random thing on wikipedia

(idk where to put this) this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour&oldid=885518345 created a controversy becasue people overreacted to it. its really about why we should not use certain words that refer to people that are not actually words (i think i really dont know at this point) i just want to know what people think

for more information

Clearly the author is guilty of blasphemy against the tenets of the imperial cult as laid out in the official catechism handbook. This will be deleted in short time because the opinions and sensibilities of the artificial majority take precedence over all other concerns, including free speech. Never mind that the context of this was about whacko editors pushing for weird made-up pronouns on Wikipedia articles to describe certain people, not as a general rebuke of transgenderism or whatnot, and the author clarified about this in the comments.

I agree that the reaction is rather hypercritical of some modest bit of parody, clearly marked off as humor.  I think people have a right to brand themselves however they wish and even trying new pronouns- hey, fine I'll give it a shot- but the branding has to work to some extent.  A new pronoun has to be simple and memorable and consistent or it's not really a pronoun anymore, is it?  Then it has become a game that nobody wins or an excuse for phony outrage.  I think it is fine for society to have some kind of conversation about how to make pronouns reflect increased gender fluidity but I'm not particularly interested in sitting in on those meetings.  Come up with a pronoun that people will want to adopt- something simple and catchy or funny and people will pick it up without all this unnecessary sense of righteous imposition.

Similarly, we really need to get rid of the LGBT letter salad.  Personally, I think queer is plenty inclusive and only one syllable and has some pedigree in the history of our language.