Have a quick look at the comments over at post #846217. I know if the artist ever sees that he's gonna blow a gasket because he's very set about the pseudo-penis thing.

I now we skirt TWYS already for charrs, and given hyenas' peculiarities, I would have thought that we would obviously not go for strict TWYS since that would mean e621 would literally deny the existence of anatomically correct female hyenas...

How about we just tag Hyenas that are hard to define ambiguous?

why are we negotiating with terrorists

The only feminine feature I see in this is the eyelashes, aside from the stockings of course.

But I see no breasts and a penis so I would've tagged male. :U

No breasts, actual cum leaking penis, balls? That's a male.

If you want to appease everyone, start tagging pseudopenis and ambiguous_gender. 'Pseudopenis' alone should be enough for searching/blacklisting purposes. That's what tags are for.

Knotty_Curls said:
If you want to appease everyone, start tagging pseudopenis and ambiguous_gender. 'Pseudopenis' alone should be enough for searching/blacklisting purposes. That's what tags are for.

Part of the thing with hyenas is that a penis and a pseudopenis can be distinguished by shape, as seen here for example. Females do have an analogue to balls where the labia are fused and look somewhat puffy, but these features can be differentiated from male testicles by size and shape.

Otherwise, for tagging purposes, I see no reason to outright state a hyena gender as ambiguous for having real-world anatomy. The pseudopenis tag should cover that by itself.

so this particular instance would be male?

Ratte said:
pseudopeanis

Part of the thing with hyenas is that a penis and a pseudopenis can be distinguished by shape, as seen here for example. Females do have an analogue to balls where the labia are fused and look somewhat puffy, but these features can be differentiated from male testicles by size and shape.

Otherwise, for tagging purposes, I see no reason to outright state a hyena gender as ambiguous for having real-world anatomy. The pseudopenis tag should cover that by itself.

I don't think artists would be that familiar with the anatomy of hyenas so that they could correctly illustrate the genitals flawlessly. Hell, I constantly see comments about canine penises being upside-down and Horse dogs not being flared correctly and it's far easier to find an example of those in comparison to a hyena. In most cases, the general public sees the pseudo-penis as a penis with an entry at the tip.

Perhaps pseudo-penis could be used in favor of omitting sex tags completely? Though I still think ambiguous would be safer.

Ko-san said:
I don't think artists would be that familiar with the anatomy of hyenas so that they could correctly illustrate the genitals flawlessly. Hell, I constantly see comments about canine penises being upside-down and Horse dogs not being flared correctly and it's far easier to find an example of those in comparison to a hyena. In most cases, the general public sees the pseudo-penis as a penis with an entry at the tip.

Perhaps pseudo-penis could be used in favor of omitting sex tags completely? Though I still think ambiguous would be safer.

I would like to add onto this that some amount of anthropomorphism of the genitalia isn't unheard of, and that can apply to pseudopenises as well.

I'm generally of the opinion that the pseudopenis tag is sufficient. It is worth mentioning though that hyenas are not the only species with pseudopenises.

Furrin_Gok said:
No breasts, actual cum leaking penis, balls? That's a male.

As has been mentioned, female hyenas have a fused labia which looks like a ballsack in addition to a pseudopenis.

Furthermore, in the linked picture, you can actually see the wide opening and characteristic shape of the pseudopenis that clearly indicates that it is anatomically correct female genitalia for a hyena. This is actually one of the clearest female hyena pictures involving a pseudopenis that I've seen in a while.

Ko-san said:
I don't think artists would be that familiar with the anatomy of hyenas so that they could correctly illustrate the genitals flawlessly. Hell, I constantly see comments about canine penises being upside-down and Horse dogs not being flared correctly and it's far easier to find an example of those in comparison to a hyena. In most cases, the general public sees the pseudo-penis as a penis with an entry at the tip.

Perhaps pseudo-penis could be used in favor of omitting sex tags completely? Though I still think ambiguous would be safer.

We would still have to go with how something looks. Dog cocks are obviously dog cocks whether upside-down or not. Horse cocks also have very obvious, distinguishing features (not to mention they don't flare until the mating process occurs) to tell exactly what it is. In this case, the female pseudopenis looks different from the male penis. We would have to tag it according to what it looks like, just like anything else.

Ratte said:
We would still have to go with how something looks. Dog cocks are obviously dog cocks whether upside-down or not. Horse cocks also have very obvious, distinguishing features (not to mention they don't flare until the mating process occurs) to tell exactly what it is. In this case, the female pseudopenis looks different from the male penis. We would have to tag it according to what it looks like, just like anything else.

That depends too much on outside information though, and as said before, not everyone drawing this would know that the main difference between the male penis and female pseudo-penis lies in how rounded the tip is. Then there's also that after the pseudo-penis gives birth it looks even more like the male penis because of the foreskin that develops. The point is that, for hyenas, a visible penis, balls or no, leaves it too ambiguous to cleanly make a choice based solely on Twys.

Ko-san said:
That depends too much on outside information though, and as said before, not everyone drawing this would know that the main difference between the male penis and female pseudo-penis lies in how rounded the tip is. Then there's also that after the pseudo-penis gives birth it looks even more like the male penis because of the foreskin that develops. The point is that, for hyenas, a visible penis, balls or no, leaves it too ambiguous to cleanly make a choice based solely on Twys.

Real-world sexual dimorphism is outside information now? :|

Ratte said:
Real-world sexual dimorphism is outside information now? :|

When it's that miniscule. They ruled the same on Pikachu and their tails.

As someone who loves hyenas as a favorite animal, I have read almost all the documents pertaining to hyenas, and declare myself a self proclaimed hyena expert.

Pseudo-penis:
post #805288 post #639685 post #261010 post #846216

Penis:
post #809682 post #801540 post #719722 post #676681

The way I see it, assuming breasts are on the character we are looking at:

if penis obviously looks like a pseudo-penis:
    psuedo-penis
else if penis has human penis head:
    intersex or herm
else if balls are rather prominent balls:
    intersex or herm
else:
    pseudo-penis

_{This however is just my view, Admins/mods have final say. Do not take anything I say as correct}

Ko-san said:
When it's that miniscule. They ruled the same on Pikachu and their tails.

Pikachus don't exist. Hyenas do. Hyenas are real-world animals with real sexual dimorphism. This dimorphism is still considered real-world common knowledge. Things based on canon/fiction are not.

Ratte said:
Pikachus don't exist. Hyenas do. Hyenas are real-world animals with real sexual dimorphism. This dimorphism is still considered real-world common knowledge. Things based on canon/fiction are not.

And that dimorphism is so miniscule and not common knowledge that it's not only possible, but incredibly likely that artists won't get it accurate, especially considering scientists who actually study the subject find it impossible to differentiate the two without key factors. The only difference is that the pseudo-penis is slightly wider and has a more rounded tip. Wider is something that's impossible to gauge without a comparison and with artistic freedom and character design it's a moot point. A slightly rounded tip vs a more flat tip is also incredibly easy for someone to miss unless they actually study this sort of thing. It is certainly not common knowledge, only that it exists is common knowledge. We aren't talking about peacocks, that is in no way comparable.

Ko-san said:
And that dimorphism is so miniscule and not common knowledge that it's not only possible, but incredibly likely that artists won't get it accurate, especially considering scientists who actually study the subject find it impossible to differentiate the two without key factors. The only difference is that the pseudo-penis is slightly wider and has a more rounded tip. Wider is something that's impossible to gauge without a comparison and with artistic freedom and character design it's a moot point. A slightly rounded tip vs a more flat tip is also incredibly easy for someone to miss unless they actually study this sort of thing. It is certainly not common knowledge, only that it exists is common knowledge. We aren't talking about peacocks, that is in no way comparable.

...No, real-world sexual dimorphism is still considered common knowledge. If the artist fucks up how it looks, then it should be tagged according to how it looks. Both of them are different enough to distinguish regardless.

Ratte said:
...No, real-world sexual dimorphism is still considered common knowledge. If the artist fucks up how it looks, then it should be tagged according to how it looks. Both of them are different enough to distinguish regardless.

How can they be considered different enough when scientists, professionals in the field, can't even tell the difference?

Ko-san said:
How can they be considered different enough when scientists, professionals in the field, can't even tell the difference?

They can tell the difference. These things are documented by said scientists.

Here.

science can't even determine the melting point of steel beams

Ratte said:
They can tell the difference. These things are documented by said scientists.

Here.

Did you read that yourself, because it only furthers my point.

Ko-san said:
Did you read that yourself, because it only furthers my point.

did you?

Ko-san said:
Did you read that yourself, because it only furthers my point.

Yes.

Myth: It is not possible to distinguish male from female spotted hyaenas without dissecting them.

Reality: It is in fact possible to distinguish male from female spotted hyaenas when they are at least 3 months of age. Although it is virtually impossible to identify an individual’s sex based on its body size, the sex of a spotted hyaena can be distinguished based on the sexually dimorphic glans (tip) of the phallus when the phallus is erect: the glans of the female’s phallus is blunt and rather barrel-shaped whereas the male’s is pointed and has a distinct constriction immediately above the glans.

Ratte said:
Yes.

Ko-san said:
And that dimorphism is so miniscule and not common knowledge that it's not only possible, but incredibly likely that artists won't get it accurate, especially considering scientists who actually study the subject find it impossible to differentiate the two without key factors. The only difference is that the pseudo-penis is slightly wider and has a more rounded tip. Wider is something that's impossible to gauge without a comparison and with artistic freedom and character design it's a moot point. A slightly rounded tip vs a more flat tip is also incredibly easy for someone to miss unless they actually study this sort of thing. It is certainly not common knowledge, only that it exists is common knowledge. We aren't talking about peacocks, that is in no way comparable.

Clawdragons said:
I would like to add onto this that some amount of anthropomorphism of the genitalia isn't unheard of, and that can apply to pseudopenises as well.

I'm generally of the opinion that the pseudopenis tag is sufficient. It is worth mentioning though that hyenas are not the only species with pseudopenises.

As has been mentioned, female hyenas have a fused labia which looks like a ballsack in addition to a pseudopenis.

Furthermore, in the linked picture, you can actually see the wide opening and characteristic shape of the pseudopenis that clearly indicates that it is anatomically correct female genitalia for a hyena. This is actually one of the clearest female hyena pictures involving a pseudopenis that I've seen in a while.

Well I learned something today! I mean I knew the pseudopenis had an opening, but the penis technically doors too. Still, isn't the shape a true-penis?

Ratte said:
If the artist fucks up how it looks, then it should be tagged according to how it looks.

I agree with this one.

Furrin_Gok said:
Well I learned something today! I mean I knew the pseudopenis had an opening, but the penis technically doors too. Still, isn't the shape a true-penis?

To my understanding, the width of the opening is relevant. That would be an extremely wide urethra, no?

Clawdragons said:
To my understanding, the width of the opening is relevant. That would be an extremely wide urethra, no?

~sounding ~urethral_penetration could be used to stretch it out, by the same logic of stretching out the pussy, I'd say.

THIS IS HOW VAGINAS WORK EVERYONE