Am I Reading This Right?... Rosie Duffield Throwing KJK Under The Bus?!

@CharlieParley exactly

^involving

Most people are not aware that there are boundaries applied within and by the Fraser guidelines, much as many people seem to believe that Gillick competence is an automatic assumption, a blanket approach if you want, that all children can consent. When it is a case-by-case consideration of an individual child's capability to not only understand the medical information presented, but also to consider future consequences of the treatment in question. Which of course means that no, not all children can consent.

KJK seems to be responding to the belief that all children can consent and invving the parents when their child is seeking an abortion or contraceptives is always wrong or prohibited.

Whether KJK herself understands that the Fraser guidelines contain robust safeguarding provisions and wants to argue against others who don't understand that they do, as some posters on this thread have shown, or whether she doesn't understand it and wants to argue that there should be safeguarding is something I'm not entirely sure about.

Every time I see someone from the "gender critical" side paint KJK as some kind of right wing I despair.

Although I side with her on most issues, I can see the value for those who hope to shift the powers that be within the labour party in distancing themselves from her. It could be to their benefit to position themselves as some kind of moderate feminists rather than, in this description, the more "out there", no compromise, women's rights campaigners.

But that doesn't work when you try to do it by positioning KJK not as a women's rights campaigner, but a right wing campaigner. They could choose to make KJ useful to them rather than just monstering her. When you believe yourself involved in political manoeuvring, you should understand how the Overton window works. To make use of that, you need to see people's position on women's vs men's rights as an axis in the same way we have the left-right and liberal-totalitarian axes.

You then have KJ at the far end of complete-don't-give-an-inch support for women's rights and TRAs and the labour party at the far men's rights end.

If you can then present yourself to the labour party as further towards them than KJ and those of us calling for #repealtheGRA, KJ becomes useful to you.

But this strategy doesn't work if you insist on placing KJ somewhere on the more familiar left-right axis. If you do that, you are not making use of the Overton window. When dome of us started calling for Repeal, we understood well enough that this is not likely to happen any time soon, but by saying the words out loud, we created and broadened an Overton window, that should make demands benefitting women but short of repeal possible.

By all means disagree with KJ, but make it work for you. Show some political savvy.
I

“I also found a long comment thread featuring a number of self identifying ‘left wing feminists’, one of whom compares KJK to Nigel Farage and another who derided Mumsnetters for not being proper radical feminists, so I guess I accidentally stumbled across the source for some of the more unusual comments on the recent thread about The Radical Notion”

I suspected that.

You were not reading right. KJK was talking about safeguarding children from sexual exploitation. Moyle was using that idea to paint her as alt-right and misogynist. Duffield picked up on the safeguarding. If people like Moyle, a TRA ally and othe TRA allies are interested in young girls being easily able to access contraception under the Fraser guidelines - calling it refusal of body autonomy (which no-one can really have btw) to make checks on their request - then it raises a safeguarding issue about the exploitation of children. KJK is right to call this out.

My takeaway, although it was a couple of days ago that I watched the video, was that KJK is opposed to deeming children below the age of consent as capable of giving consent- enabling professionals to make a judgement to exclude parents from important decisions and information because they deem the child ‘Gillick competent’.

This would be for accessing contraception or abortions or chemical castration.

But as others have mentioned on thread the Fraser guidelines are about safeguarding. I'm unclear precisely what kjk,'s point is. Is it that these guidelines get the balance wrong,? is it that they are not adhered to?, is it that they rely on well funded social services with adequate gatekeeping ? Without knowing these we are all arguing at cross purposes

Sappho has moved on to the Fila thread to complain about ‘straight women ganging up on lesbians’, which is ironic, as in the guilt-by-association index that screenshot has put her right next to the person that thinks female homosexuals are akin to the KKK.

Wonder if she’ll be back to tell us if her screenshot came from the Mumsnet hating Real Feminists of Be Right On or if it’s from the FB Transactivists?

It’s getting increasingly difficult to tell them apart, tbf.

I agree. It was misleading.

Thanks for doing that Crypto. How interesting that there seem to be multiple versions of the screenshot in circulation but none showing the entire comment.

I hadn't seen it before, although it sounds like it's been used more than once on this board and, if Sappho hadn't posted the version with the cut off sentence, then I'd have probably never noticed anything odd about it.

Did you not realise which version you'd posted Sappho? Is that what's happened?

Yes, I seem to remember that being KJK’s argument - that without the word ‘woman’ it will be impossible to defend current womens’ rights or make the case for any future womens’ rights.

I certainly do not recall KJK ever saying that we should give up on abortion forever and embrace a right wing society based on traditional stereotypes!

One person has shared two different versions of the same screenshot twice, once in June 2022 and again during the last week.

The first time it had this caption attached to the top of the image:

’Posie Parker, also known as Kellie-Jay Keen is the woman who organised the anti trans rally in Bristol this week. It was picketed by anti fascist protestors including some very angry young
men in masks. They had good reason to be so angry. This woman is a far right agitator 1/3’

(my search did not return a 2/3 nor a 3/3)

The most recent share featured ‘mark ups’ on the image.

The person who shared this twice in a ten month period has the following memorable cartoon as the header image on their profile.

Why yes, it’s that infamous TRA cartoon that depicts female homosexuals as the KKK.

All of this is set to FB public view, btw, so replicating it here does not involve the sharing of anyone’s private info.

(I also found a long comment thread featuring a number of self identifying ‘left wing feminists’, one of whom compares KJK to Nigel Farage and another who derided Mumsnetters for not being proper radical feminists, so I guess I accidentally stumbled across the source for some of the more unusual comments on the recent thread about The Radical Notion 🤷‍♀️)

Yes, I remember that too. Glad to have you on board, Sapphos. But please don’t undermine women who were fighting for our rights when you were opposing them.

I admire Rosie, I admire KJK and other women who strive for women’s rights. I accept that all women who centre women in their politics are feminists if they call themselves feminists, and if they don’t choose that description that’s also fine. Women who centre men are not feminists, whatever they call themselves.

This is an important point. Misogynists like LRM will use anything they can twist to attack women, and child safeguarding enrages them. What’s new?

Given the way adults in authority, and especially in Labour, failed girls they should have protected in Rotherham etc, they’re on very shaky ground.

crypto

as far as I remember it was something like …we can go back and sort abortion rights out when we’ve sorted this

I plugged the text from the screenshot into Facebook to see if I could find the original comment, or a screen shot with the entire comment pictured.

Nothing.

What I did find was multiple posts of the cut off screenshot shared by accounts belonging to TRAs

I find it interesting that Sappo thinks she has the moral high ground over KJK.
From what I remember Sappho was entirely on board with everything trans until she was personally affected. Males allowed everywhere, fuck the women and girls that object.
How aren't you embarrassed to be obsessed with a woman that has different views (that are usually taken out of context anyway) when you were literally fighting against the rights of women and girls until fairly recently?

The one woman who is most exposed
in the public eye out of all women who want to stop this ideology. The one woman who makes no secret of the fact that motherhood and the protection of her children is one of her major driving forces.

Leading her to the protection of children everywhere. It's in everything she says.

The one woman who in one day can utter hundreds of thousands of words expressing her fury and determination to stop the sterilisation of children.

And yet, people like sapphos pore over every single word in order to find the slightest inconsistency to vilify her.

Saphos you don't write about your priorities, or not being a hive mind with other feminists. Your posts are all about KJK.

It's so depressing that people who identify as feminists are so willing to throw female children under the bus.

To spend time dissecting KJK's views rather than considering whether the safeguarding points she raises are important and focusing the discussion on safeguarding for female children in the UK.

Just say 'yeah, I don't exactly agree with her but let's talk about safeguarding female children'. 95% of the conversation should be about safeguarding and no more than 5% distancing from KJKs views (hint - any adult worth talking to understands that you don't necessarily agree with another adult on everything if you agree on one issue)

There are safeguarding failures every day. Has anything changed since Rotherham? I don't think it has. There's been a lot of exactly this kind of pointless, useless blah blah blah from politicians and political commentators but has anything actually changed to make girls safer? No.

What this is is nasty bullying and women enjoying sticking the knife in.

You're failing children by doing so,.

Every one of these threads that involves this screenshot has posters asking for the full version and, iirc, and afaict from a look at relevant MN threads and a search of Google images, nobody ever locates the full version. (This may be the time that somebody succeeds, who knows.)

These threads just revisit and renew the stramash. I wonder if the author of a guidebook we cannot mention would say that this is plausibly among the motivations/aspirations of some posters?

I doubt we have to look far to find that screenshot.

What people are responding to is the posts like this one below posted at 14:19:

“KJK said she would be willing to sacrifice her right to legal abortion if it meant trans children were not being mutilated.”

“I read that as meaning she would prefer to live in a right wing society where abortion was illegal if it meant kids could not access puberty blockers and surgery.”

“She is entitled to her option but lots of women would feel horrified to live in a right wing society where abortion was illegal.”

Again, posted with that clipped off screenshot.

Here you have put your own spin on what she has and has not said. You have, whether it was intentional or not, portrayed her views as being extreme and being anti-abortion and right wing.

Now you seem to have pivoted when you post this:

“A women's right to access single sex spaces is not worlds apart from a women's right to access legal abortion.”

“Lots of feminists (ie Rosie Duffield) consider these equally important issues.”

And is anyone disagreeing that other feminists can consider these as equally important issues? I don’t think I have seen one poster say other feminists can not.

However, what is clear is that you have no issue with portraying a woman who does consider these as equally important issues as being ‘anti-abortion’ and ‘right wing’ supporting.

The hypocrisy is so blatant. It is dishonest. And it is just fuckwittery in my opinion.

I am all for people having different priorities. But twisting words the way that seems to be happening on this thread, as it has on other threads recently too, that is why people are responding they way they have.