Kellie-Jay Keen (AKA Posie Parker) appreciation thread

probably not that many, so banning them won’t do any harm.

Not that it's even a ban - they can still play on the male teams, just like any other male can. They just don't get a special privilege.

The effect on them is tiny.

(They may not even be at a competitive disadvantage from being in the male classification - whose to say the male players will necessarily be any bigger and stronger anyway. There are some hefty women rugby players out there. 😉)

have you thought about being kind

Yes! I believe in being kind to vulnerable women prisoners, do you?

Why?

What does that matter?

Do you think you are kind?

how many transgender people play women's rugby??

probably not that many, so banning them won’t do any harm.

have you thought about being kind

More than 1.

This is true too.

The hypocrisy writ large in ‘it is a tiny number so why the concern about women being raped’ to ‘it is a tiny number so just give them what they want’.

Validation of males over safety of females = misogyny.

how many transgender people play women's rugby??

Whose to say the trans person will necessarily be any bigger and stronger anyway.

I want to play Rugby Top Trumps with ELO - I'll take an all-male deck, and ELO can have an all-female one.

Equal stakes on that, ELO?

Ooooo

who shoukd have been arrested at the KJK rally when the lady quoted mein kampf and why???

please and thank you

(no one ever answers any questions….i always answer even if ive no idea of the answer)

And if you followed the science at all, you would know that even an average size male will have aspects to their physicality that will outperform ‘hefty’ female players.

For instance, average males have faster twitch muscles and can run faster, jump higher than the average female. And are taller for speed and leverage.

That combination means tackles and collisions are likely to be harder than the expected power from a female opponent. Then you have to account for the more delicate brain nerve fibres in women, regardless of their ‘heft’. This means a double whammy. Not only a more powerful tackle or collision but greater susceptibility to injury.

That doesn’t then include any discussion about the general injury risk with menstruation that has been known but now is being studied.

And why do you try to portray these male people as being ‘tiny’ compared to a hefty’ female player?

As usual your posts are not only dishonest, misogynistic, but also rather uninformed.

How many women have been concussed by transgender players?

dont be silly - it’s obviously a tiny problem, if, indeed it even exists at all.

Given the above:

How many men's feelings have been hurt by being excluded from women's sports?

Who cares? It's a tiny number so not an issue worth worrying about.

for the record:

protecting one woman from rape is more important than validating the genderfeelings of all the transwomen in the entire fucking world.

Anyone who doesn’t agree with the above is an amoral piece of shit who can get in the sea.

tiny issues, my ass.

Transwomen are a vulnerable minority

Right, but logically that falls flat on its face. No matter what "X" is, and how much "X is a vulnerable minority", the problem is the policy proposal:

"Any man who says he's X should be exempt from any rules that normally apply to men."

That's the problem here. It doesn't matter if X is "transgender", "called Keith" or "from Mars", and the characteristics of that group or if it even exists doesn't matter.

The problem is the way you've changed the rules for men.

Worrying about a cis woman rugby player getting concussed by a trans player is a waste of time. Whose to say the trans person will necessarily be any bigger and stronger anyway. There are some hefty women rugby players out there.

Didn’t I see ELO use the ‘it is only a tiny number’ the other day followed by ‘so women should just give trans people what they want?

Pretty much. ELO kept telling us that Transwomen are a vulnerable minority therefore, we should do everything to accommodate them no matter how detrimental to women but any women (many of them vulnerable) being harmed doesn't matter as it's a minority.

Janice Turner in the Times this morning:

Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
Women have had years of this now. “Keep Mumsnet out of politics,” said a placard at a demonstration where Russell-Moyle shared a platform with the trans woman Sarah Jane Baker, who served 30 years in prison for kidnap and attempted murder. Boring old mums, pesky women seeing through the GRR’s outrageous misogyny and sophistry to say: this is our business.

Didn’t I see ELO use the ‘it is only a tiny number’ the other day followed by ‘so women should just give trans people what they want?’

I could be wrong. I might go and check it that did stick out in my mind.

Yes!

How many does it need to be to be a worthy issue?

n+1?

Just one woman or girl who has been concussed by a male playing rugby in a female team is too many. The science is clear that the female body is much more likely to sustain life shortening damage with concussion events such as that.

It really cannot get any clearer can it?

The misogyny. The dismissal of harm in the drive for getting males into female single sex spaces.

The very opposite of inclusion.

We keep saying "men", ELO keeps saying "transgender".

Why is that?

You are now crossing into ‘using absurd comparisons

That comparison is deliberately dismissive of women and what we experience. Only a misogynist would think it was appropriate to talk about women's fear of male violence that way. On the feminist board of a majority female website.

Yep. He even said that men's feelings are more important than women's safety on a previous thread. Talking about 'tiny" amounts is bullshit. The amount is irrelevant to him no matter how large or how many times.

Oh my! It gets worse!

It never happens…
oh… it happened, well just the once!
oh… it happened again.. nothing to see it is just a few!
It happened again, oh they deserved it anyway.

I cannot believe that someone actually wrote

”But violence perpetuated by transgender people is a feature of virtually no one’s lives”

in an attempt to direct the conversation, to direct people’s activities and to minimise any violent act perpetrated by a male against women.

So, just to remind readers where this particular attempt to minimise started.

Sinnerboy: ^If you think that women objecting to being incarcerated with rapists, claiming to be women, or crippled by a bloke called Sharon in a rugby game, your moral compass is spinning like a propeller.*

ELO: But these are all tiny issues.

This is why all these men hate Kellie-Jay so much, she doesn't dance around the issue, and she empowers other women to say it straight that we don't acknowledge the special status of "trans" as relevant in terms of our experience of male entitlement, male selfishness and male violence.