Why are you hung up on the ādragons arenāt realā thing? That was never a requirement. Some people will argue that being trans isnāt real, being plural isnāt real, being genderfluid isnāt real, being bigender or another gender entirely isnāt real. (Not that you are claiming this.) As such, the admins there simply decided that there wonāt be a line drawn. Let people do what they want. Heck, you could consider it āroleplayingā if youāre more comfortable with that, or alternatively, simply donāt engage. Itās disrespectful and not to mention disruptive to make it an issue.
I mean, apparently so, but I was not operating under the assumption that āWe donāt believe in gender, this is all roleplayā was the base state of the instance, and many others seem surprised by it too.
Three feet to your right is ātrans women are roleplaying womenā. You may not hold that view explicitly, but the rules around respecting identity in that instance exist for that reason. And that means accepting identities that are challenging, even if they are being used by shitty people.
You missed the point of the comment youāre replying to. To a lot of people, garden-variety binary trans people are āabsurd and contradictory to realityā. To even more people, nonbinary people are.
Blahaj lemmyās admins have decided that they will not draw a line, because they donāt want to be the arbiters of what is valid. That does mean some extreme cases donāt get decided the way you would, and thatās fine! Just block those cases.
Whatever identity they have, I donāt care. The internetās big enough for everyone. Itās not my problem, not my life, live and let live.
āTransphobes hate trans people because they donāt think trans people are real; therefore, in order to not be transphobic, you must admit reality doesnāt existā isnāt very compelling.
Most ordinary folk would opine that transphobia is bad precisely because trans folk do exist in reality and are valid.
What part of the removed comments do you think was considered gatekeeping by the admins, if not the statements that dragons arenāt real?
there wonāt be a line drawn
Then any interaction in that superposition of reality and fiction is pointless. Acknowledgment of reality will be arbitrarily censored, such as above. It ceases to be roleplay and becomes a localized Ministry of Truth with the admins kowtowing to the trolls.
Let people do what they want.
People wanted to state the obvious about objective reality. Admin did not let them do that. People wanted to distinguish between reality and fiction. Admin did not let them do that.
By questioning the personās neopronouns, youāre gatekeeping which identities or pronouns are acceptable. Nobody cares whether dragons are real or not. Many letters of the alphabet mafia have been questioned on whether they are real or not, and even continue to be, so over here, weāre simply not doing that.
As for why youāre being disrespectful: You broke the rules of the space and now youāre making a big stink about it. Considering youāre admitting yourself you think this person is a troll, I think itās time to admit your loss. You āfellā for them, got ātrickedā into breaking a rule, and got banned as a result.
Iām not questioning the neopronouns. Itās an oversimplification to suggest that those are the singular reason people believe the account to be a troll and that is the same myopic reasoning I read from the admin. Read the trollās directly harmful posts/comments and read between the lines on their more covert insidious posts/comments.
Nobody cares whether dragons are real or not.
People caring about an objective reality is singularly why weāre having this conversation. The users were banned for stating that they arenāt real. Are you trying to troll me too or are you just not following any of this whatsoever?
As for why youāre being disrespectful: You broke the rules of the space and now youāre making a big stink about it. Considering youāre admitted yourself you think this person is a troll, I think itās time to admit your loss. You āfellā for them, got ātrickedā into breaking a rule, and got banned as a result.
None of that applies to me apart from me stating that the user is a troll. The banned users were not tricked; the admin was tricked into enforcing flawed rules to an absurd absolute. You likewise have been tricked into defending the absurd on moral principle rather than logic.
I didnāt ask why. I asked to whom. If I disrespect a troll, then good. If I disrespect those who choose to be gullible, then they shouldnāt have chosen to be gullible.
the admin was tricked into enforcing flawed rules to an absurd absolute
This is where we disagree. As far as neopronouns go, drag/drag is still pretty tame. It doesnāt take a lot of effort to just go along with a persons preferred way of being referred to, in a space where doing so is expected. Youāre not supposed to decide on your own whether itās worth respecting depending on whether you think this person is a troll.
The reason? Thereās plenty of people out there, say on the spectrum, who often have trouble with being mistaken as a troll, for lack of being able to state their opinions and thoughts properly, or any other reason. I have personal experience with one such person. And their identity deserves to respected just the same as anyone else, even if their takes and opinions you are free to argue with.
Even if you know someoneās obviously faking being trans (Josh Seiter comes to mind), it doesnāt hurt anyone to just go along with using the pronouns they asked for, while criticizing them where it actually matters.
Have yāall never seen assholes abuse the language of sexual preference?
Weāve had to deal with people insisting that fucking kids is their identity. NAMBLA was a whole thing, to the point it became a South Park episode and a running gag on the Daily Show. Over on Tumblr, people tried pushing āminor-attracted personā or MAP as just another humdrum flag under the rainbow. If any forum said āyou will not question that or imply the slightest disagreement with that,ā would you suddenly respect those people?
Hell, 4chan tried pushing āsuper straightā to mean, only cis women count. This was a deliberate organized effort (by 4chan standards) to appropriate the shape of queer activism, specifically to shit on trans people. As if calling those bigots, bigots, was the real bigotry.
Some things are not sexual preference. Calling that gatekeeping, instead of just having a definition, is a thought-terminating cliche. Acceptability has nothing to do with it - this thing is not that thing. Itās a category error.
Some people will argue that being trans isnāt real
And theyāre wrong.
See how easy that was?
Having a line doesnāt mean all lines are equally valid. The possibility that someone, somewhere, might make a similar-shaped argument, does not eternally invalidate all possible forms of that argument.
And women are demonstrable. Women are a thing people can be.
The shape of that sentence is not validation for all possible mad-libs. āSnickers bars are a thing people can be.ā No. āThe City of Pawnee, Indiana is a thing people can be.ā No. āGod is a thing people can be.ā Noā¦ and there are follow-up questions.
Why are you hung up on the ādragons arenāt realā thing? That was never a requirement. Some people will argue that being trans isnāt real, being plural isnāt real, being genderfluid isnāt real, being bigender or another gender entirely isnāt real. (Not that you are claiming this.) As such, the admins there simply decided that there wonāt be a line drawn. Let people do what they want. Heck, you could consider it āroleplayingā if youāre more comfortable with that, or alternatively, simply donāt engage. Itās disrespectful and not to mention disruptive to make it an issue.
It was never a requirement that serious expressions of identity be real?
Yes. Themās the rules on BlĆ„haj Lemmy.
I mean, apparently so, but I was not operating under the assumption that āWe donāt believe in gender, this is all roleplayā was the base state of the instance, and many others seem surprised by it too.
Three feet to your right is ātrans women are roleplaying womenā. You may not hold that view explicitly, but the rules around respecting identity in that instance exist for that reason. And that means accepting identities that are challenging, even if they are being used by shitty people.
Theyāre exactly the opposite of what he just said.
Itās not about the person being shitty, itās about the identity itself being absurd and contradictory to reality.
You missed the point of the comment youāre replying to. To a lot of people, garden-variety binary trans people are āabsurd and contradictory to realityā. To even more people, nonbinary people are.
Blahaj lemmyās admins have decided that they will not draw a line, because they donāt want to be the arbiters of what is valid. That does mean some extreme cases donāt get decided the way you would, and thatās fine! Just block those cases.
Whatever identity they have, I donāt care. The internetās big enough for everyone. Itās not my problem, not my life, live and let live.
Youāre so close to getting my point. Itās like right there.
āTransphobes hate trans people because they donāt think trans people are real; therefore, in order to not be transphobic, you must admit reality doesnāt existā isnāt very compelling.
Most ordinary folk would opine that transphobia is bad precisely because trans folk do exist in reality and are valid.
What part of the removed comments do you think was considered gatekeeping by the admins, if not the statements that dragons arenāt real?
Then any interaction in that superposition of reality and fiction is pointless. Acknowledgment of reality will be arbitrarily censored, such as above. It ceases to be roleplay and becomes a localized Ministry of Truth with the admins kowtowing to the trolls.
People wanted to state the obvious about objective reality. Admin did not let them do that. People wanted to distinguish between reality and fiction. Admin did not let them do that.
Disrespectful to whom? Trolls? Reality?
By questioning the personās neopronouns, youāre gatekeeping which identities or pronouns are acceptable. Nobody cares whether dragons are real or not. Many letters of the alphabet mafia have been questioned on whether they are real or not, and even continue to be, so over here, weāre simply not doing that.
As for why youāre being disrespectful: You broke the rules of the space and now youāre making a big stink about it. Considering youāre admitting yourself you think this person is a troll, I think itās time to admit your loss. You āfellā for them, got ātrickedā into breaking a rule, and got banned as a result.
Iām not questioning the neopronouns. Itās an oversimplification to suggest that those are the singular reason people believe the account to be a troll and that is the same myopic reasoning I read from the admin. Read the trollās directly harmful posts/comments and read between the lines on their more covert insidious posts/comments.
People caring about an objective reality is singularly why weāre having this conversation. The users were banned for stating that they arenāt real. Are you trying to troll me too or are you just not following any of this whatsoever?
None of that applies to me apart from me stating that the user is a troll. The banned users were not tricked; the admin was tricked into enforcing flawed rules to an absurd absolute. You likewise have been tricked into defending the absurd on moral principle rather than logic.
I didnāt ask why. I asked to whom. If I disrespect a troll, then good. If I disrespect those who choose to be gullible, then they shouldnāt have chosen to be gullible.
This is where we disagree. As far as neopronouns go, drag/drag is still pretty tame. It doesnāt take a lot of effort to just go along with a persons preferred way of being referred to, in a space where doing so is expected. Youāre not supposed to decide on your own whether itās worth respecting depending on whether you think this person is a troll.
The reason? Thereās plenty of people out there, say on the spectrum, who often have trouble with being mistaken as a troll, for lack of being able to state their opinions and thoughts properly, or any other reason. I have personal experience with one such person. And their identity deserves to respected just the same as anyone else, even if their takes and opinions you are free to argue with.
Even if you know someoneās obviously faking being trans (Josh Seiter comes to mind), it doesnāt hurt anyone to just go along with using the pronouns they asked for, while criticizing them where it actually matters.
Have yāall never seen assholes abuse the language of sexual preference?
Weāve had to deal with people insisting that fucking kids is their identity. NAMBLA was a whole thing, to the point it became a South Park episode and a running gag on the Daily Show. Over on Tumblr, people tried pushing āminor-attracted personā or MAP as just another humdrum flag under the rainbow. If any forum said āyou will not question that or imply the slightest disagreement with that,ā would you suddenly respect those people?
Hell, 4chan tried pushing āsuper straightā to mean, only cis women count. This was a deliberate organized effort (by 4chan standards) to appropriate the shape of queer activism, specifically to shit on trans people. As if calling those bigots, bigots, was the real bigotry.
Some things are not sexual preference. Calling that gatekeeping, instead of just having a definition, is a thought-terminating cliche. Acceptability has nothing to do with it - this thing is not that thing. Itās a category error.
And theyāre wrong.
See how easy that was?
Having a line doesnāt mean all lines are equally valid. The possibility that someone, somewhere, might make a similar-shaped argument, does not eternally invalidate all possible forms of that argument.
And women are demonstrable. Women are a thing people can be.
The shape of that sentence is not validation for all possible mad-libs. āSnickers bars are a thing people can be.ā No. āThe City of Pawnee, Indiana is a thing people can be.ā No. āGod is a thing people can be.ā Noā¦ and there are follow-up questions.