1. Citation on the numbers or admitting you’re just estimating them, please. There are places where women discuss doing this sort of thing to men as well and it is similarly not seen as wrong locally.
2. What male birth control? A recent study for male hormonal birth control was cancelled due to side effects, vasalgel has not arrived in the West yet (but there was crowdfunding that some MRAs may have contributed to IIRC), and vasectomies are still fairly permanent. Condoms are the existing male birth control that is actually available to men.
3. Women have more options if this happens than men do. You have not actually defeated the MRA point that women have more reproductive rights (in the West) than men do.
4. It most likely is not MRAs doing this.
5. By making it adversarial, you have avoided the space where an actual gender-neutral law could get broader support to prohibit the practice in both directions, which MRAs would like, as well as the moral upper ground. Of course, once that hit the news it would spawn a few national conversations about women that weren’t particularly flattering, but the lack of those conversations is contributing both to what you would call “misogyny” and to the creation of MRAs.
6. No seriously, why are you making this adversarial, burning political energy on fighting men that would be okay with a law banning it instead of men that wouldn’t? You won’t demobilize MRAs with “women are the real victims, male suffering doesn’t matter” type stuff, you won’t prevent the creation of more MRAs, you won’t make passage of a law banning the practice more likely (and if you did make it more likely that would prove misandry on the part of society), all it does is provide reason to oppose something that shouldn’t really be opposed or, being more uncharitable here, prevent conversations where we find out how many women really think like this (enabling us to overcome that and educate them) and maybe spreading from that conversations about why.
