Ask Lemmy

The paradox of tolerance doesn't mean what you think it means.

The "paradox" is fully resolved if you have strong guarantees for the tolerance you care about: fundamental freedoms and equality, and punishments for those who attempt to subvert them. So you don't "tolerate" people who are in the process of dismantling that tolerance by advocating for or engaging directly in harassment of trans people (for example) but you also don't punish people who, for example, are opposed to trans women participating in womens' sports - because while equal participation ought to be a guaranteed matter of equality, we've also broadly agreed as a society that sports ought to be split, and the precise nature of that split is not a guaranteed matter of equality.

Applying this to Lemmy, there is no risk to tolerance in allowing a discussion about sex, gender and sports. There is a risk to tolerance in allowing a "discussion" in which trans people are generally disparaged on the basis of their transition, because it can lead to actions which go beyond mere speech.

To look at this another way, rather than linking a wikipedia page with a dumb insult and saying "try learning something", you'd be better off identifying the behaviour you don't want to see, what action you want to take about it, and why it's justified based on the consequences of not taking that action. "Tolerance" and "intolerance" are vague terms, so have a more productive discussion by being precise.