What needs to be done? Sorry, I don't mean to sound overly negative about this but I really don't get what isn't inclusive about the TMF? At least from a gender point of view, it's open to everyone and there's nothing to stop men or women from joining or posting, regardless of whether they're gay, straight, trans...user profiles don't actually state a person's gender or sexuality in a post and it needn't be an issue. In terms of content, it just comes down to who decides to post and female members can post female-oriented content if they want to - or not. You don't need a specific 'female' section of the forum to even things up either, you just need more females to actually post stuff.
Surely concerns over inclusivity would be better focused on people with disabilities - a subject which doesn't really come up very much, but undoubtedly affects a percentage of users. Physical and learning disabilities can really limit a person's opportunity to access (or produce) tickling material, have real-life experiences, and actually participate on the forum. Perhaps that is a bigger issue to consider?
Last week on a city break we saw an 'inclusive' Broadway production of King Lear, featuring Dame Glenda Jackson as the King. OK, at that level an actress can write her own ticket, and even though her performance was reminiscent of a blend between Quentin Crisp and John Hurt, at the age of 82 she did brilliantly to get through such an exhausting role at all. The Duke of Gloucester was also 'inclusively' played by a female, far less successfully and no further comment. Lear's daughters Regan, Goneril and Cordelia were of course played by women, but Cordelia doubled the part of 'The Fool', who is identified in the text as male. There were also three deaf actors onstage, signing and reciting Shakespeare 'in a manner which a hearing actor would not have', to put it euphemistically, as well as some 'actors of colour'. But I do not think the RSC would have hired any of the latter. If they'd been on a level with, say, Hugh Quarshie, Larrington Walker, Ken Nwosu, and Steve Toussaint, all present or past members of the Royal Shakespeare Company, I'd not have mentioned this.
In other words, 'inclusivity' was heavily relied upon to cast this show, rather than objectively choosing the best actor for the job.
Or the best consumer/target audience here? And to spare anyone the temptation of spurious accusation, I'll rule myself out from that group in advance, being arguably elderly and very married to a lovely wife who shares my preferences. So this is altruistic.
As Turtleboy points out, no-one is stopping anyone from posting or joining. If 'affirmative action' is taken in an attempt to raise the membership level (and I recall the days when we thought that 5,000 members would be a milestone) by making the sight more 'inclusive' and appealing to a nebulous demographic in some artificial manner, would not its edge be blunted in a morass of 'niceness', to mix a metaphor?
Let the site evolve by all means, and anyone who's been here for any length of time can confirm the turnover rate, people joining or leaving for different reasons. But please don't arbitrarily apply PC mores as a spot-fix. Niceness and inclusivity are both theoretically lovely, but there is nothing like sexuality for making a mockery of us all. In our erotic lives our preferences do not always accord with our standards, and we cannot help being excited by the oddest things, and sometimes, the oddest people.
So, unpleasantly arbitrary as it may be, perhaps it's best to let the uncertainty of why we do what we do guide us as we move along the most courageous and the most uncertain path forward, following a will o' the wisp and hoping somehow that it will all work out.