There are post that are unkind and should be called out but there are also posts that are factual but some would label unkind. The use of 'be kind' is used as a pushback to women to make them accept certain things that many know they shouldn't accept.
Oxfam - another organisation that has gone down the trying to please the trans ideologists is just brutal to women. So there is a push back from GC women. People are fed up of 'be kind' when it means shut up and listen to us and do what we want you to do.
This post on another thread shows how much women have been pushed into being kind and ignoring men encroaching on their safe spaces and the rush by organisations to jump on the trans bandwagon.
"mommyisbest · Yesterday 23:31
I’m a British Pakistani Muslim woman. I give to Oxfam and endeavour to make donations to Oxfam as well as shop at my local store in preference to other charity shops. I have a strong affinity to Oxfam because of its history of identifying need and tackling it.
I will no longer be supporting you. You have allowed your charitable purpose to be hijacked. What kept me loyal to Oxfam despite recent difficulties is that it is a charity that finds what needs to be done and seeks solutions without fear or favour. There is no scope for ideology in this. Everyone who is needy benefits. No questions are asked about people’s religious or political affiliation.
As a minority- ethnically and religiously- I depend on pluralism in order to express my culture and my religious beliefs. I don’t require anyone to validate my beliefs. I just need society to accept that I have my own beliefs. I don’t need anyone to say Salaam to me or call me sister and I don’t impose this on anyone. By the same token I don’t want to be forced to validate other people by modifying language to include concepts I don’t accept ie describing myself as cis or finding which pronoun suits me based on my sexuality or masculine/feminine leanings.
In discouraging the use of words such as male or female, modifying expressions that reference human biology, replacing one word for another such as prostitution for sex worker, you have pursued an ideological agenda which has nothing to do with your purpose or aims.
You have decided to champion that ideology in favour of other ideologies. When challenged on your dogmatic stance you have taken an unpluralist view by stating that it is the best ideology as it is, in your view, the most inclusive.
In saying this you disregard most people in the world who come from collectivist cultures where identity stems from family and community and not from Western notions of individualism where identify stems from pronouns or sexual orientation or gender identity.
That is not to say that collectivist cultures do not have active and vibrant LGBT people. But they are not asserting this in the same way and never have. To see all these LGBT people in such a monolithic way is to reduce and simplify even those people you think you are including. This is a form of cultural imperialism. Other countries have strong LGBT heritage and it’s not the same as yours.
Your latest attempt at evangelising, has led you to depict those of a different ideology (who believe biology is more important than socially constructed gender) as ugly, older women termed TERFS. Where will you go next? Will you depict Muslims similarly after all the Quran does not mention gender identity once? If you are to be consistent I don’t see that you have any choice.
For all these reasons I won’t have anything more to do with you.
Shazia"