I don't believe silencing anyone is a good thing for any reason what so ever, even if it allows other to enter.

This moral absolutism commits you to inaction even if Big Brother is systematically silencing all dissenters.

It is generally wrong to lie, but I would lie if a criminal asked the location of my friend. It is generally wrong to murder, but I would certainly murder a terrorist if it resulted in many lives being saved. It is generally wrong to silence voices, but I would certainly silence a voice that threatened all other voices.

Maybe they did have a good rationale for what they did, but they were wrong and they were punished for it, which should be the case with everyone no matter what their genetics are imo.

You seem to be missing the main thrust of the leftist critique of freedom. For a leftist, there is no distinction between punishing someone for things like their genetics (their social-historical-biologic background) and punishing them for what they did, because one is continuous with the other. They are two sides of the same coin; two different ways of talking about what amounts to the same thing.

If I genetically engineer a child to have a weak sense of self (to have borderline personality disorder), and get him to do bad things, should he be punished like everyone else?

The only difference between us and this child, according to leftists, is that what programs us is massive, inconsistent, and complex.

My way of defining freedom is the process of enlarging oneself through a critical process. This requires a space that we often do not have. This is why we often make decisions that are bad for us. Even with a critical process, due to incomplete information, we make decisions that limit ourselves. I suspect many women are not given the proper space to make decisions about how caretaking should be distributed, so are less free.