Glad you clarified ivyonafence And apologies for seeming to misquote you.
My intention was not quoting you, but placing your post in a category. That category of posts using the emotionally manipulative words such as ‘marginalised’ or ‘vulnerable’ to either shame a poster or to legitimise an ideological belief in that discussion about the conflicts where another groups demands negatively impact established protections of all females.
So who is marginalised again? Since you were so kind in clarifying something in your last post.
I am talking about your second post by the way, your first one was about the topic being ‘tedious’. This is the one:
“But if this garbage goes unchallenged it can be even more difficult for already marginalised people to exist in online spaces.”
How is the discussion around gender and working through where it might an issue that a section of society that is increasingly enforcing gender on to people who don’t believe they have one, preventing some
people from ‘existing’ online?
Or is it that you believe that one group of people should not be able to have discussions on a public forum, on a chat board set aside for these very discussions? That in this free world, is it that a reader who finds this content challenging cannot scroll past or even choose not to engage with the entire board?
Is every on-line forum board to be inclusive to that group you mention is marginalised, and not inclusive to those who wish to discuss the impacts on themselves ?
Because your answering post seems to show to me that you don’t have anything of value to contribute. Just an attempt to shame the OP for their discussion points. Otherwise you would engage with her and discuss it.
Why don’t you do that?
If you don’t see the dishonesty in your post, that is fine. We can. We have seen it all before. Including the projection you used to twist my questions into this recounting;
”I do know that baselessly trying to attack someone's honesty and appeal to emotion are tactics used by people who know they are factually in the wrong.”
I am not the poster who immediately sought to shame the OP for their topic selection - which is entirely an appeal to emotion.
Anyway, to the next part of your post.
Yes! Nuance is needed to balance the rights of different groups.
Discussing the fact that parts of society are perhaps going too far where our children are being taught by well meaning people that ‘everyone’ has a gender identity (because they don’t - very few people have a gender identity), or that some forms now force a choice of selecting a ‘gender’, as two examples, is not about ‘making it difficult’ for some people to exist. That is a hyperbolic and overly emotive attempt to control what this OP wants to discuss.
Do you have a reason to silence women such as the OP from discussing their thoughts on this issue? Because that isn’t that what you are attempting to do?
And if you are not dishonest, you will understand that is how your post is perceived. Regardless of your intentions.