Rosie Duffield and Kellie-Jay Keen

[Universalfamily]

There seems to have been some kind of issue between the two of them today.
What's occurring?

At the end of the day KJK knows she is right to prioritise safeguarding women and girls.

There may well be disagreements along the way, but the goal of protecting women and girls is something that she is risking her life for.

What you said was that people concerned about underage sex just wanted to keep women in the home. But nice attempt at a dodge there!

We're rather getting off the point, which kind of proves what KJK was saying in the original clip.

The whole "state officials have the best interest of kids at heart, more than possibly dodgy parents" trope is, I suppose, what we find on the left.

It's rather come into its own the last few years.

I think some people would do well to consider who gains from perceived in-fighting among gender critical women and who keeps trying to fan the flames of disagreement, sometimes on this very board.

Do you find it difficult to understand what you read? I said that promoting the idea that 15 year olds are rocking up to abortion clinics with no adult aware or with them is ideologically driven. It's not true. I linked to the BPAS site to offer some semblance of reality about seeing abortion care for under 18s.

The idea that girls and women should be denied contraception and abortion is closely allied with ideas about keeping women in the home.

I'm concerned about under age sex. I wish children would wait until they're older in all honesty.

Many don't and have sex when they're far too young for it. In these instances, contraception and abortion care reduce the risks and harms for these girls.

This comes off as disingenuous. Why are you not talking about how many minors access contraception without parents knowledge?

No one has said it should be completely unavailable, the question is whether parents should be cut out. And what that says more generally about when parents can and should be cut out. When, for example, a doctor or teacher could signpost a minor child to a certain medical decision, without involving parents, and without any evidence that the parents would be in some way abusive or problematic.

Young teens having sex are at risk, and this is an approach that very deliberately hides their risky behaviours from their parents. Do you really not see where that could be a precedent with consequences?

Who said parents or carers should be 'cut out' of their daughter accessing contraception or abortion?

Did anyone suggest teachers should be involved in contraception or abortion for their students?

Have you actually looked at the BPAS info for under 18s accessing abortion care?

I appreciate that you're thinking of how gender ideology has been promoted and pushed on children. Gillick competence and the Fraser guidelines have been in place for decades. Their time to be a 'precedent' has long gone!

Before then, there were higher rates of teenage pregnancy. Not having access to contraception did not stop youngsters having sex.

No. I don't find it difficult to understand what I read. What you have said (twice now) is that anyone questioning whether enough is being done to keep parents informed about their children accessing contraception are motivated entirely by a misogynistic desire to prevent women accessing contraception at any age.

I think she’s effective but yes she’s a strong voice rather than a politician or head of a relevant org etc

I don’t think the term ‘amateur’ is problematic if used as you have rather than an attempt at insult which other pp might be using

I welcome all the women pushing on this and grateful to anyone who has felt the personal cost of that. That includes KJK and RD and many others.

Maybe effective campaigner is more apt.

It’s outside more established channels but that’s the success of her impact

I haven't said that once, let alone twice.

What? She hasn't said that at all.

I posted a video about KJK saying Gillick Competence needs to be removed and equating hormonal contraception with puberty blockers. We were discussing that.

You said "I'd like to keep my underage girls in the home where they belong, thank you very much!" I think she started off responding to that.

The idea parents should be informed if their daughter is prescribed contraception is old fashioned, not backed by evidence and actually increases risk to girls. It is a very odd tack for KJK to take.

I can’t find the Gillick clip. My memory of it was she said we should discuss it. She didn’t call to get rid of it, but to discuss it.

Just as she wants us to temporarily unite to concentrate on getting gender grooming out of schools before returning to the abortion debate. She is prioritising stopping the transing of children, rendering them infertile, scarred, and medically dependent for life, over abortion rights. For now.

I don’t see that as self evidently wrong. I think both are equally worthy. I think there’s an argument that children deserve first call on our attention, as adult women have more resource available to protect them.

Adam, if you agree with Cass that subjecting children to experimental and life altering medical treatment is wrong, you will expect a whole load of people to agree with you: your great-aunt; local religious leaders of various creeds, and KJK.

You will almost certainly be able to identify things about them you dislike, or areas on which you disagree. That’s life. But nit picking about individuals gets you nowhere.

On this issue KJK has been brilliant. Presumably why she attracts so much hate. Amateur, campaigner whatever, she is a marketing genius. Not a politician. Not cautious enough.

Link in here vindication

She says "why are we enabling children to take sometimes contraceptives that are quite harmful, or access to abortion, I think that we really need to rethink all of this, I think parents need to take back control of their children".

This is not her campaigning on Adult Human Female or preventing transitioning of children. This is her campaigning on something far more conservative that a lot of feminists would disagree with.

Pregnancy and childbirth are high risk for women, no woman of any age should be put through that experience unnecessarily in the 21st century. What she is advocating will increase harm to children.

Just as she wants us to temporarily unite to concentrate on getting gender grooming out of schools before returning to the abortion debate. She is prioritising stopping the transing of children, rendering them infertile, scarred, and medically dependent for life, over abortion rights. For now.

This was a thing in the US before Kellie Jay Keen came on the scene. It was called "Hands Across the Aisle", a coalition of religious right wing and radical feminist women and it's fine if people disagree with that approach, but it didn't start with KJK.

We don't need that in the UK as we don't have a "religious right" in the same way as the US.

This current trend to try to manufacture the same issues as those preoccupied the American religious right alarms me.

You are minimising what KJK is actually doing or saying if you claim it is just "a coalition". She is actively promoting a conservative position on some of this stuff, it's not a feminist position and as a feminist it alarms me.

I'm just pointing out that it isn't a new idea.

I didn't say KJK was part of that coalition, I was making the point that some US radical feminists formed a coalition with women on the right.

Sorry, I'm not really following then. What do you mean in respect of KJK and her videos, when you say it didn't start with her?

I think I've made it perfectly clear what I meant Adam, and I'm not getting into an endless back and forth about KJK.

OK. Your choice. I don't understand what you meant though. I thought you meant KJK was doing a "hands across the aisle" with the US religious right. But then you said you weren't so now I'm not sure of the point is all.

I think this is going nowhere as everyone's confused about who is responding to what.

You're really not very good at following threads, are you? I'm out of here. You're wasting all of our time.

Sorry, I'm not really following then

Exactly.