Kellie-Jay's New Political Party

[TheBadLuckOfTeelaBrown]

I can't see a thread on this, but she is starting a new party and will run in elections.

twitter.com/StandingforXX/status/1600235830475653123?s=20&t=hhlXpo7uErB4FlkFj1nSRA

www.theotherparty.co.uk

Me too! I don’t know which is funnier, @Onnabugeisha claiming we are a clique or @Onnabugeisha claiming to be a feminist. It’s almost as if gender ideologists can’t believe women can think and speak for themselves and have individual thoughts. I blame the blue hair dye. 😀.

No, The only person on that thread twisting anything was you bug.

You have lied. Not once on that thread did you indicate a support female single sex spaces.

I was clear in the cognitive distortions you used. And the pivots.

You can go and read them for yourself. You can keep lying about what I said on that thread. You know last night when you mocked my username, the reason I am one Helleofabore is because my posts are usually laboriously worded so people cannot easily take them out of context, and it then shows up the dishonesty of those trying to twist them. I am often very specific, and it has also been clear that when I haven’t limited the ability to misrepresent what I have said, you seek to twist it to shame me or other posters.

bug. You have a pattern of posting that is recognisable (as would mine be if I nc’d so I don’t bother ) and you have a very clear prejudice against people who regular post on this board.

You try to represent yourself as a middle grounder, or ‘in the majority’ but you clearly don’t post in that style.

Do explain the middle ground. Please.

Because when there's a lot of posts across multiple threads explaining that it's ok for angry men to bash and abuse women for daring to protest about a very dangerous killer being inflicted on women prisoners because no woman has actually died at the hands of these violent thugs yet? And a lot of confused waffle about women talking here objecting to this are running the risk of losing abortion rights as some kind of punishment for saying no to men, and that they shouldn't talk about these kind of things anyway because reasons?

I really am left with no other conclusion than that these posters are in favour of women being abused and harmed (and raped in prison). If you've got a better explanation and justification I am all ears.

@Helleofabore i have learned a lot from your posts and I like your clear straightforward style.

And before we go back to the 'only TW who have had their penises removed' bit as middle ground I'll repeat the explanation from way back on this thread:

This cannot work because there are no checks on the doors of women's spaces. Realistically, who is going to stand and talk with each TW on the door to see if they qualify or not? Will the TW be honest? Will there be some kind of pass they show?

And I'd refer you to the many writings on this from activists who feel that to separate TW into groups of who gets to use women's spaces and who doesn't is unacceptable. Invasive of privacy among many other things. In practical terms, if any man can enter on the grounds of identity then all can, and do.

And this still does not solve the problem that some women are excluded from women's spaces because of the 'inclusion' of men in them. And that already where a gender neutral space is provided and a female only space provided so that female people needing single sex spaces are not excluded from access, some TQ+ male people (India WIlloughby has tweeted on this among others) will quite intentionally go to the trouble of using the female only space as demonstration to female people that there is nothing and nowhere they can have that men won't take from them and dominate, and enjoy dominating in order to force either their compliance or punish them by exclusion.

(I have at this point lost all track of how any of this is relevant to this thread. But yes, very pleased to hear middle ground.)

Namo

I don’t go onto threads and label anyone anything usually, except dishonest when they are clearly dishonest. I rarely even use the word ‘lie’ unless it can be clearly pointed out. Like the ‘lie’ that bug said anything in support of single sex spaces.

I don’t accuse people of being MRAs, I don’t often refer to people as TRAs, I do point out that they are using extremist tactics. I don’t like using those acronyms.

Other’s do. Others, who have years of feminist reading, will spot those kinds of inconsistencies while I don’t yet.

If more than one poster makes comment about it to you, it could be worth going and looking, or asking why. It might be that they are unfair and they are wrong. Or it might be that an inconsistency is causing them to react.

Like the use of ‘attack’. Is it an ‘attack’, or just words you don’t like?

It feels uncharitable to respond to Onnabugeisha as she seems to be having some kind of paranoid episode (unless Datun is PM-ing you lot and she just doesn't love me? Oh, now I'm having a paranoid episode), but I can't let this pass

I am not a GC feminist because I cannot agree with the GC belief that transgender people literally do not exist

<sigh>

as I said before, I believe Christians exist, but I don't believe God created the world in 7 days.

You seem to be demanding that I believe the same definition of 'transgender' as you to pass this test

please help me by supplying your definition of 'transgender'

I have only just heard of KJK so forming new views on this. No clique

Whilst I think the other organisation linked is also great to have I do think it’s a shame time and energy is spent on KJK - the link below and on here.

Undermining someone who has down some impactful stuff in the direction many women want to go is a pity imo

yes. This nilsmouse

I think there is inconsistency in some poster’s perception of what the ‘majority’ of women think.

The majority of women up until mermaids, Bell vs Tavistock, and Joanne Rowling’s words were aware. They still only see the edges and wonder about it.

When you have conversations with people who are beginning to realise there is something else deeper happening, the majority actually believe no male can ever change sex and when you point out the instances they didn’t even think about, girl guides accommodations, intimate procedures, support groups etc - no. Not one person I know who is female wants even a male without a penis in those situations.

I consider the entreaty by some posters that males without penises should be considered female and that the ‘’majority’ believe this to be posters who exist in a kind and inclusive bubble that doesn’t represent the majority of the population when clarity about where that support leads is applied.

Done not down

The majority of women up until mermaids, Bell vs Tavistock, and Joanne Rowling’s words were aware.

is obviously ‘unaware’.

I am a woman, I am a feminist, I am not a GC feminist because I cannot agree with the GC belief that transgender people literally do not exist.

If a feminist isn't gender critical, they don't understand feminism.

The reason I know you're not a feminist is because you think gender critical means anti trans. It doesn't. It means critical of gender - society's expectations imposed on people due to their sex. Which disadvantages women, while advantaging men.

Women are oppressed because of their biology, and gender is the means by which it's done.

Transactivism claims that gender is innate. If feminists believed that, feminism wouldn't exist.

You're not a feminist, because you believe there are certain men who can violate women's boundaries, invade their privacy and make them uncomfortable. Not all men, just the ones you choose. Because that's how male supremacists think.

Is there some club or membership of this 'GC feminist' label?

Because I haven't subscribed to it. I'm not aware of their policies, I'm not part of any group think or organisation, and actually don't need to be. I'm just concerned for female equality of access.

And what is this thing of 'thinking TQ+ people do not exist'?

Of course they do, what are we having this conversation for otherwise?

I don't agree that a male person telling me they identify as TQ+ however gives them precedence over female people and the unquestioned, blanket right to remove female people's equality of access. I do not believe that TQ+ as a label renders a male person more important than any female, and relegates female lives, needs and interests to those of a second class citizen.

If that's the required test of compliance then yes, I fail. Big time. And I have absolutely no problem with failing, I really don't.

This seems to be aimed at multiple people.

And as in the past, really does go into personal accusations. Over the past months, the personal accusations have grown. Just this week you have accused me of child abuse, racism and this post is too bizarre.

All this, yet not one ‘snippet’ chosen to show up where my interpretation was ‘wrong’?

I am pretty impervious to your false bravado quips actually. And the accusations of ‘stupidity’. Just like me being told I was ‘demented’ (wasn’t that you also flinging that ableist shite around). I just ignore them. But maybe you could explain what these ‘holes’ are that you keep talking about.

Seriously, what holes have I dug. Because I genuinely don’t understand what you are accusing me of there.

I would vote for this party -I might not agree with everything they put forward but I would at least know they are rational people who can see - and speak - truth even if it is unpopular. If they have policies I dont like at least I would expect them to listen to the membership.

Very happy to help fund deposits too.

I think you'll find I never slag someone off continually behind their back, unlike Bug.

If I have an issue with someone I happily say it directly to them.

Continually posting lies where someone can't respond is bullying. And yes I'd happily call out bullying as and when I see it.

I reckon this really is a genius move - particularly if it means getting posters up in central London. KJK will have no difficulty in raising the funding from the legions of pissed off women and men.

I've been thinking about the 'do not exist' thing, and I think they mean that we don't believe that people can literally be born in the wrong body.

People who call themselves transgender obviously do exist, so it would be ridiculous to deny that.

But perhaps onna will come back with a definition and explanation of what they meant.

Just getting the posters up and getting the discussion to move from 'we should not discuss this' is good. And that so many more people will be asking the questions on the doorstep.

There are many good things about this move.

I reckon this really is a genius move - particularly if it means getting posters up in central London.

That's part of her motivation. From her latest interview:

It also means I'm allowed... it would be illegal for people not to put billboards up of mine, because of political bias, so they have to allow me to advertise my political campaigning, which means I get to put that stuff back up again.

[...]

You raise it yourself, but there are there are rules about how much you can raise. I intend to raise quite a lot! I just want to absolutely flood the whole piggin' area with billboards.

(The area being Holborn and St Pancras).

People who call themselves transgender obviously do exist, so it would be ridiculous to deny that.

Here's KJK saying she doesn't believe they exist (as she often does).

twitter.com/LGBwiththeT/status/1482108737296994304?t=8abzJWLaVUvpUb45JGX2_Q&s=19

Oh look - another edited clip. Go on, post the whole thing perfume so we can see hear the whole point and decide whether there's qualification, explanation, nuance or all the normal things that grown ups use in discussions.

hulking great teenagers

Who are? You're not trying to describe anyone T or NB surely, bug? Why the focus on physicality?

The comment by the PP who I was replying to was this:

I am not a GC feminist because I cannot agree with the GC belief that transgender people literally do not exist

So it's somewhat irrelevant to post KJK's comments about this because she doesn't identify as a feminist.

And anyway, what she says in that clip is "I don't believe transgenderism really genuinely exists", not that people who identify as transgender don't exist. I take her comment to mean that she doesn't believe that people can be literally born in the wrong body. A position that I agree with.

Do you believe that people can be literally born in the wrong body, and that's what transgenderism is? Or do you have another definition for transgenderism?

Or do you have another definition for transgenderism?

transgenderism
tranzˈdʒɛndərɪz(ə)m,trɑːnzˈdʒɛndərɪz(ə)m
noun
the quality or characteristic of being transgender.