This is sort of a spin-off of the topic for unaliasing gelding from horse here: http://e621.net/forum/show/52740

Basically, there's a couple of issues at hand here.

First, castrated is aliased to castration, which doesn't seem right to me considering that one is the actual act of removing testicles, and the other is after the fact. I could see that this might have been done in the past to try to keep castration images better tagged, but this might need to be undone now.

The second part to this is the tag "neuter" seems to not really be used very well at all, nor do I agree with the definition of "A character who (through surgery, birth, or accident) has no sex organs at all, and is thus genderless.". Personally, I've never heard "neutered" used in any way except as synonymous with "castrated".

So my proposal:
1. Delete the "castrated" to "castration" alias

2. Redefine "castration" to be more accurate (removal of the testicles): http://e621.net/wiki/show?title=castration

3. Redefine "neuter" and "neutered" on e621's wiki to be synonymous with "castrated". (or should "neuter" become synonymous with "castration" instead?) http://e621.net/wiki/show?title=neuter

3. Create a tag alias from "neutered" to "castrated"

I think that's it? Would this cause any problems?

When I proposed the tag alias of castrated -> castration I decided it wasn't a good idea, and everyone else thought so. I assumed that the alias was never accepted. I fully support the deletion if that alias.

I fully agree with all of those. But I realised there's one other major consideration here in addition to those changes.

Correcting the definition of neuter leaves this concept "A character who (through surgery, birth, or accident) has no sex organs at all, and is thus genderless." without a tag home. Since not all characters with completely genitalia-less crotches have scars or anything to indicate something was removed. But both castrated and penectomy rely on the concept of removal. So co-tagging wouldn't fit a character who was intentionally created that way and never had anything to remove.

Classic Bugs Bunny would be an example of a character that was created with no sign of genitals, removed or otherwise. There's actually quite a few posts/characters on this site running around with inexplicably blank crotches. Rather than risk any future separate tag being created for those which never had surgery, I'd suggest making sure there's a tag for it now while we're discussing all of this. Something which is for the condition of being genital-less and not specific to how it happened. Such a tag would relieve the TWYS burden to decide if it's by design or surgical procedure when it's completely blank, allowing them to still get tagged and the obviously surgeried ones can get co-tagged with penectomy and castrated. In the end, that would actually be clearer. It would also reduce inevitable conflicts with people who left the crotch blank for other reasons but who squick at anything gore-related being associated with their fursona.

I'd suggest "nullo" for this purpose. It already exists but is kind of forgotten. In many circles outside of furrydom, "nullo" is the preferred term for a completely genitalia-less crotch. So it would be accurate and certainly more appropriate than the misuse of "neuter". "Nullification" also exists but I think it'd make more sense to collapse "nullification" into either nullo, penectomy, or castration. Since any process of becoming nullified (instead of starting out that way) would require some method of castration and penectomy, which leaves no use for a nullification tag. The only reason "nullo" would be useful is to keep all blank crotches together regardless of circumstance.

So in the end, we'd have this set of terms to cover these concepts:

• castrated [those who have no balls]
• penectomy [those who have no penis] and
• nullo [those who have a completely genitalia-less crotch, regardless of how]. And
• castration as a process of becoming ball-less.

And if someone was joint castrated and penectomized, then it can be appropriately co-tagged as such. That would keep the tags distinct but also have the most accurate tagging. To do that though, existing implications would need removed from nullo --/->penectomy and nullo --/->castration. Because nullo would then be defined broader than just the sum of both of them together.

Because I created a wall of text, here's the proposed points:

• the wrong definition on the neuter wiki gets attached to "nullo" instead, since that would actually be the right word for the concept. Nullo's current wiki needs help anyways.

• Neuter still gets corrected and then aliased into castrated. Making it no longer a tag. Same as Char suggested.

• Nullification gets aliased into nullo, penectomy or castrated. Because it's redundant and wouldn't be needed as a tag.

• nullo gets UNimplicated from penetomy and UNimplicated from castrated so that nullo can then be used for ALL genital-less blank crotches regardless if they underwent a procedure or were created that way originally.

• anything under nullo which did come from a joint castration and penectomy, complete with scars, could easily be tagged with all three tags. But by not auto-implicating, it actually retains some meaning when all three tags end up on the same picture.