Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

483 replies

IwantToRetire · 01/01/2023 19:10

So not satisfied with appropriating the work, ideas and campaigning of one woman and many active supporters, some complete set of nobody film makers have taken it upon themselves to school us silly air heads on how to behave and who to talk to.

Leaving aside the smug condescension of believing the have the right to tell us how to behave, this is a perfect example of where complete nobodies who exploit other people to further their own media career, then assume they are as politically relevant and analytically acute as actual activists.

kaygreen.blog/2022/12/31/model-response-to-a-dilemma-for-women-in-the-left-right-storm/

This is the problem with the media at the moment, presenters and film makers who are just the vehicle to get voices and ideas heard, then think they are entitled to become the spokes person.

Apart from anything else, did these nupties even think maybe we should ask those who the film was actually about. I know they would, having been hand selected as the appropriately politically aligned voices, also refused, but even within the unethical world of these self promoters, do they really think they take precedence.

But it does gives us a clear idea of their moral compass and how they felt able to bandwagon of others work and go to extreme lengths to make sure they are never referred to or acknowledged.

OP posts:
Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:45

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:43

Interesting that you use the phrase "pro-life". We tend to say "anti choice" over here.

Paul Rand doesn’t and he’s over there too.

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:45

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:28

Lol 🤣🤣🤣🤣
You post all this stuff below about Paul Rand and now you have been shown to do exactly what you were accusing me of, you’re going to try and just sweep it under the carpet….with a meh it’s not even relevant….You said he’s not trying to ban abortions which is now proven false and you repeatedly accused me of being polarised, absolutist, exaggerating his views, intent on discrediting, peddling half truths.

But instead of saying ooops I was wrong about Paul Rand and wrong to levy all those accusations at me, you decide to pivot and say it’s all irrelevant anyway…everything you posted.

You’re priceless. Absolutely priceless. And you wonder why people get heated with you?

Helleofabore · Yesterday 19:21
”While much has been made of her ‘campaigning’ with Rand Paul, let us be very clear what that involves.…” “And very clear about what he has said. Yes. He is upfront about being pro-life with exceptions. I am not excusing him. But he has also been upfront about not ‘banning’ all abortions.

“The senator, who co-sponsors a bill that would largely ban abortions at or after 20 weeks of pregnancy, indicated he thinks it's best, at least for now, to let state governments decide if (and how) to restrict abortion.”

Currently law in the UK is abortion is legal til around 24 weeks.

He has also expressed he supports abortion when either child or mother are at risk.”…
”I think it is very important to be very clear about who believes what and supports who.

Sometimes posters seem intent on discrediting women for being single issue. And for not being ‘left wing’.

This seems to be another example of that. Feel free to post links to the contrary.”

Helleofabore · Yesterday 20:06
“And I think it is also quite clear that some posters have exaggerated Rand Paul's position on abortion as well, or it is simply a continued reflection on their very own absolutist positions.”

Helleofabore · Today 08:16
How dare you even try and portray him as some sort of moderate pro-choice politician. This is what Paul Rand published as a campaign promise (me)

”Abortion is a very complex issue. And you seem to have an absolutist view on the topic. I am aware of what he has posted.
I am also well aware he declared he wasn’t advocating to ‘ban’ abortion in his state in quite the manner your posts suggests.”…
”Do you consider the current English abortion laws pro-life? They are within 4 weeks of the laws that Paul was supporting. He was against state funding, I don’t agree with him. But you seem to be keen to use the word ‘ban’ to imply he is ‘banning’ abortion fully.”

Helleofabore · Today 11:33
”You can keep cycling around and around here. You have made the discussion about a man. You have peddled half truths in your pursuit of polarisation.”

Helleofabore · Today 11:34
“www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61

eu.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/28/rand-paul-vs-charles-booker-how-race-could-affect-abortion-in-the-us/10014264002/

Don't let facts and evidence stand in the way of whatever you think you are achieving here!”

I am not quite sure what you think these posts say.

All this shows is that you have a habit of using absolutist terms such as 'ban' when the reality is more complex that an 'all out ban' which is what your terminology has been referring to.

Do you believe that the English government 'bans' abortions?

Is that the language you wish to use about the legal status of abortion in England?

It is quite clear I keep referring to your polarised use of language.

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

yes. Because I have maintained all along that my focus was Riley Gaines.

You have locked yourself into this need to prove me wrong about this man, who is only of minor relevance due to YOU accusing Riley Gaines of being against abortion - because of guilt by association with this man.

I have never actually been that interested in this man, except for the connection to Riley Gaines. You were the one that brought him into the discussion.

You are right in one respect. I probably did not repeat that line on every single post that I have posted that the only relevance was his connection to Riley Gaines. I thought my point had been repeated enough times that I didn't have to repeat in on every post.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:44

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:40

@Onnabugeisha I'm staggered if anything I said in the way of explaining a complex American situation to largely British posters who may not be familiar with it leads you to think I'm defending Paul (who, I remind you, is not the centre of our discussion). Polish up your reading skills.

Then why are you heckling and laughing at me? Enjoying this are you? Having fun yet?

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:43

Interesting that you use the phrase "pro-life". We tend to say "anti choice" over here.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:40

@Onnabugeisha I'm staggered if anything I said in the way of explaining a complex American situation to largely British posters who may not be familiar with it leads you to think I'm defending Paul (who, I remind you, is not the centre of our discussion). Polish up your reading skills.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:38

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:36

@Onnabugeisha - well thank you for the laugh "I have no agenda" gave me.

What is your agenda? Hmm? Are you pro-life? Why else would you be defending Paul Rand?

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:36

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:32

@Onnabugeisha I'm sure this is very satisfying for you. Such a shame it's irrelevant to the point at issue.

It’s infuriating is what it is. There is no satisfaction from it at all.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:36

@Onnabugeisha - well thank you for the laugh "I have no agenda" gave me.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:35

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:28

In fact, don't even bother.

Because you cannot acknowledge this is coming from your very own need to have Riley Gaines, who is campaigning on a single issue, portrayed as someone to be dismissed because of who she did an ad for and spoke at rallies for.

The end result is you want Riley Gaines to be dismissed as having any credibility for your own agenda. You want no one to listen to Riley and for no one to consider her experiences.

That is the end result of your posts on this issue whether it was intentional on not.

You can continue, but I think readers can make up their minds.

What agenda? I have no agenda. Shame on me for thinking you actually draw conclusions from facts and evidence, when you do nothing of the sort. You dismiss whatever facts and evidence do not suit your prejudices. And you repeatedly attack anyone who insists on posting the actual facts and evidence that shows you to be wrong.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 06/01/2023 15:32

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:31

There’s another on this thread.

Faints.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:32

@Onnabugeisha I'm sure this is very satisfying for you. Such a shame it's irrelevant to the point at issue.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:32

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:31

@Onnabugeisha - but Paul's views are irrelevant. Support for a politician on one issue doesn't ipso facto mean support on all. I've never voted for anything right wing in my life, but I can see that the Tories are right on this one issue. Doesn't mean I support anything else they stand for.

@Helleofabore started this whole thing by claiming repeatedly that I was lying about Rand. When I wasn’t.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:31

MrsOvertonsWindow · 06/01/2023 15:31

"You’re priceless. Absolutely priceless. And you wonder why people get heated with you?"

Methinks there's only one poster that gets overheated with Helleofabore Grin

There’s another on this thread.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:31

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:03

And again.

I was very clear about the fact that he was supporting the government not providing state sponsored abortion.

What is it that you think you are proving here?

What relevance is this to YOU theorising that Riley Gaines is supporting abortion or not?

Where is that evidence of her believes NOT Rand Paul's beliefs.

This is 'guilt by association!'

But you were also very clear in claiming the Rand was not trying to ban abortions and you accused me of exaggeration and peddling hard truth. I have posted all the bills he has sponsored PROVING you were WRONG. You really should fucking check your facts before you witter on for post after post accusing someone of being a liar.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 06/01/2023 15:31

"You’re priceless. Absolutely priceless. And you wonder why people get heated with you?"

Methinks there's only one poster that gets overheated with Helleofabore Grin

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:31

@Onnabugeisha - but Paul's views are irrelevant. Support for a politician on one issue doesn't ipso facto mean support on all. I've never voted for anything right wing in my life, but I can see that the Tories are right on this one issue. Doesn't mean I support anything else they stand for.

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:28

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:03

And again.

I was very clear about the fact that he was supporting the government not providing state sponsored abortion.

What is it that you think you are proving here?

What relevance is this to YOU theorising that Riley Gaines is supporting abortion or not?

Where is that evidence of her believes NOT Rand Paul's beliefs.

This is 'guilt by association!'

In fact, don't even bother.

Because you cannot acknowledge this is coming from your very own need to have Riley Gaines, who is campaigning on a single issue, portrayed as someone to be dismissed because of who she did an ad for and spoke at rallies for.

The end result is you want Riley Gaines to be dismissed as having any credibility for your own agenda. You want no one to listen to Riley and for no one to consider her experiences.

That is the end result of your posts on this issue whether it was intentional on not.

You can continue, but I think readers can make up their minds.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:28

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 14:59

Do you actually think any of this is relevant to the topic of this thread?

And do you actually think that this has not been covered in the posts about him?

Please be very clear.

What context does this add to whether or not Riley Gaines is pro choice or not?

Riley Gaines was the topics of the posts. I was just pointing out that you have taken a very polarised view of the senator that she did some campaigning around female sports categories so as to discredit Riley Gaines as a 'feminist' and to attribute to her views that YOU believe she has. Yet have not yet provided evidence of.

Lol 🤣🤣🤣🤣
You post all this stuff below about Paul Rand and now you have been shown to do exactly what you were accusing me of, you’re going to try and just sweep it under the carpet….with a meh it’s not even relevant….You said he’s not trying to ban abortions which is now proven false and you repeatedly accused me of being polarised, absolutist, exaggerating his views, intent on discrediting, peddling half truths.

But instead of saying ooops I was wrong about Paul Rand and wrong to levy all those accusations at me, you decide to pivot and say it’s all irrelevant anyway…everything you posted.

You’re priceless. Absolutely priceless. And you wonder why people get heated with you?

Helleofabore · Yesterday 19:21
”While much has been made of her ‘campaigning’ with Rand Paul, let us be very clear what that involves.…” “And very clear about what he has said. Yes. He is upfront about being pro-life with exceptions. I am not excusing him. But he has also been upfront about not ‘banning’ all abortions.

“The senator, who co-sponsors a bill that would largely ban abortions at or after 20 weeks of pregnancy, indicated he thinks it's best, at least for now, to let state governments decide if (and how) to restrict abortion.”

Currently law in the UK is abortion is legal til around 24 weeks.

He has also expressed he supports abortion when either child or mother are at risk.”…
”I think it is very important to be very clear about who believes what and supports who.

Sometimes posters seem intent on discrediting women for being single issue. And for not being ‘left wing’.

This seems to be another example of that. Feel free to post links to the contrary.”

Helleofabore · Yesterday 20:06
“And I think it is also quite clear that some posters have exaggerated Rand Paul's position on abortion as well, or it is simply a continued reflection on their very own absolutist positions.”

Helleofabore · Today 08:16
How dare you even try and portray him as some sort of moderate pro-choice politician. This is what Paul Rand published as a campaign promise (me)

”Abortion is a very complex issue. And you seem to have an absolutist view on the topic. I am aware of what he has posted.
I am also well aware he declared he wasn’t advocating to ‘ban’ abortion in his state in quite the manner your posts suggests.”…
”Do you consider the current English abortion laws pro-life? They are within 4 weeks of the laws that Paul was supporting. He was against state funding, I don’t agree with him. But you seem to be keen to use the word ‘ban’ to imply he is ‘banning’ abortion fully.”

Helleofabore · Today 11:33
”You can keep cycling around and around here. You have made the discussion about a man. You have peddled half truths in your pursuit of polarisation.”

Helleofabore · Today 11:34
“www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61

eu.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/28/rand-paul-vs-charles-booker-how-race-could-affect-abortion-in-the-us/10014264002/

Don't let facts and evidence stand in the way of whatever you think you are achieving here!”

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:21

I agree.

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:20

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:18

Abortion will continue to be highly restricted except in those exceptional circumstances in Ky until abortion access is codified. That's state's rights for you. You can't compare it to UK. The mills of legislation grind exceedingly slowly and the court system even slower. But anybody in Ky can cross the border into Illinois, where it is legal, or currently into Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia where an attempted ban has been blocked, or into Virginia where it is legal but threatened. You're out of luck going to Missouri or Tennessee.

I think this is a horrific mess and is incredibly complex.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:20

He's not interested in clarifying.

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:19

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 14:45

It was not an attempt to detach anything as well you know. It was me protesting @BernardBlacksMolluscs Pretending that GC has fuck all to do with the definition of woman being based on biological sex or campaigning for womens spaces:

I posted a video of Whitlock criticising the inability of a Supreme Court nominee Jackson who told Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., that she was unable to define what a woman was because she is "not a biologist."

He stated: “We’re naming Supreme Court justices who aren’t committed to truth, but they are political activists and so a simple question like ‘what’s a woman,' she can’t answer because the goal is to create chaos and disorder by dismantling the truth. If there is no agreed-upon truth as simple as men and women, you can’t have an organized, properly functioning society,"

This was said in response to my post:
BernardBlacksMolluscs · 04/01/2023 19:29
”where does he say stereotypes on the basis of sex are wrong? that's what gender critical means

do you know what

gender
critical

mean?

cos it's starting to look like you don't”

to which I responded
”Im afraid you are mistaken. Yes GC activists claim that gender stereotypes based on sex should be abolished, but that is not what they are campaigning for, is it? They are campaigning for the definition of woman to be based purely on biological sex, ergo transwomen are not women because they are male. And of course everything that goes along with that, as in transwomen cannot access womens single sex spaces or services or toilets/changing rooms or sports, or awards or diversity hires because they are not women.

But in case you think I’m wrong, here’s what Wikipedia says…

“Feminists who describe themselves as "gender-critical" say that biological sex is "real, important, and immutable" and is "not to be conflated with gender identity", and that feminism should organize with emphasis on the basis of sex rather than gender.”
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics#Gender-critical_feminism_and_trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism

So Whitlocks discussion on the definition of woman and criticism of transgenderism as an absurdity is 100% GC.”

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 04/01/2023 19:45 Then said
oh you're so confused and also you're not respecting my lived experience
so now i'm confused. I thought you were kind?

GC feminists don't want women to be defined on the basis of sexist stereotypes. The reason women are oppressed is because of the type of body we have, not because some of us wear lipstick. GC feminists also seek equality of opportunity for women. that's the 'feminist' bit

yer chappy doesn't give a shit about sexist stereotypes. he knows who buys all the christmas presents and earns 10% less than whom, and it's entirely possible that he's completely cool with that and thinks it's the natural order of things. that isn't addressed in the clip or article you posted

so based on that he is neither

gender critical
a feminist (which we knew because he's a bloke)

which is when I stated
Im sorry but the vast majority of GC feminists are not campaigning for “equality of opportunity” they are campaigning for the definition of woman and single sex spaces as I listed above.

Theres nothing wrong in what I said, and a lot wrong with Bernard contending that gender critical doesn’t at all mean activism regarding the definition of a woman being based on biological sex and doesn’t mean defending womens single sex spaces- why else say that I don’t know what gender critical means and it really means sexist stereotypes are wrong and then later on refuse my statement as to the fact GC feminists are fighting for the definition of woman and to defend womens single sex spaces by saying, no they’re fighting for “equality of opportunity”?

If Bernard agreed even a tiny bit with me, why say I am wrong? And I don’t know what GC means? Why not say, oh, and the GC activists who are also feminists are also fighting feminist issues like sex based stereotypes and for equality of opportunity?

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?

Because that is not my interpretation of :

"Im sorry but the vast majority of GC feminists are not campaigning for “equality of opportunity” they are campaigning for the definition of woman and single sex spaces as I listed above."

Which you could easily have clarified previously.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:18

Abortion will continue to be highly restricted except in those exceptional circumstances in Ky until abortion access is codified. That's state's rights for you. You can't compare it to UK. The mills of legislation grind exceedingly slowly and the court system even slower. But anybody in Ky can cross the border into Illinois, where it is legal, or currently into Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia where an attempted ban has been blocked, or into Virginia where it is legal but threatened. You're out of luck going to Missouri or Tennessee.

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:03

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 14:23

“You haven’t even looked up the laws he is supporting/advocating including a constitutional amendment that would give personhood to an unborn child from conception, thereby meaning they have the right to life and banning abortion from conception. Or the law he voted on that would mean American women would have to pay the full costs of abortions as a private procedure, effectively denying access to abortion for most women. Which are listed on his pages that I have linked to. What have you for evidence? Nothing but “I’m well aware of….blah blah blah” with no links and no evidence."

You mean this one?
www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61

No, not that one. 🙄 you definitely haven’t done any research and yet presume to lecture me on absolutism and abortion being nuanced to try and portray a 100% pro-life politician as some sort of moderate.

No I was specifically referring to these bills:

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.99 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Life at Conception Act of 2021
This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Nothing in this bill shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.

And these two bills which by prohibiting federal funds means all female federal employees and all low income women on Medicaid can get no abortions, plus, for all other US women, their private health insurance can’t cover abortions either

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.92 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2021
This bill modifies provisions relating to federal funding for, and health insurance coverage of, abortions. Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions or for health coverage that includes abortions….
The bill also prohibits qualified health plans from including coverage for abortions. Currently, qualified health plans may cover abortion, but the portion of the premium attributable to abortion coverage is not eligible for subsidies.

And then for the few women who can afford to pay for an abortion can’t even deduct the expenses paid 100% out of pocket from their tax returns as is usual with healthcare expenses on a 1040 Income Tax return:

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.124 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Abortion Is Not Health Care Act of 2021
This bill prohibits a tax deduction for medical expenses relating to an abortion, with specified exceptions for rape or incest, or to protect the life or health of the mother.

And again.

I was very clear about the fact that he was supporting the government not providing state sponsored abortion.

What is it that you think you are proving here?

What relevance is this to YOU theorising that Riley Gaines is supporting abortion or not?

Where is that evidence of her believes NOT Rand Paul's beliefs.

This is 'guilt by association!'

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:03

Britinme · 06/01/2023 14:56

Given the outrage after the SCOTUS rolled back Roe v Wade, and the visible backing-off of the states from legislation restricting access after the results of the midterms, especially in Paul's home state, Kentucky, I think we're unlikely to see further restrictions. Poor women at the bottom of the economic pile are going to have problems until access is codified into law, but the majority of states preserve legal access. The system here is so different from the British system that it's hard to wrap your head around the ramifications.

Outrage has done nothing in Kentucky.

Abortion has been illegal in Kentucky since 1 Aug 2022.

On June 24, 2022, the 2019 trigger law took effect after the ruling for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was delivered, which overturned Roe v. Wade. It made all abortions illegal except when medically mandatory to prevent the patient from dying or getting a "life-sustaining organ" permanently impaired. Both clinics in the state temporarily stopped providing abortions.[34][35] On June 30, 2022, Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mitch Perry issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of Kentucky's trigger law pending further hearings to determine if the ban violates the Kentucky Constitution. This order temporarily allows both of Kentucky's elective abortion providers, which are both located in Louisville, to temporarily resume elective abortions.[2]

Abortion in Kentucky is illegal. As of August 1, 2022, the order blocking enforcement of the state's trigger-law ban has been blocked itself.[1]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Kentucky