Kellie-Jay Keen (AKA Posie Parker) removed from IWD event by police

[ImTooMessyButImTooClean]

https://x.com/theposieparker/status/2029940578528473283?s=46&t=p6GESSn09HWHVXYgTLIbJg

“My removal from the international women’s day event by the police.

I had been asking women’s organisations whether their services were for women only. This caused alarm and distress and the venue, claimed to be privately owned when it’s owned by the council, asked me to leave for asking questions.

I have footage of every interaction that I will upload later so you can see what those questions were and you can judge for yourself.”

💐💐💐💐

I am so sorry, these discussions must be very upsetting. Or make you very angry.

It must be unbearable every time these idiots spout their, "I've only ever been assaulted or threatened by men that identify as men" line 💔

It is as imbecilic as, "I've never been sexually assaulted by a doctor so I don't see why women should be allowed to discriminate against men and ask for a female chaperone".

for turtles and toseland

If someone doesn’t believe that a person can change sex, why is it respectful for them to accede to a demand from an individual’s personal identity demands to contradict the established English language conventions?

Language is sex based. Not gender based. Just like single sex provisions are sex based and not gender based.

There is also an issue that there is direct harm caused to female people when male people are referred to as female people. There are individual safeguarding issues where if someone is referring to a male person as ‘she’ in a conversation then the other people in the conversation are receiving the message that person being referred to is female when they are not. This preconditions or reinforces them to make decisions based on another person’s language believing that description to be accurate.

Even here on this thread you have referred to your friend as ‘she’ which leads people to believe that ‘she’ is female if they didn’t read your other posts. Even then, some
people will receive the signal to their brain that this is a female person every time you use the word ‘she’ or ‘her’. Because we are people communicating in a language that has strict rules about pronoun usage.

Just because a group of people declare that they seek to destabilise the language through what amounts to force (because there is no societal consensus despite some people believing there is) doesn’t mean that the meanings have actually changed. It does mean that a group has coercively repurposed words to suit themselves and have used emotionally manipulative tactics to convince some other people to allow them.

I don’t believe there is anything ‘respectful’ in a male person demanding to be treated as if their subjective reality is the universal reality when there is no fucking way that it is materially real. That male person’s subjective reality is based on philosophical belief and theory and not on materially real and proven concepts.

A group of men have gained significant policy changes also by using some people’s need to believe that it is ‘respectful’ to use that demanded language. They have publicly on documents and video footage said that because society must think they are female due to language being used, it is cruel that policy and law treat them as if they are male. How is that action one of respect?

Using demanded wrong sex language for a person is not harmless either on an individual or a collective basis. It is disrespectful for a group of male people to have ever used female language to describe themselves in the first place.

And from watching the video it seems that wahey’s friend said something about the signage and opened discussion because the video starts after that discussion started.

There seems to be many contradictions between what wahey said/says happens and what is documented. including the ‘I use women’s loads’ contradicts the statement he never uses female single sex provisions.

There is a disconnect from the truth in the posts. Either from what Wahey has been told or in the telling to us from the very first post demonising KJK based on very clearly false information.

To me, I see the potential here where some people might be inclined through accepting those language changes and believing someone’s purely subjective reality claims that contradict material facts to extend that to believe everything else that someone claims without any closer investigation.

Whereas to me, if I understand that someone is telling me the impossible is absolutely possible, using individualised philosophically driven belief that directly contradicts material reality to district that material reality, I am not about to take anything else they say as being true without further analysis.

TL/DR : If a man is lying about being female, I am not about to trust anything else they say without verification.

I note that @Waheymum hasn't responded to my observation a few pages back that it's a bit rich to complain that a man didn't 'consent' to a filmed discussion with him being put on YT, while being happy for women not to consent to men using women's spaces, but have this state of affairs forced on them anyway.

It's a bit hard to keep up with all the comments! My friend says that she does not use women's spaces.

I get that you've a lot of comments to keep up with, so thank you for responding.

But I was under the impression that your friend said that he DOES use women's spaces.

And what about all the other men? The ones in women's changing rooms, women's prisons, and so on?

“My friend says that she does not use women's spaces.”

This is a great example of the mental contortions that this coerced and philosophical application of the English language causes.

Reading this, an uninformed reader will immediately take the view that the friend is female and of course, that female should be using women’s spaces. A reader would think it is contriversial that a female person is NOT expected to be using ‘women’s spaces’.

Compare that to :

My friend says that he does not use women's spaces.

This by contrast is a non-controversial statement.

Then compare :

My friend says that he does use women's spaces.

Someone reading this would immediately be alerted that there is an issue.

It is not respectful to others or society in general to contort language to suit a group’s philosophical belief about themselves.

I've screenshot the video with the transcript for you. The transcript is the words he said. They are shown on the right hand side of the picture, bolded for you.

Without waheymum coming on here to talk about waheymum's friend I wouldn't have been aware of the existence of video footage. Photos and videos of that friend have been seen many more times than they would have done had waheymum not brought it to the attention of this thread.

Yes shed, I am not sure how many times it has to be delivered to Waheymum.

If this man has admitted that he uses the ‘women’s loads’ why is she contradicting her friend’s admission?

Why is there this complete disconnect between video evidence and what we are being told.

Interesting discussion but just a reminder that Waheymum could be anyone who knew this discussion between KJK and “BigBlokeinRed”happened including the man himself. The obfuscation and avoidance suggests to me that we are being “catfished” (if that term can be applied here). I’d love to think im wrong and Waheymum will be back with cogent answers….

It is almost as if he lies to his friends.

Whoda thunk it?

Or his friends lie in support of him?

or both?

Yes. Whodathunkit?

In my mind, I would always be questioning the veracity of what someone said if they told me that they either were not the sex they materially were, or had any identity that was not based on material reality.

Another thing though is the discussion around sex vs gender identity as if gender identity subverted the sex category of a person. That again is based purely in philosophical belief.

Why the fuck are we being told that it is ‘respectful’ to support a philosophical belief we don’t share to dominate the material reality of sex categories?

It is not ‘respectful’, it is the very opposite.

But when someone allows some words to hold contradictory definitions making those words meaningless, I guess it might never occur to them that other words they use in an attempt to support those demanded changes would also be rended just as meaningless,

The idea that anyone could reasonably look at that bloke and say “yes, you should absolutely be using the female only facilities “ is unfuckingbelievable. The fact that possible poor mental health is being used to justify him using those facilties is even worse.

When instructional videos are published with tips for respecting pronouns, I wonder what message some people take away from them.

https://x.com/marycatedelvey/status/2025264299199852822?s=46

I think I am more like Mary Cate than the dude instructing us to practice.

I often wonder how they think they’re supporting their cause by doing this.

Yeah. The people who make that argument are basically saying "generally it's ok that women have single sex support and rights, but when a man has a genuine belief he needs to use women's provisions obviously his need comes first"

The misogyny/male favouring is so ingrained they don't even realise they are doing it.

I don't think Wahey's mate says 'loads' as per transcript. He's asked 'do you go into women's spaces?' and he replies 'I use womens loos'. I know it doesn't make a difference 'use womens loads' 'use womens loos', except for fact that Wahey is holding the line/lie that he doesn't go into women's spaces.

If you never accessed female spaces even if you were self denying access, the answer to that question would start with 'No'. It could be 'No, I'm a man' or even 'No, I really do want to use that space as I feel I'm a woman, but others don't see me that way'

But we divide toilet use on grounds of SEX not on GENDER IDENTITY, to use your own emphasis..

That's crucial to the whole thing but you seem not to grasp it.

Your friend is not of the female sex (you just said so yourself) and therefore must not use any spaces reserved for people who ARE of the female sex.

That's pretty clear, I think?

The bloke in question does not have a female gender identity anyway even if that as a concept existed. He is a bloke in a hoodie.

What is it in your reasoning that allows you to believe a person's gender identity is in any way more relevant than their biological sex? After all, distilled down to basics, you can feel like a woman all you like, but when it comes to the existential stuff, simply feeling like a man or feeling like a woman doesn't help you further the species, does it?

A man who uses women's facilities does so because they feel entitled to, and basically because they believe as a man they have more right to take what they feel they need and can ignore the needs of the women in that space. Other people's needs are not their problem.

If it excludes some, whatever, right? It's not like they matter, they're only women. Marginalised women, sure. Women with intersectionality needs, women with a whole lot of diversity, trauma, the other buzz words, and yet those words only matter if they refer to someone of the male sex who's named a gender identity. The male sex is the crucial bit. That's the statement of power, that's the pulling of rank. And all those standing for his right to use that space and the bodies of the women in there, and to exclude and discard the female humans who can't enable him, telling women that men's problems are so much more important than theirs, are also endorsing that as a member of the male sex, he has value and status and entitlements that the women don't.

This is why women need sex based rights.

I am permanently baffled by this commanded 'you must respect' a man who declares he possesses an inner gender belief.

Why?

What seems to be actually meant by it is a commanded 'show submission and deference'. In about the same way as a hundred years or so back you were expected to lower your eyes and tug your cap to someone who had more social power than you did, and call him 'm'lord'.

No. I don't worship at that altar, I'm not genuflecting to it. I treat everyone with the same politeness, and my respect for them will be a mutual and deserved thing coming from equal terms, or it won't be existing at all.