The charity "Birthrights" is being abused and threatened

[PumpkinSpiceWoman]

Do "GC"s never, ever wonder whether they might be the baddies? Or even uncomfortably close to them?

I don’t think about being “the baddie” much at all, as like most people I gave up categorising people into one dimensional Goodies and Baddies around the time I left school.

But I suppose not everyone enjoys nuance and really trying to understand things.

It’s like Stonewall sent out a playbook:

Step 1. Reduce women to their bodily functions and wait for the inevitable outrage
Step 2. Claim you are just being “inclusive” and anyone who disagrees with you is “not inclusive” even if your service is exclusively for females
Step 3. Post on social media saying you’re taking some time off because of unspecified “threats”
Step 4: Return to Stonewall HQ for your cookies

Funny, I can't find any evidence of this ''abuse''.

Unless 'abuse' has now been redefined too, to mean 'some women disagreed with me'.

Along with

Nazi= some women disagree with me.
Bigot= some women disagree with me.
Transphobe= some women disagree with me.
Literal violence= some women disagree with me, etc etc.

Can you provide any evidence of this abuse? Should be easy if there's enough of it that you've been moved to start a thread about it...

Do "GC"s never, ever wonder whether they might be the baddies? Or even uncomfortably close to them?

No. Safeguarding women and children is not bad. Only the people who seek to destroy the rights and safeguards of women and children are bad. Hope this helps.

I believe that @PumpkinSpiceWoman generally has a “one post per thread” policy, so probably won’t be back to discuss further.

Did someone at Birthrights see a ribbon perhaps?

Here you go, OP, have today's Literal Violets award

OP is the person who kept insisting that an obviously sarcastic joke about someone (Helen Staniland?) "being funded by the far right" (complete with laughter after saying it) was a genuine admission that they were, in fact, funded by the far right.

As such, I am reluctant to believe much that OP claims.

Come back pumpkin there might be Weetabix cake on offer soon.

Aye. Right.

I believe that @PumpkinSpiceWoman generally has a “one post per thread” policy, so probably won’t be back to discuss further.

How strange. Why would they do that. Surely the point of starting a thread is to engage in debate and discussion. I see you're right though. The op can't really be described as an engaged debater. More of a regular plop and retreat. Hmm. Doesn't really sound in the spirit of Mumsnet to me.

Disagreement is not abuse.

TRA's usually write off abuse from their side using the 'no true Scotsman' defense. But at least it's in response to actual evidence of abuse.

I never see evidence.

You've never seen evidence of abuse from TRA's to feminists?

No - other way around. I have seen people crying about abuse - then when asked what it was, they block/ignore people and only engaging with 'poor you!' 'you are a QUEEN!' 'you are brave to put up with so much!' etc etc etc, posters.

You honestly haven't seen the rape threats, the death threats? Should've gone to spec savers.

👓👆👁️‍🗨️

Which threats are you talking about here?

How long have you got? It is endless and so common.

To who, from who - (and Im not on Facebook). I see plenty of women getting dogs abuse.

@PumpkinSpiceWoman

Do "GC"s never, ever wonder whether they might be the baddies? Or even uncomfortably close to them?

In my case, nope! HTH

Spend a little time on Twitter doing something other than looking at opinions you agree with

Oooooh get you

terfisaslur.com/

Just for you, toffee. Evidence aplenty.