@regines_radsalon I think I'll change to "trans discriminating". This hits the nail. Thank you.

@admin I would then rather go for any gender, like gender discriminating. Which in the end can as well be sexism (which already is discrimination because of gender).

@admin (Just my thoughts though, I am fine with trans discriminating as well.)

@regines_radsalon @admin IMHO trans discriminating is more specific and therefore conveys the message more effectively. That said, clarifying that trans discrimination is indeed gender discrimination is probably a good thing, too.

@daihard @admin In that case all other genders and sexual preferences should be named as well. This might get out of hand and cause discussions. Which is why I personally would go with "no sexism (discrimination or exclusion of any gender or sexual preference)".

Mind we that gender is fluid and can be anything.

@regines_radsalon @admin I see your point. My only worry is that "no sexism" or "no discrimination of any gender or sexual preference" may not be enough to get people to understand that it includes trans people.

@daihard @admin Am with you - it might be helpful to have clear borders between "making visible", "having a practical rule that can be enforced" and "clear inclusive language".

In the case here I am more with the goal of a language that enables efficient moderation without causing too much of unecessary discussion. But that in the and is up to the admins.

Would be nioce though to have rules that not only make trans more visible but all genders.

@daihard @admin We might get into a visibility-competition here, because I personally see intersex and asexual people even less visible than trans people. So if the decision is to make trans visible, intersex should definitely be on the list first.

As well lesbians are not recognized as third gender but do define as that since decades. So they should definitely be mentioned and explicitly BOTH as sexual prefernce AND gender.

@daihard @admin And I am sure there will be a lot more of good arguments for genders we don't even know about.

I already had a lot of discussions where people felt excluded because they were not named explicitly - which is reasonable ... idk honestly. We're just at the beginning of this and all in all I am with you in wanting more visibility ...

@daihard @admin To bring this topic to a more practical level: is there anything we can do to be more inviting to all genders and encourage them to come out and show? I would very much appreciate that every body can show themselves and speak for themselves. Not only regarding gender ...

@daihard @admin (Sorry for the lot of text - would have liked to keep it shorter ...)

@regines_radsalon @daihard Sorry for the late response. I totally get your point on the cognitive level, but I am not able to put it down to spoken/written language myself. So if you have ideas: Please tell me.

Yes, it's funny that someone incapable of properly expressing himself is writing technical documentation and even has an Amazon author page. …

@regines_radsalon @daihard … I am thinking in pictures and graphs and Venn diagrams and trees and only translate this to "natural" language (a #dyspraxia and #autism thing). So please let's work together on a better expression of our values on the terms and servives.

@admin I am thankful for all the energy you put in this plattform. If I can help with anything I am happy to do so.

DMs are open, mail is reden@regines-radsalon.de.

I am not sure about your priorities or next steps so feel free to ping me whenever I might contribute.