How? There hasn't been a single person in this argument that's admitted I have a point. You're suggesting a middle ground that doesn't exist. This fallacy works for false with us/against us dichitomies, but clearly people actually are unified against what I'm saying.
No. Here's why:
You can't appeal to the possibility of there being people that go against observed trends where there is no evidence of this tendency. While it would be fallacious for me to rule it out 100%, it's still pretty clear that it's what the data thus far is saying.
Also, here's another problem with that - group mentalities are a generalisation.
The point isn't that every person on the forum has exactly the same opinion, but there is clearly a dominant mode of thinking that goes to active effort to shut down dissent.
So, it's irrelevant. Even based on my initial posts, people told me I wouldn't get what I was looking for here, and to leave.
Show me examples of people criticising the baseline attitude of these forums on a recurring basis.
Based on everything I've seen, it's consistent. I can't account for data I haven't been presented with.
That's not how appeal to emotion works. Appeal to emotion is a "think of the children!" type of fallacy.
It would take a much larger argument than this one to demonstrate why(feel free to read up on some oppression theory & trans 101s) - but transphobia is oppressive. Individual artefacts of that - like deadnaming - are oppressive. If we're talking about things that demonstrably hurt people, restrict their freedoms and inflict negative experiences on them - yes, deadnaming is wrong. I'm not trying to red herring here with an emotional appeal. If we're discussing morals here, then the emotional impact is going to be at the centre and forefront.
This is a completely invalid call of appeal to emotion.
... how? That's reaching even more than the last.
Also, let's face it, a lot of stuff to do with abuse and personal experience is going to be impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. But there are still clear observable trends, and I'm running with that.
Everything I said is true as an observable trend. You can't just list out fallacies without explaining why they apply, anyway. That's some high tier neckbeard shit.