Hello all,

Recently, I noticed there is some inconsistency in what shortcuts for sex/sex tags there are. Some of them are trivial, and unlikely to be used - no one is going to use c/am if they are not going to type am/am or andromorph/andromorph (Same goes for gynomorph). It is slightly more likely they will type c/gm - but still unlikely.

Most of the rest involve the various short forms of ambiguous_gender - those being ? and a - several of these are missing. A weird one is that c/a exists but not a/c (likely due Air Conditioning). (a/? and ?/a do not exist - but as I said above - they are unlikely to be used)

There are also short names that only are used for a few tags - namely, ag (Ambiguous_Gender) and fm (FeMale) - each of these is only used with andromorph and gynomorph. The most notable missing short tags are with ambiguous_gender's interactions with maleherm, andromorph, gynomorph.

I would also like to note that tags like i/mh do not exist - because intersex/maleherm does not exist either - the exception being i/i

All of this is only considering the sex/sex aliases, not even any of the short m_on_m, girl/girl, hh, ambiguous_x_ambiguous, maleherm_on_maleherm, gynomorph_gynomorph, andromorphXandromorph, or any of the other formats that people may use.

I would like to hear the community's thoughts on if and what aliases should be made. Is what we have now enough? These combination tags get messy fast!

would anyone be objections to changing a to mean andromorph for these in general? we already use a alone in the xty_transformation tags and such. it seems a little odd to have that inconsistency, but I can understand not wanting to change a tag that's existed since before the gender tagnames chage, but, I dunno.

sipothac said:
would anyone be objections to changing a to mean andromorph for these in general?

I do think that making a->andromorph and g->gynomorph would make sense. Not sure if that will happen though. I also think, personally, that ag is better for ambiguous - using ? is nice though.