Detailed Instructions: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no". 
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Problem:> and while Greere's early work is well admired her stance on trans people is not.    But her stance inevitably follows from her early work! As far as I understand it, the foundational principles of radical feminism are that males and females have no innate psychological differences, gender is entirely a social construct, and must be abolished to end female oppression. Which is clearly incompatible with the belief that transwomen have female brains that compel them to express female gender roles, and if deprived of that they (and most cis people probably) will become unhappy to the point of attempting suicide.    Every time a liberal feminist repeats that gender is a social construct with no biological basis, they affirm that part of the ideology and they only manage to avoid the conclusion by purposefully not thinking it through.
Solution:
no