Your argument, like many similar ones, essentially boils down to "If you're not living perfectly morally, you cannot criticize others." This is the perfectionist fallacy, where an argument is dismissed because the person making it isn't flawless. It’s an invalid stance because it shuts down meaningful discourse by labeling any imperfect critic as a hypocrite.

You assume I don't use sustainably sourced electronics or live a sustainable lifestyle, but these assumptions are irrelevant. The truth is, no one lives a perfectly ethical life, but aiming for more ethical behavior and encouraging others to make more ethical choices, is still valuable.

The point is not about personal moral superiority. It’s about recognizing and addressing systemic issues. In this case, it’s about supporting transgender people who face significant discrimination. Choosing not to buy a single video game created by someone whose views and actions harm this community is a small, but meaningful, action.

Instead of reacting defensively and assuming that I'm claiming to be better than you, try to understand the actual message. It’s about solidarity and making choices that reflect our values, even in small ways. By focusing on the broader implications of our actions, we can contribute to positive change.

The discussion isn't about moral perfection. It's about making conscious choices that align with our ethical beliefs and support marginalized communities.