You can replace the left one with “comms about the bridge with operating thetans” and the right one with " comms about the bridge with pre-clear wogs"

I personally feel like people are trying to make gender into something more like a personality type system, or certainly much more than it is. While the level of detail is interesting to some extent I guess, having it all under the umbrella of gender seems unfitting. Especially considering how many of them are plainly descriptions of sexualities, with no obvious reason to call then genders instead. It’s also pretty clear that a majority of people don’t think what these genders describe are at all reflective of reality, a lot of them are spiritual/religious.

The current set is a very strange construct, and it’s obvious scrutiny is unwelcome with how ridiculous many of the listings are. Fluxstatic, for example: “…a combination of genderflux and genderstill; a more specific subset of genderflux that isn’t genderfluid. I.e. the label doesn’t change or only changes along the agender to surgender line for that gender but the intensity does fluctuate.”

Which is a blatantly insane way of trying to say “Sometimes you wear less girly clothes and don’t wear makeup and act less stereotypically girly.”, later using a battery analogy to try to explain their convoluted thought process. This overcomplicated label for something so simple is so broad it’d be difficult to find someone it wouldn’t apply to. This label being defined like this does not educate anyone, and listing it on a wiki does nothing for anyone but the writer.

Now I guess I’m going to be banned for this bit of unwelcome scrutiny.