Posie putting her money where her mouth is. Lets do this.

[Fallingirl]

Posie is planning to re-build the women’s sector, starting with crowd funding for a women-only refuge.

Your posts are illuminating Sapphos

Thanks Milady, wish I could say the same for yours.

How long is the funding drive going to last? I hope it is not too small a window.

@SapphosRock

Thanks Milady, wish I could say the same for yours.

See, you can obviously do sarcasm! How come you can't spot it when Posie does?

It comes across as disingenuous to purport to believe that Posie is, in fact, arguing that more blokes in the Ladies would somehow be a Good Thing. It's a reductio ad absurdem, as I'm sure you're perfectly aware.

I find it deeply odd how some posters persist in framing this as either supporting Posie or attacking VAGW services.

I understand the defensiveness from inside the sector because I've been in a similar position myself, but I found it just makes you look like you've got something to hide when you haven't.

I'll tell you what I support: women's services for women. Unambiguously,

unequivocally, unapologetically for women.
We've clearly lost them. No blame, just a fact.And now someone has stepped up to do something about it.

I think they're going to need a lot of qualities to pull it off: clear sightedness, tenacity, courage, great communicator, Perhaps most of all they'll need to be someone who isn't afraid to upset people, including some of the experts.

I assume they will need knowledge or expertise of the sector - or they will need to work with, or pass the funds onto people who have it. So I imagine they're going to need some inside support, not from everyone but from some.

They will need project management skills, or again they will need to work with or pass the funds on to the right people.

They will also need a plan and, if they're asking for money they will need to make large parts of that plan public, not straight away but soon. I think 'Ask me if you've any questions' might do for now but not for long. That's a concern for me although I'm willing to park it for now.

And if anyone still chooses to read that as supporting a personality or wanting to hurt vulnerable women then I really don't think there is anything further to say to them.

I doubt you were planning to donate anyway Sapphos. But your demand for extremely detailed answers at this early stage, alongside slurring her name, is questionable. Almost as if you would like her project to fail. I wonder why this is?

I did remember your name from the past and went back to check, clearly your older posting history is firmly on the side of trans rights activism. I suspect here is where the answers lie.

There's plenty of women who do trust Posie, and are happy to help her try and raise money to achieve this. I am one of them. In the knowledge that if it isn't successful, she will make sure the money is directed to a woman only project.

Although I have no doubt she will have a damn good try to make it work. And that's all we can ask of people.

What are you doing for women? Apart from trying to tear other women's goals for single sex services down? Absolutely nothing I'll wager.

Her fundraiser is doing quite well in it's short time of existence you'll probably not be pleased to know. I have no doubt that you, and posters like you, despite your attempts to sabotage it, have actually helped that grow. So keep on doing you. You're helping shine more light on what women are actually up against.

Again - what Flosime said. So much playing of the woman not the ball going on.

Also Charlie Parley excellent post sums up exactly why women are frustrated and donating. Organisations either can’t or wont openly state they are for women as in the adult human female kind. That is all kinds of sad and wrong

Absolutely Theeyeballsinthesky. Play the ball. Learn to tackle.

Aww that's a shame it's not reciprocal Sapphos. Nevermind, but please do carry on, I have popcorn and everything.

CorvusPurpureus Posie isn't being sarcastic, she is making a serious suggestion that men who 'carry' (guns) should go into women's toilets to show how dangerous Self ID is. Like the whole Man Friday stunt but in reverse.

You know The National Rifle Association state the best thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?

Posie thinks the best way to stop bad men in women's toilets is good men in women's toilets.

I don't agree with her strategy. I think at best it's irresponsible, at worst extremely dangerous. I also think it's important that she should be called out here, on a feminism forum, for actively encouraging men into women's spaces. There very thing we are trying to stop them doing! Otherwise why are we all here?

But anyone who questions Posie's logic must be a TRA, the mask is slipping, they're probably a man

And no I'm not attacking Posie as a person, I'm questioning her extremely dubious Tweets and utterly bonkers videos.

Still tackling the person, not the ball. Throwing in words like 'strategy' and 'logic' doesn't change that.

The argument for me goes: Do women need some single sex services? Yes.
Do those services need to be able to state that they're for women only? Yes
Do we have them at the moment? Apparently not.
Do I support doing something about it? Yes.
Should the action from within the sector? At one time I'd have said 'yes' but it seems clear now that this isn't going to happen.

Do I think the person taking action is the right fit? In some very important ways (as stated already), yes. In some other ways, I'm not certain. But I'm going to watch and wait and, in the meantime, I'm not going to try to pull that person down.

I’ve just discovered that one of the very few existing services that posters on this thread were quite incensed that we weren’t donating to instead of Posie, nia, does not provide refuge to ordinary sufferers of domestic abuse.

Nia is a specialised service, and a very laudable one at that. They provide refuge space to women with alcohol- and drug-abuse issues, those who are exiting prostitution and women who may be violent and disruptive because of these issues. Those women are usually exclyded from other refuges, and nia is providing a much needed service.

This is an important point that shouldn't be lost in all the Posie bashing.

Sapphos I'm sorry, I really don't think that was a serious, considered proposition, or that anyone would genuinely think it was.

It's so obviously a furious, sarcastic rant.

I mean, if your argument was that Posie sometimes lets her anger run away with itself, I wouldn't disagree, & definitely that does on occasion bite her on the arse.

But if she were to reply to your question upthread, I'm reasonably confident that her considered response wouldn't be yup, big hairy tooled up NRA types in the women's bogs, that's exactly what we need here. In fact, I'm fairly sure I remember her clarifying that at the time.

(Although I'd argue that with the number of TRAs behaving unpleasantly in the Ladies & posting about it on Twitter, they might not get shot because that's just ridiculous, but being popped in the chops by someone's angry partner/dad is probably only a matter of time, but I digress).

I think most of us cheering Posie on know perfectly well that she doesn't have much in the way of filter at the best of times, & occasionally she lands her foot squarely in her gob. That's fine - it's the flip side of her being so very effective at getting people's attention.

This is an important point that shouldn't be lost in all the Posie bashing.

Definitely.

Actually, to show how disingenuous plucking that illustrative point from PP is, I could act similarly and misrepresent this direct quote from Sappho and say this shows they support the view.

You know The National Rifle Association state the best thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?

However, I don't have any agenda to discredit anyone, so I won't pretend it is for any other reason than to illustrate a point.

Perhaps our dear head girls and leaders could kindly put together a full list of their approved feminists, women, causes, and charities?

This would ensure that us silly mummies don't support the wrong women/ cause!

How is it head girl or leader like to question what that meant about allowing men into the toilets with a gun?
Surely it's common sense to raise concerns, not just wave away with '' Well she didn't mean it '' or '' context'' surely it's not good in any context?

Well I get paid again tomorrow so I'm going to be donating again. Thanks everyone for keeping this thread so active.

And that's up to you, but nothing wrong with people asking questions, makes sense to

@Quaggars

How is it head girl or leader like to question what that meant about allowing men into the toilets with a gun? Surely it's common sense to raise concerns, not just wave away with '' Well she didn't mean it '' or '' context'' surely it's not good in any context?

Well. If we are applying that level of sense or understanding, everything must be literal now.

Do you also think that we shouldn't just wave away concerns about Sappho's reposting that the best way to stop a bad man with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun.

Obviously, now nobody can illustrate a point in any way beyond the literal.

Indeed, you have just posted about allowing men into toilets with a gun. Dearie me. We can garner what we like from that, I suppose.

It is a disingenuous dead cat, innit.

Yes, as that's what it said.
Why should nobody question that?
Why the dearie me? It wasn't me who said it, but suddenly it's '' We can garner what we like from that I suppose. ''
But what, we're all to pretend it wasn't said.move along now, nothing to see, didn't mean it like that silly when it's pp?

I'm always amazed at the determination to keep some of these topics at the top of the board.

Yes, it almost seems some don't like discussion, never mind provision of women's single sex spaces.

This is getting so tedious, I'm going to have a go at making the argument for you:

Is a person who - as I think we can all agree - has a tendency to shoot from the hip capable of making the kind of alliances within the sector that will be necessary to make this happen?
Is that what you're trying to say?
Because if so, I think that might be valid concern.

Personally it's a concern that, for now, I'm prepared to let play out because a) I don't know enough about it to answer b) It seems to me that this person has many of the other qualities needed and c) there isn't exactly a queue of other people offering to take the job on.

If it's too big a concern for you then fair enough. But for heavens sake please learn to say so.

@Quaggars

And that's up to you, but nothing wrong with people asking questions, makes sense to

Your asking the wrong people tho