Where? We're here because everywhere else we'd be banned for "transphobia".

I'm not sure exactly, and that's a good point. I think to stay active here and attract more people, Saidit as a website needs to be made more well-known, and more disassociated from the far right viewpoints that the website attracts and appeals to the most. There is the GCdebatesQT Discord server that seems to be pretty active, though I'm remembering I think they just recently changed rules specifically addressing language that could be interpreted as transphobic. I'm not internet-savvy enough that I can really think of anything off the top of my head.

Yeah, right. We know exactly which side would be one who had to compromise. QT has proven time and time again they are going to compromise in anything.

Maybe! I have no idea at this point, honestly. There are so many people with so many diverse opinions, I believe there are QT people who would compromise--but maybe those sorts of people don't even think of themselves as QT.

Please, provide the receipts of GC sending rape and death threaths, doxing, getting people fired, and physically assaulting QT. Or is that you have different criteria about what is extremism for QT and GC?

No, not different criteria, because extremism can be expressed in more ways than the ones you mentioned. I'm thinking in particular lately about a group of GC feminists and allies targeting and harassing people with DSDs and including them in this overall debate/discussion. This is just a small bit on that: https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/65608/ootl-eli5-genspect-gender-dysphoria-alliance-exulansic-and-karen-davis

Exactly, how are we supposed to argue effectively if we compromise on language?

I would think that would depend on what one is arguing about, and for what purpose--if it's just to argue for argument's sake, or to just 'win' an argument, already holding a firm view of things that one does not allow room for their mind to be changed, then compromising on language wouldn't be a good idea. The argument can continue indefinitely that way. But if the intent is to come to understanding and try to change others' minds, I think compromises and adaptation are requisite. Good arguments are fun challenges to see how one can change another's mind or persuade or convince them of something--like if I'm trying to do that, then to me the ends justify the means, and it's often a fun challenge to figure out how to get my point across and persuade others with limits on what language I can use and how I can use it. The most brilliant, surprising thing GC could do to persuade or 'convert' QT to GC views would be to adopt QT language and rather than use that language disparagingly or making fun of it, making a sincere effort to apply it to GC logic, which is where QT logic breaks down. And the same would be true of QT adopting GC language.

Again, though, it's probably clear I've always been more interested in discussion than arguments. Or I argue in a weird way because I'm averse to conflict with which I associate arguing, so I have to make it not feel or seem like I'm arguing. I'm a newbie compared to most people in this sub, so I might just be completely missing the point lol 😅