In Spain there was a banner supporting the “sex work is work” line proudly held by men of various identities.

KJK Radio interview today
m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tp0Gci9Q7w

Thanks and isn't she!

Latest video
m.youtube.com/watch?v=xKKd2cVpK8g

Were the actual film makers with KJK or with the event?

I suspect if they used footage at those events people would then complain 'waa waa KJK wasn't even there so why was that in the film'?

Wishing KJK and Aussie sisters safety, strength, and a big audience for the upcoming events!

She's arrived in Oz
m.youtube.com/watch?v=tH-IDu13brs

Sky News interview
m.youtube.com/watch?v=8bUN6AHrnxM&t=7s

I think things could get very nasty. First event Saturday 12 noon their time (1am here)
m.youtube.com/watch?v=iOaGkAMMcWI&t=19s

Yeah, I suspect it might be something to do with permissions.

I think it might be timing too. That KJK was determined to get it out before she left for Australia and wasn’t willing to wait for another iteration.

Yeah, I suspect it might be something to do with permissions.

96000 4000 more signatures needed

Personally, I’m not offended if someone refers to my kids ‘real’ parents rather than biological, I have bigger stuff to worry about, but I can’t speak for everyone. I’m more offended about the fact that adopted children are dragged into these arguments as the comparator every single time.

About the film:

I don't really understand the omission of the very dramatic footage from NYC (and also much of Chicago).

Those were some of the best examples of US women being assaulted, threatened, and shouted down by absolutely unhinged misogynists as they (the women) assembled and spoke peacefully. Would also have liked to hear a little more behind-the-scenes insight from the US women organizers and speakers.

I didn't hate it or anything, and still think KJK is playing an important role in the global fight. The film just ended up seeming a bit under-realized.

The term used isn't 'real' in the case of adoptive children, it's usually 'biological'.

Because that's the fact of the matter. As noted above, this does have implications for genetically inherited illnesses etc.

It has certainly been derailed.

There is a cohort of LGBTQI++ radicals who feel hard done by, in a world where nature and biology are heteronormative, heterosexist, sexist and transphobic, and who feel absolutely entitled to have everything that nature and biology endows upon heterosexuals and/or the opposite sex, and believe it is the job of the state to provide it medically or through access to other people’s bodies, and through lies and compelled speech where the former two won’t suffice.

Furthermore, they only want the good bits, not the hassles and burdens of heterosexuals or the opposite sex. And they believe these entitlements trump the rights of other groups (because they believe they are hard done by).

Anyone who isn’t entirely on board with this is declared homophobic/transphobic or against gay/trans rights.

Because KJK isn’t entirely on board with it, they show up on any thread about her to claim that she is homophobic/transphobic. And then it leads down this rabbit hole.

Soz.

It is a shame the issue of birth certificates as much as what is being said here is the same as made on the thread about an American lesbain whose names was taken off a birth certificate. www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4744320-an-oklahoma-judge-just-transferred-a-lesbian-moms-parental-rights-to-her-sons-sperm-donor

It not just about hijack, but that lots of other posters might have something to say but will have no idea this is being discussed.

So all that is happening is that the same discussion is being had on other threads, whereas if there was a thread specifically about birth certificates if would have more impact and breadth.

When it becomes a ding dong between just a few it does feel like a thread has been hijacked at the expense of the actual topic.

Entitled brats.

Children are concieved from a mans sperm and a woman's egg. The owner's of the egg and the sperm are biologically the child's mother and father. This is what they have been known as for as long as we've had language and understanding of reproduction.

It's no one's fault but their own if some people choose to be perpetually offended by the world.

I don’t care if you find the truth offensive.

FYI using the word 'father' instead of 'donor' for the anonymous men who help lesbian couples conceive is pretty offensive. Not sure if that is deliberate.

It would be like telling adoptive parents that the people who created their child are the 'real' mum and dad.

By the way, by ‘they’ I refer to the two posters arguing for enhanced rights+ not lesbians as a group.

Check out the relationships section of MN if you think that the demand for the state to provide a risk free father for lesbians, in any way resembles the ‘guarantees’ heterosexual women have.

It does seem like ‘special privileges’ to expect the state to provide you with a risk free father.

There are risks of STDs, lies, let downs, custody battles, etc, when people want to make babies (or for heterosexuals, when they make babies by accident too).

Why should lesbians not have any of those things? Why should the state provide this guaranteed hassle free man to father their children?

It’s ‘enhanced rights+’ they feel entitled to. They don’t want ‘equal rights’.

Most single women do not come to private arrangements.
Most single women and lesbian couples go to clinics.

Like many women who aren't lesbians then?

Women who came to a private arrangement often ended up in a nightmare. Men who said they would only donate sperm, once the baby was born sued and won 50% custody, Men who only wanted to be sperm donors ended up having to pay CSA. Women caught STDs.

Exactly the same applies to single women of any sexual orientation using a private donor.