A very conventional definition of gender is as a synonym for sex, for example in Merriam Webster's dictionary, where it's given as one of its definitions:
Even if one didn't accept gender being defined as a synonym of sex, one could very reasonably claim that there are only two genders. It's completely subjective and there's no biological or otherwise physical grounding in judging these things, and no single authority in the English language on whether any genders, beyond male and female, exist.
So you claiming that gender is definitively not synonymous with sex, and that the idea that there are only two genders is "definitionally wrong", is an intellectually dishonest characterization of the situation, and shows why censorship on the basis of the claims self-annointed judges of truth, like you, is so dangerous.
"These people have no motive or contribution beyond attempting to tear down community and start fights, and therefore should be removed from places that want to have communities and not fights."
You think the way to stop fights is to censor everyone who disagrees with you, by falsely claiming that they are "definitionally wrong".
These are just attempts to rationalize creating a censored echo chamber where ideological dogmas that don't conform to reality can propagate. Truth doesn't fear debate.
The Merriam-Webster link you provided has an extensive discussion on the difference between sex and gender. The link you originally provided asserted no other definitions existed than the one they had anointed. The intellectually dishonest characterization lies not where you say it does, though I understand why you claim otherwise. It's a strategy that's proven to work well!
If I can't assert with authority that genders beyond male and female exist, with what authority do you assert those two exist?
You're once again mischaracterizing what has been provided. The discussion talks about one line of development of one of the definitions of gender. It also provides the "gender as synonym for sex" as one of the primary definitions of gender, and yet you think that your viewpoint that it not synonymous is so unassailable that any viewpoint in contravention of it should be banned from being expressed.
Bluesky would not ban someone if they said there are 10 genders, but they will ban someone if they say there are two genders, and you see nothing wrong with that. You're engaging in mental gymnastics to justify this, and trying to equate my expression and my opinion on gender with your preference for censorship of views in contravention of yours.
You're doing an excellent job of intentionally selectively misreading what I write to twist into something you can more easily argue against.
You're creating a linguistic purity test where someone must be able to declare that your preferred definition is the only valid interpretation, thus creating linguistic "biological facts".
Anyone pointing out that multiple definitions exist and that biological realities are more broad is mocked and fought with. These people create nothing positive for their communities and it is appropriate for the communities to ban them, despite their screeches about how they're being censored and should be allowed tobprovoke whomever they like without consequence.
BlueSky and Twitter aren't public squares, they're a business more like a cafe, and are allowed to remove disruptive clients.
What you're stating is exactly the opposite of what's happening. I am the one who's saying that people should be free to express any opinion they want on this issue. You're the one who's saying that if you state your opinion that there are two genders, you should be banned from the platform. And now you're projecting your own characteristics, which is that of a censorious person, onto me to justify your censorship.
You say that these people create nothing positive for the forum, but that's just because they disagree with you. You're perfectly fine disagreeing with them, and you wouldn't want your voice to be banned from a platform for that. So it's really just a total lack of any kind of integrity in how you conduct yourself vis-a-vis those you disagree with.
And yes, both of these platforms are or strive to be public squares where a large cross-section of people can interact to create a global discourse.
It's not projection when I describe to you what you are doing, it's simply a description of what you've described. Do you not read your own words? Perhaps read your own comments the same way you read mine.
As for the rest, you're deliberately missing the point. It has nothing to do with opinion disagreements, and everything to do with starting fights deliberately.
And finally, clearly these places are not trying to be public squares. If they were, they wouldn't ban people.
100% projection when you accuse me of being closed-minded and dogmatic, when I'm the one arguing for free speech for anyone to express their opinion, and you're the one arguing for an entire viewpoint that billions of people hold to be banned from being expressed on a major forum that is presumably ideologically agnositic. And like I said, you claiming that you're just trying to stop fights by banning people you disagree with is intellectually dishonest and displays nothing but a lack of integrity in your conduct towards anyone outside of your ideological camp.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
Even if one didn't accept gender being defined as a synonym of sex, one could very reasonably claim that there are only two genders. It's completely subjective and there's no biological or otherwise physical grounding in judging these things, and no single authority in the English language on whether any genders, beyond male and female, exist.
So you claiming that gender is definitively not synonymous with sex, and that the idea that there are only two genders is "definitionally wrong", is an intellectually dishonest characterization of the situation, and shows why censorship on the basis of the claims self-annointed judges of truth, like you, is so dangerous.
"These people have no motive or contribution beyond attempting to tear down community and start fights, and therefore should be removed from places that want to have communities and not fights."
You think the way to stop fights is to censor everyone who disagrees with you, by falsely claiming that they are "definitionally wrong".
These are just attempts to rationalize creating a censored echo chamber where ideological dogmas that don't conform to reality can propagate. Truth doesn't fear debate.