That post explicitly says it's not a place for debate or participation from users of other instances.
I'd like to respect that but I think events like this need debate and discussion because it helps to develop and evolve the culture of lemmy and the fediverse in general.
The post says:
This post is "FYI only" for blahaj lemmy members. It is not a debate, and is not intended for non blahaj lemmy users to weigh in and offer opinions.
I recently received reports of a feddit.uk user espousing transphobia. Specifically, this was a feddit.uk user refusing to use the word cis, repeating the "adult human female" dog whistle, and claiming that trans women are not women. I approached a member of the feddit.uk admin team and raised my concerns and sought clarification of their stance on posts like this, where the transphobia is mostly dogwhistles, and "civil disagreement" on the validity of trans folk.
I was told by the feddit.uk admin that their preferred response is this kind of transphobia is to "sort it out through discussion and voting". However, the comments in question are currently more upvoted than downvoted, and little "sorting out" has occurred. The posts remain in place.
At this point, the admin stopped responding to my messages despite being active elsewhere on lemmy. When it became clear they were ignoring my messages and had no intention of removing the posts in question, I made the decision to defederate the instance.
I know some folk agree with the feddit.uk admins approach of pushback through discussion and voting, but this instance is not designed to be that kind of space. Blahaj lemmy is meant to be a place where we can avoid the rampant transphobia universally visible on nearly every other social media platform, and where we can exist without needing to debate our right to do so.
Well, the admins clearly disagreed. I didn't read the original exchange so I can't say - but they have right to make their own decision.
In their view they did.
It is about one user and one person throwing her toys out of the pram because she didn't have it her way
Tbh, it doesn't matter if an admin likes the fact or not. Doesn't matter if they agree or not.
A dogwhistle is a well defined thing. It's a word, phrase, or idea used to disguise intent by communication in code with the target audience while trying to bypass the unknowing.
The admins may decide to ignore the fact that dogwhistles exist, but it doesn't matter if they agree with the definition because it is a fact that they exist.
Since the specific dog whistle in question is absolutely, 100% in use by anti trans bigots, it also doesn't matter if the agree or not because it is an established fact. Disagreeing just means they're chosing to ignore facts.
Tbh, at this point, I'm beginning to suspect you aren't here in good faith. If you're running around denying verifiable facts, then that points right to an agenda, and one that's very much at the core of this issue.
Read my post again. In admins view this post did not break their rules. What you think is pretty much irrelevant.
According to one of the users, that was the post in question. While I would definitely not write post like this myself (after surgery and legal change there shouldn't be any distinction - why would there be any), I would make the same decision as the admins if I was in their shoes.
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18228639
Yes, if someone disagrees with you they must "not arguing in good faith" 🙄
Can I ask you something? Are you a USian by any chance? As I increasingly find USians have some skewed, warped perception of reality making it pretty much impossible to have a meaningful discussion with them. That also explains how Trump was able to win the election.
You know, you keep saying the same thing over and over. You never respond to their point, or anyone else's, you just pound away at your pulpit.
That's not engaging in good faith, it's soapboxing