Whilst this is not a local only post/community, it is primarily intended for blahaj lemmy members. Top level replies from non blahaj accounts will be removed.
=======
I want to take the moment to clarify the Blahaj Lemmy position on things, given recent events and the fallout that has followed. This will give people the chance to decide for themselves if blahaj zone lemmy is the right space for them, or if it doesn’t meet their needs.
First and foremost, blahaj zone lemmy exists to give a space for queer folk to exist, with their needs explicitly protected as the highest priority, and with a particular focus on the needs of gender diverse folk. Most lemmy instances are not run by trans folk, and whilst many are still inclusive, they don’t always prioritise our needs. Others barely consider trans folk, and react only to the most blatant of bigotry.
We are not a political instance, however political communities have a space here, as does any community that is actively protective of the needs of queer and gender diverse folk. Given the impact of politics on gender diverse folk, that means lots of dialogue and strong opinions exist, and as long as those opinions are honestly held, and not bigoted or exclusive, people are welcome to have and express those opinions here.
For what it’s worth, I am a member of the Greens Party in Australia. I have no time for the middle ground politics of the Australian Labor party, let alone the right wing beliefs of the Australian Liberal party. Yet a community of queer Labor Party aligned folk would fit on blahaj lemmy, because the parties ideologies, are not explicitly anti queer. A community aligned with the Australian Liberal party likely would not have a place here, unless the goal of the community was to work at actively challenging the anti queer policies of the party.
That being said, political communities (or any other communities) that exist solely to target and take aim at other queer folk have no place here either. The goal of blahaj lemmy is queer inclusion, and a community whose sole goal is division, will be removed.
The downside to this is that as we assume good faith in members and we don’t gatekeep or deny access to people because of their pronouns or gender identity, (even when those identities are challenging to many) it is possible for bad faith actors to take advantage of our inclusive policies. Unfortunately, that’s just something we are going to have to navigate as it occurs, because I won’t let bad faith folk push this instance to defaulting to exclusion or gatekeeping the validity of someone’s identity. I will respect a trolls pronouns even as I ban them, because to not do so, normalises the idea that pronouns are something that are earned by good behaviour, or that other people have a say in the validity of another person’s identity and pronouns.
So that’s where we stand. Hopefully this will help people decide for themselves whether or not this is the right instance for them.
You can’t reclaim nazi terminology, because those terms are not slurs, but dogwhistles for hate. As such, someone using them would be instantly banned.
Happy to hear that, it sounded like that wasn’t the case from the conversation so far.
Requiring minors to use sexual terms to talk to you also falls under “act on their behaviour, not their pronouns”. It too would lead to an instant ban.
I think you misunderstood me there. I am talking about you requiring minors to use these sexual terms, because of people using those terms as their pronouns. As otherwise, they would be misgendering them.
It’s mostly you getting upset at scenarios that can’t occur, because your examples would nearly all be moderated under the “moderate their behaviour, not their pronouns”.
The only “behavior” I am talking about is using these terms as pronouns, which some people do. Usually for malicious reasons, of course.
Also, didn’t the attack helicopter thing get used as a dog whistle? I’ve never seen it used as a slur (calling someone an attack helicopter). It’s always just been “I identify as an attack helicopter” and similar sentences to make fun of the concept of gender identity and invalidate trans people.
Isabel Fall was “obviously in bad faith” to most people who hounded her.
Sure, but the recourse for someone like that on Lemmy from a moderator perspective would simply be to ask them to not use “attack helicopter” as a pronoun, not to witch hunt them.
Happy to hear that, it sounded like that wasn’t the case from the conversation so far.
Only if you arrived here with preconceived ideas.
As otherwise, they would be misgendering them.
Requiring minors to use sexual terms to address you would get you banned.
Also, didn’t the attack helicopter thing get used as a dog whistle?
It was a term aimed at queer folk to dehumanise us. People are allowed to reclaim terms like that.
Sure, but the recourse for someone like that on Lemmy from a moderator perspective would simply be to ask them to not use “attack helicopter” as a pronoun,
I’m not going to gatekeep people on their pronouns. I will address problematic behaviour.
It’s that simple. You aren’t a user of this instance, and this isn’t a request for feedback, so if you disagree, that’s your prerogative, but that’s how it works here.
Only if you arrived here with preconceived ideas.
What preconceived ideas? I don’t know you, and I didn’t know anything about the situation the post was made about. You very clearly gave that impression in this discussion, particularly with the following statements:
If someone’s pronouns make you feel unsafe, that’s more of an issue you need to work on than anything else IMO.
And until such time as we find a way of reading people’s minds to determine their intentions, all we can do is respect what they tell us about who they are, and respond to their behaviour.
But until such a time as I can read their minds to determine their intentions, so I can tell the lsabel Falls apart from the trolls, all can act on is their behaviour.
I won’t act on someone’s pronouns alone, …
Even in this very message, you just said “I’m not going to gatekeep people on their pronouns. I will address problematic behaviour”
You repeatedly said that pronouns alone will not lead to any moderation actions. This directly contradicts your later statement in your reply to me, saying that dogwhistles and terms sexual in nature will lead to a ban.
Requiring minors to use sexual terms to address you would get you banned.
Again, glad to hear that, but if all someone did is put a sexual term as their pronoun, and that alone would not lead to a ban, a minor would be put in the situation of using that term or refusing and therefore misgendering. The user who set that as their pronoun in this situation didn’t do anything outside of putting those pronouns in their bio or next to their name.
It was a term aimed at queer folk to dehumanise us. People are allowed to reclaim terms like that.
Fair enough, I can’t disagree with that. However, in the case of using it or slurs as a pronoun, it would force others to use those terms to address others. So, unless I’m misinterpreting your statements, someone using the t-slur as their pronoun and me refusing to use it to refer to them would lead to a ban?
You aren’t a user of this instance, and this isn’t a request for feedback, so if you disagree, that’s your prerogative, but that’s how it works here.
lmao ok, it’s literally just a conversation based on a disagreement. Glad I didn’t make my account on here though, looks like I dodged a bullet.
To clarify, you deliberately misgendering someone would get you banned. If you can’t find a way of talking to or about someone without misgendering them, that’s something you’re going to need to work on.
And if you think misgendering is bad, but it becomes OK when you start to feel uncomfortable, then you were never going to last here.
