this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
33 points (97.1% liked)

196

5596 readers
1630 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
will_steal_your_username@lemmy.blahaj.zone
TheCoolerMia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
rockSlayer@lemmy.world
JoMiran@lemmy.ml
jawa21@lemmy.sdf.org
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone
erotador@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Arkhive@lemmy.blahaj.zone
BadJojo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone
WillStealYourUsername@piefed.blahaj.zone
kittenzrulz123@piefed.blahaj.zone
kittenzrulz123@lemmy.dbzer0.com
33
Gender Abolitionist Proposals (lemmy.world)
submitted 6 days ago by AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world to c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

3 places where I feel like gender separation doesn't really make sense

Sports

Separation of men and women in sports is fairly admirable as it gives people a chance to showcase their skill that would otherwise be outcompeted. It additionally is nice as women are a group that are often discriminated against and exposure in previously limited areas is nice. However, I don't think that a strict gender separation is really necessary. I think that an ideal system would allow anyone with higher skill to go to the top of their league, relative to the physical ability determined by their genetics. I'm not very into sports, but I get the impression that people's enjoyment often comes more from people's character and effort than the absolute magnitude of their ability. Short v.s. tall people in basketball are one example that comes to mind; a shorter person would require much more skill to reach the same level as a taller person currently. I'm not much of a wrestling person, but I think this is addressed there through weight classes. A possible wider idea is be some meta-classification into classes based on the characteristics that cannot be changed with more practice or other self-improvement.

Bathrooms

this is basically a summary of this very silly 2kliksphilip video

Urinals are more space-efficient than toilets, but typically only are found in men's restrooms. Therefore, with equally sized men's and women's restrooms, the men's restroom gets higher throughput assuming an equally sized demand, and has under-occupied stalls compared to the women's room. Even if both are perfectly sized for average demand, there will still be inefficiencies when outlier groups come in. There's really no reason other than tradition to not just separate out the urinals (if desired) and unify all of the stalls, with full height walls if you think it isn't private enough (Really, as a 6 foot 2 guy, it's silly how low stall wall tops usually are).

Pronouns

I was working on a thing recently and had to refer back to someone in a sentence that already included 2 men. I know that some other languages have primarily gender neutral pronouns, but a concern that I have had is that it would make it harder to tell who someone is talking about. I think there are some alternate systems that are better at resolving general ambiguity though, like having different pronouns for the person most recently named vs. 2nd most recently named, etc. There might be languages that do this already, idk, I just speak English and a teeny bit of Spanish lol. I haven't put all that much thought into this but I'm sure there are ways that could make this problem in communication even easier than it is currently. If we could ever get an opportunity to modify common speech.

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] trashcroissant@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Gender in sports historically has only been because men don't like being beat by women. Weight/skill classes make way more sense.

The whole bathroom thing is insane, just fucking make private stalls/rooms for everyone. Nobody should be seeing/smelling any of it.

The pronouns thing is already resolved. If you use a pronoun, you're referring to the most recently mentioned person. If you need to switch people, just mention the other person's name again. If people don't get that, they should go back to fucking grade school.

So yes I agree with you on all points but also I'm just fucking tired.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 14 points 6 days ago

The entire "gender separation in sports" argument stops making sense as soon as you ask yourself why archery is gender segregated.

Weight class is the only relevant separation in sports where muscle mass is important. For everything else, the differences we see in attainment by gender come down to something much more sinister.

Imagine for a moment that you took two groups of babies, and raised them in controlled environments. Each group is an equal mix of assigned genders. One group is actively, even aggressively encouraged to take part in sporting events, and encouraged to only play video games and other entertainments that rely on reaction time.

The other group is actively discouraged from participating in those activities, and repeatedly taught that, biologically, they will always be at a fundamental disadvantage if they do. This apparent disadvantage is so great that you won't even allow them to play with members of the first group.

Which group, regardless of assigned gender, do you imagine would produce more successful athletes?

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think it was specifically when the subject of the sentence was not the most recent name that it seemed the most ambiguous.

As in "bob disliked joe because he ... " and if the context doesn't make it explicit who 'he' is then you just can't tell.

yeah, you could just use names when it might be ambiguous, which isn't all that often anyways, but i don't think pronouns really need to be that limited

just idle conversation tho because obviously replacing a language on demand requires a huge amount of effort which isn't going to happen anytime soon for such relatively little gain

[–] trashcroissant@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 days ago

Yeah, I do understand your issue with it and that it's frustrating to have to use the noun again rather than pronoun for clarity, but I'm curious how would you resolve that?

Like if we could just change the language on demand, would you add more pronouns? Remove pronouns all together?

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If you use a pronoun, you're referring to the most recently mentioned person. If you need to switch people, just mention the other person's name again

The other day I went to My friend's house for dinner. While I was there, I played with her dogs.

Did you notice how I didn't follow your advice? I used the pronoun "I", even though the most recent person I mentioned was My friend. Let's try that story again, following your advice.

The other day I went to My friend's house for dinner. While Grail was there, I played with My friend's dogs.

Much less natural sounding, I think your advice was counterproductive. I love having different pronouns for different people. And there's never any ambiguity when someone refers to Me in a story, because I have capitalised pronouns. If more people had unusual pronouns like Mine, we'd run into the Gay Spock problem a lot less often.

[–] trashcroissant@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

That's not the context I was referring to though. What I'm talking about and what I think the OP was talking about is when the pronouns used are the same and therefore the statement is ambiguous.

For example, say in your statement, we are talking about you both in the third person and you both use she pronouns.

The other day Grail and Alice had dinner at ~~her~~ Alice's house [the collective nouns used prevent us from being able to use her clearly in this case]. While Grail was there, she played with ~~her~~ Alice's [can't use her because Grail was the last person mentioned by name] dogs.

This isn't really advice, it is the way the English language works and we all already do it without thinking about it for the most part.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Hmmm, no, I don't think I like being lowercase she/her'ed even for an example.

[–] trashcroissant@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well, okay, again assuming you both use the same pronouns:

The other day Grail and Alice had dinner at ~~Their~~ Alice's house [again, using the name because its unclear based on grail & alice being collective in this sentence). While Grail was there They played with ~~Their~~ Alice's (Grail was the last person mentioned by name so need to repeat Alice's name) dog.

My point is that my example only makes sense when both subjects use the same pronouns. The rule doesn't apply otherwise.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 5 days ago

I have a simple solution to the whole thing. Everyone should use neopronouns.

[–] Berengaria_of_Navarre@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Sports only need to be divided if strength/speed is the deciding factor even sports that depend on strength don't need to be divided if strength isn't why you win. For example, a woman is just as capable of throwing a perfect 12 in the caber toss as a man is.

Most newly built bathrooms in Norway are single stall rooms and gender neutral. It works fine.

Farsi doesn't have gendered pronouns. They seem to get on fine without them. Seems it doesn't do much for gender equality though. Also Portuguese is a very gendered language and Portugal and Brazil are the probably the most accepting of trans people in Europe and south America respectively.

[–] TaTTe@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I agree with you on all points, but I'd also like to add that there's an argument the current system in sports discriminates towards women.

In many sports, there's a top league for men and a top league for women. Since men on average perform better, the men league is almost always favored, meaning there's more money from advertisement and sponsorships, providing more lucrative contracts for the players.

Even if a woman would be among the very best in a sport, she'll never be able to actually play in the top league in the best teams with the most lucrative contracts, which I think is 100% sexist.

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

I doubt people favor the men's teams because they perform better, they're not even playing against women's leagues so viewers don't have an automatic comparison of performance. If every basketball player's free throw percentage went down by half, I don't think people would enjoy the sport that much less, because I think people care more about the rankings etc than the absolute value. So I think the problem is mostly that the men's teams came first and already built up a following, and it's more fun to follow a team with a bigger following, so everyone just follows the men's teams. There probably isn't that much of a solution to this, because even with some meta-classification thing like i'm proposing people might still mostly follow the top absolute performance league which would be mostly men (depending on how much of an advantage gender gives in a specific sport). in the ideal society where gender stops mattering as much, then it could become 'just another factor' like height and weight that the people in the leagues with less potential performance would have

i don't know, i don't think there is a perfect solution or even a very good solution

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

These are great suggestions, would also suggest posting to !genderabolition@lemmy.blahaj.zone as well so people there can discuss this.

[–] QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

why not crosspost yourself?

[–] isyasad@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

In response to your section on pronouns:

As you identify, it's useful to have multiple different pronoun sets to refer to different people to reduce ambiguity when speaking and writing.

We could hypothetically base these categories on anything: we could have one set pronouns each for men and women, but we could also set that dividing line somewhere else. Maybe we use one set of pronouns for family and a different set for non-family. Maybe the dividing line is rich/poor. Dog person / cat person. Personality type. Horoscope. Favorite color. Color they're currently wearing. How recently they entered the conversation.

Some of these sound pretty reasonable and others sound really useless. A gender-based pronoun has problems, but it's useful in that it's often a useful differentiator between any two random people. This wouldn't be the case for a hypothetical rich/poor pronoun system.

Now that I think of it, a Chinese zodiac calendar-based pronoun system would be really cool. The 60-year sexagenary cycle would give us 60 different pronoun sets for each year people are born, allowing each pronoun (fire dog, metal rat, etc.) to gain their own associations over time, though constantly changing as people from each cohort get older. Because people don't really live more than 120 years, you would also only ever have two generations of each birth year. So there would be an "elder fire dog" and "junior fire dog" and it could be so interesting and artistic and poetic with two very different groups sharing a common pronoun... So much room for symbolism and reflection 🤤

But anyway, snap back to reality. Neo-pronouns already exist in colloquial English, especially online. I'm not talking about xe/xim, I'm talking about bestie, oomfie, anon, homie, my guy, my brother in Christ, girlypop, etc.
We should recognize these for what they are (pronouns) and normalize their use. They all have different contexts, connotations, and use-cases, but they are absolutely usable sets of pronouns. Some of them are still gender-specific, but the important thing is that gender is no longer the primary relevant factor in pronoun selection. Let's have 100 different pronouns, and everybody can use any of them depending on the context. It would be awesome.

[–] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I love your take on pronouns. If we used western astrology concepts we could go full Battlestar Galactica. A lot of people don't realize how elective western astrology actually is, especially when you bring up how much of modern soft / pop psychology is based on it. The Meyers Briggs correlates directly to the four humors / classical elements.

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Hard disagree on the sports part. Men and women are different, and those differences are huge at competitive levels in most sports. It's bad that women's teams and leagues are less respected and lower paid, but the alternative in reality is not an integrated league with both men and women, but one where women don't have a chance to play professionally.

You can see this historically. Most women's leagues are a new thing. The world cup started in 1930, the women's world cup started in 1991. Profesional basketball leagues in the US started in 1935, and the first american women's league started in 1978, which lasted 3 years. At which point there was no women's league until the WNBA in 1996.

We have 61 years of football without women's divisions, and 58 years of basketball to look at. Despite no statutory ban on their participation, women didn't get a chance to compete without their own segregated league. They are needed.

Every sport is different, and some work fine with intergrated leagues. But for those that are not, a lack of a women's division is a de-facto ban on half the population. That's a bad thing.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I still don't understand how in certain sports, GOATs have been outside the norm of the "peak athlete" expected for that sport, but women haven't reached that skill level. Gretzky was the GOAT forever for ice hockey (I don't even watch , I just read his stats/articles) and the biggest part of his success is game and space strategising, which shouldn't be a gendered thing. Also stamina, but women are also better than men at ultramarathons (although not marathons for some reason 🤔)