not being addicted to losing and surrendering

Is that how you characterize refusing to suck up to the same women who've spent decades taking every opportunity to denigrate, demonize and marginalize you just for being male. I hate to break it to you, but you're in an abusive relationship, and you're the victim. You keep letting these women piss all over you, and you keep gping back to them and running interference for them because you're afraid of what will happen if you cut the cord.

Anyone who is the target of such laws will become more sympathetic to free speech.

And here we come to the crux of our disagreement. You seem to forget that TERFs are leftists. The only thing that matters to leftists is power. They have absolutely no regard for matters of principle, or for logical consistency in their arguments.

They will (and do) argue that these policies should be used to silence you, but not to silence them, and when you point out to them that that doesn't make sense, they will either come up with some half-baked explanation for what makes them different, or they will simply shrug and admit they don't care that it doesn't make sense.

What evidence do you have to support your expectation that these women will suddenly start behaving like anything other than the power-mad man-hating leftists that they are just because you were nice to them?

you do not have evidence of your claim

I don't have evidence for my claim that feminists have infected every institution in our society with man-hatred? My evidence is the school curricula that teach boys that they are responsible for every war that has occurred in all of history, even though they weren't born yet, because they are male. My evidence is the policy of assumed guilt by which boys and young men from middle school through university are treated like potential rapists and profiled as such regardless of their actions. My evidence is the gender quotas in every major workplace, public and private, that promote women over men who are more qualified and more deserving, simply because they're not women. Mu evidence is the doctrine of "Toxic masculinity" which permeates every classroom, workplace and entertainment medium, dedicated to teaching men to hate themselves for being men. My evidence is the practice or accepting, without evidence, every false claim of harassment or sexual assault made by a woman against a man, regardless of exhonerating evidence, which has condemned countless men over the past several decades to unjust incarceration and the ruin of their lives and reputations because our entire society has blindly accepted the radical feminist doctrine that women can do no wrong and that men are born wrong.

Is it so hard to believe that men raised in that environment might be so deeply traumatized by it that they'll do anything to try and escape it? Is it so hard to believe that a man might choose to try and become a woman so that he can get the promotion at work that he knows he deserves, or so that his peers might look at him and see something other than "toxic privilege?"

You boil all of this malice, backed by institutional power, down to "mean words," and you tell me that I'm the one being unreasonable?

You are the one with the blind spot. You are simping for women who view you as less than a cockroach, and who would destroy your life as soon as look at you, simply because you have a Y chromosome.

Do you have any proof other than carefully curated garbage pushed by people with a vested interest in that being the case?

That is rich, now you want proof? How is it that you only want proof when it's a view that you do not like. When you do, there's no evidence because they destroyed it all, or because the womans blackmailed and bribed everyone to deny it.

I was overly pessimistic, but the logic was correct.

90% vs. < 0.02%... "the logic was correct".

Was I wrong though?

Well, you were only wrong 6 times. Or as it's known by your standards: the usual. And the best part is that every time your predictions came out false, you did not introspection, but instead make a new laughably stupid prediction that also turned out FALSE.

And now you deny you were wrong at all!

I bet if a male cop shot a woman to death "by accident", he'd get a lot more than that.

I bet that even if that were to happen, and he was acquitted or not even charged, you'd claim that Carrie Symonds and Melinda persuaded the prosecutors not to charge him to persuade US that THEEEY mean well, and that we should trust THEEEEM.

Leaving aside your usual crazy, you kept insisting that "they don't throw their own under the bus" (despite Rotherham), and that she would not be punished "because she is a woman". I pointed out to you the case of Mehrsele, but you obviously ignored that. By the way, he got about the same sentence, even though what he did was worse.