> They should do risk assessments to see if their users are at risk of getting harmed, like physical sites and events.

The problem is when one group wants to impose their definition of harm on everyone else, saying that everyone else shouldn't be allowed to be 'harmed' even if they don't consider it as such. In the UK this is not unique to the OSA discussion(see the UK's anti-trans turn), and but it is very relevant.

This is a very valid point and importantly one of the more detailed issues.

So it's a good one to start with when arguing against the OSA - you say harm but what does that mean? What must sites assume it could mean? And examples of helpful kinds of things that would fall under at least the risk of getting caught out.