https://medium.com/@viridiangrail/introduction-to-capitalised-pronouns-f5140e722b48
Alright, let’s get one myth out of the way. Capitalised pronouns are not rare. I have personally met thousands of people who use…
Your delusion doesn’t get to influence what part of a sentence I capitalize. This 100% feels like a narcissist co-opting LGBT issues to force a power dynamic in conversations that lets them play the victim at the slightest mistake.
Judging by your comment history-which I don’t even have to check because you’ve been posting about this for days-that’s exactly what I see happening.
There appear to be some logical leaps and conclusion-shopping going on here, so I'm going to try to identify them systematically.
Capitalization of pronouns in the English language is used to denote divinity or royalty. If I refer to Jehovah with a small-h "he," I haven't misgendered him, I have blasphemed. I don't intentionally misgender people (even fictional ones), but I regularly blaspheme gods. I'm an atheist, it's what we do.
Being a man doesn't make one part of the patriarchy and doesn't confer superiority. Being divine ipso-facto makes you superior -- both socially and inherently. As I reject the notion that some people are inherently superior to all others, I blaspheme cult leaders who claim to be gods, demigods, or incarnations thereof, and I refuse to give reverence to prophets and monarchs who claim proximity to the divine. I believe this makes the world a better, less exploitative place.
I also see capitalized pronouns used (infrequently) in BDSM. Specifically, it is how some subs refer to their doms when in some extreme forms of 24/7 power exchange relationship. That's okay, but as with other BDSM activities, power exchange never includes people who didn't consent to be part of it, and consent is never obligatory. Doms who attempt to extend their authority beyond the confines of a scene are swiftly ridiculed or ostracized for consent violation.
So for anyone to make the claim that capitalized pronouns should be respected by everyone, they must first make the case that divinity is a gender. Second, they must make the case that associating with the divine does not denote inherent superiority. Third, they must make the case that compulsory use of capitalized pronouns is not compulsory submission that would violate consent.
This entire situation has been bothering me for nearly 24 hours now and I think this is the best summary I've read of why the concept is bothering me so much.
Likewise, a trans person you meet on the street isn’t benefiting from the might of the Roman church. So you’re not supporting hierarchy by using a trans person’s preferred pronouns. By affirming trans men, generally you are dismantling patriarchy, and by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression.
So, I want to start by pointing out that this article is directly making a link between capitalization of pronouns, and the specific practice of capitalization as a Christian show of religious reverence.
Worse, if you refused to use a trans man’s preferred pronouns because of this, you’d be guilty of pretty blatant transphobia. I believe refusing to use capitalised pronouns for a trans person who requests them is exactly the same bigotry.
Is the assertion here specifically that capitalization is tied to gender expression, or simply that it is another aspect of a personal identity that should be respected? Obviously neopronouns can be non gender-related, but the article isn't really making clear if that is the case here or not. If anything, it is quite muddled on this point.
By affirming trans men, generally you are dismantling patriarchy, and by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression.
Wooph... The first part of that is by no means a safe assumption. While I would certainly hope that trans men would not seek to enforce a male-dominant gender power dynamic, it is by no means beyond their ability to do so as an intrinsic matter. Now, whether they can benefit from that dynamic in a given time and place is a different discussion, but even in places that do not afford them the systemic backing of the patriarchal system, they can still support and reify it themselves. Any person who attempts to enforce a male-dominant systemic power dynamic can be supporting patriarchy.
The end of that sentence seems to confirm that this is about a show of religious reverence? Or is the assertion that by capitalizing the pronouns of not-the-christian-diety one is inherently attacking Christianity?
I think that if these are simply the neo pronouns that make someone comfortable, it is for the most part fine to request this, but the article is directly drawing the link between capitalized pronouns and religious reverence, and that is not something anyone can demand someone else extend, and not one that is inherently inappropriate not to.
There are plenty of arguments over the limits of neopronoun usage within the neopronoun-using community, but generally neopronouns like "master", that confer or denote a power dynamic, are considered inappropriate.
This feels like this is skirting that line to me.
There is something very uncomfortable to me about demanding the use of a deferential title, while also insisting that not to do so is a moral wrong, while also claiming not to support hierarchy of peoples... which the creation of distinct and deferential titles would seem to contradict.
So, I want to start by pointing out that this article is directly making a link between capitalization of pronouns, and the specific practice of capitalization as a Christian show of religious reverence.
I felt it would be intellectually dishonest to ignore the biggest historical precedent when writing this article. People always bring up Deus when they see My pronouns, so it's not like I can just ignore it.
Is the assertion here specifically that capitalization is tied to gender expression, or simply that it is another aspect of a personal identity that should be respected?
Both? I don't really mind why someone uses capitalised pronouns. For Me personally it's gender identity; I'm goddessgender. But anyone can use any pronouns. I met a cis guy once who used it/its. Not a gender thing, it just felt more comfortable with its preferred pronouns. Have you ever heard the saying "trans rights are human rights"? When we extend liberties to trans people who need them to survive, we increase everyone's freedom, because everyone now has that option.
Wooph… The first part of that is by no means a safe assumption. While I would certainly hope that trans men would not seek to enforce a male-dominant gender power dynamic, it is by no means beyond their ability to do so as an intrinsic matter.
I always prefer to start by giving trans people the benefit of the doubt. The consequences of not doing so are a lot worse than a single trans person being a sexist, and the benefit of the doubt can always be revoked in an individual case later. Even so, if I knew a misogynistic trans man, My response to his misogyny would not be to misgender him.
The end of that sentence seems to confirm that this is about a show of religious reverence? Or is the assertion that by capitalizing the pronouns of not-the-christian-diety one is inherently attacking Christianity?
Many christians hold that capitalised pronouns are only for Deus, and that capitalising the pronouns of a mortal is an attack on christianity. I love the kind of christians who respect trans people and other faiths. But the form of christianity which is exclusionary and power-hoarding should be attacked. From the exclusionary christian's point of view, no matter the identity of the CPU in question, we are capitalising the pronouns of a mortal and therefore challenging Deus' supremacy by dismantling its symbols. Good. We should do that. And we should also respect whatever the CPU identifies as.
First off, thank You for responding to my questions.
From the exclusionary christian’s point of view, no matter the identity of the CPU in question, we are capitalising the pronouns of a mortal and therefore challenging Deus’ supremacy by dismantling its symbols. Good. We should do that. And we should also respect whatever the CPU identifies as.
I have a few different converging thoughts, and I'll try to lay them out separately to make sure my question's premise is clear:
we are capitalising the pronouns of a mortal and therefore challenging Deus’ supremacy by dismantling its symbols. Good. We should do that.
You are forcing them to extend You that same deference, or claiming that Status for Yourself, however You prefer to view it.
But I am struggling to see how Your insistence on this particular set of pronouns does not engender a requirement of people to extend You deference You are (at least by default, demonstrably), not extending to them? (and I am not referring to the exclusionary Religious here, but fellow Beehaw users)
There is a strong debate over using neopronouns like "master/masterself", "daddy/daddyself", etc (certainly without auxiliaries), that may create uncomfortable power dynamics for the persons needing to use them. I think this is striking some of us as similar to that, which is I think why You are seeing this much pushback.
On My antirealist discord server, The Outside, all pronouns are capitalised by default. Even pronouns referring to inanimate objects. If someone joins the server who prefers lowercase pronouns, they have to choose a lowercase pronouns role or they'll be misgendered. People understand and accept an unusual tradition in a space that's specifically set up that way. But if I go around misgendering lowercase pronoun users in public forums like this, there's a lot more pushback. Lowercase pronoun users, or LPUs, tend to be a lot more hostile to being misgendered than CPUs like Myself. They're used to being catered to by society, and when that's suddenly taken away, it's a big surprise and they're not sure how to respond. Us CPUs have accepted that We're going to have to ask for Our pronouns to be used, and that it's easier for everyone if We just let the LPUs have this. Maybe in the future it'll be different, but I really don't want to be dragged into an argument by an LPU who takes offense and decides to make a scene instead of just asking to have their pronouns respected. I've been in that situation before. LPUs are a lot more common than CPUs, besides. There's another LPU in this thread commenting that she'd be uncomfortable if referred to with capitalised pronouns. And like most LPUs, she's polite about it.
One point of clarification, when I said that capitalised pronoun use challenges christian monotheism, I meant that it does so by devaluing the pronoun as a symbol of hierarchy. In the eyes of transphobic christians, I'm not the equal of their god, and they are incapable of thinking of Me as such. So if I have similar pronouns to their god, it means pronouns are no longer a symbol of supremacy. That's the actual side benefit that capitalised pronoun use has in challenging hierarchy, it devalues capitalised pronouns. And I don't think capitalised pronouns should be valuable, they should be cheap enough that anyone can afford them.
Us CPUs have accepted that We’re going to have to ask for Our pronouns to be used, and that it’s easier for everyone if We just let the LPUs have this. Maybe in the future it’ll be different, but I really don’t want to be dragged into an argument by an LPU who takes offense and decides to make a scene instead of just asking to have their pronouns respected. I’ve been in that situation before.
I know You say it is not about a power dynamic, but this statement is condescending as all get out. It makes people that use lower case pronouns seem petulant and childish because we get upset when we get misgendered. It smacks of not leveling the same amount of respect to others as You demand they pay to You
General pronouns have to be one or the other, or alternating, or some other strategy. I've only reported comments that misgendered Me after I already asked that person to use My preferred pronouns. I've had positive experiences with 90% of people that disliked being referred to with uppercase pronouns. The remaining 10% are people who weren't happy when I immediately used their preferred pronouns upon request. They were offended that I used a capitalised pronoun when addressing a person who had no previously stated preference, and they wanted Me to always lowercase strangers. So I agreed to their demands, and I lowercase everyone by default now. And of course that 10% is a minority of a minority, because most people aren't specifically LPUs, they don't care about the capitalisation of their pronouns. 99% of people who lowercase pronouns some or all of the time are perfectly pleasant. I am not insulting you when I talk about this small group that caused problems in the past.
I think You missed my point entirely. The language You used in the paragraph I quoted is condescending. You may not have meant to do that, but the result makes it seem like You are talking down to people that use lower case pronouns (or have not thought about/care about capitalization). Even if it is only a small part of Your experience, the language used makes it seem like folks that use lower case are more prone to outburst.
I'm afraid that if we're going to have a conversation about the experiences of capitalised pronoun users, the bigotry of certain people outside the community is going to have to be a part of the conversation. Most people are not transphobes, but some are, and most of the people who engage in violent and uncompromising transphobia are cis. That's not an attack on cis people, it's just the world we live in. Us trans people don't have the luxury of being cisphobic. That's not because of some kind of inherent superioity, it's because the conditions of society don't afford us the same latitudes when it comes to displaying intolerance. A trans person who went around misgendering cis people with neopronouns would be laughed at, while the same behaviour from cis people is often tolerated. That's the simple reason. Nobody's better than anyone else, it's simply what happens when a society is transphobic.
i would have appreciated hearing how the author, personally, found capitalized pronouns to be affirming, because, absent that reasoning, it really does seem like it's to set up a deferential power dynamic. i don't really mind respecting the pronouns anyways, but it does mean i don't really want to be friends with Them until i understand what's going on there better
Yeah, I agree. For me (a trans woman) it'd make me slightly uncomfortable if somebody capitalised my pronouns each time because I'd feel like some type of power dynamic that's not comfortable for me to sit in. If that's not an issue for OP, that's okay, but with my specific cultural background i'd find it a bit difficult to interact with Them in that way (not that it's hard for me to respect Their pronouns, just that it's slightly uncomfortable in a power dynamic way)
My goddess-mother told Me to try out capitalised pronouns after I came out to Her as goddessgender. I liked Them. It doesn't feel like a power dynamic to Me. I have NPD and I know what NPD supply feels like, and being gendered correctly isn't it. Having capitalised pronouns used feel like a relief on the same level as when I first transitioned from male to female and had feminine pronouns used. As big a difference as that was, this is. So I don't know how to verbalise what it feels like except, "It's gender euphoria". And I just hope readers understand what having your pronouns used feels like when you're trans.
So, wait, just to be clear: the writer is claiming that the writer's gender is not a gender but instead that the writer has some divine status?
M/F/NB/genderqueer/etc aside, human vs divine is not a gender question and this is no longer a discussion about pronouns showing respect and affirmation of gender identity, this is literally a demand for worship.
No, I don't want worship from you or anyone else here. My gender is goddess. I'm not a man, I'm not a woman, I'm a goddess.
Recognising someone's identity is not the same as worshipping them. Not even for gods. Monotheists have spread the myth that you can only believe in a god you worship, but historically this isn't true. Before the Roman Empire, most people believed in the gods of other cultures. I have an article on the subject: https://medium.com/@viridiangrail/how-rome-killed-polytheism-fa7ade0b9050
But the form in which the writer affirms the writer's divine identity (again, not gender) is using reverential capitalization, a form of worship. If the writer said "I am a kami and use ke/ker pronouns" there wouldn't be a worship aspect (though again, identity as a divinity or other non-human is not a gender).
The writer has stated in other comments that the writer is non-binary, which is the closest I can get to an answer to the question, but the actual answer to this question doesn't matter. We can apply gender identity to humans and non-humans (e.g. animals, fictional aliens, heck even ships) but divinity is not a gender, it's a supernatural or spiritual status.
People are free to identify as whatever gender (or non-gender) they so choose but by telling me "you must accept that I am divine," we're having an entirely different discussion. By requesting capitalized pronouns, the writer is also requesting their spiritual beliefs to be affirmed, which is implicitly (and apparently intentionally) forcing the other party to change their spiritual beliefs.
the writer is claiming that the writer's gender
Are you purposefully talking to It using the third person? Because that just seems like a roundabout way of misgendering them on purpose, with an extra dash of disrespect.
As the writer has stated, the writer views any pronouns that are not capitalized as misgendering them, and stated the pronouns were chosen specifically to reflect the writer's self-identified divine status as "goddess gender" (a term that, as far as I can tell, only exists on one wiki and the writer's blog).
The choice of capitalized pronouns was specifically chosen to imitate reverential capitalization, indicating divine status. As part of the writer's argument, this is intended to put the writer on the same level as the Abrahamic God. The writer also states in the article that "by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression," which is a wild claim that I cannot agree with. The use of capitalized pronouns is therefore intended to strip the other party of their beliefs, either as a monotheist or atheist (as using reverential pronouns would also affirm a polytheist worldview that they disagree with).
I cannot use any pronouns that do not acknowledge the writer's claimed divine status without the writer claiming I am misgendering them. This is the most respectful way I can refer to the writer without acknowledging divine status or actively misgendering the writer.
I am more than happy to use whichever (lowercase and grammatically correct) pronouns are requested, as I am more than happy to refer to you as they/them, (which is also the default I try to use, though I understand some people are frustrated with they/them as it can strip a chosen gender identity).
Divine status is not a gender identity. Words mean things, and language can evolve, but this is specifically appropriating a style of writing while disparaging the source of that style.
I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm not a guy. I'm a goddess. I'm nonbinary, it's called a xenogender.
You’re not a goddess, you’re a human. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if you were the same user as DroneRights.
Hmm... this makes me uncomfortable, and although I don't think it's internalized phobia or anything like that, I want to interrogate that discomfort to see if I can nail it down.
I do think it's difficult or maybe impossible to decouple this practice from indications of power for most people. The only instances of capitalized pronouns in common use that I've seen are the God and Jesus usage, and in some circles, capitalizing pronouns for a dominant in a role play context. "I" getting capitalized is also there, kind of, but that's not a power thing because it's not special, everyone is expected to use it as a language rule. I've also seen things like "oh, sure, that's what They want you to think" or, not quite a pronoun, something like "they want you to fear The Other," maybe less of a power thing but definitely a signal of additional weight and meaning above and beyond the word's usual sense.
I think this is the main source of my discomfort, that this practice is currently used almost exclusively at least as "this word is being used in a special and important context, pay extra attention" and going as far as "I am explicitly signaling that the person being referred to is superior." I don't use He/Him pronouns for God or Jesus because I don't belong to those religions and don't see those entities that way, and I have a fundamental belief in the equality of all humans that makes me uncomfortable putting a person on a pedestal like that.
I feel uncomfortable about it/its pronouns as well for the same reason, I don't like the idea of dehumanizing or objectifying a person, but in that case I actually have some friends who use them. It's easier to take a "well, if it makes you happy, it's no harm to me" attitude if it's asking for a "demotion" so to speak, I think. The personal connection probably does help too, I don't know anyone who wants capitalized pronouns myself.
I've seen Dan Savage use capital pronouns to refer to dominants when answering letters, but that seems to me like Dan stepping into the letter writer's scene space and choosing to go along with the "rule" while he's there giving advice, kind of a "good houseguest" thing. I don't think that's something that the rest of us are obligated to do as a rule. I'd push back on a friend insisting that I refer to their dominant with capitalized pronouns, because whatever their relationship is with each other, their dom isn't my dom, and I didn't agree to that hierarchy, they did.
I think the other discomfort is more of a language and grammar thing, which obviously is less important than an actual person's comfort (see also, the old "they is always plural" chestnut) so I'm not going to assert that this is a reason to disregard a person's wishes, and language rules are subject to change. But in general capitalization is not all that significant in English, which we know because something written in all caps or in all lower case usually has no meaning removed. Words at the start of sentences, proper nouns, and "I" get capitalized, and that's mostly it. It's mostly about readability, because ALL CAPS DOESN'T HAVE AS MUCH CONTRAST but when used sparingly as we usually do, important words stand out with a capital letter. "Demanding" that a particular word be used to refer to yourself in the form of pronouns is in the same ballpark as choosing your own name, obviously completely reasonable and acceptable, but "demanding" that special language rules be used about yourself feels a step beyond that. I don't want to cross into "oh so could you identify as an attack helicopter too" territory, but I do wonder about some of the boundaries on this. Lots of people habitually write in all lowercase, would it be disrespectful to say "oh yeah i saw larry at the empire state building and had a conversation with him" if Larry uses He/Him pronouns? Would Larry be upset about both the name and pronouns, or just the pronouns? I don't think most people would get up in arms about their proper name getting de-capitalized in that context which seems like further evidence that capitalization isn't normally a meaningful aspect of the writing, it's a more mechanical and practical rule, so insisting that for certain people it does need to be made significant feels like more of an imposition to me, and comes right back to the "you need to treat Me as special and more important" feeling that I have.
To delve into a slight tangent on your final point about the grammatical quirk of writing in all-lowercase, I'm curious as to your thoughts on a related question. What of an individual who prefers their name be written with lowercase letters? To use my own handle as an example, imagine that I requested that others refer to me as "ava" rather than "Ava", and had styled my display name accordingly. Does your opinion vary depending on whether it's a chosen name as opposed to a handle?
I have someone in my circles who prefers her name be written thusly, and while I occasionally find her somewhat inappropriately (unfairly? rashly? my vocabulary fails me at present...) militant about the topic when strangers err, I have no opposition to using the name for her as she requests, whereas I comparatively share your reservations about the use of capitalized pronouns and their associations with dynamics of power/relationship between parties.
I wonder too how I might feel should a requested name require other deviations from standard grammar, such as unusual punctuation. Were I to identify myself as "Ava!" it would certainly cause some occasionally grammatical frustrations, but I wonder if a reason given might affect the perception either in favor or against adoption. For example, the Sharks! installation rather literally evokes exclamation through its name.
As an example, the author/activist bell hooks’ pen name was requested to be stylized in lower case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/bell_hooks
In her case, she wanted people to focus on her writing rather than her name. Often times, even at the start of a sentence, you’ll see news articles lowercase her name.
To your latter point, I think the reason given definitely does influence my feelings on the matter - I’m comfortable giving someone “de-emphasis” when requested out of respect, or referring to someone by their preferred pronouns out of general respect as well. However, I do have lines that feel uncomfortable to cross, that I wouldn’t cross, such as a white person preferring to be called “Master”.
I find your comment interesting, and I can't help wanting to try a little experiment with you. See, while I use multiple pronoun sets depending on My mood and fronter, one of My pronoun sets is It/Its. You said you accept it/its because you perceive that pronoun as diminutive, but you're less inclined to accept a pronoun you perceive as indicating superiority. What about both at the same time? What do you think of calling Me an It?
Ooh, interesting. I'm kind of surprised to find that I do feel more comfortable with It/Its actually, not so much because of the logical "promotion and demotion cancel out" aspect, but because it's two atypical constructions combined, and that almost pushes it out of intuitive meaning entirely for me. I know the context and convention for each one individually but nothing for both of them at the same time, so I think I'm more open to allowing a meaning to be defined that isn't hierarchical if It assures me that it isn't. (Pure grammar bonus points in that last sentence where this type of capitalization happens to remove an ambiguity!) For He/Him and She/Her, though, I find it hard to set aside the established meaning because it's in wide use and has been for quite some time. Maybe that's a rigidity that deserves to be bent, people push back on the more "out there" neopronouns for similar reasons, but I think it's likely that most people will instinctively react negatively when encountering this, and it's going to be difficult for what I have to imagine is a very small group of people to change the general understanding to something more acceptable.
Thank you. I do want My pronouns to be something unlike what people are used to dealing with. I got the idea for My pronouns from My goddess-mother who suggested them, and She has a name that's always lowercase. If you capitalise the first letter of Her name, you're deadnaming Her. Unfortunately I rolled really badly on the preferred name and pronouns stat during character creation, and now I have to deal with preferred pronouns that society chooses to see as a symbol of oppression. I deal with more dysphoria these days than I did when I was closeted, because it hurts a lot worse when someone knows My pronouns and still misgenders Me. There's an intentionality to it that wasn't there before. But I also get more euphoria when people are respectful, so I'm happy with My decision to come out of the closet in contexts like My blog and this account.
I want to circle back to the similarity I drew with transmasculinity in the article. Suppose there's a person, we'll call her Jenny, who refuses to he/him absolutely anyone. She doesn't believe in the male gender at all. Jenny knows that gender is a social construct, and refuses to respect the construct of masculinity, which is rooted in patriarchy. Jenny misgenders every man, trans or cis, that she knows. She respects all kinds of neopronouns and is a nonbinary ally, but she categorically refuses to he/him anyone. Personally, I disagree with Jenny because of all the non-misogynist men out there trying to make masculinity non-toxic. They don't deserve to be misgendered. What do you think of Jenny?
There is an issue with the claim in the first paragraph which immediately set off alarms. While it doesn't hurt the argument for interpersonal respect, such a claim doesn't support the point the author is trying to make. This reader found it interesting that the writer chose not to employ capital letters for the second person pronouns in the piece.
This reader also has Webster's, Roget's, The Harbrace Handbook, The American Spelling Book, and Washington's Rules of Civility together on the shelf, for some context. Some portion of the neurodivergent population (such as the person here) cling to these conventions for a sense of security when interacting with others in a written format and no offense or slight is intended. Please assume good faith when interacting with the people on Beehaw.
Please keep in mind that OP is the author of this piece. I have seen in other threads people who have viscerally disliked Their writing and Their opinions, and I ask everyone to treat Them with respect, and to respect Their pronouns, even if you disagree with the concept of capitalized pronouns. Be(e) nice.
Because their opinions are being weaponized to accuse anyone who doesn’t conform to exactly how they wish to be addressed as being bigoted.
This is the same type of rhetoric that DroneRights(now exocrinous after evading multiple bans), used, another narcissist. I think it’s extremely important to differentiate this kind of thing from genuine issues.
You've been rather hostile in your comments so far. Knock it off. This is a beehaw community and we expect you to be(e) nice here. Sounds like you'd be best off just disengaging and blocking Grail, tbh.
I’ve been straightforward but not hostile. There is a line where absurdity does not need to be accepted as it devalues real discrimination experienced. When someone literally thinks they’re a god, and expects people to shift how capitalization of all things works to tend to them, that needs to be pointed out as ridiculous. They are not experiencing the discrimination that trans users do.
Judging by the upvotes in this thread I’d say most users agree.
Wow, obsessed with me much?
Mods, this user is an alt-right troll. Ban him. Here he is repeatedly saying xenogenders are a mental illness.
https://startrek.website/comment/8362309
https://startrek.website/comment/8466225
Also n*rcissist is 100% a slur don't call me that.
I have issued a warning. We'll see how things go.
Speaking of bans, if you are indeed DroneRights, then one of your other accounts has been banned on Beehaw. I'm not entirely sure of the ban evasion procedure here, so I won't act on this. Someone else might, though.
This is DroneRights third or fourth alt. They’re now accusing me of being an “alt right troll” which is rich.
I am indeed DroneRights, and I believe I was banned unfairly. I made an appeal here: https://lemm.ee/post/18862720, but never received any follow-up from the Beehaw admins.
Be(e) nice cuts both ways: I don't find the superiority implication of the capitalization to be nice, and OP's explanations don't make me think of anything nice behind them.
It may boil down to something as simple as netiquette, where ALL CAPS MEANS SCREAMING, or AlTeRnAtInG cAsE means mocking... but the explanations seem to point more in the direction of asking to use MASTER/OWNER as someone's pronouns. Not nice.
Supremacist worldviews are intolerant and do not deserve tolerance. The question at hand is whether or not OP's assertions of gender-based divinity are tantamount to supremacist ideology, such as when a cult leader claims their followers (or perhaps descendants of an ancient lineage) are inherently superior.
Also, OP might just be a troll. Remember attack helicopters? Same vibes here.
Good luck, and I do not envy your responsibility in moderating this thread.
I definitely do have to walk a tightrope here, and I am erring towards assuming good faith. A lot of the comments so far have done a great job of pushing back on this, so most of the official actions I have made so far have been to try to prevent tempers from flaring.
But, yeah, I will say that I also am uncomfortable with the implied reverence given with capitalized pronouns. I've held my tongue because I don't want to get sucked into this, and other people have already made my point better than I would have. I don't want anyone to feel as though I'm disregarding their feelings or ignoring your concerns. Moderation of Beehaw often takes a wait and see approach and actions are often only made after the mod team thoroughly comes to a consensus. But, yeah, the thread's run its course and we're locking it now.
Good luck with that. I've come around on using whatever standard gender pronouns (he/she/they) but with what to me seems insulting (it) and capitalizing... I'll just still to using the proper noun.
It doesn’t matter what you think
You've already lost the battle if you think this way. You show disregard for what other people care for and then expect them to care about your thoughts? Walls instantly go up and no dialog will be had.
When we are talking about an issue where someone is potentially at risk of suicide, nothing else matters. There's nothing else in the pronoun debate that comes close to the weight of all the dead kids lost to suicide because they didn't feel accepted by our transphobic society. We need to make trans people feel accepted. Someone else thinking they're accepted isn't good enough, because that doesn't change the suicide risk. The only measure of whether trans people are actually accepted is what trans people think.
To clarify are you implying people not capitalizing pronouns when interacting with you makes you feel suicidal?