Whilst this is not a local only post/community, it is primarily intended for blahaj lemmy members. Top level replies from non blahaj accounts will be removed.
=======
I want to take the moment to clarify the Blahaj Lemmy position on things, given recent events and the fallout that has followed. This will give people the chance to decide for themselves if blahaj zone lemmy is the right space for them, or if it doesn’t meet their needs.
First and foremost, blahaj zone lemmy exists to give a space for queer folk to exist, with their needs explicitly protected as the highest priority, and with a particular focus on the needs of gender diverse folk. Most lemmy instances are not run by trans folk, and whilst many are still inclusive, they don’t always prioritise our needs. Others barely consider trans folk, and react only to the most blatant of bigotry.
We are not a political instance, however political communities have a space here, as does any community that is actively protective of the needs of queer and gender diverse folk. Given the impact of politics on gender diverse folk, that means lots of dialogue and strong opinions exist, and as long as those opinions are honestly held, and not bigoted or exclusive, people are welcome to have and express those opinions here.
For what it’s worth, I am a member of the Greens Party in Australia. I have no time for the middle ground politics of the Australian Labor party, let alone the right wing beliefs of the Australian Liberal party. Yet a community of queer Labor Party aligned folk would fit on blahaj lemmy, because the parties ideologies, are not explicitly anti queer. A community aligned with the Australian Liberal party likely would not have a place here, unless the goal of the community was to work at actively challenging the anti queer policies of the party.
That being said, political communities (or any other communities) that exist solely to target and take aim at other queer folk have no place here either. The goal of blahaj lemmy is queer inclusion, and a community whose sole goal is division, will be removed.
The downside to this is that as we assume good faith in members and we don’t gatekeep or deny access to people because of their pronouns or gender identity, (even when those identities are challenging to many) it is possible for bad faith actors to take advantage of our inclusive policies. Unfortunately, that’s just something we are going to have to navigate as it occurs, because I won’t let bad faith folk push this instance to defaulting to exclusion or gatekeeping the validity of someone’s identity. I will respect a trolls pronouns even as I ban them, because to not do so, normalises the idea that pronouns are something that are earned by good behaviour, or that other people have a say in the validity of another person’s identity and pronouns.
So that’s where we stand. Hopefully this will help people decide for themselves whether or not this is the right instance for them.
You’ve treated any discussion of this concept as a dig at this specific user. You’re gonna know who and what I’m talking about, because this whole thing is obliquely about them and their posts. I already didn’t mention any usernames.
If effectively impossible for users to disagree on this topic, don’t invite a discussion on this topic. Be a petit dictator and say: this is the policy, tough shit. Don’t insist good faith will always be assumed and then delete any posts that question your actions and stated reasons.
Nothing about my post was inviting discussion. I explained the goals and vision of the instance. I didn’t ask for input on changing them, because I am not open to gatekeeping peoples identities, assuming that people are acting in bad faith, or banning them because people find their pronouns challenging.
If that doesn’t meet your needs, then this isn’t the space for you.
That’s pretty clear cut…
People are trying to point out that letting trolls demand absolutely any rules for addressing them, on the off chance they’re serious, does not serve your stated goal of actively protecting the queer community. Your chosen example is someone deliberately picking a slur specifically because it’s a slur.
If you choose to allow that, okay, sure. That’s hands-off.
If you choose to respect that, please remember you are still using a slur.
If you choose to censor people who refuse to do the same, as if there’s no daylight between not typing a slur (or using standard capitalization) and deadnaming someone, that is actively doing harm to individuals and the community.
If you choose to censor people just for discussing this policy, and call that discussion “gatekeeping,” why was this post not locked at zero comments? You even invited me to repost the bulk of a comment, several levels deep into an exchange about the motives and limits of these demands. That’s not what it looks like when someone doesn’t want to discuss something.