Apologies for the delay but here they are. As per usual, if your pronouns aren't in the list, please comment them here and I'll see that they get added.
UPDATE: “Undecided” and “None/Use Name” have now been added.
Apologies for the delay but here they are. As per usual, if your pronouns aren't in the list, please comment them here and I'll see that they get added.
UPDATE: “Undecided” and “None/Use Name” have now been added.
To be fair, there is one person here who legitimately uses doe/deer as deer pronouns.
I don't think anyone actually wanted sentences like "cat crashed boy car", unlike the person who uses doe/deer.
Yeah, but are we cool with suggesting, the otherkin identities are only "first class" and worthy of declaration when they have a unique pronoun? Reducing gender identity/expression to mere pronouns seems problematic, imo.
The outcome seems to be that fawn identity is more valid because it has deer/doe pronouns, but catfolk are a "second class" identity because they don't have cat pronouns? Seems pretty arbitrary.
I mean there is a list here and another one here -- I suppose if you wanted to use whisker/whiskerself or something, but it seems to me like there should be an option to indicate gender expression beyond pronouns.
A less eccentric example might be a nonbinary person who prefers he/him pronouns, but maybe doesn't want to be indicated as a cis male. But under the current understanding, only the pronoun matters. Even some have suggested in this thread, we should not ponder the gender identity behind someone's pronoun choice, only that we should use it. But I object to that, on the basis that sometimes the meaning is important. Pronouns are being used as a proxy for gender expression, but it's not a 1-to-1 mapping. There are people on both sides who either (a) think the pronoun is all the matters, don't question the gender identity of the person expressing it, and (b) the prononun is the expression of gender identity.
Two incompatible points of view, that lead to "fawn" identity receiving the blessing of validation through doe/deer pronouns (and "fae" via fae/faer), but catfolk being relegated to a second-class identity because they mostly prefer traditional gendered pronouns. Though I would suggest that cat/boy pronoun preference isn't perfectly expressed by he/him -- it's not hard to imagine someone fondly using "cat" or "kitty" as a pronoun if someone has cat/boy listed as their pronoun. "kitty is being a very bad boy" or "what does kitty think about this" something along those lines. (yes, in this usage, replacing the first-person pronoun!)
I think the problem is no one has expressed that they identify with cat the same way fawn identifies with deer. Catgirl/catboy is more of a trans (and weeb) in joke than an actual identity as far as I can tell.
If anyone was in a case like fawn but with cat, I think the admins here would accommodate the same way they did fawn.
I personally want catboy because I think it's cute and makes me feel cute. Not because I actually want to be called by those as pronouns or because I truly identify with cats in an otherkin way.
But yes, it seems the admins intend the pronoun system to be purely about pronouns without necessarily expressing a specific gender identity. Maybe that should change, idk.
But those two positions are contradictory.
One the one hand saying, we will only acknowledge pronouns that indicate a sincerely held identity, while at the same time saying, no no, it's not about identity at all, it's only about what grammar you want people to use.
I am a cis gay guy, sometimes I use feiminine pronouns for myself, and for other cis gay gays. It's a pretty common part of gay culture. But I am not going to add she/her to my list of pronouns because I don't identify with a she/her gender expression, even though I do use those pronouns. I think it's being intentionally aloof to suggest it's only about pronoun preference for grammatical purposed, and has nothing to do with gender expression. Of course it has something to do with gender expression.
But since we have opened the door to pronouns that go beyond gender expression, into otherkin expression, then there ought to be an option for people to identity as a catboys -- whether it's because it makes them feel cute or because they have some sincerely held identity that they are catfolk. The "it's just a pronoun" arguers are suggesting we just pick whatever pronoun we like people to use, has nothing to do with our identity. Under that paradigm, you ought to be able to pick cat/boy just because it's cute.
Neopronouns are fine, as they relate to gender. But if you open the door to these other categories of identity (which is a reasonable discussion to have that no one has gotten to, because some of the non-gender identites have "pronouns"), you should either open them all or push them all off into a second flair. That is my position. They don't bother me one bit, it only bothers me that some are privilieged while other aren't.
It is about identity, but the point isn't to directly express identity, but to clarify what grammar should be used. I'm not sure how to make that sound less contradictory, but it isn't.
This is probably where we're headed, but that doesn't quite solve the problem because the second flair would fundamentally be not pronouns, so doe/deer still belongs in the first flair, and the second would be "Fawn" or whatever doe calls deer identity.
Is doe/deer supposed to be legitimate pronouns we are expected to use in sentences?
Inventing racialized pronouns on the quest for social justice just seems completely galaxy brain to me.
As far as I can tell, yes.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator