My reading of her first two tweets and the tweet she was replying to was that it seemed the pronoun sharing policies were being applied selectively based on the audience (the implication being that if it was just cis women in the hyperwoke place, they wouldn't bother sharing), which is totally worth complaining about if true. She's obviously wrong about making it into an NB only issue as Kyuuji pointed out. The rest is also nonsense too of course, but I don't feel like re-litigating that since she did give a proper apology for it.
Maybe I'm missing the context of what kind of space you're talking about here. If it's a socializing space, wouldn't the responsibility for asking fall on the individual people in conversation?
So, in queer/lgbt meeting spaces, if you're introducing yourself to people in the group, instead of the host or person you're talking to asking you what your pronouns are(or asking them to be written on a card or something), you present them, or don't. So it'd be like "Nice to meet you my name is ****!" or "Hey, I'm **** and my pronouns are They/Them." etc.
I've never seen it either (with the obvious caveat that I'm cis so I'm not gonna be the best judge), but you never know. It's definitely not my place to assert it never happens.
The reason I asked about group vs one on one conversations is because in the latter, the question is kind of unavoidable. Obviously, someone isn't required to volunteer them, but if they aren't the only polite thing to do for the person on the other end of the conversation is to ask them. I'm in these spaces a lot and have had to basically insert question marks into my sentences when talking about acquaintances whose names I know and pronouns I don't in the interest of not making assumptions.
That's fair, that's pretty much what it was like until a year and a bit ago, but a few people had issues and it was overhauled that you're just asked when introducing yourself to someone to present your pronouns if you want to, and ask people not to ask for them. The aim is to create a comfortable environment for everyone, so it was a pretty easy solution.
So if you don't know someone pronouns and can't ask them, absent any other information the options I see would be to:
Honestly, this seems to be the natural endpoint for all cliques. Someone always eventually fucks up and because they're all friends they drag each other down because nobody is willing to step up and call the others out. The poster who said this reminds them of the Youtubers going to bat for Pewdiepie is dead on. It's only worse in that considering the politics of the people involved you'd expect better from them.
Read from here, just 2 pages ago, and catch up.
a) so it's like everyone in that community?
"Hello! I'm *Name1* and my pronouns are He/Him, what's your name?" "Hi *Name1*, I'm *Name2* nice to meet you."
If someone doesn't mention their pronouns, they probably want you to assume.
Oh, coming from a place where that expectation is explicitly codified, then yeah I can absolutely see the reason for a change. For comparison, most spaces I'm in have the rules as "don't purposefully/repeatedly misgender someone" and provide optional stickers to wear rather than getting into the details like that. Like you said, it doesn't come up too often, but I do want to strive to minimize potentially harmful mistakes.
See above for more context. I'm coming from a perspective where the introduction process isn't formalized
It wouldn't surprise me at all if that's what's happening since she did portray people who vented about their issues with Contrapoints earlier as harassers and potentially nazis pretending to be trans.
thats certainly how its going in my experience. and they won't listen to people telling them not to do so either because they assume that any person who doesn't throw themselves at Contra's feet are abusers sooooooo. Yeah never engage with Contra twitter discourse, its a useless endeavour, they shit on other trans people and anyone in general who doesn't worship her
They're too proud to admit they are at fault. That's the extent of their support. To bask in the glow of praise but dig trenches when faced with criticism because how could they be at fault for anything?
Omg stop the victimization for just one second and actually try to listen to what the minorities in this thread are trying to say to you. You say you have examples of Nat being canceled in this thread? Please show examples of what this cancellation seems to be for you, because I for one saw most people tripping over themselves to defend her at the slight chance, without even considering how fed up we are with her bullshit at this point. This is why all this talk about cancellation is so fucking corrosive, people come up with the worse takes just to justify denying justified criticism.
Being cis doesn't give you a pass for not giving enough of a shit to actually care about people's concerns. And if you'd read the whole thread you would have seen that the vast majority of people in this thread have watched the video, including almost of us who aren't happy with it.
•Complains about people distorting an hour and 40 minute video.
Are you cancelling non-binary people? It sounds like a classic cancellation to me. You don't know what's happening or the context to the situation so you're taking information from a single source on it, treating it as the holy truth and then using it to talk down to people in the thread because you're predisposed to think their criticism is invalid. Extrapolating one page of posts to the rest on top of this, with no knowledge as to their comments or context.
Again you lament things you yourself are guilty of. 'People should read' you suggest, while claiming to have read the first page of comments but somehow missed the dark magenta coloured staff post down the page dissuading people ignorant, like yourself, from doing exactly what you're doing. Dismissing concerns while taking no effort or care to educate yourself on what this long-standing issue has been beforehand.
Once more. This is coming from someone that got tired reading of NB concerns half a page in and decided that was enough context to write paragraphs around why people are wrong and what they're doing (discussing or venting about someone on a forum wholly apart from them) as being a parallel to cancellation and harassment. You're expecting people to read more in your post than you bothered too to understand what the concerns might be, and what the history behind this recent video really is.
Suggests the person that is taking someone else's opinion and not bothering to do any amount of educating on the other side of the story before talking down to that side.
She wasn't cancelled.
I didn't not acknowledge the opinion of people affected, which is one of the reasons I didn't comment further on her excuse itself. I watched the video before reading any comments and she seemed reasonable (for someone not affected for whatever she said/did) but at that point I only had her side (which took 2 days to get through) and read the first page here and it was full of people jumping to conclusions out of parts of the video, or just based on someone else's opinion on the video (or part of the video)... which was the only thing I pointed out in the post. It was not my intention, and I believe I didnt, imply that she is right and people shouldnt be mad / complain. There are 20+ pages and I saw that there are plenty of huge posts, probably way better than those in the first page, that I will try to get through in order to educate myself better.
Like really? How can you post this complete non-sense about people cancelling Natalie, because they are expressing frustration over this (very long) topic? Who are you to judge which comments are valid or not?
