Maya Forstater

Of course that doesn't matter. My claim is that this is lawful, and ought to be, regardless of whether its sole purpose is to mindlessly offend.

Right. I know it doesn't matter for yr conclusion, but still along the way say that the context is 'to offend', when in fact the context is serious legal & policy changes which affect women's rights. The morality answer is not as clear cut as you present! https://euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/scot.2019.0284 …

Maybe, but as you can see I have no interest (at least for these purposes) in that question. I am interested in the justice of banning offensive words, not the question of who is right and who is wrong on the substantive question (which I think is irrelevant here).

Fair enough. But that is not what the thread says. The thread comes to definite moral conclusions rather than remaining agnostic, and saying that moral conclusions don't matter here in any case.

As far as I understand your argument you are making the point that even though it was morally wrong to place the stickers it is not criminal. The fact that you see it as morally wrong (or don't really care) offends those of us who think such actions are important.

I don't care for the purpose of my argument no. The stickers should not be criminalised and the police are mistaken. If the stickers are not offensive (and I have transwomen in my timeline arguing strongly that they are offended) the issue I wished to address doesn't arise.

Deliberately offending people for no good reason is morally wrong I think. The problem with the stickers was that they didn't carry any of the reasons why someone might object to self-identification.