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.
I fully believe in using a person’s preferred pronouns even if they’re using it in bad faith. The flip side though is that if your identity or pronoun is very uncommon or has stringent rules, you need to accept that people will accidentally get it wrong from time to time. This isn’t unique to pronouns, anything from gender, sexuality, names, politics, religion, occupation, ect. the less common it is the more confusion and explaining.
We need to be accepting of mistakes otherwise we’ll be unwelcoming to newcomers and we’ll fracture the different branches of LGBT over “rules lawyering”.
Finally I feel like I should put in a word about my brief experience with Links. I was very against non voting and we debated in the comments, but we reached a common ground and sympathized about the dire state of everything and our fears about project 2025. We didn’t change each other’s mind but it was a very civil and positive end to what usually becomes a heated argument online. So in my experience I believe Links was not a bad actor and vocally shared the same concerns that the queer community has.
From an admin perspective, I expect misgendering to be corrected by the person who made the mistake once it has been made clear, or otherwise thee post in question might be removed. However, unless it’s a pattern of repeated misgendering that’s the extent of my involvement. Banning someone would take a lot more than slipping up on a pronoun
Non voters was not run by Links. Links ran LibertyHub. I took zero action again Links.
I know, I just felt the need to express my experience with him since he’s involved. I wanted to show people looking into this that he’s not a bad actor. When it comes to drama good things often go unsaid.