Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Violent threats to GC women and why they're important

79 replies

MusettasWaltz · 28/09/2025 03:42

I'm at uni & try and raise GC issues quietly with people likely to respond. Recently, I've been trying to explain to a male acquaintance how serious the abuse is that GC women have been through.

I showed him the website 'TERF is a slur' and similar. He thought it was vile & is GC himself, however he didn't seem to fully understand how serious that kind of stuff is. He argued that there are all kinds of antisocial weirdos online who throw vile threats around & that also a lot of trolls say exaggeratedly horrible stuff just to get a reaction, and that both types are rarely dangerous IRL.

He also argued that male public figures get trolled as much as women but that it's presented as more of a threat when it happens to women. He argued that men often banter via insults etc & male-heavy online spaces like gaming are full of violent/abusive messages, so male figures are more likely to shrug off trolling & perhaps report less.

Frankly this sounded manosphere-y almost to me though I didn' say it. I don't think women' fear of trolling is bc of thin skins- women face tangible harm irl from men, esp outspoken women.

I want to challenge this, and I think it's important to raise awareness more widely. What evidence do we have that the online abuse is not just weird trolls but has affected the public sphere?

I know there was the horrible murder at Michfest. Then physical threats to Posie Parker in Oz at rallies. What other instances of TRA violence spilling over into real life are there?

Obvs the recent terrible shootings in America are evidence of trans ideology & people related to it having radicalising effects. But I'm thinking more of instances in UK & involving GC women who've spoken out.

OP posts:
MusettasWaltz · 28/09/2025 12:30

Thelnebriati · 28/09/2025 12:23

I think you've correctly identified your acquaintance is using manosphere arguments, he's shown where his sympathies lie and I think you should reconsider trying to educate him. There isn't a magic bullet that's going to make him come round to your way of thinking, and its a waste of your resources.
All you need to do is be clear about who you are and what you believe, and stand your ground.

Good point. That's why I said 'acquaintance' rather than 'friend'. 😉
Ikwym, but even if it doesn't work I think I will try a bit. There's more young men than one might think, I suspect, with at least some manosphere influence, and they can't all be lost causes already- or where will we be...?

Besides, anyway I get to hone arguments on WHY this isn't just trolling with no real-world consequences.

OP posts:
quixote9 · 28/09/2025 23:20

MusettasWaltz · 28/09/2025 12:30

Good point. That's why I said 'acquaintance' rather than 'friend'. 😉
Ikwym, but even if it doesn't work I think I will try a bit. There's more young men than one might think, I suspect, with at least some manosphere influence, and they can't all be lost causes already- or where will we be...?

Besides, anyway I get to hone arguments on WHY this isn't just trolling with no real-world consequences.

Edited

Why it's not "just" trolling with no real world consequences?

Because it is not for women. Men are targets of harassment attacks pretty much only in prison. At lower rates than women in the general population, but it's the only place with a similar process for them.

And they're freakin terrified of it.

Depending on a woman's background, her lifetime risk of sexual assault is between one in three and one in six. At the very least every sixth woman around you has personal experience of being attacked.

So, gee-I-wonder-why, women see threats of attack as not bantz.

This acquaintance of yours needs to think about the world women live in for a moment. It's like if he was in prison, and the local Big Boy Baddie had it in for him, and he was getting anonymous messages telling him to get ready. I doubt he'd see it as "just" trolling then.

MusettasWaltz · 28/09/2025 23:37

Definitely. I need to check stats on what percentage of online threats to women get RL follow-up, but I do know rn that we have a lot of evidence that the online TRAs contain some really evil people (criminals like SJ Baker & 'Stephanie' Hayden for just 2) and that police have stood by while TRAs have manhandled GC women.

Luckily we don't have a US-style gun culture (I wonder if this could also be a factor in why US women have spoken up less?) but there seem to have been a lot of near misses with police allowing assault which could be deadly if TRA had a knife etc, and credible threats being picked up only just in time by police (and ofc wr know how useless they are...)

OP posts:
MusettasWaltz · 28/09/2025 23:41

quixote9 · 28/09/2025 23:20

Why it's not "just" trolling with no real world consequences?

Because it is not for women. Men are targets of harassment attacks pretty much only in prison. At lower rates than women in the general population, but it's the only place with a similar process for them.

And they're freakin terrified of it.

Depending on a woman's background, her lifetime risk of sexual assault is between one in three and one in six. At the very least every sixth woman around you has personal experience of being attacked.

So, gee-I-wonder-why, women see threats of attack as not bantz.

This acquaintance of yours needs to think about the world women live in for a moment. It's like if he was in prison, and the local Big Boy Baddie had it in for him, and he was getting anonymous messages telling him to get ready. I doubt he'd see it as "just" trolling then.

It also seems more likely, for several reasons, that women would be more at risk of online weirdos getting fixated on them.

OP posts:
Datun · 29/09/2025 04:12

FortheloveofPetethePlumber · 28/09/2025 10:58

I'd be more receptive to both the 'just bantz innit' and the 'these are unstable fantisizing oddballs somewhere in a basement, the internet's full of them and if they actually had to stand in front of a woman to say it they'd run screaming for mummy' lines if there was anything even approaching equal treatment.

But there isn't.

Women have been arrested, interviewed by police and threatened by the establishment for stating reality online. No malice, no threat, just reality. A man's performatively hurt feelings were enough for the state to launch to silence her.

Terfisaslur is something that turns the stomach of anyone normal and psychologically not warped out of all recognition. It's appalling. It's the sort of graphic sexually violent fantasy that should sound real alarm bells and forecast escalation as much as being wholly unacceptable, and if any arrests or follow up has ever happened, I've yet to hear of it. No boundaries have ever been presented. None.

Women are mercilessly harassed in person if they dare to stand in public defending their legal rights and saying the issues women experience with men identifying into their spaces and removing their identity and language from them. They are screamed at, threatened, obscene messages are chalked right where they're talking about highly sensitive experiences such as assault, and we've even had SMPs standing gurning like a pair of muppets under a sign calling for unsubmissive women to be decapitated. The police stand looking bored and let it roll. No boundaries.

No woman has ever behaved like that in a demonstration, because the women protesting are not internet addled nutjobs and have actual boundaries and morals. And because they'd be leapt on by the police if they even stated reality too loudly or tied a ribbon to something.

It's state enabled. It is sanctioned. Witness the whining and howling from government funded bodies at the thought of actually having to let women have their rights in reality rather than on paper, such as not having to undress in front of a man without consenting to and going into a mixed sex space? Or not let a man strip search them to provide him with the happies he needs that everyone's pretending he's something he's not and he's been given special access to her body?

It's fucking evil. And Starmer's apparently borrowed Boris's fridge to hide in when the subject comes up, because he wants it to roll without having to admit it and say so.

Behaviour not presented with boundaries does eventually escalate. Of course it does. And the whole queer movement is based around breaking boundaries, for no reason beyond a toddler Me Smash It Mummy Look At Me kind of mentality. Which is largely why evidence keeps on demonstrating it has attracted many unwell people.

Excellent summary. One hundred percent.

NoYAgenda · 29/09/2025 07:54

MarieDeGournay · 28/09/2025 09:17

You've identified a really serious issue OP.
More broadly, I think it's worth noting how quickly the trans movement has embraced violence and threats of violence as its MO.

Other rights campaigns I can think of, some of which I've been an active supporter of, start off with years of peaceful demonstrations and political representation, and only after they have been met with batons and bullets do they turn to violence.

The trans movement seems to have skipped the first bit and gone straight to threatening speech and violent acts.

Trantifa need to be designated as a terror group in the UK, they have mutiple chapters across the country of trans identified men who will be fatally deployed against women when the SC ruling is finally enforced by the government.

DrBlackbird · 29/09/2025 08:53

So many men just cannot resist resorting to the what about me line of thinking. Summed up beautifully in this article: https://whatwouldjesssay.substack.com/p/stop-asking-me-what-about-men

Stop asking me ‘what about men?’

Just stop.

https://whatwouldjesssay.substack.com/p/stop-asking-me-what-about-men

DustyWindowsills · 29/09/2025 09:06

DrBlackbird · 29/09/2025 08:53

So many men just cannot resist resorting to the what about me line of thinking. Summed up beautifully in this article: https://whatwouldjesssay.substack.com/p/stop-asking-me-what-about-men

That is stunningly good. 🙏🏼

DrBlackbird · 29/09/2025 18:31

DustyWindowsills · 29/09/2025 09:06

That is stunningly good. 🙏🏼

And the irony of some BTL comments from men saying what about us… this was my favourite: The MRM is a bunch of frustrated men who can see a clear injustice which has been happening since the start of the feminist hate ideology. I'm not surprised they are constantly attacked for having the cheek to speak out

CleopatraSelene · 01/10/2025 17:25

SinnerBoy · 28/09/2025 07:41

Men do get trolled, but nowhere near the same level and not in the same way. Nothing like the examples on terfisaslur, for example. Women MPs get vastly more threats than do males. Diane Abbot gets 10 times the number of the next MP, also a woman.

I read the libertarian journalist Cathy Young sometimes, who is feminist but often questions stats. She argues that there is evidence men get trolled more. There are others who argue similar.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online/

https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/06/13/the-truth-behind-the-trolling-panic/#.WyGaQxnTWyV

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733071/Men-twice-abuse-women-Twitter-ones-trolling.html?ico=amp-comments-viewall&_gl=17r128z_gaMlByaG8zMy11bFZaN1VqcFg3Uk8xN3pIZlY0RjB3b1NxVTlRYmJaX214MnEyeEoxVEExX3J6MjdsTWRuVTRxNg.._ga_GQE6MT7DLZ*MTc1OTI2NTc2Mi4xMS4xLjE3NTkyNjU3NjIuMC4wLjA.#comments-2733071

Men get more than twice as much abuse as women on Twitter - but they're also the ones behind most of the trolling

According to an analysis of more than 2million messages sent to celebrities including Ricky Gervais, politicians and journalists - one in every 20 sent to a male figure was abusive. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733071/Men-twice-abuse-women-Twitter-ones-trolling.html?_gl=1*7r128z*_ga*MlByaG8zMy11bFZaN1VqcFg3Uk8xN3pIZlY0RjB3b1NxVTlRYmJaX214MnEyeEoxVEExX3J6MjdsTWRuVTRxNg..*_ga_GQE6MT7DLZ*MTc1OTI2NTc2Mi4xMS4xLjE3NTkyNjU3NjIuMC4wLjA.&ico=amp-comments-viewall#comments-2733071

CleopatraSelene · 01/10/2025 17:41

quixote9 · 28/09/2025 23:20

Why it's not "just" trolling with no real world consequences?

Because it is not for women. Men are targets of harassment attacks pretty much only in prison. At lower rates than women in the general population, but it's the only place with a similar process for them.

And they're freakin terrified of it.

Depending on a woman's background, her lifetime risk of sexual assault is between one in three and one in six. At the very least every sixth woman around you has personal experience of being attacked.

So, gee-I-wonder-why, women see threats of attack as not bantz.

This acquaintance of yours needs to think about the world women live in for a moment. It's like if he was in prison, and the local Big Boy Baddie had it in for him, and he was getting anonymous messages telling him to get ready. I doubt he'd see it as "just" trolling then.

I agree rape is a much bigger threat for wen, but there is evidence the 'one in 6' statistic is incorrect.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/&ved=2ahUKEwj919K1uIOQAxViVkEAHS8PBoIQFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0nX470fF-ikUYQa7JNCs_o

https://www.google.com/url?opi=89978449&rct=j&sa=t&source=web&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftime.com%2F3393442%2Fcdc-rape-numbers%2F&usg=AOvVaw0nX470fF-ikUYQa7JNCs_o&ved=2ahUKEwj919K1uIOQAxViVkEAHS8PBoIQFnoECCEQAQ

NebulousSadTimes · 01/10/2025 18:09

I agree rape is a much bigger threat for wen, but there is evidence the 'one in 6' statistic is incorrect.

It certainly is in my family. It's four out of four with us.

CleopatraSelene · 01/10/2025 18:55

NebulousSadTimes · 01/10/2025 18:09

I agree rape is a much bigger threat for wen, but there is evidence the 'one in 6' statistic is incorrect.

It certainly is in my family. It's four out of four with us.

That's truly terrible, I'm really sorry 💐

I don't want to disrespect individual & systemic rape at all. I just wanted to say that it's possible it may not be quite as widespread as those stats

NebulousSadTimes · 02/10/2025 10:19

CleopatraSelene · 01/10/2025 18:55

That's truly terrible, I'm really sorry 💐

I don't want to disrespect individual & systemic rape at all. I just wanted to say that it's possible it may not be quite as widespread as those stats

And it's quite possible it's a lot more widespread. There are many, many rapes, including those in my family, that are not reported or put on any lists. And, as I'm sure you'll be aware, statistics can often show the results the compilers want them to show.

FutureMarchionessOfVidal · 02/10/2025 10:39

I think your acquaintance is denial about how male domination of women works.

In the domestic context, for instance, it isn’t always about a man slamming a woman’s face into the floor. It’s about him putting his face up to hers & shouting at her. It’s about the constant climate of fear created by walking on egg shells around a man who may explode into rage - shouting, name calling, swearing- at any moment. The desperate attempts to placate. The daily terror & self doubt created when you know a man will start shouting abuse at you at the slightest excuse.

Aggressive men keep women in their place by intimidating them through words. They don’t need to use their fists. Words- and the fear caused by words- are the weapon.

The online behaviour you are describing is the online version of the man whose spittle flecks his terrified wife’s cheeks as he shouts in her face.

The online behaviour both normalises & reflects the abuse women receive in person. It’s a feed back loop.

If your acquaintance cannot recognise this I don’t see how you can help him- he is a man who sees frightening women as unexceptional. (I have sons and the argument abour ‘banter’ is ridiculous- the way men address gender critical women online, the gloating, salacious, out of control threats, the obscenely sexualised language, the luxuriating in sexually explicit hatred, are nothing like the robust language young men use to each other.)

You could try recommending he read some materials produced by the Freedom Programme I suppose - the point being this is all part of male violence directed at women. But fundamentally there are some men who understand why sexualised abusive language directed at women is wrong- and some who don’t. The latter are not people you want to spend time with- and as an older woman who has experienced DV & sexual assault I must say I do hope this acquaintanceship does not become romance!

SinnerBoy · 02/10/2025 11:52

DrBlackbird · 29/09/2025 08:53

So many men just cannot resist resorting to the what about me line of thinking. Summed up beautifully in this article: https://whatwouldjesssay.substack.com/p/stop-asking-me-what-about-men

Bloody Hell, that's so depressing. One of the hate mail authors was a male academic, working in the same field, FFS. I wonder if he's was disciplined. Probably not.

CleopatraSelene · 02/10/2025 14:43

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

ThisPeppyGreenCritic · 02/10/2025 14:56

MusettasWaltz · 28/09/2025 03:42

I'm at uni & try and raise GC issues quietly with people likely to respond. Recently, I've been trying to explain to a male acquaintance how serious the abuse is that GC women have been through.

I showed him the website 'TERF is a slur' and similar. He thought it was vile & is GC himself, however he didn't seem to fully understand how serious that kind of stuff is. He argued that there are all kinds of antisocial weirdos online who throw vile threats around & that also a lot of trolls say exaggeratedly horrible stuff just to get a reaction, and that both types are rarely dangerous IRL.

He also argued that male public figures get trolled as much as women but that it's presented as more of a threat when it happens to women. He argued that men often banter via insults etc & male-heavy online spaces like gaming are full of violent/abusive messages, so male figures are more likely to shrug off trolling & perhaps report less.

Frankly this sounded manosphere-y almost to me though I didn' say it. I don't think women' fear of trolling is bc of thin skins- women face tangible harm irl from men, esp outspoken women.

I want to challenge this, and I think it's important to raise awareness more widely. What evidence do we have that the online abuse is not just weird trolls but has affected the public sphere?

I know there was the horrible murder at Michfest. Then physical threats to Posie Parker in Oz at rallies. What other instances of TRA violence spilling over into real life are there?

Obvs the recent terrible shootings in America are evidence of trans ideology & people related to it having radicalising effects. But I'm thinking more of instances in UK & involving GC women who've spoken out.

"Then physical threats to Posie Parker in Oz at rallies"

This line, more than any other, rather stands out.

For clarity, and for the benefit of the confused who I can practically hear pricking up their ears and working themselves into a fury of righteous indignation at me, I do not condone, support, or dismiss violence or violent actions against anyone, regardless of the situation.

However, and in relation to the quoted statement, I think we are sometimes in danger of mistaking correlation for causality.
In the specific case of Posie Parker, she is a divisive personality with links to far-right extremism (including, but not limited to, outright praise for the vile thug Tommy Robinson) who presents her arguments in an extremely toxic way.
Physical threats against her, whilst unwelcome in any civilized society, are - I strongly suspect - on rational people's opposition to her hate-speech.

It is extremely pernicious to witness these attacks and then twist them to suit our own ideology by concluding she must have been attacked because of her beliefs; the implication being that all those who stand up and condemn PP as a fascist simply must be misogynistic. That is simply not the case.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/10/2025 09:14

FortheloveofPetethePlumber · 28/09/2025 10:58

I'd be more receptive to both the 'just bantz innit' and the 'these are unstable fantisizing oddballs somewhere in a basement, the internet's full of them and if they actually had to stand in front of a woman to say it they'd run screaming for mummy' lines if there was anything even approaching equal treatment.

But there isn't.

Women have been arrested, interviewed by police and threatened by the establishment for stating reality online. No malice, no threat, just reality. A man's performatively hurt feelings were enough for the state to launch to silence her.

Terfisaslur is something that turns the stomach of anyone normal and psychologically not warped out of all recognition. It's appalling. It's the sort of graphic sexually violent fantasy that should sound real alarm bells and forecast escalation as much as being wholly unacceptable, and if any arrests or follow up has ever happened, I've yet to hear of it. No boundaries have ever been presented. None.

Women are mercilessly harassed in person if they dare to stand in public defending their legal rights and saying the issues women experience with men identifying into their spaces and removing their identity and language from them. They are screamed at, threatened, obscene messages are chalked right where they're talking about highly sensitive experiences such as assault, and we've even had SMPs standing gurning like a pair of muppets under a sign calling for unsubmissive women to be decapitated. The police stand looking bored and let it roll. No boundaries.

No woman has ever behaved like that in a demonstration, because the women protesting are not internet addled nutjobs and have actual boundaries and morals. And because they'd be leapt on by the police if they even stated reality too loudly or tied a ribbon to something.

It's state enabled. It is sanctioned. Witness the whining and howling from government funded bodies at the thought of actually having to let women have their rights in reality rather than on paper, such as not having to undress in front of a man without consenting to and going into a mixed sex space? Or not let a man strip search them to provide him with the happies he needs that everyone's pretending he's something he's not and he's been given special access to her body?

It's fucking evil. And Starmer's apparently borrowed Boris's fridge to hide in when the subject comes up, because he wants it to roll without having to admit it and say so.

Behaviour not presented with boundaries does eventually escalate. Of course it does. And the whole queer movement is based around breaking boundaries, for no reason beyond a toddler Me Smash It Mummy Look At Me kind of mentality. Which is largely why evidence keeps on demonstrating it has attracted many unwell people.

Superb post 👏

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/10/2025 09:19

ThisPeppyGreenCritic · 02/10/2025 14:56

"Then physical threats to Posie Parker in Oz at rallies"

This line, more than any other, rather stands out.

For clarity, and for the benefit of the confused who I can practically hear pricking up their ears and working themselves into a fury of righteous indignation at me, I do not condone, support, or dismiss violence or violent actions against anyone, regardless of the situation.

However, and in relation to the quoted statement, I think we are sometimes in danger of mistaking correlation for causality.
In the specific case of Posie Parker, she is a divisive personality with links to far-right extremism (including, but not limited to, outright praise for the vile thug Tommy Robinson) who presents her arguments in an extremely toxic way.
Physical threats against her, whilst unwelcome in any civilized society, are - I strongly suspect - on rational people's opposition to her hate-speech.

It is extremely pernicious to witness these attacks and then twist them to suit our own ideology by concluding she must have been attacked because of her beliefs; the implication being that all those who stand up and condemn PP as a fascist simply must be misogynistic. That is simply not the case.

Whatever you think of KJK, she’s vulnerable to male violence, and disgusting, graphic threats have been made against her children. Because a considerable number of “trans rights” activists are selfish, narcissistic, violent fantasists, and pose a credible threat to women.

ThisPeppyGreenCritic · 03/10/2025 09:25

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/10/2025 09:19

Whatever you think of KJK, she’s vulnerable to male violence, and disgusting, graphic threats have been made against her children. Because a considerable number of “trans rights” activists are selfish, narcissistic, violent fantasists, and pose a credible threat to women.

Absolutely. And, as I made abundantly clear, I do not condone or support violence toward anyone for any reason.

My point was rather about the dangers of misinterpreting at least a portion of the anger toward her and assuming, erroneously, that those against her were doing so because they were misogynistic. That not only ins't true, but it veers dangerously close to reinforcing tribalistic thinking, which is as unhelpful as it is unwelcome.

NeonFish · 03/10/2025 12:07

ThisPeppyGreenCritic · 03/10/2025 09:25

Absolutely. And, as I made abundantly clear, I do not condone or support violence toward anyone for any reason.

My point was rather about the dangers of misinterpreting at least a portion of the anger toward her and assuming, erroneously, that those against her were doing so because they were misogynistic. That not only ins't true, but it veers dangerously close to reinforcing tribalistic thinking, which is as unhelpful as it is unwelcome.

If you're angry at a woman who defends womens rights, what other explanation or reason to be angry at her is there other than misogyny? There is none!

NeonFish · 03/10/2025 12:16

ThisPeppyGreenCritic · 02/10/2025 14:56

"Then physical threats to Posie Parker in Oz at rallies"

This line, more than any other, rather stands out.

For clarity, and for the benefit of the confused who I can practically hear pricking up their ears and working themselves into a fury of righteous indignation at me, I do not condone, support, or dismiss violence or violent actions against anyone, regardless of the situation.

However, and in relation to the quoted statement, I think we are sometimes in danger of mistaking correlation for causality.
In the specific case of Posie Parker, she is a divisive personality with links to far-right extremism (including, but not limited to, outright praise for the vile thug Tommy Robinson) who presents her arguments in an extremely toxic way.
Physical threats against her, whilst unwelcome in any civilized society, are - I strongly suspect - on rational people's opposition to her hate-speech.

It is extremely pernicious to witness these attacks and then twist them to suit our own ideology by concluding she must have been attacked because of her beliefs; the implication being that all those who stand up and condemn PP as a fascist simply must be misogynistic. That is simply not the case.

'Far right' just as 'right wing' is in the eye of the beholder. There is no evidence whatsoever that Posie has far right beliefs.

who presents her arguments in an extremely toxic way

This reeks of tone-policing. In other words, she is a bolshy, bold and assertive woman who should 'speak more quietly and with a soft voice' and beg for her rights like a good little woman. It is so 'un-lady-like' for a woman to be bold and assertive and even a bit shouty, right? We see what you're doing here. You're not the first to attempt to tone-police women and feminists and pretend you're not being misogynistic while doing so.

on rational people's opposition to her hate-speech.

Provide one example of this so-called 'hate speech'. Go on, just one. If womens rights are 'hate speech' to you, you tell on yourself. Rational people would not see what she says as 'hate speech'. To the likes of you, suffragettes also spread 'hate speech'.

all those who stand up and condemn PP as a fascist simply must be misogynistic. That is simply not the case.

Oh yes it is the case. Because you are starting on a false premise. Nothing about PP is 'fascist'. And considering calling feminists or even just women advocating for our human rights in the '70s Womens Lib era "fascist" by aggressive men was common, right down to 'feminazis' as a slur, you are bringing nothing new. All you are doing is rehashing the time honoured misogynistic tradition of calling feminists and women 'fascists' for defending our basic human rights. You clearly don't understand what actual fascism is. You simply don't have a single clue what actual fascism is.

ThisPeppyGreenCritic · 03/10/2025 12:22

NeonFish · 03/10/2025 12:16

'Far right' just as 'right wing' is in the eye of the beholder. There is no evidence whatsoever that Posie has far right beliefs.

who presents her arguments in an extremely toxic way

This reeks of tone-policing. In other words, she is a bolshy, bold and assertive woman who should 'speak more quietly and with a soft voice' and beg for her rights like a good little woman. It is so 'un-lady-like' for a woman to be bold and assertive and even a bit shouty, right? We see what you're doing here. You're not the first to attempt to tone-police women and feminists and pretend you're not being misogynistic while doing so.

on rational people's opposition to her hate-speech.

Provide one example of this so-called 'hate speech'. Go on, just one. If womens rights are 'hate speech' to you, you tell on yourself. Rational people would not see what she says as 'hate speech'. To the likes of you, suffragettes also spread 'hate speech'.

all those who stand up and condemn PP as a fascist simply must be misogynistic. That is simply not the case.

Oh yes it is the case. Because you are starting on a false premise. Nothing about PP is 'fascist'. And considering calling feminists or even just women advocating for our human rights in the '70s Womens Lib era "fascist" by aggressive men was common, right down to 'feminazis' as a slur, you are bringing nothing new. All you are doing is rehashing the time honoured misogynistic tradition of calling feminists and women 'fascists' for defending our basic human rights. You clearly don't understand what actual fascism is. You simply don't have a single clue what actual fascism is.

Edited

So much evidently goes over your head that I recommend you take up limbo dancing as a professional.

I am perfectly content with the veracity and accuracy of posts I've made on this thread. Fortunately for me, I don't need to justify them to somebody of your... particular belief system.