Posie Parker Zoom

[AdHominemNonSequitur]

Posie Parker has been warned by Zoom that her account may be suspended for promoting hate. Now she can sometimes go a bit far, but as far as I am aware all she does is deny TWAW, which is still supported by UK and probably US law. Are they going to ban the UK government when it debates trans rights too. This is absolutely terrifying over reach. Can anyone still be in denial about the deeply illiberal nature of this shit show. What have we let happen under our noses. What are we still letting happen? What is wrong with people? Why can't they see?

[JustAmotherOne]

“ Concern for depriving children of a mother shouldn't be controversial.”

Did someone turn over two pages at once or something? This is just a random statement plucked out of the air.

[ViperAtTheGatesOfDawn]

@JustAmotherOne

“ Concern for depriving children of a mother shouldn't be controversial.”

Did someone turn over two pages at once or something? This is just a random statement plucked out of the air.

To you, maybe.

Some might argue that a child suffers a loss and/or trauma if the person that gives birth to them does not identify as their mother. This is perfectly relevant given the content of this thread.

* I'd rather use different words here but I don't want a strike.

[JustAmotherOne]

Well, I have to hand it to you, this thread is doing a great job of showing what lies beneath the FWR facade.

[ViperAtTheGatesOfDawn]

There is no facade, just a range of views. Like in real life.

[malloo]

I agree with PP on some things and not on others but I think she has a right to say what she thinks, that's the point of freedom of speech. If she did say that about sterilisation then that's pretty bad and I wouldn't support that position. But far better to debate what is wrong with that rather than saying she should be banned or cancelled. This is the whole problem with #nodebate. Anyway aren't we talking about her getting banned for something she did today not for something she said ages ago?

[PotholeParadies]

@JustAmotherOne

Well, I have to hand it to you, this thread is doing a great job of showing what lies beneath the FWR facade.

I thought the same about all of you, tbh.

Never did I think in my wildest dreams that a snippy comment from me would expose such a vein of authoritarianism and relish in punishment.

Banning people from libraries because of another family member's behaviour? Bloody. Hell.

Punishing the children for the sins of the parents, eh?

[Mockolate]

There is no facade, just a range of views.

Like nothing to see here, move along....?
Yes, there's a range of views, you have your moderate views, and valid concerns, but what's "underneath" if you scratch that little bit further is this thread.
These threads pop up every now and again and do a great job of exposing the extreme views such as those expressed on this thread.
Some of the views do stir up hatred, instil fear, incite people (seen "rise up", talk about "the trenches" for example used on FWR more than once...)
why should that be debated, as someone upthread said, it's like with Twitter and Trump - should they have just let it all play out and thought "free speech, innit?" all the "it's just different views"....
No.
No, it's not.
It's more that that.

[Mockolate]

I thought the same about all of you, tbh

"All of you?"
What even is this supposed to mean?
Do you see all people with a different view as a TRA, or something?
Sweeping generalisations about everyone.

[PotholeParadies]

@Mockolate

I thought the same about all of you, tbh

"All of you?"
What even is this supposed to mean?
Do you see all people with a different view as a TRA, or something?
Sweeping generalisations about everyone.

All of you who have engaged in this discussion with me, expressing steadily stranger viewpoints.

[iguanadonna]

If a woman says something unkind or unreasonable, she should immediately be banned from all communication channels. Women should know that they are ALWAYS required to make their case calmly, thoughtfully, and while wearing a well-ironed blouse.

[MadameButterface]

@malloo

I agree with PP on some things and not on others but I think she has a right to say what she thinks, that's the point of freedom of speech. If she did say that about sterilisation then that's pretty bad and I wouldn't support that position. But far better to debate what is wrong with that rather than saying she should be banned or cancelled. This is the whole problem with #nodebate. Anyway aren't we talking about her getting banned for something she did today not for something she said ages ago?

See what happens is someone starts a thread (from op: “ Posie Parker has been warned by Zoom that her account may be suspended for promoting hate. Now she can sometimes go a bit far, but as far as I am aware all she does is deny TWAW”) saying posie has been banned from wherever for saying x. Then someone else says oh well she said a fair bit more than that. Then someone else says some variation of yes but did she/well that’s not that bad/do you have any proof. Then the screenshots come out, and someone will go oh she also said y. Then someone else comes along and goes ‘why are you going on about every single little thing she’s ever said and what’s with all the screenshots and anyway FREE SPEECH’ as though we’re not all here talking on a privately owned forum that has its own terms of use which we’ve all signed up to and agreed to abide by.

It’s not nazi germany, it’s not some targeted anti Strong Opinionated Woman conspiracy, it’s that she’s violated the terms of service of the platform she’s using. I remember her from way on back in the day on here, long before she had any type of feminist awakening, and i recall her having posts removed for breaking various talk guidelines back then (she’s never been much of a fan of islam or muslims iirc), as did most people at one point or another. No big conspiracy, the sky isn’t falling.

Op has said at some point on the thread that she’s aware now that there’s more to it than she initially thought, which is pretty gracious of her. You don’t see a lot of nuance round these parts.

[Gcnq]

The fact people are still banging on about something PP said three years ago goes to show how dangerous it is to be a woman with an opinion

[MadameButterface]

@iguanadonna

If a woman says something unkind or unreasonable, she should immediately be banned from all communication channels. Women should know that they are ALWAYS required to make their case calmly, thoughtfully, and while wearing a well-ironed blouse.

It’s a nice try but lots of blokes get banned for hate speech from various platforms as well. There was a little hoo ha recently over in america, you may have seen a mention or two of it somewhere.

[Zinco]

Should Twitter have allowed Trump to continue posting?

Yes, obviously, so long as he wasn't calling for violence or inciting crime.

But there was a riot? Trump explicitly called for peaceful protest, and was a million miles away from the legal standard of incitement of violence.

What part of "free speech" don't some people understand?

[jj1968]

@Gcnq

The fact people are still banging on about something PP said three years ago goes to show how dangerous it is to be a woman with an opinion

I'm pretty sure lots of other women had opinions three years ago that people aren't still banging on about.

[JayAlfredPrufrock]

Well I’m with Posie.

[MadameButterface]

Person a: posie has been banned from wherever for hate speech but she’s never done anything like that

Person b: what about the time she said xyz?

Person c: omg why are you even still talking about that

[sanluca]

Facade of FWR... ok. Is that speak for 'women behave and be nice'?

PP is sometimes absolutely awful, sometimes absolutely fantastic. The comment about transmen is not ok imo, but I do agree with the argument that if you feel you are a man, it is strange to become pregnant, what only women can do, and then also claim to be the father. It is extremely egocentric. And potentially dangerous if the uterus haver in question is using testosterone.

But to be kicked of zoom? No. It is is a slippery slope to start banning people who have an opinion you don't agree with. Because your opinion might be ok now, but tomorrow it could be your opinion that is banned.

[JaninaDuszejko]

It hinges on the word should. These three sentences all criticise women for the same behaviour but there's a big difference between them:

1. Women shouldn't drink alcohol when pregnant.
   
2. Women who drink alcohol during pregnancy will be prosecuted for damage to the foetus.
   
3. Kill all mothers who drink alcohol while pregnant.
   
   It is offensive to say a group of people should be sterilized. It is far more offensive to actually be the person sterilizing them.
   
   Is the decision to remove Posie Parker from Zoom proportionate to her offence and comparable to the treatment of other public figures who have done offensive things. I wonder if Justin Trudeau has been taken off Zoom because of wearing blackface? Or Boris Johnson because of his racist comments? Or Prince Andrew or Ched Evans for their treatment of young and drunk women? We see again and again XY men getting away with deeply troubling behaviour whereas XX women are repeatedly held to a much higher standard.

[Mockolate]

OK, if saying women who think they are men should be sterilized doesn't matter as it's too long ago and therefore banging on about it or whatever...
what about the more recent stuff?
She appeared on a far right type you tube channel (sorry, can't remember the name) - of a bloke who really didnt seem to be for women.
At all.
Or what sounded like men who carry (guns) should defend the women's bathrooms from trans people?
THAT I find a hell of a lot scarier thought than trans women who may or may not be using the toilets at the same time as me.
Before anyone asks where I'm getting all this from, right here on threads that have been on FWR.

[PaleBlueMoonlight]

I am not defending Posie’s statement. I just know from listening to her that she doesn’t think that transmen should be sterilised. Whereas jj, Just and mock think of the back of that statement that she is actually a eugenicist.

PP are trying to cast Posie as an extreme transphobe so that FWR posters can be accused of being apologists for transphobia. She is being used as a pawn (yet again). I am sorry I engaged.

Interestingly, I haven’t got a clue from this thread why she was warned by zoom. I think I’ll go and listen to her to find out.

[Mockolate]

Facade of FWR... ok. Is that speak for 'women behave and be nice'?

No.
Not at all.
Is that all you get from what was said?

[Mockolate]

PP are trying to cast Posie as an extreme transphobe so that FWR posters can be accused of being apologists for transphobia

I'm just going by what has been said on this thread.
It's speaking for itself.

[sanluca]

I heard about the comment about the guns, but no idea what the context is that she said it in.

But again, she says things that go a bit too far. But does she incite riots? Say all transpeople need to be jailed or reeducated? Threaten to have people killed? Where do you draw the line before deciding to ban people? Is the line for banning the same for all people? If the line isn't clear, if what someone says doesn't break any laws and if you treat PP differently than other people, then yes, Zoom is wrong and censoring. I don't care they are a private company, social media and tech companies have too much power and we all know their bias. It is so clear.

[ViperAtTheGatesOfDawn]

It seems to be impossible to unapologetically centre and promote the rights of women and children without being considered a transphobe.

We can't even do it here on a feminism and women's rights board. We have to caveat and adjust our language constantly.

I suspect there'd be more nuance if we weren't struggling to type with one hand tied behind our backs. Censorship tends to make people less amenable, and rightly so.