The no-platforming and silencing is the issue for me, more than anything.
All someone has to say is a combination of some or all of (as happened on the Spartacus thread) that something is "vile" "goady" "bigoted" "disgusting" "exclusionary" "violence" "triggering" and BAM! you have a great combination of all the right words to have people do a double take of what has been said. I mean, if someone is saying they are offended/frightened/scared, then, there must be some weight to it, right? This is the tactic that TRAs use OVER and OVER.
Personal attacks have never been okay here. But the definition of what constitutes a personal attack or breaking Talk rules has morphed into something I don't recognise. The whole "waaahhh....someone on the internet has offended me" seems to have grown legs and is running, full force against women's rights.
If MNHQ go down the route of stating that pronouns of choice for TRAs must be used, how far down that route do you actually go? When it comes down to other issues, you absolutely mustn't "genderise", because that too, is offensive. Breastfeeding is now a target (as for "chestfeeding" - men DO actually have breasts FFS - they even get breast cancer - chest cancer is not a thing - lung cancer is, breast cancer is, not chest cancer), women no longer can get pregnant - it's pregnant people.
Gynaecologists....will they now have to become sexocologists? Gendercologists? Because Gynae is a female oriented term. And not all women menstruate. And not all women get cervical cancer. And some 'women' have prostates. And some 'women' have testicles. And so on and so forth. And not all women blah blah blah blah. So, either we go with science, or we don't? You can't pick and choose which bits of science you are going with, and which you are going to blithely ignore for risk of offending someone who may or may not be deluded about what sex they are.
I suppose that makes sex education, which starts at primary school level quite interesting and ridiculously over complicated. For what good reason?
By all means refute scientific evidence. But do it with a researched theory that backs it up, preferably with evidence as well, that has been properly peer reviewed. Science is not a religion. It's a bunch of theories that have, or have yet to be proven. Science that has been disproved is no longer counted as useful. If they can disprove - then go ahead and do it for the good of humanity. But if all they are doing is denying science reality to suit their own personal feelings of self and existence, then they are not really doing the world, or anyone else, any favours.
That's turned into a bit of an incoherent rant....apologies!