Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Posie

999 replies

BabyItsAWildWorld · 30/05/2018 12:18

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
JoanSummers · 31/05/2018 17:55

Wtf even is an "authentic self"? It just seems like shorthand for "I am whatever I say I am and you better not notice otherwise".

My authentic self is 6'3, speaks fourteen languages and has travelled the world eighteen times over, is a former grand prix racing driver and the world's foremost expert in cheese tossing.

RatRolyPoly · 31/05/2018 17:55

Her position that transmen who want to live and be recognised as men should be sterilised is mainstream in many, many countries

No it's not.

In some it is required to get a GRC, i.e. legal recognition.

But in no civilised country anywhere are you obliged to undergo surgery in order to dress in suits, call yourself "Bob" and fail to mention that you have a vagina (or in any other way "live as a man" that doesn't involve paperwork).

PP seems to be saying that for a woman the crime of denouncing one's womanhood is sufficient grounds for sterilisation.

I'm not aware of a single country that agrees.

Ereshkigal · 31/05/2018 18:05

Just like there are people who use racist and homophobic language, no doubt all the time in a private capacity.

And misogynistic language. But many of these services (and you by your glaring omission) seem strangely unbothered...

SuperDandy · 31/05/2018 18:06

I'm genuinely horrified that there seem to be posters on this thread who state or support the view that trans people are not suitable parents by dint of their being trans.

@therealposieparker there are a lot of families fucked up by their parents. Some parents who share a certain characteristic messing up their parenting does not lead to conclusion that the shared characteristic is the cause of the messed up parenting.

You seem to be saying that a transitioning parent inevitably leads to royally fucked up kids. That's just not true, not least because young people are a lot more ok with transitioning than previous generations.

If a parent is behaving like an ass then there's that to deal with, and relationships breaking up for all sorts of reasons can be damaging to the children. But that's not just a transitioning parent problem.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, a parent choosing to be in a same sex relationship was viewed as being damaging to children. Thankfully our society grew more accepting of those choices, and in time the children of same sex parent families didn't get so messed up by it because society stopped being such dicks about it.

They fuck you up, your mum and dad/mum and mum/dad and dad/step-mum and dad/single dad/widowed mum/trans dad and the lover he met on Grindr/celeb dad who is now a trans man and once upon a time won an Olympic medal/etc etc

Terfulike · 31/05/2018 18:07

i wouldn't say people can't be parents (except in extreme cases where I believe it is actually legal to sterilise s.o.).
On the other hand it's the most blatant case of having your cake and eating it that I've ever come across.
I also find having a baby after elective double mastectomy offensive to the neonate. What if they are prem and need that colostrum.
I'm in no way criticising bottle feeding of healthy babies, but such a neonate needs a womb and might just need colostrum as a matter of life or death.
This could get pushed further "I cant stand being pregnant any more I want a caesarian at 25 weeks on account of my dysphoria". Would this be okay?

Ereshkigal · 31/05/2018 18:07

Surely under self id you make a declaration of your intention to live the rest of your life as a man. Would becoming pregnant and giving birth, as something only a woman can do, be evidence of fraud? Or do we accept the concept of pregnant men as TRAs demand and game over. It is essentially a philosophical point, all this talk of eugenics is hyperbole.

You make a very interesting point, from an angle I'd considered but not completely thought through in this way. Food for thought.

Uyulala · 31/05/2018 18:08

If my parent transitioned, I'd fucking hate them for being so selfish.

Ereshkigal · 31/05/2018 18:08

Surely under self id you make a declaration of your intention to live the rest of your life as a man. Would becoming pregnant and giving birth, as something only a woman can do, be evidence of fraud? Or do we accept the concept of pregnant men as TRAs demand and game over. It is essentially a philosophical point, all this talk of eugenics is hyperbole.

You make a very interesting point, from an angle I'd considered but not completely thought through in this way. Food for thought.

Ereshkigal · 31/05/2018 18:10

Sorry for duplicate post!

Uyulala · 31/05/2018 18:11

Transmen having kids doesn't make sense. Surely it's only of the most dysphoric things you can go through, and dysphoria is so horrific that shouldn't they be suicidal throughout the whole pregnancy?

Uyulala · 31/05/2018 18:11

*one of

Janie143 · 31/05/2018 18:20

^^I also find having a baby after elective double mastectomy offensive to the neonate. What if they are prem and need that colostrum.

Really? So I shouldn't have been allowed to have my children after an elective double mastectomy due to 80% risk of breast cancer? Good to know p.s my 1st was 9 weeks prem. How evil am I ?

Elendon · 31/05/2018 18:20

Do you remember when people used to say that about accusations of homophobia and racism

Why do you do that? Supermatch It's a low tactic and you know it.

Regarding homophobia isn't part of self id erasing gay people in that it is seen as a correction?

Janie143 · 31/05/2018 18:22

My post realtes to what Terfulike said at 18:07

Elendon · 31/05/2018 18:23

But Posie's position is that anyone who rejects being female (which you can't really reject because it is an unalterable state) should not be permitted to give birth to children.

So are you now the official spokesperson for Parker now PeakPants?

Janie143 · 31/05/2018 18:24

I dont think my neonates were offended

Terfulike · 31/05/2018 18:25

an elective double mastectomy due to 80% risk of breast cancer?

Hardly elective in my opinion. I was not not aware that the term would be written on your notes in such circumstances.

Im very sorry this happened to you, but you must have known I didnt mean women like you?

Terfulike · 31/05/2018 18:27

Janie I didn't mean you and I think you know that.

Elendon · 31/05/2018 18:28

I agree Uyulala

I would add that I've known women, and supported them, who have requested to have a C Section because of previous birth trauma. Their request was met because of the trauma.

Everyone knows that pregnancy is not plain sailing. It has risks and morbidity for both child and mother.

Elendon · 31/05/2018 18:31

Can I be so bold as to ask why you went ahead with such a risky pregnancy Janie?

Double mastectomy, with an 80% risk of cancer, always impacts on the ovaries.

Terfulike · 31/05/2018 18:35

Also I did not say that tifs with double mastectomies "shouldn't [be] allowed to have.. children"

My exact post was that, in my view, such tifs were acting in a way that is offensive to the neonate. That would frankly be up to the child to decide when adult, not me, but I'm allowed to have views.

RatRolyPoly · 31/05/2018 18:41

Janie I didn't mean you and I think you know that.

The problem is if you start saying sometimes it's okay and sometimes it isn't you quickly find yourself in murky water.

What if the cancer risk wasn't 80% but 50%? What about 20%? Or 5% Who decides what constitutes a good enough reason to elect to have surgery? What if it's cosmetic? What if it's causing you profound distress? How much distress is enough that it's okay? It all gets very... well... difficult.

OnThisHill · 31/05/2018 18:43

@Supermatchgame

Sorry, I wasn't clear. It was a genuine question on the legalities.

I'll own up, I regularly 'misgender' transpeople - for whatever reason, not difficult to know why.

My Q is - if I am breaking the law/ going against the equality act - I'm going to stop because I don't want to be wrong. That was all. Just wondered how it should be applied and if it applied to me, a citizen, on a public forum?

Terfulike · 31/05/2018 18:47

Can I remind you that I began by saying "i wouldn't say people can't be parents" Please do not put words in my mouth.

This issue is so very similar to smoking and drinking during pregnancy: all us mothers will have our own thoughts on that. We are allowed those views, and to act on them in our pregnancies, while other mothers are allowed to act on their very different views.

In some USA states mothers can be imprisoned for drinking during pregnancy.

Terfulike · 31/05/2018 18:51

That was addressed to Rat who seems to think now that I believe the state should " decide[s] what constitutes a good enough reason to elect to have surgery? " which I didn't either.