cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/25042034
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'm familiar with the court case I assume you're referring to, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how it could possibly apply here.
The court declared that, as a matter of law, any other laws that refer to women can only refer to cis women. Or maybe cis women and trans men. Something I think we here can all agree is a grotesque example of judicial activism of a sort we'd normally only expect out of the US. Certainly not a reasonable interpretation of the law as written.
But that ruling is just about interpretations of existing laws on things like gender discrimination. Gender discrimination law literally doesn't even come into the conversation here, because we're not discriminating or allowing anyone on the basis of gender, only on the basis of their behaviour. The court ruling didn't change your right to moderate based on behaviour in any way.
I have no idea if UK law permits moderation on the basis of political beliefs, but I have to assume it does. Certainly, the Supreme Court's ruling in For Women Scotland doesn't change that either way.