Maya Forstater

"Offensiveness" has two senses: the objective meaning of the words and the subjective upset caused to the hearer. I don't accept that how we express ideas has no relation to the degree of offence in either sense.

You are arguing for a set of principles which none of those arguing with you dispute: that expressing things in clear non-pejorative terms is objectively less offensive than being insulting, and that good faith efforts at dialogue with mutual respect is the way to resolve things.

Great. If we're all in furious agreement with what I've said I'm happy.

Where we are in disagreement is whether there is a way of making the GC argument would be deemed as inoffensive by those who are offended by the stickers and would cut through to land of mutually respectful dialogue (just don't think that it hasn't been found for lack of trying)

Maybe there is no such path. So all you can do is make the arguments in the way that is both objectively least offensive, and causes the least upset (if none is unobtainable). In context, these stickers were not that. Hence the wrong thing to do. But perfectly lawful.

What instead could have been put on a sticker to make the same argument with the same rhetorical impact?

I think stickering was the wrong choice for protest altogether in this context (fine in other contexts).

That’s a helpful clarification of your position, thanks.