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?

I am always surprised by the expectation of purity some people have of those seeking to protect the rights of women and children against conflict with the rights of other groups. Some posters on this thread mention it constantly.

I am unlikely to be alone when I say that I don’t agree with at least one view expressed by every prominent person speaking up on this issue. It would be a very strange world to agree 100% on every point raised by another.

Did Posie say something that could be and was interpreted to mean something she did not quite intend? Yes. And we have the back story thanks to the poster who screenshot it for us.

I listened to the segment about the guns, and it seemed again that can be interpreted different ways. I interpreted it as saying those who are willing to go to the extreme of carrying guns could take a much less extreme approach and prove the point that the laws erode safeguarding protections.
That is a problem with unscripted internet live streams. And to my knowledge she removed the entire video. It is others who archived it (and wouldn’t that be using a clip without permission?)

Does everyone believing it is ok for zoom to ban Posie think that the person calling lesbians hairy and barren, who then went on to tell other lesbians they couldn’t talk about their bodies, and called gay men words I might get deleted for, should be lauded as featured speaker on IWD. No bans seem to ever been placed on that activist. Although they were sacked by a cosmetics company for their views on another issue.

That another person who effectively blamed women’s eggshell skulls for men being charged with murder in domestic violence incidents, who advocates for lowering the age of porn actors and for legalizing extreme porn, and that the reason women weren’t dying at the rate men were dying of Covid was because women were not out there working has never been banned either. and gets lauded as a Top Lesbian?

I won’t even go through the twitter feed of one of those activists that one poster on this thread has linked us to as an authority before. That twitter account was involved very recently with some pretty disgusting sexual harassment that did not result in a ban for them.

Yet, women discussing this issue seem to be able to be dismissed based on much lesser crimes. Women discussing this issue must be, for want of a better word, pure.

The point is hate speech has become rather distorted at the moment and its use to ban women for speaking about women and children’s rights seems to be an over reach and disproportionate.

I think you missed the point. Spectacularly

OK, what is the point then?
And why is it OK for men to go into the toilets with guns to protect us, but not trans women?

DARVO.
No.
I'm going with what is written here.
On this board.
Instead of
"you're missing the point!"
"DARVO!"
Why can no one answer?
Do you not hear yourselves?
Or should we all just ignore it and pretend it's not there?

Here is some social media behaviour by TRAs that anti women activists might like to condemn. "Not in our name" eh?

Abuse of GC women on twitter (be warned graphic, disturbing) www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3330245-Abuse-of-GC-women-on-twitter-be-warned-graphic-disturbing

@Mockolate

I think you missed the point. Spectacularly

OK, what is the point then?
And why is it OK for men to go into the toilets with guns to protect us, but not trans women?

The poster was using exactly the same arguments, word for word, that TRAs use with regards to male bodied people in women's toilets. And interestingly, you thought it was outrageous and terrible.

So you agree that the line of reasoning is a poor one then? It's great that you understand where we're coming from now.

@Mockolate

DARVO. No. I'm going with what is written here. On this board. Instead of "you're missing the point!" "DARVO!" Why can no one answer? Do you not hear yourselves? Or should we all just ignore it and pretend it's not there?

I have answered. I didn't in my first post because I thought it was clear. But now that I realise it wasn't, I have explained.

Do you also agree that it's a really poor argument?

I am always surprised by the expectation of purity some people have of those seeking to protect the rights of women and children against conflict with the rights of other groups. Some posters on this thread mention it constantly.

I am unlikely to be alone when I say that I don’t agree with at least one view expressed by every prominent person speaking up on this issue. It would be a very strange world to agree 100% on every point raised by another.

Did Posie say something that could be and was interpreted to mean something she did not quite intend? Yes. And we have the back story thanks to the poster who screenshot it for us.

I listened to the segment about the guns, and it seemed again that can be interpreted different ways. I interpreted it as saying those who are willing to go to the extreme of carrying guns could take a much less extreme approach and prove the point that the laws erode safeguarding protections.
^That is a problem with unscripted internet live streams. And to my knowledge she removed the entire video. It is others who archived it (and wouldn’t that be using a clip without permission?)

Does everyone believing it is ok for zoom to ban Posie think that the person calling lesbians hairy and barren, who then went on to tell other lesbians they couldn’t talk about their bodies, and called gay men words I might get deleted for, should be lauded as featured speaker on IWD. No bans seem to ever been placed on that activist. Although they were sacked by a cosmetics company for their views on another issue.

That another person who effectively blamed women’s eggshell skulls for men being charged with murder in domestic violence incidents, who advocates for lowering the age of porn actors and for legalizing extreme porn, and that the reason women weren’t dying at the rate men were dying of Covid was because women were not out there working has never been banned either. and gets lauded as a Top Lesbian?

I won’t even go through the twitter feed of one of those activists that one poster on this thread has linked us to as an authority before. That twitter account was involved very recently with some pretty disgusting sexual harassment that did not result in a ban for them.

Yet, women discussing this issue seem to be able to be dismissed based on much lesser crimes. Women discussing this issue must be, for want of a better word, pure.

The point is hate speech has become rather distorted at the moment and its use to ban women for speaking about women and children’s rights seems to be an over reach and disproportionate.

YY, all of this. Well said.

The poster was using exactly the same arguments, word for word, that TRAs use with regards to male bodied people in women's toilets. And interestingly, you thought it was outrageous and terrible.

No, the post said that it wasn't a big deal for men to be in the toilets as women have been doing it for years.
It said that.
I'm assuming you must have a case in mind where a TRA has said they're going into toilets with guns otherwise it sounds awfully like you're just assuming all trans people bad, with guns, in toilets, because one random extremist on the internet may have said something?
You can't just write off all someone has said about guns being fine in the toilet because it's been done it for years with "well it was just a gotcha anyway."
It's like nobody can answer, or see, what's going on on here.
Or they don't want to.
Yes, sunlight.

By the way, I disagree on other things that Posie says, and I disagree with thinking that anyone ‘should’ be sterilized. But I do agree with other things she says.

Do I think she should have been banned for stating such a thing? No! But she should have to defend what she said, and she did on MN. I still don’t necessarily agree with it but it is not a call for forced sterilization at all.

It's great that you understand where we're coming from now

No, because trans women in toilets just going to the toilet is NOTHING LIKE having armed men protecting public toilets.

I feel like someone is playing a luvverly game of 'how-much-can-I-goad-the-autistic-woman' here

Seriously?
How the heck would anyone know if a poster was autistic or not?
We're going on posts.
I am anyway.
Or are we not supposed to say anything against the usual posts in case it challenges someone who may be autistic?

@Mockolate

It's great that you understand where we're coming from now

No, because trans women in toilets just going to the toilet is NOTHING LIKE having armed men protecting public toilets.

But the argument used is exactly the one as that poster posted (presumably to make a point, not because she actually favours armed men in the toikets.) So why is one fine and the other isn't?

Either it's a robust argument or it isn't? Are you acknowledging then that the reasoning that has been used as to why transwomen should be welcome in the toilets is based on a flawed argument?

@Mockolate

The poster was using exactly the same arguments, word for word, that TRAs use with regards to male bodied people in women's toilets. And interestingly, you thought it was outrageous and terrible.

No, the post said that it wasn't a big deal for men to be in the toilets as women have been doing it for years.
It said that.
I'm assuming you must have a case in mind where a TRA has said they're going into toilets with guns otherwise it sounds awfully like you're just assuming all trans people bad, with guns, in toilets, because one random extremist on the internet may have said something?
You can't just write off all someone has said about guns being fine in the toilet because it's been done it for years with "well it was just a gotcha anyway."
It's like nobody can answer, or see, what's going on on here.
Or they don't want to.
Yes, sunlight.

Try less "assuming", and more reading.

I certainly got that it was a deliberate replication of arguments, just changing the nouns.

Offhand, I can't think of a TRA with a gun in women's toilets but I've seen toilet selfies showing other weapons such as a sword or baseball bats.

The sunlight is never shied away from here. You can try to reverse it all you like. People mostly don't buy into TRA ideological beliefs. It's not a priority for them as they see it as a lot of nonsense. The sunlight is where they see what's going on with the influential political movement pushing gender identity ideology and the unreasonable demands being made. They don't really care about what individual GC people or TRAs do or say.

Presumably
So people jump to it was a gotcha, and presumably to make a point without actually knowing that was the posters intention at all, and they could well have meant it?
Because that's easier to swallow and look at I suppose.
Rather than what was actually written.

So why is one fine and the other isn't?
Because trans women in the toilets just going to the toilets is just someone going to the toilet - men with guns at the entrance policing who goes in and out, not so much.
I can't believe people can't see this lol
Unless people really are fine with it and really can't see a difference.

A discussion of Posie did or did not say on MN has derailed this thread, which is about her potentially being banned on Zoom.

I'm not "trying to reverse anything.
It's all here.
On this board.

This thread even

A discussion of Posie did or did not say on MN has derailed this thread, which is about her potentially being banned on Zoom.

Yes, I agree.

@Mockolate

I'm not "trying to reverse anything. It's all here. On this board.

An excellent illustration of my point.

@Mockolate

I feel like someone is playing a luvverly game of 'how-much-can-I-goad-the-autistic-woman' here

Seriously?
How the heck would anyone know if a poster was autistic or not?
We're going on posts.
I am anyway.
Or are we not supposed to say anything against the usual posts in case it challenges someone who may be autistic?

If you don't understand the conversation being had, it's not compulsory for you to post.

But for you, I'll be kind and do a cliff notes thing.

There is a particular kind of person who is concerned with the rights and welfare of a particular marginalised group. It's generally a member of said group.

We are having a conversation about my concerns over the welfare of this generation of autistic youth. JustAmotherOne has used the word "mythical" to me in response, about something I have already said I find really upsetting.

Again, I am entitled to comment on this kind of thing.

@Mockolate

Presumably So people jump to it was a gotcha, and presumably to make a point without actually knowing that was the posters intention at all, and they could well have meant it? Because that's easier to swallow and look at I suppose. Rather than what was actually written.

So why is one fine and the other isn't?
Because trans women in the toilets just going to the toilets is just someone going to the toilet - men with guns at the entrance policing who goes in and out, not so much.
I can't believe people can't see this lol
Unless people really are fine with it and really can't see a difference.

I can't believe you don't understand sarcasm

An excellent illustration of my point

Meaning?

As someone upthread said
Open your eyes
Yes.
Think some really do need to.