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.

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.

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).