like it or not but things like pronouns, rainbow themes, gender neutral avatars, even masks are used as political symbols to signify allegiance. It's opt-in (like wearing an arm band) and allows people who partake to identify political allies and adversaries.

Even pointing this out objectively will get somebody steamrolled.

Interesting, thanks for clarifying! Looks like I live in an environment where this is not a thing. Or I'm not aware of it. I'm also not in the USfor what it's worth.

You don't notice it because as soon as somebody steps out of line they are erased. my root comment has been flagged and nobody else will even see it.

For what it's worth, I can see it and it's been over 11 hours.

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?)

it was unflagged sometime last night.

You are mixing human rights and being decent to others with political opinion. It's not politics because they are what people are. There is also a "Men's rights movement", but it's not political to state that you are male.

Stop playing the victim. You are not being objective, you are just passing on an old, dead narrative.

Which human right does abolishing all female-only spaces come under? As that is the end goal of this movement that starts so seemingly innocently with preferred pronouns.

If you believe that, you need to take another look what people are actually asking for.

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.

This is what is actually being asked for.

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

Pronouns are not the only way to identify CIS females. I see no harm for exclusive zones, but it doesn't matter what I think, as that's a separate discussion.

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.

> There is also a "Men's rights movement", but it's not political to state that you are male.

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.

> I'm so tired of the constant battle to make very simple, innocent ideas political.

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.