That isn’t what I’m asking for, I’m asking for the censure to be updated with evidence from the instance itself.

I haven’t updated anything in fediseer for probably close to a year. And if you look at the size of our censure list, I’m unlikely to be adding verifiable evidence for all of those sites, if for no other reason than I don’t want to visit most of them.

Yet whatever my reasons, the fact I’ve posted it without evidence is something you should use when deciding how much trust to place in my censure, though I think the real trigger should be the number of censures.

That should be what gets you to look at the instance and decide for yourself whether you agree with the censures. If you can’t find evidence to confirm them, or if you don’t agree with them, you don’t take any action.

I don’t trust you, because you have said the same thing about me

And to be honest, I don’t even know what you said. The posts were made 2 years ago, are now permanently deleted, and were removed by a moderator on an instance that doesn’t exist anymore. I’ll remove the ban

blahaj zone doesn’t, but we manually approve applications.

A single user behaving badly shouldn’t be enough for a mass defederation, it should be a user ban/block not a instance censure.

When that “single user” is an admin of the instance, it tells you a lot about the instance culture, and the types of things they will action from their user base.

When the admin is actively posting transphobic content, it tells me that not only will they not moderate others who post transphpobia, but also that the instance will actively attract transphobic folk.

The thing about the fediverse is that people have options. Our instance defederates instances that fail to act on bigotry, or encourage it. So people who join this instance, do so, precisely because that’s what they’re looking for in a fediverse instance.

Folk who don’t want that, who want to fight with bigots, or who are willing to play whack a mole and block them one by one as they pop up will join instances that don’t defederate.

That’s how it’s meant to work.

If we did it your way, and everyone was forced to federate with everyone else, and every user had to block the bigots one by one, reactively, after stumbling across them, we would lose a large chunk of users. That might be what you want, but it’s not what everyone wants. And when you take away options, and try and tell people they have to do it your way, they will simply go elsewhere.

so I started to dig into it and I haven’t seen the evidence for the censures and hate.

This comment feels like its in bad faith. Earlier, you described their admin as “a single user behaving badly”, and you’ve been provided with links to their transphobic content by several people now. Even if you don’t personally see anything wrong with what the user said, it seems unlikely that you don’t understand how or why other people might take issue with their anti trans commentary.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s, and many of my misconceptions were shaped by that.

I used to believe that femininity/masculinity, presentation and gender were intrinsically linked. I don’t really have an attachment to femininity, and so, for a long time, I thought that meant that I wasn’t trans, wasn’t a woman etc.

I used to believe that all trans women wanted bottom surgery, and didn’t understand how one could be trans and not want it.

I used to believe that to transition is the same thing as wanting to pass as cis.

I used to believe that gender was binary.

I used to hold vaguely transmed beliefs. I didn’t so much believe that you had to have dysphoria to be trans, but more, it never occurred to me that it was even possible to experience trans identity without dysphoria.

I never used to realise that trans men exist

I used to believe that being queer, and being part of the queer community was just a practical/pragmatic thing, and not an important part of my identity, and something valuable in its own right.

Lets just say, my understanding of trans identity has changed quite a lot since then :)

Their admin is an open transphobe.

What’s the context for this?

That would be great if anyone was actually attemping to reclaim pepe, but in practice, more often than not, the red flags are right.

when mammals have reached such places, flightless birds have almost immediately experienced population collapse.

New Zealand bird life in a nut shell

The real issue with the Dhejne report isn’t that “times have changed” or anything, it’s that it measured lifetime suicide attempts and the cohort being considered was post op trans women. There was no consideration as to whether the suicide attempts occurred before or after the women transitioned, nor as to whether or not transition impacted these outcomes, nor was there a comparison to trans folk outside of this cohort, as transition was not the focus of the study,

Which is to say, being post op has nothing to do with anything in this context, but it allowed for a headline that implies being post op was the cause of the suicide risk. It’s a technically accurate summary, that’s completely false at the same time. So the bigots latched on to it, because it’s a catchy soundbite that takes time, effort and nuance to counter.

Getting away from a community that exists only for trans people to self flagellate is probably a good idea…

Communities like that exist only to hurt trans folk, and they’re used by trans folk who think they deserve to be hurt.

I don’t get the reference here…

Thank you for proving my point

People who use it are either using it as a way of displaying that they’re bigots, or they don’t care about the association with bigots.

There’s not really any positive way to use it, so it’s a giant red flag whenever I see it.

Inversion is a lot quicker than types that use more extensive grafting

Specifically, it occurs when the cows eat high volumes of clover or other nitrogen fixing plants (most legumes fall in to this category). Ruminants produce a lot of gas in their digestive process, because their stomachs are designed to ferment their food, allowing them to better access highly fibrous food sources like grass. Normally, they belch or fart the gas away, but in the case of nitrogen fixing clovers, they produce too much gas to be able to burp and fart away, and they end up with fatal bloating!

I remember learning this in school in rural Australia. The most amazing thing is that I still remember it :P

Yeah, we update piefed pretty regularly, because it’s changing so quickly. Kaity is also working on some stuff that we’re going to push back to the main piefed branch as well

She wears a placid, pretty expression

That is not how I’d describe her expression. To me, that expression looks smug/condescending/knowing

im too old and unfit to compete at anything!

To be fair, I am too! I still run, but lets just say, my halcyon days are behind me :P

There also never seems to be any situations of FTM people excelling at sports like is reported of MTF. Happy to accept that might be a media bias issue.

There are no cases of trans fem folk excelling either. At least not trans fem folk on hormone replacement for a decent period of time.

You’ll find studies talking about individual elements of physiology, and drawing extentions from that that. You’ll find studies that don’t take in to account the impacts of hormone replacement. And you’ll find studies written by transphobes with an agenda that outright lie.

But what you won’t find, no matter how hard you look, is any kind of evidence of systemic advantage. What you won’t find is any kind of study that looks at real world sporting outcomes, and shows evidence of trans folk winning more than they should. You’ll find plenty of examples of trans folk being accussed of having advantage for performing well, but unless your position is that trans folk can’t compete unless they are actively disadvantaged, you should expect to see trans folk win sometimes, and place highly sometimes. That only becomes an issue when it occurs more than you would expect given the participation numbers, and it’s at that point, the evidence evaporates.

I want to bring up Lia Thomas as a classic example of what the media portrayal looks like. She is portrayed as a mediocre swimmer, who became a great swimmer when she transitioned. But, there is bias at play in the way that story is told. In order to swim in the women’s category, she needed to be on hormone replacement for a period of time (2 years from memory). During that time, her performance was impacted, but she was still forced to swim with men. And those are the stats that the transphobes will bring up, to call her a mediocre swimmer. If you look at her stats from before she started hormones, her performance was at an elite level. And after the impact of hormones, her performance was elite by women’s standards too, but she set no world records, and she was soundly beat by many cis women. Yet the stories you hear, tell of a trans women breaking records, and magically becoming a contender. Because the stories are part of a wedge tactic, designed to normalise the idea of seperating trans women from cis women.

I’ll also point you at this study…

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/58/11/586.full

Conclusions

This research compares transgender male and transgender female athletes to their cisgender counterparts. Compared with cisgender women, transgender women have decreased lung function, increasing their work in breathing. Regardless of fat-free mass distribution, transgender women performed worse on the countermovement jump than cisgender women and CM. Although transgender women have comparable absolute V̇O2max values to cisgender women, when normalised for body weight, transgender women’s cardiovascular fitness is lower than CM and women. Therefore, this research shows the potential complexity of transgender athlete physiology and its effects on the laboratory measures of physical performance. A long-term longitudinal study is needed to confirm whether these findings are directly related to gender-affirming hormone therapy owing to the study’s shortcomings, particularly its cross-sectional design and limited sample size, which make confirming the causal effect of gender-affirmative care on sports performance problematic.

Now, it’s guilty of the very thing I pointed out earlier. It looks at a single attribute in isolation, and draws conclusions from it. But when you compare it with studies that find advantage in other areas, it becomes clear, that the answer will not be found in studies highlight individual areas. What does an advantage in height mean for example, if offset by cardiovascular disadvantage?

There is a reason we don’t see trans women dominating sports. And that’s because they don’t. Anything telling you otherwise, is pushing an agenda.

And of course, I’m pushing an agenda too. But my agenda is to not be excluded from the sports I love, and not to have sports used as an excuse to exclude me from other arease of society. My agenda is my safety.

I’ve posted things like this many times before, and rarely does it get anywhere, because people have already made up their mind. You claim to have not made up yours, but if you are reading this and your first instinct is to try and find rebuttals and arguments, then I’d suggest to you that maybe you have made up your mind already. If your first instinct wasn’t a defensive desire to argue and debate the topic, then well, you’re one of the rare ones…

We ran out of space! All sorted now