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.

And btw I think a lot of this is faux concern for "the baby", unless you lot saying transmen shouldn't have children would also say that women with bipolar disorder for example shouldn't have children.

You couldn't accuse Posie of failing to get people ripping holy hell out of each other talking.

TBH Posie lost me when she seemed perfectly happy to have Katie Hopkins sticking up for her.

"You may not like it but it's imperative that the gender critical campaign remains as squeaky clean as possible or we are forever going to be associated with racism and right-wing politics. "

Why? The GC movement isn't particularly right-wing. I mean the Tories have plenty of racists in their ranks but they still win elections. Where does this 'squeaky clean' requirement come from?

Where does this 'squeaky clean' requirement come from?

From the fact that very few people who might otherwise have been converted to our cause will take us seriously if we condone those amongst us calling for forced sterilisation!

No one likes PR, but it's a necessary evil. I thought we were all united in wanting the same thing. Evidently not.

That's the difference in "groups" here I think.

One is happy to have someone agree in one area, while feeling happy to disagree on other things

The other only wants people who meet whatever version of the image they want to project

Neither one is right or wrong, they're just different.

(no doubt both sides will disagree with that now and pounce on me )

"From the fact that very few people who might otherwise have been converted to our cause will take us seriously if we condone those amongst us calling for forced sterilisation!"

Well firstly sterilisation is a pretty mainstream position IF you want legal recognition as your new sex.

And secondly I'm pretty sure Posie has rejected forced sterilisation in this very thread.

I mean, this is how it is for me, right:

1. I don't think that transwomen are women.
2. I don't think that transmen are men
3. I respect the rights of both to be called "he" or "she", if they wish, or to be referred to by different names.
4. I respect the rights of both to dress or "present" however they wish.
5. I respect the rights of both to live their lives free from abuse and discrimination.
6. I do not support self-ID. I do not support the inclusion of biological males in female safe spaces. I would support the set-up of safe spaces specifically for trans people, however.
7. I feel the whole trans movement is regressive and panders to gender stereotypes.

I've spoken to loads of right-on liberal types about the above and they all agree with me. I think there is loads of agreement out there when you put it that way, without getting angry or ranting about forced sterilisation ffs.

We have to get people to listen to us. No one is going to do that if we aren't careful.

And secondly I'm pretty sure Posie has rejected forced sterilisation in this very thread.

I'm sorry but I don't buy that justification for her tweet and nor do many others. She should never have said it in the first place, it was abhorrent.

therealposieparker Wed 30-May-18 12:35:15
"The eugenics issue I have explained, I wasn't really seeing it as eugenics but more that if you choose not to be a woman you shouldn't\t bring a child into this world without the existence of a mother. Obviously I don't advocate forced sterilisation."

"I'm sorry but I don't buy that justification for her tweet and nor do many others. She should never have said it in the first place, it was abhorrent."

Meh, if you have 50k Tweets sometimes you don't communicate exactly perfectly.

I agree with you UpUrm. If we want the fence sitters and lurkers to listen to our ideas about self id then this kind of thing is a disaster and the TRAs will use it as nauseam to try to prove that gender critical feminists are racists and into eugenics.

Which is the most extreme interpretation of what Posie said but it is the one they will use to inflict the most damage.

"We have to get people to listen to us. No one is going to do that if we aren't careful."

I dunno - depends who you are trying to get to listen.
I don't think it was her aim at all btw, but posting something that has been referred to as "a bit daily maily but not racist" is potentially going to get a lot more support, just from a different section of society.

ScienceIsTruth

Trans people are making the best of the hand they have been dealt, maybe ask a trans man those questions, instead of making up frankly insulting and uninformed reasoning.

Whilst giving birth is a 'uniquely female' experience as some have put it, being a parent is not.

Obviously for trans people, alleviating the constant distress of gender dysphoria is far more important then wondering if they may be able to have children at some later date, it is impossible to think of a future or much else, when taking one day at a time.
A lot of trans people still want to be parents, but if as a result of treatment they become infertile, like anyone who isn't trans who cannot have children of their own, there are other ways to raise a family, adoption etc

Some people may feel theres an option to parent children before treatment.
A trans man is very likely to suffer intense gender dysphoria during pregnancy, but sometimes the pain is worth the gain, and pregnancy does not last forever.

To say 'why would a trans man want to be a mother if they are a man' is simplistic, and shows almost no understanding of trans men, displayed many times on twitter by people like PP.
It is still possible they would like to a parent and a Dad, how is this so difficult to understand?

I'm not up for excluding people who say things I don't like, any more than I am up for TRAs getting people thrown off Twitter for saying things they don't like.

Gender critical feminism isn't some kind of hierarchy with a central authority. You don't have to pass a purity exam to join. I welcome all women to it - and when they say things I don't like, I will say so.

No Susan - not spoiling for a fight. I was just pointing out it is a bit silly to claim other posters have misread posts when you clearly did that yourself. I was amused, not angry. I'm even more amused now.

I wrongly assumed that your claims that repeal of the 8th was all down to Catholic Irish women that you were a Catholic Irish woman; from your last post I'm assuming you are actually 10 years old.

LassWiADelicateAir

No, I’m 5.

I just don’t respond well to gaslighting and goady fuckery.

We have to get people to listen to us. No one is going to do that if we aren't careful.

This is just not true.

Some people listen to careful, emollient contributions and campaigns such as that run by WPUK. Such people tend to be media commentators and politicians.

Some people listen to bolshy cows who don't mince their words - I would say like Posie but she might not like being called a bolshy cow, so I shall say like me. Such people tend to be your average (wo)man in the street.

We need both.

And, in any case, purity tests are themselves exclusionary - they don't give voice to anyone without class privilege and/or academic articulacy and/or sufficient female socialisation.

I thought that we were in some sort of general agreement that it was tribalism that led to many recent dodgy political decisions, and that thinking people have to be wholly in agreement on everything is ridiculous?

yy to what Lutece said.

Actually talking to or reading accounts by trans men and their families is a great way to gain some understanding and maybe even empathy for their lived experiences.

I dunno - depends who you are trying to get to listen.

If you want to be successful in self-ID not getting in to law, then that would be the constituency in the middle including Daily Mail readers.

For Posie and trurowomenspeak
Upurm said
I am in a few GC groups, we have a few loose cannons and they don't do us any favours
Here is Victor Hugo in his novel '93', 1874, mytholising, unspoken of in rl, loose cannonballs;
"The carronade, hurled forward by the pitching, dashed into this knot of men, and crushed four at the first blow; then, flung back and shot out anew by the rolling, it cut in two a fifth poor fellow... The enormous cannon was left alone. She was given up to herself. She was her own mistress, and mistress of the vessel. She could do what she willed with both."

Some people listen to bolshy cows who don't mince their words - I would say like Posie but she might not like being called a bolshy cow, so I shall say like me. Such people tend to be your average (wo)man in the street.

I consider myself to be a bolshy cow, but I don't think Posie's comments have helped the cause, and the cause is what I care about.

I also don't like the insinuation on this thread and on other groups that if we don't agree with what Posie has said we are not proper feminists.

I thought that we were in some sort of general agreement that it was tribalism that led to many recent dodgy political decisions, and that thinking people have to be wholly in agreement on everything is ridiculous?

Who here is arguing that we all have to agree? No one, as far as I can tell. Posie has a perfect right to say whatever she wants. And I have the right not to condone it.