I'm trying, but a few minutes in, am already struggling with Webberley. This infuriating need always, always to reduce a clear, nuanced argument to reductive extremes, because the reductive extremes are all she can argue against, she can't win if she acknowledges the nuance. It's exhausting to listen to, as instead of finding you're listening to interesting ideas and reflecting on them, you screaming the basics again and again, like, "She didn't say that!" or, "Stop strawmanning and address the issue!" and, often, "You don't bloody say!!!" as she relies on a safe generalisation that sidesteps the issue entirely.
"It's not just women who are victims of rape."
"We need places people can go to feel safe."
And then there's the sheer lunacy of her implicit arguments - the implication that as many men as women are raped, and as many women rape as men?! I mean, what?!
The quality of the arguments (and this is so clearly reflected in the style and confidence of delivery - we're already into rhetorical repetition and avoidance by Webberley) is just stratospherically different.