I got the same sense reading gwern's response.

I agree with much of the sense you got, but I think there is a genuine question as to whether making unfriendly comments about transfolk in an irc channel or posting the logs of an irc channel without permission is a more serious breach of norms.

Similarly for not apologizing. Also, I don't see how apologizing would be evidence for a trend. He would be apologizing for the specific behavior called out by startling.

I should be a bit clearer- apologizing requires acknowledging that the event occurred, which is stronger evidence for the trend than apologizing is evidence against it (if apologizing is even evidence against). Denying or belittling complaints is a fairly common status-protection impulse, as in many situations agreeing with complaints is status-lowering. One of the reasons it's beneficial to raise issues as privately as possible is because that puts as little of the other person's status on the line as possible, and makes it easier to resolve any interpretational disagreements.

In this particular situation, someone mentioned that the channel is an unfriendly place, and then posted comments by a specific user that are unfriendly. How likely is it that the user has made other, similar unfriendly comments? As it turns out, gwern keeps logs, and was able to substantiate the claim that those were basically isolated incidents.

For the apology to be specific, the apology has to be specific: instead of gwern publicly repenting for all unkind things he's even said about transfolk in an LW open thread, it's gwern acknowledging in front of the original audience that, yeah, that joke was ill done.

It is because an apology would indicate to trans people that even though LW is not always the most welcoming place, its members (especially its high-status members) are at least committed to fixing this, and curtailing hostile behavior when it's pointed out. Trans people get enough shit from the rest of the world; they should be able to expect something better from a community committed to rationalism.

I am of mixed opinion on this; I think that LW should not welcome some behavior, and I pretty confidently include moralization as a behavior that should not be welcomed. There are times and places where honesty is more appropriate than reticence. The emphasis placed here on rationality and correctness has the cost of making it less friendly than if we did not have those focuses. That said, I think that friendliness is generally good, and would like to see more of it, and would like to take actions that increase it at acceptable cost.

Also, thanks for volunteering to be an ombudsman (or at least, to play an ombudsman-like role)! It seems like a useful thing to do.

You're welcome!