What strikes me with OJ, as with Russell-Moyle, is that he really believes this stuff. All the things he says about us going down in the history books are things I think about the trans activists. The transing of children will one day be seen as a huge medical scandal, and the people who let it happen will be judged by history (assuming of course that future people have a better sense of perspective than the people currently living through this period).
Almost all of the people on our side, though, have to be calm and rational because we're women, and if we spoke like this about our opponents, we'd be described as "hysterical" and over-emotional. So people like Kathleen Stock, Helen Joyce and Selina Todd always speak very fluently but logically because they cannot risk appearing emotional even though they must feel really angry.
It is fascinating to me how someone like OJ, supposedly intelligent, supposedly progressive, cannot grasp the other side of the argument at all. Cannot see that women who have a lifetime of Labour and trade union activism, stuffing envelopes, knocking on doors, organising jumble sales, haven't suddenly become bigots - that they have genuine concerns that they are articulating. I suspect, as we have said so often here, that he simply doesn't see women as people, with their own autonomous thoughts, feelings and experiences, at all. He just sees them as people in the background while men get on with the important stuff.