Many of us know that the tags around oviposition and other egg-related themes are a massive mess, but one I've always been a little puzzled on in terms of its usage on this site is ovipositors.
Ovipositors, as per the wiki entry are:

A hole possessed by certain female insects, which is generally located at the tip of the abdomen and used exclusively to lay eggs.

Ovipositors themselves are objectively female genitalia as they are only present on female animals - not just insects, but some fish and amphibians as well. However, I've noticed that a large amount of posts featuring ovipositors are also tagged as male - or other penis-having genders such as herm or gynomorph.
post #5550308
This, for example, was tagged as male/male and cum_inside when the ichneumon wasp is clearly female [inserting eggs, has an ovipositor] and lacks semen.

What, exactly, is the state of ovipositors as gendered genitalia on this website? Are they considered ungendered? Contextual? Exclusively female-adjacent but commonly mistagged? The ovipositor_penis also exists, which is easy to assume is meant for more penis-leaning characters, but ovipositors on their own seem to be in this weird limbo where most artists treat them as penises a bit to the left.

Would an ovipositor only be considered female genitalia if no cum or testicles are present? Does it not have to be too penis-shaped or fleshy in order to not count as female genitalia? Should an ovipositor be assumed to be a penis or pseudo-penis if no eggs are in the image?

Are eggs ungendered and not to be considered for character gender in an image at all?
Would the previously shown image actually count as male/male on this site because the wasp doesn't have a vulva?

Should female-looking characters with true ovipositors be tagged as gynomorphs because it looks kind of like a penis, or should they be tagged as female because it's female genitalia?
post #5082544

Ovipositors just overall seem to be the type of genitalia that doesn't abide by any TWYS rules, and gender tagging for them is a huge mess. I think in the wake of potential overhauls of egg-related tag structure, these little doohickeys have been greatly overlooked. I'd like to get some consensus so maybe I could work on expanding the wiki at some point to make it clearer for taggers.

The weird thing is that people don't really care for being accurate. Ovipositors can lay eggs, ejaculate sperm, or a mix of the two without being visually different.

To answer your questions:

• Definition
• Strictly speaking, we should consider ovipositor to be any kind of "organic structure used to deposit or lay eggs". It does not matter if it is on a male, female, or any other.
• Gender
• Since tentacle_ovipositor is also a thing, we do not consider automatically implying any gender by default.
• If only eggs seem to come out of the appendage (i.e., oviposition), then it would be safe to assume that the character is female (especially in cases where secondary sexual characteristics are non-existent, like with feral insect or spider).
• If only sperm seem to come out of the appendage, then the character would be considered as male and the appendage would NOT be considered as a ovipositor, but rather a penis, unusual_penis, or any other subtype applicable.
• If it ejects both eggs and sperm from the same appendage, then the character would be considered as intersex (despite lacking a visible penis or pussy) and the appendage would still be an ovipositor.
• Ovipositor_penis
• Since it lacks any wiki yet does serve a specific function, I would suggest that it be used for ovipositors that are visually no different than any typical male's penis, meaning it should imply both ovipositor and penis.
• Another key criteria is contextual cues. The character with the ovipositor_penis must have used it to lay eggs instead of simply appearing as a character with egg_in_penis (that could have been deposited into them by someone else).
• For the action, if the eggs stay within the urethra, then urethral_bulge and egg_in_penis can apply (depending on TWYS). If the eggs are being laid, then egg_from_penis can apply.
• Gender rules are going to be tricky. I would suggest that characters with an ovipositor_penis should be considered as male despite emitting no visible cum, unless they also possess a separate pussy to be considered as intersex.
• Alternatively, we lump them altogether as intersex like with the general ovipositor posts, despite only having a penis/ovipositor_penis that lay eggs and no visible pussy.
• Pseudo-penis
• It should strictly be used for its original purposes, in that it is a type of clitoris for mammals, without coming close to ovipositor.
• If for some reason someone decides that a pseudo-penis can also lay eggs now, then it can be tagged as ovipositor if TWYS permits.
• E.g., Female hyenas with pseudo-penis that can lay eggs can be tagged with both pseudo-penis and ovipositor.
• On another note, apparently pseudo-penis can also be a type of phallic cloaca for certain avians?
• In that case, it should not appear as a normal egg-laying by a female and it should not appear as the result of a cloacal_prolapse, but I can't tell how that would look like.
• It seems that people generally refer to anatid_penis/duck_penis as being a type pseudo-penis while some others refer to it as being a type of cloacal_penis.

gender is based entirely on what a character looks like, not what their bits are capable of. if it looks like a penis, is positioned where you'd expect a penis to go, works like a penis, and/or orgasms similar to how a penis would, it's a penis*. it dosn't matter if the stuff coming out is sperm, eggs, or confetti, it's treated as a penis and the character is tagged as such.

so, if the ovipositor looks like a penis, and is used like a penis, it's considered as such.

if a feral character has an anatomically correct ovipositor for a female of its species, generally it probably should be considered female.

a character with anatomically ambiguous tentacle ovipositors or some which would be ambiguous_gender (unless they have other gender pointers elsewhere).

_{*with the sole exception of a pseudo-penis in which case it actually needs to look at least vaguely like the anatomy of an actual female spotted for it to count.}

thegreatwolfgang said:
The weird thing is that people don't really care for being accurate. Ovipositors can lay eggs, ejaculate sperm, or a mix of the two without being visually different.

To answer your questions:
[snip]

I made a little graphic to see if what I've garnered from your response would be accurate, using a Generic Furry Cone and otherwise sexually featureless feral character. I think theoretically this does make sense. Generic Furry Cone can take many forms, it can do many things. Did I get the general idea?

dba_afish said:
gender is based entirely on what a character looks like, not what their bits are capable of. if it looks like a penis, is positioned where you'd expect a penis to go, works like a penis, and/or orgasms similar to how a penis would, it's a penis*. it dosn't matter if the stuff coming out is sperm, eggs, or confetti, it's treated as a penis and the character is tagged as such.

so, if the ovipositor looks like a penis, and is used like a penis, it's considered as such.

You did kind of contradict yourself a little there. It doesn't matter what it's capable of, but if it "works like a penis" and/or "orgasms similar to how a penis would" it is a penis? Sounds like it does actually matter what it's capable of lol.
That being said, ovipositor is in a weird situation because many fictional ovipositors don't look like real ovipositors. Many fictional penises don't look like real penises either. A meat tube that shoots stuff out isn't really exclusive to penises which is a big issue in terms of tagging ovipositors.

if a feral character has an anatomically correct ovipositor for a female of its species, generally it probably should be considered female.

I guess this wouldn't apply to fictional species since "anatomically correct" ovipositors could really mean anything for them?

a character with anatomically ambiguous tentacle ovipositors or some which would be ambiguous_gender (unless they have other gender pointers elsewhere).

The idea of a character with visible genitalia being ambiguous_gender doesn't feel right, considering how many times I've seen it argued in this very forum that a character with visible genitalia is not ambiguous_gender. Of course tentacles that themselves are ovipositors are ambiguous, but I imagine a bodied character that isn't a mass of tentacles would have a taggable gender, if they have a visible ovipositor. Unless somehow I misunderstood that part.

TWYS does not handle non mammalian anatomy very well.
I have a collection of art that i would love to upload here but it would be ridiculously mistagged due to TWYS actually being Tag What You Think You Know in disguise.

moonlit-comet said:
I made a little graphic to see if what I've garnered from your response would be accurate, using a Generic Furry Cone and otherwise sexually featureless feral character. I think theoretically this does make sense. Generic Furry Cone can take many forms, it can do many things. Did I get the general idea?

I would just say beforehand that my entire argument is based on the assumption that ovipositors are inherently a female sexual organ, treated similarly to how we view pussy and subsequently howto:tag genders.
If anybody wants to make a counter-argument on this assumption, feel free.

I'll address your graphic from top left-to-right, middle left-to-right, then bottom left-to-right:

• 1) Generally yes.
• 2) Yes. As we do not have a tag for "ambiguous/unknown genitalia", we automatically assume anything phallic to be a penis* (and thus male) as there are no signs to indicate otherwise such as being an ovipositor (and thus female). ^{* Exceptions to known species that posses phallic-like genitalia that are also female, such as the hyena's pseudo-penis.}
• 3) Yes, it becomes certain that that is a penis attached to a male.
• 4) Yes, it becomes an ovipositor now since we have oviposition. The character is now assumed to be female as there is no longer a penis.
• 5) Yes. An ovipositor is an organic structure that facilitates ovipositioning/egg-laying, it does not matter if it can also eject cum for some reason.
• The character is assumed to be part female due to the ability to produce eggs and also part male due to their ability to produce cum, thus the assumption that they are intersex.
• Assuming the character still completely lacks any clear secondary sexual characteristics (i.e., neither masculine or feminine), they should be tagged as intersex only.
• For herm to apply, it needs to have a "female body, with both a pussy and a penis." Since we do not see any of these, we default back to using whatever info we have right now.
• EDIT: If they have a feminine or unknown body type, tag them as herm. If they have a masculine body type, tag them as maleherm.
• 6) Generally yes, unless they have some wacky pseudo-balls that carry eggs instead of being actually balls that produce sperm.
• The logic behind ovipositor_penis is that it need not have balls to apply. Any character can have internal testes and it could still be an ovipositor_penis.
• This should generally apply to penises that outwardly look completely normal (e.g., humanoid_penis, canine_penis, cetacean_penis, etc.) but are able to also facilitate ovipositioning/egg-laying.

moonlit-comet said:
That being said, ovipositor is in a weird situation because many fictional ovipositors don't look like real ovipositors. Many fictional penises don't look like real penises either. A meat tube that shoots stuff out isn't really exclusive to penises which is a big issue in terms of tagging ovipositors.

generally, on an androgynously depicted character (especially ferals), I'd say if it's positioned where you'd expect an ovipositor to be, and it's not got suspiciously glans-like, flare-like, or knot-like features or anything, it's probably good enough to be considered roughly anatomically correct, and would probably be female.
if it's positioned in between a character's legs and/or it provides its owner with sexual pleasure and/or it's got a flare at the end and two big ol' balls at the base, it's a penis.

moonlit-comet said:
I guess this wouldn't apply to fictional species since "anatomically correct" ovipositors could really mean anything for them?

fictional species especially are kind of a messy area. personally I'm not really a fan of how we don't take stuff like pokémon sexual dimorphism into account at all.
if the species is roughly analogous to a real-world animal try to tag like you would a real animal. but if it's, like, a facehugger or something attached to a character's head, with its ovipositor down their throat, plaping away until it cums all of its eggs into their guts, it's male.

moonlit-comet said:
The idea of a character with visible genitalia being ambiguous_gender doesn't feel right, considering how many times I've seen it argued in this very forum that a character with visible genitalia is not ambiguous_gender. Of course tentacles that themselves are ovipositors are ambiguous, but I imagine a bodied character that isn't a mass of tentacles would have a taggable gender, if they have a visible ovipositor. Unless somehow I misunderstood that part.

I'm not sure ovipositors are considered genitalia, though. the Wikipedia page only has the word "genital" once, and its in regards to fish, Specifically bitterlings:

Wikipidia said:
Female bitterlings [...] have an ovipositor in the form of a tubular extension of the genital orifice.[...]

either way, they're not considered genitals by us, seeing as there are no implications to that effect. and it's certainly not the only female feature that we do this with. essentially anything that's related to birthing/laying, and not the having of sex, is free game for any gender (although they still have weight when tagging a character whose depiction is to obscured or undefined to tag gender otherwise).

moonlit-comet said:
Of course tentacles that themselves are ovipositors are ambiguous.

(I mean, technically we don't even tag disembodied tentacles as characters at all, actually. but that's a completely different issue.)

thegreatwolfgang said:

• Assuming the character still completely lacks any clear secondary sexual characteristics (i.e., neither masculine or feminine), they should be tagged as intersex only.

intersex should never be tagged on its own, as per the wiki. "This tag is applied automatically by implication. Please avoid manual tagging, and instead use one of the 4 intersex sub-types listed below. "

I'd turn this argument around: a penis is an organic structure that facilitates ejaculating sperm, it does not matter if it can also eject eggs for some reason. Since intersex depends on visually matching one of the four types, if they can't be determined to be one of those types, it shouldn't be tagged. So this alternate reasoning seems more appropriate for TWYS.

watsit said:
I'd turn this argument around: a penis is an organic structure that facilitates ejaculating sperm, it does not matter if it can also eject eggs for some reason. Since intersex depends on visually matching one of the four types, if they can't be determined to be one of those types, it shouldn't be tagged. So this alternate reasoning seems more appropriate for TWYS.

Is semen even actually considered for character gender at all? Sure, we mostly see it coming from a penis, but other [much rarer, but still present] genitals that produce it exist, such as cloacae and virile_pussy. I've seen loads of tag wars over bird characters that ended up being locked to ambiguous_gender, and unless a character with a virile pussy has balls, it is female or andromorph. We just don't see semen being produced from enough things to really consider it for gender most of the time. TWYS sorta fails in edge cases like this.
post #1374986
ambiguous_gender, cloaca

post #5459644
andromorph, virile_pussy

dba_afish said:
generally, on an androgynously depicted character (especially ferals), I'd say if it's positioned where you'd expect an ovipositor to be, and it's not got suspiciously glans-like, flare-like, or knot-like features or anything, it's probably good enough to be considered roughly anatomically correct, and would probably be female.
if it's positioned in between a character's legs and/or it provides its owner with sexual pleasure and/or it's got a flare at the end and two big ol' balls at the base, it's a penis.

[...]if it's, like, a facehugger or something attached to a character's head, with its ovipositor down their throat, plaping away until it cums all of its eggs into their guts, it's male.

I'm not sure ovipositors are considered genitalia, though. [..] they're not considered genitals by us, seeing as there are no implications to that effect. and it's certainly not the only female feature that we do this with. essentially anything that's related to birthing/laying, and not the having of sex, is free game for any gender (although they still have weight when tagging a character whose depiction is to obscured or undefined to tag gender otherwise).

So, by your definition:

An ovipositor is a sexless, non-genital egg-laying organ [which is untrue in the vast majority of furry art depicting them, where they are treated as genitals, even when not the penetrator]
But if it in between a character's legs, is used to thrust, and brings sexual pleasure to its owner, it is to be treated as a penis and tagged as male
And if it's on an otherwise completely ambiguous character and is depicted laying eggs, without any penis-like features [completely disregarding any unusual genitalia designs], it is to be assumed female?

I feel like this is a completely arbitrary set of rules based on a narrow pool of criteria and a vertebrate, male-oriented, not even TWYS mindset. There are tons of cases where much of your male-leaning criteria would apply and yet the character would still clearly have an ovipositor rather than a penis, and a lot of your male-leaning criteria isn't even anything to do with the design of the genitals itself. Position is irrelevant, pleasure is certainly irrelevant as female genitals also bring the person pleasure and let's not even get me started on the things trans men get up to with their t-dicks.

I think overall all of this is a great example at how TWYS is a flawed system that fails in these sorts of fringe cases, and has very little to accommodate for in terms of said fringe cases. All that coming back to ovipositors, if TWYS only involves what an ovipositor looks like, then they'd almost never be tagged female due to a huge majority of furry ovipositor art not looking like real ovipositors and instead a melding of what a general person's idea of an ovipositor is.

moonlit-comet said:
Is semen even actually considered for character gender at all?

Not directly, but neither are eggs. In this case, the presence of sperm and/or eggs is used to help determine what a particular structure gets tagged as (in lieu of other more defined traits, like glans, a knot, etc), and that structure will determine which sex to tag for a character.

watsit said:
Not directly, but neither are eggs. In this case, the presence of sperm and/or eggs is used to help determine what a particular structure gets tagged as (in lieu of other more defined traits, like glans, a knot, etc), and that structure will determine which sex to tag for a character.

So what it's capable of producing does matter in the grand scheme of tagging things.

moonlit-comet said:
So what it's capable of producing does matter in the grand scheme of tagging things.

it is but its really only taken into account when it wouldn't contradict other, more concrete visual information.

like how we sometimes have to infer that the character with no visible gender getting pregnant signifiers is female. but that inference could be contradicted by any number of things. we have to make some exceptions somewhere for the system to work.

if we decided to go mega-hard into the anatomical shit we'd eventually get to a point where we're tagging post-op trans characters with GAS scars as their birth genders because you can tell it's not a real vagina/penis. (I'm not trying to Slippery Slope you here, by the way, I'm just saying we've gotta draw the line somewhere, and I think "if it looks like a dick, throbs like a dick, cums like a dick, suck it" is a pretty fair line to draw.)

dba_afish said:
if we decided to go mega-hard into the anatomical shit we'd eventually get to a point where we're tagging post-op trans characters with GAS scars as their birth genders because you can tell it's not a real vagina/penis. (I'm not trying to Slippery Slope you here, by the way, I'm just saying we've gotta draw the line somewhere, and I think "if it looks like a dick, throbs like a dick, cums like a dick, suck it" is a pretty fair line to draw.)

Yeah, I get that, don't worry. I didn't try to argue with your points about penis-like physical features. If it looks like a penis, it should be tagged like one. I just found your criteria of "being used for pleasure" and "plapping away" to be a little odd lol, especially considering the TWYS debate here.

watsit said:
intersex should never be tagged on its own, as per the wiki. "This tag is applied automatically by implication. Please avoid manual tagging, and instead use one of the 4 intersex sub-types listed below. "

I'd turn this argument around: a penis is an organic structure that facilitates ejaculating sperm, it does not matter if it can also eject eggs for some reason. Since intersex depends on visually matching one of the four types, if they can't be determined to be one of those types, it shouldn't be tagged. So this alternate reasoning seems more appropriate for TWYS.

I understand that intersex should not be used on its own and with good reason, but the problem still remains with determining the character's gender when they are neither masculine nor feminine yet physically possess both sets of male and female genitalia.
In my opinion, it would be even more appropriate to tag the character as ambiguous_gender (or no gender at all) when they are producing both cum and eggs, but tagging it as intersex would be a safe middle ground.

While the capability of producing cum and eggs aren't generally used to determine gender, I don't see why that can't be used when there are no other evidence to support it (i.e., completely no other sexual characteristics).
If a completely amorphous character (e.g., ditto_(pokémon)) manages to cum and impregnate someone, wouldn't it be safe to assume that it is male despite the lack of a physical penis?
Likewise, if someone cums into an amorphous character and said character becomes pregnant and/or produces an egg, wouldn't it be safe to assume that that character is female despite the lack of a visible pussy?

watsit said:
Not directly, but neither are eggs. In this case, the presence of sperm and/or eggs is used to help determine what a particular structure gets tagged as (in lieu of other more defined traits, like glans, a knot, etc), and that structure will determine which sex to tag for a character.

An avian character with a cloaca can be either male or female.
If cum (or eggs) comes out of it, wouldn't it be safe to assume that they are male (or female)?

thegreatwolfgang said:
If a completely amorphous character (e.g., ditto_(pokémon)) manages to cum and impregnate someone, wouldn't it be safe to assume that it is male despite the lack of a physical penis?
Likewise, if someone cums into an amorphous character and said character becomes pregnant and/or produces an egg, wouldn't it be safe to assume that that character is female despite the lack of a visible pussy?

for fully amorphous and androgynous, honestly, I'd lean hard ambiguous for both of these cases.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I understand that intersex should not be used on its own and with good reason, but the problem still remains with determining the character's gender when they are neither masculine nor feminine yet physically possess both sets of male and female genitalia.

Wouldn't having both male and female genitalia make them herm (or maleherm? Depending if an ovipositor is considered female genitalia for tagging purposes; if not, I don't see how a penis-like ovipositor would be that different from pregnant_male, (male) anal_birth, or indeed even egg_from_penis with an unusual_penis (if they have genitalia that appears like a penis, they're still male despite doing a female-related activity like egg laying), or if they are considered female genitalia, then I'd think an ovipositor would be somewhat akin to a pussy, making them herm or maleherm (egg_laying is aliased to oviposition, when eggs are very commonly depicted as coming out of vaginas rather than external ovipositors, kinda makes this association already).

thegreatwolfgang said:
In my opinion, it would be even more appropriate to tag the character as ambiguous_gender (or no gender at all) when they are producing both cum and eggs, but tagging it as intersex would be a safe middle ground.

If we consider an ovipositor to be female genitalia, I think it would be more appropriate to tag them herm or maleherm. Otherwise, if an ovipositor is not considered to be female genitalia, and the appendage otherwise looks, behaves, or is treated as a penis, then they should be treated as having a penis without female genitalia, i.e. male (or gynomorph if breasts are visible). They should definitely not be tagged ambiguous_gender if we can see sex-specific genitalia like a penis, and we shouldn't tag intersex if we can't describe which type of intersex they appear to be, IMO.

thegreatwolfgang said:
While the capability of producing cum and eggs aren't generally used to determine gender, I don't see why that can't be used when there are no other evidence to support it (i.e., completely no other sexual characteristics).

The problem is that cum is somewhat difficult to pin down. Depictions range from solid white, to mostly clear (overlapping with precum), to various unusual_cum colors and substances. Vaginal and cloacal fluids also run the gamut, leaving the determination of whether something is cum or not up to the tagger's interpretation.
post #1374986
This post, for example, shows the ambiguity of whether some squirting fluid is or isn't cum, from anatomy that can belong to a male or female. Is that cum (making them male) or not? Without anything that looks like male or female genitalia, it's ambiguous despite the fluids coming out, leaving it to the tagger's interpretation. The depicted fluids can help bolster a case for which sex something might be, but I don't think they should be used as the deciding factor.

For the record, if it helps any on the "are ovipositors genitalia" argument - they are. On at least some species. Wasps for example have a separate orifice from the egg-depositing ovipositor, but female seahorses use their ovipositors in the copulation process; while she inserts eggs into the male, the male fertilizes them with his own sperm. This usage of ovipositors in nature lines up well with the vast majority of ovipositor usage in furry art. And, considering they are only naturally found on female creatures as far as we know, they should be considered female genitalia.

moonlit-comet said:
as far as we know

That right there is where the counterpoint lies, it implies Tag What You Know.
The average furry will likely just corelate it to a type of penis, thus male genitalia.
For the record, I'm not for this hypothetical argument.
I'm fine with it either way since I don't specialize in tagging oviposition content.

nin10dope said:
That right there is where the counterpoint lies, it implies Tag What You Know.
The average furry will likely just corelate it to a type of penis, thus male genitalia.
For the record, I'm not for this hypothetical argument.
I'm fine with it either way since I don't specialize in tagging oviposition content.

If you want to push it to its extreme, you have to know what a penis looks like and that it usually belongs on males in order to tag it as a penis and as a male feature, therefore making it TWYK. TWYS implies things that can be garnered from knowledge related to what's visually presented in the image. You do have to know things in order to tag them.

Therefore, knowing that ovipositors usually belong on females does, logically, make perfect sense.

Clearly there is a lot of grey area. As such, ovipositor is clearly ambiguous, and should be treated as such unless the character has other features that determine sex.

kyiiel said:
Clearly there is a lot of grey area. As such, ovipositor is clearly ambiguous, and should be treated as such unless the character has other features that determine sex.

Ovipositors are very much not ambiguous. I think they're more widely misunderstood or misrepresented about as much as the process of knotting is in furry art.

My personal onion in terms of tagging gender on ovipositors would be:

If it looks and functions like a penis alongside laying eggs, it is an ovipositor_penis and gender is to be tagged as if it is a penis; and if it looks and functions like an ovipositor without penis characteristics, it is only an ovipositor and gender is to be tagged as if it is a pussy.

ovipositor_penis - produces semen and eggs, has a glans or other penile characteristics such as a knot, and may or may not have balls. Is functionally a penis in terms of gender tagging - used for tags like male or gynomorph.
ovipositor - Lays eggs and does not produce semen. Maybe some sort of colored lubricating goo. Has no typical penile characteristics such as a glans or knot. Will not have balls. Functionally a pussy in terms of gender tagging - used for tags like female or andromorph.

Both of them are objectively ovipositors as they are used to lay eggs through a tube-like structure. Ovipositor_penis is a subset of ovipositors that combines features of penises and ovipositors. And they should be considered gendered genitalia just as much as other obscure genital structures like pseudopenises are, because there are real animals that copulate through or with them [see seahorses]. Female genitalia, specifically.

Generic Furry Cones are dependent on the context of the image - presence or absence of other sexual characteristics like testicles, as well as fluids like semen. Generic Furry Cones could be anything and I think using them as a reference point without other anatomical "accuracies" to real life creatures is helpful. Generic Furry Cones serve the purpose of simplifying gender tagging for these doohickeys into a system that can be largely enforced or at least categorized.

watsit said:
Wouldn't having both male and female genitalia make them herm (or maleherm? Depending if an ovipositor is considered female genitalia for tagging purposes; ... or if they are considered female genitalia, then I'd think an ovipositor would be somewhat akin to a pussy, making them herm or maleherm (egg_laying is aliased to oviposition, when eggs are very commonly depicted as coming out of vaginas rather than external ovipositors, kinda makes this association already).

....

If we consider an ovipositor to be female genitalia, I think it would be more appropriate to tag them herm or maleherm. Otherwise, if an ovipositor is not considered to be female genitalia, and the appendage otherwise looks, behaves, or is treated as a penis, then they should be treated as having a penis without female genitalia, i.e. male (or gynomorph if breasts are visible). They should definitely not be tagged ambiguous_gender if we can see sex-specific genitalia like a penis, and we shouldn't tag intersex if we can't describe which type of intersex they appear to be, IMO.

Regarding whether characters having both male and female genitalia can be automatically considered as male or maleherm, I would say technically no.
Completely ignoring whether ovipositors are a female characteristic or not and that they have both a penis and a pussy, I believe you would also need breasts or at least a feminine body to quality as herm and no breasts but with a masculine body to quality as maleherm.
If we have neither a feminine nor masculine body but visibly intersex, there is no other genders we could tag if we follow the "never tag as just intersex rule" (which I understand is meant to encourage the use of the other 4 subtags).

Regarding whether ovipositors can be considered as female genitalia, I would say inherently yes.
I believe ovipositors should be considered as female genitalia by default (and the character assumed to be a female if no other sexual characteristics exist).

if not, I don't see how a penis-like ovipositor would be that different from pregnant_male, (male) anal_birth, or indeed even egg_from_penis with an unusual_penis (if they have genitalia that appears like a penis, they're still male despite doing a female-related activity like egg laying),

That's why I'd argue that being able to lay eggs via an ovipositor should be considered a female characteristic. It would nullify any issues regarding male-only characters.

• If a phallic-looking ovipositor (that needs to be visually laying eggs as per TWYS) is attached to a normal-looking male that has no penis or balls, I would tag them as being maleherm with an ovipositor (due to their masculine appearance and female genitalia).
• If a normal-looking male character with a normal-looking penis (that can lay eggs) that is indistinguishable from any other males of the same species, I would also tag them as maleherm but with an ovipositor_penis (due to their ability to seemingly lay eggs from their normal-looking penis).

Of course, there will be problems with distinguishing it between pregnant_male, anal_birth, or just plain egg_from_penis from an unusual_penis, but I believe there are ways to solve them.

• Beforehand, I'll address distinguishing between an unusual_penis or an ovipositor/ovipositor_penis.
• If it looks like an ordinary penis that can lays eggs, then it is an ovipositor_penis.
• If it looks like a weird phallic appendage that is uncommon from any penis subtype, it could either be an unusual_penis or an ovipositor. In which case, we would need contextual cues.
• For unusual_penis to apply, it would need to share common characteristics of a penis. Does it look veiny? Does it throb like a penis? Does it have glans, accompanying balls, able to eject urine, precum, or cum, etc.?
• For ovipositor to apply, it would be anything else that does not resemble a penis (i.e., some tubular-gaping appendage that can only eject eggs).
• Firstly, pregnant_male needs a male character with a penis (and not maleherm/intersex with an ovipositor_penis) to look visibly pregnant. Contextual cues are also necessary here.
• To distinguish between a penis and a ovipositor_penis, you'd need to what is being ejected from them.
• If nothing is ejected, we assume pregnant_male with a penis.
• If cum is ejected, we also assume pregnant_male with a penis.
• If eggs are ejected, we assume ovipositor_penis, egg_from_penis, and they are actually maleherm and pregnant_maleherm.
• If both are ejected, we also assume that they are maleherm like above.
• Secondly, anal_birth needs the egg-laying to happen via the (rear) anus rather than from (the front-facing) ovipositor or penis.
• It would probably be easier to distinguish if it were a human/humanoid/anthro since you could tell where an anus should be, i.e., a prolapsed anus laying an egg should be obvious.
• For more ambiguous-looking characters, the egg-laying should not appear to have come from any other orifice other than the anus.
• It should not appear as if there is a second anus beneath the "prolapsed anus", in which case, this would be considered an ovipositor instead.
• If there is a penis or balls above the "prolapsed anus", then it is considered an anal_birth.
• Apply contextual cues when considering posts with arthropod_abdomen_anus.
• Thirdly, for differentiating between egg_from_penis deposited into an unusual_penis vs. egg_from_penis being laid from an ovipositor_penis, you would also use contextual cues.
• If there are no signs of any third-party being involved or deliberate insertion of eggs, we assume they are laying egg_from_penis using an ovipositor_penis.
• If the character is eagerly "leaking" eggs from their penis and is deviously-looking at another character with intent (i.e., imminent_sex), then we can assume egg_from_penis using an ovipositor_penis as well.
• If the character looks distressed while "leaking" eggs with a third-party nearby (e.g., stuck in web with giant spiders around them, recently-used and bulbous tentacles, other ovipositors nearby), then you can consider urethral_bulge/egg_in_penis/egg_from_penis on an unusual_penis.

The problem is that cum is somewhat difficult to pin down. Depictions range from solid white, to mostly clear (overlapping with precum), to various unusual_cum colors and substances. Vaginal and cloacal fluids also run the gamut, leaving the determination of whether something is cum or not up to the tagger's interpretation.
post #1374986
This post, for example, shows the ambiguity of whether some squirting fluid is or isn't cum, from anatomy that can belong to a male or female. Is that cum (making them male) or not? Without anything that looks like male or female genitalia, it's ambiguous despite the fluids coming out, leaving it to the tagger's interpretation. The depicted fluids can help bolster a case for which sex something might be, but I don't think they should be used as the deciding factor.

Yes, I would agree that if you can't tell if it is cum or not, you should consider tagging ambiguous_fluids and ambiguous_gender.
However, I still feel that if you can definitively tell that it is cum through contextual cues (e.g., visible fertilisation, leaking from a phallic appendage), it should be safe to assume gender from that.

Tying back to the original argument about differentiating between "an ovipositor that can lay eggs and leak cum" vs. "a penis that can eject cum and lay eggs", I would say contextual cues matter the most as what I have written extensively above.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Regarding whether characters having both male and female genitalia can be automatically considered as male or maleherm, I would say technically no.
Completely ignoring whether ovipositors are a female characteristic or not and that they have both a penis and a pussy, I believe you would also need breasts or at least a feminine body to quality as herm and no breasts but with a masculine body to quality as maleherm.

According to how to tag genders, a feminine body type is not required for tagging herm. If the character has both male and female genitalia, and no or unknown breasts, then a masculine body makes them maleherm while a feminine or ambiguous body type makes them herm (interestingly, the "simplified" flowchart indicates this should be maleherm as it only distinguishes between a feminine and non-feminine body type, while the other two both clearly say this should be herm; wonder if that's caused any mistags or confusion).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Regarding whether ovipositors can be considered as female genitalia, I would say inherently yes.
I believe ovipositors should be considered as female genitalia by default (and the character assumed to be a female if no other sexual characteristics exist).

Then it would make sense to tag them female, herm, or maleherm in accordance with the gender tagging guidelines. No need for intersex alone.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Of course, there will be problems with distinguishing it between pregnant_male, anal_birth, or just plain egg_from_penis from an unusual_penis, but I believe there are ways to solve them.
[...]

Makes sense to me.

watsit said:
According to how to tag genders, a feminine body type is not required for tagging herm. If the character has both male and female genitalia, and no or unknown breasts, then a masculine body makes them maleherm while a feminine or ambiguous body type makes them herm (interestingly, the "simplified" flowchart indicates this should be maleherm as it only distinguishes between a feminine and non-feminine body type, while the other two both clearly say this should be herm; wonder if that's caused any mistags or confusion).

Huh, is that so? I think there is a disconnect between the howto:tag genders description of herm/maleherm vs. what the wikis actually say for the tags.

The wikis seem to explicitly state that they are for "female body" or "male body" respectively (with no mention of unknown) while the how-to guide allows for unknown body types.

In that case, I would capitulate on any arguments regarding tagging it as intersex only.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Huh, is that so? I think there is a disconnect between the howto:tag genders description of herm/maleherm vs. what the wikis actually say for the tags.

The wikis seem to explicitly state that they are for "female body" or "male body" respectively (with no mention of unknown) while the how-to guide allows for unknown body types.

In that case, I would capitulate on any arguments regarding tagging it as intersex only.

I think it's fair to say that the howto page is meant to be a nudge in the right direction
Especially since how often it's been tweaked

thegreatwolfgang said:
Huh, is that so? I think there is a disconnect between the howto:tag genders description of herm/maleherm vs. what the wikis actually say for the tags.

I think it's more confusing wording. maleherm's wiki seems mostly correct, "A hermaphrodite who has a masculine appearance, generally emphasized by a lack of breasts". The herm wiki says "While most herm characters have breasts and a feminine body shape", which is true, most herms are depicted with breasts and a feminine body shape but importantly it doesn't say they all are, and it continues, "masculine herm characters (without breasts) would fall under maleherm", which is also true. So both wikis agree masculine hermaphrodite characters without breasts are maleherm, while the herm wiki says most herms have breasts and a feminine body. I'd agree this isn't worded the best, unintentionally creating the perception that a character must have breasts and a feminine body to be tagged herm, but it doesn't actually say that. The idea that a herm isn't required to have breasts and a feminine body, even if they typically do, is the only way to read it that fits both howto:tag genders and what intersex says about not tagging it on its own. Perhaps a slight rewrite is in order?

From what I understand the key difference between gynomorph and herm is whether you can see a vagina or not
So for it to be a maleherm also requires a vagina

I think it's safe to simplify that maleherm vs herm is the presence of booba

honestly, to me it's more weird that we treat feminine hermaphroditic characters as the same as androgynous hermaphroditic characters than the inverse.

dba_afish said:
honestly, to me it's more weird that we treat feminine hermaphroditic characters as the same as androgynous hermaphroditic characters than the inverse.

Doesn't seem right to tag androgynous herms as maleherm, compared to herm (it's not femaleherm or femherm, after all). Adding a third ambiguous_herm tag doesn't sound too appealing, either.

It kind of is just a "this came first so it's the standard" because everyone generally has the same baseline assumption

watsit said:
Doesn't seem right to tag androgynous herms as maleherm, compared to herm (it's not femaleherm or femherm, after all). Adding a third ambiguous_herm tag doesn't sound too appealing, either.

I just meant, it's weird that there is a default for this at all. like, it's weird that feminine herms are the default.

dba_afish said:
I just meant, it's weird that there is a default for this at all. like, it's weird that feminine herms are the default.

Yeah it's definitely interesting

watsit said:
I think it's more confusing wording...

I was mostly referring to the "Related tags" part since it summarises herm as "female body, with both a pussy and a penis."
In addition, the actual wiki page itself didn't explicitly mention unknown body types, though it might have alluded to it.

Perhaps a slight rewrite is in order?

If that is what people want? It might cause problems down the road though for people who want to search for "feminine" herms rather than "androgynous" herms.

thegreatwolfgang said:
If that is what people want? It might cause problems down the road though for people who want to search for "feminine" herms rather than "androgynous" herms.

yeah, I've brought this up as a problem a couple times previously. I think a handful of androgynous_<gender> tags might help for situations like that.

thegreatwolfgang said:
In addition, the actual wiki page itself didn't explicitly mention unknown body types, though it might have alluded to it.

The howto:genders page covers that in the vertical flowchart quite nicely
If you can see a penis and vagina and the body type is not, beyond a doubt, male, then it's a herm
It specifies that maleherm is only ever used if the body type itself is explicitly male, so ambiguous/unsure bodies still relegate herm as long as both the lower genitalia are present.

To get back on track of the original topic, here's a draft of an updated wiki page for ovipositors:

Ovipositors are a reproductive structure and/or genital possessed by certain female animals, such as insects; some fish including seahorses and bitterlings; and some amphibian species such as the marbled newt. Ovipositors are used to deposit eggs onto or into surfaces like leaves or crevices, or into hosts such as trees or other animals.

Ovipositors are typically everted and external structures, taking many forms such as a stiff rod-like structure or a flexible tube.

Gender tagging

Ovipositors in art are often depicted as being simultaneously penises in function, with some appearing to resemble a penis more than a naturally-occurring ovipositor. Ovipositors on their own are a female organ, but certain artistic contexts will affect how gender should be tagged for the specific image.

• If the ovipositor is depicted laying eggs, does not have penis-like features such as a glans, knot, or balls, and is not producing cum, tag gender as if it were a female genital such as a pussy.

post #5550308 post #5178338 post #5368162

• If the ovipositor is depicted laying eggs, has penis-like features such as a glans, knot, or balls, and/or is producing cum, tag it as ovipositor_penis and tag gender as if it were a male genital such as a penis.

post #5291556 post #4999792 post #4959324 post #5047352

• If the ovipositor is attached to an unbodied tentacle creature, do not tag gender for the ovipositor at all as tentacles are not considered characters for tagging purposes. Instead, tag it as tentacle_ovipositor.

post #5234375 post #5121150 post #5099961

• If the ovipositor is not depicted laying or carrying eggs at all, and bears no resemblance to an ovipositor, do not tag it as ovipositor and instead as a relevant genital such as a penis or pseudo-penis.

See also

• anatomically_correct
• animal_genitalia
• egg_insertion - Eggs being put into an orifice by any means.
• anal_egg_insertion
• oral_egg_insertion
• vaginal_egg_insertion
• oviposition - The process of laying eggs.
• ovipositor - An organic structure used to deposit or lay eggs.
• tentacle_ovipositor
• ovipositor_penis - An organic structure that bears resemblance to both a penis and an ovipositor.
• pseudo-penis

A few of these posts I've used as examples would need gender tag changes if this is determined accurate, as the ovipositor is currently tagged as if it were a penis. Additionally, ovipositor_penis should probably imply ovipositor.
Additionally additionally, should there be an arthropod_abdomen_ovipositor tag? Many posts in the ovipositor tag do not have the everted, external structure present in animals such as ichneumon wasps, but instead lay eggs directly from the tip of the abdomen. This phenomenon is typically associated with egg_sac.
post #5568299 post #5254041 post #4813919

I still don't really like calling them "genitals", because again, I want to state flatly, ovipositors generally are not considered genitals. ovipositors are the organs designed to deposit fertilized* egg into or onto something (laying eggs), genitals are the organs responsible for sending or receiving the gametes to facilitate fertilization (doing sex).

*_{or developing eggs, I guess, there's that weird thing hymenoptera and a some other orders of insects do where unfertilized eggs develop into the males and fertilized eggs develop into the females.}

moonlit-comet said:
"Ovipositors are a reproductive structure and/or genital..."

Not to jump the gun, but if we want to write that ovipositors are a type of genitalia, the tags need to reflect that.
That is, we would need a separate thread discussing the implication of ovipositor -> genitals.

"Ovipositors are used to deposit eggs onto or into surfaces like leaves or crevices, or into hosts such as trees or other animals."

Would be better to mention the specific tags directly so that people know what subtags to choose from; e.g., "...deposit eggs onto or into surfaces (i.e., oviposition) ... or into hosts (i.e., egg_insertion)...".

Gender tagging

...

A few of these posts I've used as examples would need gender tag changes if this is determined accurate, as the ovipositor is currently tagged as if it were a penis.

I feel that the types of ovipositors should be mentioned in a simplified list directly below the description of ovipositors.
Then, the gender tagging section should be in a separate collapsible section to that it does not take up half the screen.

In addition, you also need to mention that it is safe to assume the character's gender as male/female if there is an "absence of any primary (i.e., penis, balls, pussy) or secondary (i.e., breasts, feminine, masculine) sexual characteristics".
Otherwise, normal gender tagging rules apply but with the consideration that (a) ovipositors and oviposition is a female trait and that (b) having an ovipositor_penis with the ability to ejaculate semen and produce eggs is an intersex trait.

Additionally, ovipositor_penis should probably imply ovipositor.

And maybe penis, unless people want them to be separate.

Additionally additionally, should there be an arthropod_abdomen_ovipositor tag? Many posts in the ovipositor tag do not have the everted, external structure present in animals such as ichneumon wasps, but instead lay eggs directly from the tip of the abdomen. This phenomenon is typically associated with egg_sac.
post #5568299 post #5254041 post #4813919

I can't comment on arthropod_abdomen since the whole thing seems to be a big mess to untangle (e.g., whats the visual difference between arthropod_abdomen_anus and arthropod_abdomen_cloaca?).
If we want an arthropod_abdomen_ovipositor tag, then we need to consider whether they are should be purely for "exerted" structures or whether they can overlap with arthropod_abdomen_pussy as normal ovipositioning.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Would be better to mention the specific tags directly so that people know what subtags to choose from; e.g., "...deposit eggs onto or into surfaces (i.e., oviposition) ... or into hosts (i.e., egg_insertion)...".

wait, I thought oviposition into a host character was egg_transfer, while egg_insertion was for a character having eggs from outside put into an orifice. or... actually egg_transfer looks more like it's explicitly for eggs being pushed from the orifice of one character into an orifice of another character without the use of an ovipositor, often during tribadism. and then there's also egg_exchange which is apparently another thing? its wiki says that it's for eggs going from one ovipositor into another, which sounds overly specific.

do we not have a tag specifically for characters having eggs implanted into them via an ovipositor that's inserted into them?

dba_afish said:
I still don't really like calling them "genitals", because again, I want to state flatly, ovipositors generally are not considered genitals.

They are genitals when it comes to seahorse sex because the female seahorse inserts her gametes into the male's brood pouch, and they are fertilized as they are inserted via the male's penis. I think it's okay to refer to them as genitals in situational cases like that. This is also a pretty decently common trope in spec bio, such as in Jay Eaton's avians.
post #5557751
Making a structure that is treated as genitalia across multiple real and fictional species be considered not genitalia at all on this site doesn't really feel right.

thegreatwolfgang said:
[snip]

Thanks for your input! Here's a potentially revised version with your suggestions.

Ovipositors are a reproductive structure and/or genital possessed by certain female animals, such as insects; some fish including seahorses and bitterlings; and some amphibian species such as the marbled newt. Ovipositors are used to deposit eggs onto or into surfaces (i.e. oviposition) like leaves or crevices, or into hosts (i.e. egg_insertion) such as trees or other animals.

Ovipositors are typically everted and external structures, taking many forms such as a stiff rod-like structure or a flexible tube.

Types of ovipositor-related tags

• ovipositor - An egg-laying structure with no penis-like traits. Only produces eggs, and no semen.
• ovipositor_penis - An ovipositor with a penis-like structure and function, or a penis with an ovipositor-like structure and function. May produce cum and have features such as balls or a knot.
• tentacle_ovipositor - A tentacle that lays eggs.

Gender tagging

Ovipositors in art are often depicted as being simultaneously penises in function, with some appearing to resemble a penis more than a naturally-occurring ovipositor. Ovipositors on their own are a female organ, but certain artistic contexts will affect how gender should be tagged for the specific image.
When it comes to tagging gender on characters with an ovipositor, it is safe to assume the character's gender as male or female if there is an absence of any primary (i.e., penis, balls, pussy) or secondary (i.e., breasts, feminine, masculine) sexual characteristics. Otherwise, normal gender tagging rules apply, with the consideration that ovipositors are a female trait.

Gender tagging for ovipositors

• If the ovipositor is depicted laying eggs, does not have penis-like features such as a glans, knot, or balls, and is not producing cum, tag gender as if it were a female genital such as a pussy.

post #5550308 post #5178338 post #5368162

• If the ovipositor is depicted laying eggs, has penis-like features such as a glans, knot, or balls, and/or is producing cum, tag it as ovipositor_penis and tag gender as if it were a male genital such as a penis.

post #5291556 post #4999792 post #4959324 post #5047352

• If the ovipositor is attached to an unbodied tentacle creature, do not tag gender for the ovipositor at all as tentacles are not considered characters for tagging purposes. Instead, tag it as tentacle_ovipositor.

post #5234375 post #5121150 post #5099961

• If the ovipositor is not depicted laying or carrying eggs at all, and bears no resemblance to an ovipositor, do not tag it as ovipositor and instead as a relevant genital such as a penis or pseudo-penis.

See also

• anatomically_correct
• animal_genitalia
• egg_insertion - Eggs being put into an orifice by any means.
• anal_egg_insertion
• oral_egg_insertion
• vaginal_egg_insertion
• oviposition - The process of laying eggs.
• ovipositor - An organic structure used to deposit or lay eggs.
• tentacle_ovipositor
• ovipositor_penis - An organic structure that bears resemblance to both a penis and an ovipositor.
• pseudo-penis

But...

(b) having an ovipositor_penis with the ability to ejaculate semen and produce eggs is an intersex trait.

I'm not really sold on ovipositor_penis being considered an intersex trait, since it very much looks like a penis, and I feel like people won't be too happy having very male-looking characters show up in things such as intersex (herm, gynomorph, etc) searches. Using my own guy as a reference here,
post #3866463
This just looks like a male with a penis that coincidentally makes eggs. Very much not herm or maleherm.

what about stingers?

dba_afish said:
what about stingers?

Biologically they're usually derived/modified ovipositors.
In furry porn land? I dunno man. If it's shaped like a wang and/or being used like one it probably should be tagged both stinger and penis?

dba_afish said:
what about stingers?

Stingers are not female-only despite some stingers [i.e. for bees] being a modified ovipositor. Some stingers are even male-only, like the venomous spurs of the male platypus. "Stinger" is a term that's used to refer to any sharp non-fang organ that injects venom. They come in many forms and have many evolutionary histories. Convergent evolution at play

It's definitely a mess, yeah. A couple years ago, I'd actually made a few comparative tables to start a topic on the broader "how to treat penis-like 'assets'". I eventually forgot about it, so the data is a bit outdated (doesn't account for lore tags or the new pseudo-urethral tags), but it still mostly holds up.

Ovipositors

Comparison table

Image	What's on it?	Counted as penis?	Could be mistaken for penis?	Balls or sackless?
post #2575982	Ovipositor	Yes (Male, Ovipositor + penis)	Yes	Sackless
post #2135619	Ovipositor	Yes (Male, Ovipositor + penis)	No	Sackless
post #1462973	Ovipositor	Yes (Male, Ovipositor)	Yes	Balls
post #2532444	Ovipositor	Yes-ish (Gynomorph, Ovipositor)	An exotic one	Balls
post #1941671	Ovipositor	No (Female, Ovipositor)	Maybe?	Sackless
post #2592805	Ovipositor	No (Ambiguous, Ovipositor)	No	Sackless
post #1355846	Ovipositor	No (Ambiguous, Ovipositor)	No	Sackless
post #2029264	Ovipositor	No (Female, Ovipositor + pseudo-penis)	Maybe?	Sackless

Pseudo-penises

Comparison table

Image	What's on it?	Counted as penis?	Could be mistaken for penis?	Balls or sackless?
post #2287024	Pseudo-penis	No (Female, urethral)	Maybe?	Pseudo-balls
post #1860424	Pseudo-penis	No (Female, urethral)	Yes	Pseudo-balls
post #1421795	Pseudo-penis	No (Female, urethral & vaginal)	No	Sackless
post #1365412	Pseudo-penis	No (Female, vaginal)	Probably not	Pseudo-balls
post #1675096	Pseudo-penis	Yes (Gynomorph, urethral)	Yes	Not visible
post #1837155	Pseudo-penis	Yes (Gynomorph)	Yes	Pseudo-balls
post #2265388	Pseudo-penis	No (Andromorph, cock_birth)	Maybe	Not visible

Uncommon stuff

Comparison table

Image	What's on it?	Counted as penis?	Could be mistaken for penis?	Balls or sackless?
post #1810254	Goo-penis	Not sure (Male & Female)	It's convincing!	Sackless
post #2464275	Goo-penis	Yes (Gynomorph)	No (translucent & visible pussy)	Sackless
post #478551	Goo-penis	No (Female)	No (translucent)	Goo-balls, I think?
post #1666348	Vaginapenis	Both (Herm)	Yes	Sackless
post #2464449	Crotch-tentacle	Yes (Gynomorph)	Yes	Sackless
post #139871	Crotch-tentacle	Yes (Gynomorph)	I don't... think?	Sackless
post #1552783	Goo-penis	No (Female)	No (glowing orange goo)	Sackless
post #2261683	Crotch-tentacle	No (Female)	No (visible pussy)	N/A
post #2260049	Crotch-tentacle	No (Female)	No (left is tentacle, right is intravaginal)	Sackless
post #2713336	Vaginapenis	Both (Herm)	An exotic one	Balls
post #3882696	"chloropeen"	Both (Herm)	No (translucent & visible pussy)	Assorted balls
post #1849065	Magic penis	No (Andromorph)	No (translucent & visible pussy)	Sackless

Existing discussion

topic #16315: Feral anatomy and tagging genders (2016)
topic #12869: Female hyenas and TWYS (2016)
topic #24529: Should pseudo-penis penetration count as urethral or vaginal? (2017)

I would also very much like to see this kind of sorted out.

moonlit-comet said:
Many of us know that the tags around oviposition and other egg-related themes are a massive mess, but one I've always been a little puzzled on in terms of its usage on this site is ovipositors.
Ovipositors, as per the wiki entry are:

A hole possessed by certain female insects, which is generally located at the tip of the abdomen and used exclusively to lay eggs.

I actually wrote the wiki to primarily refer to these as "a hole" and not "a penis-like organ" because it's surprisingly common to see the term "ovipositor" used to describe a hole on an insectile abdomen from which only eggs come out (like in post #5565677, mentionned by @Moonlit-comet). At one point I was tempted to deprecate ovipositor and split it into "oviscapt" (the realistic gory kind you use to stab hapless bugs/fruits and lay eggs under the surface), ovipositor penis (the furry porn type), "ovipositor tentacle", and some fourth TBD term for the egg-hole type, but the designs for ovipositor are too varied to all fit under ovipositor_penis, so I kind of abandoned the idea.