Posie

[BabyItsAWildWorld]

Where the fuck has the Posie thread gone and why??

So posie has views which have got her no platformed by WPUK.

and now MN will not let us discuss her no platforming???

WTF is happening?? How scary is this shit?

The reason I can see given is that the WPUK decision was not to do with MN.

99% of threads are about people/organsitions/decisions not to do with MN. That explanation makes no sense.

Did Posie ask for it to go?

I thought she was getting mostly support on there.

"She hasn't been tweeting the same way for 7 years - she has been ramping up the 'free speech or die' tweets since she was arrested. "

Yes she has
2014: twitter.com/ThePosieParker/status/477021185080053760
2013: twitter.com/ThePosieParker/status/299254572789166080
2012:
twitter.com/ThePosieParker/status/242206959502249984

"WPUK don't read all the tweets of every speaker they invite - but when they are provided with evidence of these inflammatory and racist statements they have the right to disinvite her as being likely to bring the organisation into disrepute."

Meh, WPUK has no reputation to preserve. And by 'deplatforming' people they certainly don't improve the image of the movement, and they scare off at least part of the audience. If you are, like her, a libertarian atheist, then why would you engage with them?

Let's not forget that there is already a 'lib' and a 'rad' version of this, in terms of WPUK vs 'We Need to Talk', with a pre-existing schism in that sense, and at this point it might be better if WPUK left Venice to it - TRAs are not going to turn nice any time soon.

"I'd get the sack for tweeting what posie has, as would many of us I'm sure."

sorry not sure what your point is supposed to be here. If you're representing some brand then you should obviously not make divisive statements (unless this is an agreed branding thing, like Lush), but this doesn't tell you anything about the rights and wrongs of such speech.

WPUK has no reputation to preserve

nonsense

If you are, like her, a libertarian atheist, then why would you engage with them

errm because the rise of trans ideology worries you?

If you're representing some brand then you should obviously not make divisive statements (unless this is an agreed branding thing, like Lush), but this doesn't tell you anything about the rights and wrongs of such speech

nope, but it does tell you that organisations do distance themselves from people who express opinions that don't chime with their own. that is what has happened here.

look, WPUK are hoping to talk to politicians at some point. at the end of the day that's really how we fight this.

they're more likely to get in if they're squeaky clean.

Meh, WPUK has no reputation to preserve

I disagree. They are represented in the media as 'transphobic hate group' WPUK, their venues get harassed and have pulled out at the last minute etc. How are they supposed to operate if they don't have a reputation?

WPUK have left Venice to it for a long time. PP being invited to WPUK was a mistake, but only became clear how much of a mistake afterwards. They haven't no-platformed her, that's not what that means. They aren't telling anyone else not to platform her, or protesting where she speaks.
Speakers for WPUK are representing the 'brand' of WPUK. People get removed from positions that bring the organisations they represent into disrepute all the time and this is what has happened.
I'm just sorry for the Cornwall women who organised the event, and the women who arranged to attend, and have been thrown under the bus far more than PP has.

I know this almost burnt out now but this is my two pence worth:

Poise is allowed to have her own views on patriarchal religions.

WPUK, as a public org, is right to hold their associates to a high standard and not bring the organisation into disrepute.

These are two separate things.

I have views as a gender critical feminist that I know would lose me my job. So I don’t put them on Twitter or Facebook. I am self aware enough to know that, currently, the view that transwomen are transwomen could be considered bigoted.

Why would I put my work place in the position of having to sack me for something on Twitter? I know the rules.

Twitter is the absolutely worst place to have nuanced discussion.

And, Posie, if you are still reading this. I get what you are saying but maybe have the discussion in a way that is less open to sound biting, distortion and sensationalism. And talk to some Muslim women about their experiences. You can’t really campaign about this stuff from the outside. The only reason the repeal campaign was so successful in Ireland was it was pushed by Irish Catholic women.

You might be surprised by the stuff you learn if you get to know Islam, and Islamic women, a bit better.

So annoyed that Truro seems to have been cancelled. Been given a refund but no explanation.

The only reason the repeal campaign was so successful in Ireland was it was pushed by Irish Catholic women.

I disagree vehemently with this statement on two points.

It was not 'the only reason'

Irish Catholic women? Really?

What an inane statement to make.

Hmm refunding with no explanation is far from ideal. But then there hasn't been any "official" communication since that post, and I'd say that is far from ideal too (as clearly regardless of who said what, and who is right or wrong, a lot of women are questioning the decision - more than questioned posies alleged racism? Who knows)

Go to this thread and let the local organiser know if you still want to attend a non WP event with the original speakers on the same date in Truro.

WPUK: A Woman’s Place Is Fighting Back: Cornwall
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3221341-WPUK-A-Woman-s-Place-Is-Fighting-Back-Cornwall

they're more likely to get in if they're squeaky clean

Because every politician in the history of the world is 'squeaky clean'.

Not.

"The silencing of Islam's critics, many of whom are women, under the familiar guise of Islamaphobia, is more doublethink - why should one religion be exempt from criticism of its abhorrent attitudes towards many women? If there was nothing to hide why the outrage at being challenged? "

She's certainly not wrong about Islamophobia being used in the same was as transphobia. On the transphobia side this site has gone through a process of evolution, whereby most posters (at least on FWR) have rejected the narrative of transwomen being the most oppressed group in society and have gone on to issue bold criticism. And more-or-less the site owners have accepted this - shouting 'transphobia' doesn't shut down debate.

However Islamophobia still does, and criticism of Islam will be deleted very readily where criticism of Catholicism or Christianity more generally wouldn't be at all. I think that reflects a general unease about issues relating to race in terms of the historical context of racism in the recent past - in the 1960s/1970s you had people being gratuitously insulting about things like different race's food, appearance, etc. and it was racist and offensive, and over time you got to the point where that was made unacceptable, but of course you still had the same people (NF-types, for example), moving on from food to talking about rape gangs and what not, and the rest of society staying completely silent, and we got to the point where accusing a group of people of being linked to rape gangs was taken far more seriously than the actual rapes. Hence, the BBC documentaries on the BNP and subsequent prosecution of Nick Griffin around 2004-2006 for talking about raping white girls.

Eventually we did swing around till prosecuting the rape gangs, but we do still have a society where, say, a celebrity can be a violent thug, and that's not a problem, but if there's a hint of prejudice of whatever kind then THAT is the worst sin you can find in today's world. Which is not to defend prejudice, but rather to observe that when you are MOST concerned about perceived prejudice then debate becomes impossible, as those who are not a member of that group are told that they are forbidden from comment.

So that's why I don't think it makes much sense to be no-platforming people for commenting on Islam or race, when your platform is itself something that people want to shut down on the same 'thou shalt not criticise a minority group, ever' basis. It's not logically consistent, and the nature of the speech itself should not come as a surprise when the author of it has consistently advocated for free speech. Not 'well we should be able to criticise TRAs, because I don't like TRAs, but these other types of speech I don't agree with should be censured'. That doesn't work AT ALL for an organisation in WPUK's position.

"I disagree. They are represented in the media as 'transphobic hate group' WPUK, their venues get harassed and have pulled out at the last minute etc. How are they supposed to operate if they don't have a reputation?"

Well that was rather my point. They have no reputation to preserve, people already think they are bigots. To imagine that this kind of action is going to enhance their reputation is deluded. TRAs will defame them regardless.

Truro is back on!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3259688-WPUK-Truro-9th-June

*they're more likely to get in if they're squeaky clean

Because every politician in the history of the world is 'squeaky clean'.

Not.*

But they're not the politicians. They need to be squeaky clean to be taken seriously and to be heard.

I understand where Posie is coming from in her personal comments. And why others find them difficult. And I understand that WPUK need to be strict about their public facing image. They've stated their aims and reasons. I agree it's all a bit naff and perhaps knee jerk. And a shame Truro is cancelled.

It's all a bit of a shame. But important for the wider main causes in terms of raising public awareness and political debate to try to march on. Infighting does no one any good. Respectfully disagree and move on.

Ok cross post re Truro!

Because every politician in the history of the world is 'squeaky clean'.

But women are expected to be in order to be listened to, like it or not.

Right- but they aren't transphobic nor a hate group. So platforming a speaker who has made what appear to be both transphobic and racially motivated hateful statements in public is the last thing they need to do. Just because some people paint them as transphobic and hateful doesn't mean they shouldn't fight that perception!

Well that was rather my point. They have no reputation to preserve, people already think they are bigots.

However speakers and people associated with WPUK are getting an increased platform in the media - eg bbc, Nic, etc - and not being called bigots but having basic main points heard.

Also, on twitter, when the tras get cross, WPUK defenders are the epitome of respect and factual comments. Which really helps imo.

Well that was rather my point. They have no reputation to preserve, people already think they are bigots. To imagine that this kind of action is going to enhance their reputation is deluded. TRAs will defame them regardless.

They really do think WPUK are as transphobic as more radical feminist groups like Mayday4Women and We Need to Talk. This situation could have been managed much better and they could have discussed with Posie and agreed a communications strategy.

And I don't think any patriarchal religion based culture or group should be exempt from criticism for its misogyny, notwithstanding the existence of misogyny elsewhere. This is part of what led to people turning a blind eye and actively covering things up in Rotherham, Rochdale etc. It is important that no one is untouchable.

Also, on twitter, when the tras get cross, WPUK defenders are the epitome of respect and factual comments. Which really helps imo.

Yes I agree. But they've handled this badly.

But they're not the politicians. They need to be squeaky clean to be taken seriously and to be heard.

www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-an-mp-or-lord/lobbying-parliament/

There has been an attempt to clean up lobby groups.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/covert-lobby-groups-for-business-to-be-exposed-6292247.html