4 ms·
If they present themselves in public as bonafide females then I wouldn't. And if they present themselves in public sometimes as bonafide females and sometimes
by IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
If they present themselves in public as bonafide females then I wouldn't.
And if they present themselves in public sometimes as bonafide females and sometimes as bonafide males? What then?
This would be for people who are female gendered in real life.
Again, how do you even even define that, precisely? Gender is not so binary as we make it.
There are already plenty of places where you can be a female just online.
And your site would, inevitably, be another one of those. So what?
But there is potential benefit in a female-only site. This would only happen if we could keep most men out.
Marketing! You're Doing It Wrong!!
Instead of worrying about keeping people out, you should be worrying about who you're bringing in, and how to target that market. If you get a few extra page-views, um, is that really a problem?
- stcredzero 18y agoDefining gender absolutely precisely is not important. Keeping males out absolutely is not important either. People deal with the gender issue in real life just fine without such absolutes. The system only has to work well enough, like real life. And in real life, it manages to work well enough because of costs. It will "cost" a lot more to pose as a female on such a site. Therefore there will be fewer posers. More page-views is fine. Commenting would be female-only. That is the value proposition. Female-majority forums aren't all that common.