Your 2nd option assumes that there is always a majority that should make room for minorities, otherwise minorities will not exist? Because minorities have existed throughout history.

WTF you really won't go as far as non-separated at birth twin studies, will you.

There is 100% confounding between nature and nurture when people grow up in the exact same niche with their siblings and parents. It is also notoriously difficult to separate the effects, even the so-called heritability index is probably statistical hokum. Twins separated at birth are your best go to separate the effects, and it is subject to criticism as well for confounding effects. Yet you go out in complete confidence and state that parent politics are hereditary. Ridiculous.

Yeah sure. That would have prevented the Holocaust, a public Matrix server.

I agree with the sentiment of your post, but I think the scope is way off. I read through the comments and I found things I did not expect to find here (which messenger is better) and not the stuff I was expecting to find, which is the actual survival game. Yeah sure, reliable secure telecommunications is an aspect of it, but if you really expect the US to pull a Holocaust on trans people there are several other things to think about, both before and after discussing the channels of communication.

In general I agree with other responders, in that it is best to let them explain their bigotry. Having said that, and for the record:

• a stealth trans woman will face misogynist discrimination at work
• a non-stealth trans woman will face transmisogynist discrimination at work
• a stealth trans man might be able to take advantage of passing privilege and male privilege combined [^1]
• a non-stealth trans man will face transphobic and misogynist discrimination at work

If any of the above people are non heteronormative they will face homophobic discrimination either way.

Let alone that these legal transition procedures are wildly imperfect, and it would be unreasonable to assume that a person can as easily transition in law as they imply. In fact it might take years and $$ just to get just the most important paperwork done[^2]. And then what? Do they think that legal name change is like a Permanent Polyjuice Filter that allows you perfectly pass and live as the other gender?? P r e p o s t e r o u s

Besides, why would anyone transition in paper if they are not transgender? This is the most basic comeback. Ask them "Why don't you switch genders then? Grass might be greener on the other side.[^3]" They will probably respond "But I am not trans". "Neither am I", continue, "I just want equality at work, trans rights included".

(Source: Old social studies coursework on transgender issues, but some info might be outdated.)

[^1]: This is not to mean that he might face other types of discrimination in different settings, like reproductive health. [^2]: And don't even ask about non-binary provisions, more often than not they are not any. [^3]:You might also be better looking as a lady than what you look now, lmao, no just kidding don't say that.

This

These are chemicals found in every single human, how can you think they cause insanity? Also environmental stressors play a big role on mental health issues, but what you call "insanity" might be better defined as neurotransmitter imbalance, and it has not a lot to do with sex hormones, but a totally different set of chemicals.

Fallacy means sth in the effect of "cognitive illusion" as in "logical fallacy", not a rhetorical strategy. The difference is the intent of the speaker. A rhetorical strategy can be deceptive, or tactically motivated, a logical fallacy is more like a form of apparent naivete and common paradoxes. When there is intent to deceive and/or win at all costs, there is "prevarication" or "sophistry" instead of "fallacy".

a “put your money where your mouth is” fallacy

Is this a "fallacy" or is it an "angle"? Probably it is little more than straw-man attack, because you know even homeless people need actual homes not just places to crash, and it is also a form of ad hominem attack that typically targets progressive/social change demands (do you really hear that often the opposite, like "if you hate homeless people that much, why don't you support gassing them?"). I don't know if people call those fallacies these days, I tend to see them as tactical conversational attacks. A fallacy is sth you can easily fool yourself with.

we risk being excluded entirely

I misread "being executed entirely".

Oh. Wait.

They do not matter at all.

I beg to disagree. If "useless internet points" don't matter, why is there a billion dollar marketing industry surrounding them? I mean all kinds of data mining conducted on all forms of internet reactions. People are paid good money to crunch these types of numbers, including who is casting the votes (man, woman, white, black, American, not-American, liberal, conservative, etc, etc). Then there is the troll/astroturfing angle. There are different types of campaigns that pay drones to upvote or downvote stuff, for marketing purpose or state-actor agendas.

Sure basing your self-esteem on internet points is harmful and useless, but seeing internet reactions as a narcissist fuel only is also naive and misleading. Given the OP wants to get genuine feedback to his opinions to use as a political or moral compass, the question of the feedback quality is not moot at all.

It should have no bearing on your life what so ever.

The feedback quality is also indeterminate. We can't know the proportion of astroturf, spooks/trolls, and genuine users in any upvote/downvote score and/or reaction. This can lead to a situation where the feedback to your opinions is always muddy, and vague. Do my opinions suck or is this their problem? In real life you won't get honest feedback to your opinions anyway, for reasons of politeness. I read once this is why conspiracy theories thrive in Facebook more than Twitter (old study), because a network of acquaintances will not challenge your BS, but a crowd of strangers will.

For all these reasons I think the OP's question is a valid problem we don't yet have good answers to. And it is relevant to any platform, Lemmy included.

As for your original question: Musk helps oppressive states enforce censorship on his platform .

His passion for free speech is only for white supremacists and conspiracy theorists now running rampant on his platform (there is a John Oliver segment about it).

He opposed an anti-hate-speech law in Ireland, although the law makes clear that it is still allowed to express unfavorable opinions and offend others, but forbids incitement to violence.

This shows he is not interested in defending "unfavorable reasoning" against the "woke" inquisitors, rather than advancing hate-speech and white supremacist causes in particular. This is not only a hypothesis, but a reported outcome of his actions with X/Twitter, which is now a nazi bar.

Don't forget Russel's tolerance paradox: If you tolerate nazis in order to defend freedom (of speech, political association, and the like), they will overtake the state apparatus and verbot freedoms for everyone, not only speech, but freedom of life as well.

He is doing exactly that, not only permitting, but promoting white supremacy, and at the same time treating the term "cisgender" for example as a slur.

This shows he is not all in for defending free-speech for all sides, but he is out to "destroy to woke mind virus" because it "stole his son from him".

Musk is a nazi apologist, a big cry baby, and a media gatekeeper who enforces censorship both as a platform owner and as a service to totalitarian states.

He is a national security risk, according to Wired.