Am I Reading This Right?... Rosie Duffield Throwing KJK Under The Bus?!

[EpicChaos]

From what i can tell, Rosie has quote tweeted a lloyd russell tweet, that is having a go at Kellie J.
Rosie it seems, has thrown Kellie under the bus by claiming, ' look i'm not like that other woman, so listen to me '! That's how i'm reading it anyway.
If so, that's the last time i hop in when it's rosie getting all the flak, she can do one!
I notice Bindle is there too!

I agree. It was misleading.

Sappho has moved on to the Fila thread to complain about ‘straight women ganging up on lesbians’, which is ironic, as in the guilt-by-association index that screenshot has put her right next to the person that thinks female homosexuals are akin to the KKK.

Wonder if she’ll be back to tell us if her screenshot came from the Mumsnet hating Real Feminists of Be Right On or if it’s from the FB Transactivists?

It’s getting increasingly difficult to tell them apart, tbf.

But as others have mentioned on thread the Fraser guidelines are about safeguarding. I'm unclear precisely what kjk,'s point is. Is it that these guidelines get the balance wrong,? is it that they are not adhered to?, is it that they rely on well funded social services with adequate gatekeeping ? Without knowing these we are all arguing at cross purposes

My takeaway, although it was a couple of days ago that I watched the video, was that KJK is opposed to deeming children below the age of consent as capable of giving consent- enabling professionals to make a judgement to exclude parents from important decisions and information because they deem the child ‘Gillick competent’.

This would be for accessing contraception or abortions or chemical castration.

You were not reading right. KJK was talking about safeguarding children from sexual exploitation. Moyle was using that idea to paint her as alt-right and misogynist. Duffield picked up on the safeguarding. If people like Moyle, a TRA ally and othe TRA allies are interested in young girls being easily able to access contraception under the Fraser guidelines - calling it refusal of body autonomy (which no-one can really have btw) to make checks on their request - then it raises a safeguarding issue about the exploitation of children. KJK is right to call this out.

“I also found a long comment thread featuring a number of self identifying ‘left wing feminists’, one of whom compares KJK to Nigel Farage and another who derided Mumsnetters for not being proper radical feminists, so I guess I accidentally stumbled across the source for some of the more unusual comments on the recent thread about The Radical Notion”

I suspected that.

Every time I see someone from the "gender critical" side paint KJK as some kind of right wing I despair.

Although I side with her on most issues, I can see the value for those who hope to shift the powers that be within the labour party in distancing themselves from her. It could be to their benefit to position themselves as some kind of moderate feminists rather than, in this description, the more "out there", no compromise, women's rights campaigners.

But that doesn't work when you try to do it by positioning KJK not as a women's rights campaigner, but a right wing campaigner. They could choose to make KJ useful to them rather than just monstering her. When you believe yourself involved in political manoeuvring, you should understand how the Overton window works. To make use of that, you need to see people's position on women's vs men's rights as an axis in the same way we have the left-right and liberal-totalitarian axes.

You then have KJ at the far end of complete-don't-give-an-inch support for women's rights and TRAs and the labour party at the far men's rights end.

If you can then present yourself to the labour party as further towards them than KJ and those of us calling for #repealtheGRA, KJ becomes useful to you.

But this strategy doesn't work if you insist on placing KJ somewhere on the more familiar left-right axis. If you do that, you are not making use of the Overton window. When dome of us started calling for Repeal, we understood well enough that this is not likely to happen any time soon, but by saying the words out loud, we created and broadened an Overton window, that should make demands benefitting women but short of repeal possible.

By all means disagree with KJ, but make it work for you. Show some political savvy.
I

Most people are not aware that there are boundaries applied within and by the Fraser guidelines, much as many people seem to believe that Gillick competence is an automatic assumption, a blanket approach if you want, that all children can consent. When it is a case-by-case consideration of an individual child's capability to not only understand the medical information presented, but also to consider future consequences of the treatment in question. Which of course means that no, not all children can consent.

KJK seems to be responding to the belief that all children can consent and invving the parents when their child is seeking an abortion or contraceptives is always wrong or prohibited.

Whether KJK herself understands that the Fraser guidelines contain robust safeguarding provisions and wants to argue against others who don't understand that they do, as some posters on this thread have shown, or whether she doesn't understand it and wants to argue that there should be safeguarding is something I'm not entirely sure about.

^involving

@CharlieParley exactly