this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
45 points (71.8% liked)

196

17312 readers
1613 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

(page 2) 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pack_of_racoons@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Is it safe to asume that this is why the mods have

...been planning on moving 196 to lemmy.world ASAP…

per https://lemmy.world/comment/14170082

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] CreatingMachines@fedia.io 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wow...looking at these comments, i realise I still have a lot to think about regarding my exact stance on all this...the fact that I have have zero irl exp in this is not helping...

[–] MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Because nobody IRL uses neo-pronouns XD

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Opinions aside, thanks for clarifying this.

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (14 children)

When talking about someone, is using the commonly accepted neutral "they" allowed, or is it considered non-tolerable misgendering?

[–] missingno@fedia.io 24 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Are 'nounself' style neopronouns included here?

[–] qaz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Apparently they are included, by the actions of the admins in the linked thread.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments