Maya Forstater

The weight given to perception of offence should depend on what is reasonable in the circumstances. Women’s rights have been painted as bigotry and institutions gas-lit into removing them. Taking offence when women re-instate the basis of their rights is unreasonable.

Assuming, arguendo, that the offence is wholly unreasonable, all other things being equal, if a view can be expressed in way that causes less upset, that is what should be done (though as a matter of law there should be freedom to cause as much upset as you like).

Fine. There isn't such a way. The word 'woman' is gone and the word 'female' is compromised. ANY statement other than 'trans women are women full stop' is called hate speech. We're saying it the only way possible. NOT creating upset for upset's sake.

I think it obviously false that the way express gender critical ideas are expressed cannot be more or less offensive.

Literally. Any. Statement. Of. Gender. Critical. Ideas. Is. Called. Hate. Speech. I have pointed out that men are on average stronger than women and been told I’m a bigot. I know YOU see a difference, but activists and the police don’t. 1/2

I mean you presumably see a difference between ‘woman: adult human female’ and the other sticker? The activists and police don’t. And the adult human female one is the most anodyne possible statement of the GC position!!

As far as the police should be concerned there should be no difference at all. They're both lawful, and they shouldn't be wasting their time investigating non-existent offences.

I meant they see each as equally offensive, which is what we’re now discussing here. They refused to tell @jameskirkup what EITHER sticker said because they were BOTH too terrible to repeat. You think we GCs can ‘offend less’; I’m telling you we can’t