Reply to some nonsense and lies.

Gonna use some colors this time. Maybe by some miracle people will focus on key points and stop lying. Or they won't, but this will stay for the record anyway.

Lies and hilarious assumptions.

Replying first to the more obvious BS:

1) I never manipulated Dinocrusher emotionally to make him dependent in any way. It would imply intention. All I did was a dissection and counter-argumentation of some of his tweets and opinions.

Then he thanked me in DMs and I considered commendable the fact that he admitted he was wrong. We didn't even communicate frequently.

I never knew he relied on my judgment to such extent, and I DMd him asap after reading his tweet. I explained I consider he may have BPD, at least going quickly and informally with him through DSM5's criteria, and it would be a good idea to visit a therapist for a proper diagnosis and therapy.

Along with explanations to design his own strategies to identify incoherent emotional reactions and what not. Precisely to be independent from my judgment.

Adam was asked if it was ok to share this info as well.

I would rather say it's manipulative to call me abuser or insinuate it simply by pulling such an assumption out of your ass and without asking about what I actually said when interacting with Adam.

Also wondering why would you follow such a person and abuser... Let me guess: cuz memes. As you idiotically replied to DK to insult him.

2) Valy didn't ask me multiple times to use they/them. 

The first reference was plainly: he? In a twitter thread.

Since I was talking with another person at the same time and distracted, I wasn't sure what Valy was referring to. Only later was added: your arguments are good, but please, use my pronouns.

At that point I checked the bio and wrote a civil DM. And I did it to be honest, precisely out of respect. Not to hurt or challenge Valy to debate me. I just wanted to express that I am still open.

Anybody could use NB pronouns out of convenience while thinking NB isn't consistent with the concept of gender. You should wonder how many people use neutral pronouns only because they don't want to deal with what I dealt with, and not because they genuinely accept NB as gender. 

3) I didn't misgender Valy to hurt. 

From my stance it was not even MISgendering, and whether or not we should force people to use neutral pronouns was the core of the discussion. You don't address points, but just keep talking considering NB pronouns some type of unquestionable axiom.

Better explained and debunked for the 50th time in other parts of this entry.

4) At no point I said I didn't have any way to know Valy identified as NB...

What I said is that I have no obligation to religiously check people's tweets and bios just in case they identify differently from a certain moment. And I don't have to be considerate, avoiding he, after getting an uncivil reply and being blocked.

Oh, you are such a transphobe still using he in every tweet!

It's not my problem if someone still checks my tweets after blocking me AND getting blocked. Being via incognito, using other accounts/people or whatever.

I said out of courtesy I would avoid he despite disagreeing with the concept of NB (in terms of outside a spectrum) before a clearly uncivil reply. After aggressive replies you shouldn't expect the same offer and I used he out of habit.

Valy said please though.

Yeah, and I did appreciate it. But again... I could say please kiss my ass or anything. And you don't have to do what I ask you to do if you disagree. We could talk about how beneficial is to kiss my ass or not, etc., but the point is that asking kindly doesn't have any inherent absolute and irrefutable value to simply obey.

And it's fake kindness seeing the alternative.

The real request was: please, use my pronouns or I will block you, insult you and/or misrepresent you.

5) What DK missed was also the condescending nonsense I received from people like you who didn't even know what they talked about.

You actually benefit from the fact that DK doesn't know many details. Trying to manipulate him with your nonsense. Like how I let you post whatever you wanted until you plainly trolled. And I didn't even immediately block you after that. Only when you also unfollowed, because I considered it was over and I had no intention to read more BS or stay in contact.

A detail you omit here:

The hell are you talking about with harassment?

Are you fucking insane? In any case I was harassed myself by some horde of Woke Avenger Assemble with Dunning-Kruger orgasms.

I replied to you normally at some point and your last reply was:

This was after a totally normal reply. With a screenshot from one of the studies explaining how they take as premise only gender identity (not gender role/social gender)... This is you behaving like a little troll, and after this I most probably used some aggressive sarcasm to put you in your place.

And it's clear you didn't read or understand her studies yourself, let alone my stance.

Moving on...

Not addressing arguments.

I have yet to see someone properly addressing even my very first argument regarding the incoherent terminology of NB in my DM and how we are combinations instead of perfect 0s and 1s. The way I feel and act predominantly like a male won't be identical to other males. This is pretty basic in social gender (and gender identity).

Codex tried, but got lost in his own strawman arguments and the final what about 0.5s. Leaving aside how unrealistic is a perfect center, it would still be in the spectrum anyway and he/she would be totally consistent. At most I would say NB gender should be called something else, like eclectic gender, not non-binary. Because that implies the rest are binary. When it's more complex.

There were even insinuations about how I would tell people to go fuck themselves with suicidal thoughts... 

As if it was impossible to show acceptance and love without using exclusively they/them. For all you know, someone else could use they/them and consider you a clown regarding NB. Especially if cancel culture keeps growing.

Haven't seen anyone properly addressing further arguments either, let alone DK's thread and my extended explanation.

Many replies in DK's thread are nonsensical, irrelevant or plain misrepresentation of his points. Like Hecktech's, implying the examples were not analogous because Valy asked me several times kindly to use neutral pronouns (counter-argumented above).

DK's examples weren't about being misinformed in regard to the use of such linguistic particles, but rather how one can still disagree with it and not apply it for rational reasons. Despite being informed (or much more informed than you).

If my extended explanation is too dense, here a transwoman explains some points with more examples (even if I don't agree with her on absolutely everything):

What you need to understand is that under a loose concept of gender, only based on gender identity, instead of gender identity + gender role (or another relevant variable), you could accept pretty much anything as gender and/or any pronouns.

You are free to identify as anything, but you can't assume the role of anything.

That's the crucial difference with transwomen/men. A biological woman can identify as a man and adopt a predominantly masculine role. However, you would have a hard time adopting the role of something you claim to be outside femininity or masculinity (while still exhibiting traits from the spectrum anyway).

We have free nicknames tho. Good thing pronouns have a different function than nicknames. And the real problem isn't even suggesting different pronouns and talking about it, the problem is trying to force people to use them. Also you wouldn't say any nickname and wouldn't like to be forced to use it either.

This isn't about only accepting transwomen and men for the sake of gatekeeping. It's about keeping gender as a meaningful and consistent term.

Oversimplifying my stance to let you see why I don't need to say your feelings are a lie or not accept them:

Ignoring how unrealistic this is and many nuances, gender for me changes on day 3. Obviously assuming behavior, emotional patterns and other traits are not forced, but internalized and genuine. On day 2 only gender identity has changed with or without gender dysphoria, which is something relevant, but it's not a change in gender.

In this example I would still choose day 3. Because the behavioral pattern isn't sufficient alone either. Although it's usually attached to gender identity.

In the same way, a biological man who identifies like a man can start wearing skirts because he is simply not following tendencies of gender role... Basically, it's not that his gender role is truly feminine. It's that he doesn't think wearing a skirt should be exclusive to women. The difference with day 2 from the first example is the direction of the change. 

Examples are not realistic. They simply illustrate the terminology.

Weak/Nonsensical replies.

- Sometimes you have to hear what you need, and not what you want = Facts don't care about your feelings

Someone made this false equivalence quoting me (red part).

Yeah, exactly the same, except the way you feel, assuming you don't lie, is a (probable) fact. It's a synaptic combination in organic terms too. To begin with. This is precisely about valuing them as sufficient criterion or not to establish another gender. I don't have to stop caring about your feelings and I don't need to stop accepting them to argument why I don't consider they are separately a good criterion to change language if there isn't any transition regarding social gender (and you use only gender identity).

They are relevant, but insufficient to establish a change in gender overall.

And this is something you definitely need to hear if you think everybody should simply accept your pronouns without any possible criticism or discrepancy.

- Insults tho.

Arguments without insults >> Arguments and insults >>> No arguments/not addressing the points at hand and still insulting in some way.

The most of you are still stuck in the lowest category. I am in the first or second one at most, depending on how much you boost my balls.

- This would be no issue if pronouns were normalized already tho.

I already question the status quo in many areas and topics more than what you could even imagine. Something you would know if you cared to read some of my other entries instead of making assumptions. Actually I am doing it even in this entry.

If it was even more normalized my arguments would still have the same internal logic that you are failing to address.

Normalization isn't a good reference because it doesn't imply adequacy. And it's a double standard to use it as reference when convenient.

Norms are bad now and should be questioned -> but norms if they/them was already totally normalized should be unquestionable and Martin would have to use the pronouns without a doubt.

- Studies tho.

Addressed several times, but they plainly take as premise the feeling (gender identity) as criterion regardless of any type of transition or social gender/gender role or another substantial variable. Psychology is very inclusive/left wing leaning.

I am extremely left-wing myself, but not at the cost of making terms this loose. We should try to help people without making terms extra flexible for the sake of inclusion. You could even expand the meaning of healthy to make ill people feel better... But the cost of this simplistic pragmatism is that healthy would be meaningless, while it doesn't even solve the original problem anyway.

Imagine I demanded a linguistic particle for the sake of pragmatism because of my OCD, even if it's unrelated to gender. It could certainly help people to quickly identify me as someone with OCD and avoid talking about disgusting stuff in front of me, for example. Or showing me disgusting images. But it would be absurd to apply this strategy in general. You can't extrapolate it. I have the rest of language to tell my friends that I have OCD. Which doesn't mean I have to stop trying to adapt myself instead of necessarily demanding a special treatment.

It's not about questioning the existence of people who identify as NB. Valy was already empiric evidence for this.

It was about considering it an independent gender or not (the version outside the spectrum) and the coherence of the terms/pronouns.

I also have seen some people still don't understand the counter-examples with the study-spam and veganism either. Are you really too dense to see that nobody changes his decisions simply because studies are spammed in front of him and there is more to it? Let alone when they don't really address what he said?

I gave you a much more meaningful reason to change your behavior supported with studies... But doesn't matter how many I spam, you wouldn't automatically change, would you? That was the point of the counter-example. Yet you expected me to change my stance cuz empiric evidence. It's great to support your stance with studies, but their value depends on their quality, context and others' arguments. Not simply because they are studies. If you like so much studies and empiric evidence, again, go vegan. But you won't.

I respected Platinum more than what you all think. I was just disappointed after seeing how she shared the studies before genuinely trying to understand my stance first, and using a fallacy like an appeal to novelty. Knowing the rest would blindly applaud, without even reading the studies themselves. 

Ironically like mini Shapiros who have no clue what they talk about. Simply left-wing Ben Shapiros. Muh studies don't care about your arguments.

The fact that logic is related to a Ben Shapiro meme doesn't mean it's something bad you have to avoid... It's actually a crucial branch from philosophy. It's like if you people thought you were more woke the less you used it because of Ben's meme.

Also, MAYBE, if you see someone attacked by several ignorant alarmists... Consider sharing first ONE study... Wait for a reply, share another one, etc. Basic shit. Don't spam 4 to seemingly own someone who has already considered everything you freaking spammed, and when you don't even get what you are trying to refute.

The evidence from the studies isn't even mutually exclusive with my argument regarding gender expression...; the difference is the interpretation, axioms and decisions taken from it, because I challenge the ethical consistency of letting people decide their gender only because of what they say, regardless of how they behave/look like. Despite underlying variables... Mainly because it makes the whole concept of gender pointless for the sake of inclusivity.

By your dumb reasoning we should let fat people keep considering themselves healthy to feel better. Or narcissists think they are the center of the universe and treat them as such. You NEED to draw a line for concepts.

Inclusion stops mattering when you twist the criteria to enter a certain category.

- Respect tho.

Respect is another social construct, and a very loose one that people love to twist when convenient.

The core of my argument was precisely why not using the pronouns you wanted me to use isn't necessarily related to respect. Or hate.

You could call it consistently disrespect if I agreed with your stance and simply misgendered Valy to hurt.

As I said, it's not even MISgendering from my stance. That's precisely the core of the discussion about pronouns. Argument instead of talking as if you were right by default with a circular reasoning.

- Effort tho.

It doesn't take any effort to use pronouns (physically) and that same person would feel more positively accepted and understood. -> Praying sometimes with a religious person doesn't take much effort either, that person would also probably feel better/positively accepted and obviously we wouldn't do it if we disagree with that religion or religion overall.

The point here isn't comparing religion to NB, but how we don't necessarily use feelings and effort as ultimate reference for a behavioral change or choice. The reason why the analogy is valid for this context is because we know for sure at least the feelings and faith from religious people are true.

Effort is just a weak argument. Many things are easy to do and you don't do them because of more subtle reasons (than how little effort they take).

It would have taken even less effort to stop insulting me, especially keeping in mind it wasn't me who started... But you didn't, did you?

Mutual understanding.

If you want to reach a mutual understanding with people, you should stop replying to triangles.

If you didn't understand what I meant with symbolic interactionism, constructive norms, behavioral patterns and traits in a spectrum, etc...

Then you could have simply asked.