Threads devoted to named individuals to unpick their gender presentation, appearance, lifestyle or personal choices constitute a personal attack, so we will continue to delete them along with unfair generalisations.
Why are people, famous people, allowed to go on major news and media outlets, like the Guardian, the BBC, Oprah etc, talk about themselves, their gender presentation, appearance, lifestyle and personal choices publicly, presumably to try and influence public opinion on the topic of gender for their own benefit and the benefit of those who also believe such ideology (why else talk about it publicly?), but often to the detriment of women’s rights and with a negative influence on the health and wellbeing of children (for example, repeating the lie “children will die”), and do so without scrutiny or rebuttal?
And why, with organisations leaving Stonewall in droves, and with the amount of women who can now speak up turning from a trickle to a flood, would you not stick it out with respect to difficulties with advertisers, given how likely it is they will all be seeing which way the wind is blowing? Won’t you be embarrassed in a few years because you were complicit in appeasing advertisers who threatened to withdraw money because you wouldn’t comply with their request to silence discussion further? Any advertiser who doesn’t see the value on offer here is crazy. I have never understood that rationale, to turn down the millions of unique users here to appease a smaller number elsewhere. The logic of that argument has never made sense to me.
As I posted elsewhere, you have the opportunity to place yourself in history as the place that hosted the discussion that helped facilitate change - actual legal changes - that will be remembered for decades to come. Instead you want to take that place in history and piss it away to keep margarine makers happy today, who will have no qualms in changing their own advertising strategy when they realise they’ve backed the wrong horse. Bonkers.