Posie Parker on Fox News

Is it really a good strategy to allow men to go on any platform they wish while women must confine themselves to those full of really nice people who already agree with everything women want.

It sounds like such an own goal for women that I'm thinking the concept must have been invented by an MRA

Bit of a rant as I an so incensed by people basically telling women to shut up, so the self proclaimed 'decent' non right wing can continue ripping up our rights.

Sunlight, sunlight and more sunlight. It is only those who want their deeds to remain uncovered who pull an Aunt Sally, and try to get people to ignore the message.

So, women have to earn the trust of career politicians (who are mostly in it for their own benefit) whose job it is to serve citizens. The very same politicians who are enabling the rape of women who are locked up with convicted rapists and violent men. The very same politicians who are obliterating women's rights to equality, safety, dignity and privacy at the behest of lobby groups and donors. And the scandalous sexualisation and medicalisation of healthy children.

Sure maybe they'd prefer it if women didn't insult or sully their misogynistic agenda by giving them their X at the ballot box.

Or maybe sully, via clicks or through coffers, those propaganda tools media outlets who tried to say the women and children who didn't want to be perved on by men at WiSpa were 'right wing' too. Those outlets are 'good' non right wing, those women hating and diminishing apparatchiks, aren't they?

I've heard it all now. Attempted manipulation much, by misogynists telling women they shouldn't annoy this shower of genderists who are vandalising women's rights. Where is for the people and by the people? You know women are usually more than half of any population? Those politicians need to try to earn women's support and vote.

She's not reaching new viewers - they've been hearing about this over and over because it's the juiciest thing the right has over the left at this moment in time, so they can't get enough of it!

Another common misconception. On any political topic, the vast majority of the population aren't even vaguely aware of it.

I don't recall who said this, but there's a general rule here - if you're involved or interested in a topic, then by the time you're absolutely sick of hearing it and think there's nothing more to say, and it's being flogged to death in the media - that's about the point the median citizen will first notice it and say "what's all this about then?"

Stuff like JK Rowling tweeting about Alex Drummond yesterday, which in turn got it into the Daily Mail today. For a huge number of people, that will be their very first concept of the idea of a "beardy lesbian".

We have to keep hammering away at this, over and over and over, just to raise consciousness. Which means people like Posie going onto platforms like Carlsons with huge numbers of "normie" viewers who do not spend their lives on Twitter in the middle of GC vs TRA bunfights.

There's absolutely no strategic value in singing to a conservative choir. Being strategic means we have to convince those on the left...and sharing platforms with far-right nihilistic pot-stirrers like Tucker will only detract leftists from listening, in fact, it may turn them off the message because humans are tribal.

All the people talking about Carlson/Fox as a "far-right" platform seem to be unaware of these stat:

"Tucker Carlson’s primetime show was the top-rated news show among Democrats between 25-54."

44% of Dems watch Fox; 33% watch CNN; 25% watch MSNBC. 58% of independents watch Fox.

So even if it was true that the other content is "far-right" (which I doubt, mainly because of the inaccuracy of almost every other claim about people being far-right), the audience isn't.

twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1489258034865971205

www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/02/democrats-fox-news-entertainment-conservative-liberal-00004843

The Nielsen finding also provides succor for ideological maverick Glenn Greenwald, who almost daily is attacked as a traitor by lefties for his scores of appearances on the network. With the Nielsen report in his hand, Greenwald can now accurately say he appears on Carlson’s show to share his wisdom with everybody, not just Republicans but Democrats and independents, who come from the choicest demographic. Carlson’s show led among Democrats in the 25-50 age group in all cable news for the month measured (October), and took third among Democrats in total viewership, The Wrap continued.

Because they have institutional power, from the US President to universities to news media to our K-12 schools to Democratic power brokers. We absolutely need them them to change their minds.

But they won’t have institutional power come the mid terms and come the next election because left wing media organisations ignores women like Posie and no Democrat-leaning candidate is willing to back the ridiculously simple notions that humans can’t change sex and males don’t belong in women’s sport. We don’t need them to change their minds; they need to open their eyes to how much of a vote loser their position is and react accordingly. If not, then the people who gain institutional power will back women’s sport and stop kids being medicalised.

They don't trust Tucker Carlson and they won't trust us if we appear on his show

That’s their problem, isn’t it? The fact they automatically assume that just because someone appears on Tucker Carlson means they don’t have a valid point is just stupid. If I was a Democrat Party strategist all I would do is watch Fox News, to figure out how to get the votes of those that do. But in the meantime if they’re willing to dismiss women because of where they appear instead of what they’re actually saying, more fool them.

I hate that she's getting played like this.

This is so patronising, firstly as if Posie is beholden to any particular political ideology and has to toe the party line, and second to assume Posie doesn’t do things because of what she wants to do, rather than the puppetry of US far right media organisations.

Why do we need to please those who might perceive us as being associated with conservatives?

Because they have institutional power, from the US President to universities to news media to our K-12 schools to Democratic power brokers. We absolutely need them them to change their minds. They don't trust Tucker Carlson and they won't trust us if we appear on his show. PP are right, I AM suggesting who prominent GC feminists should talk to on national TV, because the optics actually do matter in convincing people. If that makes you want to stomp your feet and say, "you can't make me," that's on you. I'm advising on strategy in US media. Take my advice or don't.

We talk often of how sex is binary. So is American politics. It's red or blue. I don't like this, but it's true.

And Posie isn't sharing any revelatory content on Fox...Fox spends an inordinate amount of time already on trans everything, from a very GC and often anti-trans POV. She's not reaching new viewers - they've been hearing about this over and over because it's the juiciest thing the right has over the left at this moment in time, so they can't get enough of it! Posie is just one more tool the far right will use to create divisions.

I actually like Posie and much of what she's done. I hate that she's getting played like this.

NotBadConsidering I agree. The left wing seems to have turned basic biology into a political issue. Its not, and it is perfectly possible to agree with other humans on this issue without in any way suggesting that you agree with whatever political views they hold.

Oops, glitching like crazy, apologies for repeated post, I got a “server not available” message.

Why do we need to please those who might perceive us as being associated with conservatives? Who gives a shit what a load of misogynists think about my politics? I don’t care about the optics at all. That people aren’t grown up enough to see that I agree with conservatives and right wing organisations on this issue and not others isn’t my problem. You don’t see right wing people sooking “oooh no, I’m associated with left wing feminists on this issue, don’t let anyone see me, lest it impact my credibility.” Why do we have to appease our observers?

Feminists going on right wing platforms raises awareness of unfairness affecting women and girls to right wing audiences, people who otherwise might not even pay attention. That’s a good thing, I don’t care who thinks I’m a Tory/right wing fundamentalist, their opinions doesn’t bother me.

Why do we need to please those who might perceive us as being associated with conservatives? Who gives a shit what a load of misogynists think about my politics? I don’t care about the optics at all. That people aren’t grown up enough to see that I agree with conservatives and right wing organisations on this issue and not others isn’t my problem. You don’t see right wing people sooking “oooh no, I’m associated with left wing feminists on this issue, don’t let anyone see me, lest it impact my credibility.” Why do we have to appease our observers?

Feminists going on right wing platforms raises awareness of unfairness affecting women and girls to right wing audiences, people who otherwise might not even pay attention. That’s a good thing, I don’t care who thinks I’m a Tory/right wing fundamentalist, their opinions doesn’t bother me.

Why do we need to please those who might perceive us as being associated with conservatives? Who gives a shit what a load of misogynists think about my politics? I don’t care about the optics at all. That people aren’t grown up enough to see that I agree with conservatives and right wing organisations on this issue and not others isn’t my problem. You don’t see right wing people sooking “oooh no, I’m associated with left wing feminists on this issue, don’t let anyone see me, lest it impact my credibility.” Why do we have to appease our observers?

Feminists going on right wing platforms raises awareness of unfairness affecting women and girls to right wing audiences, people who otherwise might not even pay attention. That’s a good thing, I don’t care who thinks I’m a Tory/right wing fundamentalist, their opinions doesn’t bother me.

Why do we need to please those who might perceive us as being associated with conservatives? Who gives a shit what a load of misogynists think about my politics? I don’t care about the optics at all. That people aren’t grown up enough to see that I agree with conservatives and right wing organisations on this issue and not others isn’t my problem. You don’t see right wing people sooking “oooh no, I’m associated with left wing feminists on this issue, don’t let anyone see me, lest it impact my credibility.” Why do we have to appease our observers?

Feminists going on right wing platforms raises awareness of unfairness affecting women and girls to right wing audiences, people who otherwise might not even pay attention. That’s a good thing, I don’t care who thinks I’m a Tory/right wing fundamentalist, their opinions doesn’t bother me.

I'm not accusing feminists of this on here, so please don't think it. But if Posie Parker going on right wing media is so damaging to our cause, why do transactivist constantly trying to stop her and undermine her credibility for doing so.

Again, I'm not accusing feminist women on here of doing that, because I'm perfectly willing to accept that American politics does not operate in the same way that British politics does.

But it's entirely understandable to interpret the outrage from transactivists and their desperation to stop her, as a fierce attempt to prevent her reaching that audience. Which, if it was damaging to her message, they wouldn't do.

While the mainstream left-wing media won't platform us, that's not a reason for a kneejerk reactionary stance. We shouldn't throw up our hands and say, "well, it looks like my only way to make change is to talk to the devil!" I reject this argument.

This is brilliant. You are telling women who we should or shouldn't talk to. Come back when you have persuaded the left-wing media to let women speak!

While the mainstream left-wing media won't platform us, that's not a reason for a kneejerk reactionary stance. We shouldn't throw up our hands and say, "well, it looks like my only way to make change is to talk to the devil!" I reject this argument.

This is brilliant. You are telling women who we should or shouldn't talk to. Come back when you have persuaded the left-wing media to let women speak!

While the mainstream left-wing media won't platform us, that's not a reason for a kneejerk reactionary stance. We shouldn't throw up our hands and say, "well, it looks like my only way to make change is to talk to the devil!" I reject this argument.

This is brilliant. You are telling women who we should or shouldn't talk to. Come back when you have persuaded the left-wing media to let women speak!

While the mainstream left-wing media won't platform us, that's not a reason for a kneejerk reactionary stance. We shouldn't throw up our hands and say, "well, it looks like my only way to make change is to talk to the devil!" I reject this argument.

This is brilliant. You are telling women who we should or shouldn't talk to. Come back when you have persuaded the left-wing media to let women speak!

Far right organisations think males shouldn’t be in women’s sport because it’s unfair

I'd argue that far right orgs think males shouldn't be in women's sports because it's a way to own the libs...they really don't give a shit about women in sports. There are, of course, many conservatives who do care about the unfairness, but to think far right orgs actually care about women is a stretch.

Far right organisations think males shouldn’t be in women’s sport because it’s unfair

I'd argue that far right orgs think males shouldn't be in women's sports because it's a way to own the libs...they really don't give a shit about women in sports. There are, of course, many conservatives who do care about the unfairness, but to think far right orgs actually care about women is a stretch.

The polarization and tribalism already exists...feminists going on rightwing platforms only encourages more division, not less...it doesn't foster openness. It would only foster openness if the left MSM was equally hosting feminists on this topic, but they aren't. So, by feminists only being on rightwing media, we are being associated w/ the tribe of conservatives. It doesn't matter if we aren't rightwing, it's the perception that matters.

Delphinium 20 but you seem to be arguing for polarisation and tribalism by saying that gender critical women should stay off right wing media.

I was alluding to organisations generally but it doesn’t matter. Far right organisations think males shouldn’t be in women’s sport because it’s unfair. Centre right organisations think males shouldn’t be in women’s sport because it’s unfair. Anyone with any sense, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum thinks males shouldn’t be in women’s sport because it’s unfair. If Posie had appeared on a left wing tv show in the US, and they had agreed with her, say Anderson Cooper, would that have been considered to be motivated by stoking hate? All organisations that think this unfair see a story in it because people watching at home go “that is crazy, letting that guy swim”. Is the most likely explanation that these organisations see crazy unfairness as a way to attract viewers, or because there’s some evil agenda designed to “stoke hate”?

I just criticized the strategy of feminists going on far-right media, without any solutions. Here you go:

While the mainstream left-wing media won't platform us, that's not a reason for a kneejerk reactionary stance. We shouldn't throw up our hands and say, "well, it looks like my only way to make change is to talk to the devil!" I reject this argument.

Instead of tainting ourselves w/ our abusers, women speaking up against the insanity of gender ideology needs to continue to be grassroots. Talk to your friends who might be peakable, go on Ovarit, keep posting on Mumsnet, add GC comments on MSM articles, write letters to government officials, write letters to small-town newspapers, your local papers/newsletters etc., etc. It's not a race, it's still a marathon. Don't blow it by getting headpats from men who don't care if we win, but just want to use us as pawns in their patriarchal games of chess.

Once upon a time there was a consensus. Left wing or right wing, people knew that water was wet, and what a man was and what a woman was. They might not agree on much else, but some things were universally accepted.

Now for some people being a woman is supposed to based on identity rather than biology. With all the safeguarding and other issues this brings to adult human females.

This is not a left wing/right wing issue. Dislike Carlson, Fox News, GBNews and the Daily Mail, but the message needs to get out there and if other media won't carry it, you go to the media who will.

More generally I wonder about causation. I believe Fox and Trump are not the cause, but the effect. People feel disenfranchised: Americans from the rust belt, rural French, Red Wall Brits. The left wing no longer speaks up for them and their concerns. Fox and Trump tackle issues of general concern including something as basic as "what is a woman". They may well be false prophets. Trump may claim to speak for the poor and unrepresented but his fiscal policies benefitted the rich. Whose fault? Trump the opportunist, or left wing politicians and media who forgot their core constituency.

The big hope is that the Guardian notices its declining readership, the Labour Party notices the loss of core voters and so on, and thinks about why. The reason those readers and voters became homeless is not down to the DM or Tories, but down to the parties and media that abandoned them.