Terminologywise, this is absurdly reductive.

It first assumes that only guys can be tops and bottoms, then extrapolates from this false starting point an attempt at humour. In terms of meaning and what I can only assume was your intent, this is self-defeating.

You’re now engaging in redefining terms within a specific context, but having been married to a female power bottom who presented as a sub and had a girlfriend for much of our marriage, this is squarely within the scope of this community.

If this is a Grindr joke, cool. But that’s not how it’s portrayed. Bear or twink? Sure … you can have that … but tops and bottoms? Not so much.