[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

What is there to suggest Posie is close to any of those who also joined?

Sorry Oliver I disagree, Posie Parker is not operating in good faith and is a complete liability for anyone who wants genuine sensible discourse to resume at any time soon.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Sorry Oliver I disagree, Posie Parker is not operating in good faith and is a complete liability for anyone who wants genuine sensible discourse to resume at any time soon.

Okay, so what is there to suggest she's doing this for anything but women's rights?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Okay, so what is there to suggest she's doing this for anything but women's rights?

There obviously can never be "evidence" for any individuals internal overall motivations one way or the other because ultimately they're only known by that person; she may or may not have the over-arching goal of protecting women's spaces. However she courts the alt-right to gain notoriety, funding and a platform and (albeit, just observationally) ... she's just plain starting to sound and look like an alt-righter.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

There obviously can never be "evidence" for any individuals internal overall motivations one way or the other because ultimately they're only known by that person; she may or may not have the over-arching goal of protecting women's spaces. However she courts the alt-right to gain notoriety, funding and a platform and (albeit, just observationally) ... she's just plain starting to sound and look like an alt-righter.

However she courts the alt-right


ok - how

and i hope its not, she gave an interview to X, because if she spoke to the BBC i hope you will also say she courts the hard left?

"guilty by association" does not stand up in any court

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

However she courts the alt-right


ok - how

and i hope its not, she gave an interview to X, because if she spoke to the BBC i hope you will also say she courts the hard left?

"guilty by association" does not stand up in any court

I think if you go on the platform of an open white supremacist who has called for a Canadian, white, ethno-state, then you're on shaky ground.

Not even you believes the bbc is hard left.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

However she courts the alt-right


ok - how

and i hope its not, she gave an interview to X, because if she spoke to the BBC i hope you will also say she courts the hard left?

"guilty by association" does not stand up in any court

She evidently and openly accepts support from right-wing individuals with a smile and a wave, it's not particularly subtle. To give one example, she's openly stated regarding Roe vs Wade that women in the US losing abortion rights is an acceptable price to pay if it helps in the gender identity wars. These people are not fighting for women's rights. Again maybe she believes its possible to use these individuals "for the numbers" in her own battles and not ultimately hand power to them. In the long run, but if she does I think she's very wrong.

The idea that the BBC is hard left is daft too. I don't really know what it is at this point.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

She evidently and openly accepts support from right-wing individuals with a smile and a wave, it's not particularly subtle. To give one example, she's openly stated regarding Roe vs Wade that women in the US losing abortion rights is an acceptable price to pay if it helps in the gender identity wars. These people are not fighting for women's rights. Again maybe she believes its possible to use these individuals "for the numbers" in her own battles and not ultimately hand power to them. In the long run, but if she does I think she's very wrong.

The idea that the BBC is hard left is daft too. I don't really know what it is at this point.

by losing abortion rights do you mean more people in a state dont agree with abortion for all and voted accordingly?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Liam-

And yes, she does very blatantly hold hands with the nazis and women hating far right, she doesn’t get hijacked by then, she welcomes them with open arms

Like who? When?

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

To give one example, she's openly stated regarding Roe vs Wade that women in the US losing abortion rights is an acceptable price to pay if it helps in the gender identity wars.

Being against abortion doesn't mean someone can't be left wing or a feminist tbh.

[Merry Mockmas]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Like who? When?


Being against abortion doesn't mean someone can't be left wing or a feminist tbh.

Well being against abortion is being against women having that choice being open to them.

Just to clarify being against abortion doesn't strike me as someone that's really pro-feminism imo.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Sorry Oliver I disagree, Posie Parker is not operating in good faith and is a complete liability for anyone who wants genuine sensible discourse to resume at any time soon.

Women are sick of trying for sensible discourse and it's met with violence and death threats from men in frocks. It's tiresome to have men tell women we should try to reason with these maniacs. The real trans community must be weeping.

Where are the hoards of F to M transsexuals punching people and demanding to be included in men's sport and entry to men only changing rooms?

[Cherry Christmas]

What I would also take from the video is that all the violence and hate was directed at women, there were no different groups fighting each other which you might expect to see when it kicks off like this? If the Far Right were there and backing women they were woefully silent on the issue

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Cherie

What I would also take from the video is that all the violence and hate was directed at women, there were no different groups fighting each other which you might expect to see when it kicks off like this? If the Far Right were there and backing women they were woefully silent on the issue

Apparently that's all fine and we should try reasonable discourse. And stop being Nazis.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Apparently that's all fine and we should try reasonable discourse. And stop being Nazis.

At some point there will have to be reasonable discourse. Despite people getting dreamy-eyed about "throwing bricks" it's not where actual progress is made. No one is going to suddenly "win".

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

At some point there will have to be reasonable discourse. Despite people getting dreamy-eyed about "throwing bricks" it's not where actual progress is made. No one is going to suddenly "win".

And that's your message to women? I expect you're right, what with you having a cock and all.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Women, eh? Why would you expect us to be more measured than the chicks with dicks who turn out for violent confrontation.

She should just shut up or face the consequences, right? Like JK Rowling.

Originally Posted by Livia

And that's your message to women? I expect you're right, what with you having a cock and all.

Again I'm not tone policing I think the current climate is inevitable and understandable but that doesn't mean its a good idea to overlook where there are genuinely questionable connections as there have been with Posie Parker and right-wing evangelist donors.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

At some point there will have to be reasonable discourse. Despite people getting dreamy-eyed about "throwing bricks" it's not where actual progress is made. No one is going to suddenly "win".

What specifically has she said in her interviews that is a concern?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Women are sick of trying for sensible discourse and it's met with violence and death threats from men in frocks. It's tiresome to have men tell women we should try to reason with these maniacs. The real trans community must be weeping.

Where are the hoards of F to M transsexuals punching people and demanding to be included in men's sport and entry to men only changing rooms?

Again I don't disagree and it's not the expressions of frustration that I'm really referring to, I'm not tone-policing, but Parker specifically I think there are a number of red flags. For example, she has effectively said that the abortion ban (and other aspects of oppression of women's rights) are "worth it" in the gender ideology battle.

She'll happily court evangelists and misogynists "for the numbers" to support her cause and that means she either naively believes she can use those numbers and then discard that "army" once her own goals are achieved, OR she agrees with/is indifferent to the other supremacist goals of those groups.

Either way her methods are just more fuel on the fire to make matters worse for everyone. Her rhetoric isn't any more helpful than (and has an awful lot in common with) things like Stonewall "on the other side".

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Again I don't disagree and it's not the expressions of frustration that I'm really referring to, I'm not tone-policing, but Parker specifically I think there are a number of red flags. For example, she has effectively said that the abortion ban (and other aspects of oppression of women's rights) are "worth it" in the gender ideology battle.

She'll happily court evangelists and misogynists "for the numbers" to support her cause and that means she either naively believes she can use those numbers and then discard that "army" once her own goals are achieved, OR she agrees with/is indifferent to the other supremacist goals of those groups.

Either way her methods are just more fuel on the fire to make matters worse for everyone. Her rhetoric isn't any more helpful than (and has an awful lot in common with) things like Stonewall "on the other side".

I don't know alot about her apart from watching a few clips posted on here

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Again I don't disagree and it's not the expressions of frustration that I'm really referring to, I'm not tone-policing, but Parker specifically I think there are a number of red flags. For example, she has effectively said that the abortion ban (and other aspects of oppression of women's rights) are "worth it" in the gender ideology battle.

She'll happily court evangelists and misogynists "for the numbers" to support her cause and that means she either naively believes she can use those numbers and then discard that "army" once her own goals are achieved, OR she agrees with/is indifferent to the other supremacist goals of those groups.

Either way her methods are just more fuel on the fire to make matters worse for everyone. Her rhetoric isn't any more helpful than (and has an awful lot in common with) things like Stonewall "on the other side".

Women, eh? Why would you expect us to be more measured than the chicks with dicks who turn out for violent confrontation.

She should just shut up or face the consequences, right? Like JK Rowling.