Yes, exactly. I chose the topic specifically to highlight the behavior of people who act in dogmatic ways.

Am I ignorant of the topic? Possibly. I know enough to know that people are using the topic as a political weapon to harm a minority population to score political points. At the same time, on the other side, people use this persecution to frame the issue as a black and white: 'You either believe this or you're part of the persecution' then they use that as a cudgel against anybody 'on their side' who tries to talk about the topic. They'll declare the topic settled and so anyone who disagrees must be acting in bad faith or actively seeking to undermine the group.

It isn't limited to the topic of trans rights. People are dogmatic about a lot of issues but, as a left leaning person, I'm already automatically excluded from the right's communities (by the same kinds of people, just with red hats instead of blue hats).

There was a separate conversational thread about that points specifically:

https://lemmy.world/comment/15496985

So what is the rule that I violated and how does it apply to any of my comments?

I was commenting about trans athletes in a thread about laws being passed affecting trans athletes in a California community.

I didn't break the rules of that community (and I didn't get banned from that community).

The reason this is a YPB post is because power tripping mods from other communities on other servers spammed my account with bans claiming I was a transphobe and defending trans exclusion from sports.

Both reasons are nonsense and untrue and using moderation powers to spam an account's modlog with slanderous nonsense is harassment.

Regardless of your opinions on the topic, I didn't say anything transphobic and that's the ban reason. It's nonsense and an abuse of power.

The blajah ban says "attempting to make excuses for trans exclusion from sports."

Which is the opposite of my explicitly stated position:

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.

Regardless of your opinions of the underlying topic, the reasons for the bans are simply nonsense, fabricated and are wholly bad faith misrepresentations of my stated position.

The power tripping here is that they wanted the ban and were willing to simply make up an excuse. It's bad faith use of moderator powers and so it makes them Power Tripping Bastards..

FYI, prior to me discovering this thread and seeing the OP ignore linked studies to repeat transphobic talking points, there was no blahaj ban. There is one now, but there wasn't at the time the OP made this topic.

They already responded by banning me from blahj.

The tolerance being displayed is truly an inspiration for us all.

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.

You're confusing disagreement and questions with transphobia because you're not believing me that I'm discussing in good faith.

That's the core of the problem. You're unable to entertain the idea that someone may not know what know.

Maybe, to you, these are debunked talking points but there are people who have never been a part of the conversation. Assuming that because you know about a subject that everyone else has to is a very naive way of thinking. So, when you interact with people who don't know anything about the subject you come off as an abrasive asshole by accusing them of bigotry and trolling or self-righteously declaring that they're wrong and bigoted for reasons that they should understand (and also dumb for not understanding).

It's toxic behavior. Assuming that everyone with questions is acting in bad faith lets you feel righteous indignation and outrage. It feels good to think that you're part of the group punishing the 'bad people', you never consider how the situation looks if it is you that is wrong.

I'm not trying to re-hash the debate here, my position isn't that trans people should be excluded.

What you're describing is ignorance and not transphobia.

No matter what subject you choose, there will be a lot of people who simply don't understand the debate and haven't researched the topic. To you, it may be an old topic that you've endlessly debated but that doesn't mean that it is like that for everyone. Not everyone has your experience or knowledge and, because of that, simply saying "In my experience this is a dead topic" is one thing but then to go on to say that "And so, if anybody attempts to talk about this topic, they are acting in bad faith and/or are a bigot" is simply intolerant.

Some people are just new to the topic, and how you choose to interact with them matters. Immediately accusing people of bigotry and attacking them because they're not part your group of people who're experts on the topic, is itself a form of bigotry ("One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. ").

So, when you keep pounding a dead horse, it is not power tripping to shut the false rhetoric down.

This isn't 'beating a dead horse'. I made 3 comments on the topic. Their actions were not made to 'shut the false rhetoric down', they're not moderators in California and I could have continued commenting. If someone is tired of having the debate or tired of explaining topics to new people then they're free to not engage or even block the person in question.

And, most importantly, the mod reason for the ban was "transphobe" and "Transphobia attempting to make excuses for trans exclusion from sports.". Which are just fabricated reasons, not based in reality.

I am not a transphobe nor was I "making excuses for trans exclusion from sports". I specifically addressed the commenters who were insinuating this by clarifying my position: "Obviously the people arguing that trans people should never compete are ignorant, I’m not supporting that position."

This is people enforcing dogma, they've decided that the topic is closed and anyone outside of the people who hold the same position as them are bigots. Questions are not allowed, explaining their position is beneath them, and you're either on board or you're excommunicated.

It's a power trip to 1. Lie about the reasons and 2. Ban the people from completely unrelated communities.

It would be like me going into an astronomy C/ and talking about the lack of proof that the earth circles the sun.

That would be a fair comparison if I was going into trans communities and talking about topics that I'm ignorant, but I was not. Expecting people, in non-topical spaces, to be experts on the topic is nonsense.

This would be like a person who is a moderator of Astronomy seeing a comment saying "The sun rises in the east" in a memes community and then banning the person from the Astronomy community (and also the Baking, Vintage Car and Waffle Iron Owners communities) because everyone, with a degree in Astrophysics, knows that Uranus and Venus have retrograde rotation and have for billions of years and so they're banned for "Flat-earther ideology".

e: I'd also note that one of the strong indicators that you're entering into these topics is when there are downvotes but not rebuttals. It's hard to argue with someone, it takes a lot less effort to simply press the downvote (or ban, or block) button. Social media conditions people to be intellectually lazy and dogmatic thinking is one of the primary shortcuts of intellectually lazy people