It isn’t hyperbole to state that I am allowed to exist on the thread without being hounded for my views - it is truth.
It is hyperbole to take the view that you are not 'allowed to exist on the thread'. If you engage with the content instead of merely policing what is posted, discussion may be had. It may not be a discussion that you feel is fruitful, but it will generally run smoothly if points are backed up with evidence where needed. For instance, making an accusation towards an organisation is actually based on a thought out interpretation of what has been said or done and evidence is produced to support it.
You're right though. There is little more than basic respect given to posters who simply monitor the threads and post things that are simply repeats of what is said on twitter. But as long as those posters are abiding by the guidelines, they will either have their points discussed or they may well be ignored if it is a poster with a history. And yes, those type of posts are generally 'plopped' down, and sometimes they are plopped for screenshots to be used elsewhere. It is a well used tactic.
Why are you allowed to use the term TRA and I can’t use the term GC? I referred to someone as a GC because it is easier than typing out “a gender critical poster” but if you are offended by that then I can refer to you as gender critical posters.
Do you see the difference between 'a GC' and a GC poster?
Personally, I don't call my self gender critical. I am certainly critical of 'gender identity theory' as I believe it is very harmful to females of all ages. But, whatever. However. There really has been a history of posters coming onto the threads and referring to 'the GCs' and this is dehumanising language. And by dehumanising people, it means they are easier to dismiss, and sadly, all too often, posters who refer to posters as 'the GCs' also go on to monster and demonise in their posts.
I also tend not to use the term 'TRA' also sometimes I will. I instead use the term 'extreme activist' or extreme trans activists for two reasons.
Firstly, there are, of course, trans activists that are genuinely working towards finding solutions and are very respectful in the way they activate to find those solutions. Of course, there is.
Secondly, it widely known that many of those pushing for solutions that only benefit one group are not necessarily trans people themselves. We see these posters often and sometimes trans people themselves will pop onto threads and clarify that not all trans people agree with those posters.
But, others do use that term, and frankly, if someone used 'the TRA' in the same way you used 'a GC', then by all means pick them up on it. But you need to articulate exactly what your issue is with that term. General use of the term TRA is widely used and frankly, I am not about to police others for using it.
If people are merely suggesting you are a TRA, well, are you? As I have said, there are all points of view on these threads, are you using the tactics an extreme activist uses? Does the accusation have merit? That is for you to refute and articulate your reasons.
And 'flouncing' is a term widely used on MN. There is even a 'Flouncer's Corner' if I remember correctly. I disagree that it is sexist. It is another staple of MN like the biscuit emoji (which tends to earn a deletion in FWR which also is an indication that MNHQ are trying to make sure that discussions are had), and the phrase 'are you on glue' (likewise. I have rarely seen it used here or seen a post that has not been deleted with it).
Each to their own. If you think 'flouncing' is sexist, then take it up with MNHQ. Make your argument to them to change the guidelines. We already pretzel our language enough to fit the guidelines, one more term will not matter a jot.