I didn't say it was a line, I said it was a plane. I agree that genders have many different expressions. But it's not a total free-for-all, it's not "anything you can imagine, you can say it's a gender, and if other people fail to respect it, they are being transphobic."

You cannot compel people to engage with wildly fantastical notions just because you want to shoehorn it into the form of a "gender". This is dangerously approaching the one joke territory, where "attack helicopter" must be a valid gender since there are no limits anyone may define for another person without being transphobic. If I reject "attack helicopter" could be a valid nonbinary gender for someone, then I am the one being transphobic. You have gender turned on its head to justify coercing people to identify you as some kind of fairy via the opprobrium of transphobia.

You can repeat that over and over again, but being nonbinary doesn't mean people have to call you a fae, or they are being a transphobe. Identifying as fairy has nothing to do with gender, because fairies themselves have genders! Just like the deer. There are genders of deer i.e. doe vs. stag. So it seems to me it's about shoehorning some non-gender-related identity into "gender" to piggyback it onto the trans issue, and to insist people call you are these other kinds of being. (And if they don't you can accuse them of transphobia.)

Not if you are trying to shoehorn some other meaning into pronouns, such as being a different species or a mythological creature! That has nothing to do with being trans or nonbinary.

I am not defining anything about you are what you believe about yourself. I am saying people should not be expected to call you by a nounself neopronoun indicating that you are a fairy.
And if someone chooses not to acknowledge your fairy nature by using such a pronoun, they are not being transphobic.

I would think that whatever gender may mean, it certainly doesn't include other being another species or a fantasy creature. There is some collective understanding of gender that people have: masculine, femininine, and people who feel neither masculine nor feminine. But masuline and feminine are still the two poles, so whatever meaning gender could have would have least have to be at least on the same plane of meaning. The two poles are not dragon and robot. (I am not just being a smartass, there are dragon and robot nounself pronouns listed on the nonbinary wiki.)

Not if they are insisting I use a pronoun unrelated to comporting with their gender identity. Say somsone am being Otherkin-phobic because they won't use a fairy pronoun, that would be reasonable.

People have the right to choose anything for any reason. But other people do not have to go along with what you want them to do. If people are misgendering you, then that is transphobic and should be condemned. If people are refusing to say you are a fairy or a deer or some other kind of being, that has nothing to do with gender. You can choose to identify that way, and choose to have pronouns that other people may agree to use. But random people should be expected to go along with the Otherkin nounself neopronouns, and if they don't, it's not transphobia.

You are conflating pronouns with gender when especially the nounself neopronouns are being employed beyond gender, to indicate other kinds of identities than gender identities. If you have an Otherkin identity, that is cool, maybe you have a pronoun for it -- but what does it have to with trans and nonbinary? Gender is 100% valid and everyone should be expected to respect gender identity. But if we are talking about something else, like Otherkin identity, I think it's reasonable if not everyone chooses to entertain that.

I understand nonbinary genders, and they are entirely valid, I accept them 100%. I am saying that fairy (or sidhe or angel) is not a nonbinary gender, it's a different kind of (non-human) entity. A different (fantasy) species. I also don't think deer is a gender, it's a different species. I don't see why this is controversial to say. Can you identify with or as these other kinds of beings? Sure, absolutely, knock yourself out, it's cool. But what does it have to do with gender or transgender?

I am not "policing" pronouns, I am just saying that other people should not be expected to use pronouns expressing otherkin identities or whatever other kinds of identities. Gender identity, yes that is a reasonable expectation. The other things, I don't think so.

Fae is an existing word in the form of a noun (meaning fairy folk) and adjective (meaning magical, fairy-like) that someone decided to start using as a pronoun, and other people liked it also decided to use it. It's pretty clear from the history of its usage as a pronoun that the intent was to express a fairy identity.

Here is a post from 2013 asserting an origin:

https://askanonbinary.tumblr.com/post/66441169269/so-i-saw-the-faefaerfaersfaerself-pronouns-and/amp

It is literally a pronoun invented on the spot by my (white, dfab, technically nonbinary although fae does not identify as trans*) friend who’s gender is somewhere between sidhe and angel, fae made it to replace faer previous pronouns of “this one/that one” and alternating between “he” and “she”.

All of these nounself pronouns, as far as I can tell, are intended to express the identity of the original word's meaning, as far as I can tell. What does any of this have to do with gender?

What does being a fae have to do with gender? I am not saying you can't "be" a fairy person, I am saying there shouldn't be an expectation for anyone else to go along with it. The "nounself" pronouns are very different from the novel non-gendered pronouns without any inherent meaning. I don't think it's being transphobic to not want to call by people by "pronouns" that suggest they are deer or fairies or cats or whatever else. I don't see what it has to do with gender identity, at that point we are talking about otherkin identity or something else.

I have not argued against respecting anyone's gender-related pronouns. You or anyone are asking me to respect gender, 100% on board. But I am not going to entertain that you are a fairy person. If you want to hold such fantastical notions, then more power to you, that's cool. But I don't believes fairies are real, I am not going to call you one under the guise of trans-acceptance.

Here is a short list for you. Most of them have nothing to do with gender, but rather, other kinds of identities.

https://nonbinary.miraheze.org/wiki/Nounself_pronouns

Worth pointing out deer-related pronouns can be gendered. A doe is a female deer, a stag is a male deer. Why you wouldn't use he/him and she/her to refer to male and female deer-persons is a reasonable question, imo. I am 100% onboard with accommodating gender identities and expressions, but the other categories deserve some skepticism that they haven't received -- except the cat genders which were removed for being unserious meme options, (unlike the deer and fairy options.)

They won't give it back because it's a meme gender, unlike fairies and forest people. Cat people are no longer valid on chapo.chat 😿

Maybe the addition of fairy pronouns?

people here go out of their way to be pointlessly cruel and vindictive to fellow comrades

My experience has been the exact opposite, that people are much friendlier here than they were on reddit. I have read others say the same thing. Maybe just on this one issue, things have been rough?

Why can you choose a deer or fae option, but not a cat option? In isolation, removing the cat option would be fine. But if you are adding two new options for deer and fae, it seems like the cat option should still be allowed.

Furthermore, I don't think a person being unwilling to use deer- or fairy-based pronouns is transphobic. I don't think these two issues should be lumped in with each other. I think we can build a mass, working-class movement that respects gender. I am much more skeptical about building a mass, working-class movement that respects fairy-based or deer-based pronouns and identities. I support these individuals living their lives and expressing themselves however they want, but I don't think there should be a duty on anyone else to observe these non-gender prononun categories, and I don't think not wanting to makes you transphobic.

If we are banning people for not observing race-based pronouns, when the race is fairy or deer, I think we've lost the plot. That is not transphobia (or maybe racism?) nor TERFy nor reactiony nor borderline-stupidpol. It's just being insufficiently weird. I am irony poisoned enough to go along with just about anything, but as I understand this isn't a bit and people have sincerely-held beliefs about being faeries or deer. I think that's too far removed from a materialist perspective to issue a statement like "If you don't accept the reality of deer and fairy people, then you are not a leftist. It's that fucking easy." Yet we have these identities lumped in with gender for some reason. I think people can be skeptical of expanding the category of gender to include deer and fairies without being transphobes or bigots.

Is doe/deer supposed to be legitimate pronouns we are expected to use in sentences?

Inventing racialized pronouns on the quest for social justice just seems completely galaxy brain to me.

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.

(cat-)he went to the store to be (cat-)himself dinner

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.