Julie Bindel bullying Posie

[LiterallyProblematic]

FFS! Why did a she have to do this? It’s so divisive and gratuitously mean!
twitter.com/bindelj/status/1217986645871546368?s=20

I'm a lesbian mum. My thoughts are as long as the child is well loved and cared for the sexuality or gender of the parents is irrelevant... I've been told here on FWR numerous times that my kids have the right to a father and I am selfish for having them in a lesbian relationship. No doubt these same posters agree with Posie that trans men should be sterilised.

And, yet again, you elide the substantive point you're responding to and extrapolating to something which nobody, including Posie, has said. Here is the substantive point again.

Were a lesbian mum to transition, would that person then become the heterosexual father and would that person then have the right to impose that identity and relationship on the child? Would that be in the child's best interests?

As I said previously, given the Freddy McConnell case, the courts agree with Posie: the child's right to its mother supercedes the right of the parent to choose to be its father.

This is consistent with what we now know about the best interests of the child in cases of adoption: they are served better by the truth of material reality and hence best practice is to be honest about this and, in many cases, preserve some, albeit minor, communication with the birth parent. Even though this may make adoptive parents feel insecure at times, it's in the best interests of the child.

Please try to respond to the substance of the points put to you rather than continuing to misrepresent them.

Where did they call you selfish, Sapphos? I can see posts saying a child has a right to know both their biological parents, which is a view some people hold.

Unless Posie has specifically said this, I'm not sure what relevance it has on this thread tbh - except just more FWR bashing.

I'm a lesbian mum Sapphos. PP has no problem with me - and I'm sure if she did she would tell me!!

I would imagine that for some, the rather large difference would be whether I'm bringing up my children to believe different relationships or styles of dressing are okay, or whether I'm bringing my children up while encouraging them to believe - what most people think are - blatant lies. No matter what the trans status of that person is.

Don't be silly Spartacus - we're the Borg here, didn't you know

Oh and I've just checked the thread to see who said that - and it was a poster who I don't think would call herself a feminist. Tends to come to FWR to argue with the feminists. You screenshot those v carefully to ensure the username wasn't shown, I'd guess.

The thing with FWR is that it is a discussion board that attracts those with opposing views to feminists - you can't then tar FWR with those opposing views.

I've been told here on FWR numerous times that my kids have the right to a father and I am selfish for having them in a lesbian relationship

Sapphos

The thread you link to has very few regular posters on it, it seems to be mostly populated by rare visitors, yet you cite it to blanket smear those of us who weren't even on it. This is a recurrent theme with your posts. They consist of ad hominems, smears and your obsessive hatred of PP. It's very tiresome.

Great post needmoresleep

"links or didn't happen"
"telling porkies"
Poster duly provides proof - "we're not a hive mind!"
That poster isn't feminist anyway, that's not a good example!
WTF lol

Is the idea that if you repeat an accusation enough people start to believe it.?

The objective here seems to be more that if you repeat the denials and undermining often enough people start to doubt.

Posie said it, multiple times, on more than one public forum, and repeated when asked again, and upped it to include her view that all trans people should not be parents, either before, during, or after transition.

The denial, minimising, and smearing of those who saw it with their own eyes right here in FWR is frankly astonishing.

GC posters have acknowledged that she said it, pointed towards her apology, said that she was goaded into it, and said it in the heat of the moment, and it was misinterpreted, taken out of context, and various other excuses. Including my personal favourite defence of “she didn’t actually sterilise anyone though”. One regular even posted on this thread to say they agreed with her.

Do you disbelieve all of them them too?

I get that Posie is contentious. Personally I’m a big admirer of the posters and projections campaigns, which were inspired and impactful in a very impressive way.

I don’t imagine she’s the type to deny having said something, so why all the denials here?

Sappho the links that you provided did not say you were "selfish" which was your claim.

Must try harder.

I think the denial or defending is because of the way the accusations are being made. Posie is entitled to her own views. People are entitled to agree or disagree with them.

Thanks to the ‘no debate’ culture, and to the moderation style of MN and other SM sites her actual words, what she said and how she said it are gone (much like my post!)

Posters who dislike Posie are going to frame her words as transphobic/homophobic/racist etc. This leads to denials and/or excuses from people who like her... and there are no posts to look back on and confirm.

If her words (and mine?...!) were left in place then the truth would be out there and it would be plain for all to see.

When MN was my lifeline I often C&P’d threads I was on because deleted threads and posts were often misrepresented. There were a couple of posters who would do it purposefully. That hasn’t changed, those type of posters are still in evidence and still doing exactly that. Thankfully these days I’m here far less and care far less!

Yy lteve.

Were a lesbian mum to transition, would that person then become the heterosexual father and would that person then have the right to impose that identity and relationship on the child? Would that be in the child's best interests?

Yes. I believe a person can be both transgender and a parent without any detriment to the child. Saying that it entirely depends on how it is handled.

If the person is honest with their partner and future kids from the start then I am struggling to see why there would be a problem? Are you suggesting a person should choose one or the other? Parenthood or being transgender?

If the person springs it on their partner and kids out of the blue - was previously mum all of a sudden wants to be dad - then that's a different story as the partner and kids have been misled. But the problem there is the dishonesty not that the parent is transgender.

As I said previously, given the Freddy McConnell case, the courts agree with Posie: the child's right to its mother supercedes the right of the parent to choose to be its father.

The courts were concerned with the birth certificate. There was no child protection issue or suggestion Freddie's child had a right to a mother or that Freddie should not able to identify as the kid's father in everyday life. I can see why naming Freddie as 'father' on the BC wouldn't work.

The other alternative would be entirely changing the BC wording and replacing 'mother' with 'birth parent' or whatever - a radical change which would only be of benefit to a tiny minority of people so I can see why the courts didn't do it . The money could be better spent elsewhere.

Lesbian parents are able to both appear on a birth certificate as 'mother' and 'parent' so it's a shame for Freddie that he cannot be named as 'parent' but its just a piece of paper at the end of the day.

Yes. I believe a person can be both transgender and a parent without any detriment to the child.

Did I say they couldn't?

You're still not getting it.

Sappho, sorry about turning this into an AMA ,but as a lesbian are you sympathetic to other lesbians concerns about erasure? And as a parent do you worry about the peer pressure/YouTube/Stonewalling of schools which seems to be at the root of the epidemic of ROGD?

And if not, why not.

Certainly the latter is something that Posie appears to feel strongly about.

This is just an example of the really poor quality of argumentation you get.

Some people in some discussions have said they have a problem with children deliberately being conceived with the idea that they would not be able to have a relationship with a biological parent. This has implications for things like surrogacy or sperm donation.

The idea here seems to be that this is wrong, and people who think this bad and right-wing, because that would mean that lesbians, among others, would not be able to use sperm donation. Now, the others maybe don't matter but apparently it would be clearly homophobic to deny lesbians sperm donation whatever the principles involved.

That's the kind of shit argument that has got us into this morass of competition for marginalisation points.

Similarly, yes, there are things we might say that people might do or choose, or circumstances they might find themselves in, where they should probably make a choice to avoid having kids, or if they want them, change their choices. I expect there would be a lot of disagreement on what those situations might be, and individual cases are highly variable anyway. Personally, I went to university with some kids who went to boarding schools from third grade and spent all summer at camps, and I seriously question whether that is not a type of neglect and whether many of their parents should have had a second thought in choosing to procreate. Others might differ.

But I'll bet that most people would agree that there are a variety of instances when deciding to avoid becoming a parent would be best, even if they acknowledge entirely that things aren't always as neat as that. How we get to a place where that is evidence of being right-wing I don't know.

@Needmoresleep without detailing this thread yes I do. It's a hard time to be a lesbian at the moment and I particularly fear for young lesbians.

I'll bet that most people would agree that there are a variety of instances when deciding to avoid becoming a parent would be best,

I'll bet these are not on the basis of race, religion, sexuality or transgender status otherwise 'most people' would be bigots.

Sapphos, as I suggested, Posie’s primary concerns seem to be around teenagers, and the right to free speech.

This board really isn’t a hive mind. It soon becomes clear that there is an amazing diversity of women, and a few men, who post. The important thing is to respect other people’s views. Most come from a position of caring.

I wound up here mainly from a free speech perspective. Brexit had alerted me to the woke orthodoxy, with clamping down on wrongthink and the debate by insult, so I decided that next time I would speak up. I don’t have a safeguarding or feminist background, so have then beenshocked about how little decision makers seem to care about children, or the vulnerable. How could they forget Rotherham or Saville so quickly.

As a result I find Posies thinking more accessible than some who have been steeped in feminist theory for years. I think her direct approach has really helped get the debate going. I also think the diversity is our strength. No one is perfect, but let’s focus on the positive contributions so many people are making. We want to keep our children safe.

Nothing really to do with this thread, but why can't people talk about things that might be detrimental to a child's wellbeing just because they are referring to the parental choices of some lesbians?

I wasn't affected by my father not being around, so I actually did consider not letting my dd know her useless father, but for other reasons I didn't follow that through. Turned out that when she turned twelve she really wanted to know a lot more about her father and I was glad I hadn't hidden her dad from her.

But that is purely anectodal and not an argument against the use of sperm donors either as nobody gets to have a perfect life in this world. But it is not lesbophobic to talk about this issue.

I'll bet these are not on the basis of race, religion, sexuality or transgender status otherwise 'most people' would be bigots.

Yes, this is just what I meant. If we can somehow make any question or problem possibly fit under one of these areas, they will get a free pass, because bigotry.

This is why some people are so eager to frame surrogacy as a LGBTQ2+ thing, then there can be no question that it must be allowed, whatever it means for kids or women - if fact such questions must be kept quiet as they are bigoted.

That whole type of argument is completely manipulative and can only serve a pre-determined agenda.

I've been told here on FWR numerous times that my kids have the right to a father and I am selfish for having them in a lesbian relationship

Really once I got my arse handed to me on a plate (under another name) for suggesting that a father had a role to play in a family situation. I was told by at least 2 posters a father was an optional extra but on the whole really didn't matter.