terminator2589:
Honestly, what I've learned from this site over time is that a lot of the spanko community is, with some obvious exceptions, too traditionally minded to bode room for ideas such as a non-binary designation for pairing relationships. Personally, I am a total "lefty" and would totally support the idea of a transgender/non-binary designation, but my vote is no the only one here; many people aren't really the way some others are.
While I completely agree with your first point here (spankos truly are the archconservatives dwelling in the "Kinky Village" which when I realized that, blew me away in its irony) I think feeling you are the only one in favor of non-binary inclusion is due to some misunderstanding. I am clearly inclusive of just about ANYTHING.......even topics that have been rejected here for being too far in another direction (not complaining, BTW, I get it, Just saying.) I just don't like "they" for reasons of clarity and actually prefer the x or y pronouns ( xe, hym, etc.) Unfortunately I have some family and friends who, being young and of these more recent victimhood generations, see this 'they-aversion' as proof of intolerance, whereas I see their view as persecution complexes in search of perpetrators...even when no one around them is actually against them.
As for your assessment of reader tastes? LOL TOO TRUE! You would think on a site loaded with authors, that writing style would have a greater impact than orientation, but nope. Orientation trumps everything. It's what has led me to believe that 99% of spank-readers (male and female) are reading with their eyes while their hand is busy elsewhere. I am perpetually in search of a great story. Orientation has influence but is not a necessity. (I too tend to loathe male Tops, mostly from associating them with some I've met) But a good M/F will appeal to me..................if it's about more than impacts on buttocks, AND rings true to experience.