Sir, too long, didn't read. I do not share your viewpoint concerning feminist liturgy, and therefore most of your argumentation is nonsensical to me. However, having been systematically ostracized for nothing but my generally non-conformist ("difficult", "overly critical", "trolling") attitude, I'll say that it is a measure that causes a great deal of damage. It is therefore not merely ethically wrong, but contrary to the western liberal value of "fraternité": namely that we do not punish one another for reasons of an emotional response, for that way lies tyranny.

Frankly I'm shocked by your admission that group ostracism is a method you see as valid. It is a method used by cults to enforce their subjects' loyalty and submission: break these codes, and we will have your friends and family cast you out. Not because they'd suddenly find you disagreeable, but because otherwise they too would be heretics, and cast out. Personally, I rather disagree that the so-called kernel community would accept your demand that a rule of "no statements disagreeable to [insane people]" be not only enforced, but seemingly created bespoke for the sake of punishing and humiliating a top filesystem developer.

Wherever you go after the first two paragraphs is immaterial as your assumption is false. Mine is not an argument from free speech despite your effort to paint it as such.