I posted this on the thread in Site Stuff:
I've followed all the trans threads and never commented. From all I've read it appears like someone who has used words like 'wanker' to refer to others who have genuine questions is then being afforded air time despite this, when - perhaps understandably - people see this as a bit of a double standard. In some ways if we are to tolerate that person's misogyny and offensive remarks, they should also tolerate the anger that then stirs up. Not that it should be tit for tat, but stones and glasshouses come to mind and as women we're all told to shut up almost every day as it is.
I'm a mental health blogger who experiences some absolutely horrific abuse online, and where I feel it has a basis of logic or raises a question I think might be of some value I engage. A lot of what I'm subjected to is misogyny, extremely personal and even some threats of violence, and none of it with any provocation. I show I won't tolerate it by addressing it so others can see. I would've said anything I'd say here both in my blog and in person to whomever I was talking about - it's sort of a rule I have - but it does concern me that tolerance doesn't always nurture debate, sometimes it just keeps others 'in their place' so to speak. You do have to separate the person from their words and acknowledge that if something that seems offensive is not simply being used to inflame, but because it's symptomatic of an argument or core belief, then perhaps it should play out.
For me the difference between PAs on MNHQ/other MNers and a guest like Paris is that we sort of know what sort of a character Paris is from the mass of published material we can easily find. I know nothing of the mods or other posters here in comparison, so I wouldn't have any reason to PA them - I would however point out flaws in things they said as I saw them. I don't resort to name-calling because it would feel like I was admitting to being wrong (blame the ASD).
Justine's point about the 'AI' of SM influencing things like the US election is extremely key here too - and by that I mean that the more we 'tolerate' what can be harmful words or ideas (esp. if harmful to the parents MN is supposed to be supporting, or making their lives easier), the more those harmful words begin to infiltrate and influence everything else we see. Things become normalised that shouldn't be.
Spartacus has been pivotal for me and I value the debate immensely; it may seem like a 'vocal minority' but many of us are actually trans-advocates and people who in life fight for the rights of those who are downtrodden.