The bulk update request #5752 is pending approval.

remove implication disembodied_penis (64335) -> male (2755605)

Reason: while in the grand majority of cases a disembodied_penis would be considered male, there are a few edge cases where through context in a single post it can be shown to belong to an intersex character.

example: post #1331018

more discussion @ topic #39248

For your example, that's obviously trio, duh

topic #27262
Surprisingly you've voted against it in the past, though you did play devil's advocate (with that same image).

snpthecat said:
For your example, that's obviously trio, duh

topic #27262
Surprisingly you've voted against it in the past, though you did play devil's advocate (with that same image).

Are you sure about that? Op has been on this site for less than a year, and that discussion was 3 years ago. User called darryus played the devils avocado.

snpthecat said:
For your example, that's obviously trio, duh

topic #27262
Surprisingly you've voted against it in the past, though you did play devil's advocate (with that same image).

yeah, that probably should have been a :/ vote rather than a -1, either way I think my philosophy on tagging has shifted a bit over time.

edit: for quite a while was more for larger amount of accurately tagged posts, even if there were a few edge cases, that fell through the cracks. these days I'm leaning more towards the idea of a striving towards a sort of "perfect world" where every post is tagged properly.

drato said:
Are you sure about that? Op has been on this site for less than a year, and that discussion was 3 years ago. User called darryus played the devils avocado.

das me, I have two accounts so I can have two separate CSS stylesheets for desktop and mobile.

juansanchez said:
das me, I have two accounts so I can have two separate CSS stylesheets for desktop and mobile.

Ah, i see. Sorry to bother you guys, carry on!

I wasn’t involved in the original discussion (topic #39248 ), so forgive me if I am addressing the obvious.

This subject is a very grey area, IMO, because we are also questioning the broad concept of gender (on e621, at least). No offence, but ‘gender’ makes this issue more confusing than necessary.

Sure, most people might associate a penis with a male, but for those who are into intersex, they will also associate it with a gynomorph, herm, and/or maleherm.

One might say to avoid using the general gender tags (or simply use the ambiguous_gender tag) and rely on the ‘lore’ tags instead, but those are only reserved for characters who are visible in the artwork and are canonically known to be a particular gender.

There isn’t much to go off with just a penis and no body. For all we know, it might be a dildo. IDK! 🤷‍♂️

I’m giving this a neutral vote, because it’s a 50/50 situation here. I can’t say much for others and rather not, because this is a sensitive topic to some people and eveyone should have their own perspective on this matter.

The ideal solution imo would be having some sort of feature that allowed overriding aliases/implications by adding individual posts as an exception.

Out of the 50,000+ disembodied penis images this post is always the one given as an example.

Not trivial, but people searching posts with the male tag are more likely to be looking for something (else/)more than just a disembodied penis. Not tagging all disembodied penises with that tag would save them from using male -disembodied_penis combination.

faucet said:
The ideal solution imo would be having some sort of feature that allowed overriding aliases/implications by adding individual posts as an exception.

Out of the 50,000+ disembodied penis images this post is always the one given as an example.

It's the one that's give as an example because I'm the one always giving it as an example and it's the one that I can find easily because I know how to search for it and also it's a fairly simple image whose elements are all very clear even from a thumbnail view. _{and also a large portion of them are/were feral MLP characters and a discussion on gender tagging for them is kind of beyond the scope of what I want to talk about.}

if you want some more, here:
post #591506 post #1313890 post #1247657 post #3698581 post #2278391 post #3556289 post #2979549 post #3255153

urielfrys said:
Not trivial, but people searching posts with the male tag are more likely to be looking for something (else/)more than just a disembodied penis. Not tagging all disembodied penises with that tag would save them from using male -disembodied_penis combination.

no, dude, no. we have to tag characters that are featured in a post as something, even when there's only their penis visible. not dealing with it that way would be a massive change to the tagging standards, and I don't think it'd be a positive change. users having to add -disembodied_penis occasionally is better than potentially breaking how those posts are dealt with.

disembodied_pussy doesn't implicate female + male and female tags are reserved to characters. If there are 5 disembodied penises it doesn't make it into a group according to the site's own rules.

wolfmanfur said:
If there are 5 disembodied penises it doesn't make it into a group according to the site's own rules.

yes they do, the only exceptions to character count tags are ambient_creatures and tentacles.

the group wiki states:

Any creature present within the scene, in whole or in part (including things like disembodied hand and disembodied eyes).

(unless it was clear that all the penises belonged to a singlular character.)

wolfmanfur said:
disembodied_pussy doesn't implicate female

well, then disembodied_penis shouldn't implicate male

Maybe the standards should be reworked so these examples shouldn't be tagged disembodied_penis at all? Since they do sort of have a body, there's just a cutaway

cloudpie said:
Maybe the standards should be reworked so these examples shouldn't be tagged disembodied_penis at all? Since they do sort of have a body, there's just a cutaway

But the penis is disembodied, but we just know who it belongs to. The wiki also specifically states this:

... but the rest of the character could just be out of the frame.

Which is exactly what a cutaway is, see mostly_offscreen_character

cloudpie said:
Maybe the standards should be reworked so these examples shouldn't be tagged disembodied_penis at all? Since they do sort of have a body, there's just a cutaway

I feel like this'd be a weird exception In the other direction, since if the post does contain a penis that is visibly not attached to a body, not tagging it as disembodied_penis seems wrong, even if the, uhh, host is visible in another part of the image... and also you still have potential for cases like this:
post #2160518
where disembodied penis is accompanied by a pussy as part of the same character, so it'd warrant a herm tag. _{obviously this post wouldn't be effected by the implication change since there are also characters that are male by TWYS, but I can't find many great examples, so just imagine if those weren't there.}

juansanchez said:
I feel like this'd be a weird exception In the other direction, since if the post does contain a penis that is visibly not attached to a body, not tagging it as disembodied_penis seems wrong, even if the, uhh, host is visible in another part of the image... and also you still have potential for cases like this:
post #2160518
where disembodied penis is accompanied by a pussy as part of the same character, so it'd warrant a herm tag. _{obviously this post wouldn't be effected by the implication change since there are also characters that are male by TWYS, but I can't find many great examples, so just imagine if those weren't there.}

ok, what if we just created a new tag for when a penis and pussy are detached, but part of the same body part? i'm not against removing the implication from disembodied_penis to male, mind you, but what i was thinking of was that a disembodied pussy was logically adjacent to a disembodied penis, in such a fashion that you could determine the character to be a herm. i don't think people searching for a disembodied penis would like to see that thing...

juansanchez said:
_{obviously this post wouldn't be effected by the implication change since there are also characters that are male by TWYS, but I can't find many great examples, so just imagine if those weren't there.}

here's another example

post #3190281

juansanchez said:
if you want some more, here:
post #591506 post #1313890 post #1247657 post #3698581 post #2278391 post #3556289 post #2979549 post #3255153

pleaseletmein said:
here's another example

post #3190281

ok fine i'm convinced enough, 👍

siral_exan said:
ok, what if we just created a new tag for when a penis and pussy are detached, but part of the same body part? i'm not against removing the implication from disembodied_penis to male, mind you, but what i was thinking of was that a disembodied pussy was logically adjacent to a disembodied penis, in such a fashion that you could determine the character to be a herm. i don't think people searching for a disembodied penis would like to see that thing...

We could have disembodied_intersex_penis. It would require a wiki page for explaining the proper use cases, and would be highly susceptible for TWYK mistaggings.

Would it be possible to have both disembodied_intersex_penisand disembodied_intersex_penis_(lore)? (Another question is, would it be smart or would it just be confusing?)

So many downvotes with no explanation when the thread is littered with proof that disembodied penises aren't enough to implicate male...

siral_exan said:
ok, what if we just created a new tag for when a penis and pussy are detached, but part of the same body part? i'm not against removing the implication from disembodied_penis to male, mind you, but what i was thinking of was that a disembodied pussy was logically adjacent to a disembodied penis, in such a fashion that you could determine the character to be a herm. i don't think people searching for a disembodied penis would like to see that thing...

urielfrys said:
We could have disembodied_intersex_penis. It would require a wiki page for explaining the proper use cases, and would be highly susceptible for TWYK mistaggings.

Would it be possible to have both disembodied_intersex_penisand disembodied_intersex_penis_(lore)? (Another question is, would it be smart or would it just be confusing?)

we normally only do that for character attributes/statuses, like your muscular_females, your pregnant_males, your dominant_intersexs, etc.. it'd be quite odd to gender a single feature like this. and, honestly, I don't really see how it'd help anything, it'd just add a new tag that no one would know about and the previous tag would still be added to future unfitting posts.

if we wanted to do something similar, I think the better route would be to expand the faceless_character tag family slightly so that it'd be applicable to characters tagged as disembodied_*.

I'm bumping this because I think a definitive decision needs to be made by the collective staff on how disembodied limbs as a whole should be treated in regards to gender tags.

nin10dope said:
I'm bumping this because I think a definitive decision needs to be made by the collective staff on how disembodied limbs as a whole should be treated in regards to gender tags.

A decision is not being made how to treat disembodied limbs with gender tags, that decision has already been made and isn't changing
The implication (which is not valid in select scenarios) is the only thing changing here
Please do not drag your existing discussion into this topic, keep it in that topic where it already is contained

donovan_dmc said:
A decision is not being made how to treat disembodied limbs with gender tags, that decision has already been made and isn't changing
The implication (which is not valid in select scenarios) is the only thing changing here
Please do not drag your existing discussion into this topic, keep it in that topic where it already is contained

This is related as it contains a disembodied part and it's implication of a gender tag. I have not seen this decision you speak of.

nin10dope said:
This is related as it contains a disembodied part and it's implication of a gender tag.

It isn't related, nothing about tagging genders is changing here
If you take some time to read the topic you'd see that disembodied penises are very much still being tagged with genders, there are just situations where male is not the gender that applies. All of male, gynomorph, herm, and maleherm could apply, which makes the male implication invalid under specific circumstances

nin10dope said:
I have not seen this decision you speak of.

Look around? The valid tags you removed were undone and you were given a record for those changes. They count as characters, and all characters get a gender tag. If you're still using that opinion of an admin from a decade ago to "prove" something, you're clearly arguing in bad faith. Are you expecting an admin, or better yet multiple staff to come down and explicitly confirm this thing that multiple users have told you, a thing you should also be able to confirm from reading wiki pages?

donovan_dmc said:
It isn't related, nothing about tagging genders is changing here
If you take some time to read the topic you'd see that disembodied penises are very much still being tagged with genders, there are just situations where male is not the gender that applies. All of male, gynomorph, herm, and maleherm could apply, which makes the male implication invalid under specific circumstances

Look around? The valid tags you removed were undone and you were given a record for those changes. They count as characters, and all characters get a gender tag. If you're still using that opinion of an admin from a decade ago to "prove" something, you're clearly arguing in bad faith.

The only bad faith here is your reply and attitude towards me.

nin10dope said:
The only bad faith here is your reply and attitude towards me.

The irony is staggering

Please don't detract
I made a comment to bump this thread back to relevancy
The rest of the comment was simply to give context to why I bumped it
I believe making a decision here is a potential starting point for similar discussions

nin10dope said:
The only bad faith here is your reply and attitude towards me.

yeah, good one. hit 'm with the "Nuh-uh".

nin10dope said:
Please don't detract
I made a comment to bump this thread back to relevancy
The rest of the comment was simply to give context to why I bumped it
I believe making a decision here is a potential starting point for similar discussions

it really isn't a similar discussion, though. the character-ness of disembodied bits is a subject that has long since been solidified (they do).

you cited a few comments that are over half the site's age, on threads containing users who no longer actively participate, threads that were created before we even had concepts like ambient_creature. tagging philosophy in general has shifted pretty significantly in that same time and we now have a much more solid concept for what defines a "character". pretty much nobody involved in tagging discussions now agrees with the stance of those threads.

Please stay on topic, thank you.

   _?
ϵ(⁰‎ࡇ‎⁰ ϶)ɞ
   ^{?   ?}

dba_afish said:
   _?
ϵ(⁰‎ࡇ‎⁰ ϶)ɞ
   ^{?   ?}

The bur lol
I like the fish emojis, honestly
It adds a lot more than when people just hit you with the "???"

nin10dope said:
Please stay on topic, thank you.

The irony is once again staggering

donovan_dmc said:
The irony is once again staggering

Just stop.

nin10dope said:
Just stop.

Hijacking a topic to forward your own narrative then complaining that others aren't cool with that is pretty rude, dude

Except I'm not
I wanted to bump this because it's a year old and the decision made on it could give some guidance on similar things down the line.

I prefer to keep the implication, it’s just that in the op’s example it is not desembodied, since you can clearly see the body it belongs to.

romanicyte2 said:
I prefer to keep the implication, it’s just that in the op’s example it is not desembodied, since you can clearly see the body it belongs to.

what about the examples like this? post #3190281

also, I'd argue that they still are disembodied because in the image they're not seen attached to any body, even if the character they belong to is to is identifiable. it also seems like users are intent on tagging things this way, as well.

this is why I suggested expanding faceless_character. being able to differentiate when a post has a body to go along with the disembodied penis would also improve being able to find or filter similar posts containing male characters.

nin10dope said:
Except I'm not
I wanted to bump this because it's a year old and the decision made on it could give some guidance on similar things down the line.

How? Literally how. Nothing is changing here about tagging genders. How many times does it need to be repeated. The only thing changing here is removing an implication which is not always valid, disembodied penises are still characters and will still be tagged with genders

romanicyte2 said:
I prefer to keep the implication, it’s just that in the op’s example it is not desembodied, since you can clearly see the body it belongs to.

It is still disembodied if you cannot see the attachment to the rest of the body