Inconsistency with footjob-related tags implications and recipient's sex

Based on the Wiki, my understanding is that footjob is to be used when performed on male genitalia, while female_footjob when performed on female genitalia.
This results in a dilemma when applying other footjob-related tags such as cooperative_footjob and two-footed_footjob are implicated to footjob - if it's performed on female genitalia, we end with the the incorrect implication of footjob.
As such, should:

• the definition of footjob be changed to ignore the sex of the recipient, and implicate all footjob-related tags to footjob along with implicating female_footjob to footjob, or
• new tags such as cooperative_female_footjob and two-footed_female_footjob be created and implicate female_footjob, and then existing tags such as mutual_footjob and footjob_under_table etc be implicated to footjob while creating separate tags such as mutual_female_footjob etc and female_footjob_under_table that are implicated to female_footjob, or
• just accept that the footjob-related tags are all inconsistent in how they treat the recipient's sex, or
• Any better suggestion I didn't think of?

I'd say go with the second option, considering that (male) footjobs are much more common than female footjobs. In fact, my little peanut brain struggles to comprehend how a cooperative female footjob would even work, for example, but I also don't seek these things out very often.