I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.

Stating that a 'transgender woman is a biological male' is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

It's a biological fact.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is also not promoting hate or inciting violence.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

• Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
• Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
• Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
• Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
• Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
• Is it by raising any question it might unintentionally raise awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

You can identify as a potato, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you. I might also find it ridiculous if you a identify as piece of carry on luggage to avoid paying full price airfare, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you.

Simply responding that a submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.

I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.

Stating that a 'transgender woman is a biological male' is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

It's a biological fact.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is also not promoting hate or inciting violence.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

• Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
• Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
• Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
• Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
• Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
• Is it by raising any question it unintentionally raises awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

You can identify as a potato, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you. I might also find it ridiculous if you a identify as piece of carry on luggage to avoid paying full price airfare, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you.

Simply responding that a submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.

I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.

Stating that a 'transgender woman is a biological male' is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

It's a biological fact.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is also not promoting hate or inciting violence.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

• Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
• Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
• Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
• Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
• Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
• Is it by raising a question it unintentionally raises awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

You can identify as a potato, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you. I might also find it ridiculous if you a identify as piece of carry on luggage to avoid paying full price airfare, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you.

Simply responding that a submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.

I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.

Stating that a 'transgender woman is a biological male' is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

It's a biological fact.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is also not promoting hate or inciting violence.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

• Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
• Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
• Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
• Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
• Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

You can identify as a potato, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you. I might also find it ridiculous if you a identify as piece of carry on luggage to avoid paying full price airfare, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you.

Simply responding that a submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.

I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.

Stating that a 'transgender woman is a biological male' is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

It's a biological fact.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is also not promoting hate or inciting violence.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

• Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
• Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
• Is it stating that biological males are transgender women?
• Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
• Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

You can identify as a potato, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you. I might also find it ridiculous if you a identify as piece of carry on luggage to avoid paying full price airfare, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you.

Simply responding that a submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.

Stating that a 'transgender woman is a biological male' is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

It's a biological fact.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is also not promoting hate or inciting violence.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

• Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
• Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
• Is it stating that biological males are transgender women?
• Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
• Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

You can identify as a potato, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you. I might also find it ridiculous if you a identify as piece of carry on luggage to avoid paying full price airfare, it it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you.

Simply responding that a submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.

Stating that a 'transgender woman is a biological male' is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

It's a biological fact.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is also not promoting hate or inciting violence.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

• Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
• Is it bringing attention to the fact that Rachel Levine is a biological man?
• Is it stating that biological males are transgender women?
• Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
• Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

You can identify as a potato, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you. I might also find it ridiculous if you a identify as piece of carry on luggage to avoid paying full price airfare, it it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you.

Simply responding that a submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.

Stating that a 'transgender woman is a biological male' is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

It's a biological fact.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is also not promoting hate or inciting violence.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

• Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
• Is it bringing attention to the fact that Rachel Levine is a biological man?
• Is it stating that biological males are transgender women?
• Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
• Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

You can identify as a potato, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you. I might also find it ridiculous if you a identify as piece of carry on luggage to avoid paying full price airfare, it it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you.

Simply responding your submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.

Stating that a 'transgender woman is a biological male' is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

It's a biological fact.

Biological males have XY chromosomes and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman, it is human biology.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is also not promoting hate or inciting violence.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

• Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
• Is it bringing attention to the fact that Rachel Levine is a biological man?
• Is it stating that biological males are transgender women?
• Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
• Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

You can identify as a potato, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you. I might also find it ridiculous if you a identify as piece of carry on luggage to avoid paying full price airfare, it it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you.

Simply responding your submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.

Stating that a 'transgender woman is a biological male' is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

It's a biological fact.

Biological males have XY chromosomes and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away, it is human biology.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is also not promoting hate or inciting violence.

What is the TOS violation?

• Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
• Is it bringing attention to the fact that Rachel Levine is a biological man?
• Is it stating that biological males are transgender women?
• Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
• Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

You can identify as a potato, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you. I might also find it ridiculous if you a identify as piece of carry on luggage to avoid paying full price airfare, it it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you.

Simply responding your submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.

Stating that a 'transgender woman is a biological male' is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

It's a biological fact.

Biological males have XY chromosomes and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away, it is human biology.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raise the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is also not promoting hate or inciting violence.

What is the TOS violation?

• Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
• Is it bringing attention to the fact that Rachel Levine is a biological man?
• Is it stating that biological males are transgender women?
• Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
• Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

Simply responding your submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.