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!

But really what she is saying here is she'll get support from people that she doesn't necessarily agree with, she is not saying she is antiabortion, I also don't see how RD tweet was throwingPP under the bus at all....

I think you are misunderstanding everything here, not one person including PP has said that people shouldn't have access to abortions....

I really object to the idea that being GC is a movement. It's not: it's the default mindset of 99% of the population, so it is going to encompass a huge range of other views. I am not required to endorse those other views.

If I happen to agree with someone on GC, it doesn't imply that I agree with anything else that they think. I agree with a lot of what the major religions teach about compassion - that doesn't stop me being an atheist.

It is such an own goal for GC feminists to get drawn into endorsing or rejecting the views of other GC people. It's often clearly ego-driven and incredibly frustrating - they are handing a victory to the TRAs. Can't they see that they are trying to pick us off?

Rosie Duffield's response strikes me as perfect.

I and others on this
Board are beginning to think its you! Are you actually aware of what you are saying and how's it's coming across?

I’m only on page 3 of the thread but while I’m catching up I wanted to comment on what I have read so far.

In law a child under 13 cannot give consent to sexual activity and therefore any child under 13 presenting needing contraception or an abortion would (should) automatically trigger an urgent safeguarding referral. That does not mean she will not be able to access an abortion if needed but that professionals need to find out how a child got pregnant.
The legal position on consent is that parents can consent on behalf of their child but cannot refuse. If medical professionals think a treatment is needed and parents do not consent then the case will go through the legal process to determine the child’s best interests. If a procedure or treatment is time critical e.g an emergency operation to save life or limb then the doctors may decide to act in the best interests of the child and deal with the legal fall out after. Fortunately this is rare.

In terms of contraception/sexual and reproductive care for over 13s Gillick Competence is used but in conjunction with Fraser Guidelines. This makes it clear the importance of exploring with the patient the background to why they need contraception. For example, if I see a 14 year old who needs contraception and she tells me her boyfriend is a boy from school who is 15, they’ve been seeing each other for some time, the parents are aware they’re seeing each other and it’s clear that either they are already having sex or a planning to then assuming the 14 year old is Gillick competent then the guidance would be to provide contraception without informing parents although we would encourage them to.

If the same 14 year old came and said she needed contraception and her boyfriend is a 30 year old family friend or a 20 year old who approached her after school, buys her presents and takes her round to his mates for parties where he gives her alcohol then while that child may meet the terms of Gillick competence there is (as per Fraser Guidelines) clearly a massive safeguarding issue and that child’s confidentiality would need to be broken. This is the process that broke down or wasn’t even applied in the Rotherham, Telford etc grooming cases.

I know it’s bad form to @ people here but I want to applaud @CharlieParley for her posts on this the thread.

Thank you.

Yes i did think it was the rotherham bit that threw them…amongst other things 🤔

One of the principles of safeguarding is that normally, the parents are best able to know what is best for the child and what the child needs. They have a much better track record than either the state or other institutions.

It's possible for the state to take away parental rights when there is a real problem only. Which might be the case with a 12 year old looking for contraception, but it also might now. You don't just wholesale remove parents' rights to care for their kids best interest without some specific reason to think that something bad is going on in that case.

There is no reason that should be different in these instances. Parents are the best people, unless they are abusers, to help their kids. It's not up to someone else, even some totally unrelated self-declared feminist, to tell the parents how to best care for their kids. I hope we can all see where that leads.

I'd also point out, it's not just a problem if the person these young girls are having sex with is an abuser in the normal sense, or much older. It's often also a serious problem for parents to deal with when the boy is of similar age, when the girl is keen, etc. And that can be true even for 14 or 15 year old. I had a good friend growing up who at 15 and 16 had a boyfriend close in age who impregnated her several times, she accessed abortions and her family never knew.

It was totally a toxic relationship that ended up causing her serious problems to this day as she has long term mental and physical repercussions. She hid it from her family, at that age she wasn't, in fact, able to navigate the situation. Sure, she understood how birth control worked and so on. But she had great parents and her life would have been much much better had they realized what was going on.

The fact that some people think feminism has this dogma that underage girls should have adult access to private reproductive services, as if that is perfectly obvious and any other viewpoint is "un-feminist" is bizarre. There is no reason there should be any one viewpoint on this within feminism.

Thanks for this info.

But really what she is saying here is she'll get support from people that she doesn't necessarily agree with, she is not saying she is antiabortion

KJK said she would be willing to sacrifice her right to legal abortion if it meant trans children were not being mutilated.

I read that as meaning she would prefer to live in a right wing society where abortion was illegal if it meant kids could not access puberty blockers and surgery.

She is entitled to her option but lots of women would feel horrified to live in a right wing society where abortion was illegal.

I read that as meaning she would prefer to live in a right wing society where abortion was illegal if it meant kids could not access puberty blockers and surgery.

Did you?

I read it as that she would be willing to make a personal sacrifice if that sacrifice were to result in the protection of multiple children.

Not that she wanted other women to be forced into living in a right wing society and to sufffer illegal abortions.

But then, Saph, you do have rather a lot of previous form when it comes to bizarre and inflammatory interpretations of KJK’s statements (eg the thread you started accusing KJK of homophobia based on what someone other rando tweeted)!

'Once we can.....'
What did KJK go on to say in that tweet and why has it been cut out?

”I read that as meaning she would prefer to live in a right wing society where abortion was illegal if it meant kids could not access puberty blockers and surgery.”

You can interpret it anyway you wish. It doesn’t mean that your rather polarised interpretation is correct.

And it doesn’t make her any more right wing or any more ‘anti abortion’! She is also not responsible for the very poor law making of the current and past governments of the USA.

“She is entitled to her option but lots of women would feel horrified to live in a right wing society where abortion was illegal.”

To repeat what has been said repeatedly on other threads, she is talking about her priorities. She is not actively campaigning to make abortion illegal, she is not campaigning for right wing governments to come to power.

There is, however, a very obvious attempt by a group of Brighton feminists to keep their own bad faith interpretations of anything that Kellie Jay says active in the public domain. Has that sin page come down yet?

Jesus how many more times are you going to post that same screenshot?

You are completely obsessed by KJK. You really need to get some sort of help for this.

I can’t see why any UK feminist would make abortion a priority?

Perhaps in NI where the law change has happened but the actual services aren’t yet properly in place!

www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-to-commission-abortion-services-in-northern-ireland

But in the other 3 nations of the union?

In recent times we’ve had a failed attempt at abortion restriction from a disability rights angle:

amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/25/heidi-crowter-woman-downs-syndrome-loses-court-of-appeal-abortion-law-case

And we’ve made the emergency pandemic law change re: early medical abortions permanent:

www.gov.uk/government/news/at-home-early-medical-abortions-made-permanent-in-england-and-wales

Abortion isn’t a contested political topic here because unlike American we established a reasonable middle ground a long time ago.

Any subsequent changes are just tinkering based on technological advance.

On paper our system sounds like a pain in the arse (2 doctors signatures) in practice the 2 doctors are often in neighbouring offices on a single corridor. It’s free, legal and safe, pretty much on demand in the earlier stages and significant-reasons-only in the later stages.

Plus have a carve out for doctors with religious objections so there is no massive religious debate about it (I’d prefer it if those doctors didn’t become OBGYN specialists and instead picked an area where it’s unlikely to come up, purely the sake of women who need a quick intervention for emergency reasons but I can’t see a workable way to write that into law in a tolerant and democratic society).

Can anyone explain to me why a UK feminist WOULD make abortion her number one priority in 2023? Obvs we always need to be alert to potential roll backs but it’s hardly likely now when all the recent changes have been towards more access rather than less (even with a Tory government in power)?

At this stage, I find the machinations of this feminist group to be increasingly bizarre and getting even more transparent each week.

Can anyone explain to me why a UK feminist WOULD make abortion her number one priority in 2023?

Roe v Wade being overturned.

It's naive to think similar couldn't happen in the UK.

There is a huge and significant difference between the abortion law in the UK and the lack of abortion laws in the USA.

This is actually a very far reach.

Again, overturning abortion law is not what Kellie Jay Keen is working towards at all.

Your continued portrayal of what Kellie Jay has said seems very dishonest now.

🤦‍♀️

Do you know anything about our abortion laws at all? Our laws were made via the Parliamentary Act, not a court ruling.

Completely different scenario to Roe V Wade, which was based on the constitutional right to privacy and was always in danger because the government didn’t enshrined it in law via a vote in the House and Senate.

Plus the UKs far more comprehensive welfare system means that abortion and free contraception saves our government absolutely shit loads in not financially supporting unwanted children.

The US federal government doesn’t have the same obligations.

It’s beyond bonkers to say that a UK based feminist should make abortion her TOP priority - the only reason I can come up with for anyone to believe it should be our top priority is American cultural imperialism.

Stella Creasy is doing some work to try and make abortion a human right in the UK. At the moment it is technically a criminal offense.

I don't agree with SC on a lot of things but I do on that. Abortion rights are fragile. I can see why she has made it a priority.

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/why-right-abortion-doesnt-actually-exist-britain/

Sappho’s been swallowing pre-digested American opinions, methinks.

Is it her TOP priority?

The Brighton bubble of stupidity.

They don’t realise that no one outside it is nodding along.

Prioritising abortion being a woman's human right is a bubble of stupidity hey?

I agree this feminism board has got very weird.