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.
You must log in or register to comment.