I'll just post my initial comment in the entirety since what happens is entirely predicted by my first comment.
The topic was trans athletes and, like with any hot button political issues, there are rigidly defined 'sides' that come with a list of things that you must profess.
These things are simply declared as not being open to discussion and if you challenge that declaration, ye power trippin' bastards rear their ugly head. This dogma is unhealthy in any community and the people who enforce it through social pressure, cyber bullying and mod powers are actively harmful.
As to demonstrate my point I continued with the conversation, responding in good faith to the people who attempted a conversation, right up until I was mass banned (which only took a few hours).
The first comment is here if you want to see the entire conversation or think I'm hiding some secret transphobic rants in my comment history: https://lemmy.world/comment/15496985
The Initial Comment
This is an issue that exposes some of the more dogmatic people in the movement.
It is as if there is a list of positions that you’re required to believe and if you disagree with any one of them you’re labeled a heretic (transphobic, in this case).
Sports and the fairness of competition is a complex issue even when you’re just talking about cisgender competitors:
Can a person use performance enhancing drugs to train and then get clean enough to test positive for a competition? It seems unfair, to me, for the other competitors if this is the case.
It isn’t an unfair statement to say that the physical performance of cisgender men is higher than that of cisgender women. This is why we have separate competitions for men and women.
The issue isn’t as simple as a choice between “Transgender people should be free, without question, to compete in any competition” or “Transgender people should not be allowed to compete as their gender”
Framing it in such a black and white manner is harmful behavior, no matter which position you take.
We need to understand how people’s bodies are affected and what advantages of disadvantages are obtained and then base the rule changes on objective data and not appeals to emotion or ideological bullying.
Fabricated Pretexts
The last thing I said on the topic (bold added), as there were already commenters insinuating that I'm secretly a transphobe rather than engaging in discussion, was:
Obviously the people arguing that trans people should never compete are ignorant, I’m not supporting that position. From the point of view of fairness in competition there has to be an objective answer that’s backed by objective tests.
Simply declaring that trans people are beyond reproach and that any attempts to quantify biological advantage are unfairly discriminatory and anyone asking these questions is a bigot isn’t helpful.
I include this because included in the reasons for the bans is: "Transphobia attempting to make excuses for trans exclusion from sports." This is completely misrepresenting what I said and what I believe in order to create a pretext for a ban.
And the power trippin' bastards come in with the sweeping community bans ([email protected], really?): https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=2&actionType=ModBanFromCommunity&userId=12926811
Conclusion
This kind of thinking is harmful to any community.
Labeling disagreement as bigotry is nonsense. Refusing to engage on a topic and using filters and bans to hide from people who don't perfectly align with your ideas is not how you make allies or educate people.
The people that do this are responsible for creating the impression that your communities are hostile and made up of extremists. Attacking allies because they don't fall in line without question is a blunder.
People with moderator powers should be held to a higher standard of responsibility and fabricating reasons for bans and mislabeling people as bigots is the ultimate abdication of that responsibility. These people are not interested in helping a community thrive, they simply want to be the ones with the power to strike out at people that they want to hurt regardless of the damage that it causes.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk (except you, [email protected], I pray you never learn how to exit vim)
You got banned for transphobic JAQing off. Poorly. YDI and any preemptive bans. I keep my flat tidy so it won't become infested with roaches. This is no different.
The idea that anyone asking questions, about a topic that you already know about, should be assumed to be acting in bad faith is exactly the kind of toxic behavior that I'm trying to point out.
You've learned things today that other people have known for decades, it doesn't make you ignorant or a sub-human.
Someone who is learning something today, that you've known for years, doesn't make them ignorant or sub-human.
You've conditioned yourself to look for a way to frame a person's comments in the most outrageous and conspiratorial way possible.
Your framing is "That person isn't asking a question because they don't know the answer. They, secretly, already know the answer and since they're a bad person (a priori) are, instead secretly PRETENDING to ask a question in order to make me personally angry and so they should be punished".
You have no real reason to assume bad faith on my part, you've never spoken to me before. Instead, because of your time on social media, you've created this model in your brain of the kind of people who ask questions that I've asked and, in that model, the person is evil, bigoted, etc and so, therefore, I have to be evil, bigoted, etc.
That's not reasoning, that's intolerance.
Bad money drives out good, even if your coin is unshaved. How do you tell if someone is sealioning or asking in good faith? I don't anymore, they all go in the same basket for my sanity. The kinds of questions commonly asked have been gone over again and again and the answers are readily available. Demanding that questioners who can't be bothered to research be engaged with by people sick of sorting out if a questioner is lazy or purposefully awful is pretty toxic. Nobody owes you a damn thing, so stop acting entitled to the efforts and mental space of others.
Arf arf