This was originally posted as a comment response in !asklemmy@lemmy.world.
Back in December, the instance hosting 196 (lemmy.blahaj.zone) announced that, as part of its mission as a trans-friendly space, harassment based on gender or neopronouns would remain** prohibited—even if the user in question was suspected of being a troll. Users were asked to disengage, block, and report suspected trolling behavior rather than bring harassment into a community already vulnerable to that kind of bullying.
There was a small backlash to the policy from some users. This led to a number of “toe the line” posts that weren’t outright gender-based harassment but strongly signaled an intent to misgender or harass in the future. Blahaj admins promptly removed all offending comments during this wave of dissent.
Important to note: The majority of the Blahaj and 196 users supported the policy, upvoting and praising the admins for creating a safe space for trans individuals.
By January, the backlash had mostly subsided, and the trolls causing issues had moved on. While the 196 moderators, including @moss and their team, did agree with the specific neopronouns policy, they remained unhappy with the broader policy of respect for trans identities. They cited “personal differences” and expressed discontent with instances where Blahaj admins directly removed comments which harassed or openly expressed intent to harass trans identities, feeling that it overstepped their role.*
Yesterday, @moss and the 196 moderation team enacted a major decision without consulting the community. They locked !196@lemmy.blahaj.zone and instructed users to move to !196@lemmy.world.
This move was extremely unpopular. Many users strongly dislike lemmy.world for various reasons (a complicated topic better unpacked elsewhere). The announcement post was met with widespread backlash, and @moss eventually locked it. In response, a few users created a new community on Blahaj: !onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone. The new community quickly grew in size and activity, with most users opting to stay on Blahaj rather than migrate to lemmy.world.
It’s clear @moss and the 196 moderators underestimated the community’s attachment to its home on Blahaj. By attempting to uproot the group without input, they alienated much of the community. As a result, most users have moved to the new Blahaj-hosted community, which has already become the more active space.
TL;DR:
@Moss and the 196 mod team tried to move the community to lemmy.world without consulting anyone. The decision was extremely unpopular, leading to backlash and the creation of a new Blahaj-hosted community that most users now prefer.
*This paragraph has been edited after receiving correction or clarification from @A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world. You can find that discussion here.
**”Remain” being the key word here. Blahaj has openly held the same trans-focused policies as always, and the admin Ada was simply reasserting her position here.
hey there, just wanted to add that while the majority of this post is relatively accurate, my team and I never did and never will have any issue with transgender identities. Being both nonbinary and medically transfeminine myself, the idea that I would take any action based out of hate for my fellow trans people is appalling. If you would like a more accurate idea of why we took the actions we did, and why we reversed them, please see this post.
Absolutely agree. You and your team do not have issue with transgender identities—yet you do take issue with Ada’s policies surrounding dignity in transgender identities.
If you feel any of my post is inappropriately targeted at your personal beliefs rather than your attitudes towards policy, you may absolutely let me know or suggest a better wording. I never intend to skew the truth, but I also feel a duty to my fellow community members to accurately portray why your team does not align with 196’s wills and needs.
Your post does contain the line “they remained unhappy with the broader policy of respect for trans identities”, which to me reads as being at least pretty similar to having “issue with transgender identities.” But I’m an outsider to all this and may be missing context.
that key word there—policy—is so important and not to be ignored
Could you elaborate? Because I’m confused by what you could mean here. What is the broader policy that they disagree with? You say they “did agree with the specific neopronouns policy”, so it seems like you are saying they agree that “harassment based on gender or neopronouns [should] remain prohibited—even if the user in question was suspected of being a troll”? If the broader policy is a policy of “respect for trans identities”, it seems like the only thing about the policy they have a problem with is its respect for trans identities.