Model response to a dilemma for women in the left-right storm (really?)

That document was released Dec 2021

just for any of those interested in seeing a messaging guide with some tips on how to convince people and it discusses the basics on needing political strategies .

static1.squarespace.com/static/5fd0f29d0d626c5fb471be74/t/61b13d00236e2f7f2dbb9a36/1639005441624/Transgender+Youth+and+the+Freedom+to+Be+Ourselves.pdf

Thanks brit.

The senate is set up in a similar fashion to my own home country’s. I expect that I am rather more familiar with how it works than at first glance. I just needed confirmation.

The degree of influence a senator has over state laws of the state they represent is only ‘influence’ if a) the senator exactly falls in line with the faction of the party in power in that state and b) of course, if the senator is the same party as in power at the time.

For all the posts yesterday, the inconsistency of the claims are still clear. The claim lacks consistency because of the three co-sponsored bills.

Just to back you up @Helleofabore , Rand Paul would have had absolutely no direct connection with any state law in Kentucky. He is their Senator in the US Congress but only the state senators and representatives would be able to draft legislation in the state not governed by federal legislation and only the governor would be able to sign it. Paul would have had influence of course - he is a Republican Senator in a red state so it has to be assumed that his views are in line with the state chambers even though the majority of actual voters apparently disagree with the idea of an abortion ban. In case that seems odd, think about the way voting districts are organised and who organises them.

To be clear: most of the references to posts with dates and time are from the quoted post.

I am on a very small screen otherwise I would have used another method of referencing.

I have reread this.

I still really have no idea what you thought you were highlighting here.

I note that you chose to not copy and paste the bits that show my focus was on Riley Gaines who you still have not shown has any intention of campaigning to ban abortion.

I think all you have done is show that I have remained consistent in my posting.

It must really infuriate you. But I am quite sure, since you clearly have a superior intellect, that you will point out exactly where I have deviated in my discussion about Riley Gaines as you have accused me of.

I mentioned Riley first on page 11 at 18.25 where I posted a list of feminists (9 episodes initially) appearing on Tucker Carlson in the past two years discussing this issue. In response to the claims there has been enough feminists on Tucker Carlson’s show so why would the feminist who made a film with feminists voices go on the show.

And yes, I included someone that perhaps is not a feminist and agreed to drop the list to 8. Then the discussion about Riley Gaines started in earnest. I even offered pages later to just exclude Riley and say there were just 7 episodes - 3 with Kara Dansky. But your ‘guilt by association’ accusations against Riley just continued with no evidence but your theory based on guilt by association.

You seemed to have missed copying and pasting all my posts discussing how you used that guilt by association on the preceding pages ( page 11 to 15) before you started to copy and paste. Because they are relevant to the context and paint a whole different story to your claim.

However, Specifically your claim of:

”you’re going to try and just sweep it under the carpet….with a meh it’s not even relevant”

seems rather dishonest.

Even on some of the posts you snipped from: (for convenience, page 15 is where your snips start)

“Helleofabore · 05/01/2023 19:21
I have today looked at Riley Gaines. I have found no information as to her opinion towards abortion

While much has been made of her ‘campaigning’ with Rand Paul,… (shortened for relevance)

So… clearly a post about Riley’s belief and you’re leveraging your interpretation of a man she did some campaigning with on women’s sport.

The post on the 5th Jan at20.06 was my reply to delphinium about …. Riley Gaines.

The post on the 6th Jan at 08.16 again discussed Riley Gaines.

The post on the 6th Jan at 11.33 included the link to the article about his co-sponsoring of a law to legalize abortion up to 20 weeks. Because you had twice stated that my reference (that being the January 2022 bill) referred to something a decade old

Here at 6th January 09.48
”You posted a sentence he said over a decade ago in which he merely states the States should decide on abortion when he was pushing for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. I have posted what is currently in his webpages. He is seeking to ban abortion in his State.”

and

Then again at 10.10

“Unless the evidence is their actions, because that don’t mean shit to Helleofabore . She only goes by what people say. And she prefers to cut and paste comments said a decade ago out of context as her evidence instead of what they’re saying today, right now on their own professional webpages.”

That was the only reason I posted the link in the first place (interestingly you posted the same bill in your later post- not sure you realised that).

Your snipped bit about that 11.33 post is quite enlightening when readers now read your contributions on this thread.

In any case the 11.33 post also was focused on Riley Gaines and your accusations against her.

And the final supposed gotcha was the one at 11.34. Which was again directly relating to your post at 6th January 10.10 posted in its entirety above.

It was the only post you selected that did not include a bringing back of the topic to Riley Gaines. Because it came directly after the 11.33 post. I didn’t think I needed to again mention Riley Gaines.

And I feel confident about my statements of your posts showing you hold views based on thinking that is “polarised, absolutist, exaggerating his views, intent on discrediting, peddling half truths.” in light of the factual errors in some of your statements.

( yes, I misread your intention in posting the bill about prohibiting congress making laws about abortion for the state - apologies, I am on a small screen)

Particulary the factual errors you repeated in the quote I posted being about statements ‘from a decade’ ago and that Paul was responsible for Kentucky “banning abortion” and even that he was responsible for ‘banning’ abortion in the fullest sense of the word, while CO-SPONSORING three bills legalising abortion to 20 weeks Ie; not just remove funding, provide adequate counselling to women and girls before the decision is final, and his expectation that parents of minors should know, and that the states should make decisions themselves.

I don’t agree that his actions has shown he has ‘banned’ abortion in the absolutist way you have described, using highly emotionally manipulative tactics. And you agreed that England has not ‘banned’ abortion with its limited access.

Your posts around this man lack consistency. But from what I can gather, despite all your posts into the deep dive to prove otherwise, nothing I said in the post of 05/01/2023 19:21 , which you have posted most of in the quoted text, above was incorrect.

It is your own conclusions, and determination to ignore the three co-sponsored bills that seems to be the issue. You have remained entrenched in what you believe every person who is ‘pro-life’ in turn believes.

And so.

Would you like to explain your post about how I supposedly pivoted that brought you to declare this :

”you’re going to try and just sweep it under the carpet….with a meh it’s not even relevant”

and this;

”you decide to pivot and say it’s all irrelevant anyway…everything you posted.”

Because I find your post quite dishonest and bewilderingly. It is no surprise though. I am not seeing me sweeping anything under any carpet and have consistently maintained that my focus was Riley Gaines.

I really do not think your posts shows what you meant it to show.

Oh. And please explain without the personal attacks.

(By the way, I post all this partly in an attempt to fulfill you challenge the other day where you said of my method of posting ‘It is academically dishonest and wouldn’t pass journalistic ethics much less any peer review.’)

** I have used hard dates for clarity for future readers.

yep, I don't love 'gender critical' and don't use it to describe myself

but the clue really is in the name (assuming you accept that gender = sexist stereotypes)

do we think Tucker Carlson is critical of sexist stereotypes? erm nope. I don't think he gives two shits about such things

And I hate that term 'gender critical'. I don't actually know many people who use that term to refer to what they believe. I am sure there are plenty, but not really anyone I speak to regularly.

Yeah. I don't think he is 'gender critical'. I think he believes that biological sex cannot change. For some different motivation.

chicken, you think Tucker Carlson is gender critical

I think the 'making stupid assumptions' boat has sailed for you

Oh dear. I have been having to only pay half attention to this and I have realised that I posted something very unclear.

There seems to be something of a disconnect with a senator co-sponsoring THREE (not one, but THREE) bills supporting abortion to 20 weeks and the narrative that this senator wants to ban all abortion.

Something is not quite adding up here.

Just in case I missed the answer to this in the past couple of pages.

Could you please confirm:

Do you or do you not agree that feminists who are prioritising sex over gender are integrally also fighting for equality and equity for females?

To be clear. That you cannot fight for prioritising sex over gender without also fighting for equality and equity for females?

To bring it back on-topic, I liked what Jennifer Gingrich had to say on Twitter about the Tucker/no Tucker dispute. Screenshot attached.

here here!

I don't believe one poster on this thread has said this man was supporting women's rights outside the sport issue.

And again, he is irrelevant except for Riley Gaines doing an ad with him and speaking at rallies about women's sports.

And yet he co-sponsored a bill in January 2022 that was about legalised abortion?

Do you see there is something of a disconnect here?

Either way, you can continue on. I am going to say that if you don't call the English abortion laws pro-life, then there seems to be something of a disconnect in this bill

S.61 - Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - co sponsored (and on your list on p. 17)

"This bill establishes a new criminal offense for performing or attempting to perform an abortion if the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 20 weeks or more."

www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61/cosponsors

which is consistent with

S.2311 — 115th Congress (2017-2018) - co sponsor
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - fetus is 20 weeks or more.

S.3275 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) - co sponsor
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - fetus is 20 weeks or more.

S.1325 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) - co sponsor
Woman’s Right To Know Act
To ensure that women seeking an abortion are informed of the medical risks associated with the abortion procedure and the major developmental characteristics of the unborn child, before giving their informed consent to receive an abortion.

and the declaration that he sought to fully ban abortion.

He has sought to defund it from government coffers which I have stated I disagree with. He has sought to ensure that pregnant minors have their parent's consent .... this is not so clear cut. He has sought to state that life begins at conception, which by the way is similar to the restrictions preventing experimentation on embryos.

He has sought to establish that while consistently supporting abortion up to 20 weeks.

I have bolded this just for readers. I am sure that they can see that there is inconsistency is the portrayal of him fully 'banning' abortion as you wish to continue to do and the facts.

Either way. I am done discussing Rand Paul.

As I said, my focus was on Riley Gaines.

Yes, they are not the same. I have family still in several States, including cousins in rural Kentucky who run a campsite.

The atmosphere around women's sex-based rights isn't quite the same here as it is in the UK as far as I can tell. Possibly this is because of the self-ID laws in Scotland and the court cases with Forstater and Bailey. If I wasn't British and following UK discussion threads about this, I wouldn't have known about any of that.

The absence of this has me questioning why Riley voted for him as he made ZERO promises to voters in regards to womens sex based rights. I cannot assume she voted for him over an issue that he didn’t even bother to publish on his webpage to his voters. That’s why the argument, oh she’s voting for the best candidate because she agrees on one issue, but not another doesn’t wash for me. Womens sex based rights isn’t even an issue according to his websites.

You know what issue is not published on any of his pages? There is a noted absence of anything to do with womens sex based rights. He may have publicly given a head nod to keeping TW from competing against women in womens sports, but nowhere in his campaign is there anything remotely related to it listed as an issue in his running platform (aka manifesto).
randpaul.com/issues/

Yes, he has been clear he wanted the states to make decisions and publicised that over the years because he knew a trigger law banning abortion in his State of Kentucky was ready to go since 2019. And since then he has run interference protecting the State law by voting NO on any Congressional attempt to codify abortion rights for women (including the law we just discussed)

Paul is a Christian and an active member of his church. Over here that means a lot more in terms of political stances than it tends to in the UK. Anti-abortion stances are more closely aligned with conservative Christianity than they tend to be in the UK.

He says he is a Libertarian but that’s more about his view on gun laws and less about his view on controlling womens bodies.

But frankly we should drop discussion of Rand Paul because he really is irrelevant to this. Tarring somebody by association because of agreement on a specific issue is really the topic at hand.

Basically although Rand Paul (like his father Ron Paul) is elected as a Republican, he is essentially a Libertarian, which is not altogether the same thing.

Have you got any evidence that he was instrumental in his state fully banning abortion when that seems to be rather disconnected from his most recent bill at a Congress level?

It’s how the Political parties work. It’s common knowledge. If a politician at the state legislature wants a shot at Congress, they have to be sponsored and selected by their party. this means introductions, mentor-protege relationships, and access to big donors for election campaigns. You want to talk purity politics? Well the Republican Party is a master at it.

Youre referring to the making it a criminal offence to do an abortion after 20 weeks bill….that’s not his bill. That’s a bill he voted on. And of course any bill that chips away at abortion rights a criminalising abortions is a big YES from him.