State of the Newhalf/Futanari Relation?

@NWF_Renim: The user is incorrectly using the newhalf tag,...

2014-11-29T18:54:32-05:00

The user is incorrectly using the newhalf tag, as they're treating the tag as being the same as futanari testicles. When newhalf is fairly similar to full-package_futanari in that it does require confirmation on the presence of female gentials, in this case the confirmation of the absence of them (either by visual confirmation or character background knowledge). Futanari is more common, and so if the presence of a vulva can't be confirmed, it should be assumed that it is there and that the character is a futanari.

@Lynx190: I just noticed today that one user has tagged...

2014-11-29T18:24:16-05:00

I just noticed today that one user has tagged every futa + testicles image as newhalf when the presence/absence of a vulva can't be confirmed. Is this really how it's supposed to work? I thought it was supposed to be either futanari OR newhalf with the latter only applying if there was visibly no vulva.

I've also noticed a number of slipups involving tagging full-package_futanari that generally get corrected (I had to correct my own mistagging after I read the wiki for it); I'm pretty sure most people think of "full-package" as simply meaning "futa with balls" and take the female part for granted.

@NWF_Renim: > Log said: > > Does word of god count here?...

2014-07-16T18:11:06-04:00

Log said:

Does word of god count here? It does in most places but I figured I would confirm since this thread is already here. post #748084 currently conflicts.

I'd say yes, with an exception. The exception being with the use of futanari. If the image very clearly shows the character lacks a vulva, then even if the artist tagged it with futanari, it should still be tagged newhalf.

@Log: Does word of god count here? It does in most...

2014-07-16T17:01:21-04:00

Does word of god count here? It does in most places but I figured I would confirm since this thread is already here. post #748084 currently conflicts.

@lkjh098: > NWF_Renim said: > > * The newhalf tag should...

2014-07-13T03:10:19-04:00

NWF_Renim said:

The newhalf tag should be treated like other genders/sexes, which is something by default based on foreknowledge of the character and then falls back on tagging as it appears if lacking that.

The newhalf tag should be associated as a being "male" as in the sex, not necessarily the tag.

This would mean that newhalf characters should be put under the appropriate sex tags, most specifically they should count toward the #boys tags and not the #girls tags.

Agreed.

NWF_Renim said:

The futanari tag is more associated with being "female," especially as it counts towards the #girls tags, which is part of the reason I don't think newhalf belongs under the futanari labelling.

I don't think the count-as-boys vs count-as-girls thing is a huge obstacle to putting newhalf under futa, but - I was going to give some reasons for doing it that way but realized that all of them would be handled just as well by creating an "intersex" tag and implicating both newhalf and futa to it. That would also make changing futa_with_* to intersex_with_* make more sense.

NWF_Renim said:

Newhalf's visual defining characters for an unknown should be: breasts + penis + confirmation of no vulva + female-form (if it had a male-form I'd think it would fall under something else).

Was going to include testicles like Hillside Moose said, but I think there is room for depictions where the testicles are missing, so I think confirmation of no vulva is more important than the confirmation of testicles.

Agreed.

@NWF_Renim: > lkjh098 said: > > Questions: > > Given an...

2014-07-13T01:19:14-04:00

lkjh098 said:

Questions:

Given an unknown or original character which clearly has breasts and a penis, but presence or absence of a vagina is not obvious, should it be tagged newhalf or futanari or both?

My train of thought is if a character is known of a specific gender, you'd then tag them as that, unless the artist states otherwise or the image very clearly shows something in opposition to the history of the character. If the character lacks a history, as in your example with an unknown or original, then default to tag as you see it. Futanari is more common than newhalf, so the assumption would normally be the character is a futanari until proven otherwise, at least imo.

lkjh098 said:

Questions:

If later on knowledge indicates that the character is in fact newhalf, does that mean the futanari tag should be removed if present?

I'd say yes, as that is simply correcting the information on the character, much like with the character Kusunoki Yukimura where the character was initially presented as a trap, but then was revealed to be a girl who simply claims she's a trap. That would be a huge hassle to try and avoid that spoiler (and the anime didn't really give a crap about it) so we went back and corrected any tags by removing the trap tag from her images and placing on any #girls tags that were appropriate.

Figured I'd try and list out my current opinion, since I'm clearly making it seem like a big deal on things I honestly don't have an issue with and with me being stupid about it and making it seem like its part of my main stance. I also offer my sincere apologizes for going off on things that are not my primary focus on the matter.

My main stance:

The newhalf tag should be treated like other genders/sexes, which is something by default based on foreknowledge of the character and then falls back on tagging as it appears if lacking that.
The newhalf tag should be associated as a being "male" as in the sex, not necessarily the tag.

This would mean that newhalf characters should be put under the appropriate sex tags, most specifically they should count toward the #boys tags and not the #girls tags.
The futanari tag is more associated with being "female," especially as it counts towards the #girls tags, which is part of the reason I don't think newhalf belongs under the futanari labelling.

Newhalf's visual defining characters for an unknown should be: breasts + penis + confirmation of no vulva + female-form (if it had a male-form I'd think it would fall under something else).

Was going to include testicles like Hillside Moose said, but I think there is room for depictions where the testicles are missing, so I think confirmation of no vulva is more important than the confirmation of testicles.

Mostly things I've made too much noise about even if that shouldn't be my intent:

Features that visually define newhalf have a large overlap with what can possibly appear under the trap/otoko_no_ko tag, with typically only the size of the character's breasts being right now the only major difference.

The trap tag is frequently used alongside the male tag, it may be worthwhile to consider relooking at how the male tag is used and whether it should be used as heavily as it is on trap characters.
If newhalf is treated like other genders/sexes, and can be tagged based on foreknowledge of the character, then the breast scale difference may not necessarily remain in the future, thus blurring potential visual differences even more between trap and newhalf.

Given the male tag being applied to traps regardless of these "features" and the seemingly sole defining characteristic being used to apply male appears to be foreknowledge on the character, it seems hard to argue that newhalf doesn't apply to the current usage of the male tag. How the male tag is used should potentially be reconsidered and perhaps definitionally changed to avoid this if necessary.

I shouldn't have suggested putting them under yaoi, though some examples I believe do exist under that tag. My primary purpose isn't to place them under this tag.

The proposed replacement of Futa_with_* with Intersex_with_* would likely resolve needing any newhalf_with_* tags, and with it remove likely any reason to try and lump newhalf under the yaoi tag.

Saduharta said:

[stuff]

It is likely best to usually assume a full MtF genderswap if lacking info, as it is the most common. An example of one tagged as such due to lacking info is post #1698369, there is also post #1713822 which also lacks info outside of the tag which is essentially "trap Kirito." That pixiv tag seems to be used to refer to Kirito (SAO-GGO) specifically though, and may not have any bearing on the depiction's sex.

For male characters usually seems to me to be in this order of transformation: Male to Female > Male to Female to Futanari > Male to Futanari > Male to Newhalf (most commonly depicted through drugs and surgery in stories)
For female characters it seem like this to me: Female to Futanari > Female to Male > Female to Newhalf (something like underdeveloped/loli females to shota genderswapping doesn't seem all that uncommon either).

@lkjh098: > Saduharta said: > > Assuming nothing else...

2014-07-13T00:13:24-04:00

Saduharta said:

Assuming nothing else changed besides what you see feels more right, but assuming they've fully changed feels simpler, so I suppose I don't quite know which is better atm.

I think the principle of least surprise applies here: when all else is equal pick the least surprising result. A genderswap is less surprising than a newhalf, so it should be preferred when there's no evidence either way.

@Saduharta: > lkjh098 said: > > I think that for canonical...

2014-07-12T21:15:24-04:00

lkjh098 said:

I think that for canonical trap characters depicted with clear breasts, genderswaps are more common than newhalf. For example a number of the tieria_erde with breasts pics I checked on pixiv were tagged as genderswaps by the artist or mentioned it in the commentary.

Technically, all the above examples are genderswaps, whether it's male->newhalf, male->futanari, or male->female. But yes; if the artist tags or posts in commentary the gender they're drawing the character as, that's another matter entirely. Always tag as the artist intended I should think.

I'm only saying for cases where we're not told the gender/equipment of the character who suddenly grew boobs. It just seems safer to me to assume only what we see has changed has changed, and nothing else.

EDIT; Though, come to think of it, one could just as well assume EVERYTHING has changed rather than nothing else just as easily. So if a trap suddenly springs breasts, assuming they're fully female now unless you can see their package. Assuming nothing else changed besides what you see feels more right, but assuming they've fully changed feels simpler, so I suppose I don't quite know which is better atm.

@lkjh098: I think that for canonical trap characters...

2014-07-12T20:48:43-04:00

I think that for canonical trap characters depicted with clear breasts, genderswaps are more common than newhalf. For example a number of the tieria_erde with breasts pics I checked on pixiv were tagged as genderswaps by the artist or mentioned it in the commentary.

@Saduharta: The Japanese really are fond of adding breasts...

2014-07-12T19:30:27-04:00

The Japanese really are fond of adding breasts to traps. Tieria_erde is one example, miyanokouji_mizuho has his share, and akizuki_ryou has his share of pics with breasts too. But then, what does that make them? Are they still traps, just traps with breasts? Or are they newhalfs? Or we count them as genderswaps like so often seems to be tagged?

Personally, I say;

known trap + breasts, can't see genitals = label as newhalf
known trap + breasts, can see only cock = label as newhalf
known trap + breasts, can see pussy & cock = label as futanari
known trap + breasts, can see only pussy = label as just genderswap since there's no female tag.

Point is, first take the known information on the character then change it based on what you see. This should be how things already work I'd think. I mean, if a known trap isn't dressed up as a girl and appears obviously male, would you still tag them as a trap? I would assume not.

@lkjh098: Questions: Given an unknown or original...

2014-07-12T19:17:43-04:00

Questions:

Given an unknown or original character which clearly has breasts and a penis, but presence or absence of a vagina is not obvious, should it be tagged newhalf or futanari or both?

If later on knowledge indicates that the character is in fact newhalf, does that mean the futanari tag should be removed if present?

@NWF_Renim: > Hillside_Moose said: > > Take a quick gander...

2014-07-12T18:10:06-04:00

Hillside_Moose said:

Take a quick gander at newhalf and see how many of them have large/huge breasts. Not even the most extreme trap have breasts, unless you're one of those insufferable canon taggers.

We forgetting about characters like Tieria Erde and the nice mess he's made between genderswap and trap?

Are you going by using the newhalf tag based on tagging by what you see or treating it as you would gender and tagging them character based on known information of the character? Because what I've been trying to push is that they are treated just like we'd treat male or female, in that we'd tag based on knowledge of the character, not based alone on visual cues (unless that is the only information available). The current population of the tag should be predominantly based on a tagging by visual cues approach, so I think that argument of using what is currently under the tag to be a poor argument.

@Hillside_Moose: Are you being deliberately obtuse now? Take a...

2014-07-12T17:54:43-04:00

Are you being deliberately obtuse now? Take a quick gander at newhalf and see how many of them have large/huge breasts. Not even the most extreme trap have breasts, unless you're one of those insufferable canon taggers.

@NWF_Renim: > Hillside_Moose said: > > I wasn't talking...

2014-07-12T17:44:32-04:00

Hillside_Moose said:

I wasn't talking about traps, I was talking about your suggestion to lump newhalfs into male, which is pure noise for no other reason than semantics.

And I was talking about how there isn't any real difference in features present in traps and newhalf (outside of degree for breasts), so what are you getting at? It's not noise if the features are those that are the same as those found in traps which are tagged male. You can remove the traps from the male tag if you want to also keep out the newhalfs, but including one and denying the other just seems like a line you can't draw given the overlap between newhalfs and traps.

@Hillside_Moose: I wasn't talking about traps, I was talking...

2014-07-12T17:42:56-04:00

I wasn't talking about traps, I was talking about your suggestion to lump newhalfs into male, which is pure noise for no other reason than semantics.

@NWF_Renim: > Hillside_Moose said: > > Males don't have...

2014-07-12T17:35:25-04:00

Hillside_Moose said:

Males don't have birthing hips and full-blown breasts needing a bra.

In real life, sure, but that has never stopped artists from doing whatever they've wanted (post #390306, post #427046, post #1363177, post #1318034). I don't have an example for the breasts, but I do recall a few times where in the comments it was questioned if the character wasn't female because of what appeared to be breasts (small though, but quite pronounced), but the artist clearly tagged those images with the trap tag.

@Hillside_Moose: Males don't have birthing hips and full-blown...

2014-07-12T17:19:00-04:00

Males don't have birthing hips and full-blown breasts needing a bra.

@NWF_Renim: > NeverGonnaGive said: > > As for newhalf...

2014-07-12T13:52:26-04:00

NeverGonnaGive said:

As for newhalf qualifying the male tag, I say no. Just as intersex characters don't qualify either yuri or yaoi, the presence of definably female bodily features should disqualify "newhalf"; I see these all as "defining the seen" rather than "defining the character's character". However, depending on the latter per character, I haven't a problem including "newhalf" in *boys/*girls counts, since those are more lenient (as proven in "futanari" inclusions...unless we'd really want to start a *intersex series alongside).

Well my primary focus when I was saying they're defined as male is more in reference to the usage of the #gender tags (there is no female tag, so the male tag has no counterpart unlike the #girls tags being counterpart to the #boys tags, so you can't place something under a "female" tag). As for the usage of the male tag itself, given that trap/otoko_no_ko characters can display a good amount of female secondary sex characteristics (body shape and even some level of breasts without padding), I find it hard to allow them to fall under the male tag and not allow newhalf to also qualify. If you're going to accept those characteristics for one, it's kind of silly imo to say its a no go for the other.

@NeverGonnaGive: Saduharta seems to reflect my viewpoint the...

2014-07-12T07:56:18-04:00

Saduharta seems to reflect my viewpoint the best, and if there is a viewer implication of "if futa, then female", I could support intersex becoming the umbrella tag, and futanari becoming a subset thereof (defined as "female features with vagina/vulva and penis and/or testicles", with the no_testicles qualifier and full-package_futanari sub-tag, though if the "futanari" tag is redefined, one or the other of these might become moot, or at least "no_testicles" becoming much more situational, such as for male characters). This would lead to replacing futa_with_* to intersex_with_*, as well.

As for newhalf qualifying the male tag, I say no. Just as intersex characters don't qualify either yuri or yaoi, the presence of definably female bodily features should disqualify "newhalf"; I see these all as "defining the seen" rather than "defining the character's character". However, depending on the latter per character, I haven't a problem including "newhalf" in *boys/*girls counts, since those are more lenient (as proven in "futanari" inclusions...unless we'd really want to start a *intersex series alongside).

@Hillside_Moose: newhalf as it's currently used is "tits + penis...

2014-07-12T00:08:23-04:00

newhalf as it's currently used is "tits + penis + testicles." Unless vagina, then full-package_futanari.