I understand your arguments and I reject the conclusions you've drawn.
Sure, all people have rights and their rights must be respected. However, some people are misusing their rights to, in effect, erode and negate other's rights. In such an event, that behavior needs to be checked/curtailed by the societal groups around them, and, failing this, at an institutional level. Allowing that behavior to spread inevitably leads to an erosion of all human rights, which must be prevented.
What you're doing is effectively pardoning that behavior by reinforcing their rights, letting them have a platform to continue to spread toxic and negative ideology, and refusing the university in curtailing their bad-faith behavior. The university can, and should, continue to allow trans athletes to compete, and should stand up to a government that tries to erode trans/human rights. Full stop.
Some behaviors are simply unacceptable, and preventing that behavior is not synonymous with restricting rights.
As I understand it, the fediverse as a whole is composed of instances, each one communicating with whichever other instances it wishes (the instances acting as social medias of sorts). Each instance is created by people making their own thing, so if one large instance (such as Lemmy.world) were to get taken over by filthy capitalists, someone could simply make a new, separate instance and choose not to federate with Lemmy world. Is this not the case?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_of_an_n-ball