From a post-doc philosopher elsewhere, concerning the latest mischief:

1) Some of the authors have actively worked to marginalize the view that transracialism can be similar to transgenderism. What can we do to protect, engage with, and make more visible views that are marginalized by marginalized groups?

2) Apparently, there is such a thing as writing "like a white male," something marginalized scholars apparently do not do or do at the price of not being authentic. How do white males write?

3) "Nothing about us without us." It seems that originally this phrase meant that members of marginalized groups should advocate for themselves and have a seat around the table when decisions regarding them are made. How did it become an imperative that covers all utterances? Why does anyone have a right to speak with me when I speak about them?

4) The authors are concerned that replying to an "offensive" view would be burdensome to members of marginalized group. This is strange, given that a peer-reviewed reply is a publication that can promote the career of its author. More importantly, no one is forcing anyone or expecting anyone to reply. Journals are just making the option available. If replying is important enough to you to take the burden of writing, do it. If not, don't. It's not like it's clear that your reply is more correct than the original view and really has to be heard. When did scholars from marginal groups become so fragile, that writing an academic piece became unfair labor?

5) Publishing in peer-review journals is really hard, for everyone. Possibly too hard. Is it possible that the authors are seeking for members of marginalized groups easier access to journals than other members of the profession need to deal with?