You can't. People in San Francisco control big tech, and they've decided the entire internet should reflect their own microcosmic perspective on the world. See the other replies to your comment as an example - they really can't see anything beyond their immediate surroundings.

Why do you think biological men should be allowed to compete in sports against biological women at a professional level? Is that fair to those women?

We can acknowledge and accept trans people without bulldozing millennia of human culture. This has nothing to do with "speech", free or otherwise.

And yet, the commenter I replied to had not mentioned trans-people vs biological men, or anything. They just said men vs women and left it that. See my point?

So how you want the game to work is that you expect me to defend myself against being called bigoted or yield to your ideology. That's how you are propagating your perspective?

It’s not an ideology - acknowledging the nuances of the actual debate (trans vs women sports) is basic courtesy. Deliberately ignoring it multiple times is malicious.

Some would say giving a deliberately simple statement like the parent commentator's the interpretation most offensive to you is evidence of malicious intent.

What are you even talking about? Did you read OP's statement?

> We are now at a stage where a twitter mob would see "men should not be allowed to compete in women's sports" as a bigoted statement.

This is clearly referring to the present day public debate of whether trans-people should be allowed to participate in men/women sporting.

If you think I'm wrong, could you point me to the ongoing non-trans-related debate regarding men vs women sports?

>What are you even talking about? We lack the shared language for me to explain it simply, but I might be able to get there if you're engaging in good faith. Unfortunately your response comes across as evidence that you're not. If you are engaging in good faith and actually want an answer, tell me whether you think men (by your preferred definition) should be allowed to compete in women's (by your preferred definition) sports.

There is no point to free speech unless it protects speech that offends.

> protects speech that offends.

Why are you beating this fake dead horse? Free speech is protected, offensive or not. There are no governmental consequences.

However, it also covers and allows for the replies, tweet storms, public shaming that occur when your free speech is racist, sexist, or bigoted and malicious.

That's what this debate is /actually/ about - you just want protection against backlash.