Maya Forstater

Is it? How so?

You seem to think if we are reasonable people will not accuse us to be offensive. We are reasonable. Megan Murphy, Canadian feminist, was permanently banned from Twitter for saying 'That's him', referring to transwoman who was still, at the time, also using male name.

So basically you seem to take the very male attitude that if there is a dispute involving women, we must have been the hysterical and unreasonable ones.

1. I think that wholly unfair, sorry. The suggestion I have accused anyone of being "hysterical" is untrue. 2. Reasonable people make mistakes all the time. I know I do. I consider you mistaken as to whether this is the morally right thing to do.

You seem to insist we should be reasonable. We already are. You did not say we made a mistake, but that we should be reasonable (assumption being we are not). We are the reasonable ones in this debate. Asking to consider biology, need for women to have rights, risks for children

What you did say was the stickers were put up for "no good purpose" but only to cause offence. And people have explained to you (1) that the purpose of stating the definition of woman is in order to fight for that clear definition and....

(2) that they were a response to stickers whose message is that to recognise biology (as in your first tweet) is "transphobia".

In judging the stickerers to be "behaving very badly for no good purpose, and should stop" did you understand the context, but dismiss the reasons, or not understand the context as well as you do now? (And has any part of that assessment changed with knowing the context?)