Ada

From the info in their sidebars, it looks like the best approach is to make a post at !meta@lazysoci.al, or tag lazynooblet@lazysoci.al

It was designed to be banned.

And that’s the issue.

From a new account, with no discussion history on the topic that I could find, with no previously removed posts, it looked inflammatory, and it was, deliberately so. So you got a short term ban.

If you’d been a long term user, or had a posting history that made it clear you were trying to demonstrate a point, I’d have left your account alone. But as it was, I couldn’t tell you apart from a troll. I wasn’t certain, which is why it wasn’t permanent.

If I took issue with what you were saying, it would have been a permanent ban.

I took issue with how you said it, which is to say, you started a new “conversation” out of the blue, framed in a way designed to start an argument. And even that wouldn’t have been enough to get me involved, except that you don’t have a history of posting on this topic, your account is new, and I’ve previously removed a comment of yours for arguing with a femboy about what kind of memes he’s allowed to post.

tl;dr your account has a bunch of red flags, and this post was one of them. So you got a temp ban.

I’m not going to remove someone for complaining about my moderation. Which is to say, ranting about me in this community is something I’ll leave up to the community mods to deal with however they feel appropriate.

You’re a month old account, approaching a topic in a way designed to maximise rage responses and arguments. Stop doing that

at what point did i suggest rolling back rights for anyone?

When you said we should accept our removal from sports, and that we should be open to exclusion from the ability to use bathrooms in public.

As I said though, this conversation is an example of why you don’t see the behaviour you’re asking for. It’s because the responses always look like yours.

not everyone is able to follow the same news sources and some people who only get infomation on social media are subject to waves of propaganda news articles.

I very much understand that. However, this conversation is a classic example of the fact that even being told those statistics and having the context made clear, doesn’t actually change anything.

You may not have a desire to engage with those people and thats totally understandable, but there should be some people who are allies, who are able to engage in those types of conversations

There are. Lots of them! It’s why I am defensive with you, because despite the existence of folk like that, you don’t see them, and instead categorise trans people as largely being “all or nothing”. You are part of the group you were just talking about. The group that isn’t exposed to the right content, and instead, only knows what they see in an actively transphobic media and social media environment.

And as I said earlier, you won’t shift your opinion, you won’t ease off and stop fighting me, to become one of those people that helps trans folk. Instead, you’ll fight me, for daring to take issue with your framing of the situation, whilst blaming me for it at the same time.

Right now we are literally having everyone’s rights rolled back because thats how fascists like Trump act when you stand up to them

That’s our common ground right there. Yet instead of talking about that, you’re suggesting that actually, giving in and being ok with some of those rollbacks might be ok, as long as its trans people!

If you want allyship against facism, focus on the facism, rather than demanding that your allies capitulate to it

there is no suggestion being made here

Yes there is. I asked you what you think compromise looks like in real world terms

You replied with this

So a specific compromise would be when someone says that they accept transwomen as people deserving of respect and dignity, but i dont think they should be allowed to compete in professional sports as women, you dont call them a bigot or refuse to engage with them. Its saying "could you think of a way to esure womens safety that doesnt assume all trans people are sexual predators? " when they say women should be able to feel safe in locker rooms.

That is quite explicitly a suggestion. Or rather, two suggestions.

In this suggestion, you use the word “women” as if it doesn’t apply to trans women. ie, you say “women’s safety” when you clearly means cis women’s safety. Dangerous, because it normalises the attack on trans women that they aren’t women. And dangerous because it implies that trans women are a risk to cis women, when in fact, trans women are more at risk of sexual assault and violence than cis women are! There is danger here, but it’s not coming from the trans women, and framing it as if it is, and as if that is something that should be compromised on is dangerous to trans people.

There is no compromise, when that compromise involves having our safety ignored, and our rights rolled back. That’s not compromise.

Your statement seems to imply you think i disagree with you

You do. You are suggesting that trans people should offer to exclude themselves and give up our rights, because demanding equality is too much.

I am expressing concern about how other peoples actions will cause more negative pushback

Giving up some of our rights, rights that everyone else has, to appease the folk who enjoy those rights, when we are the ones more at risk of violence, and exclusion is not a viable middle ground like you seem to be implying it is.

Your framing of that as “all or nothing” means I very much disagree with you. You may think trans folk deserve rights and dignity, but you don’t believe trans people deserve the same rights as cis people

“I think people should have respect” isn’t something you can say when the thing that follows is a list of arguments to exclude those very same people.

Even your framing highlights why trans folk are so frustrated. You talk about women’s safety, as if trans women aren’t part of that discussion, and on top of that, you completely brush over the fact that trans women are even more likely to be victims of violence and sexual assault than cis women.

And your response is that trans folk should just be OK with that, they should just compromise by accepting that their needs are viewed as less important than the needs of cis folk, and just silently accept exclusion.

The truth is, rights are won through social push back and confrontation. They are fought for, because they don’t just get handed over otherwise. Especially when there is political capital in exclusion.

I’m also going to highlight that despite engaging with you in good faith, you almost certainly haven’t become more accepting, and in fact have most likely become more entrenched in your position as you consider comebacks to my points.

That’s why

Literally no one thinks cis women and trans women are the same, so your compromise doesn’t mean anything in and of itself.

I’m asking you what your position means in real world terms. What are the consequences of these differences? Because that’s what really matters.

Feigned outrage because I asked you for specifics seems counter to your stated goals of reaching compromise and makes me question your motives.

That didn’t answer the question you replied to, and didn’t actually say anything. What does that all look like in real world terms in your mind? How does this “compromise” manifest? I’m guessing that it involves putting trans folk in harms way…