Do you really mean “gender”? Bc for the viewer it might not important if someone is pangender, non-binary, etc. What might be more of interest is their sex, i.e. their plumbing.
I don’t disagree with you, but I’d be curious how you would easily tag such posts? And I mean that in that nicest way and with full respect. Because (to be blunt) I think it boils down to most people wanting an idea of what’s behind Schrodinger’s blur.
Maybe you could workshop some suggestions for the mods and try to get them in the sidebar or something?
He just wanted to be an ass.
But the idea (coming from reddit) is easy to do, just add [F], [M], [T] or whatever to the post so everyone knows what to expect.
Altough I’d go beyond that and just split the communities to make them specific (since there’s no way to hide posts that we don’t care about without blocking an entire community).
It’s also something I’m considering ! There would be a bit less content but we could keep this sub for [f] only and create a [m] only sub for filtering purposes, [t] I suppose would be welcome in the community they identify with.
But that would maybe be a bit less inclusive, I don’t know
Please do split them, I would also ask that T also be split out into at least one community (Tf and Tm maybe?) - that way anyone can subscribe to a more precise set of who they want to see naked.
I don’t think it will be a problem that posting frequency could be lower for some of them as long as each of the communities has prominent links to the others.
That would put the work of crossposting on the submitters, and I think they are unlikely to bother doing so. (Unless !gonewild Only accepts crossposts from the specific communities, then it could work)
I mean… Let’s be real, it’s not really about being inclusive or exclusive, it’s just about people being able to decided what they want to watch.
Also this would make posts less prone to be downvoted just because it’s not what someone wants to see (just like what happened in Reddit and what keeps happening here).
Be a bit more cautious with your assumptions, good sir. People can hold worthwhile ideas different from yours and express them in good faith in ways you’re not familiar with, or be a bit clumsy with their language and make you get an idea they didn’t intend.
I see mixed opinions in this thread and I’d like to understand what you think… Would someone be interested to explain where they disagree? Maybe because you feel that people are dismissing gender identity as less important than sex features?
Given the confusion, maybe the mods would be willing to clarify the sidebar text to make it less ambiguous.
I agree that the sex features are more important in this context, but gender also has this double meaning, according to
Cambridge Dictionary: “used to refer to the condition of being physically male, female, or intersex (= having a body that has both male and female characteristics)”
Merriam-Webster, which also has a usage guide for sex/gender (in nonmedical and nontechnical contexts, there is no clear delineation, and the status of the words remains complicated)
Do you really mean “gender”? Bc for the viewer it might not important if someone is pangender, non-binary, etc. What might be more of interest is their sex, i.e. their plumbing.
What do you think?
I think “gender” in this context means what equipment their body currently has.
I don’t disagree with you, but I’d be curious how you would easily tag such posts? And I mean that in that nicest way and with full respect. Because (to be blunt) I think it boils down to most people wanting an idea of what’s behind Schrodinger’s blur.
Maybe you could workshop some suggestions for the mods and try to get them in the sidebar or something?
He just wanted to be an ass.
But the idea (coming from reddit) is easy to do, just add [F], [M], [T] or whatever to the post so everyone knows what to expect.
Altough I’d go beyond that and just split the communities to make them specific (since there’s no way to hide posts that we don’t care about without blocking an entire community).
It’s also something I’m considering ! There would be a bit less content but we could keep this sub for [f] only and create a [m] only sub for filtering purposes, [t] I suppose would be welcome in the community they identify with.
But that would maybe be a bit less inclusive, I don’t know
Please do split them, I would also ask that T also be split out into at least one community (Tf and Tm maybe?) - that way anyone can subscribe to a more precise set of who they want to see naked.
I don’t think it will be a problem that posting frequency could be lower for some of them as long as each of the communities has prominent links to the others.
Agreed specially on the last part, quality over quantity is always better.
Noted, I’ll do that this week!
Maybe a better option would be to leave !gonewild open to all, then create specific spaces for those who do want to limit what they see.
That would put the work of crossposting on the submitters, and I think they are unlikely to bother doing so. (Unless !gonewild Only accepts crossposts from the specific communities, then it could work)
I mean… Let’s be real, it’s not really about being inclusive or exclusive, it’s just about people being able to decided what they want to watch. Also this would make posts less prone to be downvoted just because it’s not what someone wants to see (just like what happened in Reddit and what keeps happening here).
Be a bit more cautious with your assumptions, good sir. People can hold worthwhile ideas different from yours and express them in good faith in ways you’re not familiar with, or be a bit clumsy with their language and make you get an idea they didn’t intend.
I see mixed opinions in this thread and I’d like to understand what you think… Would someone be interested to explain where they disagree? Maybe because you feel that people are dismissing gender identity as less important than sex features?
deleted by creator
Given the confusion, maybe the mods would be willing to clarify the sidebar text to make it less ambiguous.
I agree that the sex features are more important in this context, but gender also has this double meaning, according to