We have always kept on topic and discuss feminist topics, specifically gender ideology although we do discuss other radical feminist topics.

We don't have many spaces where we can talk amongst ourselves without being bombarded with questions designed to derail our discussions.

If I see something that I think is doing that I will remove it.

I understand your position. This whole site however seems set up so that someone like me can engage someone like you in civil debate. People like me may challenge the foundations upon which your ideology rests, not out of malice - but because we feel it's harmful. This could very well end up "derailing" a discussion or mutating it into a different one altogether, but that's the nature of debate. You can always ignore such people and carry on as if they aren't there. It's your right - censoring though is running against the grain of the existent culture.

Gender Critical is not an echo chamber, we debate and discuss amongst ourselves but we have key ideas that we all share and are unable to share elsewhere.

A place that's restricts conversation to only people who agree on shared principles, is by definition an echo chamber. I probably disagree with you folks on all core principles, yet there are plenty of extensions of those principles that would cause us to be on the same side in specific instances.

/u/magnora7 - What's your take on the stated objectives? To date I haven't seen any significant sub-level censorship here outside of spam. Would banning interlopers to keep discussion within editorialized boundaries be concordant with Saidit principles, or not?