It's a shame that people turn callous over profiles of other members showing up. It tells me that we are valuing consumerism over the community in general. Members who are not in the binary mold deserve to be recognized, and filtering out based on nebulous and poorly defined categories seems to be an incursion of the harshness that we are attempting to cuddle away from. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to have some of their preferences catered to in a positive sense, but we need to be careful of tools that exclude, in order to promote an inclusive environment in our community.
@Sideon Thanks, that thread is what I was saying is what I thought was not the best way to report issues (considering it's dozens of pages long, inevitably contains stale comments, gets bumped to the homepage, and allows anyone to add whatever statement to it regardless of whether if it's describing an issue or whatever), but if that's the preferred way for admins and mods to see new issues, OK, I'll post there next time. It also seems like it wouldn't stop a pile-on of accusations back and forth like I've seen on forum posts pointing out issues (especially from certain people who seem to love making accusations, passive-aggressive or not).
On most sites, there's a separate ticket list, that doesn't just show for everybody on the homepage whether they even normally use the forums or not, but I guess the point is to have everyone see the latest issue pointed out...? If they can even find it tracing back through comment outrage by people who can't see just stark logic through hyper-reactive emotion? 😆
A lot of people jump to negative conclusions when they see anything related to the latest sacred cows being even tangentially pointed out as being problematic (like contradictory "gender" specifications bunging up a filter), so I don't necessarily think that the masses is the best place to toss out all ideas.
Anyway, I didn't make my point multiple times, I clarified it for those that seemed to misunderstand or miss nuance that I thought I didn't have to point out. I don't know what else to add to it, and I'm not gonna read all the comments when I see a certain amount of negative-conclusion jumping happening, because a lot of people just love doing it while having a low-res understanding of the points being made.
Also, replying to that thread... would that have caused more nuanced and understanding commentary to the issue I pointed out? I don't know, it has about the same visibility...
Regardless, for the rest of you, I found a way to just clarify simply: "non-gender doesn't include female, bi-gender includes female", so they're contradictory, and the filter should understand the intent of a user setting Female as their preference.
I try to be helpful, but when people don't read the explanations I try to make as simple as possible....
• You can't search for "non-gender." The term is "agender."
• "Nonbinary" is not the same thing as "agender," and does include people who are sometimes women (genderfluid) or partly women (bigender) or maybe both (genderqueer).
• You can't search for "female."
• You can search for "cis woman," but some cis women are intersex (and they won't necessarily have that listed).
Even if you could search "non-gender," that's a gender term not a sex term. Some people without a gender (agender people) have female bodies.
Non-gender includes female.
There are problems with the search function, but this isn't one of them.