The whole pronoun kerfuffle reminds me of the old axiom: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There is a demand for belief or at least suspension of disbelief, but that's not enough. There is also a demand on your behavior: how you're supposed to speak. Then if you don't comply, you're punished. People become angry because you disagreed or used the wrong language, and you may be ostracized or even expelled.
As humans are social animals, these are some of the most powerful tools we have. They strike deep at us emotionally. The emotional response people have on both sides of this is patently obvious. But even still, when the claims are not too extraordinary, people acting in good faith try their best.
When the claim becomes extraordinary, however, people expect to hear why and that's not really unreasonable or unexpected. After all, it's an extraordinary demand on their behavior which carries a severe risk of punishment. Yes, being asked to use language in an entirely new way is a pretty extraordinary demand. It's hard to do for many people. Yes, the punishment feels severe on an emotional level even if logically it's not a big deal.
So being told to just respect it or GTFO is not really an answer that satisfies that need for some kind of evidence, explanation, or justification. Then it only makes matters worse when the people asking get banned for asking. Of course they will react defensively.
Do you know why the "just asking questions" and sealion style tactics are so insidious? Because they're disguising their bad faith arguments with an air of legitimacy. But by the same token, a zero tolerance policy on asking questions is going to hit all the legitimate, good faith actors too. If there were none in the first place, bad faith actors couldn't use them as a disguise.
This is what I see over and over: an extraordinary demand, a sincere request for an explanation, and if they don't get a zero tolerance ban for just asking the question, they get attacked and become defensive so they get banned anyway. When you treat people like an enemy, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But... threaten someone with punishment if they don't use language in an entirely new way, they're going to ask questions. They're going to push back. That doesn't mean they're transphobes or bad allies or even acting in bad faith. It just means they're people.
The whole pronoun kerfuffle reminds me of the old axiom: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There is a demand for belief or at least suspension of disbelief, but that's not enough. There is also a demand on your behavior: how you're supposed to speak. Then if you don't comply, you're punished. People become angry because you disagreed or used the wrong language, and you may be ostracized or even expelled.
As humans are social animals, these are some of the most powerful tools we have. They strike deep at us emotionally. The emotional response people have on both sides of this is patently obvious. But even still, when the claims are not too extraordinary, people acting in good faith try their best.
When the claim becomes extraordinary, however, people expect to hear why and that's not really unreasonable or unexpected. After all, it's an extraordinary demand on their behavior which carries a severe risk of punishment. Yes, being asked to use language in an entirely new way is a pretty extraordinary demand. It's hard to do for many people. Yes, the punishment feels severe on an emotional level even if logically it's not a big deal.
So being told to just respect it or GTFO is not really an answer that satisfies that need for some kind of evidence, explanation, or justification. Then it only makes matters worse when the people asking get banned for asking. Of course they will react defensively.
Do you know why the "just asking questions" and sealion style tactics are so insidious? Because they're disguising their bad faith arguments with an air of legitimacy. But by the same token, a zero tolerance policy on asking questions is going to hit all the legitimate, good faith actors too. If there were none in the first place, bad faith actors couldn't use them as a disguise.
This is what I see over and over: an extraordinary demand, a sincere request for an explanation, and if they don't get a zero tolerance ban for just asking the question, they get attacked and become defensive so they get banned anyway. When you treat people like an enemy, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But... threaten someone with punishment if they don't use language in an entirely new way, they're going to ask questions. They're going to push back. That doesn't mean they're transphobes or bad allies or even acting in bad faith. It just means they're people.