[jamesrcole]

> If that abomination of a researcher wasn't scared off, it's pretty strong evidence that there wasn't any significant harassment that had a chilling effect on discussion.

Just because one person wasn't scared off doesn't mean they didn't get a lot of harassment. I don't know whether they did or didn't, but the fact that they weren't scared off is not evidence they didn't get lots of harassment.

And that doesn't mean other people weren't scared off. Different people have different tolerances for harassment, and differing degrees to which they want to be involved in a particular matter.

> You can apply all the "autogynephilia" testing and logic to most cis women and they'll come out with a strong diagnosis. Whatever you think about the nature of transgenderism, applying that particular theory leads to nothing but pain and abuse.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of my comments.

[Dylan16807]

"academics [...] weren't scared off" isn't a claim that not a single person was scared off, but that as a group they were not scared off. If one of the worst members wasn't scared off, that's a good piece of evidence.

> This has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of my comments.

I'm explaining why he's one of the most extreme members of that group, which is needed to support my main point.

[jamesrcole]

That one person wasn't scared off provides no evidence about how many other people were or weren't scared off.

That he might be the worst has zero bearing on this.

[Dylan16807]

None? Really? You think there's a zero percent correlation?

[jamesrcole]

"If one of the worst members wasn't scared off, that's a good piece of evidence." Yes, I think that him being one of the worst has zero bearing. You made the claim - why do you think it's good evidence?