Male Herm should not imply 'herm' nor 'futa' tags
HeartLinda
I’m going to leave this to try to make this (and future, because there will be more in the future) discussion more clear. (Public domain, copy and edit as you please.)
Based on @Zeb ’s proposed description change, I assume that the “proper” definition of the “futa” tag encompasses 3, 7, 10, 11, and 12 (with 5 being covered by “androgynous”), and “herm” encompasses 10, 11, and 12.
Is that correct?
Based on @Zeb ’s proposed description change, I assume that the “proper” definition of the “futa” tag encompasses 3, 7, 10, 11, and 12 (with 5 being covered by “androgynous”), and “herm” encompasses 10, 11, and 12.
Is that correct?
Britemac
Why would we need an umbrella for an umbrella though, I think that’s what I was trying to get at with that, IDK, sometimes it’s hard for me to remember my own thoughts with threads of thought if my mood shifts notably.
@Rdobet
And yeah, that’d be the ideal way for tagging, but I don’t understand why there would be a backlash against using the best applicable terms without reinventing/defining the wheel as it were?
@Britemac
It’s an umbrella’s umbrella.
Herm for specifically having both genitalia. Futa for that, and every other possible combination of genitals/body type.
Why would we need an umbrella for an umbrella though, I think that’s what I was trying to get at with that, IDK, sometimes it’s hard for me to remember my own thoughts with threads of thought if my mood shifts notably.
@Rdobet
@Zeb
Well, oddly, it doesn’t cover cunt/busty boys. Which is why I’d prefer intersex, but I don’t want to imagine that shitstorm.Ideally, futa would be aliased to dickgirl or something(which herm/shemale would imply), male herm removed from it, and cuntboy/bustyboy/maleherm/dickgirl would all imply intersex, but good luck with all that work and backlash.
And yeah, that’d be the ideal way for tagging, but I don’t understand why there would be a backlash against using the best applicable terms without reinventing/defining the wheel as it were?
Derpy Whooves 
If you are asking a question like that, then may I presume that you haven’t read the 2 year history of threads about this or similar tagging questions?
Basically, there are between 9K and 12K users who already “know what this word means”, and have been using it in its current definition for approximately 2 years.
And some of them feel as strongly about keeping the current definition as you do about changing it.
No matter what change we make to a tag like this, even if we decide to not change it, I fully expect at least one very personal and detailed death threat to result.
Looking For My Doctor
I don’t understand why there would be a backlash
If you are asking a question like that, then may I presume that you haven’t read the 2 year history of threads about this or similar tagging questions?
Basically, there are between 9K and 12K users who already “know what this word means”, and have been using it in its current definition for approximately 2 years.
And some of them feel as strongly about keeping the current definition as you do about changing it.
No matter what change we make to a tag like this, even if we decide to not change it, I fully expect at least one very personal and detailed death threat to result.
Britemac
It wouldn’t come from me if that’s the case, I may get upset about things but threatening to kill/maim some one is no bueno. And I didn’t read each and every bit of them I skimmed some of it, but yeah, if people are going to go to those lengths (ie death threats) I get whatcha mean.
CruFox 
Tag? Tag.
So when will be the description for “futa” changed? It should be super detailed like description for rating tags because, as was mentioned earlier, cuntboys should be tagged futa with current definition but are not. There should be a list of things that this tag applies to and information that it is not what the “common” Internet definition of futa is, because if someone new comes to this site, how they should now that DB has it differently?
Possibly even there should be some chart or a table in the description. On e621 there are three official chart guides to tagging gender:
https://e621.net/wiki/show/howto:tag_genders
We should make our own and place them in some prominent place for everyone interested to see and use.
Possibly even there should be some chart or a table in the description. On e621 there are three official chart guides to tagging gender:
https://e621.net/wiki/show/howto:tag_genders
We should make our own and place them in some prominent place for everyone interested to see and use.
Britemac
But Cunt Boys are males with female traits (ie, having lady parts downstairs instead of man parts) yet the rest of them is male, so by the current definition, they should indeed be tagged as futa.
@Crusier
well, the dick is kinda required for the tag still, so, I’d leave cuntboys out of it, but still. I’m off for work, so, can’t do it atm.
But Cunt Boys are males with female traits (ie, having lady parts downstairs instead of man parts) yet the rest of them is male, so by the current definition, they should indeed be tagged as futa.
CruFox
Then cuntboys would be “futa”.
There are only 53 images under “male herm” tag. What problem would it be to remove this implication (male herm -> futa, and to do so: remove herm -> futa), when they clearly are NOT “futa” under current description, and like cunboys - should stay that way.
Are there even any images that depict characters that are NOT feminine and yet possess some female traits, not including genitals? Only thing I can think of would be male body type, but with female breasts… is there a specific tag for it?
In my opinion the descrprion of futa should stay mostly what it is, but: including hermaphrodites should be changed into including female hermaphrodites thus male herms should not be tagged futa.
Then this:
@Rdobet
Would not be true.
Male herms are just cuntboys that have a penis additionally. “Herm” should not imply “futa”, because not every herm has “feminine characteristics” besides having a vagina, and problem solved.
I don’t see why this is such a big problem, just delete a tag from 53 images.
Male herms are still herms and if someone wants to filter out this kind of content, they should use “herm” in their filters.
Tag? Tag.
But Cunt Boys are males with female traits (ie, having lady parts downstairs instead of man parts) yet the rest of them is male, so by the current definition, they should indeed be tagged as futa.
That’s how the Futa tag is being used on this site. It does not contain any implication of the character being female. It’s only that the character has characteristics of both males and females. On Derpibooru it is considered its own individual gender, with no implications male or female.
Then cuntboys would be “futa”.
There are only 53 images under “male herm” tag. What problem would it be to remove this implication (male herm -> futa, and to do so: remove herm -> futa), when they clearly are NOT “futa” under current description, and like cunboys - should stay that way.
Are there even any images that depict characters that are NOT feminine and yet possess some female traits, not including genitals? Only thing I can think of would be male body type, but with female breasts… is there a specific tag for it?
In my opinion the descrprion of futa should stay mostly what it is, but: including hermaphrodites should be changed into including female hermaphrodites thus male herms should not be tagged futa.
Then this:
@Rdobet
@Britemac
we’d have to fucking retag 10s of thousands of images for nearly no benefit.
Would not be true.
Male herms are just cuntboys that have a penis additionally. “Herm” should not imply “futa”, because not every herm has “feminine characteristics” besides having a vagina, and problem solved.
I don’t see why this is such a big problem, just delete a tag from 53 images.
Male herms are still herms and if someone wants to filter out this kind of content, they should use “herm” in their filters.
CruFox
Tag? Tag.
I found it. We have busty boy and there is no implication to “futa”. Under current definition, they should be “futa” but are not. If what you said in this thread was to be true, then definiton of futa would have to be:
a female hermaphrodite or a female with a penis or a male hermaphrodite
I don’t see any logic in it. The only problem after not including “male hermaphrodite” in “futa” is that there is no single tag that would group all characters with “non-conventional” mixes of genitals and body types.
But still, if cuntboys and busty boys don’t have fall in this great “umbrella” category then what a problem it would be if male herms were not in too?
It would seem that all old discussions about this issue with futa were about “dickgirls not being futa” and this “male herm” thread is an entirely different problem, so saying “we tried before and people were arguing, we can’t change it” is not a valid argument.
——
To sum up:
1)As male male herms don’t possess feminine characteristics beside their genitals, herm should not automatically imply futa. female herm should, but there is no such tag.
2) Change description of futa from (…)including hermaphrodites to (…)including female hermaphrodites or maybe even (…)including hermaphrodites that have other feminine characteristics beside their sexual organs
3) Clean up by deleting futa tag from images with male herms
a female hermaphrodite or a female with a penis or a male hermaphrodite
I don’t see any logic in it. The only problem after not including “male hermaphrodite” in “futa” is that there is no single tag that would group all characters with “non-conventional” mixes of genitals and body types.
But still, if cuntboys and busty boys don’t have fall in this great “umbrella” category then what a problem it would be if male herms were not in too?
It would seem that all old discussions about this issue with futa were about “dickgirls not being futa” and this “male herm” thread is an entirely different problem, so saying “we tried before and people were arguing, we can’t change it” is not a valid argument.
——
To sum up:
1)As male male herms don’t possess feminine characteristics beside their genitals, herm should not automatically imply futa. female herm should, but there is no such tag.
2) Change description of futa from (…)including hermaphrodites to (…)including female hermaphrodites or maybe even (…)including hermaphrodites that have other feminine characteristics beside their sexual organs
3) Clean up by deleting futa tag from images with male herms
Derpy Whooves
Looking For My Doctor
@Crusier
Please link the post that showed clearly the next steps, for which there was consensus.
Please link the post that showed clearly the next steps, for which there was consensus.
CruFox
I had something more like “if you don’t want to change anything, at least make detailed description so that people would know what “futa” means on Derpibooru and how it is different from the rest of Internet” in mind. And: @Rdobet
that implies that something was going to happen with it…
Or we just leave it like it is now, ambiguous and vague?
Tag? Tag.
@Crusier
Please link the post that showed clearly the next steps, for which there was consensus.
I had something more like “if you don’t want to change anything, at least make detailed description so that people would know what “futa” means on Derpibooru and how it is different from the rest of Internet” in mind. And: @Rdobet
@Crusier
I’m off for work, so, can’t do it atm.
that implies that something was going to happen with it…
Or we just leave it like it is now, ambiguous and vague?
Derpy Whooves
Looking For My Doctor
@Crusier
It doesn’t sound like there are any options presented by this thread that are less vague than what we currently have.
And “make detailed description” is not actionable.
Until an actionable suggestion is made, and that actionable item has consensus, there isn’t anything to act on.
It doesn’t sound like there are any options presented by this thread that are less vague than what we currently have.
And “make detailed description” is not actionable.
Until an actionable suggestion is made, and that actionable item has consensus, there isn’t anything to act on.
CruFox
Tag? Tag.
@Derpy Whooves
Some proposed changes were met with arguments like “this can’t be done because the community won’t like it, because there were attempts to do something with the tag in the past”. But as far as I can see in the old threads, the consensus was that the character must look feminine without looking at their genitals (at this point you can’t tell if this is femboy or herm), but also must have a penis, but can’t be a femboy, as this is something separate.
And because 97.86% (53 male herms against 2482 herms total) of herms are females with additional penises, the fact that “herm” implies “futa” is somehow logical choice. But, as some male herms are just males with vaginas, usage of “futa” on them is incorrect by it’s current description and although “futa” is implied by “herm” (because almost every time it is a correct implication, 97.86% of the time), this tag should just be removed from those images, as implied tags are not meant to be obligatory and can sometimes be incorrect. Like for example fifth leg -> impossibly large penis, when 79 out of 238 images, one third of them, have the “impossibly large penis” tag removed.
Is this true so far?
Then the only problem I can see is: why are femboys and busty boys not futa, when they match the “futa” description?
If the answer is: “because it is how it was here for years”, then the only logical choice would be to match the description of the “futa” tag to its content. So in the detailed description there should be information that:
(This descriptions may need some tweaking, as I am not a native English speaker.)
Problem solved, the description now reflects the actual status, or am I wrong here? Because people who watch or spoiler “futa” are not doing it because of herms, as herm is a separate tag and character doesn’t have to have vagina to be “futa”.
I think just adding those details to description won’t hurt as this only describes what the tag currently covers.
Some proposed changes were met with arguments like “this can’t be done because the community won’t like it, because there were attempts to do something with the tag in the past”. But as far as I can see in the old threads, the consensus was that the character must look feminine without looking at their genitals (at this point you can’t tell if this is femboy or herm), but also must have a penis, but can’t be a femboy, as this is something separate.
And because 97.86% (53 male herms against 2482 herms total) of herms are females with additional penises, the fact that “herm” implies “futa” is somehow logical choice. But, as some male herms are just males with vaginas, usage of “futa” on them is incorrect by it’s current description and although “futa” is implied by “herm” (because almost every time it is a correct implication, 97.86% of the time), this tag should just be removed from those images, as implied tags are not meant to be obligatory and can sometimes be incorrect. Like for example fifth leg -> impossibly large penis, when 79 out of 238 images, one third of them, have the “impossibly large penis” tag removed.
Is this true so far?
Then the only problem I can see is: why are femboys and busty boys not futa, when they match the “futa” description?
If the answer is: “because it is how it was here for years”, then the only logical choice would be to match the description of the “futa” tag to its content. So in the detailed description there should be information that:
*If a character possess some feminine traits, but lacks female genitals, it is **not** futa (femboys, busty boys). *If a character is a hermaphrodite, but lacks other female traits (other than genitals), it is **not** futa (male herms) *But if a character looks like female, and the only difference is, that this character has penis instead of vagina, it is futa (shemales)(This descriptions may need some tweaking, as I am not a native English speaker.)
Problem solved, the description now reflects the actual status, or am I wrong here? Because people who watch or spoiler “futa” are not doing it because of herms, as herm is a separate tag and character doesn’t have to have vagina to be “futa”.
I think just adding those details to description won’t hurt as this only describes what the tag currently covers.
Derpy Whooves
Let’s take what appear to be your two different proposals for changing these tags.
First, here is your original proposed change to the definitions:
@Britemac
Sorry to repeat myself, but you never answered my questions about your original proposal, and instead defended that they were necessary.
How do you propose that the community would determine the pronoun preference for a character?
As an example, what is the “pronoun preference” for Banana Stem?
Without knowing, we can not assign a tag using your definitions, because that characters personal preferences are an independent variable. The characters “preferences” are not something that can be determined by looking - it would have to involve some mechanism for interviewing the character, which doesn’t exist.
Your earlier answer only defended the need for a change. You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll answer it for you.
We can not do that. It is not possible for community taggers to know what the pronoun preferences are for a cartoon character.
We are trying to create tag definitions that can be applied without knowing the backstory or head canon of the artist. But from your proposal it seems that you want people to “know” the “actual status” of the gender and pronoun choices of cartoon characters, but every person who looks at the character will have their own interpretation of what those might be.
For individuals for whom these characters are their “ponysonna”, that makes sense - they closely and personally identify with those characters, so their own definitions are not only about those characters, but about themselves.
Granted, that makes sense.
But that is not a basis for community tagging.
So that reduces your original proposed change to:
I don’t believe that is an improvement over the existing definitions.
Your more recent proposal appears to be this - please correct me if I’m wrong - trying to figure out what you think the description should be based on statements about what the tags should not be is not straight forward:
Did I get that right? Is that even close?
This is where I start talking about actionable changes again - rather than just arguing that the current definition is wrong, you need to present what you think the new definition should be.
Right now it seems that what you are proposing might be as simple as:
But - if a character doesn’t have a vagina then how is it Futanari? Isn’t a Hermaphrodite without a vagina a boy?
I’m still in the “The existing proposals in this thread haven’t laid out a better set of definitions” so I vote no, but at the same time we haven’t actually seen a proposed change.
I think part of the problem I’m having figuring out what you think the new descriptions should be is that these two clauses seem mutually exclusive:
Instead of saying what you think the descriptions should NOT be, please try just writing out what you think the descriptions should be.
herm
Proposed short description:
Proposed long description:
Proposed aliases:
Proposed implications:
futa
Proposed short description:
Proposed long description:
Proposed aliases:
Proposed implications:
Looking For My Doctor
@Crusier
Since you keep arguing that the existing tags are wrong and need to change, does it help you understand why there hasn’t been a change made yet if I say that your proposed changes sound wronger to me than the existing definitions?
Let me expand on that, since communicating seems to be a problem.
Forgive me for repeating myself, but the current definition for the two tags that I believe you are saying should be changed are:
Since you keep arguing that the existing tags are wrong and need to change, does it help you understand why there hasn’t been a change made yet if I say that your proposed changes sound wronger to me than the existing definitions?
Let me expand on that, since communicating seems to be a problem.
Forgive me for repeating myself, but the current definition for the two tags that I believe you are saying should be changed are:
herm
Short description: Beings with both male and female genitalia.
Aliases: hermaphrodite
Implies: futa
Detailed description: NULL
Implied by: herm on female, male hermfuta
Short description: Beings with feminine characteristics and penises, including hermaphrodites
Aliases: futanari
Implies: NULL
Detailed description: NULL
Implied by: duo futa, female on futa, fmilf, full package futa, futa abacus cinch, futa adagio dazzle, futa aloe, futa apple bloom, futa applejack, futa aria blaze, futa arizona cow, futa babs seed, futa barb, futa berry punch, futa bigger than male, futa bon bon, futa carrot top, futa cheerilee, futa cherry jubilee, futa cloudchaser, futa coco pommel, futa colgate, futa coloratura, futa cup cake, futa cutie mark crusaders, futa daring do, futa derpy hooves, futa diamond tiara, futa dinky hooves, futa edit, futa eris, futa filly on filly, futa filly on human female, futa fleur-de-lis, futa flitter, futa flutterbat, futa fluttershy, futa focus, futa gabby, futa gilda, futa granny smith, futa human on stallion, futa indigo zap, futa lightning dust, futa limestone pie, futa little strongheart, futa lotus blossom, futa lyra heartstrings, futa mane six, futa mane-iac, futa marble pie, futa maud pie, futa mayor mare, futa moondancer, futa ms. harshwhinny, futa ms. peachbottom, futa nightmare moon, futa nightmare rarity, futa nightmare star, futa nurse redheart, futa oc:button’s mother, futa oc:milky way, futa octavia melody, futa on colt, futa on cuntboy, futa on female, futa on filly, futa on futa, futa on futa frottage, futa on human female, futa on male, futa only, futa pinkamena diane pie, futa pinkie pie, futa pony on human female, futa pony on human male, futa pov, futa princess cadance, futa princess celestia, futa princess ember, futa princess flurry heart, futa princess luna, futa queen chrysalis, futa rainbow dash, futa rarity, futa ruby pinch, futa sapphire shores, futa scootaloo, futa silver spoon, futa sonata dusk, futa sour sweet, futa spitfire, futa starlight glimmer, futa sugarcoat, futa sunset shimmer, futa sweetie belle, futa tree hugger, futa trixie, futa twilight sparkle, futa twilight velvet, futa twist, futa velvet reindeer, futa vinyl scratch, futa zecora, futadom, futaria, futas only, herm, herm on female, human futa on stallion, male herm, male on futa, oc:futashy, shemale, solo futa, stallion on futa filly, tentacles on futa
Let’s take what appear to be your two different proposals for changing these tags.
First, here is your original proposed change to the definitions:
@Britemac
Futa : A character that has a feminine body, uses female pronouns, but has a penisHermaphrodite: A character containing both a penis, and a vagina, typically uses more feminine pronouns and body typeMale Herm: A character containing both a penis and a vagina, uses masculine pronouns and has a masculine body type
Sorry to repeat myself, but you never answered my questions about your original proposal, and instead defended that they were necessary.
How do you propose that the community would determine the pronoun preference for a character?
As an example, what is the “pronoun preference” for Banana Stem?
Without knowing, we can not assign a tag using your definitions, because that characters personal preferences are an independent variable. The characters “preferences” are not something that can be determined by looking - it would have to involve some mechanism for interviewing the character, which doesn’t exist.
Your earlier answer only defended the need for a change. You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll answer it for you.
We can not do that. It is not possible for community taggers to know what the pronoun preferences are for a cartoon character.
We are trying to create tag definitions that can be applied without knowing the backstory or head canon of the artist. But from your proposal it seems that you want people to “know” the “actual status” of the gender and pronoun choices of cartoon characters, but every person who looks at the character will have their own interpretation of what those might be.
For individuals for whom these characters are their “ponysonna”, that makes sense - they closely and personally identify with those characters, so their own definitions are not only about those characters, but about themselves.
Granted, that makes sense.
But that is not a basis for community tagging.
So that reduces your original proposed change to:
Futa : A character that has a feminine body but has a penisHermaphrodite: A character containing both a penis and a vaginaMale Herm: A character containing both a penis and a vagina
I don’t believe that is an improvement over the existing definitions.
Your more recent proposal appears to be this - please correct me if I’m wrong - trying to figure out what you think the description should be based on statements about what the tags should not be is not straight forward:
herm
Existing Short Description: Beings with both male and female genitalia.
Your Proposed description: (no change? I think?)futa
Existing Short Description: Beings with feminine characteristics and penises, including hermaphrodites
Your Proposed Description: If a character looks like female, and the only difference is, that this character has penis instead of vagina - does not include hermaphrodites who have both a vagina and a penis but who do not display feminine traits, and does not include characters with feminine traits who do not have female genitals.
Did I get that right? Is that even close?
This is where I start talking about actionable changes again - rather than just arguing that the current definition is wrong, you need to present what you think the new definition should be.
Right now it seems that what you are proposing might be as simple as:
Change the short description of Futa to: Hermaphrodites with female characteristics and a penis but no vagina
But - if a character doesn’t have a vagina then how is it Futanari? Isn’t a Hermaphrodite without a vagina a boy?
I’m still in the “The existing proposals in this thread haven’t laid out a better set of definitions” so I vote no, but at the same time we haven’t actually seen a proposed change.
I think part of the problem I’m having figuring out what you think the new descriptions should be is that these two clauses seem mutually exclusive:
- If a character is a hermaphrodite, but lacks other female traits (other than genitals), it is not futa (male herms)
- But if a character looks like female, and the only difference is, that this character has penis instead of vagina, it is futa (shemales)
Instead of saying what you think the descriptions should NOT be, please try just writing out what you think the descriptions should be.
herm
Proposed short description:
Proposed long description:
Proposed aliases:
Proposed implications:
futa
Proposed short description:
Proposed long description:
Proposed aliases:
Proposed implications:
Exedrus 
- If a character possess some feminine traits, but lacks female genitals, it is not futa (femboys, busty boys).
…- But if a character looks like female, and the only difference is, that this character has penis instead of vagina, it is futa (shemales)
Don’t these conflict?
“possesses some feminine traits” = “character looks like female”
and
“lacks female genitals” could be the same as “has penis instead of vagina”
But the first isn’t futa whereas the second is?
I get the feeling this all might be best understood through a table/diagram or some such. Just reading a bunch of if-then-not/if-then sort of sentences isn’t the easiest to understand.
“possesses some feminine traits” = “character looks like female”
and
“lacks female genitals” could be the same as “has penis instead of vagina”
But the first isn’t futa whereas the second is?
I get the feeling this all might be best understood through a table/diagram or some such. Just reading a bunch of if-then-not/if-then sort of sentences isn’t the easiest to understand.
Derpy Whooves
Looking For My Doctor
@Exedrus
I agree - it’s very confusing, and seems to be self-contradictory.
It’s why I keep asking for an actual proposal of what the short and long descriptions should be changed to, along with what the proposed changes are to their implications and aliases.
Proving that the existing tags “aren’t right” is of no purpose, given that there’s no proposal for “what would be better”.
PS: We can’t/won’t implement a table or some sort of diagram. We need something that works with the existing implementation of tagging, which means:
Tag name:
Proposed Short Description:
Proposed Long Description (optionally including a safe-for-work example image):
Proposed Aliases:
Proposed Implications:
I agree - it’s very confusing, and seems to be self-contradictory.
It’s why I keep asking for an actual proposal of what the short and long descriptions should be changed to, along with what the proposed changes are to their implications and aliases.
Proving that the existing tags “aren’t right” is of no purpose, given that there’s no proposal for “what would be better”.
PS: We can’t/won’t implement a table or some sort of diagram. We need something that works with the existing implementation of tagging, which means:
Tag name:
Proposed Short Description:
Proposed Long Description (optionally including a safe-for-work example image):
Proposed Aliases:
Proposed Implications:
Britemac
The main point of those defenitions is for the uploader of the immage/owner of the character to let people know the proper ways to view them. By the current defenition any efeminate male, or masculine female character is futa as they fit the defenition of the term, however, they are not tagged as such based on the gender identifire put in with male/female. The same should be done with the male-herm and herm tags, herm could imply futa, sure, male herm does not as again, it boils down to genitals, not characteristics.
If say, for my character, you couldn’t see the bits that were there, they would be considered fully male, and speak/act/refer to them self in such a manner, that is why the ‘male herm’ tag is used, to denote that, while, yes, they do have both sets of genitals, they DO NOT exhibit female characteristics.
Again, equipment down stairs is not the same as characteristics. Characteristics are a mix of build and behaviors. And you continually post a character that’s intentionally designed to be androgynous while you don’t seem to be listening to what people are actually saying, instead of glossing it over as ‘oh your not saying why’ when it has been said why.
The tag isn’t properly applicable and is to vague, not to mention, again, we don’t need to have an umbrella term, for an umbrella term, one doesn’t hold an umbrella up to keep another umbrella dry after all, it doesn’t make sense.
@Crusier
Since you keep arguing that the existing tags are wrong and need to change, does it help you understand why there hasn’t been a change made yet if I say that your proposed changes sound wronger to me than the existing definitions?Let me expand on that, since communicating seems to be a problem.Forgive me for repeating myself, but the current definition for the two tags that I believe you are saying should be changed are:herm
Short description: Beings with both male and female genitalia.
Aliases: hermaphrodite
Implies: futa
Detailed description: NULL
Implied by: herm on female, male hermfuta
Short description: Beings with feminine characteristics and penises, including hermaphrodites
Aliases: futanari
Implies: NULL
Detailed description: NULL
Implied by: duo futa, female on futa, fmilf, full package futa, futa abacus cinch, futa adagio dazzle, futa aloe, futa apple bloom, futa applejack, futa aria blaze, futa arizona cow, futa babs seed, futa barb, futa berry punch, futa bigger than male, futa bon bon, futa carrot top, futa cheerilee, futa cherry jubilee, futa cloudchaser, futa coco pommel, futa colgate, futa coloratura, futa cup cake, futa cutie mark crusaders, futa daring do, futa derpy hooves, futa diamond tiara, futa dinky hooves, futa edit, futa eris, futa filly on filly, futa filly on human female, futa fleur-de-lis, futa flitter, futa flutterbat, futa fluttershy, futa focus, futa gabby, futa gilda, futa granny smith, futa human on stallion, futa indigo zap, futa lightning dust, futa limestone pie, futa little strongheart, futa lotus blossom, futa lyra heartstrings, futa mane six, futa mane-iac, futa marble pie, futa maud pie, futa mayor mare, futa moondancer, futa ms. harshwhinny, futa ms. peachbottom, futa nightmare moon, futa nightmare rarity, futa nightmare star, futa nurse redheart, futa oc:button’s mother, futa oc:milky way, futa octavia melody, futa on colt, futa on cuntboy, futa on female, futa on filly, futa on futa, futa on futa frottage, futa on human female, futa on male, futa only, futa pinkamena diane pie, futa pinkie pie, futa pony on human female, futa pony on human male, futa pov, futa princess cadance, futa princess celestia, futa princess ember, futa princess flurry heart, futa princess luna, futa queen chrysalis, futa rainbow dash, futa rarity, futa ruby pinch, futa sapphire shores, futa scootaloo, futa silver spoon, futa sonata dusk, futa sour sweet, futa spitfire, futa starlight glimmer, futa sugarcoat, futa sunset shimmer, futa sweetie belle, futa tree hugger, futa trixie, futa twilight sparkle, futa twilight velvet, futa twist, futa velvet reindeer, futa vinyl scratch, futa zecora, futadom, futaria, futas only, herm, herm on female, human futa on stallion, male herm, male on futa, oc:futashy, shemale, solo futa, stallion on futa filly, tentacles on futaLet’s take what appear to be your two different proposals for changing these tags.First, here is your original proposed change to the definitions:Futa : A character that has a feminine body, uses female pronouns, but has a penisHermaphrodite: A character containing both a penis, and a vagina, typically uses more feminine pronouns and body typeMale Herm: A character containing both a penis and a vagina, uses masculine pronouns and has a masculine body typeSorry to repeat myself, but you never answered my questions about your original proposal, and instead defended that they were necessary.How do you propose that the community would determine the pronoun preference for a character?As an example, what is the “pronoun preference” for Banana Stem?Without knowing, we can not assign a tag using your definitions, because that characters personal preferences are an independent variable. The characters “preferences” are not something that can be determined by looking - it would have to involve some mechanism for interviewing the character, which doesn’t exist.Your earlier answer only defended the need for a change. You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll answer it for you.We can not do that. It is not possible for community taggers to know what the pronoun preferences are for a cartoon character.We are trying to create tag definitions that can be applied without knowing the backstory or head canon of the artist. But from your proposal it seems that you want people to “know” the “actual status” of the gender and pronoun choices of cartoon characters, but every person who looks at the character will have their own interpretation of what those might be.For individuals for whom these characters are their “ponysonna”, that makes sense - they closely and personally identify with those characters, so their own definitions are not only about those characters, but about themselves.Granted, that makes sense.But that is not a basis for community tagging.So that reduces your original proposed change to:Futa : A character that has a feminine body but has a penisHermaphrodite: A character containing both a penis and a vaginaMale Herm: A character containing both a penis and a vaginaI don’t believe that is an improvement over the existing definitions.Your more recent proposal appears to be this - please correct me if I’m wrong - trying to figure out what you think the description should be based on statements about what the tags should not be is not straight forward:herm
Existing Short Description: Beings with both male and female genitalia.
Your Proposed description: (no change? I think?)futa
Existing Short Description: Beings with feminine characteristics and penises, including hermaphrodites
Your Proposed Description: If a character looks like female, and the only difference is, that this character has penis instead of vagina - does not include hermaphrodites who have both a vagina and a penis but who do not display feminine traits, and does not include characters with feminine traits who do not have female genitals.Did I get that right? Is that even close?This is where I start talking about actionable changes again - rather than just arguing that the current definition is wrong, you need to present what you think the new definition should be.Right now it seems that what you are proposing might be as simple as:Change the short description of Futa to: Hermaphrodites with female characteristics and a penis but no vaginaBut - if a character doesn’t have a vagina then how is it Futanari? Isn’t a Hermaphrodite without a vagina a boy?I’m still in the “The existing proposals in this thread haven’t laid out a better set of definitions” so I vote no, but at the same time we haven’t actually seen a proposed change.I think part of the problem I’m having figuring out what you think the new descriptions should be is that these two clauses seem mutually exclusive:
- If a character is a hermaphrodite, but lacks other female traits (other than genitals), it is not futa (male herms)
- But if a character looks like female, and the only difference is, that this character has penis instead of vagina, it is futa (shemales)
Instead of saying what you think the descriptions should NOT be, please try just writing out what you think the descriptions should be.herm
Proposed short description:
Proposed long description:
Proposed aliases:
Proposed implications:futa
Proposed short description:
Proposed long description:
Proposed aliases:
Proposed implications:
The main point of those defenitions is for the uploader of the immage/owner of the character to let people know the proper ways to view them. By the current defenition any efeminate male, or masculine female character is futa as they fit the defenition of the term, however, they are not tagged as such based on the gender identifire put in with male/female. The same should be done with the male-herm and herm tags, herm could imply futa, sure, male herm does not as again, it boils down to genitals, not characteristics.
If say, for my character, you couldn’t see the bits that were there, they would be considered fully male, and speak/act/refer to them self in such a manner, that is why the ‘male herm’ tag is used, to denote that, while, yes, they do have both sets of genitals, they DO NOT exhibit female characteristics.
Again, equipment down stairs is not the same as characteristics. Characteristics are a mix of build and behaviors. And you continually post a character that’s intentionally designed to be androgynous while you don’t seem to be listening to what people are actually saying, instead of glossing it over as ‘oh your not saying why’ when it has been said why.
The tag isn’t properly applicable and is to vague, not to mention, again, we don’t need to have an umbrella term, for an umbrella term, one doesn’t hold an umbrella up to keep another umbrella dry after all, it doesn’t make sense.
Zeb 
This would be largely impractical, as there are many artist’s whose works are uploaded to Derpibooru by others. Many who even never use Derpibooru themselves.
And asking them to identify the proper terminology for each individual image of different OCs or canon characters would involve constantly contacting the artist.
And just the uploader would not be able to set such definitions, as many artists have their works uploaded by many different individuals. So you would have different people applying different tags to the same characters. That is one of the reasons for the umbrella tag “futa”.
“Characteristics” refers only to the physical traits.
So a male just appearing to be female, [A “trap” as is otherwise known] Does not have female genitalia.
And the same holds in reverse. A simply masculin looking female, [“Reverse trap”] Is not considered to be futanari if they contain no male genetalia.
This seems like a contradiction.
Saying that “herm”, a character containing both genitals, could imply futa. But then a “male herm”, a character who contains both genitals, should not imply futa.
The vagina would be considered a female characteristic.
If the issue is having to do with the tag definition containing the word “characteristics” then that can be changed. “Characteristics” is just used to indicate the presence of both male and female body parts.
Yes. It is vague. That is the purpose of the tag.
Herm applies specifically to characters with both sets of genitalia, while futa covers both that, and the images of females with a penis.
And as has been said: Altering the application of Futa now would mean affecting the tags of 2,482 images.
And will affect the filters and watchlists of several thousand users:
2,984 Users who Hide it will no longer have 2,482 images hidden.
494 Users who Spoiler it will no longer have 2,482 images spoilered.
And 3,286 Users who Watch the tag will no longer have those kinds of images show up on their watchlists.
Tag-Bot
The main point of those defenitions is for the uploader of the immage/owner of the character to let people know the proper ways to view them.
This would be largely impractical, as there are many artist’s whose works are uploaded to Derpibooru by others. Many who even never use Derpibooru themselves.
And asking them to identify the proper terminology for each individual image of different OCs or canon characters would involve constantly contacting the artist.
And just the uploader would not be able to set such definitions, as many artists have their works uploaded by many different individuals. So you would have different people applying different tags to the same characters. That is one of the reasons for the umbrella tag “futa”.
By the current defenition any efeminate male, or masculine female character is futa as they fit the defenition of the term,
“Characteristics” refers only to the physical traits.
So a male just appearing to be female, [A “trap” as is otherwise known] Does not have female genitalia.
And the same holds in reverse. A simply masculin looking female, [“Reverse trap”] Is not considered to be futanari if they contain no male genetalia.
herm could imply futa, sure, male herm does not as again, it boils down to genitals, not characteristics.
This seems like a contradiction.
Saying that “herm”, a character containing both genitals, could imply futa. But then a “male herm”, a character who contains both genitals, should not imply futa.
they do have both sets of genitals, they DO NOT exhibit female characteristics.
The vagina would be considered a female characteristic.
Again, equipment down stairs is not the same as characteristics. Characteristics are a mix of build and behaviors.
If the issue is having to do with the tag definition containing the word “characteristics” then that can be changed. “Characteristics” is just used to indicate the presence of both male and female body parts.
The tag isn’t properly applicable and is to vague, not to mention, again, we don’t need to have an umbrella term, for an umbrella term, one doesn’t hold an umbrella up to keep another umbrella dry after all, it doesn’t make sense.
Yes. It is vague. That is the purpose of the tag.
Herm applies specifically to characters with both sets of genitalia, while futa covers both that, and the images of females with a penis.
And as has been said: Altering the application of Futa now would mean affecting the tags of 2,482 images.
And will affect the filters and watchlists of several thousand users:
2,984 Users who Hide it will no longer have 2,482 images hidden.
494 Users who Spoiler it will no longer have 2,482 images spoilered.
And 3,286 Users who Watch the tag will no longer have those kinds of images show up on their watchlists.
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!