I've been having a look at this document and what it says about these themes in particular.
Did you read the detail? Because I'd like to see some evidence of where you think this kind of rhetoric is present on Mumsnet.
In the "threat to child safety" section:
"The reviewed literature also revealed a narrative where LGBTI+ people are identified as a threat to children through their supposed ‘predatory behaviour’, and attempts at ‘converting children into sexual perversions’; and finally, societies at large. In this narrative, so-called ‘LGBTI+ behaviours’ constitute a public health risk. The study ‘The European Union as a child molester: sex education on pro-Russian websites’, shows how sex education is vilified, and Russia is portrayed as a saviour of traditional values (Jarkovská 2020). Pro-Russian websites present extreme and manipulated representations of sex education in the EU, and callously exploit fears linked to concerns with sex education in educational systems (Jarkovská 2020). There are several examples of how the educational system is portrayed as a place of unwanted influence. For example, an overview of hate speech in Romania points at fears of children being taught ‘deviance’ (that is, homosexuality) in schools, and how this fear was exploited also in hate speech (Iordache 2015). Stoeckl (2018) reports how the EU is presented by certain media as imposing school curricula that teach masturbation. Sex education is also portrayed as an indicator of something worse to come (such as a general acceptance of so-called deviant sexualities, see Kuhar & Paternotte 2017). In this narrative, the child is seen as being threatened by indoctrination, sexualisation or being exposed to oversexual adults. The image of the innocent and endangered child seems particularly effective in triggering ‘moral panic’. This narrative is also connected to the prerogative of families to raise and educate their children according to their moral and religious beliefs (Kuhar & Paternotte 2017). Henning (2018) finds that the notion of Europeanisation of anti-discrimination policies in the arena of education makes the education system a key battleground."
I have seen absolutely nothing like this on Mumsnet. When Mumsnet users express concerns about child safety, it is generally in relation to children being encouraged to transition when they are too young to understand the consequences of this or give meaningful consent to any medical interventions.
I have seen some specific concerns raised about safeguarding risks inherent in people developing a relationship of trust and confidence with children behind their parents' backs, taking the view that adults who encourage children to keep secrets from their parents generally do not have those children's best interests at heart. I think this is a valid criticism.
I've also seen concerns expressed about specific individuals. I don't think it's fair to say that women who raise concerns about a self confessed paedophile being appointed to the board of trustees of the UK's largest charity for trans identifying children are spreading misinformation or hate about the LGBT+ community. Mermaids should have done some basic safeguarding.
In the "negative othering" section:
"The reviewed literature is rife with reports about various anti-narratives, where LGBTI+ people are given generic and unjust negative labels, where narratives either portray LGBTI+ people as morally corrupted and/or in some way a threat to society. Derogatory labels such as ‘faggot’ or ‘pédé’ (French), ‘maricón’ (Spanish) and ‘Tunte’ (German) are often used, as are statements of mockery through well-known slogans such as ‘homosexuality is an abomination’ and ‘Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve’ (Russell 2019)."
Clearly, saying anything even remotely along these lines would get you banned from Mumsnet quicker than you can say "knife".
In the "gender ideology" section:
"Kuhar and Paternotte (in different combinations and multiple publications) trace a narrative of anti-gender across Europe, using Austria, Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Russia, Slovenia and Spain as case studies. The authors find that actors unite under an umbrella of resistance against what is labelled ‘Gender Ideology’. This so-called ‘Gender Ideology’ is said to permeate and dominate Western liberal democracies in general, and the EU in particular. Kuhar and Paternotte (2017) explain that the term anti-gender captures a general opposition to women’s quest for equality and LGBTI+ rights, which threaten to erode hegemonic masculinity. Opponents to so-called ‘Gender Ideology’ rationalise their opposition by claiming that they combat the destruction of the human race and civilisation, which in their minds are threatened by the expansion of equal rights to women and LGBTI+ people. In their study of the far-right and conservative movements in France, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, Kovats & Pöim (2015) find that the term ‘gender’ successfully functions as a ‘symbolic glue’ for those involved. The term ‘Gender Ideology’ is an empty signifier which allows a diverse range of religious and far-right actors to team up to fight women’s equality, sex education and the rights of LGBTI+ people such as same-sex marriage. Hodzic and Bijelic (2014) conclude that fighting sexual and reproductive health and rights in the EU has united a range of different parties. Kuhar and Paternotte (2017) emphasise that opponents are transnationally interconnected, notwithstanding the fact that they proclaim their local embeddedness and support for national sovereignty; their declared aims are fighting against morally corrupt elites- notably represented by the EU and United Nations (UN) - that attempt to ‘colonise’ them by propagating liberal ideals. More recently, also the term ‘LGBT ideology’ has been repeatedly used derogatorily, notably by Polish politicians, to attack and dehumanise LGBTI+ people. (In response, the Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen and others, including the EP, have replied that it is not an ideology, it is an identity).4 Since ‘Gender Ideology’ is a construction by outsiders opposing gender and LGBTI+ equality, in cases where the term is spread intentionally to deceive the public this falls into the category of disinformation. However, it seems from the reviewed literature that many opponents of a ‘Gender Ideology’ actually believe in this as an intentional ‘ideology’, probably mistaking it with ‘Gender Theory’ in feminist studies. The narrative can thus amount to misinformation, but could also provide a fertile ground for foreign sponsored disinformation."
Again, this is absolutely not the prevailing view on Mumsnet, and anyone expressing these types of beliefs would get very short shrift on here.
People on this board do use the term "gender ideology". I disagree with the authors that it is an empty signifier; as far as I am concerned it is shorthand for the belief that people have gender identities which may either align or not align with their biological sex and that it is gender identity, not biological sex, which makes someone a man, woman or something else.
I think that is how most people are using the term on this board.
This section of the paper completely fails to acknowledge that the term "gender ideology" is used by a lot of people, with varying political beliefs and motives, to describe a belief system that they do not share.
I can't see anywhere in this paper where the authors acknowledge that there is a whole bunch of other people who are not fully supportive of "gender ideology", or what the authors might prefer to call "LGBT+ rights", for reasons other than being right wing bigots, Nazis, homophobes, American conservative Christians or Russian bots.
This bunch of other people can be broadly summarised as the silent majority, who have no particular beef with trans people but don't agree that rapists should be housed in women's prisons, that people who were born male should be competing in women's sports, that a person with a penis should be able to use women's changing rooms next to their teenage daughter or elderly mother simply because they "identify as a woman", or that children who play with the wrong kind of toys should be put on puberty blockers.
This is an entirely mainstream view, shared by the majority of people.
So why have the authors of the paper not acknowledged this?
Is it a deliberate omission? Or have they simply failed to talk to anyone outside their own echo chamber, rendering their own research utterly nonsensical?
Either way, suggesting that the themes referred to in the paper are prevalent and tolerated on Mumsnet is absolutely disgraceful.