@hrefna And yes, we were called unreasonable then too, for many of the same reasons. We noticed patterns in the people who called us unreasonable, too.

@hrefna I understand the term quite well. When I dealt with it, "collateral damage" meant "block all email from entire ISPs and all their customers". And I was fine with that, because measures that didn't go that far had been tried repeatedly for years and weren't working. Email spam was still a massive problem even with individual anti-spam measures in place. So, massive collateral damage it was. And you know what? It worked. ISPs started to clean up their acts.

@hrefna Yes there's collateral damage. That's the point, and I want it to happen. I'm using that list because their being a transphobe is enough of a hard nope for me that I don't want to interact with them on any other subject either except under exceptional circumstances.

@hrefna As someone who'd use such a list, I'd disagree. JKR is a canonical example of who I'd expect such a list to block. If the list doesn't block her, what other well-known transphobes will it also not block? If I want transphobes automatically blocked, having the most obvious ones not blocked limits it's utility to me.

@briankrebs And anyway, isn't "they" the _traditional_ third-person pronoun for unknown or ambiguous gender ("it" being reserved for "does not have a gender")? You'd think the people who'd complain about "pronouns" would be all about using the traditional forms...