The comment is in the modlog and was posted elsewhere in the thread. Copied the screenshot here, context is a transphobic concern troll post removed by mods that it was supporting.
https://hexbear.net/comment/3890636
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.
I sympathise and agree with much of what you are saying.
"they is not ideal, but until you know better it will suffice." might be the intended message.
If the person is replying in good faith and actually trying to both to understand and be understood. And that would include explicitly stating somewhere that it acknowledges that being pedantic about de-gendering vs misgendering is not constructive.
Paraphrasing, the events went along these lines.
user: TERFs use they/them pronouns for people who they damn well know use different pronouns as a way to de-gender people and as a slight against trans people
dronerights: actually, they/them is right anyways because it doesn’t do anything with gender, so the TERFs aren’t doing anything wrong, they are using language correctly
Descriptivism vs Prescriptivism. Its argument is that prescriptivism and technical definition is the only correct interpretation of they/them pronouns. Compare ‘they banned me for saying gender neutral pronouns exist’ with, for instance, JKKK Rowling claiming to be canceled for saying gender exists. Its a false argument. Descriptively, they/them is not used neutrally, and is used to hurt people, therefore they/them can be gendered. TERFs use they/them as a stand-in for misgendering, therefore it is misgendering. They/them means she/her for people who use he/him, and vice versa. They/them means ‘I refuse to use your made up neopronouns’. The gender neutral definition isn’t the only one, and dronerights insisting upon the gender neutrality in all circumstances is incorrect.
The pedantic insistence that the context shouldn’t matter because they/them is technically correct, or should be correct, is where the transphobia lies.
And until I see any acknowledgement by dronerights of this, instead of constantly doubling down on it, I do not see a good faith argument.
Instead we have this. The user misrepresenting events. Misrepresentation is bad faith. If it said it was being a pedantic jerk and clarified, that would go a long way to earning this generous interpretation of its position that you want to give it. It is trying to be right and win an internet argument at any cost and constantly starts fights between users and instances (also bad faith actions).
There are two separate transphobic things in DroneRights's comment that got it banned and you're getting way off into the weeds on one while ignoring the reason given in the modlog, which is enbyphobia. They/them are ideal (whatever the fuck that means) pronouns and they aren't necessarily gender neutral when they're being used for someone who prefers them.
That's.. not at all what I was saying. You can prefer any pronouns, for any reason, and that's valid. Using "they" when you have not made reasonable effort to ascertain another's pronouns is misgendering. If a person's preferred pronouns are they/them that is also valid and those are the pronouns you should use.
To reword my previous comment "(without making reasonable effort to ascertain someone's preference) they is not ideal, but until you know better it will suffice."
If "they" is only accidentally correct I don't think that's exactly any better because the intention was the same.
I had written it in many more words and then shortened it later, thinking I was making it more clear, but apparently making it less clear. The blame is on me for that.
In the first sentence I also acknowledged that you were correct in a literal sense, but you did do some editorializing. As for whether I think dronerights was being trans/nbphobic I'm still not sure because there is more evidence than I stated with and it leads into some topics I don't feel equipped to make any sort of judgement on, as I alluded to in the last sentence.
I don't think trying to explain myself was uncalled for when the circumstances made me look like I was intentionally and knowingly defending enbyphobic behavior. Not being perceived as a trans/nbphobe here is actually really important to me.
Not being perceived as a trans/nbphobe here is actually really important to me.
kinda surprising tbh given how many words you're writing to defend enby erasure here and that you're still doing it!
all for what, to defend the honor of an obvious shit-stirrer who's been banned for a while now? seems like you don't need much motivation to cast doubt on what your trans comrades here are telling you. putting you back on block now
I'm sorry that nuance requires so many words I guess, but when I just got my ass handed to me for using too few you can kind of understand it right?
"If you use they/them...you'll never gender someone correctly."
Explain how that's not reactionary.
You demanded that I explain a specific thing out of context.
https://lemm.ee/post/12418057
Oh look I was right, dronerights was not expressing nbphobia it the way you presented it.
You editorialized it and I recognized that it didn't make sense in context, and challenged it on that basis. I had read every single comment and post by dronerights because I thought it was interesting and if what you said it had said was true I would have remembered it.
I acknowledged my part in being unclear and maybe I suck at explaining myself but you're making no effort to listen to what I'm actually saying, when you have literally no good reason to think I'm being disingenuous. I'm open to self crit here but I also know that I'm not doing the thing I'm being accused of and If I'm wrong it's out of ignorance not malice.
If a person's preferred pronouns are they/them that is valid and those are the pronouns you should use.
Dronerights, replying to that same top comment:
I agree.
Please stop painting me a fucking transphobe. It's a huge stretch to suggest that I think any pronouns except they/them are acceptable but I still went ahead and spelled it out for you
lmao what a willful misreading of that thread, transphobe. 'I agree, [more enby erasure]' does not shorten to 'I agree'. Especially when there's more back and forth from a nonbinary person there again saying the exact same fucking thing I've been here, with dronerights behaving exactly the same way there.
clearly its ban was justified and I'll be when you catch yours too
stop being transphobic if you don't want that label, cissie.
You might have noticed that I'm not dronerights and I'm not responsible for it's comments, particularly ones made after my initial post, but that "I agree" is uncontestable proof that the specific form of NB erasure you're accusing me of supporting was your misreading.
![[CW: chaser username] Hexbear: Not pro-LGBTQ+, the Israel of Lemmy instances](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/ecb0ac2c-5607-439f-8507-ec2eb8170ba5.png){kind=link}
The comment is in the modlog and was posted elsewhere in the thread. Copied the screenshot here, context is a transphobic concern troll post removed by mods that it was supporting.
https://hexbear.net/comment/3890636
Removed by mod
It responded here: https://lemm.ee/post/12418057
I sympathise and agree with much of what you are saying.
"they is not ideal, but until you know better it will suffice." might be the intended message.
If the person is replying in good faith and actually trying to both to understand and be understood. And that would include explicitly stating somewhere that it acknowledges that being pedantic about de-gendering vs misgendering is not constructive.
Paraphrasing, the events went along these lines.
Descriptivism vs Prescriptivism. Its argument is that prescriptivism and technical definition is the only correct interpretation of they/them pronouns. Compare ‘they banned me for saying gender neutral pronouns exist’ with, for instance, JKKK Rowling claiming to be canceled for saying gender exists. Its a false argument. Descriptively, they/them is not used neutrally, and is used to hurt people, therefore they/them can be gendered. TERFs use they/them as a stand-in for misgendering, therefore it is misgendering. They/them means she/her for people who use he/him, and vice versa. They/them means ‘I refuse to use your made up neopronouns’. The gender neutral definition isn’t the only one, and dronerights insisting upon the gender neutrality in all circumstances is incorrect.
The pedantic insistence that the context shouldn’t matter because they/them is technically correct, or should be correct, is where the transphobia lies.
And until I see any acknowledgement by dronerights of this, instead of constantly doubling down on it, I do not see a good faith argument.
Instead we have this. The user misrepresenting events. Misrepresentation is bad faith. If it said it was being a pedantic jerk and clarified, that would go a long way to earning this generous interpretation of its position that you want to give it. It is trying to be right and win an internet argument at any cost and constantly starts fights between users and instances (also bad faith actions).
There are two separate transphobic things in DroneRights's comment that got it banned and you're getting way off into the weeds on one while ignoring the reason given in the modlog, which is enbyphobia. They/them are ideal (whatever the fuck that means) pronouns and they aren't necessarily gender neutral when they're being used for someone who prefers them.
That doesn't make it better holy shit. For some of us, they is ideal. That's the point.
That's.. not at all what I was saying. You can prefer any pronouns, for any reason, and that's valid. Using "they" when you have not made reasonable effort to ascertain another's pronouns is misgendering. If a person's preferred pronouns are they/them that is also valid and those are the pronouns you should use.
To reword my previous comment "(without making reasonable effort to ascertain someone's preference) they is not ideal, but until you know better it will suffice."
If "they" is only accidentally correct I don't think that's exactly any better because the intention was the same.
I had written it in many more words and then shortened it later, thinking I was making it more clear, but apparently making it less clear. The blame is on me for that.
Also holy shit, you: I'm gonna need proof
[proof]
you:
In the first sentence I also acknowledged that you were correct in a literal sense, but you did do some editorializing. As for whether I think dronerights was being trans/nbphobic I'm still not sure because there is more evidence than I stated with and it leads into some topics I don't feel equipped to make any sort of judgement on, as I alluded to in the last sentence.
I don't think trying to explain myself was uncalled for when the circumstances made me look like I was intentionally and knowingly defending enbyphobic behavior. Not being perceived as a trans/nbphobe here is actually really important to me.
kinda surprising tbh given how many words you're writing to defend enby erasure here and that you're still doing it!
all for what, to defend the honor of an obvious shit-stirrer who's been banned for a while now? seems like you don't need much motivation to cast doubt on what your trans comrades here are telling you. putting you back on block now
tldr
I'm sorry that nuance requires so many words I guess, but when I just got my ass handed to me for using too few you can kind of understand it right?
You demanded that I explain a specific thing out of context.
https://lemm.ee/post/12418057
Oh look I was right, dronerights was not expressing nbphobia it the way you presented it.
You editorialized it and I recognized that it didn't make sense in context, and challenged it on that basis. I had read every single comment and post by dronerights because I thought it was interesting and if what you said it had said was true I would have remembered it.
I acknowledged my part in being unclear and maybe I suck at explaining myself but you're making no effort to listen to what I'm actually saying, when you have literally no good reason to think I'm being disingenuous. I'm open to self crit here but I also know that I'm not doing the thing I'm being accused of and If I'm wrong it's out of ignorance not malice.
holy shit read the fucking thread in the post you linked, the top comment re-explains what I've been saying in like four words
the 'nuance' you and it are circlejerking over is just more words saying the god damn thing
THIS IS STILL ENBY ERASURE. SELF CRIT YOUR TRANSPHOBIA CISSIE
Me, three comments up this chain:
Dronerights, replying to that same top comment:
Please stop painting me a fucking transphobe. It's a huge stretch to suggest that I think any pronouns except they/them are acceptable but I still went ahead and spelled it out for you
lmao what a willful misreading of that thread, transphobe. 'I agree, [more enby erasure]' does not shorten to 'I agree'. Especially when there's more back and forth from a nonbinary person there again saying the exact same fucking thing I've been here, with dronerights behaving exactly the same way there.
clearly its ban was justified and I'll be
when you catch yours too
stop being transphobic if you don't want that label, cissie.
You might have noticed that I'm not dronerights and I'm not responsible for it's comments, particularly ones made after my initial post, but that "I agree" is uncontestable proof that the specific form of NB erasure you're accusing me of supporting was your misreading.