Posie Parker in the USA

This is lecture by Julia Long from last year.
Its worth listening to her actual words rather than other people's summary of her position not least as it describes her work and log term focus which has been violence against women and girls.

'Transgenderism & Lesbian Erasure'

Oh I see, you mean JL and PP specifically? I thought you meant GC feminism more generally, and I have never heard that suggested. If PP or JL have suggested that, shame on them.

There is no suggestion of removing gender reassignment as a protected characteristic. This prevents trans people being discriminated against for being trans. I don’t know anyone who disagrees with this.

Really? Because Julia Long for one has certainly made it clear on numerous occasions that she does not believe there is any such thing as being transgender. It is just a bunch of perverts with fetishes. Posie has said similar. So how can this be squared by wanting to retain gender reassignment as a protected characteristic?

funky

There is no suggestion of removing gender reassignment as a protected characteristic. This prevents trans people being discriminated against for being trans. I don’t know anyone who disagrees with this.

The battleground is more around removing sex as a protected characteristic and replacing it with gender.

And some of us do think it is the most important issue facing women

More important than e.g. domestic violence, low rape convictions, the unfair distribution of caring labour, workplace harassment, restriction of reproductive rights, FGM, forced marriage?

Yes, the Karen White case was horrific, but Universal Credit encourages women to stay in abusive relationships, or in extreme cases forces them into prostitution.

And as you feel this is the most important issue, would you be happy if the law were changed to stop recognising gender reassignment as a protected characteristic, but it also stopped recognising rights based sexual orientation for instance? Would that be a compromise you would be willing to make? Because to me, seeing Julia and Posie's actions, it is clear that they would make that trade-off, as long as it stopped self-ID. They don't think being transgender is a thing, so why should there need to be any rights?

I also would question someone who thinks that things like help for DV and provision of safe abortion is something that they can compromise on 'for the greater good'.

Well, isn't it a relief that absolutely nobody is suggesting you do this or is doing this themselves.

The beginnings of a political alliance on a single US bill has been announced, with all participants stressing to their supporters that other issues will be pursued separately and antagonistically.

So you can rest easy.

It really is not the be all and end all compared to other horrific state policies such as Universal Credit or reproductive rights.

If 'woman' means whoever says they are a woman and statistics become meaningless because both sexes are recorded as 'women' then we can't actually meaningfully discuss how these things affect women (XX women). Erasing our language is a way of erasing all our concerns and our activism. And we can't actually meaningfully discuss (with statistics) how Universal Credit possibly is disadvantaging women (XX) more than men (XY) because 'women' now includes anyone XY who says so.

Miranda Yardley has written on this subject very eloquently - if I have time I'll look up the link and post it later.

clianthe

Is there much opposition to it there? It also seems to me that trans people potentially face far greater discrimination there but I might be wrong?

Hi, long-time lurker, here. Delurking to give my point of view as an American. I'm not sure if everyone is aware of the fact that there is no organized left in the US. Both our major parties are right wing and the Greens (our only nominally left Party) are too busy arguing over which end of the egg to break to be of much use. This leaves us with one of two choices: either work with misogynists who would legitimatize paedophilia (porn-sick dude-bros) or work with misogynists who want to protect children (as property). Since nobody besides a few radical feminist cares about women, we're making due with what we've got.
I would also remind everyone that Andrea Dworkin worked with convicted - and admitted - rapist Eldridge Cleaver.
That said, I thank all the women who are actively trying to stop transgender ideology from being enshrined in law on both sides of the Atlantic.

And some of us do think it is the most important issue facing women

I don't think that this issue is the major one facing women

Well no but it is important and it is linked. The ideology has at its heart that biological sex doesn’t really matter. I think biological sex is the basis of the many horrific things happening to women both here and abroad - interference with reproductive rights, honour killings, period poverty, menstruation huts to name but a few - and if an ideology which minimises the importance of this gains ground then that has implications above and beyond the immediate consequences of self ID. Male in female violence is a major issue, and recording that minority of violent trans women as female offenders matters a lot. So this issue is linked to the bigger issues too in my opinion.

The immediate consequences of self ID aren’t nothing though. This has resulted in women being raped eg Karen White.

I don't think Posie's tactics are helpful to the cause if I'm honest. I'd favour respectful debate over what looks like harassment.

There is no cause.

Just thousands of worried, concerned, frightened and angry women.

No-one can contain this.

It's going to reach too many people who disagree with you, fundamentally, on everything else you stand for.

Because, the goal is, it reaches most people, right?

If they had a history of working with others they disagree with for a perceived greater good, I'd be more inclined to believe that is what is happening this time. As it is, I find it difficult to extend a generosity to them that they do not extend to others.

True. I also would question someone who thinks that things like help for DV and provision of safe abortion is something that they can compromise on 'for the greater good'. I wonder if Julia realises that there are also plenty of right-wing Christian groups who help mothers who are weeping because their daughters have been 'indoctrinated' into the 'cult of lesbianism'.

If you were a group fighting for racial equality, would you ever join forces with a white pride group? Surely it undermines the very essence of your argument.

I don't really understand the handwringing over confronting someone who is a paid political lobbyist whose mission is to remove existing rights and protections for women.

So what if it's a bit rude?

I recall that the young woman who confronted Jeff Flake in a Senate elevator a few months back and yelled at him about the sexual abuse she suffered was hailed as brave and heroic.

Politics is a dirty business and being 'nice' 100% of the time won't achieve much. This is going to be a battle fought on many fronts.

What annoys me is that TRA’s assault woman, threaten to bomb venues, harass women, verbally abuse, threaten with rape, dox, physically deface monuments and report to GC people to the police just for wanting to discuss an issue that will have a profound effect on the lives of women and children and there is tumble weeds from the likes of Chelsea Clinton and her ilk. There is hardly any jumping up and down from the media. Yet Posie and Julia ask a few questions to someone who is pushing an agenda that will harm a lot of women and it’s like the end of the world and a great injustice has incurred. The world has gone mad.

I think it's the purity politics of PP & JL which provide the context to criticism of them. They don't have a history of bridge-building with gender critical feminists they disagree with. Other women have been scolded or even publicly protested or derided by them for working with gender critical men, or with liberal feminists, or for mixed organising.

If they had a history of working with others they disagree with for a perceived greater good, I'd be more inclined to believe that is what is happening this time. As it is, I find it difficult to extend a generosity to them that they do not extend to others.

It may (as always) be worth waiting for the wider context.

Like I've said upthread, I can't play the video so I've yet to make up my mind, but I'm unimpressed to see this has been framed as if McBride was being harassed while going about their private business.

Watch it and see, but that's definitely how it comes across...

Women like you make me very angry indeed. What gives you the right to dictate.

When I express my opinion, that is it. It is my opinion. I am not dictating and you are perfectly free to do as you like. All I am saying is that a right-wing movement that joins forces with anti-feminist groups is not for me and I don't think that this issue is the major one facing women. You disagree and that is fine. Neither of us is dictating.

Flo she’s sat at a laptop with a man, typing something in an empty room. Enter Posie...

I agree, this is about all women, not just the ones we like or admire. I know who I would rather support quite honestly sounds just as vacuous to me as 'the wrong side of history'.

Like I've said upthread, I can't play the video so I've yet to make up my mind, but I'm unimpressed to see this has been framed as if McBride was being harassed while going about their private business.

Maybe that's true. It's not something I want any involvement in then though.

Self-ID affects all women, though, whether they're left or right wing. Yes, women who are on the far right, Trump supporters, homophobes, whoever else - may agree that woman = adult human female. They probably also agree that the sky is blue. Arguing that it isn't because you don't want to be on the same side as those nasty women whose politics you dislike doesn't make any sense.

It's an issue that affects all women, so why shouldn't they all - including those whose other views you vehemently disagree with - have a say?

“I know who I’d rather support.”

Yeah. Maybe. But I’m capable of weighing up the various actions of people and able to support some actions and not others without making it a black and white with us or against us split as life is more nuanced than that.

There’s not one single woman that I agree with on everything. There’s not one single woman I could point out who hasn’t, at some point, done something I disagree with, or strongly agree with, or think is shitty or think is marvellous.

No one is completely right on everything or anything and frankly I’m bewildered by anyone who thinks they’re the arbiter of what is and isn’t acceptable feminism.

But for Posie, it is the only issue and that is because Posie is not really a feminist and most definitely not a radical one.
This is may be your opinion.
Or there may of course be other motivations for posting such statements.

15/11/18
Posie Parker's speech
'Where I am, where we are and where we can be?'

But women don't have to be nice do they? I believe that's a significant part of the problem - our enforced niceness in the face of such horrendous threats and attacks against us. I also don't see a problem in being part of a movement with other women who have different views on politics. Don't get me wrong, I cba with a few of the balloonheads, but having a blanket purity policy doesn't help anyone.