Mixed feelings about this. First things first, misogyny and online harassment in the wider "internet" is rampant, and yes I believe someone has to do sth about it. I am not sure a super-surveillance nation state expanding its definition of extremism is what I wished for though. What if it was Russia? On top of that: This coming from the highly transphobic UK rubs me the wrong way. I am not sure they will not label transgender rights activism as extremism as well, given how many outlets in the UK entertain Rowling's delusion that it is a misogynistic movement, no less while UK TERFs' litigation is piling up, accusing trans people of harassing them. I am not buying it, yet.
I don't know what made them pick such a restrictive definition here. Why not extend it to extremist hate speech against any of the protected grounds (sex, sexuality, gender expression, race, age, etc...). Like it's great we're protecting one group of people from extremism, but why not protect everyone?
That is why I say it is suspicious, and given recent UK history they just might say that students protesting TERFs are extremists and round them up.
This might also be virtue signalling so that other groups are persecuted. Several things it can be, except the one they claim it is, because if it was, the general consensus is that modern extremists target all those groups of people.
Their choice shows that they don't care that much for those other groups. Effectively, it can be understood as a pink washing move for throwing all the other classes under the bus. I hope I am wrong.
And telling them over and over that 50% of the population sees them as a threat is going to help?
And it so easy to get label as misogynistic where do we call it extremism?
It is pretty unclear what you are trying to say. If you are suggesting that this regulation (good or bad in itself) bears a relation to the mental turmoil suffered by young men, you should back it up with some evidence. This is some remote innuendo.
In reality, mental health organizations like APA recognize that young men are under lot of pressure, which leads to addiction, violence, self-harm, steroid abuse, depression, and even suicide. There are special guidelines for counseling young men, and there is active research about the root cause.
A rigid traditional understanding of masculinity is shown to be the main culprit.
Do you have anything to back up your claim that regulating misogyny somehow has an effect on young men's and boys mental well being? So far it is shown that the likes of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson cause greater harm than this ill-conceived law.
But you are just replacing it with a new standard instead of worrying about being viewed as being unmanly it's now fear of being seen as misogynistic and now there are legal reasons to worry.