I commented on raven@hexbear.net 's comment recently, but screenshots aren’t working on this sublemmy right now (maybe because it’s new), so I’m gonna textpost it here:
raven [he/him] English 9 • I disagree with that. I never saw what I understood as a bad faith argument. It bordered on some things that might sound like reactionary points but I think it was just a little confused, maybe had a hard time explaining things on account of being neurodivergent and perhaps didn’t fully understand them in the first place. You just had to get deeeeeeep in the weeds with it to try to figure out what the fuck it was talking about. There were a lot of claims that things are a certain way, and then that thing being referenced out of context later elsewhere and you had to refer back to the whole history of the user to figure out what was going on. Maybe it needed a user to ride along and translate for it lol
combat_brandonism [they/them] English 12 • “If you use they/them…you’ll never gender someone correctly.”
Explain how that’s not reactionary.
raven [he/him] English 1 • I’m going to need the context there because that doesn’t sound like something dronerights would have said.
DroneRights [it/its] English 1 • I said it. It was in the context of using they/them who have clearly stated pronoun preferences that aren’t they/them.
Here’s the nuance: If you call someone who uses they/them they/them, then you are REFERRING to them correctly, but you’re not GENDERING them correctly, because you aren’t gendering them at all. You’re referring to them neutrally, which is the correct way to refer to someone who wants to be referred to neutrally.
Correct. As I said in the comment that got me banned from Hexbear, you can never misgender someone with they/them. So obviously I agree with you already and have for months. Can you explain what argument you’re trying to have with me? Because you keep stating my opinions as though they were arguments.
the word for “not gendering someone correctly” is “misgendering.”
Also, if you look at the modlog over there, your ban reason was “multiple instances of reactionary takes.” Which I’m inclined to believe if you have an alt called “PM ME FAT ENBIES.”
You’re inclined to believe I’m a reactionary because I made a joke about the fact I’m gay?
Oooooh, you’re the kind of tankie who thinks homosexuality is “bourgeois decadence”, aren’t you? You think it’s wrong of me to be gay.
No, I’m saying it’s a chaser username
deleted by creator
The person seeing your username doesn’t know anything about you, they don’t know about your lived experience, they just know you want to see pictures of them.
You think that me making a joke about the fact I’m gay makes me a chaser? Why? What part of being gay do you think is sexually immoral?
First, it’s objectifying. Being gay does not make you immune to objectifying other people, especially if your gender, drone, is different from theirs.
Second, unless you write that disclaimer in every comment, you are just leaving people to look at the username and wonder if you’re a chaser or not. They don’t know anything else about you except that you wrote that comment and picked that username.
It’s not objectifying. We fat people are demonised by popular media and common perception as ugly, unworthy of love, and impossible to find attractive outside of fetishisation. Positive, affirming messages that “hey, some people actually find people like me beautiful” are necessary to counteract this trope. Now, are you going to listen to an actual fat enby’s lived experience of this issue, or are you going to mansplain (gender neutral) my own oppression to me while engaging in the very trope I just described as harmful?
GOOD. People need to fucking get used to the idea that not everyone who likes fat people is a chaser. People need to wonder if I’m a chaser, and realise I’m not. That’s how we unteach the idea that finding fat people attractive is sexually immoral and advance gay rights for fat enbies (and fat acceptance in general).
Catcalling.
Giving you side eye right now.
They’re not going to realize you’re not, because they don’t know anything about you. You’re not doing any teaching.
Catcalling is directed at somebody. PM_ME usernames are common, unremarkable, and not directed at any one person. In fact, it’s not even directed at my fellow fat enbies, it doesn’t say “fat enbies PM me yourselves”, it says “PM me fat enbies” in the abstract.
And mansplaining is really what you are doing here. Not as a man, but as a nonbinary person who does not experience the gendered oppression of transphobia to those with fat genders. I do. I have lived experience with anti-fat transphobia and with fatphobia in general. I am directly telling you my lived experience and you are coming to me from your place of privilege and saying I’m wrong. You are completely ignoring my accusations that you’re engaging in a fatphobic trope because you don’t want to self-crit when a member of a minority is harmed by your actions.
No, misgendering does not mean “not gendering someone correctly”. Misgendering means “gendering someone incorrectly”. Obviously I don’t think calling a they/them user they/them is misgendering. You’re not even gendering them. You can’t misgender someone if you don’t gender them.
“incorrect” and “not correct” mean the same thing.
Incorrect.
Right now on the other side of the planet a class of students are taking a math test. One of the questions is “what is 5X6?” I am not taking that math test, because I don’t live in that country and I’m not a primary school student. So I will not answer that question in that math test. That means I have not submitted the correct answer to the question. And you would have me believe that to not answer a question is the same as to be incorrect on it.
You are equating they/them with agender again.
No I’m not, I’m telling you the difference between being incorrect and not answering a question. I’m not talking about agender identities. If you want to change the subject to agender identities, you’re going to have to explain why.
Giving no answer is wrong if the answer is 30. Agender is the “no answer” option.
So you don’t believe in gender neutrality outside of its applicability to agender people? For example, if you saw a sign for a gender neutral washroom, you would think that only agender people can pee there?