I'm going to go ahead and guess no variation on the rule handles cases where other people really don't want to do unto you what you'd be really happy having them do unto you and really want to do unto them.
And I'm going to say, given type, and such differences as say between Fe and Fi, or even between S-mediated Fe and the N-mediated, we all end up equally screwed. Because, unless one system of "good action" just is inherently better than another, then every side has to compromise some of their values. If, that is, we're supposing there must be a Golden Rule of some sort, one rule to ring them all.
And doesn't it feel really, really bizarre to maybe have to say that there's a bunch of well-formed, well-functioning, basically different value systems walking around out there, and things that you think really just are good and proper, well, they aren't, except for you and people like you?
Feels wrong. Whether it's particularly cultural or not, morality--or maybe just the mainstream Western ethical traditions--have, I suppose since at least the Christians and Kant, included the idea that you test your moral ideals by seeing if they can be generalised.
Maybe that idea's wrong.