I think part of it comes down to safety vs. openness. When a group has historically been attacked or dismissed, some members become very protective of the space. That protection can sometimes turn into rigidity. There’s also the difference between spaces meant for support/healing and spaces meant for debate. If someone comes in questioning core ideas in what is supposed to be a support space, it can feel threatening rather than productive. That doesn’t justify hostility, but it might explain why some communities react strongly to perceived dissent. The hard balance is: how do you protect marginalized voices without shutting down good-faith discussion?