@Rubiksmoose What do you think the goal was?

As in specifically, not something general like, "support transgender people" or "make them feel more welcome." But specifically, what sort of events did they want to set in motion by the change?

(Not that I'm suggesting that those don't describe their real goal, but they're so general that they're not particularly helpful in evaluating whether the change is good or not.)

@jpmc26 protecting and making transgender people feel more welcome / heard would have been what I said. I don't think the goal is really easily measured.

Then again, I don't think every action taken or goal needs to be measurable, it just helps if it is something that you want to evaluate later.

@Rubiksmoose There have been many horrible actions taken in the name of goals that sound noble throughout history. While SO fortunately doesn't have the power to cause physical harm or even that much other kind of damage to most individuals, this fact should make us question not only the goals that we consider laudable, but also the methods and the overall effects.

Specifically in this case, what if that goal is achieved by explicitly silencing one side of an important debate about a difficult issue? What if it's achieved by labeling dissenters as "hateful" and other pejoratives, putting them in a very similar position to the one they say they wish to bring transgender people out of?

Is it okay to make transgender people feel more welcome at the expense of driving out and punishing those who believe that "gender identity" is not a fundamental property of a person's existence?

Putting positive goals on top of your actions doesn't justify them or the other effects they have. And if we're really honest, whether full on acceptance and agreement with transgender claims is positive is definitely a matter of contention, not just here but across the world. Most people want to do good for transgender people, but there's a great deal of disagreement about what constitutes good.

So we have to examine the details more closely than that.

Not necessarily with measurements, but certainly with more specifics.

Transgender and non-binary-gender individuals can be helped to feel more welcomed without driving out other individuals who believe gender identity is not a fundamental existential property. This is (part of) the entire issue here. If I understand correctly, SO said: "We want parties X, Y and Z to be respected. Like this." MC asked: "Yes, I see. But doesn't always work and not always necessary. Can I respect X, Y, Z like this, instead?" SO: "You're banned." Everyone: "SO failed at due process."