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.

Is this one of those regular, tiresome 'look at the nasty feminist shouldn't you be infighting more, wims?' attempts?

The opposition must be getting very worried, if so.

yeah - I think we might be looking at quite a bit of this in the months to come

I think this may be relevant.

example?

Can’t be arsed find it but there was a thread on here a couple of years ago where someone mildly complained about her and her and her mates turned up and piled on like a bunch of nasty 6th formers. She has done it on other forums too

Amen to that.

well that answer speaks for itself - can't be arsed to argue with you about it! People will draw their own conclusions.

Now this is passive aggressive bullying.

Stating that Posie is only interested in self-promotion when she has endured quite a bit of serious backlash from the Trans Lobby, so much so that she doesn't meet her own children on their university campus or drive them to and from university (or it might have been driving or picking them up from school) in case someone works out that she's their mother, not to mention that quite a few other limitations have been imposed on her. You would put yourself through that for self-promotion would you? Would you? Not being able to identify yourself as your own child's mother in case their life is made hell? For using your basic free speech to talk about basic biological facts we all accepted until a few years ago?

I mean for goodness sake come up with some other half credible reason not to dislike her. Just say you don't like her opinions. No need to scrape the bucket.

And where's this evidence of bullying?

*like

@FireFlyBoogaloo - do you really think reversing Roe will only impact American women? It hurts women all over the world in countries that receive US aid.

Further, Roe is just one piece of the larger picture. We're fighting an alt-right christo facist movement in the US right now. Not sure how you think that isn't a problem for Europe? Aligning yourself with these nutters (yes, they are nutters that want to destroy US democracy) because they don't support TRAs will only further support oppression of women all over the world.

I can be arsed argue, I just can’t be arsed search for an old thread that I can’t remember the name of or when it was. I remember the contents clearly though because I had followed her on FB and quite liked her and thought the OP was being unfair. Then Posie and her mates turned up and it got nasty and I changed my mind

The conclusion I am drawing from your reply is that you are either her or one of her nasty acolytes who won’t hear a word against the object of your worship.

Despite that I do still think she makes some valid points and expresses them very eloquently

As with all threads on this subject the comments mainly focus on emphasising the open mindedness of the poster and accusations of trying to silence other women. This isn’t about silencing, cancelling or censoring. It’s about why someone who seems to have little in common with the core aims of anyone professing to be GC due to concerns about women’s rights is so celebrated by those in that latter camp. It’s a purity spiral not to support someone who shares a platform with people actively attempting to remove women’s rights. This is not a ‘narcissism of small differences’ thing.

Frankly, proudly boasting that you’d fight tooth and nail for another woman’s right to campaign against abortion (not saying this is what PP is doing, but some of the posters on here have made it clear that their feminism is about listening to women, whatever it is they are saying) or stand with those who do when you’re pro-choice comes across as very naive.

I’ll stand with anyone who stands for women’s right to basic human freedom, and that necessarily precludes anyone anti-choice or who thinks losing that choice is no biggie.

I don't care if people think I'm right wing, call me a bigot or a transphobe or any other name. If people resort to name calling it shows they have no arguement.

Posie is loud, to the point and clear. Men calling themselves women threatens women and girls. If we can't name ourselves we can't defend ourselves. So you don't like her, that is okay. You don't have to like anyone.
Personally she has been a massive inspiration and motivated hundreds of apathetic women to act. She does this through her plain speaking and because she is human.

Quite frankly leaving this fight to 'pure' feminists is not going to work or be enough because this debate needs to reach the masses. And the masses will never agree on everything but if we can agree that a woman is an adult human female then that is good enough for me.

Also posting half a comment on this board is just ridiculous in my opinion.

And of course I abhor the treatment she and her family has been subject to from the Trans Lobby. I think she does some good, I just don’t think she’s completely wonderful and I think anyone daring to suggest that’s the case are treated like “unbelievers”

Can’t be arsed find it but there was a thread on here a couple of years ago where someone mildly complained about her and her and her mates turned up and piled on like a bunch of nasty 6th formers

woah, so your example that you conveniently can’t find of her being a “bully” involves her responding when someone complained about her behind her back?

nasty 6th formers indeed.

If we can't name ourselves we can't defend ourselves
Yes, we can. I'm a woman. Always will be. Trans people existing will never make me less of one despite GC people telling me otherwise.

And accusing anyone of “worshipping” her sounds like TRA projection.

Hoppinggreen please be reassured that I am not Posie Parker. I don't think I'm nasty. I don't worship anyone to be fair. I just asked you to back up an accusation of her being a bully and you didn't want to find the evidence. So find the evidence and it will be self explanatory and you wont have to argue. I'm out now anyway. Life to live.

Which is what I said, - RvW does not ban abortion. Do you not understand the difference between a state and federal government? The fact that the states are allowed to legislate does not mean that the federal courts are justified in any ruling that would restrict what states do. I said that RvW does not ban abortion, and it doesn't.

The legal question of RvW is not the same as the abortion question, and yes, constitutional scholars are quite aware of that and many do think that RvW was a poor decision, not justified in terms of what the constitution says about privacy. Even FBG thought it was a weak decision ffs and she was dedicated to pushing it.

More generally many Americans are relatively libertarian and may believe in liberal abortion provisions but also that the proper place for making such laws is the state level. This is something many people in the UK seem to have a difficult time understanding. Nor do you usually see much clarity that the courts making a decision on something that should be legislated in congress is concerning for many totally apart from the content of what is being discussed.

To be frank though, this probably comes back to that tendency on the left, so well displayed by Billy Bragg and his ilk, to be anti-democratic. Because the fact is that in the US a big part of the reason completely libertarian abortion provision is difficult to get through Congress is that most Americans do not want that. And some people think that is the wrong thing, and won't accept a compromise, and believe their own views should be imposed. Post democratic society here we come.

I really honestly think that the biggest threat to the fight against the alt-right is from democrats that can't actually name a woman than anything else.

Because the anti-science, anti-reality gender woo is so utterly insane and contrary to human lived experience (i.e. that mammals can tell males from females whether they wear make-up or dresses or cut body parts off or not) that it makes the other side occasionally look less bizarre and more grounded in common sense.

Yes Trump is a nutter but is he really any more nutty than someone who calls women 'uterus havers' and refuses to accept that people want to keep the words 'women' and 'men' for biological sex categories? Indeed, denies that there are the very sex categories that make human reproduction possible and labels anyone who won't go along with their convulted anti-science agenda as a 'bigot'.

If you deny the reality of sexual reproduction in humans then I honestly don't think you can reasonably seek to fight for abortion, whatever you may claim. It makes no logical sense.

Now you're downplaying what you said. You stated that she was mostly concerned by self-promotion. I put it to you to explain how simply caring about self-promotion would inspire any woman to endure not being able to identify herself as her own children's mother in order to avoid subjecting her children to violence or other risks and further, to come up with an example of the bullying.

If you couldn't substantiate it, (couldn't be arsed, but could be arsed to make a character assassination) then your point is invalid.

The conclusion I am drawing from your reply is that you are either her or one of her nasty acolytes who won’t hear a word against the object of your worship.

Extreme exaggeration tactic means you said something stupid, have been challenged and are now mudslinging in deflection. Ok then.

I wonder how you’d characterise this thread

I’m not her friend, hell I’ve never met her or seen her in person. I don’t follow her. I would defend her right to speak up even when I probably don't agree with everything she says (I’d have to follow her to know exactly what she’d said)

I did love her showing up Harrop for the ridiculous unhinged pathetic little man he is.

Have I been ‘piling on like a bunch of nasty 6th formers’?

Funny men are allowed to defend other men but women are infantilised and accused of being nasty if they defend outspoken women

I didn’t ask you to. Did you, or did you not reply to his post? The link you posted earlier doesn’t let me see his comments as he’s blocked me!

A bit like you’re doing to her now eh?