Implicating maleherm/ambiguous → intersex/ambiguous
Link to implication

Reason:

Only remaining “x/ambiguous” tag.

EDIT: The tag implication maleherm/ambiguous -> intersex/ambiguous (forum #263454) has been approved by @gattonero2001.

+1

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

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

maleherm/male -I-\> herm/male
maleherm/female -I-\> herm/female
maleherm/dickgirl -I-\> herm/dickgirl
maleherm/cuntboy -I-\> herm/cuntboy
maleherm/maleherm -I-\> herm/herm
maleherm/herm -I-\> herm/herm

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).

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.

The tag implication maleherm/ambiguous -> intersex/ambiguous (forum #263454) has been approved by @gattonero2001.