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.
It makes as much sense as deer or fae.
no, people actually want:
that's a different thing from wanting others to see a part of your identity.
It's not different, it's an extreme case of the same thing -- it's going to a step further, to shoehorn your identity into language by repurposing nouns as pronouns. Perhaps the most extreme declaration of one's identity. Putting the onus on others to refer to you as "deer" is sure to make sure everyone knows you identify as some sort of fawn-person (which still has gendered expression, per a doe vs deer/fawn vs stag/hart pronoun). That's well beyond just wanting to ensure people don't trigger dysphoria by misgendering you with language. It's almost exclusively about wanting people to see a part of your identity and contriving the language around that. Totally different case from the novel neopronouns that nonbinary people want to use because they don't identify with either he/she gender, nor with they/them.
There is no grammatical use of personal pronouns in any language (that I am aware of) that indicates species or demihuman race. Surely, if people could have gotten racialized pronouns to catch on, it would've happened around 17th century America to do racism. Surely racialized pronouns are a thing to be avoided, not a thing to be backdoored in with the cause of transgender acceptance.
If you want to go to such extreme lengths and make up new language constructions, then I posit that cat/boy is equally valid as an inferred pronoun.
The cat is not spoken in the sentence, but is inferred onto every personal pronoun. A more linguistically valid construction than racialized pronouns, since pronoun-dropping is a feature of existing languages.
As to the practical impliciations, I can't really imagine anyone employing "doe/deer" as pronouns the way you used them in that sentence, even if it's in the flair. Most will see it as functionally the same as cat/boy, just some cute or eccentric identity indicator. So the outcome of "training people to ignore pronoun flair" is functionally the same either way, even if there is technically a difference.
No normal person not already eyeballs-deep in the sub-subculture is going to say "doe went to the store to buy deerself dinner" in a real sentence. I am not sure it's reasonable to even expect people to. I think gender identity is inherently valid and something that deeply impacts everyone's life in some way or another. The otherkin identities may be seriously held by a certain subculture, but I don't think there is an expectation everyone has to "accept" them as valid, the same way as universal experiences like gender or sexuality. But if the policy is going to be that we accept them, they should all be accepted equally, and not some privilieged over others -- that's just gatekeeping.
this is deeply uncharitable. I'm not going to speculate on intentions when people ask me to use pronouns.
I and other trans people in this community are and do. we have solidarity for each other.
your whole position here is invalidating and presumptive. I ask you to rethink this from a more empathetic frame of mind.
do you see how this isn't a concrete ask we can make of other people? you're asking for them to change how they perceive you -- but it's not something they can show through action.