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

I admire your patience Hell. We can all see it, and it doesn't wash.

I notice there was absolutely nothing further explained about that falsehood about ‘equality of opportunity’. Or as I learned about it from an industrial relations point of view, ‘equal opportunity.’

So, really some posters seem to have little understanding of what many posters on this board are fighting and are willing to only ever consider someone’s published (regardless of expertise) bad faith interpretation of what we are fighting for.

As I said, it doesn’t surprise me.

What does surprise me is that some posters therefore believe they are morally superior and are righteous when their posts may take on a silencing or shaming purpose (Intended or no)?

So no. I think it is a ridiculous claim that feminists fighting to prioritise sex over gender where sex matters are not also fighting to ensure that female people have equal access to opportunities. Even equitable outcomes in some instances. Such as sport.

Equality is the foundation to the majority of our discussions. From female represention, to ensuring female needs have been fully considered in policy and in practice (even to the point of ensuring female’s medical treatments are designed for females!).

How bizarre to post that equality is detached from our movement?
How bizarre to post such a falsehood?

Equality is integral to prioritising sex over gender where sex matters.

I can only assume that if it is not lack of knowledge, that it is an attempt to portray women as being unable to focus on more than one thing at a time, or to reduce the issues to something that a prejudiced person can easily dismiss - such as ‘they only care about toilets’. I think that there is also enough evidence to assume that some activists and non-activists will use this lie to shame women who disagree with them.

Who does that?

(this question is of course, rhetorical, but feel free anyone to answer it)

”actually, you ate insistent on some wierd ass narrative that women are voting for the opposite of what they believe. With zero evidence, there is not one shred of evidence that Riley is pro-choice and her actions show pro-life, and you are quite happy to ignore the evidence that is there and conjure up out of thin air the thought that she is really pro choice.”

Do you understand how democracy works?

Or do you believe that people in democracies only ever vote for the perfect candidate? And if none are available, they don’t bother. What an interesting way to vote if that is your method, but hey, it is a democracy and as long as it isn’t a coerced method I support your choice. I don’t support someone who chooses that method to then complain about the outcome.

Did you bother reading this paragraph you posted with its hyperbole and lack of consistency?

This part in particular.

“With zero evidence, there is not one shred of evidence that Riley is pro-choice and her actions show pro-life, and you are quite happy to ignore the evidence that is there and conjure up out of thin air the thought that she is really pro choice.”

The hypocrisy is clear here. But hey, what’s a little guilt by association and narrow interpretation of voting and campaigning habits in the face of lack of evidence?

And maybe even a bit of projection.

It is the topic of the thread after all.

“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:”

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.

I am not making him into anything. And if I was Delphinium, I would absolutely keep writing to him and all the senators she thinks need letters. And meet as many as she can.

Readers should be able to make up their own minds about the degree of Riley Gaines’ accused ‘sin’. The accusation coming from you on this thread. And no one else.

Crack on with your polarised and absolutist thinking. I find your portrayal of Riley Gaines immensely dishonest. It is not a surprise though.

My point is you have conveniently misrepresented Riley Gaines by taking the opposite approach to me and accusing her using the guilt by association tactic.

Hypocritical because you have not posted one iota of evidence to support your theory of her beliefs. You have theorised it only through her political party alignments- which is known because she had spoken at rallies and done an ad.

That is my point and my only point and it has been from the start. No matter how you choose to twist it. You attribute her as having pro-life opinions without even acknowledging that pro-life means many things.

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.

Didn’t you also declare Kellie Jay Keen was ‘against abortion’ because she said she prioritised campaigning against affirming only treatment over abortion? Weren’t you one of the posters stating that? If not, then I will happily admit I am wrong. I will go back and check.

You implied that Riley Gaines is campaigning her pro-life stance. You have no evidence except your own conclusions through guilt be association for that.

Where is your evidence?

Don’t get upset at me if you haven’t posted any.

Crack on with your guilt by association!

I will continue to not attribute beliefs to a woman where none has been stated. Because how convenient is it to silence women from campaigning for saving their sports?

Guilt by association. A widely used tactic used to silence women’s voices on an issue.

Why do you want to restrict women’s voices?

I just read this about South Dakota and Kristi Noem. She understands the big money found in gender.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1610987138635497472.html

Sometimes posters seem intent on discrediting women for being single issue. actually, you ate insistent on some wierd ass narrative that women are voting for the opposite of what they believe. With zero evidence, there is not one shred of evidence that Riley is pro-choice and her actions show pro-life, and you are quite happy to ignore the evidence that is there and conjure up out of thin air the thought that she is really pro choice.

Of course Paul Rand going to say “let the states decide” because he’s a Kentucky senator he knows he has to stay in his lane. Thats US politics…you stay in your lane. He had zero fucking influence on any other state than his state.

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:
“I am 100% pro-life. As a doctor, I know that life begins at conception. And as an American, I know it is the duty of our government to protect the right to life. I will fight to protect every unborn child.

During my time in Congress, I have introduced and cosponsored several pro-life bills including the Protect Life Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. I also strongly support a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would confirm in law that an unborn child is a person entitled to the right to life.

I strongly oppose any federal funding of abortion and will attempt to stop the flow of tax dollars to groups who perform or advocate for abortion. I have been leading the fight to prohibit all taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider and introduced legislation to do so. I will continue to bring this legislation up for a vote as opportunities on the Senate floor arise.”
randpaul.com/issue/life/

It does not surprise me at all to see transgenderism growing in red states. I see it akin to religious belief, so many evangelical folks are also primed to believe in gendered souls. Being in the wrong body is preferable to homosexuality, entrenched sex stereotypes and roles.

With the Dakotas, there isn't so much evangelical religious beliefs/sexist cultures like in the south (more Lutherans and some Catholics, and loads of Native Americans, many more GNC women, etc ), yet there is a pragmatic "live and let live" culture that believes strongly in freedoms, both which can be twisted to promote TRA agendas if TRAs can push the "we only want to live our authentic lives" bs.

Also, like all schools in the last 20 years, anti-bullying is a strong message and if you can claims trans is the most at risk, you've won over lots of people regardless of politics.

You wrote to him? Well done! I cannot applaud him for anything but his efforts for making women and sports an issue he wants to discuss.

Yes. And now my inbox is filled with his newsletters....ditto with Kasich (a Republican) who I wrote to thank for his principled stance against Trump. Good deeds and all that.

Relevant to the question of whether or not Tucker Carlson’s audience is already “converted” against gender identity or may benefit from hearing feminist perspectives, a fascinating thread today:

mobile.twitter.com/njhochman/status/1610987138635497472

A powerful, well-funded coalition is working to bring the transgender movement to red America.

And it's winning—even in deep-red South Dakota.

This is the story of how one of the most conservative states in the country was conquered by gender ideology.🧵

And I don't know many people who 100% agree with KJK either. Most of posters defending her, defend her right to hold her events and for her to choose her own path. And object to sin pages being published by those who decree themselves to the 'real' feminists.

I also accept that if you are producing that much unscripted content, you are going to say stuff that lands wrong, or is wrong. Having done unscripted video content before without having someone there to help or doing it live without editing, it is hard work to keep it up.

You wrote to him? Well done! I cannot applaud him for anything but his efforts for making women and sports an issue he wants to discuss. I am sure some of his motivations were also from a different aspect that may have intersections with feminists but certainly not 100% the same motivations.

And of course he utilised Riley because she was from Uni of Kentucky and had already had a media presence about her races. And she could well have approached him.

I frankly cannot be arsed in the continued discussion as to who thinks Riley Gaines is a feminist or not. I am not even sure she has said so.

What I have objected to very clearly on this thread is to not agree with unfounded claims that she supports a ban for abortion.

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.

I call for honesty in giving reasons why people support others or not. I also won't judge posters for saying they support Riley or not. Just be honest and don't spread misinformation or draw negative conclusions based on an assumption about what a person believes without evidence.

Funny enough, as much as KJK rails against recent feminists and won't call herself one, all the evidence points to KJK being very much a feminist. I guess you could say she fits my definition of a feminist based on her activities and policies that promote women's liberation and protections. She actively campaigns to protect women from the patriarchy in ways more than just GC (eg her work on DV).

And I don't agree with her on everything (dear goddess, I cringed on her ignorant comments about Jan. 6) and I don't have the same interpretation of academic feminism as she does (maybe we read different writers as i was influenced by Dworkin, Rich and Steinem) but I do agree with her on what constitutes women's issues.

Naming women as feminists or not is okay IMO.

Again, I agree with and applaud Riley's work on women and sports. When Ron Paul asked in Congress, "where are the feminists?" I wrote him and my own senators, "here we are! Invite us to testify!" But funny, no one did. I think Rand Paul worked with Riley in part because she was not a leftist and in part because she wasn't one of those pesky women who wants abortion rights. Maybe Paul would welcome feminists into his work on women's sports, but I don't know.

Riley campaigning for women in sports may indeed be a feminist act but I don't know if that makes her a feminist anymore than it makes Paul one.

Voting for Trump does not mean you are automatically anti-abortion, but it's more likely. I'd say we don't have any information that Riley is a feminist. Unlike Kara Dansky, we have loads pointing our her feminist activism, not to mention she calls herself one.

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, let us be very clear what that involves. If anyone has something to prove her opinion on abortion please post it.

From what I can see, she did an ad about female sports with him. And people can extrapolate that out to whatever they want, but be very upfront about what it is that she has done.

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.

So to recap - Riley has campaigned for female only sports categories. Paul has supported this campaign.

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.

I think there are some basic litmus tests for who is a feminist. If you are actively anti-abortion for all women, not just yourself, I can't see how that is feminism. If you actively fight to keep FGM in your culture, I can't see how you can be a feminist. If you think all women would be better off married and not having the vote (in the US, there are evangelical women who not only believe this but push it in their communities), then I don't think you can be a feminist.

If you are actively trying to cause harm to women or actively trying to curtail women's freedoms, you can not call yourself a feminist and we should not fear pointing that out. If you can't define feminism and use this definition to show when policy choices are anti-feminism, how useful is it as a term?

I think she's saying you said something similar to Helle, too, but she forgot to give praise where it was due then.

I'm . Are you accusing me of "hypocrisy" @TheWitchesAreBackInTown?

Seriously, detaching women’s equal opportunity from the fight that is clear in so many fucking posts on so many fucking threads seems to be incredibly dishonest.

But I am very happy to have someone explain it clearly and tell me what I have missed.

Because admittedly, I come from it from a legislative perspective, from an industrial relations perspective and how that translates in workplaces etc, and not a political perspective. So, they could well be very different despite my searches about it last night.

I am still hoping to get an answer about how feminists who believe that sex should be prioritised above gender are not also focused on equality of opportunity.

That seems like a bizarre accusation right there.

However, I think it reflects that absolutist perspective as well. Quite clearly, some people believe that woman on this board either cannot focus on more than one thing at a time, or seem to forget the endless threads about the very prevalent negative sexist discrimination that underlines a male participating in female sports, or males receiving opportunities that are meant to encourage female people to overcome historic negative sexist discrimination or how many threads are angry about the female half of the population who have lost representation because a male has been appointed/recognised instead.

Do some of these posters honestly believe that we discuss toilets all fucking day?

I’d like to know why feminists who are prioritising sex when sex matter have been accused of not also maintaining a focus on “equality of opportunity”. I am obviously very stupid and have missed a definition of this terminology. Or it has changed still I last looked.

( although apparently we on this board are expected to write posts to academic peer reviewed standard with journalistic integrity- whatever the fuck that actually means these days!)

So please, can someone explain what I have missed here. What feminists working to protect women’s rights are not also working, even unintentionally, on females achieving equality of opportunity with males.

Great post, Hellofabore.

I have looked back on last night’s posts and I think I can safely say that some posters on MN FWR seem to be very heavily invested in trying to force women who disagree with them to fit into prejudiced definitions that seem shaped that poster’s perspective rather than what is the truth .

In light of the above statement, the following seems pertinent:

As this thread shows, there are plenty here with an inbuilt filter that rejects anything connected to the left.🤷‍♀️ Not only can they not see the nuance, they have a purity spiral so tight, left wing GC feminists are excluded.

I think Toobig said this yesterday. I meant to respond to it but got sidetracked and forgot.

I'm struggling to respond and I don't even know where to start because I am completely gobsmacked by the sheer hypocrisy but luckily Hell's quote does cover it somewhat.

What I want to know, is where is the 'this is what a feminist must think' checklist?

Surely allowing women their freedom of thought is just as feminist as forcing women to think what the self-appointed feminist truth tellers tell them to think?

People saying 'she can't be a feminist as she did this' - well isn't she allowed to think and do what she thinks is in her best interests as a woman? She might be wrong [in my eyes] but having her own thoughts is as feminist as anyone else who self declares they are a feminist?

It isn't a club you can get kicked out of. It is a nebulous concept that each individual decides on their own terms.

In fact, does 'feminism' even exist? Or as soon as a decision is made by a feminist does the concept automatically fail as at least one woman might be affected by it and therefore they are then not a feminist by anyone's definition.

We need to constantly think about these things before we go shouting about 'her, she's no feminist' because as soon as a woman gets to a high office, she is in a position where she needs to make decisions that will affect other women, so if might follow that the most feminist thing women can do, is not go for any high office in the first place. Which is not what most feminists want.

It's a conundrum that's for sure.

I have looked back on last night’s posts and I think I can safely say that some posters on MN FWR seem to be very heavily invested in trying to force women who disagree with them to fit into prejudiced definitions that seem shaped that poster’s perspective rather than what is the truth.

I know that I am not alone in finding this a too frequent occurrence because it seems to be stuck on repeat. Different posters, same outcome. Some posters, even those who have been hear a long time, think they have know what the majority of posters on this board believe, yet when the finer points start being discussed, the knowledge seems to be based purely on prejudice and misinterpretation. Not on perspective gained from openly asking questions and going further in depth.

No wonder we are constantly seeing posts from a wide range of posters aimed at shaming women for their stances.

I think that too often those posters attempting to shame others are doing so partly, maybe even a large part, out of their own lack of understanding and narrowness of views. Despite evidence that some of those posters believe the contrary about themselves.

It becomes very apparent then, why the manipulative tactics used by activists across social media and oft repeated here, really do come down to pure emotional manipulation. Because I don’t think those tactics come from having any depth in understanding this board and the people who post here.

This comes across as polarised thinking. By an absolute belief that if a group are not falling into alignment with you and your beliefs, they must all be the opposite. Good vs bad. It comes across in language used too, and usually involves over exaggeration and hyperbole.

Those absolute beliefs in turn seem to come from a view that seems to have been formed with only ever a prejudiced viewpoint shaping bad faith interpretations, determined misrepresentations and the assumptions derived from
these.

Yet if those assumptions are questioned then the distractive tactics start. Telling a group of people what they, the group, believe and being told that that description is wrong should immediately raise questions in people who are open to new information and motivated by truth.

I rarely see this in twitter dialogues but we do thankfully see it on MN threads. Where someone gets it wrong, has the self awareness to accept that they have it wrong even just partly wrong, and then through explanations and discussion form a differed opinion. It might be just a small adjustment or more significant.

And the cycle goes on.

Matt Walsh’s film was behind a paywall until a work around was released wasn’t it?

I've just finished watching that link. The 40 seconds intro to her upcoming film is grest.
I'd like to know who the feminist was too that said that Paris Lees could be a lesbian. I know KjK is critical of Woman's Place for having Debbie Hayton in the early days. Would they still do that now I wonder?

The AHF film currently has 79k views on u tube and I know you can view on other platforms too.
How does that compare to Matt Walsh's film (I've not seen it yet).

Really looking forward to KJKs film coming out.

Anyone else watched this yet? KJK weighing in on these issues and criticising academic feminists for not raising the alarm.

And who is the feminist who told Paris Lees that men could be lesbians? Not Julie Bindel, surely???

https://www.youtube.com/live/8M04Pe7A3HY?feature=share