Is pushing people away based on guilt by association really the best way to handle transphobia?

Someone literally came to @FediForum to discuss decentralized social media and the social web in a non-hostile manner, and was perfectly fine and respectful towards the trans, gays, and lesbians attending, but they were prohibited from speaking because one of the leaders of their organization talked with someone who is accused of being transphobic? The person banned from speaking never said anything transphobic. It was purely guilt by association.

When dealing with outsiders, we have two choices. Be hostile to them or be welcoming to them.

If we are hostile to them, we just confirm that they were right about us being a threat, and we just create more people who hate us. On the other hand, if we are welcoming to them, they start to question why people are so hostile to us, and we can gain another ally.

If #trans people keep being this hostile and exclusionary to normies, we will wind up continuing to isolate ourselves until we have no social influence at all. And the less social influence we have, the more people are hostile to us.

It's like we are trying to dig ourselves out of a hole society has put is in... by digging deeper.

I understand being protective. One of the reasons I post under an alias is because I am afraid of being attacked simply for who I am. But being exclusionary and punishing people using guilt by association is a tactic that will just backfire.

#fediforum #fediforum2025
Hubzilla Monster

@lola I was curious about what the issue was and did some research. I was aware of Project Liberty, but not this particular incident. What stuck me is that they chose to platform an explicitly transphobic lawmaker with no tech policy background, and they made absolutely no statements after the incident, even when they were asked for comment by fairly neutral press orgs. The other lawmaker at the event stated they “do not agree with her viewpoints.” Simple disavowal seems like a reasonable bar.
@Jesse Karmani But this was an opportunity to get people from within their organization on our side, and show them that their fears and stereotypes about us are wrong.

We can keep pushing people away and being hostile to outsiders, but that would just result in more people being hostile towards us. Or we can talk to outsiders, and show them we are human just like them, and dispel the negative stereotypes they have about us.

That is more important than getting a disavowal, and if you still want a disavowal, they are more likely to give one if they interact with us and realize we're not the threat they were lead to believe.
@lola …so then why didn’t you propose a session for them? It was explicitly stated that if someone else in the community had interest, they could put forth a session and they’d still be invited to share. Someone did that on the third day btw.
@Jesse Karmani Because I felt unsafe. Since they were being punished by guilt by association rather than what they personally did, I was afraid that if I associated myself with them by proposing a session related to them, I would be attacked or ostracized myself. So the best thing to do was to not speak.

Basically, you created the same feeling I get being around normies, that feeling of being unsafe to be myself and say what I really feel. I no longer felt that @FediForum was a safe space.