Topic: Tag Implication: maleherm/ambiguous -> intersex/ambiguous

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

+1

?/mh

and mh/? are also not aliased to maleherm/ambiguous unlike all the other paring shortcuts.
ambiguous/maleherm should get aliased to maleherm/ambiguous as well

Updated by anonymous

animperfectpatsy said:
Should it instead imply herm/ambiguous to be in line with the existing maleherm -> herm implication?

Maybe? I put it here because tags like maleherm/female, maleherm/male, smaller maleherm, and maleherm penetrating imply the intersex version of the tag (intersex/female, intersex/male, smaller intersex, intersex penetrating) and not the herm version (herm/female, herm/male, smaller herm, herm penetrating).

Updated by anonymous

Genjar

Former Staff

klorpa said:
Maybe? I put it here because tags like maleherm/female, maleherm/male, smaller maleherm, and maleherm penetrating imply the intersex version of the tag (intersex/female, intersex/male, smaller intersex, intersex penetrating) and not the herm version (herm/female, herm/male, smaller herm, herm penetrating).

Maleherm itself implies herm, so something's definitely off with those. They should all follow the same standard: all either implicated through herm, or none.

Updated by anonymous