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.”

Yes I'd be interested to hear this as I've haven't ever seen her lose her cool let alone be abusive.
I wonder if she told this person's friend that you cannot change sex? That is violence and abuse on planet trans.

It's a prime example of what I call 'you're a stinky poo pants and your mother dresses you funny' debate. If you don't agree with people you are an 'ist' or a 'phobe' but if they say something to upset you then it's further evidence of how intolerant you are. Their feelings are vital. Yours are a sign of what a bad person you are.

Still, if Kellie's a racist because a group of neo-Nazi's turned up uninvited to one of her rallies, I wonder what would happen if the same thing happened at all sorts of other rallies? Would the same rules be applied?

The brief version is 'I'm right, you're wrong and either I swallowed a dictionary or my answer was generated by ChatBot GPT.'

Anyone who speaks for 'us' needs to be watched very carefully because the chances are that they speak for themselves and their mates, who need to be reminded that they do not speak for anyone else, no matter how loudly they shout and how often they 'adjust' their facts to suit their cause.

'Still, if Kellie's a racist because a group of neo-Nazi's turned up uninvited to one of her rallies, I wonder what would happen if the same thing happened at all sorts of other rallies? Would the same rules be applied?'

This is the thing. By the same token, some of those feminists who the poster has declared are the actual feminists and worthy of being considered an authority on the topic of KJK, would be considered extreme transgender rights activists even though they apparently campaign for the same single sex provisions that KJK does.

Because those extreme transgender rights activists turn up to conferences and meetings just the same way as the Neo-nazis turned up to the LWS Melbourne rally.

These are inconvenient facts though and anyone mentioning them are to be belittled and derided and also considered far right.. or something.

If you don't agree with people you are an 'ist' or a 'phobe' but if they say something to upset you then it's further evidence of how intolerant you are. Their feelings are vital. Yours are a sign of what a bad person you are.

Is it another one of those irregular verbs? I am subjected to literal violence, their mental heath is endangered, you are educated about your fascism and intolerance?

And by the same token, Lydia Thorpe is completely aligned with KJK too. I bet that she will be thrilled by this fact.

your repeated, rabid, pseudo-rebuttals of opposition to her do nothing but make you look ridiculous

Rabid?!

And in the same line as the words "make you look ridiculous", too.

Up to this point, I'd been reading your posts with cautious interest, because aspects of PP trouble me. I admire her tenacity and have found the rebuttals of your accusations pretty convincing over the years. But I'm always on the look out for further information. I thought you may provide it. But repeating "factually verifiable" doesn't make something true. In fact, the more often it comes up without said verification, the more it looks rather dubious. Couple it with calling BlackCat's strongly-worded perspective "rabid", and you risk losing credibility.

I could mention some UK feminists who pride themselves on their socialist political beliefs that are also now victims of this same guilt by association so are 'aligned' with KJK.

This is how ludicrous these guilt by association accusations are. I think we should bring this up every time we get a plopper who continues to use these accusations.

If those 'actual feminists' have people in their group that are now through guilt by association aligned with KJK, where does this leave the poster making the claims?

Your friend needs to grow a pair

That moment you read something and think, "Yes! - THAT!"

Would the same rules be applied?
Tut, no, of course not, you're missing the point!

(I have NFI what the point is, but I'm sure we'd be told that there is one that we're too stupid to understand, and that we should go and find verification on the internet. Or something.)

"I'm sure we'd be told that there is one that we're too stupid to understand, and that we should go and find verification on the internet. Or something."

Indeed. We are infant schooler, and blinded by tomatoes... while the poster declares that we should seek to "Make sure you cross-check each of your statements, as I do, with at least two other sources. Trust me, it will help you enormously."

Because apparently, two sources both using the same dodgy article that merely checks that an event happened rather than that the interpretation and recording of the event that happened was an accurate representation is all that is needed. It is actually funny after we saw the judge in Victoria express frustration that a supposedly highly educated and professional research team that was the Victorian Liberal party team made the error of doing just that. As if checking that an event actually happened is all that is needed to then publish an inaccurate interpretation of events.

But ... none so blinded....

What is also remarkable is the accusation that it is that apparently we are making 'feeble attempts to attack' the poster who has resorted to personal attacks. While the group being derided as the 'usual suspects' are not personally attacking the poster at all.

We are though pointing out the discrepancy between the accusations and what is a more accurate and less prejudiced representation of what has happened etc. But as usual, we are 'fans' of KJK for wanting accuracy in accusations whereas, I believe 'the usual suspects' have said in the past and will say again that they don't agree with everything that KJK says and does.

There is a difference though in deliberately repeating fuckwittery that couldn't stand up in court in a defamation case, and discussing what you do and don't agree with.

A translated précis of Ms Scarlett's various effusions here runs thusly; "My friends & I are simply super, we have all the correct opinions & the best sources, ie; those that confirm our priors. Those who disagree with us on any point are all LitERaL nAzIS!"

Have only just had time to catch up with this thread, and was going to post DM article as even if the writer doesn't understand the issue (I thought the DM understood about GC feminism?!) as I now sort of grasp the time line.

But ... as I posted last night NWC and YMCA have both been trans inclusive for years.

So it isn't about whether they are breaching their aims and objectives, but more why dont they have single sex services for women and girls as one of their objectes.

But despite this niggle, get the police to (forcibly?) remove her is disgusting.

Although I think they do this to up the hysteria over the most vulnerable group claim.

As though having photos of a woman in a pink trousers suit being "escorted" out of a building illustrates just how threatening and dangerous the threat is to the most vulnerable.

Literal words are a threat?

Of ovaries perhaps. Though that's giving me flashbacks of discussions with very young children about need vs want.

I have a lot of admiration for kjk, she has given much time and energy to shine sunlight on this issue and usually gives cogent arguments even when understandably aggravated. To see a woman being escorted from an event for women because she wants to centre women, (which in 2026 we apparently need the highest court in the land to define), is peak cognitive dissonance.

All that aside, does it not bother you then that PP has evolved into a white nationalist who tweets Tommy Robinson and ethno-nationalist slop - a good deal of it recycled from the US - non-stop? Does it not interest you that she has seemed to ride the wave of the latest things to be outraged about: trans, boys in girls sport, Muslims, hijabi-wearing women, Palestine (as opposed to Gaza) … the list goes on. Why could this be?

again, a woman whose consistent, factually verifiable, racism

Again, this is a lie. And you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever of this.

I am swift to defend people who have been lied about, yes. I saw what happened to 3 women here in Australia (Moira Deeming, Sall Grover and Angie Jones), the latter being a Jewish woman who was called a nazi just because nazis gatecrashed the event. I saw how the slurs affected them, and caused their children to be abused in the neighbourhood and at school. I heard one of them break down in tears at the stress.

So yes, I do defend women, any women even ones I am politically diametrically opposed to ordinarily, against unfounded lies and smears.

Hope this helps.

PS If you have any, any evidence of her racism, any at all whatsoever, don't hesitate to post it.

Yes, it sounds very unhinged.

PP has evolved into a white nationalist

Again, evidence of this please. If you cannot back your slurs up with evidence, then you're wasting your time posting.

Does it not interest you that she has seemed to ride the wave of the latest things to be outraged about: trans, boys in girls sport, Muslims, hijabi-wearing women, Palestine (as opposed to Gaza) … the list goes on. Why could this be?

Ummmm..... because she like many of us here care about womens subjugation and oppression? Is that beyond your understanding? Are you saying that you don't care about those things?

@ItsNotOrwell KJK made the comment about little girls in hijabs nearly a decade ago. She’s hardly jumping on a bandwagon.

And what part of the post you quoted did you miss about “We are though pointing out the discrepancy between the accusations and what is a more accurate and less prejudiced representation”. And also the part about not agreeing with everything that KJK says and does.

KJK has always been publicly discussing the need for female single sex provision away from male people. Did you miss this somehow in your need to portray her as a far right extremist? So, yes since she started Let Women Speak she has been discussing the negative impact of male people with transgender identities on those provisions, including female sports.

When has she changed stopped doing that? Do you agree that female people should have female single sex provisions protected by law and policy?

Do you believe that she had a valid point about the Nottingham Police, who failed to protect the Let Women Speak public event and allowed women to be kettled and intimidated by a mostly male protest group, not being as committed to protecting female people from male violence in practise as they promote that they are? That the Nottingham Police don’t take active steps to protect women despite that being something they promote doing?

If you want to discuss her opinions on Islamist actions, I would suggest that you be accurate in your accusations and not just lazily sweep it all up into an accusation of her having concerns about Muslim people in general. Is it ‘white nationalist” to be concerned by Islamist actions? Really? That seems to me to be a catastrophisating generalisation of the issue and an inaccurate framing. Maybe start your own thread though, so as not to derall this one which was specifically about KJK and other women being removed from an IWD event because she asked questions.

You only need to browse through her Twitter feed to see evidence of her swing to white nationalism. Not patriotism, mind: the TR brand of nationalism.

How did you make the leap that because I’ve questioned something about KJK I mustn’t then care about the oppression of women?

I got asked to leave an event the other day for referring to one of the other attendees as morbidly obese. I was speaking the truth and didn't mean it offensively. Why should I have to deny the reality of biology and be forced to play along with other people's delusions?

If this is supposed to be a comparable situation, I think your comparative fails on a few aspects.

The women were at an International Women’s Day event, and the people who were asked the questions were there representing their organisations on the day and were asked about their organisation’s policies.