If you avoid the feminist section then at least read this article

Oxford University had to fill out what, what was it, a 1000 pages?

I'm not quite sure what you don't understand about this.

You have said you know they have an agenda. You know they are being paid to deliver that agenda to all these people. Who pay to get their compliance assessed, and then do it all again the following year, in order to go up the league tables.

Changing rooms, gender neutral toilets, the way we address people. All of it is following the de-gendering policy. I've sent having to period pants, tracking apps, doulas.

Do you think if feminists didn't push back, that there is some other cohort of people who are going to do it? Some other groups who will defend women, seeing it through a lens of sexism? Who?

It's not an old tweet or Instagram post. It's wholesale policy, across 850 organisations, including 250 government departments, which meant that a maternity bill crossed out the word mother until got stopped by the House of Lords.

I'm using that example, because they're the highest lawmakers in the land. It doesn't get more demonstrative.

What I'm not going to do, is trawl through all the, quite literally, hundreds of threads on here, giving you other examples.

Every woman on this board has already read them.

It is translating into real life. Tell me, why do you identify as "gender critical"? If it's all just a storm in a teacup, what's the problem?

How much evidence would you accept? Tens of examples? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?

Perhaps you should answer the question you were asked? It's you who is implying that it isn't enough for your personal standards, so why not share them?

Why do you think these many social media posts, sometimes rolled back on after public scorn and pressure, were made in the first place? Why does women having to shout at organisations to recognise basic biological reality mean to you that there isn't any problem?

When SANDS put out a tweet about the birthing parent, why do you think that happened? Do you think they just randomly came up with it or maybe it was suggested by something like Stonewall? Do you not think it's offensive to women that never got to give birth or gave birth to a dead child and would never get to be called mother?

When black mothers are called black birthing bodies, where do you think the idea to say all that instead of just 'mother' came from?

Do you think it's a coincidence that this is happening all over the place? No, it's not happening everywhere yet, but how much does it have to happen before you think, wait a minute?

And it's not even just 'mother', it's just another branch that includes menstruators, cervix-havers, etc. De-humanising women and we're expected to be nice about it and go along without making a fuss.

And tell me something else, why is this not happening to men in the same way? Where are all the social media posts about ejaculators? Sanitary towel/tampon companies call us menstruators and bleeders, why don't condom companies call the men ejaculators?

You say you disagree with the ideology, and you understand that Stonewall has an agenda.

Then you put forward an argument, (I'm not quite sure what), about the lack of success they're having, at the same time as criticising women for highlighting their agenda - which they are doing in order to curtail any success.

You appear to be using the fact that feminist campaigns are working, to argue for them to not exist!

You don't want women to raise consciousness on AIBU, because Stonewall's success is being limited due to those women who are raising consciousness.

Stonewall is one organisation of quite a few, who are trying to de-gender every day terms.

According to their PR, they are responsible for something like 20% of this country's organisation's LGBT policy.

From the government, to schools, to universities, to the DVLA.

They will all have been drip fed this information from Stonewall.

How many people do you think would have to be already complicit, willingly or unaware, in order to stop a bill at the 11th hour in the house of lords?

Meetings, minute takers, secretaries, cabinet ministers, committees, MPs. All waving it through.

That's one amendment, to one bill, at one point in time, in one organisation.

Scale that up in your head.

Just because the man in your local cornershop doesn't refer to his mother as his birthing parent, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Targeting the word mother, was probably a mistake. You might be able to do it in policy, but as soon as people get wind of it, there will be pushback. People are emotionally tied to it in a way that was always going to meet hard resistance.

But that was their mistake, not ours.

They're succeeding with things like announcements on the underground, and headteachers deciding to say good morning everyone, instead of boys pr girls. It's happening.

This isn’t just about the use of the word ‘mother’, that’s just the one example the press have latched onto in the past few days. If you look at the FWR posts, there are so many posts on how SW’s lobbying is impacting women, and children eg:

Six formers sending a school newsletter to all girls in their school with info and links on binding as well as links to adult only websites. The parents did not receive a copy of the newsletter, nor told of its existence.

Mark’s & Spencers amending its policy to allow men into the bra fitting area.

A post by a mother whose friends daughter had ordered a binding for her daughter without mentioning it to the parent.

A poster whose primary school child is being socially transitioned at school, despite the poster saying that she does not consent to this.

Stonewall is one organisation of quite a few, who are trying to de-gender every day terms.

According to their PR, they are responsible for something like 20% of this country's organisation's LGBT policy.

From the government, to schools, to universities, to the DVLA.

They will all have been drip fed this information from Stonewall.

How many people do you think would have to be already complicit, willingly or unaware, in order to stop a bill at the 11th hour in the house of lords?

Meetings, minute takers, secretaries, cabinet ministers, committees, MPs. All waving it through.

That's one amendment, to one bill, at one point in time, in one organisation.

Scale that up in your head.

Just because the man in your local cornershop doesn't refer to his mother as his birthing parent, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Targeting the word mother, was probably a mistake. You might be able to do it in policy, but as soon as people get wind of it, there will be pushback. People are emotionally tied to it in a way that was always going to meet hard resistance.

But that was their mistake, not ours.

They're succeeding with things like announcements on the underground, and headteachers deciding to say good morning everyone, instead of boys pr girls. It's happening.

This isn’t just about the use of the word ‘mother’, that’s just the one example the press have latched onto in the past few days. If you look at the FWR posts, there are so many posts on how SW’s lobbying is impacting women, and children eg:

Six formers sending a school newsletter to all girls in their school with info and links on binding as well as links to adult only websites. The parents did not receive a copy of the newsletter, nor told of its existence.

Mark’s & Spencers amending its policy to allow men into the bra fitting area.

A post by a mother whose friends daughter had ordered a binding for her daughter without mentioning it to the parent.

A poster whose primary school child is being socially transitioned at school, despite the poster saying that she does not consent to this.