Carly-May Kavanagh

[NitroNine]

There are rumours circulating on Twitter that Carly-May Kavanagh (the one who screams at babies: Daily Mail) has, despite her “apology” been suspended from the Labour Party. Presumably such a suspension would have an impact on her job as Lloyd Russell-Moyle‘s head of policy?

Apparently if she is suspended it [probably] won’t be made public. Given the reason for her [potential] suspension; if Labour actually do take action, you’d think they’d want to reassure people that they expect their members to uphold certain standards. I mean, “not screaming abuse at infants” is less upholding a standard than it is failing to trip over pebbles of basic decency…

Clearly one cannot put too much weight into Random Person Says Unevidenced Thing. However, it would be a foolish rumour to start without cause, so I thought it was worth starting a thread here to see if there are developments to follow.

Should Kavanagh face consequences for her behaviour it will be a watershed moment: Labour acknowledging women have rights all their own, including the rights to assemble & to speak on issues of concern to them, such as their need for single sex provisions.

If that's directed at me I haven't said anything one way or the other regarding donor conception, what I find unedifying is continually lambasting a woman and publishing a list of supposed sins in an attempt to justify that all to detract from and excuse or justify the fact that a left wing woman was filmed behaving appallingly.

There are NO excuses or justification for the behaviour of CMK, none.

I don't know what my position is. But one outcome from this conversation is that I have thought things through and I can certainly say that your position is logically consistent, which is a good starting point. I'd need more data (on outcomes in different scenarios) and I'd need to consider the compassionate side of things (compassion to EVERYONE involved). Civilized debate on any issue is good and should only very rarely be silenced.

And it's not a requirement to keep going and going as a group at one person. You can choose to leave it at any point.

I agree with this, (and i also deeply dislike the stuff that’s been said about Posie. That webpage 👎)

It seems way too easy for people vociferously agreeing with each other/disagreeing with someone else on the Internet to degenerate into something like bullying. I don’t know what can be done about this except to spot when things are escalating in this way and consciously resist the temptation. I’ve certainly succumbed to it myself with posters I regard as misogynists, maybe I should stop that - or just accept I’m a hypocrite?

All that said, I have zero objection to the Fascist Baby Bully going viral and no sympathy for her, even though someone going viral for widely condemned bad behaviour is the archetypal example of what I just described. I guess hypocrisy is unavoidable! My only semblance of a principle here is that I think we should all try to cut the people on our side a break.

This really depends on what you want to talk about. Some things apply specifically to surrogacy, some to egg donation, and some to any kind of gamete donation.

In some cases it's useful to differentiate, in others it's more appropriate to include them all.

Posting an opinion against you does not constitute bullying.
But you are defending/minimising someone that has a proven history of bullying.
The same with your friend's website.

But you are correct "words have meaning, actions have consequences and doing controversial things are going to harm allegiances."

Especially when ranting falsehoods at people and posting a page of "sins" against someone.

Why is everyone so upset about a light being shone on PP?

The 'sins' are just a list of things PP herself has put out herself in the public domain.

Seeing them all on one page is a bit of an eye opener but if you agree with her then good for you.

It's not 'bullying' to not agree with her.

The page reveals a lot about the author. It's not a normal thing to do, it's quite extreme.

No, it’s making a list and sharing it around that is the bullying behaviour.

Wild that you can’t see it.

How would you feel if one of your kid’s classmates made a website with a list of all the things your kid said that they didn’t agree with? And then sent the link around their shared contacts?

(I know we aren’t kids, btw, which is really why we should know better by now)

Why is everyone so upset about a light being shone on PP?

cant speak for everyone but I’m not upset

I'm not upset, Sappho, you're in a clique with a bullying psycho though so watch out!

How would you feel if one of your kid’s classmates made a website with a list of all the things your kid said that they didn’t agree with? And then sent the link around their shared contacts?

How would you feel if a group of strangers told you the way your children were brought into the world is fundamentally wrong and they will probably be fucked up because of it?

How would you feel if one of your kid’s classmates made a website with a list of all the things your kid said that they didn’t agree with? And then sent the link around their shared contacts?

Sorry. I tried. I really can't see any comparison between a woman with her own YouTube channel who courts publicity and my children potentially being picked on at school.

I guess I’d want to know why they thought that and then do some research into it?

I’d probably be a bit upset at first and eventually conclude that forewarned is forearmed and that knowing about psychological concepts such as ‘genealogical bewilderment’ is probably rather useful.

Then I’d probably be pissed off that I hadn’t received any info about the potential for long term negative outcomes from the clinic I’d used.

Everyone is different, of course, but I’m definitely a ‘more info is better than less info’ type of person.

What I wouldn’t do is make a list of all the people who had said the uosetting thing in my presence and then share it around trying to get them shunned.

I saw a couple funny parody tweets about our favorite baby screamer:

-Walking down the street this morning, a toddler stared at me, visibly confused by my gender non-conforming attire. I screamed in its face and called it a fascist. It ran away crying to its birthing unit. I carried on my way, satisfied I had crushed the spirit of a potential Nazi.-

-Great work. My only concern is if it was caught on camera it could make our cause look bad out of context. If that happens, apologise to the trans community, but whatever you do, DO NOT apologise to the fascist toddler and it's birthing unit.-

I'm sure I agree with Carly-May on gay equality issues but ...

If Carly-May doesn't recognise biological sex then she can't recognise same-sex attracted - so she's basically homophobic, no?

Surely you must have always known that reproductive technologies had ethical controversies attached to them? Do you really think people shouldn't talk about this because it's mean?

I don't imagine you'd find many people bringing it up at the ice-cream bar, but this is a board where people spend a lot of time discussing the ethics of things like this in some depth.

And are constantly told they shouldn't because it isn't nice, because it's homophobic, because it means they are Far Right Nutters. While refusing to engage.

People expect that there's an ability to have a grown up discussion without assuming that bigotry is the only reason anyone would disagree.

That’s what I was thinking. Anyone who believes lesbians can have penises does not stand for gay equality.

Everyone is different, of course, but I’m definitely a ‘more info is better than less info’ type of person.

If more info is better (and yes I agree) what exactly is the problem with sharing a list of some of the things Posie Parker has said on a website page? Surely this means people supporting her are fully aware of her position and values and have have criticisms of her together in one handy place?

Surely 'more info is better than less' kind of people would this web page useful? They can see for themselves exactly what she has said and they can make their own judgements on what to do with this information and whether they are happy to overlook it to support PP's activism.

A politician should expect exactly the same scrutiny and let's face it, PP is a politician in the GC world.

Perhaps people should do that for everyone prominent in this on all sides then? Would you support that, Sappho?

Would I support scrutiny of TRAs? Do I support scrutiny of Stonewall, Mermaids and GIDS? Absolutely.

If the entire Gender Critical movement was ruled by Posie Parker and nobody was allowed to disagree with her stance that would be... fascism.

Information about a prominent person isn't odd in itself, Sappho it's the bizarre location of it.

The website is a straight forward inoccuous site with a normal menu of pages, but tacked on is a page all about why the group hates Posie.

If you can't see that its psychotic then fine, but it is.

The Fawcett Society doesn't have a "we hate this woman" page on their website do they?

Would I support scrutiny of TRAs? Do I support scrutiny of Stonewall, Mermaids and GIDS? Absolutely.

No, not just TRAs. Also feminist women who are criticising KJK. It's your suggestion, not mine.

If more info is better (and yes I agree) what exactly is the problem with sharing a list of some of the things Posie Parker has said on a website page? Surely this means people supporting her are fully aware of her position and values and have have criticisms of her together in one handy place?

If the aim was to inform, why not just post a link to her youtube channel?

The aim wasn't to inform though, was it? It was to illustrate why she is guilty of wrongthink. Hence the need to have criticisms of her 'in one handy place' as well as her own words. Just in case anyone listens to her and agrees.