@autistikai also seems bothersome that exclusion of masculinity still indicates feminity, even in our community? like there are so many different types of id's that reject both? i think masc and femme are good terms and useful, but the way they end up getting pushed as a sort of secondary, softer binary is weird

@myconidiosyncracy personally fond of the stag/fox/swan division for this, but it's not very well-known and still only has so much room for not-a-binary-gender-presentation

@autistikai it is a very cool scale and also yet more evidence that all gays are furries. but yeah figuring out language that suits everyone is mad difficult cause.... there just isn't? but having language to express stuff is important?? and idk how to feel about that frustration

@myconidiosyncracy well, as you may have seen, some of us express that frustration by making up words for it. which then means there's a zillion words for it and nobody has a common basis of language, but y'know

@myconidiosyncracy @autistikai we'd have thought that there would be at least a staunchly middle-ground androgynous, but everything about that is already assimilated into the concepts of masculine and feminine by virtue of them being the accepted binary.

@violet @myconidiosyncracy futch scale sorta comes into play here, but that runs into issues because of the tendency to associate the terminology specifically with lesbians to the exclusion of the actual plethora of queer identities that use them