorph
4.A.iii) Penis + Vagina - Breasts + Male body = Maleherm
4.A.iii) Penis + Vagina + Unknown breasts + Male body = Maleherm
4.A.iv) Unknown genitals - Breasts + Male body = Male
4.A.iv) Unknown genitals + Unknown breasts + Male body = Male

please indicate where in this it shows male gyno

It just occurred to me the different versions of the chart don't align in their break downs so they should probably look into that.

versperus said:
please indicate where in this it shows male gyno

You missed the start of the list:

1. Are there any genitals present in the genital area?

• B) Yes
• See 2

2. Which genitals?

• A) Penis
• See 3.
• C) Both (Penis and Vagina)
• See 3.

3. Any Breasts?

• A) Yes
• See 4.
• 3.A.i) Penis + Breasts = gynomorph
• 3.A.iii) Penis + Vagina + Breasts = Herm

4 does not list anything with "penis + breasts", so we can take 3.A.i for "Penis + Breasts = gynomorph" on any body type, along with 3.A.iii for "Penis + Vagina + Breasts = Herm" on any body type.

versperus said:
The bulk update request #1518 is pending approval.

remove alias masculine (0) -> manly (14430)
remove alias feminine (106) -> girly (0)

implicate manly -> masculine
implicate girly -> feminine

You can be masculine without being "manly" and feminine without being "girly". And vice versa.

versperus said:
Reason: Given the multitude of content with varying types of visual content, and users not necessarily want to be restricted by the genitalia but instead just interested in the characters levels of testosterone/estrogen levels I believe implicates like these would be a very user friendly type of implication. Now, as far as the standard pairings go I think either it would need to be a supplementary tag that gets added on or some sort of implication of "cis" types of tags. Opinions?

There is no way to differentiate between Cis and non Cis characters. I'm relatively new here but the policy is "Tag What You See", you cannot see someone's status of cis or trans. Even if an image has Operational Scars, you can't say for certain those scars are for the appropriate surgeries.

As an additional point your suggestion just seems like it would complicate things and force everyone who has grown used to the current system to have to transition to an entirely new system that is not nearly as intuitive.

coebalt said:

You can be masculine without being "manly" and feminine without being "girly". And vice versa.

There is no way to differentiate between Cis and non Cis characters. I'm relatively new here but the policy is "Tag What You See", you cannot see someone's status of cis or trans. Even if an image has Operational Scars, you can't say for certain those scars are for the appropriate surgeries.

As an additional point your suggestion just seems like it would complicate things and force everyone who has grown used to the current system to have to transition to an entirely new system that is not nearly as intuitive.

the girly/manly suggestion is for removing the alias and saying if a post is tagged manly/girly it will implicate masculine/feminine. as currently feminine is aliased to girly and masculine is aliased to manly. Which makes no sense as both these tags are restricted to male character types.

The Cis part is just a possibility suggestion as the reason male/female related tags aren't on the suggestion list is due to the association of girly/tomboy type tags.

versperus said:
the girly/manly suggestion is for removing the alias and saying if a post is tagged manly/girly it will implicate masculine/feminine. as currently feminine is aliased to girly and masculine is aliased to manly. Which makes no sense as both these tags are restricted to male character types.

The Cis part is just a possibility suggestion as the reason male/female related tags aren't on the suggestion list is due to the association of girly/tomboy type tags.

I am, unfortunately, too new/stupid to understand what you mean. Would you be so kind as to dumb it down for me?

coebalt said:
I am, unfortunately, too new/stupid to understand what you mean. Would you be so kind as to dumb it down for me?

feminine currently changes to girly when tagged. A tag restricted to use on male characters
masculine currently changes to manly when tagged. A tag restricted to use on male characters

Alias = a word getting changed to another when added, eg. cock = penis
Implication = a word that also adds another when added, eg. spotted_fur adds the tags spots & fur
Unalias = Removing a current alias applied on site. As my implication suggestion cant happen given this current restriction inhibits it

versperus said:
feminine currently changes to girly when tagged. A tag restricted to use on male characters
masculine currently changes to manly when tagged. A tag restricted to use on male characters

Okay, that's what I thought you were saying, but I wasn't sure. That surprises me, actually, because Masculine and Feminine are more appearance/physicality where as Manly and Girly are more rooted in the Personality. At least in my interpretation.

coebalt said:
Okay, that's what I thought you were saying, but I wasn't sure. That surprises me, actually, because Masculine and Feminine are more appearance/physicality where as Manly and Girly are more rooted in the Personality. At least in my interpretation.

I'm pretty sure these are moldy tag aliases

I’m going to give this a tentative thumbs up along with the suggestion that this be simplified a bit. Namely, I think these:
implicate manly -> masculine implicate girly -> feminine
should be replaced with:
implicate female -> feminine implicate male -> masculine

My idea behind suggesting the masculine/feminine tags in the first place was to group the six gender tags into two rough categories relating to their body types. It has less to do with whether they “look” masculine or feminine or whatever, and more to do with the base body shape before looking at genitalia. That is, all gynomorphs can also get the feminine tag, even if they look muscular or manly or whatever, simply because the breasts put them in the feminine category. Likewise, even “girly” andromorphs can get the masculine tag due to their body shape fitting in the male category, since they can’t have breasts, and they can be identified by visible pecs, broader shoulders than females, an Adam’s apple, or whatever else qualifies them for the andromorph tag in the first place.

Alternatively, we could just do away with the direct gender implications and use these tags to point to whether the character appears masculine or feminine (or a third tag, androgynous). That would be a more logical use of the tags in the sense that it follows the traditional understanding of the meaning of these words. Then we could just have girly imply feminine, tomboy and manly imply masculine.
They’d be nice tags in this sense because they could be applied to ambiguous_gender cases when the character leans towards masculinity or femininity, but still can’t definitively be tagged as a gender. The downside in this case is that we still don’t have the ability to tag the character’s base body type as I described above.

scaliespe said:
Alternatively, we could just do away with the direct gender implications and use these tags to point to whether the character appears masculine or feminine (or a third tag, androgynous).

That's basically what they do now. Well, the manly and girly tags, which those are currently aliased to. A male that appears more feminine is tagged male+girly, and with your suggestion it would be the same, just male+feminine instead. The only thing is male characters are assumed "manly" by default, so you don't tag male+manly since it would be redundant. Similarly, gynomorph characters seem to be assumed girly/feminine by default, so gynomorph+girly is redundant, but if they happen to look masculine instead, you tag gynomorph+manly.

scaliespe said:
They’d be nice tags in this sense because they could be applied to ambiguous_gender cases when the character leans towards masculinity or femininity, but still can’t definitively be tagged as a gender.

If they lean enough to be classified as masculine/manly or feminine/girly, they're defined enough for the male/female tags. You don't need to see genitals for those tags.

watsit said:
That's basically what they do now. Well, the manly and girly tags, which those are currently aliased to. A male that appears more feminine is tagged male+girly, and with your suggestion it would be the same, just male+feminine instead. The only thing is male characters are assumed "manly" by default, so you don't tag male+manly since it would be redundant. Similarly, gynomorph characters seem to be assumed girly/feminine by default, so gynomorph+girly is redundant, but if they happen to look masculine instead, you tag gynomorph+manly.

That’s apparently not how the manly tag is used at all. From the wiki:
Manly defines a male, andromorph, or maleherm character who shows some physical and/or behavioral characteristics that denotes its masculinity and are traditionally associated with men
It seems to be more of an “alpha-male” tag, not a tag for female or female-body type characters who are more masculine. tomboy can be used for that, though.

The idea behind my suggestion, however, is not the same as what those tags do. Tomboy/girly are used for when a character defies their gender’s typical characteristics, but the tags still can’t be used to find any character of that particular flavor. Feminine/masculine, in that case, would be a supplement to those tags because they can also be used for the gender they typically describe. That is, feminine could be tagged on a female character and a girly male alike. The distinction here would be that not all females would get the feminine tag. Tomboys and androgynous females wouldn’t get it. It would be useful for grouping all properly feminine characters together. The alternative, as it currently stands, is some eyesore of a search like ~female ~girly ~gynomorph ~herm -tomboy - and even that can turn up some unexpected results in the case of non-solo images.

This is, of course, assuming we go with my second suggestion rather than my first. The first suggestion would be quite simple: female, gynomorph, and herm imply feminine; male, andromorph and maleherm imply masculine. Just as a way to group the many gender tags together under two basic body types, regardless of whether the character appears girly or whatever. That could be pretty useful, too. Maybe use a different pair of tags for that so we can use both these suggestions. As far as making our tagging system as versatile as possible regarding gender - possibly the most important search on the site - being able to search or blacklist according to a few different ways of categorizing rather than relying on gender alone the same character seems ideal to me.

On a related note, I just noticed that androgynous is aliased to ambiguous_gender. Uhh, what? Those are not remotely the same thing.

If they lean enough to be classified as masculine/manly or feminine/girly, they're defined enough for the male/female tags. You don't need to see genitals for those tags.

Okay, fair point. Ignore that suggestion.

watsit said:
That's basically what they do now. Well, the manly and girly tags, which those are currently aliased to. A male that appears more feminine is tagged male+girly, and with your suggestion it would be the same, just male+feminine instead. The only thing is male characters are assumed "manly" by default, so you don't tag male+manly since it would be redundant. Similarly, gynomorph characters seem to be assumed girly/feminine by default, so gynomorph+girly is redundant, but if they happen to look masculine instead, you tag gynomorph+manly.

If they lean enough to be classified as masculine/manly or feminine/girly, they're defined enough for the male/female tags. You don't need to see genitals for those tags.

I agree with most of that, but also disagree with the point that male+manly are redundant. For instance post #3003233 fits male, but I wouldn't say it's 'Manly' where as post #3000632 is definitely 'Male' and definitely 'Manly'. I realize this is entirely my personal opinion... but I felt like sharing ;p

scaliespe said:
This is, of course, assuming we go with my second suggestion rather than my first. The first suggestion would be quite simple: female, gynomorph, and herm imply feminine; male, andromorph and maleherm imply masculine. Just as a way to group the many gender tags together under two basic body types, regardless of whether the character appears girly or whatever. That could be pretty useful, too. Maybe use a different pair of tags for that so we can use both these suggestions. As far as making our tagging system as versatile as possible regarding gender - possibly the most important search on the site - being able to search or blacklist according to a few different ways of categorizing rather than relying on gender alone the same character seems ideal to me.

But that would also end up showing people images they might not necessarily want. If i'm understanding correctly, pif you make it so that Male, andromorph and maleherm imply Masculine, that would mean you could no longer tag something as maleherm, yes? Likewise you wouldn't be able to -maleherm to filer out maleherms if you don't want to see those. The same would be true for the female equivalents as well, if this is the case.

scaliespe said:
That’s apparently not how the manly tag is used at all. From the wiki:
Manly defines a male, andromorph, or maleherm character who shows some physical and/or behavioral characteristics that denotes its masculinity and are traditionally associated with men
It seems to be more of an “alpha-male” tag, not a tag for female or female-body type characters who are more masculine.

Then that makes this BUR more wrong. Considering girly is used to denote typically non-feminine genders displaying feminine qualities (and as such only applies to typically masculine genders), having manly only used on typically masculine genders too where those characteristics or traits are just more prominent, these aren't equivalent and can't be divided this way regardless. Though I have to say this difference is quite confusing since you'd expect them to be equivalent, just for different gender groups (girly for typically masculine genders that look feminine, and manly for typically feminine genders that look masculine).

scaliespe said:
The idea behind my suggestion, however, is not the same as what those tags do. Tomboy/girly are used for when a character defies their gender’s typical characteristics, but the tags still can’t be used to find any character of that particular flavor. Feminine/masculine, in that case, would be a supplement to those tags because they can also be used for the gender they typically describe.

Since the idea with not using girly on typically feminine genders was to avoid redundancy (saying a female is girly/feminine), and your proposition is essentially to have that redundancy (saying a female is feminine/girly), the other option would be to allow the redundancy and flip the aliases, instead of reusing tags that are currently aliased to other tags that mean something different than what you're going for.

scaliespe said:
The first suggestion would be quite simple: female, gynomorph, and herm imply feminine; male, andromorph and maleherm imply masculine. Just as a way to group the many gender tags together under two basic body types, regardless of whether the character appears girly or whatever.

These aren't really "body types", though. Male and female kind of are (presuming no genitals are visible, the body type can be used to infer what tag to use), but when you see genitals, the body type becomes less important. You couldn't implicate male->masculine because male+girly/feminine is possible (even without the girly->feminine implication, it would be weird for a character to be tagged both masculine and girly, since these mean opposite things). Intersex tags also are largely dictated by genital and breast configuration, particularly gynomorph and herm. You can have a gynomorph and herm with either masculine or feminine body types, and the others at least have some wiggle-room where their body type is more vague. So these implications can't work.

versperus said:
Your interpretation is wrong. Even your quoting of the chart, which I also use is wrong. You certainly can tag intersex only.

What? You certainly cannot.

This tag is applied automatically by implication. Please avoid manual tagging, and instead use one of the 4 intersex sub-types listed below.

bar minimum I believe that the current restrictions on with girly an manly needs to change, with feminine and masculine being available for use across the board as umbrellas for visual representations.

Everything in white text in the above list of suggestions isn't currently apart of a BUR but a suggested path of implication, the only thing that is being applied currently is the unalias of the masculine/feminine tags.

coebalt said:
But that would also end up showing people images they might not necessarily want. If i'm understanding correctly, pif you make it so that Male, andromorph and maleherm imply Masculine, that would mean you could no longer tag something as maleherm, yes? Likewise you wouldn't be able to -maleherm to filer out maleherms if you don't want to see those. The same would be true for the female equivalents as well, if this is the case.

No. I’m suggesting an implication, not an alias. An implication would keep the existing tags and apply these new tags in addition. Maleherm would not be removed.

watsit said:
Then that makes this BUR more wrong. Considering girly is used to denote typically non-feminine genders displaying feminine qualities (and as such only applies to typically masculine genders), having manly only used on typically masculine genders too where those characteristics or traits are just more prominent, these aren't equivalent and can't be divided this way regardless. Though I have to say this difference is quite confusing since you'd expect them to be equivalent, just for different gender groups (girly for typically masculine genders that look feminine, and manly for typically feminine genders that look masculine).

Yes, but you can use tomboy for that. In fact… perhaps it would be better to change those tags up a little while we’re at it. Something like this?
- girly: any character that appears feminine regardless of gender
- manly: any character that appears masculine regardless of gender
- tomboy: female, gynomorph, or herm characters that appear masculine or boyish -> imply manly? (I feel like we can find a better word to use than manly, though… are tomboys manly?)
- femboy: (currently aliased to girly) male, andromorph, or maleherm characters that appear feminine or girlish -> imply girly?

Since the idea with not using girly on typically feminine genders was to avoid redundancy (saying a female is girly/feminine), and your proposition is essentially to have that redundancy (saying a female is feminine/girly), the other option would be to allow the redundancy and flip the aliases, instead of reusing tags that are currently aliased to other tags that mean something different than what you're going for.

Well, the “redundancy” isn’t really redundant because a lot of female characters do not appear particularly feminine, and vice versa for male characters. It’s probably even more common for male characters, in fact, to not appear masculine.

These aren't really "body types", though.

The wiki pretty much treats them like they are, especially when looking at the girly and tomboy tags.

girly:
The tag is only to be used on gender norm breaking male bodied characters (aka male, maleherm, and andromorphs) they apply to. Never use the girly tag for ambiguous_gender, female, herm, or gynomorph characters.

tomboy:
The tag is only to be used on characters that are a type of female (i.e. female, herm, and gynomorph). Never use the tomboy tag for ambiguous_gender, male, maleherm, or andromorph characters.

Male and female kind of are (presuming no genitals are visible, the body type can be used to infer what tag to use), but when you see genitals, the body type becomes less important. You couldn't implicate male->masculine because male+girly/feminine is possible (even without the girly->feminine implication, it would be weird for a character to be tagged both masculine and girly, since these mean opposite things).

If you’re thinking about these tags strictly according to how the words themselves are defined, no, it wouldn’t work. But what I’m proposing is a situation that would allow both masculine and girly on the same post in the case of an effeminate male. Again, it’s just the base body type I’m talking about, and it would include the other male-based genders. Maybe we just need a different name for it? I dunno, male-form?

Intersex tags also are largely dictated by genital and breast configuration, particularly gynomorph and herm. You can have a gynomorph and herm with either masculine or feminine body types, and the others at least have some wiggle-room where their body type is more vague. So these implications can't work.

I’m not too sure about this. I think if you have a herm with a male body type, that is necessarily a maleherm. Gynomorphs have to have breasts, which is the most prominent feature of the female body shape. Even “manly” gynomorphs and herms would still be considered to have a feminine body shape due to the existence of breasts. Hence why these tags could be used in tandem with things like girly and tomboy.

Of course, some characters are going to be drawn with a mix of male and female characteristics, genitalia aside. These can be gray areas. I think the fact that breasts are the single most prominent female feature is why their presence is given prominence over all other non-genitalia features when it comes to determining intersex characters. It’s just simpler that way, too, to say that a character with breasts automatically goes into one of the female-based genders.