I'd sneak a peek at some other league and do whatever they did.
When I say "avoid using 'female'" (specifically as a noun to mean "woman") it's not an absolute. The gist is just to not come off like a fedora-tipping twat. Sometimes it's used intentionally to objectify or demean "females" in general, or using the "woman/female" distinction as some sort of pointed transphobic shtick.
It's still a perfectly cromulent word as long as it doesn't get neckbeardy.
But your point was that this is actively keeping people on Discord? By extension, that must mean that a significant bulk of those 150M users are kept on Discord because it has PluralKit. How do you reconcile that with the group of plurals being, apparently, quite small? To the point where even on Beehaw/Lemmy almost nobody seems to even have heard of it.
Interesting argument. I'd be curious if you know roughly how many plural people there are (let's say headcounts as there's only one body) compared to Discord's user base. (150 million active users per month according to random half-assed google search)
Male and female are biological terms. Mostly "man/woman" are more appropriate unless you're specifically talking about biological sex. Particularly since a certain bunch of people is now using "females" with a bit of underlying vitriol, it'd be a good idea to stay away from it.
Because if you don't keep a close eye on mental patients, some of them might hurt or kill themselves or other people - sometimes in extraordinarily resourceful and unexpected ways. It's rare and overhyped, but the fact that it does happen means the system needs to account for it. Then add the usual amount of greed, incompetence, stigma etc., and suddenly the only way of accounting for that is, well, prison style.
Versioning. "This version of SharedComponent has this and that functionality" and "this version of OtherComponent requires this specific version of SharedComponent".
If you're getting stuck with significant "this has to come with for that to go" problems - that aren't literal dependencies, but arise from code wonk or poor separation of concerns - you may have some "architecture smell" that could be addressed. Obvious "usual suspects" include things (whether at a single class, component, or entire service level) that have too many responsibilities/purposes/reasons to change, and mismanaged abstraction.
Feels like no matter what the system is, no matter how simple (single upvote) or complicated it is (lvx's different votes and weights-per-community-per-user idea from elsewhere ITT - cool but not terribly practical-seeming), people are just gonna faceroll it at best, spam/abuse it as a general rule.
Possibly, maybe a tiny amount of people will even use it as intended.
Even Reddit's system (quality/irrelevant) works in theory but nobody actually uses it that way, so it's agree/disagree-or-just-fuck-you instead. You will not be able to educate users on the simplest shit ever ("upvote for quality"), let alone if there's e.g. six different votes with different nuances. Even if you did make sure everyone knew the intended way, you would not defeat the general "fuck that lol, I do what I want" attitude. Even if you did that, it would only last until some guy sees something he disagrees with, and that's a trillion times per second on the internet.
But with that in mind:
Youtube used to have stars,
plenty of systems just have the upvote,
Steam has the supposedly useful "Useful/Funny/whatever" stuff
Facebook does limited emojis in addition to upvote.
some sites have tags apply to content (tags are love, tags are life) and each tag is then upvoted or downvoted for its relevance to that content
Instruments tend to have the size they do because their size directly influences what tones they can produce. A trivial example is a classical guitar vs electrical - latter is flatter because it no longer needs the space for acoustics. It is still as long, because string length is still important whether you're connecting it to an echo box or an amplifier.
"I'm gonna squirm a little but not much."
"Yeah, that's what I thought."