We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, or other similar characteristic.

We will exclude you from interaction if you insult, demean or harass anyone. That is not welcome behavior. In particular, we don’t tolerate behavior that excludes people in socially marginalized groups.

This 'struggle session' has cut open a sore of cisnormativity which allows plausible deniability of transphobic action and thought. It's senseless and insensitive to push back against what should be a non-issue. Cis and trans alike, set your pronouns so as to normalize an aspect of trans inclusion that goes some way to dispel cishet patriarchal norms assumed default by almost every space, especially online.

There is no excuse (that hasn't been considered and discussed and where applicable, taken on board) to push back against this as we as a community have. We can (and should) do better.

  • the_river_cass [she/her]
    3·
    4 years ago

    wasn't it worded like "you're a lib if you don't set pronouns"? that's so typical of posts on this site that I'm literally floored it started this shitstorm. it points to a deep fragility that I hope people introspect on.

    • Abraxiel
      4·
      4 years ago

      I would identify this paragraph as the point of friction:

      For the libs shouting “but muh anonymity”, you should have zero issue using the “any pronoun” tag as you will be addressed with any pronouns regardless of whether or not you have it set. The point of having them sitewide is for everyone to use them to normalize explicitly stating one’s pronouns as a means of not forcing trans people to request to be addressed with basic respect. The amount of pushback on a meaningful step toward trans inclusivity in this community is pretty fucking disheartening, not gonna lie.

      There's a loose implication that users who hadn't set their pronouns were contributing to or participating in trans people not being treated with basic respect. This probably wouldn't read as aggressively were it not followed by the next sentence referencing a fucking disheartening level of pushback toward trans inclusivity, which likely didn't square with how many users thought the site was doing.

      I want to be clear that I'm not evaluating whether or not the post was appropriate; I am interested in dissecting what happened and why.

      • the_river_cass [she/her]
        1·
        4 years ago

        his probably wouldn’t read as aggressively were it not followed by the next sentence referencing a fucking disheartening level of pushback toward trans inclusivity, which likely didn’t square with how many users thought the site was doing.

        it's a reference to a thread that went south the day before on !userunion@hexbear.net that was in fact disheartening, filled with a lot of ignorance, and taxed the nerves of a lot of people. if you believe the site is doing well and suddenly trans people are saying no its not and your first reaction is to get defensive and treat everything as a personal attack, do you really think that's a reasonable reaction?

        • Abraxiel
          1·
          4 years ago

          I think it might be read as a personal attack and cause people to act defensively if they haven't seen the pushback and feel, helped by the general tone of the post, that the anger is directed at them for not having set their pronouns.

          • the_river_cass [she/her]
            1·
            4 years ago

            no, I got that, I'd like people to consider if that's reasonable or if we should take political minorities seriously when they raise issues about the community. isn't that what we mean when we say solidarity?