Iām gonna get real with you folks, weāve had way too many of these posts recently. Iāve been reflecting on this topic a lot the past few days. For me personally, I couldnāt care less about my gender identity. But just because thatās true for me, doesnāt make that true for everyone.
The beauty of the fediverse is that if you donāt like the way a particular instance or community is moderated you can simply choose another to hang out on, or create your own.
Blajah has made it pretty clear by now they will ban anyone who argues against the validity of xenogenders, in order to create a safe space for those folks. Thatās fair enough imo.
Safe spaces should be respected, and Blajahās admins/mods do not deserve abuse for creating and maintaining those spaces.
I can completely understand why Blajah users donāt want to have to constantly argue with external users about the validity of their chosen identities. Bans are one way Blajah has decided to manage that problem so that their users can experience lemmy in relative peace and safety. While it is a blunt tool and I have my reservations about preemptive bans, there are not many other options for @ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone, other than defederation from most instances. That would be a terrible outcome for the fediverse as a whole.
In order to help Blajah to maintain their safe space, I would like to propose, if @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com agrees and community sentiment is positive:
- that we no longer accept posts about this topic in this community; and
- we also remove previous posts on this topic from the community.
Thatās all folks, have at 'er.
Nobody is arguing against blahaj for being queer friendly. People are arguing against some of their members for being unfriendly to people, including queer people, among them LittleRatInALittleHat. Thatās the only reason people are caring about this.
The type of mentality āyouāre not allowed to criticize me, because I am X, and so unless you agree with me youāre being anti-Xā is tempting but it is wrong. You might think dragon is a gender, or you might not, it is fine, but refusing to agree that dragon is a gender is not and has never been ātransphobiaā or in any way anti-queer.
Well, Iām gonna chime in again, because itās a nice jumping off point.
That argument, that anyone is actually saying dragon is a gender, is simply misrepresenting all of the subject.
Regardless of oneās view on xenopronouns in specific, or neopronouns one general, the claim hasnāt been that dragon is a gender.
The rule, and the argument behind it, is about pronouns. And it isnāt really about the pronouns themselves, as much as it is about who gets to decide when someone is deserving of being respected as an individual.
Weāre not biking being asked to share a belief that a person is a dragon, or fucks dragons, or that humans can be part dragon.
What weāre being asked to do is to respect pronouns or just not talk to someone. Thatās it. Thatās what itās about.
The rule simply lays out what will happen if people donāt do one of those two things.
You donāt have to agree with the word being used as a pronoun meaning anything other than that it replaces traditional pronouns and makes them happy. Does it matter if they think theyāre a dragon, or a tiger? No. It doesnāt matter. If the cognitive dissonance of using a word in an unconventional way is so high that you simply canāt do it, thatās okay. You have multiple options at that point.
One, you can ignore the request, and accept the consequences as they come. Fair or not, those consequences are known.
Two, you can use them anyway, and roll your eyes while you do it. Nobody will know youāre rolling your eyes.
Three, you can use them anyway, and complain about it, which may also have consequences, depending on how you complain.
Four, you can block the individual and never interact with them again, thus preventing cognitive dissonance entirely.
Five, you can choose to just not interact with them at all.
Six, you choose to not interact, but complain about it elsewhere, with possible consequences (as these posts have shown).
Thereās even other options, but theyāre absurdist stuff like juggling oranges while singing āIām a little teapotā. So, you know, only entertaining to me.
Now, thatās separate from anything else, Iām only talking about the idea that one has to share a belief to be able to use someoneās pronouns. Like, my pronouns are he/him, they/them, and Iāll accept any gender neutral neopronouns as well. But Iāll accept she/her in a pinch, though I may correct those if itās relevant. Itās why I never list my pronouns, Iām cool with almost anything, up to and including āthat assholeā. Thatās not even a joke, Iām fine being referred to that way as a replacement for a pronoun, or in general.
You donāt have to agree with my belief that Iām not obligated to behave in the way a pronoun implies to use any of those. You donāt have to agree with my belief that by accepting almost any pronoun that I improve myself by challenging my own concepts of gender in order to use he/him, or any of the rest.
So, why would you have to believe in anything at all to use any pronoun? You arenāt expected to log off and tell your roommate or whatever, ājeez, this cat I was talking to was a real weirdo, heās just nutsā and you arenāt expected to log off and tell the same person āI was talking to this cat from blahaj and drag sure did annoy meā you can use any pronoun you want when you arenāt in the presence of the person requesting an individual pronoun, or any neopronouns, or a xenopronoun.
You donāt need to believe anything except that the person, the human being with their own life and needs and pains, is made a little happier by the use of it. Thatās it. Thatās all you have to believe.
Well put
[heavy sigh]
Iām speaking in the general, with dragon as the example used because drag is largely the focus of contention.
The next paragraph, āThe rule, and the argument behind it, is about pronouns. And it isnāt really about the pronouns themselves, as much as it is about who gets to decide when someone is deserving of being respected as an individual.ā covers that. I was addressing the rule, and blahaj, not drag.
It hasnāt been blahaj policy that Iāve seen that dragon is a gender, only that you have to treat peopleās pronouns and genders with respect.
Itās one of those where we donāt have to agree, we just have to be nice.
Or have the admins specifically addressed the issue as a declarative, and I missed it? I do miss things ;)
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8b47330e-fe59-466e-aef5-b529ed0b05a5.jpeg
I could go further back to the whole kerfluffle this stems from, where there are more examples, but honestly, I donāt feel like digging that shit up.
Ehhh, what that screenshot shows is admins deciding that you didnāt treat pronouns with respect.
Obviously, you disagree with their assessment. I do too, really, though I have seen their argument about it somewhere to and down the various threads.
That is a different thing.
I definitely get why you donāt think itās different, but, looking at it from this side of the screen, thatās not a statement of policy, itās a reaction to their interpretation of what you said.
Against my better judgement, I went into Blahaj back around the time of The Event.
Removed: Gatekeeping
Removed: Gatekeeping
Removed, no note
Removed: Gatekeeping
Removed: Gatekeeping (that oneās literally me)
Removed: Gatekeeping
Removed: Transmed stuff
All of that points pretty firmly to disagreement with dragon as a gender as gatekeeping, not a matter of respecting pronouns.
Legitimately, I donāt see how that can be reasonably interpreted to be about pronouns at all. My objection was to dragon as a gender. I was banned for āgatekeepingā. Redirecting that to a pronoun dispute requires a reading that I literally cannot see, not simply one I disagree with.