Article with sums up where we are now

Seriously OP. This is great. Thanks for posting.

As usual when people start threads with articles that are posted as ‘gotchas’ without any further input from the OP, they never quite go the way the OP wishes.

But, I am finding this one is really good for irony.

These rules focus solely on superficial manifestations of transphobia, including transphobic phrases like ‘trans identified male’ (TIM), while doing nothing to prevent the continued proliferation of factual delusions

And Dissenting voices are insulted out of the room until only the most insulting viewpoint survives.

Made me think of the ‘your mother was a hamster’! And of course, that was the worst thing that this author could come up with. No threats, no violence. Just…. insults. So OP, do you see the significance yet? And if people are so afraid of being insulted, they perhaps need some therapy if they cannot simply walk away from the internet and do something more positive. Almost like…. I don’t know, describing reading something as ‘unsafe’.

The platform then acts as a safe space where those who remain can unilaterally discuss ideologically pure solutions.

No MN regular I know talks about safe spaces in relation to reading and interacting on the internet. Only one group seems to do that.

And it shows how very little this person actually knows since there actually isn’t agreement on every issue discussed here at all.

The credibility is actually really low for this so called article but I do confess it is making me giggle in some parts.

Insults …. Ha ha ha ha ha. Oops. Sorry. Is that insensitive and … insulting to laugh …

Article with sums up where we are now

I was very disappointed by the lack of sums. I feel mislead, OP

The author would do well to:
– pass the piece to a fact checker to remove or correct some of the more egregious items;
– request the assistance of an editor (some painful solipsisms in the text).

OP if the author is a friend - it's unkind that you didn't suggest this assistance unless, of course, you felt unequal to the task.

Let me suggest that the OP 's presumed friend or object of admiration for this piece might try out some writing exercises. One might be to make a close study of some threads and write about the moderation from the point of view of one or more of the participants who are moderated for some fact based statements.

It's always a useful exercise to understand the perspective of another party in a discussion - it deepens the understanding of your own position. Helen Joyce observed with considerable distress that she had endeavoured to do this for her book and had implored people for well argued pieces that explained gender ideology but none were available.

#NaTa

Fears were also raised about single-sex spaces, particularly the possibility that ‘a big hairy man with a functional penis between his legs’ could enter a women’s bathroom.

And who immediately thought of the male who lectures about ‘widening the bandwidth’ when they read this. And then heard Magdelen’s ‘they chop your cock off’ comment?

One paragraph in and the 'writer' showed they don't understand the difference between men in women's spaces and women's in men's spaces. Of course they weren't alarmed, what women pose any kind of threat to malr bodied people? The stunt was clearly to raise awareness, not scare men.
Only one side resorts to scaring and threatening people.
I assume this is what happens when students drop GCSE science for creative writing.
Either that or hair dye does indeed deep through to the brain. Funny how I managed to have bright red hair in my teens without developing an urge to become a men's rights activist though.

It's a pile of nonsense.

#NoThankYou

Archive version

👍

archive.is/CRQYE

Archive version.

This is pure apologetics. It's not designed to persuade non-believers, it's intended to paper over the cracks of a believer's doubts.

That's why it doesn't back a lot of things it says up (like the points @aliasundercover mentions) - you're meant to already believe the TRA line on those things.

Men are threatened by women grouping together and talking. Nothing new here

Oh, OK, I didn't know about that one... I wouldn't have read much further anyway :)

ahahahahahahaha

I suspect the op did write it.

Is there an archive version? I really don’t want to click on an unknown link and give that article traffic.

Did you write it OP? Is that why you have created a thread for it.

@happydays2345 I'm sure there are some worthwhile points in this article, but it's so very biased, it's hard to take seriously.

For example, I've just had a look at the "how can we work towards debate" thread. I've got limited time, but from what I can see, the majority of responses there are some variation of the below example:

^"You can't have a debate if one side is #nodebate
If that's dropped then maybe we can start to debate."^

I agree wholeheartedly with that comment, and a fair article would have acknowledged that the #nodebate stance was indeed a barrier to constructive good-faith dialogue. Wouldn't you agree?

Lol. Poorly written crap just isn't my thing dear. ☺️

#NoThankYou

I wouldn’t even bother giving it the clicks/traffic.

Yawn

I lost interest when he described Hampstead as South London

I took this as meaning the protest at Dulwich Leisure Centre, which is definitely in south London.