Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Posie Parker in the USA

436 replies

lucydo · 31/01/2019 09:43

I am aware that there already long threads on this, but would anyone mind just giving me the basic information about what so many people are objecting to? Is it just that she has attended an event run by a Right Wing organisation? Or is there more?
It just looks like a pile-on by left-wingers on my twitter feed.
In all events, it's a TRA dream - divide and rule.
Again, before anyone flames me, I know that there are 2 long threads on this, but I gave up the will to read them after people going on about breakfasts for post after post.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
OrchidInTheSun · 01/02/2019 05:59

She called her a cunt for saying Posie was violent. So fair comment.

And do provide evidence for 'but we are right wing' because that's not something I've read.

And finally, this is why the Heritage Foundation were involve

Posie Parker in the USA
Funkyfunkybeat12 · 01/02/2019 05:46

OldCrone that quote is from the law that has been in force for 15 years without losing the ability to define sex. There are exemptions that apply, allowing exclusions based on biological sex. I am in favour of strengthening those and clarifying when they apply. However, self-ID refers to the procedure of getting a GRC- a procedure that has been in place for quite a long time.

Anyway, just saw on Twitter that the delightful Posie Parker has called Rosa Freedman a cunt on facebook for daring to disagree with her. Shows her exactly for what and who she is. I will bet quite a bit of money that by next year, she will be fully in bed with the right-wing, probably writing articles for some alt-right website.

But from the comments on here, it is clear that there has been a definite change in the demographic of this site. If you mention the right-wing aspect, you now get 'but we ARE right-wing'. Which of course is allowed, but it's not the sort of group that I thought I was conversing with at all.

R0wantrees · 01/02/2019 01:49

Spectator USA article by Cockburn
.Terfs take America…
What happened when British female rights activists went to Washington?.
Cockburn
(extract)
"Today, Cockburn received a phone call from Posie.

Posie and Julia had been back to the Hill, meeting with more Congress people, when they’d stumbled upon a congressional hearing organized by transgender ideologues. They then spotted Sarah McBride. McBride is a transgender activist – born a man, but who presents as a woman – who, as national press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign lobbies the government to advance the Equality Act.

McBride had just met with Rep. Joe Kennedy and there was a film crew nearby. On behalf of every woman, parent and child suffering under the madness of gender identity ideology and ignored by the mainstream media – Posie and Julia took their chance confronted McBride.

They ventured forth…

Posie explained her thinking to Cockburn. ‘I thought: When am I going to get this opportunity again to talk someone so powerful in the business of lobbying?…In this culture of silence bringing this issue into the public consciousness can never be counterproductive…I will take my lead from the mothers who are facing the catastrophic mutilation and irreversible damage to their daughters’ bodies.’

The consequence, inevitably, was that this was then spun into a ‘transphobic ambush’ narrative. HuffPost ran a story with the headline, ‘2 Women Disrupt Meeting To Harass Transgender Activist In Appalling Video’. Gay Star News went with, ‘Shocking video shows women barging into meeting and harassing trans woman’.

Was this harassment? The ‘two women’ don’t think so.

‘I am bewildered by the characterization of us being in a position of power and influence so that our questions are being called harassment. We were in the corridors of the Senate building in the land of free speech. That doesn’t square! Questions cannot be harassment’, Posie said.

She added, ‘I didn’t wear a mask. I didn’t have a baseball in trans remembrance colors. I didn’t say I want to punch anybody. I didn’t call him names. I didn’t swear at him. I didn’t intimidate him physically. I didn’t threaten violence. I didn’t commit violence. I asked a man pertinent questions about his lobbying.’

Admittedly, their behavior wasn’t very polite. Cockburn pointed this out, but Julia took a dim view of such criticism.

‘I think politeness is irrelevant here. This man is championing a law that means that men will have increased access to the most vulnerable women in prisons, shelters, sports, education establishments … he’s championing the end of women’s sex-based rights. He’s also championing terrible hormone regimes and surgeries for children.

Posie, who is pro-choice, added: ‘Most of those critics would have no issue if I’d gone in a room with Mike Pence and asked him why he disagrees with abortion in aggressive terms. I could have verbally assaulted him with bad language, and everybody would think it was great. Yet women who purport to be in opposition to gender ideology tend to uphold it with their double standards, as if a powerful lobbyist is somehow vulnerable if they identify as a woman.’ (continues)
spectator.us/terfs-take-america/

BlackShutters · 01/02/2019 01:41

Am I

BlackShutters · 01/02/2019 01:41

I'm American and I've been watching FWR for a couple of years now. Am remembering correctly? Didn't the tide start to turn once a few right wing journalists started commenting? Rod Liddle is a name that comes to mind. I remember some posts condemning him (or whoever it was) as no friend to women and therefore anything he had to say should be ignored. This all feels a little familiar.

Well, it's our turn now, I've been waiting. WoLF got a nice donation from me today.

OldCrone · 31/01/2019 22:36

Currently there is an exception to that which is permitted under the Equality Act where to preserve a single sex service (to the exclusion of a trans person with a GRC) is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

In theory, yes, but that's very difficult to put into practice. What do you do if the person with their newly-issued birth certificate swears that they're not trans? And who decides what is 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'? The courts could get very busy if a lot more people were getting GRCs.

McTufty · 31/01/2019 22:15

Sorry that was to oldcrone

McTufty · 31/01/2019 22:14

Currently there is an exception to that which is permitted under the Equality Act where to preserve a single sex service (to the exclusion of a trans person with a GRC) is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

I am staggered anyone thinks that position is in any way unfair tbh.

R0wantrees · 31/01/2019 22:14

If I have understood their Vision for Change document correctly (and I hope I haven’t), they want to remove the right to preserve single sex spaces, including for things such as sport

Stonewall and others were lobbying for some time. It was only held up last year largely due to women standing up.

Timeline by James Kirkup (journalist)
"Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.

I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.

August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces” (continues with timeline)

June 2018
Govt says:

“We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces.”

In sum: MPs and others told govt to amend/remove Equality Act single-sex exemptions. Govt considered doing so. Then govt ruled it out. / ends"
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html

OldCrone · 31/01/2019 22:11

Here you are, funky. How do we distinguish between the sexes in law?

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/crossheading/consequences-of-issue-of-gender-recognition-certificate-etc

McTufty · 31/01/2019 22:08

We have had the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in force for 15 years, allowing change of gender and we seem to have managed

Yes because this process has not infringed upon the protection against sex discrimination in the equality act. That is now in jeopardy.

I don’t think it will lead to abortion being outlawed. But I do think it will be detrimental to women’s rights.

OldCrone · 31/01/2019 22:06

It is a problem in prisons and refuges and sports, but having a procedure for changing gender does not mean we cannot legally distinguish between the sexes. The law clearly distinguishes between them.

You do realise that 'changing gender' with a GRC changes your legal sex, don't you?

McTufty · 31/01/2019 22:06

having a procedure for changing gender does not mean we cannot legally distinguish between the sexes. The law clearly distinguishes between them

I agree people should be able to change gender. And I agree that the equality act does differentiate between sex as a characteristic and gender reassignment as a characteristic.

However Stonewall are campaigning for effectively an end to single sex protections. If I have understood their Vision for Change document correctly (and I hope I haven’t), they want to remove the right to preserve single sex spaces, including for things such as sport. The GRC is the thin end of the wedge. This stuff matters.

R0wantrees · 31/01/2019 22:03

Here's another speech by Dr Julia Long

'Transgenderism and Male Violence.'

From ‘Thinking Differently: Feminists Questioning Gender Politics’, a one-day conference held at Conway Hall, London, UK, on Saturday 16 July 2016.

OldCrone · 31/01/2019 21:57

Also, I didn't make the original middle class comment, but if someone thinks that the very small number of trans women out there are the biggest threat to women that there is, then I would wonder at how informed they are.

If you think that what we're concerned about is the very small number of transwomen with GRCs, it's you who doesn't seem very well informed.

Changing laws so that all a man has to do to gain access to a woman-only space is to say the words 'I identify as a woman' is a danger to women and girls. This is already happening without a change in the law.

sackrifice · 31/01/2019 21:50

It is a problem in prisons and refuges and sports, but having a procedure for changing gender does not mean we cannot legally distinguish between the sexes. The law clearly distinguishes between them.

It clearly cant distinguish when all the authorities have removed 'sex' as a protected characteristic.

AnneHutchinson · 31/01/2019 21:31

Oh, sorry -- did you mean Human Rights Coalition and not HIllary Rodham Clinton?

Regardless, I stand by what I stated.

AnneHutchinson · 31/01/2019 21:29

Oh, that's too funny. Pelosi gave a statement that passage of the Equality Act is a major priority in the new session of Congress. I didn't get that info from the Heritage Foundation, I got it from the Advocate.

But if you think Clinton and not Pelosi is one who holds more power in the Democratic Party, you're out of touch.

If I ever bash Pelosi it's from the left. I've been a US political activist involved in on-the-ground campaigning for decades. You make a lot of assumptions.

OvaHere · 31/01/2019 21:29

Also, I didn't make the original middle class comment, but if someone thinks that the very small number of trans women out there are the biggest threat to women that there is, then I would wonder at how informed they are.

It's not just the individuals, although quite clearly only a small number of TW are needed to wreak havoc in certain spheres e.g sport, but more the ideology as a whole.

Not recognising sex is a game changer for every woman. It is so insidious in nature it will permeate everything eventually. We are already seeing it happen as women are described using body parts (cervix haver, menstruator etc..) to alienate us from our sex and from the word woman.

R0wantrees · 31/01/2019 21:29

Julia does make other points in her speech too

Funky The things you have chosen to highlight were points in an important speech about dangers for women (adult human females)

That you are reducing a speech by an academic with decades of feminist theory study and whose focus has been male violence against women and girls really does speak more of your agenda.

Earlywalker · 31/01/2019 21:28

oxy it would be more helpful if you don’t agree with a point of view, to back up your points than to rubbish it. That tends to be how a debate works.

We have had the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in force for 15 years, allowing change of gender and we seem to have managed
Exactly. I don’t see abortion being outlawed or woman’s based rights being taken away. The only people I see trying to do that are people like the heritage foundation... oh, wait.

KindOfAGeek · 31/01/2019 21:24

This piece is a bit biased, but it gives a flavor of how this all was received in the US:

www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna964246

Other than putting HRC on notice Heritage is planning to play politics, the event sank like a stone.

R0wantrees · 31/01/2019 21:22

Interestingly, having rewatched Julia Long's talk after Speaker's Corner, her Youtube has provided this interesting panel which seems very relevent to this thread. It is a description of the lack of women's rights in the USA

Published on 21 Sep 2016
'How the Gender Identity Movement is Hijacking the Fight for Reproductive Sovereignty.' Presentation by Mary Lou Singleton.

'Thinking Differently'

Oxytocindeficient · 31/01/2019 21:21

if someone thinks that the very small number of trans women out there are the biggest threat to women that there is, then I would wonder at how informed they are

Oh you really don’t even get this at all. I’m out, this is ridiculous to argue about and I don’t think certain posters are acting in good faith the way they’re talking about certain groups of women. Yuck. Ugly talk and dismissive language is what I get from men.

KindOfAGeek · 31/01/2019 21:21

"Pelosi's Equality Act". Dead giveaway.

It's not Pelosi's Act, but if you want to bash D's, it's what you do. It's HRC's act, Pelosi hasn't introduced it, nor will she, FYI, but the RW has little to work with these days.

And if you don't know that's what you're doing, that's just the teeniest bit naive.