So here's a thread, so that the boob tag thread can get back to discussing boob tags.

Here's why I don't like cuntboy. Sex is determined by your reproductive organs, and tits are not reproductive organs. Child-rearing, yes, but you don't need knockers to get knocked up. So a cuntboy is, as far as sex goes, just a female with no boobs. Flat_chested. Gender, on the other hand, is different. I think cuntboy and dickgirl should both be removed, at best dickgirl aliased to futanari. They are mixing sex and gender. Gender is about social constructs. If you have a creature with a vag doing manly things, just call it masculine. It's not uncommon for muscly chicks to have no tits, so I don't see any reason for "cuntboy" to exist, and we already use the "girly" tag for feminine dudes. Transgender shouldn't be used, either, because we tag as we see. Unless the image depicts a male acquiring a vagina and losing a penis (or vice versa), it doesn't apply. I don't like dickgirl for the same reason. If there's a cock and balls, it's a male, regardless of whether there is a nice rack or not.

However, as it is more common for a female to have small breasts than it is for a male to have the huge, perky cans so often depicted in "dickgirl" pics, I will admit that the tag tends to apply fairly consistently to the same sorts of characters where no other word fits quite as well. "Titted_man" is just cumbersome.

There are my thoughts on the matter. They're a bit clouded just now, I'm still getting over some good jet lag o.O and am not always sure what time or day it is. Please, discuss!

RedOctober said:
So here's a thread, so that the boob tag thread can get back to discussing boob tags.

Here's why I don't like cuntboy. Sex is determined by your reproductive organs, and tits are not reproductive organs. Child-rearing, yes, but you don't need knockers to get knocked up. So a cuntboy is, as far as sex goes, just a female with no boobs. Flat_chested. Gender, on the other hand, is different. I think cuntboy and dickgirl should both be removed, at best dickgirl aliased to futanari. They are mixing sex and gender. Gender is about social constructs. If you have a creature with a vag doing manly things, just call it masculine. It's not uncommon for muscly chicks to have no tits, so I don't see any reason for "cuntboy" to exist, and we already use the "girly" tag for feminine dudes. Transgender shouldn't be used, either, because we tag as we see. Unless the image depicts a male acquiring a vagina and losing a penis (or vice versa), it doesn't apply. I don't like dickgirl for the same reason. If there's a cock and balls, it's a male, regardless of whether there is a nice rack or not.

However, as it is more common for a female to have small breasts than it is for a male to have the huge, perky cans so often depicted in "dickgirl" pics, I will admit that the tag tends to apply fairly consistently to the same sorts of characters where no other word fits quite as well. "Titted_man" is just cumbersome.

There are my thoughts on the matter. They're a bit clouded just now, I'm still getting over some good jet lag o.O and am not always sure what time or day it is. Please, discuss!

Better argument. Cuntboy, and dickgirl should be replaced with "Intersex" as their between genders and both are usually post-operations and not natural occurrences. Key word, usually. Personally, I disagree because I like dickgirls, can't stand cuntboys, they freak me right the fuck out. So by changing it to "Intersex" which is their proper name, I'd end up black listing both.

A bigger confusion: Not all anthro female reptiles (and dragons) have boobs. How do you define a reptillian cuntboy?

So this is a female? post #45742

And this is a male? post #134253

flat_chest and cuntboy are different. The easiest example I can find is from RL:
This is a flat_chest female: http://goo.gl/M9xPc
This is a cuntboy: http://goo.gl/EMNLq
(both are SFW)

As far as aliasing dickgirl to futanari, that would be stupid. A dickgirl has a penis. A futanari has a penis and a vagina. Furthermore, futanari is already aliased to herm, so that proposed alias would result in aliasing dickgirl to herm.

Princess_Celestia said:
Better argument. Cuntboy, and dickgirl should be replaced with "Intersex" as their between genders and both are usually post-operations and not natural occurrences.

So what will happen to hermaphrodite characters?

Key word, usually. Personally, I disagree because I like dickgirls, can't stand cuntboys, they freak me right the fuck out. So by changing it to "Intersex" which is their proper name, I'd end up black listing both.

I'm assuming this is not want you want to happen. So why are you suggesting that we alias cuntboy and dickgirl to intersex?

Lyokira said:
A bigger confusion: Not all anthro female reptiles (and dragons) have boobs. How do you define a reptillian cuntboy?

If they look female, they're female. If they look male, they're a cuntboy.

Snowy said:
flat_chest and cuntboy are different. The easiest example I can find is from RL:
This is a flat_chest female: http://goo.gl/M9xPc
This is a cuntboy: http://goo.gl/EMNLq
(both are SFW)

BRILLIANT :D Good use of a buck angel picture :D

I think it ought to jsut stay the same as it is now... because it works.

except maybe we could tag cuntboy pictures with 'flat chest' but I dunno.

This is why I tried the method of moving any females with obvious but tiny breasts (small roundings, puffed nipples, other signs of obvious female nature that isn't subjective), relabel them, and then use flat_chest solely to illustrate cuntboys, while continuing to use intersex or swapping it for a more clinical mixed_gender tag, with futanari being aliased by dickgirl instead of the other way around.

To illustrate "flat-chested" women having some small form of breasts but being (derogatorily, usually) called flat chested:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2lqbky-cSgg/SbZe4tHBLwI/AAAAAAAAC6I/fljGHD-9iUQ/s400/flat-chest-fail.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UIxcUSJUSCw/TQsSuPy6K8I/AAAAAAAAF5M/H2KZ7-l6MoY/s1600/kiera.jpg

http://biografie.leonardo.it/img/bio/m/Milla_Jovovich.jpg

http://blogue.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/flatgirl.jpg

(NSFW) http://www.filipina.name/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/chinese.jpg

As you can see just from a small sample, women who are called flat-chested DO still have breasts; It's easily visible in the definition of their chest. If they are completely man-chested and don't have even the hint of a breast, then how are they visibly different (Since the rule is tag what you see, not what you know) from a cuntboy? Even the NSFW one of the filipino woman who has very small breasts has a noticable shape in both body and in the breast tissue itself that is different from males.

And Snowy, your female there definitely has breasts. You can see the slight dip in her chest, even if they are small. The same could be said for Buck there as well- They are small, more masculine in shape true- but they are breasts. Same with men who suffer from pseudogynecomastia- They are visibly breasts (even if they are generally saggy, droopy affairs) even if they're just fat, or the more serious gynecomastia (which are actual breasts, not just fatty tissue from being overweight).

http://www.cosmeticsurgeryandbeauty.com/files/images/Donaway-Preop.jpg

http://www.gynecomastia-cure.info/images/male-breast-reduction.jpg (Will need to zoom in)

http://www.beautyinprague.com/img/pages/78-gynecomastia-before-and-after-2.jpg

Especially in the third case, the pre-op picture looks like it could belong to a relatievely lanky woman.

tony311 said:
So this is a female? post #45742

And this is a male? post #134253

Actually, yes. By the definition of male and female, with male being

a. Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.
b. Characteristic of or appropriate to this sex; masculine.
c. Consisting of members of this sex.

and females being

a. Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.
b. Characteristic of or appropriate to this sex; feminine.
c. Consisting of members of this sex.

then yes, the top thumb, illustrating a flat-chested female, and the bottom thumb, illustrating a large-breasted male, is technically correct terminology. Mammaries have nothing to do with gender at the primary level. Breasts or flat chests/abs et al are a secondary sex characteristic.

I honestly believe referring to them both as intersex is incorrect as well, and my earlier put-forth example of mixed_gender doing little in the regard of fixing it, just making it sound more formal. Properly, all three forms- cock and vag 'herms', cuntboys, and dickgirls should all be referenced under hermaphroditism, as cuntboys and dickgirls are psuedohermaphroditic in that their secondary sexual characteristics are not within "normal" parameters. However, that puts us at the impasse where changing it to be medically/factually correct results in degradation of precision in search parameters. I'm having difficulty thinking of a way to solve that issue without detailing as I said before- Cuntboy to flat_chest, dickgirl to futanari (as it is most known for female mentally with male genitalia) and then imply intersex (or have intersex go away and have them imply herm, as it is technically correct). Even then, I can see issues where searching would become an annoyance. Can someone lend a hand? A sleepy mind does not work well (been writing this for about an hour now, incl. research).

In closing, i give you a tl:dr;

Calling females flat-chested because they have small (but visible) breasts is a comparative against larger breasts at a societical viewpoint, and is a subjective analysis. Thus, for tagging purposes, is flawed, and needs to be revised. Cuntboys and dickgirls are males and females with one part of their anatomy as the opposing gender's stereotypical parts; ie flat chest or breasts where normally they are reversed. This is fundementally flawed IMO and needs to be revised as well.

In shorter form: We need to discuss more and come up with something.

Cuntboys and dickgirls are not hermaphroditic, hermaphroditic means having both male and female sex organs, cuntboys and dickgirls have either one or the other. Intersexed means being in the middle of male and female sexes, and having a flat chest does not mean you are intersexed. For example, you take a look at mikhaila's chest and you see in some pictures she's as flat as a board... The character is known to be female, which does conflict with the "Tag what you see, not what you know" rule, but I'm trying to make a point here :/

Also, males typically have flat chests. So sticking a flat_chest tag on a cuntboy is stupid, cause a cuntboy is a male frame with a vag and no dick, and males don't have breasts. Flat_chest is for, or should be for, females with flat chests. Not cuntboys.

And yes, I agree women with small breasts should not be called flatchested.

cuntboy is different from flat chested female because the anatomical system of a cuntboy is different from a flat chested female: cuntboys have squared off bodies rather than curves, a more masculine muscular system than a female is capable of having w/out help of testosterone (i.e. transgender ftm possible as a tag here) and they can have fully developed facial hair, also only seen in bio males or ftms. dickgirls are under the same content as cuntboys for having curves, breasts, and other feminine features. also: transgender tag should stay for the case of pictures such as this: http://e621.net/data/9b/e3/9be3b64ccad785e31f7ad0ccbce98f3a.jpg?1231765214

Cuntboys are females with masculine secondary sex characteristics.

Dickgirls are males with feminine secondary sex characteristics.

As I said, they are what are known as pseudohermaphrodites or false hermaphrodites, as they have the primary sex characteristic of one gender and secondary sexual characteristics of the other gender. This is medically correct. Again, though, it causes degradation in search ability to just apply herm to all three without any secondary functions to retain search parameter cleanliness otherwise.

As for transgendered FTM: There are few pictures that actually qualify for transgender in comparison to the sher volume of cuntboys and dickgirls, and they would not classify as such by default simply because they are not surgically altered- they are 'natural' (the quotes because, well, it isn't -natural- by strict definition, but you know what I mean) and, because of that, they are not transgendered.

I blame using human english for tagging purposes for something that exists entirely as a furry concept. -.-; I'm going to go and roll over and go to sleep, now. so tired...

We don't need "medically correct" tagging. The tags that we have now for intersexed characters are the ones the community here has chosen to use and we won't be changing them easily, seeing as the method we have found is a method that most can agree on.

I agree. Cuntboys are just flat chested girls. They don't differ from women at all actually, and I don't see what's "boyish" about them anyway! I guess you could say they are just women who are tomboyish, but men have dicks, not vaginas, duh. So they should just be tagged female. Oh, and don't disgrace girly boys by equating them with cuntboys, as they are graced with the proper anatomy of a penis, thank you. Girly boys are just men who aren't afraid to express themselves.

As for dickgirls, herms, or whatever: They have tits, which is osmething men definitely do not have, so why the fuck would you tag them as male?

JustFrame said:
I agree. Cuntboys are just flat chested girls. They don't differ from women at all actually, and I don't see what's "boyish" about them anyway! I guess you could say they are just women who are tomboyish, but men have dicks, not vaginas, duh. So they should just be tagged female. Oh, and don't disgrace girly boys by equating them with cuntboys, as they are graced with the proper anatomy of a penis, thank you. Girly boys are just men who aren't afraid to express themselves.

As for dickgirls, herms, or whatever: They have tits, which is osmething men definitely do not have, so why the fuck would you tag them as male?

*twitches* Ehm. Your phrasing could use some work... but rather then snark about your choice of words...

So, instead, I'm going to direct you back up to http://goo.gl/EMNLq ... Quite personally, that cuntboy--and yes, that's a cuntboy--is far more manly looking than most of the men *I* know. And the manliest man I know is.... actually another cuntboy.

The 'problem' as we've already said, with cuntboy as a tag is that you have cuntboys who are girly, and cuntboys who are masculine:

Copy pasta from the other thread:

post #140227 post #133482 and post #137672 where, yeah. those are indistinguishable from a flatchested girl, really.

but then, then there's post #137657 post #134042 post #100642 where it's pretty damn clear that it's a guy with a vagina.

....

I still say that the 'best' option is to leave it how it currently is, but use 'flat_chest' to describe cuntboys and girls that are also described as having a flat_chest. ...and maybe throw 'female' on the girliest of cuntboys. no one says that a character must only have one tag to describe a particular feature.

This is kind of a redundant thing to say, but anyways...

Seriously, people?

"Cuntboys and flat-chested females are basically the same thing"?

I recognize it's rather assholish to pop in to bitch but not actually engage in the thread or offer anything constructive, but...

Seriously? How is it that 90%+ of people seem to not understand that there is a general skeletal structure and musculature that can be described as 'feminine' or 'female', as well as one which could be labeled 'masculine' or 'male'; not just genitals and clothes? I recognize also that it's rather iffy in furry art, what with a large number of artists not seeming to grasp that idea either, but... C'mon people, it's not that hard to understand, even if other people fuck it up a lot. :/

Again, this looks like a female? post #45742

Again, female/male duoism is defined by the genitalia, with secondary sex characteristics leading towards manly or tomboyish females, or girly men. We can turn your snark around and say post #138689 looks like a male? No, not by secondary characteristic standards, but by primary characteristics, yes, that is a male. He's got the two bits and a sausage, even if he's very feminine. (would do it in thumb format like you did, but the link syntax thingy doesn't have info on how to do that- or if it does, it doesn't detail it in such a way to be easily understandable)

I find your lack of common sense disturbing.

Character's gender is defined by their genitalia, which NEED to be highlighted (at least, in the case of anthro characters) by the following characteristics, in order of importance :
- breasts, or the lack of them
- general body (and facial) shape
- eyelashes
- clothes
- behaviour / speech

When the genitalia conflict with a sufficient amount of the "secondary" characteristics, then the character is intersex.

And that list is entirely subjective as your opinion. There is one and only one characteristic that is the primary characteristic, and that is the junk down below. Everything else plays a secondary role to it which helps define patterns or stereotypes (that's the important word there) of what goes with what.

It's why we as a people stereotypically think that a female must have breasts, when that is patently false. Look at any non-mammalian organism, and you can see that female does not necessarily equate to having breasts. It's only the oddity of the majority of furs making their characters mammalian versions of their animal counterparts (and most furry art being porn, and thus breasts are something to fap to) that perpetuates that stereotype across the fandom.

It's nothing about me lacking common sense, but seeing beyond the stereotype. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to bring another ad hominem into this.

123easy said:
And that list is entirely subjective as your opinion. There is one and only one characteristic that is the primary characteristic, and that is the junk down below. Everything else plays a secondary role to it which helps define patterns or stereotypes (that's the important word there) of what goes with what.

It's why we as a people stereotypically think that a female must have breasts, when that is patently false. Look at any non-mammalian organism, and you can see that female does not necessarily equate to having breasts. It's only the oddity of the majority of furs making their characters mammalian versions of their animal counterparts (and most furry art being porn, and thus breasts are something to fap to) that perpetuates that stereotype across the fandom.

It's nothing about me lacking common sense, but seeing beyond the stereotype. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to bring another ad hominem into this.

Personally, again, I think we should keep it as it is, and as river himself as stated, their not changing it. I like it this way so my black-list freaking works. I dont wanna have to add some asinine string of words to a single blacklist line, just because someone things they should be tagged purely on their junk. When humans have always classified breasts as a "Sexual Organ" And before you say anything, the string would end up looking like

Female no_Breasts vagina rating:E masculine_body masculine_Face
or some crap like that.

And then, reptiles/dragons gets a whole loop of confusion.

1) Not all anthro reptiles have boobs.
2) Many male anthro reptiles have slits holding their junk.

Which generally means that a dragon with only the slit visible is more or less ingistinguishable from male/female/cuntboy/herm. (it's why reptiles often needs to be sexed to determine their actual gender) Even penetration is technically not a proof of gender, since it could be docking (or for reptiles with a cloacoa, anal).

In theory, avians should have a similar issue, but anthro avians seem to be much more likely to not have a cloacoa than reptiles. Still, it does put any avian with just a visible slit into question as well.

We could theoretically mark all of these as indeterminate_gender, but...

Anyway, have fun with these two:
post #34206 post #34207

Breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic. How many times do I need to say that before it sinks in that I'm not straight out saying "ignore breasts" but "breasts are not the determinator of gender, only one of the factors of one half of the natural human genders that we stereotype by".

Removing the subjective use of flat_chest on females with small breasts and using it to illustrate cuntboys only (since, as I said before, no definable female who features the entire set of feminine secondary sexual characteristics along with the primary has absolutely no breasts, due to the simple shape of the body, plus is rather derogatory and has always been.) as a variant of breast size tags to illustrate that unlike human-natural females they actually have no breasts would allow a simple change to blacklisting cuntboys while being simultaneously more accurate and less subjective. Blacklisting female flat_chest for example, if they were to be tagged instead as females, would blacklist cuntboys just fine.

Either way, the last post by River didn't say they weren't changing at all, but rather would not change easily. Because something's hard to change doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't be attempted.

But... here's the problem, hun. :( I think you're the only one arguing in favour. While there is some debate about boobs and flat_chest.. everyone is more or less agreed that cuntboy and dickgirl needs to stay c_c;

The soloution we have no may not be 'perfect' but I think your idea, no offense, is a step in the wrong direction :(

It's not that I just want to argue in favour of changing, but I want someone to give a reasonable non-subjective answer. So far it's just been subjective stereotypes- breasts or no breasts being the big primary- and that just isn't right. >.< And I heartily agree that what i've suggested isn't perfect. Thus the point of debate- to get it to as close as possible to perfect as we can- Which the current format isn't, either.

Lyokira: Didn't see your post before, so i'll respond to it now. Any reptile without a visible cock or vag (such as if she's spreading the lips) should be marked cloaca and indeterminate_gender unless it specifically states somewhere on the picture the gender of the reptile. If the male has obvious cloacal folds around the cock's base, cloaca it as well as penis and male. To me that sounds more of an improper tagging issue than this gender/sex issue.

I'm not sure I've got this right, but here's how *I* do it at least..

female - has a pussy, and possibly breasts, depending on the apparent visual age.
male - has a penis, and no breasts. balls optional.

In most cases, I assume that the things I am looking at are one of the above, unless...

herm - Pussy, cock. Breasts optional.
dickgirl - cock, breasts. balls optional. If a herm's pussy isn't visible, it's tagged this.
cuntboy - pussy and.. flat chest... and... well..

all three of the above are ... particularly vulnerable to one particular problem.. the rule is tag what you see. But not every image displays EVERYTHING. So when someone sees a character they like, or know something about and realize they are incorrectly tagged, they fix it. Be it because the source says that the character is a herm/cuntboy/dickgirl or because they know the character, or they ARE the character.. etc.

The rule of tag what you see kinda breaks there. but. for the most part, it doesn't hurt anyone.. and it works. plus, the artist's intentions DO matter to a degree. How do we tell that gray fox from a wolf? we take the artist's word. Is that a leopard or a jaguar? What's the artist say? Oh.. that's a cuntboy and not a girl? well.. alright."

and to be blunt... the artist *is* the one who'd know. So.. when all else fails...

does... that help?

Tag what you see not what you know unless the artist says otherwise seems a bit too long and burdensome to the tongue. :P

Dear users admins viewers and readers.

The purpose of the tag system is not to be correct, right, wrong, or canon

The purpose of the tag system is to make it easy to search for certain types of images you are looking for, and the easier that is, the better.

Please do not break functionality for correctness: that is all.

Thus the entire topic-cum-debate; To find a way to keep functionality while also obtaining correctness.

123easy said:Lyokira: Didn't see your post before, so i'll respond to it now. Any reptile without a visible cock or vag (such as if she's spreading the lips) should be marked cloaca and indeterminate_gender unless it specifically states somewhere on the picture the gender of the reptile. If the male has obvious cloacal folds around the cock's base, cloaca it as well as penis and male. To me that sounds more of an improper tagging issue than this gender/sex issue.

By that same logic, anything which has a flat chest and cunt should be tagged indeterminate_gender since it is indeterminate whether the charadter is a female or cuntboy.

123easy said:
Tag what you see not what you know unless the artist says otherwise seems a bit too long and burdensome to the tongue. :P

Except it's closer to "tag what you see, not what you know, unless someone like the artist insists otherwise, and hell, this one thing is some people's imagination fuel, so okay."

There isnt' really a 'correct'... there MAY... be slightly more ideal ways of doing it... but they would involve manually going through and retagging every image (manually! not running a script, an alias, or eyeballing thumbnails) and possibly rewriting the whole way the tagging system works... and THEN manually retagging.. EVERYTHING.

and to be honest, that very idea makes me weep in long fear and anguish because I know that it will never be done. Even if we came up with a "better" system where we could apply tags to individuals in an image, as opposed to the image as a whole, in 10 years there would.. STILL be images tagged old_tagging_system.

nothing says an image needs to have only one.. or another.. gender tag associated with it. if that cuntboy picture is tagged ambiguous_gender (or indeterminate or whatever the other one is) and female AND cuntboy? that's okay, as long as it kinda looks like everything it's tagged D:

ITT: completely unneeded bitching and arguing about a tagset that will NOT be changed

null0100 said:
ITT: completely unneeded bitching and arguing about a tagset that will NOT be changed

Go away please. Don't need negativity combined with stupidity and lack of absolutely anything useful to this debate here.

Lyokira said:
By that same logic, anything which has a flat chest and cunt should be tagged indeterminate_gender since it is indeterminate whether the charadter is a female or cuntboy.

I can agree with that, wholeheartedly, actually. If cuntboy implies flat_chest, and flat_chest implies ambiguous_gender, And I got the go ahead from an admin/mod to go and retag the small breasted females tagged flat_chest, then that would be more accurate, still keeping the current tags, true enough, but still more accurate without sacrificing functionality under the current system.

123easy said: If cuntboy implies flat_chest, and flat_chest implies ambiguous_gender

I could get behind cuntboy implying flat_chest.. except that you don't always SEE a chest to tag. D: (just like a clothed female does not get the pussy tag) and the flat_chest implying ambiguous_gender isn't a good idea... as some people will still be using it for girls for some time, if they ever stop. If such changes are made, anyway.

And I got the go ahead from an admin/mod to go and retag the small breasted females tagged flat_chest, then that would be more accurate, still keeping the current tags, true enough, but still more accurate without sacrificing functionality under the current system.

Is there a typo here? Did you mean "if I got the go ahead"? or did you get the go ahead? :)

So... your proposal is that small chested females get small_breasts rather then flat_chest, and that cuntboys should also have the ambiguous_gender tag as well as flat_chest?

Theoretically, is the flat_chest tag even needed anymore? if flat_chest is only on cuntboys, and only cuntboys have flat_chests..?

I'm sorry if I'm being dumb here... too many debates to keep up with and I havn't been able to sleep more then an hour or two at a time for a few days ;_;

JustFrame said:
As for dickgirls, herms, or whatever: They have tits, which is osmething men definitely do not have, so why the fuck would you tag them as male?

I'll point you to all of the posts explaining that breasts are not what determines a beings' sex. Reproductive organs are.

acct0283476 said:
This is kind of a redundant thing to say, but anyways...

Seriously, people?

"Cuntboys and flat-chested females are basically the same thing"?

I recognize it's rather assholish to poop in to bitch but not actually engage in the thread or offer anything constructive, but...

Seriously? How is it that 90%+ of people seem to not understand that there is a general skeletal structure and musculature that can be described as 'feminine' or 'female', as well as one which could be labeled 'masculine' or 'male'; not just genitals and clothes? I recognize also that it's rather iffy in furry art, what with a large number of artists not seeming to grasp that idea either, but... C'mon people, it's not that hard to understand, even if other people fuck it up a lot. :/

And this is why I wanted to distinguish between SEX and GENDER. Masculine does not equal male; similarly, feminine does not equal female. Otherwise we wouldn't have girly men and manly women. Genitals should always determine a character's sex. Always, because that's how everything's sex is determined. The "general skeletal structure" you mentioned is correctly called feminine or masculine, but is NOT necessarily male or female.

I'm honestly not even sure what I think should be done to tags anymore. So far I've tended to agree with what 123easy has to say, but as others have pointed out, the tags do work, even if I don't like them. It's an interesting debate and I hope it keeps going.

SnowWolf said:
I could get behind cuntboy implying flat_chest.. except that you don't always SEE a chest to tag. D: (just like a clothed female does not get the pussy tag) and the flat_chest implying ambiguous_gender isn't a good idea... as some people will still be using it for girls for some time, if they ever stop. If such changes are made, anyway.

A clothed female doesn't get the pussy tag but that's because it's obviously a female under all characteristics- she doesn't have manjunk, she has breasts, she looks relatively feminine, it's a female- because since the primary sex characteristic is hidden beneath cloth, it's obvious that it ain't two bits and a sausage. If it has girly bits, but you can't see the chest or enough of the space in front of the chest to tell if there's breasts (like when they lean forward and you can see inside the crook of their arm), then it shouldn't be tagged cuntboy anyways and just ambiguous_gender since you can't tell.

Is there a typo here? Did you mean "if I got the go ahead"? or did you get the go ahead? :)

So... your proposal is that small chested females get small_breasts rather then flat_chest, and that cuntboys should also have the ambiguous_gender tag as well as flat_chest?

The capital A on And was the typo; it was a runon sentence. And yes, that's what my proposal was. cuntboy implies flat_chest implies ambiguous_gender.

Theoretically, is the flat_chest tag even needed anymore? if flat_chest is only on cuntboys, and only cuntboys have flat_chests..?

I'm sorry if I'm being dumb here... too many debates to keep up with and I havn't been able to sleep more then an hour or two at a time for a few days ;_;

It's not -needed-, true. But what about Mikhaila who is truly flat-chested but isn't a cuntboy? She is female (word of artist) but the pictures themselves still lend the ambiguous_gender sense going just by what you can see. Thus there are a few cases where females would still be tagged flat_chest/ambiguous_gender, but they'd fall under the exceptions, rather than the rule.

Flat_chest shouldn't imply ambiguous gender, wtf. You telling me you're not sure if this character is a cuntboy or female? post #16744

I could simply quote tits or gtfo, but I shan't. If they're immature, don't tag them with a breast size/chest size tag because they haven't grown into whatever they might have yet. Problem solved.

What makes you think the character is not already fully grown?

Because it looks like a cub?

That reasoning doesn't always hold true. Pretty sure there are cases of adult characters who look like cubs.

That character is an adult. she's jsut very feral-ish.

I've been speaking with several other members of the community on this note that are a bit too shy to speak up here (one of them helped me to write this post, actually), and while we can agree on the current tags being a little messy, we wonder what these tag proposals would have in store for transgendered characters as well as all dickgirl and cuntboy posts as a whole. These characters are so defined by what you call "secondary characteristics" rather than their genitalia, and are sometimes played by actual trans or gender-queer individuals.

As the current tagging system is based on a "tag what you see" basis so that people can easily find what they are looking for, I feel that these suggestions are a bit of a step in the wrong direction, though I'm not sure what else to suggest. One of the main problems when dealing with trans issues is that many privileged people (that is, people who's mind and body are both the same gender) don't understand how important it is to be defined by what's going on in your head and heart and not what dangling between your legs.

So, on say, like this image archive where everything is on a "tag what you see" deal, the system can make it already hard for such characters to be labeled properly. It's hard to claim a 'male' tag for a trans-male individual when there's a pussy involved and likewise 'female' for a trans-woman. For all intents and purposes of the site functioning how it does, they'll end up getting stuck with a sexualized fetish term. However, at least the term cuntboy will acknowledge that the character is primarily male and dickgirl will acknowledge that the character is primarily female; just with a genitalia difference.

So, for cuntboys, even if the plumbing doesn't agree, that's far better than getting stuck with the term female, something that doesn't define the character at all and also something that real people have been fighting for and jumping through hoops to not be referred to in real life. In these cases, the secondary characteristics such as broader shoulders and facial hair on a cuntboy, are rather important.

If "cuntboy" and "small chested female" were nearly the same thing, then I wouldn't come across comments of people lamenting upon finding out a character is a cuntboy and therefor not appealing to them anymore (because they either aren't attracted to men and/or are not attracted to the body type)... even if you still feel someone like Mikhaila and a cuntboy otter character look similar and should be labeled the same and jumbled up together.

Hopefully then you can understand that the possible implications of a trans-male or cuntboy character being labeled female could be offensive. Not only that, but the tagging switch seems a little messier. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I was a browser interested in seeing all female posts and flat chest but no cuntboy posts, I wouldn't want to have to blacklist those terms just so I don't have to see cuntboy. It's much simpler to blacklist cuntboy so that I don't have to see bros with vaginas.

See, here's the thing: I have absolutely no problem with transgendered people. None at all. i've actually spoken with one such individual in PMs about this very subject, one who was too shy to post in public about the matter. I understand quite well that they have many problems IRL with getting equal rights about themselves and their feelings about descriptions of themselves.

This entire debacle has nothing to do with trying to offend transgendered people- Far from. It's primarily about tagging following the "tag what you see, not what you know" standard, with cuntboy being one of the major examples of tagging where it doesn't follow that standard, primarily because the background on what it means is still so very much up in the air when it comes to how it's percieved and explained IRL.

You can look at a woman and go "yes she's female" and detail probably five or six secondary aspects that define what she is to the eye, even if she's actually a transgendered MtF and packing down below (which i've had a very pleasant friendship with, might I add; yes, that was an example from my life I gave).

I can understand how someone might be offended by the fact that I'm saying they're female based on their biological structure, the primary sex characteristic of having a vagina, even if the character is decidedly male in mentality/personage. I say that only because of the tag what you see point of the tagging protocols, not because I feel that all cuntboys are female.

Gender in the generic, clinical sense (which tends towards the impartial and why I prefer it for most things), is defined by the bits between your legs. It's why we (as a society) don't call men who act like a female and are of a female mindset a female, but a feminine or (usually said derogatorily, though this is thankfully changing) gay male/man- because he's still a male, with the junk below.

It's because of the odd embrace of the transgender aspect in fetish terms and then trying to have character born in the transgender state, rather than having to deal with all the physical and mental pain that usually accmpanies such things in mostly "cuntbois r hot <3" mentalities, that gives birth to cuntboys and futanari dickgirls. Yet, at the same time there are far more intolerant bastards who in all likelyhood don't give a rat's ass for transgendered people and find them unclean or some such stupidity, and that's where you get the people who go "eeeew" at cuntboys, or worse.

Hell, if we tossed out cuntboys and just used transgender_FtM and did the same for dickgirls (transgender_MtF) and left it at that, I'd give a big thumbs up because it details what it -looks- like far more accurately and generically, without that silly requirement of there being an op or visible signs of an op (stitches, bandages, hospital-like setting, etc).

Now, I'm rambling, and I proably said a buncha stuff that won't make much sense. x_x So I think I'll just end this post and let people read and respond. Hope I've got my point across.

Snow, what you said hits it on the head. GENDER is about what goes on in your head, absolutely 100%. So yes, people who've got dicks may consider themselves female. And that is totally cool with me. My primary reason in even starting this thread was because we need to distinguish, as I've been trying to say, between sex and gender. SEX is determined by what you've got going on downstairs, always, 100% of the time. It is a purely biological descriptor. Biological. Not psychological. I don't care (and please, I mean no offense here at all) what a person may think they are, biological sex is always always always determined by reproductive organs. Gender is 100% always always always in your head and what you pack has no bearing on that. You can be a woman without being male, a man without being female. Male and female are biological descriptors based on a cock 'n' balls or a cunt. GENDER is determined on whatever you feel you are.

Please understand that I'm not saying there is anything wrong with anyone whose gender and sex don't match, or who want to change or have changed their sex to match their gender, or anything involving sex and gender at all. I honestly don't give a flying fuck what anyone's gender or sex is, as that has no bearing on any relationship I may or may not enter into with them. I'm merely trying to clarify and be a stickler for definitions. People are who they are and I don't bash people who aren't who I am.

I'm all for 123easy's suggestion of aliasing cuntboy to FtM and dickgirl to MtF and also implying transgender. to me that sounds like a better solution to the problem of gender vs sex. by implying transgender and making the character label MtF or FtM, it solves by saying- yes this FtM is still female, but is more masculine, or vice versa for MtFs.

Thanks, Red, though I can't really take credit. I didn't write the post alone. :)

Cookie, the problem with that is that some characters are 'born that way'.. as in "no I was born with a dick and grew boobs" (which I guess technically IS mtf :P) or "I took a potion and..

I might have missed that idea, honestly. there's been a LOT of text said lately..

hmm.. my first gut reaction is to say that cuntboy/dickgirl should be implicated rather then aliased, but... well.. I figure FtM is a lot nicer the cuntboy.... and people could still search 'cuntboy' if they wanted....

.... what do other people think of:

cuntboy -> FtM
dickgirl -> MtF
(FtM and MtF already imply transgender)

this isn't any promise of change, by the way, just... questions being asked.

Cunyboys are stupid. That is my analysis.

I think all this gender nonsense is stupid and the only way we are gonna make everyone happy is to kill everyone.

If you alias cuntboy to FtM and someone searches cuntboy, their search is redirected to FtM, right? If so, I'm all for it.

Yes....

I'm not sure if the blacklist will still 'work' though.

I'm going to start a new thread on the matter asking for thoughts because this is kind of a big change and everyone has probably long ago stopped reading this wall of text

Aurali said:
I think [...] the only way we are gonna make everyone happy is to kill everyone.

This is decidedly the case.

But really, Aurali, what's wrong with a bit of healthy discussion?

You know what I find hilarious? This thread has remained calm and polite, with well-considered posts and actual reasoning to back up opinions, whereas any MLP thread blows up into a shitfest of hate within three posts. I see where the board's priorities are lol.

Edit: Except for Ippiki's, but he doesn't count >.>

SnowWolf said:
.... what do other people think of:

cuntboy -> FtM
dickgirl -> MtF
(FtM and MtF already imply transgender)

this isn't any promise of change, by the way, just... questions being asked.

Weeeelllllll. Ugh. I don't really like it lol but I for the life of me have no idea what a good solution is. Hence the thread to begin with.

Whups, I see you've got another thread discussing that, I'll see if I have anything to add over there.

Well, thing is 1) transgender is an actual term, it has hard definitions based in medical fact. 2) tag what you see not what you know. 3) even if someone is transgender, in most cases you can't tell that it was natural or surgical in nature, primarily due to artists drawing characters more feminine/masculine than (most) people who do actually undergo these procedures. 4) trans- means across or through. Cuntboys and dickgirls are literally at a juxtaposition of gender/sex, so transgender (across gender(s) ) IS actually rather appropriate.

Guys its not that hard to understand...

If the body is feminine and it has a female organ it is a woman or flat chested women

If the body is NOT feminine or masculine and it has a female organ its a cuntboy!

If a body is masculine and it has a penis its a man

if a body is feminine and it has a penis its a dickgirl or an extremely feminine guy

An intersex is when the secondary characteristics aka body and boobs or not are different than the main characteristicks aka dick/cunt
Exceptions only are when there is a rly muscly women or a very feminine man....

wolfylulz said:
words

Wow, necropost much?

wolfylulz said:
If the body is NOT feminine or masculine and it has a female organ its a cuntboy!

1) Y U NO CHECK TIMESTAMPS?
2) What's going on with this example?

Come on people, don't post just to talk down to this person.