someone trying to sincerely answer a reasonable question

Yeah, that’s why you linked to transphobic hit pieces and described trans women in sports with hugely emotionally loaded terms

Because you’re reasonable

As I said from the beginning, your comment was fine unti you let some of your more transphobic opinions out in the final paragraph. That paragraph was not “reasonable”

I went through the numbers to highlight her performance is on par with the rest of her team, and you still think that I’m being unreasonable

As I said, you presented your position quite clearly, which is why I called you out

Yes, they’re designed to seem that way.

Which is why I earlier stated that my issue wasn’t with listing them, but specifically, the way you presented them.

I’ve also not presented my beliefs

You used the word “murdering” to describe a transgender woman playing sports with other women, despite her playing at a level comparable to them.

You absolutely presented your beliefs.

deleted by creator

This is a tricky issue, trans women in men’s prisons are also at risk

“Also at risk”

The fact that you equate cherry picked single instance anecdotes as comparable to entrenched violence and discrimination against trans folk as being somehow comparable is the part that makes it transphobia.

Murder was hyperbole

It was, yeah. Despite her “murdering” the opposition, from the very article you linked, Australia finished 5th.

There are 7 players on a handball team. She scored 23 goals across 6 games, for an average of just under 4 goals per game (3.83 to be specific).

The total goals scored by Australia in those games was 160, which works out to an average of 3.81 per Australian player across those 6 games. Her “murdering” of her opponents consisted of having a 0.02% higher average than her team mates.

The fact that you parrot lines like “murdering” and look at videos designed to make it look open and shut, whilst not bothering to investigate the reality of the situation is what makes it transphobic.

The whole article is discomforting and worth reading. But, while WPATH (what is supposed to, and claims to be and independent science based organization) was creating their guidelines:

An article posted on the economist, who has Helen Joyce, a vocally transphobic journalist as one of their senior staff. Linking to an article that has been mostly circulated on various transphobic websites, calling out WPATH for being biased and getting in the way of evidence based research? Whilst defending the Cass review, which has been widely called out by many international medical bodies for its own bias and inconsistent approach to evidence.

The fact that you’re worried about WPATH as the real issue here is telling…

Not the list, but the way you described them, as if these were things that actually happen…

They very much are…

You were doing reasonably well, until you diverted to pure transphobia in the last paragraph

Because stirring up hate against vulnerable minorities, by positioning them as a threat is a well tested and effective technique for the power hungry to gain and retain power. And it’s effective, because it works by pulling people in and making all of the conversation about whether or not it’s right to hate on the group they’re targeting.

This is the real answer

What’s different about the fediverse is that I can pick an instance and know that the admins who run it will ban bigots, rather than just leaving the bigots alone, and telling me to ignore them.

That’s a pretty important distinction to me.

If you can find a lemmy trans flag theme that we can easily import, I’m all ears :)

It’s not shit yet. Right now, it’s good. Honestly, better than the fediverse in core usability.

The issue is whether it stays that way. And yeah, if they open up the way you’re talking about, I’ll probably move over myself, because that’s the protection against enshittification. But if they don’t open up, if they stay centralised, and just play at federation, then the writing is on the wall for how it ends, because it’s happened countless times before. And I won’t invest my time or effort in being part of that community only to lose it

Bluesky has basically no moderation. What it has is really good user level blocking and the ability to share those block lists with others.

Sure, but the network itself is still there and still running, and I can still use it (albeit with some disruption).

The point is though, that as long as it’s not dependent on a single instance, enshittification isn’t the inevitable end state.

And for me, despite the usability issues of the fediverse instance based method, it’s a better alternative than joining and losing another social media network to gradual enshittification and slack moderation

Basically people like you are blind to the reason as to why bluesky and not mastodon is getting all the twitter runaways.

Bluesky absolutely provides a better, more cohesive and centralised experience than most of the fediverse microblog alternatives.

That’s why it’s getting more people

But the reason it can do that is because it’s centralised, with federation tacked on. And that centralisation means it’s most likely going to go through the same cycle of enshittification as twitter, facebook, reddit etc. Twitter was great to use back in the day. Reddit was great to use back in the day. Then they got large captive audiences that couldn’t leave because of the network effect, and instead of trying to make the platforms attractive to new people, they started to bleed their existing customers for value at the expense of their user experience, because those people had nowhere else they could easily go.

Bluesky will go down that same path if they get a critical mass of users and stop being the “alternative” to twitter.

Mastodon and the fediverse will always be an alternative at best, because they can’t compete with the experience of using a centralised network. But the Fediverse platforms don’t suffer from the vulnerability of centralised networks and their path to enshittification. And for me, that’s going to keep me here.

The only way I’ll move to Bluesky is if they truly embrace decentralisation to the point where the platform/network could exist without them.

Bluesky is centralised and funded by VCs. It plays at being decentralised because people can bring their own hardware to the party and plugin to the Bluesky network, but if Bluesky (the company) turns it off, then Bluesky the platform/network ceases to be usable. They also started without allowing federation with their core network, so they can easily disable it again at any time.

Bluesky is not decentralised in any meaningful way, which means its at risk of the same bullshit that has driven most of us away from reddit, twitter, facebook etc

Because it pretends to be different to the centralised corporate social media platforms, whilst giving the cohesive experience of a centralised platform

It’s a federated protocol, but the network itself isn’t meaningfully federated, and is basically just Bluesky (the company) infrastructure. Hopefully that changes, because until then, it’s still a centralised social media platform, despite the underlying technology

I’m a wizard?