Posie Parker Interview

[wprice81]

Is anyone else aware that Posie is doing an interview with controversial youtuber, j.f. gariepy? didn't expect to see that...

But how can you claim to care about black children and lesbians if the way you show you care is by appearing on a white supremacists channel???

Fuck me, she'll be appearing with Tommy Robinson next.

Then everyone here, on a feminism forum, presumably caring for women, being fine with that because you agree with him and his viewers on trans issues.

It's hypocrisy pure and simple. It's plain to see that actual feminism comes a very poor second behind the anti trans argument for many posters on here.

I watch the BBC (even pay my licence fee!) despite despairing at some of the bias, the pay iniquities and my hatred of Paul Hollywood. I read Murdoch newspapers. I occasionally use Amazon despite their taxation position. I drink at 'Spoons despite his Brexit stance. Watching a YT channel that gives me an insight in to how other people view the world is just another thing I do. I don't mind if you prefer not to, that's your choice. But please don't make out that I'm a neo-Nazi RW racist whatever because I do choose to engage with things I disapprove of or disagree with. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.

And while he and Posie have very different views about VAWG (he thinks women are just as violent as men but they get away with it in court because the judges feel sorry for them), he certainly appeared to agree with her that children should not be being drugged and mutilated, and that children have the right to know their biological parents if they are being brought up in a same-sex or single-parent family.

It looked to me like she pointedly disagreed with several of his ideas and made it clear she didn't share some of his (seriously weird) views.

Wotcha - again:

1. posie challenged his views.

2. you have no idea whether all his followers are aware of the issues surrounding trans children.

3. she can consider this a success, because people are still talking about it. Pink News reported it. And that's what she wants - to talk about it. To challenge No Debate. By debating it - with everyone.

So, the only black people we can care about are children and/or lesbians? Is that what you're saying?

Dear Wotcha - your derails fail perpetually!

Humans have all degrees of skin pigmentation which are determined by their DNA. That does not detract from them all being humans, regardless of their age or sexuality.

PP's focus is on those humans who are under 18 years of age [globally recognised as children] and those whose female sexuality is homosexual.

These are the two demographics for whom their voices are the least regarded by the majority of humans in our patriarchal society across our world.

So, the only black people we can care about are children and/or lesbians? Is that what you're saying? And obviously not heterosexual or bisexual women of any colour?

It's very silly of you to do this, as I haven't even watched the video, or said any opinion on it.
As has been noted I've kept pretty neutral and that's because I've no interest in the video. It's this thread itself that interests me, the interaction of people within it.

By all means put words into my mouth and think of me how you like of course, but it makes you look silly to do so.

So, the only black people we can care about are children and/or lesbians? Is that what you're saying?

Dear Wotcha - your derails fail perpetually!

That wasn't me who said that.

So you claim she is out to give lesbians and children a voice because they are the minority in the current political climate, and you also agree some of those are minority ethnic.

So how do you think she gave them a voice by generating revenue for a white supremacist?

I mean she could’ve challenged his views, his regular guests include the former leader of the KKK so there’s not much chance of him giving them a voice, but she very much could have.

Instead she chose to ignore that.

Or are you saying she’s an advocate for lesbians and children but only when it comes to trans issues, aside from that she doesn’t really care. In which case, we can hardly call her a ‘voice’ for them, can we?

Have you ever considered that maybe if the only interest someone has in the rights of women, children and lesbians is that trans people are not included in that definition, that they may not be coming from a great place?

SimplyTheWorst

Wotcha didn't say that - I did.

Wotcha you are correct and I apologise. It was TequilaPilates who made the statement: "So, the only black people we can care about are children and/or lesbians? Is that what you're saying?"

Read the posts Wotcha? Exactly who introduced antisemitism?

I suggest you do the same - if you scroll back, you'll see I already clarified and corrected.

I suspect you are yet another vexatious poster here in Mumsnet with the sole intent to make trouble and discredit as many women as possible who contribute to this Mumsnet platform across all its themes and threads
No. I'm not. I've been here absolute years as an active poster, mainly in Chat and AIBU but only fairly recently in FWR.
I shouldn't have to keep trying to defend myself for not always agreeing, or questioning things.
I don't want women to "shut up" we're all entitled to our views, we should all be entitled to an opinion - I'm allowed to say if something I see feels wrong, for example.
I'm not vexatious and all these discrediting crap is stupid.

Earlywalker

Thank you for expressing exactly what I am thinking but in such a clear and precise way.

I find it unbelievable that anyone could defend someone appearing on this man's channel in order to further their argument. Some things are indefensible and I'm shocked that people can think that it could ever be ok.

Earlywalker you said: "Have you ever considered that maybe if the only interest someone has in the rights of women, children and lesbians is that trans people are not included in that definition, that they may not be coming from a great place?"

PP concerns herself with humans who are under the age of 18 years and who are being subjected to transgenderist ideology by those who are adults [humans over the age of 18 years]. That is her choice that she is entirely free to make, whether you like that or not. Such humans who are children have the least voice in our male dominated world that is patriarchy across our world.

Beyond prioritising children, PP gives attention to the second least voice that receives attention in our male dominated patriarchal world, which is that of lesbians.

That again is her choice that she is entirely free to make.

[Note that most females who transition are those who discover they have lesbian sexuality.]

PP concerns herself with humans who are under the age of 18 years and who are being subjected to transgenderist ideology by those who are adults [humans over the age of 18 years]. That is her choice that she is entirely free to make, whether you like that or not. Such humans who are children have the least voice in our male dominated world that is patriarchy across our world.

And if she chooses to voice that concern on the YouTube channel of a man who holds racist and misogynistic views then she has to expect that people will firm opinions about that. She also has to accept the responsibility for increasing the reach of this man on the back of the publicity that she has secured for him.

nd if she chooses to voice that concern on the YouTube channel of a man who holds racist and misogynistic views then she has to expect that people will firm opinions about that. She also has to accept the responsibility for increasing the reach of this man on the back of the publicity that she has secured for him.

Ha ha! Exactly how many views has that video interview had in relation to the planet earth population, or even the Canadian population? Do tell!

Ha ha! Exactly how many views has that video interview had in relation to the planet earth population, or even the Canadian population? Do tell!

I have no.idea because to find out I have to look at his channel, which increases his hits. But if it's so few, what was the point in her doing it?

Some posters are arguing that she did it to educate people who don't know about safeguarding issues, some are saying she did it to get the word out to his subscribers that don't currently understand the issue and then others are saying it's no problem because hardly anyone would have seen it anyway. So which is it - it's increased publicity for the issue or no one's seen it anyway?

3) she can consider this a success, because people are still talking about it. Pink News reported it. And that's what she wants - to talk about it. To challenge No Debate. By debating it - with everyone.

Three days. Thanks to the constant promotion of this thread.

She must love mumsnet. ❤️

I definitely have a firm opinion about Posie, I also have very firm opinions about several posters on this thread.

And if she chooses to voice that concern on the YouTube channel of a man who holds racist and misogynistic views then she has to expect that people will firm opinions about that

This

And what really makes me laugh is that I've seen posters link to articles in the Guardian before and people refuse to click on it because they object to increasing hits on the papers site, yet increasing the hits on this man's YouTube channel? Oh no, that's aok

I have no.idea because to find out I have to look at his channel, which increases his hits. But if it's so few, what was the point in her doing it?

It's 6031 views.

"if it's so few" why the hell are you making such a fuss about it?

Do you honestly not see how ridiculous you are?

Then the point of doing it was?

Then the point of doing it was?

Haha. This is hilarious.

Only one person to whom this question is addressed is actually here!

ok, I'll bite
She must love mumsnet
Apart from you love her hair and plops like she must like MN and I'm loving this thread (what, how when it makes you come across like you do?!) do you not see what we are saying is valid too?
What exactly is wrong with not wanting to associate or give revenue to what sounds like a raging misogynist?
That presumably the only people prepared to give her a platform is far right ones like this? Doesn't that ring any alarm bells at all? Raise any concerns?!
I mean if others would, why hasn't she gone there instead? Why here?

You want to know posies motives? Ask Posie. Don't be scared. I'm sure she'll answer.