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.

If I were someone who fretted about 'aligning' (I'm not) I think I'd fret more about aligning with people who conflate white supremacy and limiting abortion.

I don't worry too much when people have a different view, but I do when arguments are illogical, hyper emotive, use generalised indicators for hatred, insults, and seem out of control with 'passion'.

That's something I'd probably avoid 'aligning' with.

But we'd probably agree on Trans kids.

What to do??

Please do note the definition you provided because that is the essence democracy. Democracy is the right to put forward ideas however distasteful those ideas may be and vigorously defend them in hope of gaining enough support to put their ideas into law.

This stands in stark contrast to the TRA demand there be no debate. The mindset of those who think no debate is acceptable is the mindset of those who desire and admire totalitarianism.

If you are fearful of fascism you need to open your eyes.

You need to ask why billionaires through their foundations have poured hundreds of million of dollars into gender ideology, capitalists like the Pfizers who stand to make millions in their many gender clinics as well as the millions they stand to make from their pharma company.

If you are you worried about theo-fascists, do a deep dive who's behind the OASIS, a Christian organization that is heavily pushing trans ideology.Ask yourself why many Christian fundamentalists are onside with transitioning.

Ask yourself why government world-wide can't make laws fast enough that make GC criminal. What other marginal group has ever been able to to exert this influence?

Why? Why is this something you would fret more about? White Supremacist organizations are pretty clear about their goals. They publish them all the time. You can read them for yourself. Most of those organizations are anti abortion and usually tie themselves to promoting traditional family values and gender roles and they openly advocate for white women to have a lot of children. None of this is a secret or a conspiracy theory. Even if, by your calculations, they may be incorrect in their predictions

But in places like Idaho or the Dakotas, with majority white populations and strong anti abortion laws, you may find that this strategy works for them.

Actually it's not clear in the least. A person who is trans can say they are a woman because in their minds, and in the minds of many, TWAW.

Your second statement "trans people existing doesn't make me less of one [woman]" is odd as I personally have never heard any woman say that they are less of a woman because TW exist. It's certainly not an argument on this board.

Being a woman is not a feeling. The concern GC people have with trans ideology is the erasure of sex-based rights.

God the lack of basic level logic on this thread is exasperating:

Some white supremacists are against abortion, (or even all of them) does not equate to anyone/ everyone against abortion ( or wanting to limit it) is white supremacist.

And any one who makes that basic error and uses it to denigrate everyone who holds a differing viewpoint on abortion I wouldn't 'align' with.

If align means agree with everything they've ever said.

Which it doesn't.

Why do you call people who disagree with you lacking in logic?

You're the one who has flipped around your own line of reasoning. Many white supremacist organizations do in fact support limiting women's access to abortion. It's part of their overall system of beliefs. By their own words. This is not something which has been mistakenly attributed to them.

When they achieve their goal of limiting or outlawing access to abortion, all women will be affected so their belief system does impact all women in this regard, even if the overall results are not what they projected.

It doesn't matter if they don't actually raise the white birthrate, they will still have interfered with women's bodily autonomy.

I don't know why right wingers keep insisting that this is something we shouldn't take notice of

OP, you're not wrong. I've read this forum for years. Even before they split it off from the main feminism page. Now I know why they did. I thought this was a place focused on the excesses of TWAW but it's really a right wing enclave with a handful of unconvincing "I'm really a rad fem lesbian" posters. Come for the GC, stay for the "there's no such thing as racism" and "many feminists are against abortion".

It's like Mean Girls saying and on Wednesday we wear pink.

The penny really dropped for me after roe was overturned. They really hit the ground running with the alt right talking points
Lol, feminists who like Jordan Peterson and Clarence Thomas.

it's really a right wing enclave with a handful of unconvincing "I'm really a rad fem lesbian" posters. Come for the GC, stay for the "there's no such thing as racism" and "many feminists are against abortion"

👏👏👏

Lol, feminists who like Jordan Peterson and Clarence Thomas

How could you have missed the pages & pages defending Matt Walsh. 😆

So seeing as I live in a country which has no consitutional right to abortion but must rely on old fashioned legislation passed by elected politicians, I had a little Google of the item mentioned.

• so

1st Amendment
15 December 1791
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or
abridging the freedom of speech,

• burn the US flag
• tear up your Vietnam War draft notice

or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

• burn the US flag
• tear up your Vietnam

2nd Amendment
15 December 1791
A well regulated Militia,

• civilian citizens

being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and - own guns bear Arms

• own guns

shall not be infringed.^

4th amendment
15 December 1791
The right of the people to be secure in their
persons,
houses,
papers,
and
effects,

• privacy in autombiles

against unreasonable searches and seizures,

• privacy in autombiles
• what cops can and can't do when they pull over drivers

shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,

• what cops can do when they pull over drivers

and particularly describing the place to be searched,

• what cops can do
• search stopped autombiles
• external patdown of drivers

and the persons

• drivers

or things

• autombiles

to be seized.

14th Amendment
9 July 1868
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,

• first gives citizens a right to privacy then secondary to that privacy right prevents the State from passing a total-ban on abortion legislation.

without due process of law;

• a right of the people to pass laws remain

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

14th Amendment
9 July 1868
Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

just like they cannot decided to
segregate schools by race a sub-classification of citizens of the United States or any person within its jurisdiction,
ban women a sub-classification of citizens of the United States or any person within its jurisdiction from obtaining drivers licenses,
ban women a sub-classification of citizens of the United States or any person within its jurisdiction from owning property or working outside the home,
deny marriage licenses to inter racial a sub-classification of citizens of the United States or any person within its jurisdiction
or same sex couples a sub-classification of citizens of the United States or any person within its jurisdiction
, etc.
without due process of law

So I an guessing the US TRA are very depending on the widest interpretations of privacy right too ( buy cosmetic surgery hormones no having the State recognise a male prison inmate as male etc. etc.) because Trans was not recognised when the last Amendment was passed.

Oops, missed a point.

14th Amendment
9 July 1868
Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

If there is a consitutional right to abortion in the 14th, the current batch in Congress and the one's seeking office need to be asked to make a declaration on what is a woman (sorry that's a UK right wing question) where they stand on drafting and voting on legislation. That way, the actual words passes by Congress can be used as a reference by any Court in the US when asked to make a ruling.

@SolasAnla - Your post made me giggle! I think I've worn out my welcome on this thread. But if you want to make a new thread, I'll join you!

Posie parker inspired me to speak straight, to speak truth. Watching her sit opposite India Willoughby and say directly, without flinching ''You are a man'' initially made me cringe. 'You can't say that!' I thought.... But then I realised I had been influenced. Why can't you speak the factual truth? How had I come to believe that this was bad, wrong, mean, not allowed?

Watching her straight talk inspired me, and helped the veil fall from in front of my face.

We all have different skills, different things to bring to this movement, and her's is the ability to speak clearly, under pressure, in the face of men, with no fucks given.

I think she is inspiring and empowering alot of women, and they may be the ones that then sign petitions and write to their MPs and do the background work.

If we were all the same, a bunch of Posie Parkers, standing in parks with microphones, then we wouldnt get anywhere. But equally if we were all quiet, behind the scenes, we also wouldn't get very far.

Us women need to appreciate each other's differences and skills and come together.
All of our work is vital, and undermining eachother is not helpful.

(From your name, OP I believe you are one of the women who does political work. If so, big up to you sister. Your attack on Posie seems a bit loaded, maybe something else, personal is being triggered within you.... Dive deep.)

Thanks but no, @Cartoonmom I dont negotiate with Ultra Right Wing Christian Scy Ops. 🤷🏼‍♀️

That's not how the law works, I'm sorry. I don't know who has been telling you this, but just because you think something is a basic human right does not mean it is in the American Constitution.

RvW was never a very strong legal decision and that it was struck down is not strange. This kind of thing happens to judgments. It's not unique.

In a way it's a very good example of the dangers of judges - who are not lawmakers - stretching the law to wring out interpretations that serve their ideological position. It's not stable, it takes power out of the hands of congress which is inappropriate, and it sets a horrible precedent. Why people could not see the huge danger in that I don't know, though they seem quite unhappy about it now that it's worked against them.

Imagine what kind of havoc judges convinced that TWAW could wreck in that kind of scenario! It's not ok just because you happen to like the result.

The American government has ways to pass laws if that is what people want, and even ways to amend the constitution.

I'd rather stick with Posie Parker than Julie "I'm the only person who can tell other women what to do" Bindel.

@ MangyInseam,

Well @MangyInseam - thankfully I've got the majority of voting Americans and the President on my side, as well as decades of feminist scholars who believe the 14th Amendment provides a constitutional right to abortion. I'm not sure where you get your information from or what on earth you think the reconstruction era congress was referring to when they passed the civil war amendmentst if it wasn't basic human rights?

What on earth are you talking about @SolasAnla ? How on earth could you think I'm a right wing nutter after reading this thread.

How on earth could you think I'm a right wing nutter after reading this thread.
Yeah, must admit was baffled by that post, I mean you're literally posting and speaking out against right wing views so not sure what posts others are reading to come to that conclusion! 😕

Yes, @GoodJanetBadJanet - I guess the post about the bill of rights language was aimed at making fun of me and I didn't realize. Well anyway, it did give me a laugh.

That's a bizarre form of argument. Are you sure that's really what you want to go with?

Yes, if there is no federal law on anything, then the states make their own laws. That does not somehow mean that every state law is racist. It is how a federation of states is meant to work.

And do you really think that early America right up through the Victorian period people were openly going about getting abortions with no social or legal consequences? Just think about that idea for a moment in terms of American history. Can you not think of any other reason the 20th century might have brought about some new types of laws around abortion?

The refusal to discuss the legal system within the realm of reality isn't likely to reassure anyone that Posie Parker is the liability here. Nor is the constant desperation to call anyone who you disagree with a racist, no mater how tortured the claim.

I'm not sure feminist scholars are the people I'd be going to in order to get an unbiased legal opinion on whether the right to privacy covers abortion rights. In an ideal world I'd love to think they would do so in an honest and analytical way, but I don't think I would bet money on that.

If you have the majority of Americans, the best option might be to get a law passed by Congress, that is its job.

Nor is the constant desperation to call anyone who you disagree with a racist
Nobody has done that though?!
Where has anyone called anyone a racist?!
I honestly think some people are just making up their own shit as that literally hasn't happened.
Unless you mean where people are pointing out the links and connections with far right abortionists?
If you don't do that, then we clearly don't mean you, do we, so why take it so personally?

🤭

@MangyInseam - you seem to misunderstand how the US congress works. Congress just can't pass any type of legislation in wants. Normally it has to relate to taxation or interstate commerce. So this may be part of our disconnect and why you're having trouble understanding how upset people in the US are.

So for example, the same exact reasoning that overturned Roe, can be used to overturn cases regarding school segregation, sodomy laws, inter racial marriage, right to contraception, same sex marriage, etc.

So by your reasoning, what's the big deal right, Congress can just pass laws to fix those problems too? But they can't necessarily because they don't involve interstate commerce.

Even codifying Roe is tricky because in the 90s the Court ruled that Congress can't legislate for the general health and safety of women under the commerce clause when it struck down Clinton's violence against women act.

Now, I'm definitely lobbying my senators to codify Roe but we also need Court reform with it.

Anyway, that's why the 14th Amendment has got to stand for substantive basic rights. Congress only has limited powers to pass laws and allowing states to pick and choose what basic rights their citizens get will literally turn the US back to the pre civil war era. I understand how that may seem paranoid to you, but once again it's rooted in my country's history. Google US civil war + reconstruction era + why failed, if you are interested in learning more.

Your last sentence is where you are going really wrong. You can't just decide that some part of the Constitution "has to" cover anything. If it isn't there, it isn't there.

If some section of society 100 years from now decides that eating meat is unethical and they want to make it illegal by strengthening the rights of animals, that doesn't mean they "have to" adapt some part of the constitution to cover that. Or any other thing.

It's possible that the same reasoning might apply, to some degree, to other things like contraception, but it's also possible that it doesn't, and what that would look like no one knows. The legal argument would have to be made and it isn't identical. If it was made, then yes, those laws would also be made at the state level.

If you don't like living in a federal system then you have a problem but it sure as heck doesn't justify imposing your own ideas through the courts.

I really wonder if you are aware how much this kind of thinking really alienates voters who might actually be pretty middle of the road. Because they see people trying to undermine the legal system in order to push an ideological agenda and they think it's wrong and scary.

The Democrats do this all the time. They freak out about replacement theory, how could anyone think that, and then turn around to say how great it is there is so much immigration because immigrants vote Democrat. They complain that people think they are authoritarian and then turn around and say they need to find justifications for their own ideological views through the courts, whether or not they are actually legally good arguments.