it was my hope that explaining things the way i had would expose OP's contradictory behavior, although i would certainly hear you out if you felt i could have approached it better
i added my 2c because i thought OP might be more amenable if the point about the woman who had been abused was conceded, as well as trying to clear up the understanding about why we gauge people based on how they gender people they don't like
i think you're probably right about them feeling directly empathic about the situation, although i don't think that excuses the way they were behaving. they were pretty clear upfront about defending the woman who had been abused, so i feel like if they had an equally understandable story, they would have been upfront about it as well. of course, that is an assumption on my part, which could be incorrect, but i think questioning why they felt like their behavior was OK was fair
Banning is language control
yyyyyyyyes, you're correct. what i meant in my post was more like, we cannot control what OP thinks or how OP speaks of people personally. like, we literally have no power there. i intended to juxtapose that with what you've mentioned, banning and such, but perhaps i wasn't as clear as i could have been
i hear what you're saying about issuing a warning vs a ban, although they had a direct dialogue with ada about the situation, so not sure how much more of a warning would have been effective. and, you know, sometimes one does want to just silence the opposition; it's not every person or every space's job to be persuasive and understanding; as you say, we are an online safe space for trans people, not the government. i definitely don't disagree with ada's moderation style for LBZ, and i don't disagree with her choice here, either
the things you're explaining are things i've been thinking about, though, so i appreciate you saying them, regardless
holy
not that it should be surprising but it's surprising to have it confirmed