hoohttp://www.dlsite.com/maniax/work/=/product_id/RJ01059713.html

That's a shemale, not a tomgirl/futanari.

* "Ojousama-chan"
* Has breasts
* Girl's clothes
* Dick and balls, no vag (= no true futanari)
* Nothing in the story nor the DLSite tags/description describes her as a boy.

Base +9, Fanservicefan +22, BowlingTree +7, Slapdown3 -6, Cabara +6, balaclava +6, LAN5996 -6, ikisugi114514 -6, NewhalfIsMale +10, Lilisionnach +6, Dark Mac -12, stuffandthingsiguess -5, Dein Gott -6, and 2 more...

I mean, it literally says futanari in the title.

Base +6, LAN5996 +6, Lorde Doome +6, XHipster +6, DunkinDNuts +8, balaclava +6, Dark Mac +12, stuffandthingsiguess +5, yourmom777 +6, Dein Gott +6, 三千西瓜suika +6, shadowgrail +7, schhhh39 +4, and 1 more...

it's futanari, the author literally only does futanari and has never made a shemale character.
the title says futanari
the description on the DLsite says futanari, the author tags her as a loli
he literally tags it in the genre as "フタナリ" which is futanari in katakana.

Base +6, schhhh39 +4, LAN5996 +6

Futanari is a somewhat mythical designation that's supposed to be distinct from non-mythical shemales, despite the fact that they could be visually indistinguishable. While it is correct to call these characters futas based on the author's intentions, the tags on this site actually have definitions that are inconsistent with this author's usage of the term.

Basically vagina = futanari and no vagina = shemale. If everyone would use the tags in a consistent manner, regardless of their convictions, then the tags would be more useful. https://elii.cc/sobmgz

Well I don't know. I guess I could be wrong if the tag definitions don't represent how most people search for futa. Maybe futas really shouldn't be defined by physical features. It's all kind of absurd..

Base +6