Sooo f*ing tired.
Even pointing this out objectively will get somebody steamrolled.
I find it really interesting what people consider political/apolitical these days, even things that weren't before. If somebody says they like to drink orange juice, that's currently an apolitical statement. If somebody else comes out and says that drinking orange juice is a bad thing to do, and gives a political reason for it, the first person suddenly "becomes political" by virtue of enjoying orange juice and talking about it, even though that wasn't political before. Why should the opinions of dissenters have the power to turn someone's otherwise apolitical statement political?
(Now compare that allegory to somebody who said "Since this is the internet and you cannot see me, please know that I'm a he/him" on a BBS in 1985. That was an apolitical statement. But now, saying it on your social media in 2022 it's political? How come?)
Stop playing the victim. You are not being objective, you are just passing on an old, dead narrative.
Taking any search for any decency and turning it into "they want to end the world!!" can be done to anything in any part of the political spectrum.
The purpose of preferred pronouns is to legitimize the idea that being a woman or a man is an identity rather than a material fact of existence. It's intended to validate the concept of males being included in the category of women.
So, when female-only spaces are made 'inclusive' by admitting such males (i.e. those who want to be women, or who say they are women) then they are no longer female-only spaces. Eventually, if this continues, they will have been effectively abolished.
See also: https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns
The link you posted, summarized and purified from drug references, says pronouns blur senses for males and females, which I also see no harm for. I, being CIS, also declare my pronouns and many others too, which article plainly denies as such:
> Almost without exception, the people who request, or demand, others talk about them using specific pronouns, are asking for pronouns associated with the opposite sex to their own.
LGBTQIA+ people are just people. Some have an agenda like others, some don't. Some take the identification issues to the political arena, some just... are.
Absolutely, but there are certain terms used by MRAs that are political. Just as being gay isn't political, but pushing pronouns or wearing rainbows can be.
GP appears to be making a factual statement (these things are often used for allegiance signalling for political groups), whereas you seem to be attacking them personally. You may need to reread the HN rules.
You may be tired, and I may get downvoted, but this is oversimplifying the problem so much that the message itself seems political. First, identifying pronouns is not really opt-in. There is significant peer pressure, and once you're the lone holdout, it's very hard to keep yourself pronoun-less without becoming a social outcast and targeted as a bigot.
I am 100% behind equal rights for trans people, and will call anyone by their preferred pronoun (he or she, on the fence on they, and would probably not go into the neo-pronouns). That said, my wish is that the default mode to address someone is based on observed external sex characteristics, and where people whose external sex characteristics match their traditional pronouns do not communicate their pronouns. My reasons are that at a young age, kids are extremely easy to influence, and I have a strong feeling that many kids identify as another sex to mask other underlying issues. For similar contrarian perspective see the book Irreversible Damage and also Blair White's youtube channel.
It's the left wing equivalent of putting up a bunch of burning crosses and pretending they don't mean anything.
I know exactly how fairly I would be treated in that community and it looks like this: (the flagged and dead comment below this)
Are you colorblind and the colors of the text are hard to read? They weren't very readable on light mode but I wouldn't call that political
Is it the mastodon instance? The overall peppy feel of the page?
Is "burning crosses" over-the-top? Yes, obviously. Does it say, "You're not the kind of social we have in mind," to a sizable portion of potential users? Yes again.
It's nice, playful, and youthful branding.
it's bait
by the way, I posted that link sincerely.
I believe you mean, "agree with me on gender and sexuality". When you take away the tendentious wording, it's a lot less clear that it "should be a given."
Acknowledging the existence of obvious branding or political affiliation means subjecting yourself to an inquisition where 30 people take turns trying to pigeonhole you as a bigot.
again the message is clear "you're not welcome"
As it happens, though, I don't see myself as a victim. I don't mind in the least people reacting to my opinions. But I also feel perfectly comfortable pointing out the nature of the reaction, which is generally not to engage with content but to turn it into a question of character. Which you have done.
> Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement which advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies that can greatly enhance longevity and cognition.
Is that the word you meant to use? It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of your list/comment.
The only thing I don't like is the branding. It seems to have some political undertones to it.
I think combining this with a product like crypt pad is a great start towards creating a more independent Google workspace competitor.