AKA Posie Parker

Some time in 2018 at a “We Need To Talk” event at The Jam Jar in Bristol, England, an activist who goes by the pseudonym of Posie Parker gave a speech.

It seems that Parker has been banned from various social media platforms, not just by that name but by her IP address. She has also been interviewed by police under caution for publishing a definition to be found in dictionaries. In Orwellian Britain it seems that we are approaching a time when everything is policed except crime.

My previous post showed a TED talk by Susie Green where she described how her son transitioned to become a girl. In many ways it was a moving and heartwarming story, but there are always two sides to every argument. The civilised thing to do is to explore both sides.

She is reading her speech.

To me you are not a proper speaker till you can, and do, speak without notes; but Parker does not presume to be other than a parent who is concerned enough to protest, so portraying herself as not a proper speaker rather adds charm. Nevertheless she avoids presenting herself as charming; she is in a battle.

She certainly has audience instinct. She gets an excellent response to her ad lib concerning the microphone that won’t stay where placed, and she expertly stokes the laugh when it comes.

She also has instinctively followed one of my cardinal guidelines by giving this presentation a very clear Face

Does my eleven-year-old daughter have the right to go into a female changing room and not see an adult penis?

If we want to get technical it’s slightly too many words for a Face, but they’re powerful. And she repeats them several times.

Parker has at least as good a case as does Susie Green and, if I may borrow the exemplary title of the event where Parker is speaking, “We Need To Talk”. But we don’t: one side of this debate is officially muted.

A lesson we learn in our youngest days, coping with arguments in the school playground, is that the party that refuses to listen to the other almost certainly has no case. Both sides in this argument have cases, and in a climate of goodwill fairly obvious solutions present themselves; but one side is silenced and goodwill crushed. This currently applies across many areas of opinion and in many countries, where only one opinion is deemed acceptable and the other is silenced by officialdom – international officialdom.

Who or what has that sort of reach? And why should they want to sow discord? I have a theory, but this is neither the time nor the place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.