likely in response to my comments on the beehaw post, which i linked to (hopefully im doing this right?). apparently, calling people you dont know for the first time "they/them" before being told their pronouns is "misgendering". absurd. this kind of attitude threatens the larger LGBTQ community and is partially why cishets hate us after we won so much progress back in the 00s and 10s.
im a queer person. im neurodivergent. this shit is so goddamn fucking annoying, especially as an older queer who got physically assaulted on a near daily basis for being queer in the 90s. the kids today get their panties in a twist over being supposedly "misgendered" by someone calling them gender neutral pronouns before being corrected. narcissistic victimhood bullshit.
anyways, now banned from one of my favorite instances. meanwhile in the US theyre planning on hunting us. but yeah, lets ban fellow queers over their view that people who get mad about being "misgendered" when they arent (cis people are also referred to as "they/them" before further context in a conversation with a stranger) are just attention seeking brats that threaten the larger movement. its so obvious to me that the brats who find reason to be offended over innocent pronoun use never faced real adversity, like getting repeatedly physically beaten.
edit - the best part of all of this is i faced no moderation from beehaw and all of my comments are +1 or higher. power tripping oversensitive neurodivergent hating bastard of a mod over at blahaj IMO.
edit 2 - did this wrong. heres a link to the post i think got me banned from blahaj and a screenshot about it https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/37659465
Edit 3 - apparently I did nothing wrong until I made my thoughts known about how the pronoun police fucked over the larger LGBTQ community as our rights are backsliding in America. Yall are gonna whine about being misgendered to the concentration camp guards at the rate we’re going. God forbid I be angry that while queers were busy fighting over pronouns our adversaries stuffed the courts, stuffed the school boards, couped the government, and are installing a fascist dictatorship. When I say that these fucking toddlers are going to learn what real oppression tastes like, that’s what I mean. It’s not that I want us to be hurt or oppressed (as the dog piling idiots have interpreted), it’s that the younger generation is weak as hell and lost the fucking plot in the fight for our rights. I grew up getting beaten in the streets for being queer only for these kids to claim their pronouns not being mind-read is oppression!
It’s not accidental and it’s not misgendering. They/them has been used in English to describe all genders for hundreds of years. Even more so for the first time when meeting a stranger and not knowing them.
This was just a piss baby who never took a fist to the face for being who they are wanting to feel “oppressed.”
It’s extremely offensive to older queers like myself who had to fight the real fight so these fucking toddlers can get all pissy about being “misgendered”.
I'm sure you know oppression comes in many forms and intensities.
I'm not disagreeing with you that "They/them" is appropriate upon meeting a stranger, but you are definitely coming at this with a good deal of aggravation which may not be the best way to see this, however justified that aggravation might be. You're pretty deep in the comments section here, wherein most people have agreed with you that the instance ban on you was unreasonable, and you're still fuming. I get it, but it's not necessarily helpful to parsing why there are people in here, even who agree that your ban was unwarranted, who feel that your responses were quick on the trigger.
If violence against LGBT folk were completely extinguished, for example, but they were not allowed to legally marry, that would still be oppression. A lesser form? A MUCH lesser form? Certainly. Likewise, even in a society where LGBT folk can marry, a refusal to use the appropriate pronouns is a form of (mild) social oppression. A lesser form than being forbidden from marriage? Of course. A much lesser form than violence? Certainly. But a form nonetheless, just like the normalization of calling Black men 'boy' was (and in some parts of the country, is) oppressive.
I get that things are looking pretty fucking horrific in the real world right now, that violence, never extinguished, seems like it might have an exceptionally vile and widespread comeback, and focus on pronouns seems misplaced in light of that, but what you responded to in the OP was an aside comment, at most.
Just like it's okay for you to be upset at the overall focus you feel is placed on pronoun importance, and especially in pronoun witch-hunting, seeking out an enemy to be angry at to validate themselves; it is also okay for someone to be upset at the prospect of being misgendered, or, rather, a refusal to be gendered correctly, if you prefer. It is passing, but it is worth their comment; it is not inherently invalid for them to be agitated by this phenomenon, it's not absurd to regard it as a form of social oppression. The mistake they make is in attributing accidental or unknowing misgendering the same or similar quality of offense, which I think we are in agreement on.
You're attributing a lot of intent into the statement you responded to in the OP, but even if correct, it's committing that same essential mistake of attributing a type or intensity of offense that... is not there, at least not in a strict reading of the original comment. The same way that the offense of misgendering someone on accident is a type or intensity of incident that is not comparable to intentional misgendering, regardless of how a quick emotional response can mistake the two, in practice or in abstract.
tl;dr; you're not wrong to be angry at the concept, what you were doing was not gatekeeping in any serious sense, the instance ban is unwarranted, but continuing to attribute motive and rationale to the person you responded to is an entirely different question, and one you are not coming off as justified in.