[btilly]

Wonderful. You don't believe that people have the right to have opinions that you dislike. And don't see that as a problem.

Possibly because you expect people whose opinions you dislike to treat you like you would treat them if positions were reversed.

I don't mind being dead to you. But I don't want you, or people like you, to be in a position to make decisions about what I can say. Nor do I particularly want to be in a position to decide what you can say. What I want is called "freedom of speech".

As the old saying goes, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

However when you open up the door to stopping other people from speaking, you have opened up the door to them stopping you from speaking. Are you sure that all of your opinions agree with that majority? Really? You think nothing that others might find controversial? If so, that's weird. And good luck if you ever change your mind about anything important.

[spacekitcat]

The Maya Forstater case isn't as you presented it. Why did you misrepresent it? Was it an innocent mistake or was it deliberate? She got sacked for a sustained campaign of harassment.

If you don't believe me (and it would therefore be an innocent mistake), you can read the court ruling here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf82TicPs2cCxlTnm0TrNFDD...

If you've misrepresented this one, why would I trust any of your other examples?

[btilly]

I was doing a quick search and believed someone else's representation of the case. But let's look at the case.

A woman in question has a reasonably common belief that offends you and I think is not in accord with the facts. She is open about her belief, but also has apparently made an attempt to be polite in personal interactions with others. (See paragraph 41 for example.)

Despite the ruling coming down against her, I read this and think that she has a right to have and express that opinion. That when we suppress the expression of opinions like this, they don't go away. Instead they become stronger.

Some of her opinions I agree with, and some not.

Here is an example where I disagree. I don't think that female only spaces should exclude transwomen. I also don't think that my opinion on that should matter because such spaces should exclude me. However based on the fact that most women do not agree with her, they such spaces will include them. Hooray. She is free to make her own space that excludes though, and anyone who wants can join her. That's called free association.

Here is an example where I agree with her. People born male have a significant biological advantage in many sports. This is historically the reason why we separated men and women for sports such as tennis and running. As a result, trans and intersex women have a significant advantage in the same sports. See Caster Semenya for a famous example. I do not think it is at all unreasonable to ban people who retain that advantage from participating as women in such sports.

Now let's compare her belief to one that is more obviously protected.

I'm an atheist and believe in science. I have worked with fundamentalist Christians who honestly believe that the world is 6000 years old, and that I'm going to Hell. And have told me such in as many words. As you can guess, I didn't enjoy it. But we were able to maintain cordial relations in the workplace, and I wouldn't ask them to be fired for expressing an opinion that they honestly held. Despite my opinions about their opinion.

As I said, I'm for free speech. Whether or not people agree with me, or I with them.

[spacekitcat]

They clearly weren’t sacked for their opinions, but for creating a hostile work environment.

The free speech argument is a cop out frankly, and a lazy one at that.