I think the discrepancy comes from advocacy thought vs. legal thought [1]. When advocating for rape victims, who are severely disadvantaged in these situations, you might make a statement like &quot;we need to listen to the woman&#x27;s perspective&quot;. As has been pointed out, that statement is a heuristic on several levels: the woman is often, but not always, the victim; and from a legal standpoint, there are of course other things to consider. It&#x27;s still a useful and generally true statement.<p>When you&#x27;re listening to &quot;megaphone speech&quot;, you have to understand the context to understand the message. That can be difficult, because in most cases if you already understood the context, you wouldn&#x27;t need to listen to the message. Try.<p>The flip side is also true, when activists win, and are given real institutional power, they must stop relying on context and start being precise (&quot;gavel speech&quot;) with their intentions.<p>1: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;harvardlawreview.org&#x2F;2015&#x2F;02&#x2F;trading-the-megaphone-for-the-gavel-in-title-ix-enforcement-2&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;harvardlawreview.org&#x2F;2015&#x2F;02&#x2F;trading-the-megaphone-fo...</a>