Where is the place that we've gone too far for the academy and public sphere, precisely?

[WombOfOnesOwn]

With women being deplatformed everywhere and compared to fascists, I must ask:

What is it, exactly, that radical feminists are accused of having done that goes too far?

I am not talking about words.

Any other movement that earns its adherents a swift boot out of clubs and cliques, universities and careers, didn't just go too far with words.

Millions died under fascism and the Third Reich, which is why many nations now forbid them to have the same kind of political platform afforded to other political parties.

Where are the millions of murders we're accused of? Where, among radical feminists, is there even one murder of a trans person committed even by an adherent, much less committed in the name of the gender critical belief?

Even the Red Scare and McCarthyism with its blacklists in the United States, which most people now agree was an overreaction and a mistake, was responding to a communist totalitarianism that had caused the death of millions, had imprisoned people beyond counting in gulags.

Where are the gulags where we have been keeping the trans people these many years, that deplatforming seems so reasonable?

White supremacy is responsible for many lynchings and murders, and many white supremacists are proud of those murders.

Where, again, are the murders we have committed as radical feminists? Where are the lynchings, for surely we must have done something like that, to not even be allowed to meet and discuss our opinions?

For any other type of thought to receive this level of censorship, you'd have to be promoting an ideology that specifically advocated violence and had been guilty in the past of massive, well-testified murders for which your group had openly taken credit.

So I ask: where's the violence? No other ideology is just kept out of the halls of power because of words, academic words not read by the masses, even if(!) those words are potentially massively damaging if adhered to. Peter Singer has said euthanasia of infants is potentially ethical under some circumstances, and many parents have committed infanticide; is Singer's bioethical framework to blame?

Clearly even ideas that have (when adhered to) led to far more deaths than the trans situation, are permitted to be discussed openly, without fear of deplatforming and venue loss.

So we must have done a bunch of murders while I wasn't looking.

Has anyone got the scoop? Because what other explanation could there be, really?

4th rule of misogyny: Women's opinions are violence against men, thus male violence against women is justified.

We have refused to put male needs first. That's all!

It hardly seems that it can be that simple, but it is. Academia, politics - all in a big sulk that we are being inconvenient by drawing attention to a conflict of rights.

It's so much easier when the women just shut up and do as they are told!

Tinkerbell Rule:

If you don't validate my existence in ways precisely determined by me I'll simply expire.

www.thepostmillennial.com/a-bestselling-trans-authors-tweet-thread-about-abuse-goes-viral-then-came-the-allegations-of-her-own-abuse/

Any other movement that earns its adherents a swift boot out of clubs and cliques, universities and careers, didn't just go too far with words.

I'm not comfortable with this part of your statement. I suppose you could say that you could deplatform a garden-variety academic Marxist on the basis of the record of Stalinism, but is the leap really that much greater to link a GC position to something really questionable?

Maybe more to the point, I'm not sure it will lead you to an answer, perhaps because its not the right question. The silencing of different ideas isn't really anything to do with them having some sort of relationship to violence. It's about thought control, moral prudery, an inability to present rational reasons for the ideas these people want to promote, perhaps even a belief that there are no rational reasons for any ideas.

In this country we have a number of organisations whose opinions are generally held to be socially unpleasant, or to advocate for things that are regarded as extremist and antisocial. Bear in mind this has included groups relating to incidents of violence where people have died.

How many of them are pursued by Twitter vigilantes bent on thwarting their every move - such as preventing a flight out of the country - or in harassment and punishment such as attempting to get them sacked or reported to the police to destroy their employment, threats made against their family and children, mobs beating on windows, threatening rape and violence openly on social media?

The only parallel I can think of is the way the gutter press pursue notorious serial killers.

How many of them are pursued by Twitter vigilantes bent on thwarting their every move

There have been some very weird cases of people having their jobs threatened and such because of things that seem way out of proportion. Not usually members of a movement as such, but sometimes presented as such. There was that person who posted a photo of themselves in front of a statue who said something that was perceived as being anti-veteran (I think?). It was actually part of a series of posts IIRC that showed it wasn't really anything to do with that, but people kept passing it on and totally hounded and intimidated this person. And then that fellow who wore a Hawaiian shirt with retro pin-ups printed on it and was photographed at a conference, and they tried and maybe succeeded in getting him fired, which seems way out of proportion.

There have been a lot of incidents like this, a lot about things that are just completely foolish and others where the response was way over the top. It seems to be all part of a very aggressive mentality that takes pleasure in destroying people. Sometimes for thinking things they don't like, but other times it seems just for the pleasure of it.

And then that fellow who wore a Hawaiian shirt with retro pin-ups printed on it and was photographed at a conference, and they tried and maybe succeeded in getting him fired, which seems way out of proportion.
Why do you think he was wearing a Hawaiian shirt with retro pin ups? A simple Google would have set you straight.

Maybe faulty memory and conformation bias is why men think feminism has gone too far.
Dr Matt Taylor's shirt actually showed pornographic images of women, not kitsch vintage images, and the other problem was with the sexist jokes he made.

''Rosetta mission scientist cracks sex jokes while wearing a shirt covered in scantily clad women''
www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/13/rosetta-mission-scientist-cracks-sex-jokes-while-wearing-a-shirt-covered-in-scantily-clad-women/

Taylor wasn't sacked. I think you may be getting him mixed up with Tim Hunt, who resigned from a University post after making comments about why women don't belong in the laboratory.

''A Nobel laureate who said that scientists should work in gender-segregated labs and that the trouble with “girls” is that they cause men to fall in love with them has resigned from his position at University College London (UCL).''
www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/11/nobel-laureate-sir-tim-hunt-resigns-trouble-with-girls-comments

was photographed at a conference

No. He chose that shirt to give a broadcast interview. Whilst cracking sexist jokes.