Yes, I will do that. It's not really my position. I do not even want to admins to step in on any of this, because that would make me a hypocrite. I do not want this to be resolved through the use of power and force. I want the better ideas to prevail. What I would like to happen is for Gender*Critical to remain as it is and for the quality of people's ideas to win out. As soon as I have the account age I will set up a free speech version, unless there already is one.

But that is not a contradiction with me attacking radfem ideas. Bring them here. I want to see them dismantled, just as any bad idea of the likes of flat Earthers or social constructionists.

Now I know what to expect. I won't invest effort in posting in those subs anymore. If you want to do something moral, state clearly what you are doing and let the world see it. Say which opinions are off limit, because you cannot police people's gender in the end. You can only police opinions. Even if I had outright said to be male, do you know if that's true? Maybe, if women are such victims online, I would have reason to pretend to be male. No? Seems like something that wouldn't be out of line with radfem beliefs: women pretending to be male online. But, instead, I see women disclosing their gender online more frequently. Seems like GOTIS. Seems like hypocrisy and it smells of bullshit.

Maybe what you have actually just done is excluded a woman who was seeking community online and pretended to be male for the safety against the dangers of said being woman in such misogynistic society. You keep running into contradictions with that belief system, it seems. If women really were the subjects of constant attack, why create a community online that explicitly exposes the gender of their members? If you say that you would not know, then you are proving the nonsense in your own rules. If you are saying that you could tell, then you are contradicting your ideology.