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.

Yeah, she was a labour member, or at least supporter, I believe.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that like many people, she's less partisan in her views now. Quite a lot of people are so close to the middle that it doesn't make much sense to really call them left or right, and then some people have political views that aren't really constituted on that spectrum at all.

For quite a few people now left wing just seems to mean id pol. Even marxists get accused of being right wing is they don't support it so it's rather difficult to take that seriously.

but sheesh...I wish we were only fighting self ID.

See if I were forced to choose, Delphinium, I'd rather fight an attack on abortion rights than fight against self ID. And it's not because I think abortion rights are lesser but because we've done it before so, even though we’ve not always won, there's a collective memory and a blueprint. With self ID, I have no idea how you fight it once it's implemented, and what scares the crap out of me is no-one else seems to know either.

I’m looking to those GC feminists who are still loyal to the left to give us a lead here. I keep hoping one of them will turn round and say, 'It's ok, you can vote Labour because, if they try and bring it in, we will do xx and xx and it will give them such a fright that they'll never try it again.'

I want to hear that there’s a plan, but there's no sign of anything beyond finger wagging and emotional manipulation, and this is where Posie is leaving them standing.

"With self ID, I have no idea how you fight it once it's implemented, and what scares the crap out of me is no-one else seems to know either."

I have this fear as well and I agree that the strategy to fight this is also vague in my neck of the woods. I don't see a clear path forward. One thing I have watched in the UK is how to counter things like bathroom issues is pointing to the Equality Act and showing that 'sex' is a protected characteristic. We don't have sex protected much in law as our ERA has not been ratified, but pointing to sex-based protections is something I think critical to fighting both abortion bans and self ID.

WOLF argues that the ERA would put women's sex-based rights at risk (Not that we have many), as they don't see it as a cure to the gender identity takeover. I'm not completely convinced of their argument, but I'm interested in watching a legal case go to court in case they know better than I do.

One thing that gives me hope with prisons and self ID is that the Geneva Convention has ruled that women imprisoned with men is a violation of their human rights. WOLF has issued legal briefs to protect women prisoners from women identified males, and I'm curious to see how far these legal challenges will go.

For what it's worth, I cringe when WOLF works w/ conservative groups, and I write them w/ my donation to please, please stop, but we'll see. I think conservative groups will throw us under the bus (as they just did w/ abortion) the second it makes sense.

Posie is such an inspiration and a pillar of strength. She won't be bullied into backing down over what she says - we need more Posies in this world, because she can inspire other women to find the strength to say no, this is not acceptable.

Men are all about divide and conquer.

This is so true, and it's used to weaken and destroy women so that men can remain in power.

Women aren't allowed to talk about women's issues, without including men.

Women aren't allowed to talk about women's issues, without centering men.

Women aren't allowed to talk about women's issues, without first solving men's issues for men.

Women aren't allowed to talk about women's issues, without solving other issues in the world first like poverty and war.

Women aren't allowed to talk about some women's issues, as they are not as important as other women's issues (and it's always changing, no matter what the issue).

Women aren't allowed to talk about women's issues, because they are doing it wrong.

Women aren't allowed to talk about women's issues, because they are the wrong type of feminist

Now we have
Women aren't allowed to talk about women's issues because they are aligning themselves with the far right. - just because they agree on something, doesn't make them far right. It's so manipulative and is used to silence women.

These are all distractions, to weaken our position. This thread is a prime example.

Step back and ask yourself - do we set the same standards for men? No we don't.

WOLF argues that the ERA would put women's sex-based rights at risk (Not that we have many), as they don't see it as a cure to the gender identity takeover. I'm not completely convinced of their argument, but I'm interested in watching a legal case go to court in case they know better than I do.

I'm convinced of their argument as I don't think women are best served by the Equality Act as a disadvantaged group.

You might be confusing the ERA with the Equality Act - they are different. ERA only notes sex. It's very simple, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

You are absolutely right about the Equality Act - that does not seem to protect women as a sex class.

100%

Agreed

👍

You actually can't talk about rights attached to sex without a robust legal definition of sex.
Yes I think that's the crux of it and why self ID would be so hard to reverse. But I can also see how, if you or your daughter are faced with being forced to give birth against your will, then arguments about legal definitions of sex are going to feel a bit esoteric. Posie Parker is normally brilliant at expressing things clearly but even she's struggling with this.

Delphinium20 you talk about conservative groups throwing women under the bus re abortion. And they have. But don't you feel totally let down by the Democrats too? The Republicans never made any secret about their intentions to overturn Roe Vs Wade and so women looked to the Democrats for support but did they ever actually try to put Roe Vs Wade into federal law? I've read that Obama promised to and could have done. I've read that Biden promised as well, albeit in weasely language. I can't understand why US women aren't tearing them a new arsehole.

So I've come to the conclusion that no mainstream political party can be trusted with women's rights, that even if they say the right things, they will always find more 'important' things to do. (In the UK the Conservative Party aren't actually promising to do anything but leave the laws as they are so that might - just - happen.) I'm starting to think the only way forward is for women (and not just women who believe themselves to be feminists - this is for all women) across democratically elected parties to put aside their other differences and work together where there are shared interests. But that might not even be feasible across the whole of the UK and I can't see it could possibly work in the US since Trump.

You are absolutely right about the Equality Act - that does not seem to protect women as a sex class.

Yes it's a fair point that I don't know enough about the ERA to comment really, I was basing it on the concept of bundling all protected groups together, as in our Equality Act, which as you say does not protect women as a sex class adequately.

Florisme - I'm not sure if Biden and Obama really could have done that. I don't think it would be a sure thing and at some points likely impossible. There is a basic difficulty, aside from whomever happens to be in Congress at a given time - the population of the US is pretty divided on abortion. If you divide it into for and against access, you get a little more for, but not hugely. But it's also the case that a large portion of people want access with restrictions, maybe something similar to the UK - but pro-life activists tend to want very restricted access sin medical emergencies only, whereas pro-choice activists want very few or often no restrictions.

It's not a situation that creates a great winning scenario for any politician.

Why are feminists expected to be purer than the driven snow? Who fucking cares if misogynist men are trying to tar us all with the same brush? Do you think if we’re nicer and politer they’ll listen to us?!

TRAs have some seriously dodgy connections themselves, doesn’t seem to hurt them. For example: https://reduxx.info/toddler-rapist-now-award-winning-trans-rights-activist/.

Link

I've asked that question several times, and on each occasion I've been assured that not only had Obama promised to make this a priority, but that he had the means to do so early in his first term, and chose not to. Biden, from what I've read, couched his assurances in much vaguer language, which is why I didn't make quite the same claim about him.

I'm sure Democrats can argue why Obama had more compelling issues to deal with at the time, but that's my point. When push turns to shove, even parties and leaders who make all the right noises find reasons not to do it. It's why I no longer believe any political party on either side of the ocean can be trusted with women's rights. Yes I've lost patience and my only reservation is why it took me so long.

So on one hand you ask what has PP actually achieved - indicating you don't think she's achieved anything and is just about mouthing off and selling t-shirts, and in the next breath you think she has the power to 'wave away your rights to an abortion'? She's just a woman with an opinion - she has no power over you.

Also you, and a few others, have stated PP flirts with/cosies up to/aligns with the "far right" - you even used the term "ultra right". What do you mean by this? do you think she is fascist, racist, anti-semetic, would seek to remove faith based rights? Is she secretly a member of Britain First, the BNP? Is she a white supremacist? What do you mean by the term "far right" or "ultra right"? I imagine you simply mean she holds conservative views, but maybe you know something about her that we don't.

People I've seen described as "far-right" or "alt-right" which often (not always) seems to be used the same way:

Stephen PInker
Jordan Peterson
Posie Parker
Thomas Sowell
Dave Rubin
Richard Dawkins
Boris Johnston
Andrew Sullivan
Douglas Murray
Helen Pluckrose
the Pope
Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster
Roland G. Fryer Jr

Oh and also Meghan Murphy and Mary Harrington

Literally everyone who speaks against identity politics is a "far right fascist." JK Rowling included.

Not everyone who speaks against identity politics is a far right fascist, but all far right facists speak against identity politics.

And Joe Rogan, even though he's interviewed Bernie Sanders and I believe, endorsed him.

Erm... you're aware that fascism is a form of identity politics?

Yeah, that one is particularly bizarre, Rogan is so not a conservative.

But I think that's part of the issue, he is just a pretty normal regular guy but increasingly finds the Democrats just crazy.

I agree with this "I'm starting to think the only way forward is for women (and not just women who believe themselves to be feminists - this is for all women) across democratically elected parties to put aside their other differences and work together where there are shared interests. But that might not even be feasible across the whole of the UK and I can't see it could possibly work in the US since Trump."

I said this upthread and was told to 'go away and do it then'. Clearly, it needs a lot of women putting the same thoughts at the same time into action, which has happened to a degree in the UK. US women have certainly tried, but the political barriers are far greater there, along with the sheer size of the country.

Re: abortion. You can believe that reproductive rights (including contraception, abortion, right to ask for a female HCP, better research into conditions like endometriosis) are central to feminism while acknowledging that women have different views about abortion which should be respected.

This is the opposite to saying that there's only one permitted view on abortion.

Similar was said during brexit

‘not everyone voting for brexit is racist…but all racists voted for brexit’

it was utter bollocks then and im not convinced that its not utter bollocks now as well