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.
I agree, and yet:
Boiled down, what you're saying here is that I'm trying to tell someone they are wrong about something, and that it relates to transphobia.
But you've framed it such that because it is about transphobia, I can't possibly have a point. Or that the mention of transphobia, is meant to guilt trip you into agreeing with something that doesn't hold water. But that's just an excuse to bring out an emotional retort, when there isn't a logical one.
Paraphrasing what someone is saying until it feels like nothing but a personal attack, is not something you do in good faith. What you should be doing, is separating out any logic and emotion in what someone is telling you. Discarding or responding to one or the other, or both, as applicable. You got some hateful, purely emotional responses that you can and should dismiss, by mine wasn't one of them.
Just because someone is trying to inform you of an issue in your behaviour or views, does not allow you to dismiss them out of hand. Unless you are perfect, there is a chance they have a point.
Telling someone they engage in a behaviour, or hold an opinion, that is transphobic, is never pleasant. But that the person themselves doesn't intend to discriminate, does not make the argument itself evaporate. And that some are too militant to present even a shred of logic, doesn't mean none of the people who confront you on the same subject have a point.
In fact, by engaging in this fallacy, you failed to follow another piece of your own advice.
You were so sure this part wasn't happening, you completely failed to start off doing it yourself.