[jamesrcole]

That is not true.

What I did was not simply asking a person to back up a claim they made. If that was the case you could call me out for inconsistency.

I was responding to a person who had claimed to have provided some evidence that they had not actually given.

I responded to a sentence that was presenting a claim, and also implying that the evidence for their claim was given earlier in their comment, which I did not believe was the case.

That sentence was: "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community".

That 'So no' implies that the evidence for the claim has been given earlier in their comment. I did not see any evidence in their comment, so I asked if they could provide some.

[joshuamorton]

Then they did, and you've called that evidence unconvincing. But it is still evidence. More than the zero you've gotten (or requested) from the original claim.

[jamesrcole]

No, I did not see any evidence there at all, and I wrote my comment on the basis of that.

Having seen the subsequent replies, I can now see how other people have taken it as a form of evidence.

While I can now see why other people might consider it evidence for the claim, I do not consider it to be such myself (in the sense of 'evidence' being something that supports a claim).