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.
Even pointing this out objectively will get somebody steamrolled.