Model response to a dilemma for women in the left-right storm (really?)

[IwantToRetire]

So not satisfied with appropriating the work, ideas and campaigning of one woman and many active supporters, some complete set of nobody film makers have taken it upon themselves to school us silly air heads on how to behave and who to talk to.

Leaving aside the smug condescension of believing the have the right to tell us how to behave, this is a perfect example of where complete nobodies who exploit other people to further their own media career, then assume they are as politically relevant and analytically acute as actual activists.

kaygreen.blog/2022/12/31/model-response-to-a-dilemma-for-women-in-the-left-right-storm/

This is the problem with the media at the moment, presenters and film makers who are just the vehicle to get voices and ideas heard, then think they are entitled to become the spokes person.

Apart from anything else, did these nupties even think maybe we should ask those who the film was actually about. I know they would, having been hand selected as the appropriately politically aligned voices, also refused, but even within the unethical world of these self promoters, do they really think they take precedence.

But it does gives us a clear idea of their moral compass and how they felt able to bandwagon of others work and go to extreme lengths to make sure they are never referred to or acknowledged.

You wrote to him? Well done! I cannot applaud him for anything but his efforts for making women and sports an issue he wants to discuss.

Yes. And now my inbox is filled with his newsletters....ditto with Kasich (a Republican) who I wrote to thank for his principled stance against Trump. Good deeds and all that.

It does not surprise me at all to see transgenderism growing in red states. I see it akin to religious belief, so many evangelical folks are also primed to believe in gendered souls. Being in the wrong body is preferable to homosexuality, entrenched sex stereotypes and roles.

With the Dakotas, there isn't so much evangelical religious beliefs/sexist cultures like in the south (more Lutherans and some Catholics, and loads of Native Americans, many more GNC women, etc ), yet there is a pragmatic "live and let live" culture that believes strongly in freedoms, both which can be twisted to promote TRA agendas if TRAs can push the "we only want to live our authentic lives" bs.

Also, like all schools in the last 20 years, anti-bullying is a strong message and if you can claims trans is the most at risk, you've won over lots of people regardless of politics.

Sometimes posters seem intent on discrediting women for being single issue. actually, you ate insistent on some wierd ass narrative that women are voting for the opposite of what they believe. With zero evidence, there is not one shred of evidence that Riley is pro-choice and her actions show pro-life, and you are quite happy to ignore the evidence that is there and conjure up out of thin air the thought that she is really pro choice.

Of course Paul Rand going to say “let the states decide” because he’s a Kentucky senator he knows he has to stay in his lane. Thats US politics…you stay in your lane. He had zero fucking influence on any other state than his state.

How dare you even try and portray him as some sort of moderate pro-choice politician. This is what Paul Rand published as a campaign promise:
“I am 100% pro-life. As a doctor, I know that life begins at conception. And as an American, I know it is the duty of our government to protect the right to life. I will fight to protect every unborn child.

During my time in Congress, I have introduced and cosponsored several pro-life bills including the Protect Life Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. I also strongly support a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would confirm in law that an unborn child is a person entitled to the right to life.

I strongly oppose any federal funding of abortion and will attempt to stop the flow of tax dollars to groups who perform or advocate for abortion. I have been leading the fight to prohibit all taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider and introduced legislation to do so. I will continue to bring this legislation up for a vote as opportunities on the Senate floor arise.”
randpaul.com/issue/life/

I just read this about South Dakota and Kristi Noem. She understands the big money found in gender.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1610987138635497472.html

“How dare you even try and portray him as some sort of moderate pro-choice politician. This is what Paul Rand published as a campaign promise:”

Abortion is a very complex issue. And you seem to have an absolutist view on the topic. I am aware of what he has posted.

I am also well aware he declared he wasn’t advocating to ‘ban’ abortion in his state in quite the manner your posts suggests.

I am not making him into anything. And if I was Delphinium, I would absolutely keep writing to him and all the senators she thinks need letters. And meet as many as she can.

Readers should be able to make up their own minds about the degree of Riley Gaines’ accused ‘sin’. The accusation coming from you on this thread. And no one else.

Crack on with your polarised and absolutist thinking. I find your portrayal of Riley Gaines immensely dishonest. It is not a surprise though.

My point is you have conveniently misrepresented Riley Gaines by taking the opposite approach to me and accusing her using the guilt by association tactic.

Hypocritical because you have not posted one iota of evidence to support your theory of her beliefs. You have theorised it only through her political party alignments- which is known because she had spoken at rallies and done an ad.

That is my point and my only point and it has been from the start. No matter how you choose to twist it. You attribute her as having pro-life opinions without even acknowledging that pro-life means many things.

Do you consider the current English abortion laws pro-life? They are within 4 weeks of the laws that Paul was supporting. He was against state funding, I don’t agree with him. But you seem to be keen to use the word ‘ban’ to imply he is ‘banning’ abortion fully.

Didn’t you also declare Kellie Jay Keen was ‘against abortion’ because she said she prioritised campaigning against affirming only treatment over abortion? Weren’t you one of the posters stating that? If not, then I will happily admit I am wrong. I will go back and check.

You implied that Riley Gaines is campaigning her pro-life stance. You have no evidence except your own conclusions through guilt be association for that.

Where is your evidence?

Don’t get upset at me if you haven’t posted any.

Crack on with your guilt by association!

I will continue to not attribute beliefs to a woman where none has been stated. Because how convenient is it to silence women from campaigning for saving their sports?

Guilt by association. A widely used tactic used to silence women’s voices on an issue.

Why do you want to restrict women’s voices?

”actually, you ate insistent on some wierd ass narrative that women are voting for the opposite of what they believe. With zero evidence, there is not one shred of evidence that Riley is pro-choice and her actions show pro-life, and you are quite happy to ignore the evidence that is there and conjure up out of thin air the thought that she is really pro choice.”

Do you understand how democracy works?

Or do you believe that people in democracies only ever vote for the perfect candidate? And if none are available, they don’t bother. What an interesting way to vote if that is your method, but hey, it is a democracy and as long as it isn’t a coerced method I support your choice. I don’t support someone who chooses that method to then complain about the outcome.

Did you bother reading this paragraph you posted with its hyperbole and lack of consistency?

This part in particular.

“With zero evidence, there is not one shred of evidence that Riley is pro-choice and her actions show pro-life, and you are quite happy to ignore the evidence that is there and conjure up out of thin air the thought that she is really pro choice.”

The hypocrisy is clear here. But hey, what’s a little guilt by association and narrow interpretation of voting and campaigning habits in the face of lack of evidence?

And maybe even a bit of projection.

It is the topic of the thread after all.

I notice there was absolutely nothing further explained about that falsehood about ‘equality of opportunity’. Or as I learned about it from an industrial relations point of view, ‘equal opportunity.’

So, really some posters seem to have little understanding of what many posters on this board are fighting and are willing to only ever consider someone’s published (regardless of expertise) bad faith interpretation of what we are fighting for.

As I said, it doesn’t surprise me.

What does surprise me is that some posters therefore believe they are morally superior and are righteous when their posts may take on a silencing or shaming purpose (Intended or no)?

So no. I think it is a ridiculous claim that feminists fighting to prioritise sex over gender where sex matters are not also fighting to ensure that female people have equal access to opportunities. Even equitable outcomes in some instances. Such as sport.

Equality is the foundation to the majority of our discussions. From female represention, to ensuring female needs have been fully considered in policy and in practice (even to the point of ensuring female’s medical treatments are designed for females!).

How bizarre to post that equality is detached from our movement?
How bizarre to post such a falsehood?

Equality is integral to prioritising sex over gender where sex matters.

I can only assume that if it is not lack of knowledge, that it is an attempt to portray women as being unable to focus on more than one thing at a time, or to reduce the issues to something that a prejudiced person can easily dismiss - such as ‘they only care about toilets’. I think that there is also enough evidence to assume that some activists and non-activists will use this lie to shame women who disagree with them.

Who does that?

(this question is of course, rhetorical, but feel free anyone to answer it)

I admire your patience Hell. We can all see it, and it doesn't wash.

She doesn't have to be pro choice for me to make common cause with her on this specific issue relating to women's sex based rights to be considered a separate group from males. I feel political purity is a luxury we can't afford at this time. Others feel differently, and that's up to them. But when people go out of their way to be divisive, on any side, it's unhelpful.

Hey! Did you find any evidence of Tucker Carlson or your Jason chap criticising gender (which would make them ‘gender critical’)?

Good question Bernard.

Always good to have evidence of something when making definitive statements about people’s beliefs.

@Helleofabore
I am also well aware he declared he wasn’t advocating to ‘ban’ abortion in his state in quite the manner your posts suggests.

You posted a sentence he said over a decade ago in which he merely states the States should decide on abortion when he was pushing for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. I have posted what is currently in his webpages. He is seeking to ban abortion in his State.

My point is you have conveniently misrepresented Riley Gaines by taking the opposite approach to me and accusing her using the guilt by association tactic.
It’s not “guilt by association” to base an opinion on a persons very real and frequent political actions that demonstrate they espouse certain beliefs. I’m shocked to the core that you refuse to attribute beliefs based on actions and insist on I will continue to not attribute beliefs to a woman where none has been stated. Such naïvety is not something to brag about imho. Because if Kier Starmer said “oh I will protect womens single sex spaces” you’d believe that is what he believes, even if he does the exact opposite by his actions? You must have believed Boris Johnson too then that no party at no10 happened during lockdown and the evidence of his actions is merely people being “guilt by association” assholes. Yeah right. You are so full of 💩

Do you consider the current English abortion laws pro-life? They are within 4 weeks of the laws that Paul was supporting.
Bullshit. You haven’t even looked up the laws he is supporting/advocating including a constitutional amendment that would give personhood to an unborn child from conception, thereby meaning they have the right to life and banning abortion from conception. Or the law he voted on that would mean American women would have to pay the full costs of abortions as a private procedure, effectively denying access to abortion for most women. Which are listed on his pages that I have linked to. What have you for evidence? Nothing but “I’m well aware of….blah blah blah” with no links and no evidence.

Didn’t you also declare Kellie Jay Keen was ‘against abortion’ because she said she prioritised campaigning against affirming only treatment over abortion? I did not say against, I said questionable or wavering views on abortion and she didn’t say she was prioritising campaigning on transgender issues over abortion, she said protecting womens spaces was worth setting aside even the legal right to an abortion. You should at least have the decency to write what she actually said and not your spin on it.

I posted it, it can’t be helped you are too blind to see.

That’s not what happened and it is in the thread for all to see.

I stated GC activists are fighting for the definition of women to be based on biological sex and therefore all that goes with it such as single sex spaces- toilets/changing rooms/hospital wards, keeping males out of womens prisons, womens sports, diversity hires, and so on.

I was told I was a complete idiot and that none of the above has anything to do with GC activists. I was told that the only thing GC activists want is “equality of opportunity” 🙄 To which I said that’s not the #1 thing that’s being campaigned for, and doubt it’s even on their radar. I mean how ridiculous,…women prisoners want equality of opportunity with TW for the best cell in a woman’s prison? What the fuck? Women want “equal opportunity” with TW for women only jobs as defined by the equally act? Er no, that’s not true.

What is KJK shouting in public squares? “We want Equality of opportunity” fuck no, she’s shouting “TW are men. TM are women.” = the definition of woman is based in biological sex not gender. What does KJK exhort women to do? Challenge any perceived TW in women only spaces.

I posted the Wikipedia link on Gender Critical…and it says what I said.

And then you have posted numerous posts waxing lyrical about me somehow being deliberately prejudiced and spreading misinformation….WTF? By saying what is GC and it is exactly what whole fucking world says is GC as shown on Wiki.

And then you go to LIE and say I said feminists are not advocating for equality of opportunity at all. I never said any such thing, the discussion was about what specifically are GC activists campaigning for? And I answered it honestly and truthfully.

That is your choice to make. I have no issue with it. This all started with me pointing out correctly that Tucker Carlson has had numerous GC activists on his show and many are pro-life, so the filmmakers by declining to go on TCs show are not passing up on reaching some new untapped audience that has no idea about the transgender issues.

The argument now is that @Helleofabore is peddling a myth that Paul Rand is really a moderate pro choice politician and that Riley Gaines is a prochoice feminist despite her many political actions indicating otherwise.

Unless the evidence is their actions, because that don’t mean shit to @Helleofabore. She only goes by what people say. And she prefers to cut and paste comments said a decade ago out of context as her evidence instead of what they’re saying today, right now on their own professional webpages.

Pretty sure MNHQ asked for this thread to have some decorum a while back. "Don't mean shit" type posts don't help. Unless the aim is to get it deleted for NITS.

As opposed to...you posting proof of someone stood next to someone else as evidence of their wrongdoing.

"You posted a sentence he said over a decade ago in which he merely states the States should decide on abortion when he was pushing for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. I have posted what is currently in his webpages. He is seeking to ban abortion in his State."

Really?

eu.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/28/rand-paul-vs-charles-booker-how-race-could-affect-abortion-in-the-us/10014264002/

28th July 2022 is obviously a decade ago. Sure. You can say that.

"It’s not “guilt by association” to base an opinion on a persons very real and frequent political actions that demonstrate they espouse certain beliefs. I’m shocked to the core that you refuse to attribute beliefs based on actions and insist on I will continue to not attribute beliefs to a woman where none has been stated. Such naïvety is not something to brag about imho. Because if Kier Starmer said “oh I will protect womens single sex spaces” you’d believe that is what he believes, even if he does the exact opposite by his actions? You must have believed Boris Johnson too then that no party at no10 happened during lockdown and the evidence of his actions is merely people being “guilt by association” assholes. Yeah right. You are so full of 💩"

You really cannot engage without personal attacks and then over exaggerating other people's comments as personal attacks can you. There is a name for this.

You say, "It’s not “guilt by association” to base an opinion on a persons very real and frequent political actions that demonstrate they espouse certain beliefs"

I will simply repeat my previous statements.

You have chosen to attribute views to a person because of your own polarised thought processes.

Riley Gaines campaigns for fairness in sport for women and girls. Because of her personal experience.

You can make all sorts of assumptions about me and what I believe. It is a sign that you cannot produce any evidence to support what you theorise.

But please do keep up with the personal attacks.

"You haven’t even looked up the laws he is supporting/advocating including a constitutional amendment that would give personhood to an unborn child from conception, thereby meaning they have the right to life and banning abortion from conception. Or the law he voted on that would mean American women would have to pay the full costs of abortions as a private procedure, effectively denying access to abortion for most women. Which are listed on his pages that I have linked to. What have you for evidence? Nothing but “I’m well aware of….blah blah blah” with no links and no evidence."

You mean this one?

www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61

"Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act"

"This bill establishes a new criminal offense for performing or attempting to perform an abortion if the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 20 weeks or more."

Oh. I know he doesn't support state paid for abortion and that the burden then falls on charities and the like. I disagree with him about that. And other aspects.

You can keep cycling around and around here. You have made the discussion about a man. You have peddled half truths in your pursuit of polarisation.

"I did not say against, I said questionable or wavering views on abortion and she didn’t say she was prioritising campaigning on transgender issues over abortion, she said protecting womens spaces was worth setting aside even the legal right to an abortion. You should at least have the decency to write what she actually said and not your spin on it."

Er...I said "she said she prioritised campaigning against affirming only treatment over abortion?"

Can you please explain in depth what you perceive as the difference between:

"prioritised campaigning against affirming only treatment over abortion"

and

"protecting womens spaces was worth setting aside even the legal right to an abortion"

Please, keep it all coming.

www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61

eu.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/28/rand-paul-vs-charles-booker-how-race-could-affect-abortion-in-the-us/10014264002/

Don't let facts and evidence stand in the way of whatever you think you are achieving here!

I think you are missing some pretty substantial foundations of just why woman are campaigning.

You have just said: "To which I said that’s not the #1 thing that’s being campaigned for, and doubt it’s even on their radar. I mean how ridiculous,…women prisoners want equality of opportunity with TW for the best cell in a woman’s prison? What the fuck? Women want “equal opportunity” with TW for women only jobs as defined by the equally act? Er no, that’s not true."

Do you really not understand that females need to have their unique needs considered in policies just the same as males?

Let me spell it out for you.

Women and girls, as a collective, are female. Their bodies mean they are targeted to attack and deserve the dignity that seems pretty universally recognised until the last years of being away from the male gaze. And their oppressors.

Those attacks are a form of negative sexist discrimination in the extreme. Therefore they need single sex spaces for their needs- just as a male needs to have safety and dignity suited to their needs.

Equality in this instance is ensuring that both males and females have spaces that suit their needs. It is not putting everyone together. Because there, females will be at a disadvantage. If you want, you can frame this as 'equity of outcomes'.

"I mean how ridiculous,…women prisoners want equality of opportunity with TW for the best cell in a woman’s prison? What the fuck?"

Yes, your example is ridiculous. I am glad you agree. It has nothing relevant to the truth.

The truth is that females as a collective need to be able to have equal opportunity to access a safe space that suits female needs. Do you agree? Or are you just going to come up with a clearly nonsense take on it again?

"Women want “equal opportunity” with TW for women only jobs as defined by the equally act? Er no, that’s not true."

Are you talking about jobs here that have been set up for female people, women, only? Jobs for ensuring that female people have access to a person in a role that means they again, have the same equal opportunity as a male person does, of having the best care with consideration to their dignity and their need to have same sex.

Are you really posing needing 'single sex' as being not an equal opportunity? Is that where you are coming from?

That a woman's need, due to trauma, abuse or just any discomfort, for a single sex provision is that woman exerting negative sexist discrimination against males and therefore that woman should be shamed?

Is this the basis you are posting whatever you are posting on?

Female sports categories could well be described as a solution of equity not equality. I have stated that some solutions we discuss are those based on equity. To enable female sports people to have the same opportunities as males. Because without this, they will not have those same opportunities.

Sometimes we fight for equal opportunity, sometime it has to be equity.

"And then you have posted numerous posts waxing lyrical about me somehow being deliberately prejudiced and spreading misinformation….WTF? By saying what is GC and it is exactly what whole fucking world says is GC as shown on Wiki."

Yes. You do seem to have some entrenched prejudices.

And hypocrisy.

Did you not post:

"And yes you are cherry picking by applying filters on everyone GC who has been on TC. It is academically dishonest and wouldn’t pass journalistic ethics much less any peer review." (Onnabugeisha · 04/01/2023 19:54)

Yet, here you are "I posted the Wikipedia link on Gender Critical…and it says what I said."

I will leave readers to make their own decisions on your posts.

You see, I am not 'peddling' anything. I am seeking a discussion using truth and not assumptions based on polarised thinking and prejudice.

Do you or do you not have any evidence, apart from your absolutist opinion that anyone joining a campaign for women's sports with a particular political party must agree with 100% of what that party stands for, that Riley Gaines is 'prochoice'?

Do you have evidence?
Or don't you have evidence?

Sorry, just to clarify, are you saying you did not say this:

Onnabugeisha · 04/01/2023 19:50

"Im sorry but the vast majority of GC feminists are not campaigning for “equality of opportunity” they are campaigning for the definition of woman and single sex spaces as I listed above."

Or are you saying that this statement is NOT attempting to detach equality from a movement?

Do you disagree that equality and sometimes equity for women and girls is integral to fighting to prioritise sex over gender where sex matter?

Please clarify rather than resorting to further personal attacks.

I'm also interested in the following:

A left wing woman and a right wing man are stood together at an event.

Why is it the left wing woman is now tainted by the right wing man [to be brought up against them forever] and yet the right wing man isn't tainted by the left wing woman [and this is never, ever an issue for anyone]?

Why does it only go one way?

"Do you or do you not have any evidence, apart from your absolutist opinion that anyone joining a campaign for women's sports with a particular political party must agree with 100% of what that party stands for, that Riley Gaines is 'prochoice'?"

And of course, that is pro-life. Not pro-choice.

But the outcome is the same.

"Do you or do you not have any evidence, apart from your absolutist opinion that anyone joining a campaign for women's sports with a particular political party must agree with 100% of what that party stands for, that Riley Gaines is either 'prolife' or 'prochoice'?"