 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
We have what I jokingly call The Three Genders (cis men, cis women, transfeminine people who are all lumped in with crossdressers and transvestites)
I would suggest that as well as what we have now, we add
X [In-betweenie/non-binary/anyrhing that isn't a neat 100% Male or Female]
FX [Female & non-binary]
MX [Male & non-binary
XX [Two non-binary]
Trans woman
Trans man
However , I am also aware that this site has to cater to users of all political alliances so I am wary as to whether this would make things potentially more dangerous for those who aren't cis.
P. S. Crossdressing/transvestism does not automatically mean one is a trans woman or a trans man
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
An often asked question, and as a TS myself, I’m torn on how best this could be done.
I think If anythung, keeping it to two would be best and easiest to administer. Maybe CD/TV as one category and TS/TG as the other. I think multiples would become hard to track and a site nightmare.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *esley_CTV/TS
over a year ago
Edinburgh |
"An often asked question, and as a TS myself, I’m torn on how best this could be done.
I think If anythung, keeping it to two would be best and easiest to administer. Maybe CD/TV as one category and TS/TG as the other. I think multiples would become hard to track and a site nightmare.
"
The thing is - a lot of us would fall between those two categories and it would cause a bit of anguish trying to decide which to use... At the moment there is just the one, albeit very broad, category and people are able to make it clear on their profiles where they lie on the spectrum. We either have to stick with what we've got - or introduce a whole list of categories - which, incidentally, people could abuse anyway - so what's the point? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
