cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/20091173
I’ve been waiting until after Christmas day to make this post, but some of our communities recently have had a lot of noise and upset over someone that uses neopronouns that most people are unfamiliar with.
So I want to make this clear. A persons pronouns are to be respected. This is true when the user is using neopronouns that you’re unfamiliar with. It’s true even if you think someone is trolling. Pronouns are not rewards for good behaviour. They aren’t only to be respected when you like the person you’re interacting with, or if their pronouns “make sense” to you. Trolls, spammers, twitter users, it doesn’t matter who they are, your options are to respect their pronouns, or to not engage with them.
I really want to re-iterate the importance of this. Gender diverse folk are undermined, invalidated and questioned at every step of our lives. As a community, we need to be working to undo that, not creating more of it, and that means there is no space for treating pronouns (including neopronouns) as a reward for good behaviour.
This isn’t a free reign for trolls and spammers. The rules still apply. Trolling, spamming, etc will continue to be dealt with, but it’s not an excuse to act as if respecting someones pronouns is optional.
A lot of people say the same things about trans folks in terms of gay rights. Some people might be fucking around, but drawing a line in the sand like that is going to inevitably invalidate people with legitimate identities. And if you really don’t want to use them, it’s super easy to just ignore. Idk if I’ve ever even had to refer to someone with third person pronouns on Lemmy.
Some people might be fucking around, but drawing a line in the sand like that is going to inevitably invalidate people with legitimate identities.
All concepts are just lines in the sand, even down into STEM. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. The question is whether the new line drawn or erased disrupts other lines, who it benefits, and what it’s worth. I happen to have a very low opinion of the idea that gender is entirely arbitrary and without any line in the sand, and that “I identify as an attack helicopter” is not a conservative defamation of the trans and NB community, but a legitimate point of view.
And if you really don’t want to use them, it’s super easy to just ignore.
The commenter was removed and banned for disagreeing with the concept that dragonfucker is a gender. On the meta comm for the instance. Under a post by the main admin.
Idk if I’ve ever even had to refer to someone with third person pronouns on Lemmy.
Dragonfucker has been banned from a number of communities for insisting on just that.
the human brain is good enough of a prediction machine to not need a clean linear line in the sand imo, I’d like to believe that our judgement ability is closer to a support vector machine than a simple one dimensional ‘greater than’ statement
e.g. you’d know if someone was actually identifying as an attack helicopter as opposed to trolling by saying so, right? maybe it’s just a phase for them but people have phases (imo) because they need to probe and gather first hand experience to learn
Even if we take the person pug is talking about at face value (which, frankly, we shouldn’t for them in particular), it’s not a gender identity. It’s just an identity. We don’t have a pronoun for every granular identity under the sun, so it’s weird we accept that some people feel the need to have totally unique ones, which goes against the point of pronouns to begin with.
That said, being referred to in the third person would actually be fine imo, but I’ve been primed for that by being a weeb.
That might’ve gone over better if it didn’t read like an angry rant against “idiots”/“adult children”/“spoiled little shits”
I cannot wait for mockery and satire to make a resurgence in the media throughout the 2030s and 40s, as a reaction to the American Left’s insane bent for language policing. It’s going to be wonderful.
No one needs pronouns on the web. If I wanted to quote or refer to the OP, I would simply use the proper noun ‘qaz’ - qaz says, qaz wrote. It reminds me of an absurd Microsoft keynote presentation a couple of years ago where each host not only provided their names as well as a description of their clothing for vision-impaired viewers (useful information), but tacked on their pronouns too. ‘Over to you, Lisa!’ ‘Thanks Bob’.
I have no sympathy for instances like Blahaj in this particular aspect of moderation. This is a social and political millstone you fitted around your own necks.
i don’t mind what people call themselves and I’ll use it to refer to them if I notice it, but they shouldn’t expect their pronoun to be understood if it’s something obscure
I did not realize that typing exclusively in third-person, and pushing something that is obviously kink-related onto internet strangers was umm… not trolling?
I feel like the troll that does this gives people who fantasize about dragons a bad name, not to mention people who use neopronouns, for various non-trolling reasons, that usually hold some kind of personal meaning. Expression is complicated, but holy goddamn bollucks, third-person shitposting to try to bait people who didn’t read a bio into “misgendering” bans is asinine and takes validity from people who could use it. I don’t see how any mods have gone along with this “muh third-person antagonistic ranting means victimhood” shit.
Whatever tho, I guess every individual user is supposed to independently block an asshat who tells people to commit suicide, because they are so very super-special… I hope this place doesn’t get tossed into dot world over this, ugh.
Tap for spoiler
I’m going to go consume alcohol and definitely not look at cute/sexy kobalds to cope. Feel free to DM me for info on the nature of creatures outside the scope of waking reality, if you are brave enough.
Whatever tho, I guess every individual user is supposed to independently block an asshat who tells people to commit suicide,
The message clearly and categorically states the rules still apply, and that behaviour is what gets actioned. Literally nothing about the post says that someone using neopronouns is otherwise exempt from the rules. If someone is telling someone to kill themselves, report it or DM it to a community mod.
Is it safe to asume that this is why the mods have
…been planning on moving 196 to lemmy.world ASAP…
i have .world straight up blocked. when the man or bear thing happened EVERY shitty post/poster came from there. and watching pugjesus throw their little shitfit has only cemented that decision.
hilariously i’ve had way better interactions with .ml users, so i guess if the migration does happen i’ll just hang out there. i’d much rather dodge politics than thinly-veiled-to-outright misogyny and casual transphobia lmao
I promise I’m not stalking you, I think we’re just following the same journey and comment progression!
I block/unblock .world as I appreciate the content but the drama:person ratio can get really high. It’s mostly thanks to a small number of chronically online people who enjoy throwing fuel on the fire and leading a crusade to defederate and/or brigade whichever instance whenever there’s a hot button topic. This seems to gather and focus otherwise aimless “not nice people”, á la the man vs bear scenario.
When talking about someone, is using the commonly accepted neutral “they” allowed, or is it considered non-tolerable misgendering?
It’s fine by me, but I’m not sure how other moderators (or admins) feel about it
Not personally affected, but I saw someone instantly permabanned with reason “misgendering” for a comment talking about “drag”'s behavior but using “they”.
Not warned. Not comment deleted with “please use pronoun at all times”. Just bam.
If the general stance is that reaction can be “up to the admin”, that’s a bit… minefield-y.
If the general stance is that reaction can be “up to the admin”, that’s a bit… minefield-y.
I understand that this might seem problematic. We (the mods of 196) are only partially in control of what is removed and who is banned, due it being hosted on blahaj.zone.
I’d have to see the comment and context to pass judgement, but I can see how a mod might see using “they” to refer to someone who doesn’t use “they” in a context about how that person doesn’t use “they” as intentional misgendering instead of accidental misgendering.
but I saw someone instantly permabanned with reason “misgendering” for a comment talking about “drag”'s behavior but using “they”.
No you didn’t
It’s a useful feature of language for ‘they’ to be a valid default you should always be able to fall back on.
I don’t even know who any of you are on Lemmy, and I don’t care to. I’m rarely ever even paying attention to your names to begin with.
It depends on the person. If the pronouns you are using for someone is upsetting them and they make that clear, don’t keep using them. If the only pronouns you can use make you uncomfortable, then simply don’t interact with the person in question. And if the person in question is trolling or otherwise misbehaving, report them without doing so in a way that ignores their pronouns.
When talking about someone, is using the commonly accepted neutral “they” allowed, or is it considered non-tolerable misgendering?
Are you accepting that this is in fact misgendering, but still asking whether it’s an acceptable form of misgendering?
I am assuming it as “not adding gender to the sentence”. Neutral. Leaving it out. Not misgendering. It is how people have always talked about someone when the gender is either unknown, irrelevant, or hard to assume.
I am respecting a site or community’s rule that this is not the case on their space, but it’s such a deviation from the norm that I want it to be clear.
The qualifier “non-tolerable” was clumsy. I was trying to ask if it fell more on “honest mistake, but not allowed” or “assumed to be an intentional transphobic trangression”.
Understandable, but
Not misgendering. It is how people have always talked about someone when the gender is either unknown, irrelevant, or hard to assume
Your later comment suggests you have a particular user in mind, in which case that user’s pronouns are known, relevant, and require no assumption.
I am respecting a site or community’s rule that this is not the case on their space, but it’s such a deviation from the norm that I want it to be clear.
It should be about respecting the individual(/system/thing), not just respecting a rule?
I was trying to ask if it fell more on “honest mistake, but not allowed” or “assumed to be an intentional transphobic trangression”.
It doesn’t sound like an honest mistake. Maybe it was from the user you mentioned who got banned, but it sounds like you’re trying to see if it’s okay for you to do it on purpose.
But maybe I’m misunderstanding! I would like to be
