Posie Parker at Speaker's Corner earlier today

This is the problem isn’t it. Whilst women arguing about types of feminism. The men are busy getting the law changed. It’s the ultimate dead cat.

That's fabulous. We need more women's shelters. There's such a shortage of safe spaces.

Posie has launched a campaign to establish a new women's only shelter. www.crowdfunder.co.uk/our-liberty-place

What a wonderful, positive thing to do.

So, they are close to getting it ...but not quite there in seeing this is a WOMEN's Rights issue!!

Oh yes. It's very frustrating when the feminist issue gets overlooked entirely.

It gets equally overlooked when people don't understand that gender stereotyping is detrimental to women. Sometimes men, but mostly women. And, it's deliberate.

And as for whoever said the WEP has lost membership. I'm not surprised. They don't know what a woman is. It's not the slightest bit indicative of people backing away from the issue. Just about them being more discerning over who they support.

Um, may I suggest that people who stop caring about the sexual coercion of lesbians, defunding of domestic violence shelters and the medically negligent treatment of children, because a woman they don't like joined in, maybe weren't that passionate about the human rights issues in the first place?

Yup.

Can we just chant "women's rights are human rights" at them? It seems to work for other people.

So, they are close to getting it ...but not quite there in seeing this is a WOMEN's Rights issue!!

Not surprised. I wouldn't touch the WEP with a bargepole now, and I was very intrigued by it when it was first launched.

Two thirds!

Interestingly WEP gets a mention here I'm this article I read about Helen Steel in 2017. Fully thirds of the membership have backed away from WEP since it started up.

That's a lot of backing away!

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/26/transgender-anarchist-book-fair-transphobia-row

Um, may I suggest that people who stop caring about the sexual coercion of lesbians, defunding of domestic violence shelters and the medically negligent treatment of children, because a woman they don't like joined in, maybe weren't that passionate about the human rights issues in the first place?

I wouldn't start claiming the world was flat just because someone I didn't like vocally agreed it was round. And for that matter, as a vegan of many years, there are lots of vegans I don't like. I don't abandon my principles to spite them.

I've met multiple groups and journalists and see more and more all the time, I don't see this shrinking, just growing and growing.

Yes, I don't understand the backing away comment, either.

Some women have passed the baton because its bloody hard work. And a lot of women have been banned from here, Twitter, Facebook, etc.

But, in terms of momentum, it's increasing daily.

I see an enormous amount of formal action groups now, here and around the world. None of this is contingent on liking Posie or not liking Posie, or even having ever seen a video of her, it's all about the most effective way of tackling legislation and policy. I doubt 100 percent that Posie was the catalyst for all these groups.

I've met multiple groups and journalists and see more and more all the time, I don't see this shrinking, just growing and growing. It is soon obvious to any one reading that this sheer critical mass we now see has been a long term growing, and a lot of groups coalesced in the UK around the GRA consultation. Even the Times readership has become firmly against relaxation of GRA rules and pro university free speech, I don't think I've ever seen PP in the Times.

I wonder why you say both that PP is single handedly shrinking activity and also that this was in play before her posters appeared?

I don't think anyone believes this all originated with Posie or Venice? I first read about Helen Steel being bullied at an Anarchist book fair way before I even posted here or came across Posie.

If people have stopped doing what they were doing there's too much momentum now for it to make a lot of difference really.

Well the TRAs should bloody well distance themselves from those they cant get on board with. Plenty here would have found plenty they agreed with say, Corbyn on, but they had this issue they couldnt see past (for example) and plenty of people would vocally speak up against all sorts of people that crossed their particular line in the sand. Even if its completely irrelevent. Seen loads of people on here rip Alice roberts as another example apart because she said something in favour of the trans. Everyone nails their colours to the mast dont they?

Whether its right or wrong, thats what people do

Also, why should anyone be making more of a performance of vocally distancing themselves from Posie Parker than the trans activists do regarding people who issue rape threats?

Go on twitter or facebook. Follow the trans activists around. They pop up in endometriosis support groups to lambast women for using the word "ladies" in a post asking for support with a medical condition. But do the same people push back on violent threats against women, or against same-sex-attracted people? Do they hell.

Some of them will say, if asked, that they don't endorse violent threats. But they don't lift a typing finger against it, and yet have all the energy in the world to police women with painful gynaecological conditions.

That's their priority. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept; as we've seen, they accept the most violent, grotesque threats againat women.

Thanks Zinc. I'm using this one!!

"It's so fucking obvious that this is unfair to girls/women's sports that even those stupid right-wingers can see it; the mainstream left-wing has foolishly given up both the moral and intellectual high ground to right-wingers."

PP needs neither the approval of academics nor of feminists to state her opinion. Those who spend their time worrying about how an unrelated woman like PP apparently owes them circumspection lest they be perceived as associated with her are ridiculous

I truly don't want Posie to shut up nor seek approval. She IS a gifted orator. But isn't this attitude a bit immature? Like a young adult who says, "I don't owe The Establishment anything. I don't have to listen to anyone else's opinion."

As adults, we learn how to argue our point AND persuade. Part of persuasion involves coalition building, self-control and acknowledgement when we screw up. An orator's gifts are squandered if she sings eloquently to only the choir. Taking account of well-meaning critics is different than listening to your enemy's critique of you.

Those who spend their time worrying about how an unrelated woman like PP apparently owes them circumspection lest they be perceived as associated with her are ridiculous.

I agree. And it's even more pointless warn others.

Yy Barracker

If leftists and conservative parents talked about this and saw the issue with clear understanding, I imagine they'd agree.

I imagine there would be quite a bit of agreement also. Maybe not complete unity.

I think there are some on the political left that just desperately don't want to be associated with the "evil" right-wing.

So they want to exclude trans-girls from girls' sports because it's unfair; but conservatives want to exclude them just because they hate trans people. It's like, well if I call other people "bigots" and try to distance myself from them, maybe my fellow lefties will not see me as a bigot... not sure that works.

The better tactic here, perhaps, is to argue:

"It's so fucking obvious that this is unfair to girls/women's sports that even those stupid right-wingers can see it; the mainstream left-wing has foolishly given up both the moral and intellectual high ground to right-wingers."

It's entirely unnecessary to be politically experienced or somehow accredited in order to stand up and talk about sex. There's no test required or approval needed for anyone to speak and for others to choose to listen.

PP needs neither the approval of academics nor of feminists to state her opinion. Those who spend their time worrying about how an unrelated woman like PP apparently owes them circumspection lest they be perceived as associated with her are ridiculous.

'I don't want this woman who has nothing to do with me to keep stating her opinion in case people who already lie about feminism might associate her with me and say bad things about me?'
They already are.
The people whose opinions are being pointlessly curried already hate and misrepresent you, whether you agree or disagree with PP or not. They don't need 'fodder', they're perfectly happy to make up transparently obvious lies already.

PP appeals precisely because she speaks for herself and doesn't muck around with compromises of "how shall I phrase this so people like me".

She's a natural orator, and it's irrelevant to me whether I disagree with her politically or not.
On the subject of sex and gender she's absolutely right, and she manages to make her case compellingly and with a charisma many of us lack.

If leftists and conservative parents talked about this and saw the issue with clear understanding, I imagine they'd agree. Where I sit, leftists and conservatives don't even live in the same communities, let alone talk constructively. TRAs knowingly take advantage of these divisions.

[quote fruityorange]@SmokedDuck Andrea Dworkin wrote about that in Right-Wing Women. She understood that right-wing women and radical feminists see the same problems with men, but have very different solutions. A lot of feminists have read this book as well and agree with the analysis.[/quote]
Right.

So, if you have two groups of women who share some of those views about something that is dangerous - and here I would say not just men, but the idea that we can be totally disconnected from our physicality, or postmodernism and queer theory, or commoditising human bodies - why would they not join forces on fighting these things in the political sphere?

For some reason this seems to often come down to abortion, and I wonder if this isn't because disagreements on abortion have become so flattened that often people don't seem to understand what the real source of the difference of opinion is. When I was a teenager, even my peers generally seemed to have a reasonable sense of what the basic differences in POV were that led to different perspectives, but I don't find that true of younger people now generally. So they see people who disagree as being motivated fundamentally by a perverse desire to attack others.

I totally get that, but my reasons for worrying about the gender movement isnt the same as the religious right wing in america. Not even close
Most of the parents I know who are alarmed that their children are caught up in gender ideology are like me. We're left leaning non religious non Trump supporting progressive types. I do know some Trump supporting evangelicals who feel the same way. Our concerns are exactly the same.

@SmokedDuck Andrea Dworkin wrote about that in Right-Wing Women. She understood that right-wing women and radical feminists see the same problems with men, but have very different solutions. A lot of feminists have read this book as well and agree with the analysis.