Has anyone else noticed how the two sides often say the same things in support of opposing positions

[Waterparc]

I was just reading some of ex trainee dr harrop’s supporters on twitter and couldn’t help noticing how many of the angrier points (accusations of hatred/bias etc ) are like what I read here but in reverse.
Just that really.

All I know is that gender critical people say and explain things over and over again and yet the TRAs act like they are incapable of reading and claim that something else entirely was said. Over and over again.

Take Dr. Rosa Freedman. She was consulted in Scotland about how sex and gender should be recorded in the Census and she gave a wonderfully clear well thought out reasons why it is to the benefit of everyone, especially the transgender community, not to confuse sex and gender in the Census. At any other time Dr. Freedman would be taken for what she is, an advocate for the human rights of transgender people, but instead they are trying to no-platform and are harrassing her.

Just on this occasion a lot of feminists find themselves on the recieving end of it
This is the same argument that the alt right and MRA's use;
''you made us vote for Trump''
''you provoked the backlash''.

It is an example of DARVO;
Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender.

The alt right claim to be victims of the left.
MRA's claim to be victims of feminism.

Meanwhile women are losing rights;
to name ourselves, our own bodies, to meet or talk or organise, and to any autonomy away from the gaze and guardianship of men.

Sorry only just saw this was not, after all, tumbleweed, will read through.

“Accusations of hatred, well, you have to understand that when men accuse women of hating them, they mean that women won't have sex with them.

When women accuse men of hating them, they mean that men rape and kill them. “

Thanks for this-am reflecting on it. You’ve got to be right there. Leaving aside the Rights and wrongs of any particular argument this is always going to be an underlying factor.

I suppose there are 2 versions of 'erasure'.

1. Erasure = not believing or pretending I am what I say I am on demand.

2. Erasure = Changing language for a particular group in such a way that words no longer give a meaningful name, description or membership for them and their reality cannot be practicably discussed.
   Changing laws, customs and society in accordance with that non-specific language so that the reality, needs and distinction for that group are impossible to address.
   Denying that the specific needs of the now nameless group exists.

Though the word 'erasure' is used by 'both sides' - one is a narcissistic, imagined erasure, the other is the loss of the right to speak about and address the real needs of a group.