Julie Bindel bullying Posie

FYI,Woman bashing isn't actually one of the tenets of Feminism.

What they are saying is actually that the argument, the idea that x must be allowed or this group of people won't be able to have kids, implies a selfish motive. Which is rather different than calling particular individuals selfish. People do make that argument, and when it is counter the idea that something is not in kids best interests, it is just saying - what is right for kids is irrelevant if it would affect the ability of these people to have kids.

It's inherently a selfish argument.

There are many people, for example, who think international adoptions are usually detrimental to children in important ways and should be avoided. You can disagree and say, no, they aren't, and maybe have some reasons to support that POV - not a selfish argument. If you say, on the other hand, these things you are saying about the child's best interests aren't the point, the point is that it would mean childless well-off western couples can't adopt, or gay men don't have as much chance to adopt - that is a selfish argument. It is about the good of the parents rather than that of the kids.

Also happen to share Julie's (and most other feminists) negative opinion of Posie Parker.

Do you think this detracts from Posie’s - highly visible and effective - work pushing back against the TRA agenda? Do you think she cares?

FFS Horse could you not just read the thread I posted? There's at least 20+ posts about gay people being selfish for wanting children.

'Satisfying the wants of the parent rather than the needs of the child'

Is there a clearer way to sum up 'selfish' than the above?

And no I am not claiming FWR is a hive mind and everyone on here thinks like this but as you can clearly see some people do.

I'm a big fan of Julie Bindel so no doubt share lots opinions with many others on this thread. Also happen to share Julie's (and most other feminists) negative opinion of Posie Parker.

Makes me laugh that this entirely justifiable opinion is greeted with such hostility on a feminism forum.

Sapphos - are you still trying to track down the FWR posts that called you selfish or have you given up on that?

It's a hard time to be a lesbian at the moment and I particularly fear for young lesbians

I absolutely agree with you on this

RoyalCorgi
I agree. But it confirms my opinion of Twitter. It seems to be an arena for insults.......

Not called the Twaterati for nothing.

I've been told here on FWR numerous times that my kids have the right to a father and I am selfish for having them in a lesbian relationship

Really once I got my arse handed to me on a plate (under another name) for suggesting that a father had a role to play in a family situation. I was told by at least 2 posters a father was an optional extra but on the whole really didn't matter.

I'll bet these are not on the basis of race, religion, sexuality or transgender status otherwise 'most people' would be bigots.

Yes, this is just what I meant. If we can somehow make any question or problem possibly fit under one of these areas, they will get a free pass, because bigotry.

This is why some people are so eager to frame surrogacy as a LGBTQ2+ thing, then there can be no question that it must be allowed, whatever it means for kids or women - if fact such questions must be kept quiet as they are bigoted.

That whole type of argument is completely manipulative and can only serve a pre-determined agenda.

Nothing really to do with this thread, but why can't people talk about things that might be detrimental to a child's wellbeing just because they are referring to the parental choices of some lesbians?

I wasn't affected by my father not being around, so I actually did consider not letting my dd know her useless father, but for other reasons I didn't follow that through. Turned out that when she turned twelve she really wanted to know a lot more about her father and I was glad I hadn't hidden her dad from her.

But that is purely anectodal and not an argument against the use of sperm donors either as nobody gets to have a perfect life in this world. But it is not lesbophobic to talk about this issue.

Sapphos, as I suggested, Posie’s primary concerns seem to be around teenagers, and the right to free speech.

This board really isn’t a hive mind. It soon becomes clear that there is an amazing diversity of women, and a few men, who post. The important thing is to respect other people’s views. Most come from a position of caring.

I wound up here mainly from a free speech perspective. Brexit had alerted me to the woke orthodoxy, with clamping down on wrongthink and the debate by insult, so I decided that next time I would speak up. I don’t have a safeguarding or feminist background, so have then beenshocked about how little decision makers seem to care about children, or the vulnerable. How could they forget Rotherham or Saville so quickly.

As a result I find Posies thinking more accessible than some who have been steeped in feminist theory for years. I think her direct approach has really helped get the debate going. I also think the diversity is our strength. No one is perfect, but let’s focus on the positive contributions so many people are making. We want to keep our children safe.

I'll bet that most people would agree that there are a variety of instances when deciding to avoid becoming a parent would be best,

I'll bet these are not on the basis of race, religion, sexuality or transgender status otherwise 'most people' would be bigots.

@Needmoresleep without detailing this thread yes I do. It's a hard time to be a lesbian at the moment and I particularly fear for young lesbians.

This is just an example of the really poor quality of argumentation you get.

Some people in some discussions have said they have a problem with children deliberately being conceived with the idea that they would not be able to have a relationship with a biological parent. This has implications for things like surrogacy or sperm donation.

The idea here seems to be that this is wrong, and people who think this bad and right-wing, because that would mean that lesbians, among others, would not be able to use sperm donation. Now, the others maybe don't matter but apparently it would be clearly homophobic to deny lesbians sperm donation whatever the principles involved.

That's the kind of shit argument that has got us into this morass of competition for marginalisation points.

Similarly, yes, there are things we might say that people might do or choose, or circumstances they might find themselves in, where they should probably make a choice to avoid having kids, or if they want them, change their choices. I expect there would be a lot of disagreement on what those situations might be, and individual cases are highly variable anyway. Personally, I went to university with some kids who went to boarding schools from third grade and spent all summer at camps, and I seriously question whether that is not a type of neglect and whether many of their parents should have had a second thought in choosing to procreate. Others might differ.

But I'll bet that most people would agree that there are a variety of instances when deciding to avoid becoming a parent would be best, even if they acknowledge entirely that things aren't always as neat as that. How we get to a place where that is evidence of being right-wing I don't know.

Sappho, sorry about turning this into an AMA ,but as a lesbian are you sympathetic to other lesbians concerns about erasure? And as a parent do you worry about the peer pressure/YouTube/Stonewalling of schools which seems to be at the root of the epidemic of ROGD?

And if not, why not.

Certainly the latter is something that Posie appears to feel strongly about.

Yes. I believe a person can be both transgender and a parent without any detriment to the child.

Did I say they couldn't?

You're still not getting it.

Were a lesbian mum to transition, would that person then become the heterosexual father and would that person then have the right to impose that identity and relationship on the child? Would that be in the child's best interests?

Yes. I believe a person can be both transgender and a parent without any detriment to the child. Saying that it entirely depends on how it is handled.

If the person is honest with their partner and future kids from the start then I am struggling to see why there would be a problem? Are you suggesting a person should choose one or the other? Parenthood or being transgender?

If the person springs it on their partner and kids out of the blue - was previously mum all of a sudden wants to be dad - then that's a different story as the partner and kids have been misled. But the problem there is the dishonesty not that the parent is transgender.

As I said previously, given the Freddy McConnell case, the courts agree with Posie: the child's right to its mother supercedes the right of the parent to choose to be its father.

The courts were concerned with the birth certificate. There was no child protection issue or suggestion Freddie's child had a right to a mother or that Freddie should not able to identify as the kid's father in everyday life. I can see why naming Freddie as 'father' on the BC wouldn't work.

The other alternative would be entirely changing the BC wording and replacing 'mother' with 'birth parent' or whatever - a radical change which would only be of benefit to a tiny minority of people so I can see why the courts didn't do it . The money could be better spent elsewhere.

Lesbian parents are able to both appear on a birth certificate as 'mother' and 'parent' so it's a shame for Freddie that he cannot be named as 'parent' but its just a piece of paper at the end of the day.

Yy lteve.

I think the denial or defending is because of the way the accusations are being made. Posie is entitled to her own views. People are entitled to agree or disagree with them.

Thanks to the ‘no debate’ culture, and to the moderation style of MN and other SM sites her actual words, what she said and how she said it are gone (much like my post!)

Posters who dislike Posie are going to frame her words as transphobic/homophobic/racist etc. This leads to denials and/or excuses from people who like her... and there are no posts to look back on and confirm.

If her words (and mine?...!) were left in place then the truth would be out there and it would be plain for all to see.

When MN was my lifeline I often C&P’d threads I was on because deleted threads and posts were often misrepresented. There were a couple of posters who would do it purposefully. That hasn’t changed, those type of posters are still in evidence and still doing exactly that. Thankfully these days I’m here far less and care far less!

Sappho the links that you provided did not say you were "selfish" which was your claim.

Must try harder.

Is the idea that if you repeat an accusation enough people start to believe it.?

The objective here seems to be more that if you repeat the denials and undermining often enough people start to doubt.

Posie said it, multiple times, on more than one public forum, and repeated when asked again, and upped it to include her view that all trans people should not be parents, either before, during, or after transition.

The denial, minimising, and smearing of those who saw it with their own eyes right here in FWR is frankly astonishing.

GC posters have acknowledged that she said it, pointed towards her apology, said that she was goaded into it, and said it in the heat of the moment, and it was misinterpreted, taken out of context, and various other excuses. Including my personal favourite defence of “she didn’t actually sterilise anyone though”. One regular even posted on this thread to say they agreed with her.

Do you disbelieve all of them them too?

I get that Posie is contentious. Personally I’m a big admirer of the posters and projections campaigns, which were inspired and impactful in a very impressive way.

I don’t imagine she’s the type to deny having said something, so why all the denials here?

"links or didn't happen"
"telling porkies"
Poster duly provides proof - "we're not a hive mind!"
That poster isn't feminist anyway, that's not a good example!
WTF lol