And this is exactly why Posie Parker is a liability

[MerchedBeca]

Yes, she's charismatic, has style and says things out loud we all wish we'd had the ovaries to say.

But sometimes, the shit she says is fucking dangerous. HOW can she say she's standing for women's rights and then blithely say that our access to abortion is a price worth paying? WTFucking hell?

This isn't about elites, or head girls or any of that shit that Posie chucks at women who disagree with her. We're seeing the biggest pushback on women's rights since before women's lib, we need to build a grass roots movement to fight this, urgently, and Posie's tactics are harming us.

So, this morning someone called Billy Bragg out on his stance on women's rights, and he came back directly with a screenshot of Posie taking shit about Roe vs Wade.

We are NEVER going to convince the left wing that this is an issue they need to get to grips with if the loudest voice they hear on this Posie who's very obviously courting the US religious right, and if every time someone tries to have a conversation with the left about this topic, we're all smeared by association with Posie and whatever shit she's said recently. I know she says she's not a feminist but that detail is lost our detractors. She's a gift to those who want to paint us all as ultra right wing bigots, and this matters.

And you got that name wrong.

You got that name wrong, carelessly.

Do you care about actual facts, at all?

Since we're at the top of a new page:

We're still waiting for the rest of the chopped off Tweet by PP/KJK, which is supposed to be so noxious and damning according to people like the OP and Billy Bragg - actual Billy Bragg!! We must bow down to him!!! We must bow down to BBragg and his handmaidens, and throw ourselves on the pyre or be damned!

Nah,

I'd prefer to stand for the rights of girls - juvenile human females - and women - adult human females.

If men and handmaidens feel sore about that, then so be it. Deal with it.

Well now I am sure you don't understand it. The Constitution doesn't directly guarantee a right to abortion. Which means the argument needs to be made that it does so indirectly, which is what RvW claimed to do through the right to privacy.

If that's not valid, which is what the new ruling says,in order to make this a constitutional issue someone would have to argue successfully that it is indirectly guaranteed as a right through some other part of the Constitution.

Which no one has. So yes, the states can legislate on it unless that happens, or a law is passed at the federal level.

criticism taken.

PP and many others GC feminists (or non feminists) are happy to align with ultra right on this issue, I am not. For them, being adult means that they get over possible disagreements with ultra right Christians.

For me, it means I get over my disagreements with TRAs and fight against what I perceive to be advancing fascism in UK. The attacks on our human rights and right to protest is far more important for me. In fact I perceive it to be existential threat.

your argument goes both ways.

I agree with people about trans ideology and don’t agree with them about abortion. It’s that simple
It's not though, is it, because if you were to say vote for someone who agrees with you on trans issues but are strongly against abortion too, if they got into power it wouldn't be a case of "well they agree with me in regards to trans issues, it doesn't matter if they're against abortion."
Because it would matter a hell of a lot if they were suddenly in a position to bring in other anti womens rights such as abortion.
I find it dangerous to pick and choose which of our rights you're ok to sacrifice just because they agree with you on one thing.

It's very simple, really.

Men can never be women.

The end.

But there you go again, using the word “align”. No one is “aligning”. No one is getting over disagreements on other things. Those disagreements still remain.

For me, it means I get over my disagreements with TRAs and fight against what I perceive to be advancing fascism in UK. The attacks on our human rights and right to protest is far more important for me. In fact I perceive it to be existential threat

And I agree with this. But this means you are also “aligning” yourself with people on the right who also rail against the shutting down or legitimate protest. For example Matt Walsh did a lot of work supporting the father of the rape victim in Louden County who was arrested for protesting the cover up of his daughter’s rape by the school board. So you agree with Matt Walsh on the threat to the right to protest. Do you accept, by your own logic, that you’re aligned with Matt Walsh now?

The agreement and disagreement is simple. The voting isn’t. You’re lucky Janet, because the people you would vote for would throw away most of women’s rights while protecting abortion because you support both these ideas, whereas most here want to vote for people who will protect women’s rights in total.

So you’re happy to sacrifice a number of women’s rights if it means abortion is protected. Good for you. But just as “pick and choosy” as everyone else, again the hypocrisy.

So, no one is willing to agree with me, that men can never be women?

You're just happy now to argue among yourselves on whether women (the adult human females) belong to the left or to the right?!.

Barking!

We don't owe you anything, left or right!

We are women. We are speaking to you. But are you listening? No, you're not.

You people, who think that women should agree with you, because you tell me you are a good person??!!!

No.
Getting Jimmy Savile vibes off the "Be Kind" people.

Agreeing is different to aligning. I don’t know who Matt Walsh is I suspect I agree with him on more than one issue. However if I campaign with him or use that issue to promote a candidate then I am aligning with him.

Another example is that I agreed with many Brexit points but was not willing to vote for it. I suspected that it was used as a single issue to advance right wing agenda going against my broader values.

@christinarossetti39 You have been thoroughly refuted but you don't have the good grace to acknowledge the effort people have put in to explain to you why you are wrong. To my mind that means you are arguing in bad faith.

Agreeing is different to aligning

Well quite. So why do you see GC women agreeing as “aligning” and “getting in bed” with people? What’s the difference? You wrote:

I am one of those lefties that have been turned away from GC, even though I agree that in view of self id, we should protect single sex spaces. However, seeing many GC women get in bed with racists and misogynists and advocate for Trump, I’d rather ally with TRAs. While I am not a single issue person, keeping abortion rights is a far more important issue for me. It is true that PP can do and say what she wants but that’s true for many of us.

You said you’d rather ally with TRAs but at the same time object to the type of things TRAs do, like shut down the right to protest. So which is it?

The reason this comes up so often I suspect is because the people who subscribe to this perspective, this kind of leftism, are anti-democratic.

I don't think they necessarily realize that about themselves, but it comes from the whole "right side of history" idea. They see politics as a battle between the good ideas and the bad, and aside from some small aberrations like gender ideology, the good ones are on the left. It doesn't really even matter if some, or many people don't agree, these are the ideas that all societies and cultures should embrace.

They may be ok with political discussion so long as it doesn't seem too likely that people with the wrong ideas might win, but ultimately a lot would actually be just as happy to see the Good ideas imposed.

So they have no patience for women who think the wrong things, or talk to the wrong people, and especially women who think it is ok to have substantially different ideas and argue for them.

The democratic idea, that people have a social discourse over issues through different institutions, and through the political process develop a society that reflects the values and beliefs of most, or strikes compromises, is not seen as having any particular value if it doesn't produce the right kinds of laws.

It's the understanding that this social discourse is valuable in itself, and that it's political resolutions are valid or constitute something important, that is disturbing to those with a fundamentally ideological political project.

Anyway, it is useless to try and pacify people who will refuse to listen to arguments due to the perceived political alignment of those making them.

It's just men and their handmaidens, telling women (old-fashioned cunty type) to shut up again. You're disgusting. We say so. Be told.

Same old, same old.

Nah.

Fuck you.

No @MangyInseam, you are wrong once again regarding US constitutional law. Just because the US constitution is silent on a specific topic doesn't mean a correlating right can't be rooted in it. Does the 1st Amendment specifically mention the right to burn the US flag or tear up your Vietnam War draft notice? No. Does the 2nd Amendment specifically give individuals the right to own guns? No. Does the 4th Amendment mention privacy in autombiles? Well no, cars were not even invented when it was written and yet it guides the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on what cops can and can't do when they pull over drivers.

I'm well aware of what the Court held in Dobbs and the power it gives the states to criminalize abortion. My point is Dobbs is wrongly decided. States cannot just decide to criminalize abortion, just like they cannot decided to segregate schools by race, ban women from obtaining drivers licenses, ban women from owning property or working outside the home, deny marriage licenses to inter racial or same sex couples, etc. Do you really think the US constitution explicitly spells out all those rights?

Now you can continue on parroting US alt-right talking points all you want. But make no mistake about it - they are deeply rooted in white supremacy & misogyny. Your ingnorance of American law & history will not change that.

You, MerchBeca and others who embrace shutting down speech is that you either fail to see or simply have no interest in the fact that influence works both ways.

Posie is not a Bible-thumper nor is she on the Right. Nothing but good comes from finding common ground, in unity there is strength. Come to think of it perhaps that is why you are are so opposed to Posie's efforts to address people across the political spectrum, you simply don't want those who in many ways are at loggerheads to surmount that obstacle to act in a co-ordinated way to protect not only women's rights and protect children from genderwoo but also to protect free speech and to adamantly affirm its paramount importance, an importance that supersedes everything, that definitely supersedes hurt feelings.

It's a bit ironic to accuse me of repeating right wing talking points given that you don't seem to have read what I said.

I said, very close to the beginning of my post, that rights can be rooted indirectly. And that RvW was an attempt to do that with abortion.

It hasn't been apart from that. That is why when the RvW decision was reversed it left things open to the states.

Had there been a legal ruling that abortion access was covered in some other way, that would not have happened - they still would have been restricted in what they could do.

This is the whole reason that pro-choice activists felt it was so important.

Like - do you think the whole legal system and every state is just now ignoring other judgments on this? Why would they do that? Why wouldn't pro-choice activists point out that such a ruling exists?

Can you point out to us where this other ruling is?

And all of these other things you mention have been established in the courts - so they are really not a good comparison.

Do you really think that just because you want it to be constitutionally protected, it must be in there somewhere?

If you are secretly GC because you fear you'll be associated with Posie if you go public then let me assure you being associated with her will be the least of your worries. If there were no Posie to sully the pond and you went public with your GC views, you'd be labelled a terf and you'd have to contend with all this.

terfisaslur.com/

@MangyInseam

Yes, they do think this.

We’re lucky in the UK that this issue isn’t on the table. We don’t need to hold off the right at all costs like I accept people have to do in the States.

You don't agree that women need to be recognised as a political sex class.

Or more importantly as a legal class.

If you think that you can protect abortion rights while fighting the war to have males included in the laws which are designed to protect single sex spaces and pregnant men included in female reproduction, good luck with your political outlook.

Ireland is in the process of removing the word "women" from the biggest single sex reproductive protection women have. The right to economic freedom while gestating a new human. Next up is the removal of the recognition of mothers contribution to society from the Consitution, granted the idea that women who had babies should have some right to economic support from the State is very Right Wing idea.

Pat yourself on the back and think that abortion is more important than the right to be recognised as a sex class. And get over your aversion of males placed in Women's prison on your behalf. And get over you only funding mixed sex spaces. Be a great ally to the idea that biology is not important to recognising women as a legal sex class

Don't consider if people get to choose about gestation and men have abortion rights too how far should that right extend.

Because while you are smiling at the bepenised in your mixed sex space the Right Wing will use your #BeKindAndSmile to push for more rights for the sperm producers in the ^it'sAMan'sRightTo_Choose debate.

I am laughing at Baldrick being on the naughty step!

What a corker this thread is, so enlightening as to the way some of PPs detractors operate.

The op set the tone with a cut-off screenshot that she found on the Twitter feed of a 1980s pop singer. When questioned she cheerfully admits she doesn't know the source and hasn't even seen the whole quote.

And then this glorious insight from christinarossetti39 which I make no apology for repeating:
You provide evidence that they haven't.

The op at least had the grace to lie low after her blunder but christina carries on, telling us the correct way to build a women's movement, telling me to look up the evidence for her claims. Athough you did at least get the correct T Robinson, christina, I must give you that.

It's like someone left a 'How to Take Out Posie Parker' handbook on the bus, only worse because they don't even seem to have any awareness of what they're telling us.

And really it's not funny because if Posie Parker, who with all due respect to her, is hardly a household name, gets this treatment, who else is getting it?