>>75529693You're playing semantics here. Let's play your game.
On account of declining her attendance to a specific panel for this year's Offkai convention based on a or a group of admission officers' criteria listing what may or may not be unsavoury, lest she changes fundamental aspects of her identity, she will never meet said admission criteria.
If someone is thus declined admission based on aspects of their identity, that is effectively a prohibition for the person itself.
It is equivalent to overtly invalidating a transgender person's gender identity by stating their admission would be reconsidered should they become cisgender.
Would they still be who they are or who they want to be after conforming to such a criteria, they'd be a different person.
Hence, for her to be able to attend said panel in the way she initially planned she'd have to not be Kirshe and therefore the Kirshe identity is prohibited, which by definition is a blacklisting from platforming Kirshe on said panel.
Also, what is censorship but the suppression of the ability to disseminate information and public expression.
Isn't it true that Kirshe's avenues for expressing herself with her Kirshe identity in an officially mandated manner upon a panel is being restricted here.
Isn't it true that her ability to reach out and communicate with present and future fans from said panel in an official capacity is getting inhibited.
Isn't it true that an advert is more visible and disseminates more effectively when presented on something more visible like upon a Times Square digital display than as a lone poster stuck on an isolated lamp post.
Thirdly, an organisation's private status does not mandate moral and legal rights to discriminate against others' ability to present themselves and their identity.
Besides accountability is about holding others accountable in a fair and reasonable manner for valid reasons, it was never an absolute dichotomy of either or.
Kirshe perpetuating what she sees as accountability for others for valid reasons in an way she sees as appropriate while decrying other forms as unfair is thus potentially valid.
