Does anyone else feel like this and the other two similar posts are done by Chikahii? Compare the style with something like post #1104572

why is this tagged with "newhalf", there is nothing visable or anything on the source announcing that it is newhalf, from what i can see inside the panties is either a very small pair of testicles or one of those "fatmons", you know the slightly bulged out pubic area. for now i will label from what i can see and what i think is there.

b00m said:

why is this tagged with "newhalf", there is nothing visable or anything on the source announcing that it is newhalf, from what i can see inside the panties is either a very small pair of testicles or one of those "fatmons", you know the slightly bulged out pubic area. for now i will label from what i can see and what i think is there.

Pixiv title & tags include ニューハーフ (transsexual newhalf), not 双成り (futanari).

Kikimaru said:

Pixiv title & tags include ニューハーフ (transsexual), not 双成り (futanari).

hmm... either i missed that or im blind, oh well personally it dose not LOOK shemale/newhalf. that must just be a VERRY tiny pair of balls?

b00m said:

hmm... either i missed that or im blind, oh well personally it dose not LOOK shemale/newhalf. that must just be a VERRY tiny pair of balls?

Well in real life, HRT can cause shrinkage down there, so...

The rule is "tag what you see", so I'd say futanari applies here too. IIRC newhalf should be used only when you can clearly see there's no vagina, but I'm not sure so I'll leave it there.