KJK and the neo-nazis video

[niandraladesand]

Just wondering if anyone here has seen this yet and what you think of it

@Puncturedbicycle85
Well there’s the fact that BC have been around since before anyone knew what genetics was so the genetic argument is a modern one actually.
My understanding is that it was there to show who the parents were. Our forebears might not have known about genetics, but they had been managing to selectively breed animals for millennia because they had spotted that traits could be passed on. They just didn't know what the mechanism was.

(I seem to have a low-grade and persistent headache these days, from the time I spend bashing my head against the wall.)

Puncturedbicycle85 I wish you would stop time-travelling within arguments.

It is wholly anachronistic to bring egg-donation into your discussion about what BCs were originally for.

The "genetics" issue is different. Rights of inheritance and parental rights and responsibilities were around long before genes were discovered but they were still based on "genetics". Issues around information about inherited disease (expressed or carried) are also anachronistic if you are talking about the original reason for BCs.

It is ironic, of course, that the legal father had more parental rights than the mother, ie. in that any inaccuracies in the Birth Register were staggeringly more likely to relate to the father than the mother.

Personally, I am not sure that it makes much sense to argue about what BCs were originally for because there are now so many more factors to consider, eg. egg donation.

well we seem to have drifted from the main point which is that Posie is a right winged homophone, as evidenced by hahahah who needs evidence, she obviously just is.

But if it’s cool for there to be a blank space then surely it’s NOT a genetic record for this child (or anyone else)? It’s not possible to be born without a male person providing sperm. All the BC can reliably tell us is the circumstances of the birth (date, place, name) and the name of the woman who gave birth to the child. Doesn’t say anything about genetics. Remember too that this is a public document - people might not want the general public to be able to find out if they were donor conceived (and there already IS a donor register which is private).

Personally, I am not sure that it makes much sense to argue about what BCs were originally for because there are now so many more factors to consider, eg. egg donation.

oh I agree. I only said this in response to someone saying that genetics was the historical reason why the BC exists. It isn’t and never has been. It shows parentage which is not always biological (which has always been the case with the pater est presumption).

Who said it's cool?

There are thousands of donor conceived people wandering about who aren't aware they're donor conceived. That's not right. Every child should know their genetic origins. If you choose to use donor gametes, you have a responsibility to be honest. U.K. egg tourism is a big industry and there are many prospective parents who choose to go outside the U.K. so they are not bound by HFEA rules around anonymity

Homophone? I heard she's been encouraging kids to do the Synonym Challenge.

Highly irresponsible.

Just because a woman lied about who the father was, or didn't know, does not disprove the intention of the document. Hence why the father could have been left blank. And was.

If the information is not known or is not accurate it is far better to leave it blank than to 'lie'. If it is known and it is safe to add, then it should be added.

Relationship to the child can be and should be established accurately. There is absolutely no argument that parental rights should be established in law at the time of birth for any person that did not carry and give birth to that child.

I tend to mostly agree with you Clymene. However, if the information is not known, it needs to be left blank. Or if it has the potential to cause abuse.

Otherwise, I think that children deserve to have a record of their birth situation, however complex. And that parental responsibility is very much a complex issue in today's legal framework and perhaps that needs separate documentation.

As Bez says though, simply by disagreeing about what a birth certificate is for is not grounds to make dramatic and unfounded accusations of 'homophobia'. It is a knee jerk reaction based in prejudice and not in reality.

All these are arguments for extra documents, or extra information, given the technological breakthroughs that we now have.

None of it means that Posie Parker is homophobic for talking about who goes on a birth certificate and who doesn't.

As I said, it's a public debate. One that we are all participating in on this thread.

I agree that women shouldn't be forced to name a child's father. But there needs to be an open debate around how we record children's genetic origins.

I just watched the first 7 minutes before giving up.
Those 7 minutes are exactly what I expected. It's just a smear job. Video segments of KJK are cut just in time to prevent providing more context, trying to only make the points he wants to make.

What annoyed me those most is that he could have actually made a really good video. For example he starts off with KJK will talk to anyone, and doesn't agree with "you shouldn't talk to xxxx". The purpose is to ( scary music fades in ) prove she's on the same team as ( scary music intensifies ) xxxx nasty people who no one should listen to. The implication is it makes her an xxxx too.
There's many parts where KJK is just sick of being labelled as an xxxx in order to make her shut up, and so she's like ( paraphrasing ) fuck it, call me whatever you want, I'm gonna keep doing this, you're not gonna shut me up. This is taken as admission of guilt. See the witch admits it!
What would be great here is for someone to examine what has happened in society to cause a woman fighting to "Let Women Speak" to end up in a position where only the already unpersoned dare speak in support of a topic she cares about. He could have examined what KJK wants, what her goals are. Why KJK feels that she needs to put all this effort in. What's driving KJK. How the media are treating KJK. Does the reporting reflect the whole truth or is reporting slanted? Is there a conflict between the rights of women and men who want to pretend to be women? All of this could have opened up some real debate, but as we all know there is no debate, so none of that was present in the small portion I watched.

One thing I always like to do when I watch/read from an unfamilar source is look at the rest of their content. If it's a news website and I just read an article after clicking on a link, I'll click the site's homepage. It's very easy to get a feel for their biases when you can see 20 headlines all at once. I clicked to see all videos by this guy. There's a few topics/people/organisations he's got a real hard on for, PragerU, Black Pigeon Speaks, GC women JKR etc.... All of whom of course he disagrees with. All the videos appear to be hatchet jobs where he goes on about how awful they all are, and from the looks of it no one from whatever he's moaning about ever gets interviewed or has any right of reply. It's just a one man bedroom smear factory. NEVER take a blacklight in that room.

If you want a baseline there a 4 video series about why the BBC is so transphobic. That should tell you all you need to know.

"There is absolutely no argument that parental rights should be established in law at the time of birth for any person that did not carry and give birth to that child."

As in, no argument from me. Those rights absolutely should be established in law.

So, if one partner of a lesbian couple provided the egg and another carried the child, there should be a way to record this AND the father who contributed the sperm. And if that father is not known, it should be left blank. But no person should be added into the 'father' field who did not contribute the sperm to create that child and the field should not be replaced by another field.

I heard she pacifically encourages children to be stationery and to identify as a Chester draws. She stairs and then complements them if she thinks they’ve done a good job

disgusting homophone

more context

Christ, Bernard. That's bringing me out in hi vis.

I specifically loved pacifically!

It appeals to my Pacificness!

Sean doesn't believe in Free Speech? 😂

Only for people he doesn't like, I'm betting!

So if I reported Sean for spouting misogynistic hate speech and inciting hatred against KJK (not that YouTube would care, probably give him a medal, so this is in a fantasy world where women who don't believe you can change sex run YouTube) . . . and YouTube banned him and deleted all his videos and the Met Police arrested him and threw him in clink (more fantasy-world stuff) he would be OK with that?

These censorious, virtue-signalling, authoritarian idiots haven't got the brains they were born with!

How long have you known her then?

Every time I start warming to KJK she will post something else about lesbians not deserving equal rights. Today it was same sex parents having the audacity to both want to be on their child's birth certificate. KJK obviously can't imagine why a same sex couple bringing up a child would both want to be the legal parents of that child.

I guess she doesn't want lesbian allies 🤷‍♀️

Oy vey

pretendy pretendy pretendy

there are clearly 2 things here of equal importance

the biological father and mother of a child

the people with parental responsibility

up until now the birth certificate kinda recorded both, if you squinted a bit

going forward it’s not going to work

the solution is not to pretend that two women can make a baby

Yes, she is a right wing homophobe

Isn't that tautology? I thought that for some people by definition all homophobes and transphobes and whatsthecausethisweekphobes are right wing. Or extreme right wing. Or ultra right wing. Or hard right. Doesn't it go without saying?

Your mates have a whole website dedicated to how much they hate her - you're about as warm to her as a pizza left in the arctic circle

Christ, Bernard. That's bringing me out in hi vis

That's rather brilliant.

Limiting the parental rights of gay and lesbian couples is really depressing. I don't know why anyone would want to adopt the homophobic tactics of Giorgia Meloni in this country. I don't see how it benefits women.