I'm gonna get real with you folks, we've had way too many of these posts recently. I've been reflecting on this topic a lot the past few days. For me personally, I couldn't care less about my gender identity. But just because that's true for me, doesn't make that true for everyone.
The beauty of the fediverse is that if you don't 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. That's fair enough imo.
Safe spaces should be respected, and Blajah's admins/mods do not deserve abuse for creating and maintaining those spaces.
I can completely understand why Blajah users don't 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.~~
That's all folks, have at 'er.
Edit: thanks for all your feedback and comments. I think it's clear that the vast majority of people are fed up with this topic coming up repeatedly.
Summarizing the feedback, I'd say most folks would prefer to retain previous posts for the sake of posterity, and to serve as an example of why we don't want anymore of these posts. I'm happy to take that on board. For those folks saying I'm a PTB for intervening in this way, I'll just remind you that I haven't made any arbitrary mod decisions, and I've consulted with db0 and the community as a whole before taking any mod actions.
I think the way to move forward with this is to acknowledge that there's a bunch of queer and straight people who have a problem with xenogenders. Personally, I think that's a valid perspective and shouldn't sanctioned on our instance. But for Blajah, they've drawn a line in the sand over this and that's ok too. Our instance won't be blocking anyone over their opinions on the topic, especially in this community where free discussion is necessary and encouraged. But safe spaces should be respected.
A lot of folks mentioned I should more more specific about the "no more posts about Blajah's mod policies" rather than making it a sweeping and overly broad statement. I think that's good feedback. I will amend this to "No more posts in this community about the validity or otherwise of neopronouns, xenogenders, and bans originating from Blajah about gatekeeping or transphobia. This is in recognition of Blajah's safe space policy. You are of course free to discuss those topics outside of this community.
Note that this decision isn't about ideological gatekeeping, its about reducing the workload for our own mods and admins in trying to moderate this community, and to avoid iterating over the same old topics again and again.
Blajah isn't getting a "free pass" over YPTB posts - if you feel they are power tripping over other issues then feel free to make a post here. But if it's a post questioning the validity of xenogenders or about Blajah bans for gatekeeping then that will no longer be allowed here. Those folks deserve a safe space on Lemmy, even if it's not a mainstream opinion.
For those folks who feel aggrieved about being accused of "transphobia" or "gatekeeping" over their views on this topic, I completely understand just how hurtful it can be to be unfairly (imo) accused in this way. I've been in the same position, and I also found it difficult to deal with. I want those folks to know that our instance does not require you to support xenogenders in order to participate in our instance. However we do require that you use preferred pronouns whenever they are specified. That's been a longstanding instance policy on dbzer0.
Thank everyone for your feedback.
Well, I'm gonna chime in again, because it's 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 one's view on xenopronouns in specific, or neopronouns one general, the claim hasn't been that dragon is a gender.
The rule, and the argument behind it, is about pronouns. And it isn't 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.
We're 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 we're being asked to do is to respect pronouns or just not talk to someone. That's it. That's what it's about.
The rule simply lays out what will happen if people don't do one of those two things.
You don't 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 they're a dragon, or a tiger? No. It doesn't matter. If the cognitive dissonance of using a word in an unconventional way is so high that you simply can't do it, that's 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 you're 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).
There's even other options, but they're absurdist stuff like juggling oranges while singing "I'm a little teapot". So, you know, only entertaining to me.
Now, that's separate from anything else, I'm only talking about the idea that one has to share a belief to be able to use someone's pronouns. Like, my pronouns are he/him, they/them, and I'll accept any gender neutral neopronouns as well. But I'll accept she/her in a pinch, though I may correct those if it's relevant. It's why I never list my pronouns, I'm cool with almost anything, up to and including "that asshole". That's not even a joke, I'm fine being referred to that way as a replacement for a pronoun, or in general.
You don't have to agree with my belief that I'm not obligated to behave in the way a pronoun implies to use any of those. You don't 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 aren't expected to log off and tell your roommate or whatever, "jeez, this cat I was talking to was a real weirdo, he's just nuts" and you aren't expected to log off and tell the same person "I was talking to this cat from blahaj and drag sure did annoy me" you can use any pronoun you want when you aren't in the presence of the person requesting an individual pronoun, or any neopronouns, or a xenopronoun.
You don't 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. That's it. That's all you have to believe.
PugJesus already covered it. Just to clarify, though, because your point is perfectly fair:
I get the policy about using pronouns when you're talking to people. It makes some amount of sense to me, I already talked elsewhere in these comments about why I can completely understand just needing to set a clear, consistent policy on using people's pronouns regardless of anything else. Makes sense. I kind of think that when someone's clearly exploiting that policy to mock queer people to their faces, there maybe needs to be a commonsense exception instead of going to bat for the anti-queer troll, but it's whatever. As people have pointed out, that problem has already been solved and dealt with.
When I say "dragon is a gender," I am talking about people who are screaming that anyone who doesn't agree with the policy is "misgendering" or "transphobic" or a fascist or secretly yearns to start calling all these LGBTQ people slurs. It's super weird, and dishonest. It's divisive and stupid. And using the word "misgendering" in reference to it, which a ton of people are doing, is predicated on the assumption (never started explicitly) that dragon is a gender. And people are getting banned (PugJesus is one, LittleRatInALittleHat is one) not for ever refusing to use the pronouns to anybody in particular, but just by talking about the policy or saying their opinion on it or pointing out that dragon is not, in fact, a gender.
Your list of multiple options doesn't really apply, since neither PugJesus nor LittleRatInALittleHat were interacting directly with anybody at all, just talking about the issue in general terms. They've got a right to do that, I think. Again, I get the reason for the original policy. What's ridiculous is using that as a jumping-off point to say "If you have any disagreement with this policy, even if you're not expressing it to me but just talking with other people about it in general, you are bad and transphobic and you need to be banned and you're a fascist and you hate queer people and you're not allowed to disagree with me because I have X identity and if you do, you are anti-X."
[heavy sigh]
I'm speaking in the general, with dragon as the example used because drag is largely the focus of contention.
The next paragraph, "The rule, and the argument behind it, is about pronouns. And it isn't 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." covers that. I was addressing the rule, and blahaj, not drag.
It hasn't been blahaj policy that I've seen that dragon is a gender, only that you have to treat people's pronouns and genders with respect.
It's one of those where we don't 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 don't feel like digging that shit up.
Thank you for this. It's nice to see that Blahaj is defending all gender identities and not just pronouns.
Ehhh, what that screenshot shows is admins deciding that you didn't 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 don't think it's different, but, looking at it from this side of the screen, that's not a statement of policy, it's 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 one's 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.
I think where the disconnect is, is that you're continuously, in those quotes, making declarations about what it and isn't gender, what is and isn't trans.
That's what the comments were removed for.
In those quotes, you aren't seeking understanding, you aren't discussing the subject, you aren't expressing an interest, you're saying, directly "this is my opinion on the matter, and I refuse to consider any alternatives"
You literally say you're drawing a line in the sand.
That's gatekeeping, 100%
Does it make you a transphobe? Hell no. Does it make you a bad person? Not in any way whatsoever.
But it is you doing exactly what the rule is about: telling other people that they and their gender/pronouns are yours to decide the validity of
And that's okay, you have a right to have that opinion and draw that line. We all do.
You do see that though, right? That every quote you chose, it's you declaring other people's genders and pronouns invalid. It doesn't matter whether or not it was drag. It doesn't matter who you were talking about, you don't very to make that decision for others
You don't, I don't, nobody does.
We can all have great discussions about the semantics of gender, of how pronouns function, what their role in language, philosophy, and society are. We can even make declarative statements like that if we want to. But it doesn't change that if we expect our opinions on the matter to hold sway, we'd be assholes.
I mean, c'mon you directly brought in the whole biological argument. Like, the worst possible way to address the subject matter, the claim to have a inherently superior ownership of transness because it has to be biological, and only biology matters? You have to see that that's the exact bullshit being weaponized against trans people. Even if you didn't mean it the same way (and I know you didn't, I know you're not a bigot), it's the exact worst possible argument to use.
It's so arrogant, claiming to have not only the ability to know what is and isn't biological, but whether or not it has validity. You directly say that you're deciding what is and isn't valid, for other people. I mean, are you even a doctor? Of any stripe at all. Can you back up the claim that there's no biological mechanism at play that leads a person to have a connection to an animal that can serve the same role as gender identity?
Because there's a ton of information about neurodivergence out there, and some of it points to there being a high correlation between trans identities and neurological differences from cis brains. The overlap between a huge range of neuroatypicality and not just trans identity, but the very otherkin related identities being objected to is there, and neurology is biology. It just is. You can't have a brain that operates independently of its underlying biological imperatives. It's built by DNA, RNA, and epigenetics into this network of complicated nerves that run through a meat suit, interacting with it chemically and electrically.
That's biology. Now, I'm with you, there's no actual dragons that aren't komodo. And a cat isn't a human, nor is a human a cat. But I am not confident in saying that someone's inner self finding expression by identifying with or as a cat isn't biological. To the contrary, unless it only appears after disease or injury, I would say that it has to be biological in origin, even though the specific expression may be a psychological development as opposed to purely anatomical or physiological one.
While you are definitely not an enemy, not a transphobe, not a bigot, you definitely broke the rule, multiple times, and you picked your own quotes about it. If this was still about whether or not a mod action was justified, it would be totally YDI with that list of quotes.
At every step, you laid claim to the authority to decide for others whether their identity is valid.
I'm kinda beating a dead horse here because I'm a little flummoxed that you can't see all those comments and notice that you're doing exactly what they were removed for.
After all that, it really doesn't matter what the specific target was, it doesn't even matter that they are, defacto, making it clear that they accept xenogenders as valid genders within blahaj and that the rule applies to them. What matters at that point is that you had multiple comment removals and kept doing the same thing. I'd have banned you too, even preemptively because it looks like you're making it a fight.
When did he say the second part?
It sounds like he said the first part only. That, to me, is okay. It sounds like the other people in the conversation are going beyond just stating their opinion to drawing a line in the sand, that there are absolutely no alternatives to their chosen point of view, and in fact any attempted alternatives are specifically forbidden.
Only one of them is me, the one tagged with 'literally me'.
In which case my original point is correct - that dragon being a gender is mandated by Blahaj policy or actions. Stating an opinion to the contrary is 'gatekeeping'.
Apparently not, considering the removals.
Then you do agree that Blahaj policy is that dragon must be treated as a gender.
Again, most of them are not me, I picked them not as examples of what I believe, but as examples of objections that were fundamentally or exclusively to 'dragon' as a gender, without significant hostility which were removed as gatekeeping - ie me attempting to prove my point that dragon as a gender is absolutely core to this whole debacle.
Southsamurai is right, you do seem to just be starting fights for no reason. How is someone being a dragon or anything else supposed to hurt you? What's your motivation? What's your goal? Why?
Legitimately, I don't 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 'gatekeeping'. Redirecting that to a pronoun dispute requires a reading that I literally cannot see, not simply one I disagree with.
Well put