The tag alias #73097 human_with_animal_genitalia -> animal_genitalia_on_humanoid is pending approval.

Reason: They are effectively the same tag, with animal_genitalia_on_humanoid being much more popular of a posting tag.

A character like Gardevoir or Tinkaton is a humanoid, but not a human.

doesn't a human having animal genitalia make them a humanoid rather than a human anyway?

pleaseletmein said:
doesn't a human having animal genitalia make them a humanoid rather than a human anyway?

I'm unsure if it's explicitly defined like that anywhere, but that makes sense to me
I'd expect human to be entirely bog-standard humans with nothing extra

donovan_dmc said:
I'm unsure if it's explicitly defined like that anywhere, but that makes sense to me
I'd expect human to be entirely bog-standard humans with nothing extra

In terms of relevance, yes, an otherwise pure human with a horse cock would not be considered human-only, and thus approved. I have seen posts like that tagged as human, but humanoid makes more sense since we don't treat them as humans in terms of site relevance.

As for this tag, I could see the point in separating what is otherwise a pure human with nonhuman genitals from something like animal humanoids with the matching species genitals... or Gardevoirs with horse cocks... or whatever. But human_with_animal_genitalia just doesn't make sense as a tag name if those characters are going to be tagged as humanoid instead.

pleaseletmein said:
doesn't a human having animal genitalia make them a humanoid rather than a human anyway?

I completely disagree. These two posts should not appear simultaneously in a species-based search, because both characters are obviously different aside from the commonality of an equine penis that is searchable separately.
post #4809974 post #4907158

And if an equine penis is enough for a human to count as a humanoid, do they additionally count as an equine humanoid? Does this post depict a Gardevoir that is also a horse?
post #3917880

Would we count a Gardevoir with a horse penis among posts like this solely because of the addition of a certain type of penis, and not because of any other horse-related features like ears or a tail?
post #547034

lafcadio said:
I completely disagree. These two posts should not appear simultaneously in a species-based search, because both characters are obviously different aside from the commonality of an equine penis that is searchable separately.
post #4809974 post #4907158

Couldn't you say the same thing between
post #4985149 post #5013162

humanoid is a broad term, encompassing humans with some animal parts, to human-shaped non-humans
post #5125974 post #5117472

human is supposed to be for pure humans. When they get non-human traits, be it animal ears, a tail, etc, they become humanoid. I don't see why genital type should be treated differently than ear type.

watsit said:
Couldn't you say the same thing between
post #4985149 post #5013162

humanoid is a broad term, encompassing humans with some animal parts, to human-shaped non-humans
post #5125974 post #5117472

human is supposed to be for pure humans. When they get non-human traits, be it animal ears, a tail, etc, they become humanoid.

i'll let you make this argument when horse_ears, horse_tail, horse_legs, horse_fur, etc. are well-tagged and searchable separately.
current precedent (see cat_ears) is that the ears should never be tagged separately from the animal_humanoid species. approving this alias and making all the affected posts count as horse_humanoids would make an entire niche of humans with animal genitals completely unsearchable. therefore, it's a bad alias.

lafcadio said:
approving this alias and making all the affected posts count as horse_humanoids would make an entire niche of humans with animal genitals completely unsearchable. therefore, it's a bad alias.

They seem to largely be getting tagged as humanoid already anyway. It just comes across as unnecessarily confusing to say "human with animal ears = humanoid", "human with animal feet = humanoid", and "human with animal tail = humanoid", but "human with animal genitals = human". It will lead to a lot of mistagging, where humanoid is already a tag people have difficulty using correctly. Treating it differently based on what non-human part is added won't help.

Maybe human_with_animal_genitalia could imply humanoid? We can't simply tag them as human if they're not considered human by site relevance standards, IMO, but attempting to restrict animal_genitalia_on_humanoid to exclusively humanoids with no other nonhuman traits seems even more impractical.

spe said:
Maybe human_with_animal_genitalia could imply humanoid? We can't simply tag them as human if they're not considered human by site relevance standards, IMO, but attempting to restrict animal_genitalia_on_humanoid to exclusively humanoids with no other nonhuman traits seems even more impractical.

wouldn't they be animal_humanoid at that point and not just humanoid? since that tag is defined as "mostly human but with some animal parts".

spe said:
Maybe human_with_animal_genitalia could imply humanoid? We can't simply tag them as human if they're not considered human by site relevance standards, IMO, but attempting to restrict animal_genitalia_on_humanoid to exclusively humanoids with no other nonhuman traits seems even more impractical.

I don't think we should restrict it to humanoids with no other nonhuman traits in either case. Surely a case like link with animal genitalia should count
post #4141960 post #4332729
who is nonhuman thanks solely to his pointy ears, but having separate tags based whether the character is otherwise pure human except with animal junk, vs a human with other nonhuman traits including animal junk is quite specific, and is going to get lost on people. Placing him on the side of posts like
post #377178
rather than
post #4328818
seems like it's missing the point.

That's on top of being confusing, since a character with non-human genitals is definitionally not human, making human_with_animal_genitalia as nonsensical a tag name as human_with_animal_ears or human_with_animal_legs, which is going to make things more confusing about what humanoid actually means, a tag that's already confusing to people. Most posts tagged human_with_animal_genitalia wouldn't even classify the character as human if the genitals were humanoid anyway.