this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
719 points (99.0% liked)

politics

23087 readers
3573 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Military pilot Jo Ellis said she had to hire private armed security for her family because of the false claims, which went viral on social media.

A transgender military pilot filed a defamation lawsuit Wednesday against a conservative influencer who falsely claimed on social media that she was flying the helicopter that collided with a commercial jet near Reagan National Airport in January, killing 67 people.

“I want to hold this person accountable for what they did to me,” Jo Ellis, a pilot who has served more than 15 years in the Virginia Army National Guard, said in a statement to NBC News. “It’s become too common that people can say horrible things about someone, profit at their expense, and get away with it.”

On Jan. 30, less than 24 hours after the crash, conservative influencer Matt Wallace, who has 2.2 million followers on the social media platform X, shared a post from another account he operates stating that the helicopter pilot was transgender, according to the lawsuit. Wallace included a photo of Ellis, and the post went viral, the lawsuit states.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 20 points 22 hours ago (5 children)

It's my go-to way of speaking to people now too. I will either use just their name or use non gender pronouns. I figure I will avoid misgendering by not gendering.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

For the better part of 30 years I have used a non-gendered language when possible. I was elated to find that "they" was originally, 13th century, a single pronoun instead of plural. I have probably used "one" way more times than is healthy.

~30 years ago I was living in/near Hillcrest, San Diego. Gay, trans, drag and everything else. I was online and people's genders were frequently unknown. In 1993 we already had the issues that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.. Now we have AI which has no gender pronoun, I'm voting for "hal".

Point is that avoiding gendering text has been and will continue to be the safer option for general purpose writing. Some people will get bent out of shape that you didn't use gender specific language because the Narcissism of Small Differences means they must see you as the enemy even if you agree with them on 99% of things. Trying to have a generally non-discriminatory pronoun policy? That's a paddling. Your good intentions must be stopped because they aren't pure enough.

It sucks. Instead of focusing on the slander used by hate speech and the remediation sought by the one who was wronged we are totally lost in the weeds and focused on if we used the right three letters because avoiding the wrong three wasn't enough. It's thought police with the best of intentions but it's still thought police.

[–] Diva@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Point is that avoiding gendering text has been and will continue to be the safer option for general purpose writing.

I do the same, but if someone's gender is known it's really not hard to use one of their preferred pronouns.

I don't think that's being the 'thought police' and it's certainly not something to focus on instead of hate speech, we can do both.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

And figuring out their preferred pronouns isn't always easy. Can you trust the news source to have gotten it right? You end up getting stalkerish and seeing if they have made a public statement on their pronouns and you have to make sure it's current because gender can be fluid and maybe it changed since the story broke. And do you need to go revise your previous posts and comments to update the current status? Or do you go with evergreen and neutral because you definitely don't want someone digging through your history and seeing something different from whatever is current and then jumping on the cancel wagon without checking the calendar to see if it was appropriate at the time.

This isn't as simple as a lot of people want it to be. Going neutral isn't a slight. It's not misgendering. It's a way to avoid accidentally making an error even with the best of intentions.

My old roommate was trans. They went through multiple gender identities before settling on that. And every post I made mentioning them is still clean because I went with the gender neutral before they had ever made their first change.

[–] Diva@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

And figuring out their preferred pronouns isn’t always easy.

usually the pronouns are listed somewhere or you ask

This isn’t as simple as a lot of people want it to be. Going neutral isn’t a slight. It’s not misgendering. It’s a way to avoid accidentally making an error even with the best of intentions.

There's a reason many trans spaces in Lemmy require listed pronouns, it removes the guesswork and you can reference inline.

If you're using gendered pronouns for most cis people but then specifically degendering trans people it's going to eventually rub people the wrong way. People aren't going to care if you make an error while being well intentioned, especially if you ask for more information and correct yourself going forward.

[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Uhm. Hey, I know you are well meaning and I'm only saying this to inform, not to call out, shame or attack.

But most trans people deeply dislike what you're doing, it's called degendering and it's not an appropriate or respectful way to refer to us.

Detransphobia was found to be rooted in cisnormativity and transnormativity, together with socio-politically-located anti-transgender stereotypes related to the process and the outcomes of detransitioning. Detransphobia compounds gender minority stressors and social exclusion in those who shift or reject their past transgender identity through the process of detransition.

I understand you are worried about saying the wrong thing, but this is a way to deny trans people their identity but talking around it. It's extremely noticeable and as someone who has attended more than a few trans support groups, it's dehumanizing and upsetting. Just as non-binary folk use they/them, binary trans folk use she and him. We have one correct way to refer to us, and apart from sentance where you are referring to a group, "they" is not a safe one size fits all.

Again, I say this respectfully in effort to inform. You seem well intending, but I implore you to reconsider.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Like I replied below,

Then we can't win, it feels like people are purposely making it impossible to be respectful to everyone by always having an issue. So I will go with offending the gendered people.

If y'all gonna have a problem with using neutral terms then you will have to live with being offended because it's not fair if we can't just use your name.

[–] Chip_Rat@lemmy.world -1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

"It feels like people are purposely making it impossible to be respectful to everyone...." Yeah by ignoring simple social cues (or a written article) that would have allowed them to correctly and respectfully refer to another person, if they would have had the energy to allow a single additional neuron to fire off in there.

"...I will go with offending the gendered people." You know everyone here can see your previous posts right? Where you correctly gender Trump, Musk, and probably every other cicgendered person without having any trouble. But nice edgy touch.....

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago

I'm not talking to them in person, and they are not ambiguous. I was speaking from the point of not knowing the person on a level where it is public knowledge or personal knowledge. Nice try, trying to make this a personal attack.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago

I wasn't trying to start a flame war, honestly. It was just clear from the post that "she" was a "she/her"

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 hours ago

You don't need to 'other' people who aren't requesting it. Do no harm.