Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

261 replies

EpicChaos · 10/03/2023 02:23

From what i can tell, Rosie has quote tweeted a lloyd russell tweet, that is having a go at Kellie J.
Rosie it seems, has thrown Kellie under the bus by claiming, ' look i'm not like that other woman, so listen to me '! That's how i'm reading it anyway.
If so, that's the last time i hop in when it's rosie getting all the flak, she can do one!
I notice Bindle is there too!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
CryptoFascistMadameCholet · 11/03/2023 14:34

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.

Did you?

I read it as that she would be willing to make a personal sacrifice if that sacrifice were to result in the protection of multiple children.

Not that she wanted other women to be forced into living in a right wing society and to sufffer illegal abortions.

But then, Saph, you do have rather a lot of previous form when it comes to bizarre and inflammatory interpretations of KJK’s statements (eg the thread you started accusing KJK of homophobia based on what someone other rando tweeted)!

SapphosRock · 11/03/2023 14:19

But really what she is saying here is she'll get support from people that she doesn't necessarily agree with, she is not saying she is antiabortion

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.

Am I Reading This Right?... Rosie Duffield Throwing KJK Under The Bus?!
Tabasco007 · 11/03/2023 14:04

Faffertea · 11/03/2023 08:20

I’m only on page 3 of the thread but while I’m catching up I wanted to comment on what I have read so far.

In law a child under 13 cannot give consent to sexual activity and therefore any child under 13 presenting needing contraception or an abortion would (should) automatically trigger an urgent safeguarding referral. That does not mean she will not be able to access an abortion if needed but that professionals need to find out how a child got pregnant.
The legal position on consent is that parents can consent on behalf of their child but cannot refuse. If medical professionals think a treatment is needed and parents do not consent then the case will go through the legal process to determine the child’s best interests. If a procedure or treatment is time critical e.g an emergency operation to save life or limb then the doctors may decide to act in the best interests of the child and deal with the legal fall out after. Fortunately this is rare.

In terms of contraception/sexual and reproductive care for over 13s Gillick Competence is used but in conjunction with Fraser Guidelines. This makes it clear the importance of exploring with the patient the background to why they need contraception. For example, if I see a 14 year old who needs contraception and she tells me her boyfriend is a boy from school who is 15, they’ve been seeing each other for some time, the parents are aware they’re seeing each other and it’s clear that either they are already having sex or a planning to then assuming the 14 year old is Gillick competent then the guidance would be to provide contraception without informing parents although we would encourage them to.

If the same 14 year old came and said she needed contraception and her boyfriend is a 30 year old family friend or a 20 year old who approached her after school, buys her presents and takes her round to his mates for parties where he gives her alcohol then while that child may meet the terms of Gillick competence there is (as per Fraser Guidelines) clearly a massive safeguarding issue and that child’s confidentiality would need to be broken. This is the process that broke down or wasn’t even applied in the Rotherham, Telford etc grooming cases.

Thanks for this info.

DemiColon · 11/03/2023 12:29

One of the principles of safeguarding is that normally, the parents are best able to know what is best for the child and what the child needs. They have a much better track record than either the state or other institutions.

It's possible for the state to take away parental rights when there is a real problem only. Which might be the case with a 12 year old looking for contraception, but it also might now. You don't just wholesale remove parents' rights to care for their kids best interest without some specific reason to think that something bad is going on in that case.

There is no reason that should be different in these instances. Parents are the best people, unless they are abusers, to help their kids. It's not up to someone else, even some totally unrelated self-declared feminist, to tell the parents how to best care for their kids. I hope we can all see where that leads.

I'd also point out, it's not just a problem if the person these young girls are having sex with is an abuser in the normal sense, or much older. It's often also a serious problem for parents to deal with when the boy is of similar age, when the girl is keen, etc. And that can be true even for 14 or 15 year old. I had a good friend growing up who at 15 and 16 had a boyfriend close in age who impregnated her several times, she accessed abortions and her family never knew.

It was totally a toxic relationship that ended up causing her serious problems to this day as she has long term mental and physical repercussions. She hid it from her family, at that age she wasn't, in fact, able to navigate the situation. Sure, she understood how birth control worked and so on. But she had great parents and her life would have been much much better had they realized what was going on.

The fact that some people think feminism has this dogma that underage girls should have adult access to private reproductive services, as if that is perfectly obvious and any other viewpoint is "un-feminist" is bizarre. There is no reason there should be any one viewpoint on this within feminism.

RufustheSpeculatingreindeer · 11/03/2023 08:56

mirax · 10/03/2023 23:35

To Rotherham, Telford etc. I would say that Elizaazile is not UK based and argues very much like a zero-sum stateside feminist.

My view is that abortion should be available to underaged girls with mandatory social service reporting. I am also not against term limits for abortion.

Yes i did think it was the rotherham bit that threw them…amongst other things 🤔

ApocalipstickNow · 11/03/2023 08:42

I know it’s bad form to @ people here but I want to applaud @CharlieParley for her posts on this the thread.

Thank you.

Faffertea · 11/03/2023 08:20

I’m only on page 3 of the thread but while I’m catching up I wanted to comment on what I have read so far.

In law a child under 13 cannot give consent to sexual activity and therefore any child under 13 presenting needing contraception or an abortion would (should) automatically trigger an urgent safeguarding referral. That does not mean she will not be able to access an abortion if needed but that professionals need to find out how a child got pregnant.
The legal position on consent is that parents can consent on behalf of their child but cannot refuse. If medical professionals think a treatment is needed and parents do not consent then the case will go through the legal process to determine the child’s best interests. If a procedure or treatment is time critical e.g an emergency operation to save life or limb then the doctors may decide to act in the best interests of the child and deal with the legal fall out after. Fortunately this is rare.

In terms of contraception/sexual and reproductive care for over 13s Gillick Competence is used but in conjunction with Fraser Guidelines. This makes it clear the importance of exploring with the patient the background to why they need contraception. For example, if I see a 14 year old who needs contraception and she tells me her boyfriend is a boy from school who is 15, they’ve been seeing each other for some time, the parents are aware they’re seeing each other and it’s clear that either they are already having sex or a planning to then assuming the 14 year old is Gillick competent then the guidance would be to provide contraception without informing parents although we would encourage them to.

If the same 14 year old came and said she needed contraception and her boyfriend is a 30 year old family friend or a 20 year old who approached her after school, buys her presents and takes her round to his mates for parties where he gives her alcohol then while that child may meet the terms of Gillick competence there is (as per Fraser Guidelines) clearly a massive safeguarding issue and that child’s confidentiality would need to be broken. This is the process that broke down or wasn’t even applied in the Rotherham, Telford etc grooming cases.

Tabasco007 · 11/03/2023 07:45

Elizaazile · 10/03/2023 08:56

Seems like you don't understand who children most need protection from.

I and others on this
Board are beginning to think its you! Are you actually aware of what you are saying and how's it's coming across?

MissLucyEyelesbarrow · 11/03/2023 07:40

I really object to the idea that being GC is a movement. It's not: it's the default mindset of 99% of the population, so it is going to encompass a huge range of other views. I am not required to endorse those other views.

If I happen to agree with someone on GC, it doesn't imply that I agree with anything else that they think. I agree with a lot of what the major religions teach about compassion - that doesn't stop me being an atheist.

It is such an own goal for GC feminists to get drawn into endorsing or rejecting the views of other GC people. It's often clearly ego-driven and incredibly frustrating - they are handing a victory to the TRAs. Can't they see that they are trying to pick us off?

Rosie Duffield's response strikes me as perfect.

Tabasco007 · 11/03/2023 07:37

Elizaazile · 10/03/2023 08:25

And safeguarding means denying young women contraceptives and abortion??

I think you are misunderstanding everything here, not one person including PP has said that people shouldn't have access to abortions....

Tabasco007 · 11/03/2023 07:35

SapphosRock · 10/03/2023 08:21

To be fair to KJK she has been pretty consistent in not considering abortion rights to be a priority.

She is entitled to her views but obviously many GC will disagree.

But really what she is saying here is she'll get support from people that she doesn't necessarily agree with, she is not saying she is antiabortion, I also don't see how RD tweet was throwingPP under the bus at all....

SirVixofVixHall · 10/03/2023 23:37

JustWaking · 10/03/2023 06:07

I watched how LRM bullied and intimidated Miriam Cates during that debate in the House of Commons. His behaviour is disgraceful, and I absolutely believe that he is driven by a deep contempt for women.

Agree.

mirax · 10/03/2023 23:35

RufustheSpeculatingreindeer · 10/03/2023 09:32

Which reference?

To Rotherham, Telford etc. I would say that Elizaazile is not UK based and argues very much like a zero-sum stateside feminist.

My view is that abortion should be available to underaged girls with mandatory social service reporting. I am also not against term limits for abortion.

EpicChaos · 10/03/2023 23:03

@EndlessTea @Helleofabore @CryptoFascistMadameCholet @dimorphism @Datun @CharlieParley @lifeturnsonadime @FuckNuggets @Soontobe60 @AlisonDonut

You get it! You absolutely get it! Thank heavens for that!
I read the first few replies to the thread and my heart sank a bit.
You have all contributed some, many in fact, very poignant and thought provoking points.
Even in my initial thoughts when i posted the thread, i didn't even consider much of what has been said, as @Datun has pointed out, you are all qualified and knowledgeable, so your contributions to the thread are even more important, so i thank you all, very much, for taking the time to post and for sharing your knowledge and adding it to the vast resources on this forum.
In my opinion, Rosie had no need to say a word about KJK, all she should have done, as i said, in my opinion, is absolutely nailed that nasty little man to the wall about his seeming lack of care for child safeguarding, time and time again and that she didn't is what really annoyed me, at the time of posting this thread.

@lifeturnsonadime " We are in a time now when young girls could be sleeping in the same room as a male at guide camp without the parents being told and then, in the view of some on here, the parents also shouldn't be told if their daughter get's pregnant as a result of the first safeguarding failure.
And people don't think that there are reasons that some are trying to remove parental involvement? "

This is such a very good point.
( I can't quote all of the excellent points that have been made on this thread - this reply post would be 7 pages long all on it's own, lol :-) )
We know this is something that could well happen and the victims of the boy in the girls toilets in America, 2 schools, 2 girls, are absolute testament to that.
Another current thread concerns the ' feminist event for 6/7 year old girls and nb's, where parents aren't allowed to listen. The red flags around that idea are abundant but still the ' right on gang ' are there, copy of the guardian in hand, applauding the idea!
Where is the safeguarding there?! Where?!
If we don't centre safeguarding, what the hell is the point?!
Whether it's in terms of trying to stop kids taking medical treatments that they certainly don't need, such as PB's, or having unnecessary, mutilating surgery, or grooming by agencies in schools, or men in houses/behind bike sheds, etc., etc., etc., kids need protecting and that's the be all and end all. Rosie should have absolutely nailed him as to his seeming lack of safeguarding! All day long!
Anyway, thank you all again for the valuable posts you've made here, you are all stars!

@RethinkingLife · Today 10:22
Off-topic. Can somebody tell me if 'search' is malfunctioning or why it doesn't return any posts for the OP's name? Is that what happens when someone de-registers or has the search gone awry?

I'm here, who are you and what do you want?
Why would i de-register, precisely?
Funny how your only post on this thread that i can see, was questioning my whereabouts, not a word about child safeguarding, any reason for that!

OP posts:
nolongersurprised · 10/03/2023 21:00

Where I live in Australia, for girls with awful periods, there’s been a move away from prescribing the combined pill for girls for that reason. There is a preference to not give oestrogen until 16-17 years after which a girls’ growth plates have naturally closed and to use a progesterone only pill until then. I don’t think the progesterone only pills are as reliable for contraception though.

Be interesting to see the Twitter responses if KJK was using the example of a 12 year old boy wanting PrEP. I mean, she wouldn’t, because she advocates for girls and women but I doubt the responses would be the same.

nolongersurprised · 10/03/2023 20:36

Elizaazile · 10/03/2023 08:48

I think any age of girl should have complete access to these things (assuming they are medically okay for her) and they should choose if their parents are involved or not.

A 12 year old who starts a combined pill will have their growth stunted though. Most 12 year olds who have started their periods would have had their main growth spurt but still have some to come. Exogenous oestrogen will close their growth plates.

RaininginDarling · 10/03/2023 19:02

dimorphism · 10/03/2023 13:32

I agree that this hole in safeguarding has probably been put there deliberately. It goes against all common sense.

Sadly, I agree. It looks deliberate yet hidden under a combination of well-meaning, lazy thinking, and utter cowardice.

Thanks for your kind words @dimorphism @Helleofabore @CryptoFascistMadameCholet @EndlessTea

Safeguarding is the hill I will die on. I don't have the energy to post here often, but I read, and I take it out into the world where I can.

💐

Helleofabore · 10/03/2023 14:03

“Who said that?”

There seemed to be quite a bit attributed to Kellie Jay that was not reflective of what she actually said or intended.

Not much has changed really.

Coyoacan · 10/03/2023 14:03

Getting back to the OP's comment, I wouldn't even blame Rosie Duffield if she did betray everything she has stood for all these years. It must be hell at times.

How can we criticise anyone for giving way under torture.

FuckNuggets · 10/03/2023 14:01

Elizaazile · 10/03/2023 08:25

And safeguarding means denying young women contraceptives and abortion??

Who said that?

FuckNuggets · 10/03/2023 14:01

LuckyThatMyBreastsAreSmallAndHumble · 10/03/2023 08:13

Surely if a 12 year old was pregnant they should ABSOLUTELY have access to a safe abortion!

No one, including KJK is saying she shouldn't.

EndlessTea · 10/03/2023 14:00

The whole thing of ‘competency’ to consent makes me think of that judge who said the nine year old girl was “no angel” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/no-angel-sex-abuse-case-man-jailed-court-of-appeal-criticises-judge-for-his-unacceptable-comment-about-girl-nine-1487937.html I don’t know if anyone remembers that.

In this thread, I am alarmed that Fraser competence only sees red flags if there are ‘repeated’ treatments for stds.

Datun · 10/03/2023 13:57

Another thread where qualified and knowledgeable women are able to refute emotive and knee-jerk comments, largely posted, in my opinion, in order to sow dissent.

EndlessTea · 10/03/2023 13:50

It’s sobering

lifeturnsonadime · 10/03/2023 13:39

We are in a time now when young girls could be sleeping in the same room as a male at guide camp without the parents being told and then, in the view of some on here, the parents also shouldn't be told if their daughter get's pregnant as a result of the first safeguarding failure.

And people don't think that there are reasons that some are trying to remove parental involvement?