I offered to use peoples' names instead of any pronouns whatsoever. I haven't misgendered anyone (or done anything oppressive for that matter), and it's kind of messed up to not let someone respond to comments in an unban thread. It's not like I've been disruptive in meta to necessitate a ban from the very sub that's designed to have these sorts of discussions.
I would ask anyone opposing an unban to cite anything oppressive or against the rules that I've done, because there isn't anything. I wasn't even allowed to argue against the ban in the first place, because someone banned me after only ten hours of having the ban thread up! I don't feel like I've been treated fairly at all.
The reason we don't allow banned people to post on Meta is that typically, when someone gets banned, they go to Meta and post horrible stuff.
Here's what I will do though: Since I trust you to not do that, I will unban you for a few days to appeal your case, you will create the thread yourself. However, if you post one thing that violates the rules, you will be permanently banned and the thread will be taken down. Also, you are not to comment in any other Meta threads, only your own. I'm keeping a close eye on this, because I'm going out on a limb here by doing this.
By the way, this thread is a place to appeal your ban, not to continue your argument about correct pronouns. If you use that thread to continue your argument that you refuse to call people their preferred pronouns, that violates the AOP, because you're disrespecting everyone's gender identity.
That's going to look weird, if I post it and you are commenting. Your comments should be distinguished as the "OP" comments, not mine.
And I will not ban you unless you violate the AOP. But I'm giving you a chance to defend yourself. You can post the unban thread, you can reply to people's comments. It's easier that way, and probably better.
You just said that my opting out of all gender is a violation of the AOP, so any defense I might offer is automatically a ban. You're setting me up. Please just follow the rules and make the unban thread, as required by the policy. If you choose to editorialize by mentioning your proposed rule circumvention, please also include that I declined it because it was a trap that would have resulted in a ban with no recourse based on any defense I would have made for myself.
I don't really understand how using gender-neutral pronouns oppresses transfolks. Neutral pronouns like they/them/theirs (NOT "it") refer to agents in non-gendered ways, not anti-gender ways. The speaker could have that intention, but it's not intrinsic to the lexicon. For example, referring to someone by their own name instead of using pronouns is non-gendered, do people think that also oppresses trans people? Can someone explain the difference to me? No trans person I've ever met has taken issue with neutral pronouns, so there's certainly no undeniable consensus on the topic. It would be best to use their preferred pronoun of course if one plans on using gendered pronouns, but I don't see how using neutral pronouns differs from just referring to someone by their name.
(Not speaking in support of Rita, just confused by The_Mermaid's sense of certainty here.)
I generally use neutral gender-pronouns with folks unless explicitly asked otherwise. I could imagine a valid reason to continue using neutral gender-pronouns for transfolks afterward would be something like if you're addressing others, you can't know that them them desiring you using a specific gender pronoun means them desiring or even consenting to you potentially outing them as trans if you're gendering them to others or in a public setting.
I'm a gender nihilist but yeah, I think it's scummy to ignore pronoun requests. Although I don't think that's necessarily mis-gendering in the OP, it's a different type of invalidation, not to be dismissed.
Is it appropriate to use "you/yours/yourself", 2nd person gender-neutral pronouns? We're only talking about third-person, yeah? Again, never heard any trans friends take issue with that, or any article discussing saying it's bad to use they/them/their after hearing a gender-pronoun preference, as I've honestly never seen that situation arise before. Dose anyone know of any articles on the topic specifically of neutral pronouns after?
I am being called a rapist in very sideways terms, and it is incredibly offensive. I would like a moderator to intervene, and either arbitrate the discussion or strike the very clearly offensive posts. Thread in question:
I never said/nor implied they were a rapist. I was outlining the rape of non-human animals in factory farming and how dairy consumption financially contributes to that industrial process. They got upset and said I was calling them a rapist.
I guess I feel very strongly about this. Once before, in what was effectively the same discussion, another user said outright that consumption of animal products was akin to rape, yada yada yada. It bothered me then, and seeing the rhetoric here just reminded me of how pissed I was then. I can recognize I reacted emotionally, but I still feel there should be a "Godwin's Law" equivalent for rape where we don't compare shit to it for the sake of making a rhetorical point.
That's not completely genuine. I had already expressed some serious objections to the discussion of rape in this context, and it was completely unnecessary to move the discussion to the use of rape racks. Secondly, I have repeatedly stated I don't support factory farming practices and I shouldn't have to itemize my rejection of them.
I feel like I'm being told that usage of any animal product is akin to participation in rape, and find that pretty offensive.
I'd tried giving examples of how someone could find local and sustainable sources for animal products, sources I consider ethically superior to factory-farm products, and that got ignored in order to start a discussion about rape rack usage. This is after I had already expressed strong discomfort with the discussion moving to the topic of rape. It's insensitive at best, and I felt it in actual bad faith.
I think you win in that argument and the votes show that. I've had the same argument and it honestly just ends with me saying that nobody will take you seriously when you say using animals is equal to whatever they want to compare it with. Basically animal right activism had been stuck in this absurdity for a long time. I do think they should stop comparing it to rape cause its gonna really offend someone sometime. And if its the wrong person in a real life setting they are bound to get some anger
AFAIK, the user they were arguing with wasn't making a moral comparison between carnism and rape, they were discussing literal rape of animals in industrial farming. Which is of course not what the OP seemed to aim to promote, but that's the context of the discussion.
Stop your lying. Speciesist anarchists trivialize the experiences of non-human animals because they are not recognized as equals, and their right to freedom and autonomy is not recognized since they are viewed as subservient to humans. No matter how much your speciesist discrimination intends to de-legitimize it, non-human animals are raped in the factory farm industry. I don't disregard, trivialize or ignore their rape simply because they are not human.
In fact just off the top of my head, I don't think you can get more ableist than that. Also, I think they are inherently different ideas. Not to mention the whole thing is rhetorical. It's meant to push the conversation to the brink if ridiculousness. Like, do you really have to insult people to win arguments etc.
Not to mention you and I are on much better terms since.
Hi there, I just got a message about being banned from meta, except that I've followed all the rules. I'm not a sock, I haven't done anything wrong. I'd like an unban thread and the ability to argue in my defense in it. It looks like there was a ban thread I never saw, posted 24 hours ago, and then I was banned 14 hours ago. That's pretty messed up.
I would like that. I haven't misgendered anybody, and have even offered to use peoples' names to the exclusion of any pronouns whatsoever. I don't know how I can be any more clear that I haven't done anything oppressive whatsoever.
I'm withdrawing my ban proposal, and was going to delete the post. However, /u/rrrrrk has requested that the proposal be left in place for historical purposes. I told them I wasn't sure if that was okay for procedural/logistical reasons, and that I would ask the mods. I am totally okay with it, I was just under the impression that it was supposed to be deleted. A little input would much appreciated.
I agree. That was a drastic escalation of calling out. Thank you. I just changed accounts and lost all my social capital. Though some people think I'm a parody of intersectionality. I'm trying to be a parody of society of the spectacle.
I'm switching my account from /u/rootrobinroot to /u/RRRRRK. This message is to make sure there's less drama around sock-puppet accusations which may happen. So I don't have to go completely public with agitators.
Okay, well thanks anyway. Now it is on record that /u/RRRRRK is not a sock-puppet or new account, but the rebirth of a long-time participant in /r/@ Keep up the good "servant leadership" or "facilitation" or whatever you want to call it if not modding.
Thanks :) We don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as you aren't doing it for nefarious purposes. If anyone gives you a problem because you have a second account, let me know and I'll explain the policy to them.
for example. I already spoke to the admins this week about alt accounts and they have removed some. Yet I think there must be more people out there using alts, as the voting patterns are very suspicious. Wold anyone object if I contacted the admins again and ask them to check for suspicious activity?