I've been thinking like you, Hadrosaurus - but the difference here is that few people actually believe in th mantras or support these sudden social changes.
The #nodebate thing is totally counterproductive - reasonable people think "why not debate it?". Only the spectacularly humourless and defensive believe debate is a bad thing, and their problem now is that they have created a silo around themselves and not had to hone their argument to defend their unreasonable demands.
I'd really like to see Nancy Kelly explain to the mother of a woman with learning disability (who is x7 more likely to be sexually assaulted than a woman without a learning disability) why the wishes of able bodied male people who would like to be perceived as female are more important than her daughter, who has two protected characteristics, right to safety, privacy and dignity.
I'd pay money to see that discussion, I really would.
Mothers do not ignore risk to their children, and we can spot a threat at 100 yards. I consider Nancy Kelly and her aims to be a threat to my daughter's safety and wellbeing, and she is a teenager without a learning disability, trauma or more vulnerability than any other young woman.
I'd meet Nancy Kelly in a public debate, and I'd invite Starmer, Davies, Sturgeon, Cole-Hamilton, Harvie and Sarwar while I was at it. I'd like to hear their arguments about why our society needs incarcerated women to be raped by male people.
We could have a patient queue of the millions of women who use MN to get a minute each in front of a panel of that lot. We'd be polite and calm and eviscerating.
And so, I do think that it could collapse quickly - especially if Someone manages to investigate what on earth Stonewall have done with 7-nearly 9 million pounds a YEAR.
If the "where is the common sense?" question doesn't get that wall tumbling the "where is the money?" question might.
Money talks. The safety, privacy and dignity of vulnerable female people does not.