32 Minutes of YouTube “Safe” Content | Kellie-Jay Keen AKA Posie Parker EP 378

Hello everyone! We're facing a bit of a conundrum here with my podcast and at the Daily Wire in general. I have an interview with Kelly J Keene, otherwise known as Posey Parker, that we want to offer to everyone. Um, we're quite convinced that it will be taken down by YouTube, and so what we've done is offering— we're offering an edited version on the YouTube platform. Now if you want to watch the unedited version, then you can go to the Daily Wire Plus, or you can go to Spotify or any of the other podcast producers and distributors that haven't had such a heavy hand on the forbidden front, let's say.

We don't know if this is a good solution. You know, I feel in part that it would be better just to say to hell with it, not put it up on YouTube at all, but then people don’t watch it, or to put up the unedited version and take our lumps. But we're afraid we'll be taken out entirely on the YouTube front as a consequence. So we're trying this as an interim solution, and so hopefully you'll be on board with that solution. If you want to watch the interview with Kelly J Keane Parker Posey on YouTube in its somewhat slightly edited form, then please feel welcome to do so. Otherwise, head over to the other platforms where you can watch the whole thing. Thanks very much for your time and attention.

If we think about a hospital in America right now, um, you know, sedating somebody, getting ready for a double mastectomy in their teens, it's—I can't leave it like—I can't stop until it stops. Yeah, nothing would persuade me, I don't think, to stop because the more people tried to stop me, the more I think I'm right and I'm on the right path, and it has to be done.

[Music]

Hello everyone! Watching and listening, today I have the privilege of speaking with women's rights activist Kelly J Keane, also known as Posey Parker. We discuss the co-opting and invading of women's spaces, the hatred, jealousy, and attraction toward what women naturally possess, which underlies the transgender movement, the rise of false compassion as a means to censor and control, what Posey Parker aims to accomplish with her "Let Women Speak" events, and how social pressure, ideologically captured police, and terrorizing mobs have not and will not silence her.

Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me today, Kelly J. Um, tell me about the name Parker Posey first.

So, when I was expecting one of my babies, there were two names on our list—um, Posey and Parker. And so, when I joined an online forum, I just used those as an anonymous name, and it stuck. But I go with my real name these days.

I see, okay. And so, do you want to maybe let everybody who's watching and listening know a little bit about you? Um, I don't know much about you. I've read your Wikipedia page and done some background research as well. Um, you sound like quite the monster when you read your Wikipedia page, but it's a Wikipedia page, so, you know, that has to be taken with the requisite grain of salt and we can go through that.

I mean, it's quite interesting, for example, that you're described as an anti-transgender rights activist. That's pretty convenient for the people who don’t like what you're saying, right? The left—you got to give the leftist radicals a certain amount of credit for being able to warp language like nobody's business. So, but who are you, and why are you doing what you're doing?

So, I am a mother of four and a happily married woman. Um, I've been with my husband for 25 years, and then in 2015, this issue came along. I was a full-on labor-voting lefty, and I joined an online forum of women, and then loads of men started populating it. Unlike the women who actually were completely ineffective in their campaigning, unlike the men, uh, women weren’t talking about themselves, what they looked like; they weren't posting photos, but these men did.

And they were really masculine-looking men with wigs and sort of 1980s secretary looks, and I just asked one of them one day, "Do you really identify as a woman?" The vitriol from him was bad enough, but from other women was just astounding. Uh, and I just thought, well, I'm not allowed to talk about this, so I want to talk about this, and I'm not having anybody telling me that I can't talk about something so significant.

And then I just started— uh, in 2018, I put a billboard up with a dictionary definition of the word "woman," and that really sort of solidified my place in this movement.

Yeah, the billboard that was— uh, adult human female— yeah, hateful.

Yeah, well that's pretty— yeah.

Okay, so you said a couple of things there that I found interesting. So the first was that you asked one of these men who was in this women's forum whether or not he identified as a woman and received a lot of hate and vitriol in response.

So, well, first question is: do you feel that you crafted your question in a manner that might have invited that sort of response, or what other explanation do you have for it? And then the second thing you said, which I think is equally relevant, is that not only did you receive a lot of vitriol from the person to whom you directed the question, but you received excess vitriol from women.

So first of all, let's inquire into the question that you posed to see if there was anything provocative about it. And second, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why you have experienced the fact that women are very likely to jump on this particular bandwagon, for example, and provide noisy and self-righteous support for the people that you are hypothetically pillorying.

So, let's start with the question: like, do you feel that you asked a fair question of this particular man?

I actually don't think I asked a question, and that's because my knowledge in 2023 means I think it probably wasn't provocative enough. I think I should have basically not asked the question, "Do you identify?" but just told him that he wasn't a woman and it was insulting to pretend to be one. Um, so yeah, I— it was the wrong question, but I've learned a lot since then.

As for women, I think I'm supposed to say, as a women's rights campaigner, that women are, um, oppressed under the patriarchy and therefore they're just trying to struggle to get their place at the table. And I don't think it's that. I think it's currency.

And I think the reason women compete in who can be the quickest to give women's rights away is because then they have currency of being these really nice people. And I think women often use psychological warfare and ostracizing and niceness, shall we say, as a strategy to win against other women. So that's why I think women do that.

In a world filled with uncertainties, it's crucial to be ready for whatever comes your way, whether it's a natural disaster, a sudden emergency, or unforeseen circumstances. Having a reliable food storage system can provide you with peace of mind and the assurance that you and your loved ones will be well taken care of. Right now, My Patriot Supply is offering 25% off a three-month food supply to help you stay prepared for anything. Go to preparewithjordan.com and grab this special price before it ends. Your three-month emergency food supply provides over 2,000 calories each day for optimal strength and energy in stressful situations.

You can enjoy a wide variety from My Patriot Supply and can customize your supply. They offer an ultimate breakfast kit, a mega protein kit with real meat, and even a gluten-free kit. The best part is each meal is delicious and has a shelf life of 25 years. Don't wait for disaster to strike before taking action. Invest in your safety and well-being by securing your food storage today. Go to preparewithjordan.com and get 25% off your three-month emergency supply. Go to preparewithjordan.com right now.

Let's preparewithjordan.com.

Well, two things about that. So there is a pattern of anti-social behavior among women that's been well documented in the relevant psychiatric research. Anti-social men tend to devolve towards physical violence, but anti-social women use gossip, malicious slander, and reputation savaging. And so that’s been documented for decades and that's the female pattern of anti-social behavior.

But you tied it into something—you tied it into currency, you know. And so I want to tell you a little story. So I interviewed this very deep religious thinker, his name is Matthew Pajo, and he wrote a book called—what is it—The Sacred All? I'll remember momentarily, um, it's about Genesis. And I talked to him about the sin of Eve in the story of the Garden of Eden, and it's a sin of pride, right? It leads to the fall.

And the sin of pride is that Eve proclaims that it's something like she can even clasp the serpent to her breast, the poisonous serpent. So imagine that it is the case that women are caregivers, and especially caregivers of infants, and that their ability to provide care is one of their true strengths, but it's also a potential source of status.

And so a woman who wants to make a false and prideful status claim can claim that her maternal embrace is so all-encompassing that even the serpents can be included. Right? Now, the next thing, of course, that happens is Adam hearkens to her claim, and I think what happens there is that men will enable women by telling them that their desire to embrace even the poisonous is laudable and that the social structure—which is what Adam's responsible for, say, in the Genesis story—the social structure can be modified to accommodate their wish.

Of course, that precipitates the fall, all of that. And so you said the reason this—I brought this up is because you said your conclusion has been that the women who are defending the indefensible—which would be, let's say, the male claim that femininity—female hood is merely subjective identification—that women are claiming to support that because they want to obtain currency.

Okay, so why have you become convinced of that and what exactly do you mean by that?

I just think it becomes—I guess status is part of it, but I think everybody does something for self-serving reasons, and I think by a process of elimination, I can't think why. I just can't think why else a woman would do it. And I've thought about it a lot, you know. I've already tried to think like, what is in it for someone who says, "Yeah, your 16-year-old daughter can share his face with a man getting undressed?" You know, how else could it be justified besides some sort of self-serving motive? And I think it just comes to currency—that they can—they can maybe pretend that they don’t have these feelings, which may just be heaps of cognitive dissonance.

But I just don’t buy it. I think it's dishonest. I don't buy it that somebody who's experienced any female-only space where men have entered—and most of us women have—and what happens in those moments is we breathe quietly, we wait until the threat is gone, and we understand it—before I can rationalize it, I understand it as a threat, and I just don’t buy that other women don’t do that.

So they must have self-serving motives.

You said when we first started our discussion that, you know, several years ago within the span of a decade, you were a card-carrying member of the Labour Party and that your political ideology was tilting towards the left. And I suppose the classic leftist rejoinder to what you just said was that no, you've just developed an unreasonable prejudice directed towards—the poor, oppressed, marginalized trans men, let's say—the men who are claiming to be women, and that all that happened to you was that you reached the limits of your tolerance and that your genuine prejudice was revealed, and that you're rationalizing the emergence of that prejudice by gaslighting the women who are generally compassionate about the marginalized.

And the reason I'm formulating the question like this is because you were or are—I don’t know which—on the left politically, and the left historically has been, um, at least in principle, campaigning for the rights and the inclusion of the dispossessed. And so, look, Kelly, I've gone to Washington several times and talked to Democrats in the House and in the Senate, and I did the same with Robert Kennedy a lot when I interviewed him recently.

And I always ask them, the Democrats that I meet, the same question, and that is: when does the left go too far? And I've never received an answer to that question. You know, and they ask me at reverse, and I always say, well, I think they go too far when they push for equity, because that's equality of outcome, and that's a complete bloody disaster.

And their response uniformly is, "No, no, no, they just mean equality of opportunity," which they most decidedly don't. But you were or are on the left, and maybe we can delve into that a little bit, but for some reason you appear to be proclaiming—and do believe—that there's something false about the compassion that's being manifested, at least in this particular case. What is that?

How do you square that with your original leftist presuppositions, and how do you distinguish genuine compassion for the marginalized and oppressed from whatever it is that you're objecting to now?

Well, I think I had a journey, shall we say, in this x-factor world in which we live, um, where I realized that I was being lied to about this, and then I realized that what independent was a total hatred and dismissive attitudes towards women and our fears and the reality of our lives— um, and you know, wider and potentially more important, but for me, I'm a women's rights campaigner—but also a disregard of the truth in favor of a point of view, an ideology, some sort of power that's handed over to these people.

So it was at that moment that I then have to really question because I'd be a fool if not to; why else do I believe the things I believe, and are they true? Do they really exist? And the answer I came up with was categorically no, they're not.

Is it true that the left is less misogynist than the right? Absolutely, categorically not. The trade union movements—like, when you look at those in the UK, they didn't really care about women's workers' rights, and I don't mean gender pay gaps or any ethereal kind of concepts that we can discuss in 2023, whether we agree with them or not, and I think you and I are probably closer to agreeing on that—it doesn't really exist.

But yeah, it just made me think: were the left always like this and I was just stupid and naive, or have they really dramatically changed? And I haven't answered that question funny, because maybe I just don't want to admit that I've been stupid most of my life.

But no, I can't possibly—I don’t think women right now with this ideology and nobody really standing up for us, I don’t think we can place our flag in any political camp.

Well, you know, I worked for a leftist political party when I was a kid. That was a long time ago, from the time I was 14 to the time I was 17. And I got to know the wife of the leader of the Socialist Party in my home province of Alberta, and I liked her a lot. She was a librarian from our local junior high school.

And, uh, me and all the other delinquents used to go out during recess and lunch hour and go hang out in the library and bother Mrs. Knotley, and we did that partly because she treated us like adults, and I did it partly because she used to give me things to read, and she gave me a lot of great books to read, and she was the first person who really introduced me to serious literature.

And I got to know her and her husband, so that kind of gave me privileged access to the stratospheres of the Labour Party, the Socialist Party, the NDP in Canada. And I met a lot of the leaders, and this was back in 1977, about ’77, so a long time ago.

And, uh, you know, I found a lot of them admirable. I thought they were—they were often labor leader types, you know, union types, and they had done a fair bit to give the working class in Canada a voice, and they'd emerged out of farmers' cooperatives in Saskatchewan.

And so that seemed to be like a genuine political movement and a genuine voice for those who were shut out of the political process. The Conservative Party at that time was clearly the party of big business and sort of unashamedly so, and the Liberal Party was in the middle, but the NDP—they had admirable people in them, you know.

But I watched the activists back then, and they really bothered me. I thought they were resentful and bitter and whiny and narcissistic, and that was eventually why I stopped working with the NDP, and that was in 1979, I guess.

So I would say I don't think the left has always been like this. You know, I think that the working class needed a political voice, and I think that's still true now, whether they can find it on the left or not. Now, I don’t think they can, but I don't think that you were merely blind your entire life, and that the left has always been pathological.

But I do think that compassion is the best camouflage for narcissistic serpents. And so if the left proclaims itself as the party of the oppressed, then it opens up the door to being invaded by those who will use claims of compassion to put forward their narcissistic what would you call it—clamoring and groping for power.

And one of the problems with being on the left is that it's very hard for liberal types to draw boundaries, and so you risk—you risk being invaded by the real predators. And I really think in some ways that's what's happened to the left is that the narcissists have invaded and they now dominate.

And this is an age-old story, right? This is—this has been a danger to organizations since since the dawn of time, and it's certainly happening now. So I don't think it was a complete existential catastrophe, you know, what you believed, but I do think that that inability to draw distinctions on the left is potentially fatal.

So where do you find—how do you conceptualize yourself now?

I think I pointed out that if you read your Wikipedia page, then what you are apparently is an anti-transgender rights activist, and that sounds like a pretty damn reprehensible sort of person because, I mean, here are these poor marginalized transgender men, let's say, who are just trying to struggle forward, you know, what would you say—bravely, as President Biden would say—and a world hell bent on their oppression and genocide, and there you are, you know, opposing their rights.

And so what's your—this is a horrible thing to ask, but what's your self-definition?

Oh, I struggle with it on a daily basis. It's so fluid. Um, I'm just an adult human female. I'm a mother, I'm a wife, I'm a subject of the United Kingdom, I'm just a person, but it's just so—I'm just not having it that, um, these men are vulnerable.

Like, if you feel vulnerable, you don't want to be—and you genuinely feel that the world hates you so very much, I don’t know why you put on women's clothes to leave the house. I mean, it's just—I'm just not having such a nonsensical, silly, uh ideology taking over what my spaces look like and the spaces of my daughter.

So I call myself a women's rights activist because I believe that women's language—I mean, so much goes back to that word "woman" and what it means and who can use it, uh, and we are now debating what sex means in the equality act, which is just fundamentally just ridiculous.

We know what sex means, and now we're having to re-clarify what it means in law, um, in our sort of—in our rights act, so that women can have spaces. And I, for me, the Equality Act is a nonsense anyway. I digress slightly on this, but for me, the Equality Act is not—is just doesn’t make any sense because surely a proportionate reason—and that's one of the things you need to justify a woman-only space or a women-only group—is proportionate means well.

If I say I just want women in my groups, and that's proportional. Uh, if I said I just wanted women on my board of a company—maybe not so. But if I say that I just want a social group that's women-only for women, um, I don’t know why I need to justify keeping a man out who says he's a woman.

And then it goes back to the GR and I'm sure we'll get on to that. But I fundamentally think having a legal fiction in this country is preposterous and has led to all of the fallout we now see. Um, if we were tolerant, we'd just let these men do what they like, call themselves whatever they like, and stay out of women's spaces and just all get on with our days.

The Bible is the root of all wisdom, inspiration, and spiritual nourishment. The Hallow app empowers you to explore the Bible's profound teachings and to effortlessly incorporate them into your daily life. A great place to start while you deepen your understanding of the Bible is to check out Father Mike Schmitz's Bible in a Year, available on the Hallow app for brief daily readings and reflections.

Here you can dive into an extensive library of Bible reading plans accompanied by insightful reflections and audio-guided meditations. Whether you're a seasoned Bible reader or just starting your journey, Hallow provides a platform for you to engage with scripture like never before.

Studying the Bible's literary brilliance has influenced countless writers, poets, and artists throughout history. By studying the Bible yourself, you'll gain a deeper appreciation for the power of storytelling, symbolism, and metaphor, enriching your understanding of literature across different genres.

The Hallow app also helps you connect with a community of like-minded individuals, sharing experiences, insights, and encouragement along the path to spiritual growth. Download the app for free at hallow.com/jordan. You can set reminders and track your progress along the way.

Enrich your education and nurture your mind and soul today. Download the Hallow app at hallow.com/jordan. That's hallow.com/jordan for an exclusive three-month free trial of all 10,000-plus prayers and meditations.

So there's a lot of issues that you just brought up there. Yes, the—well, I would like—I'd like if you would to explain for those who are watching and listening a little bit more about the Equality Act, and then maybe we can turn to this issue of—I think I think it's a hatred and jealousy of women. It's a hatred, jealousy, and attraction to what women hypothetically have that's part of the—what would you say—the nexus of psychopathology that's driving this desire to tread on the grounds of women's rights, to appropriate the domain of femininity.

So this is cultural appropriation in its most fundamental sense. Anyway, let's start with the Equality Act. Will you bring everybody watching and listening up to speed about that?

So there are different characteristics: might be disability, religion, freedom of religion and freedom from religion, um, sexual orientation, gender assignment. So when that started, that used to be—oh, sorry, gender reassignment. So that would—that used to be transsexuals. And what they did is they made it so vague and opaque that they could revise what gender reassignment actually meant, so you could be protected, uh, to what extent—I’m not actually sure. But you can't be discriminated against for having gender reassignment.

Well, I think there are elements—there are points at which it would be inappropriate. For example, um, we do have bra fitters in the UK who now have got jobs, so men who don’t have much surgery who call themselves women are now bra fitters in large shops.

So, um, and you're skeptical of that, I take it?

There's nowhere—well, look, I'm a prude British, so there's very few chances I would take to go and get profiting anyway. But certainly, if it was a—if it was a man, I—a person I would call a man, i.e. an actual man—then I wouldn't do it. And also, I've been, you know, I've got a teenage daughter. You go for a first bra fitting; it’s incredibly embarrassing, and to hear a male voice in that space would be horrendous because, as we know, girls, when they develop through puberty, it's the most embarrassing time and also the time when they most need to fit in with their peers.

And so those two things are really hideous. Anyway, um, but anyway, I digress. So the Equality Act is a balance of different rights based on different characteristics. Um, and at the moment in their—in the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, uh, there was a debate on whether or not the Equality Act, when it talks about sex—even though we've got gender reassignment in the Equality Act—now sex is opposed to, according to people mainly on the left, include men who call themselves women, which then makes the whole thing pretty damn laughable if sex in our law, in our legal system, actually means someone who says they're a particular sex as opposed to someone who is a particular sex.

And I just—I just think this is where we are. We have a— for example, we have a Gender Recognition Act which means that you can change your gender, but there is no such thing as gender throughout most of our laws, um, that actually has any definition. And it's the same in the States; I should imagine it's the same in Canada where they've flooded all of our laws that are actually reliant on biological sex, they've flooded with the word "gender," so therefore it becomes mixed up.

And then you can pretend all along you just meant people who identify as one sex or another. So, you know, for me, the Equality Act is a little dated now, and I think very confusing anyway, and I think we need to rip it up and start all over again.

Okay, so on the bra fitting question, let's say, so why isn't the proper response to your concerns, "Well, it's the modern age. We've already dispensed almost altogether with men-only spaces. It's now time to do the same to female-only spaces, and maybe the right attitude for you and your daughter is to just get over your prudishness and to accept the fact that people who want to do something, including bra fitting, can do it regardless of their sex or their gender."

So why would you—you appear to reject that proposition, and why do you think that?

So two questions, I guess. Why do you think it's appropriate for you to reject that claim, and for you—on behalf of your daughter, let's say—and then there's a thornier question underneath that which is, well, under what conditions is discrimination—which by the way used to mean judgment as well as any number of other things—what are the situations under which discrimination actually becomes not only appropriate but, say, ethically mandated?

And this is a conversation we haven't had in our culture for—and I would say this is the fault of the left, although the right-wingers have enabled it by being so hapless. Yeah, we haven't had a discussion about what constitutes appropriate discrimination for, you know, since like 1964. It’s a very long time.

So first of all, why do you think you're justified in your phobia, there we go, and your phobia about going to have a bra fitting with a man who claims to be a woman?

Well, I think it—I think if society had moved on to a point where women and men weren't uncomfortable naked around each other, if there was no such thing as sexual assault, if there was no such thing as like low-level sexual assault which is voyeurism and indecent exposure, which is an opportunist crime, and we know that most of the people that would do that will be men and most of the victims will be women and children.

So I think in that regard, if that had changed and that had—that no longer existed, then maybe I would be open to listening. But we know that men and women don’t particularly like to be undressed in front of each other, and if you're in the UK, that includes everybody, whatever sex they are. Um, we’re relatively prudish; I'm quite happy to be so.

But, you know, I just think we have naked bodies and we have boundaries around those sort of naked bodies, and in situations where women feel more uncomfortable and in a state of undress, and I know that boys feel like that too, um, around the opposite sex at certain stages of their lives, if not all of their lives. And so I think, um, that's why— I mean, we sort of joke about this question, and uh, but we both know that that question is asked; it’s a—it’s a genuine sort of question from the left when you ordered from trans activists when you speak about this.

And my first question used to be, "Does my 11-year-old daughter have the right to be in a female-only space and not see an adult penis?" And I would ask that in female-only labor women groups online, and I was told, "No, she's transphobic, you're raising a bigot. Why is your daughter staring at genitals? Is she a pervert?" You know, and—and you know that that's also a good place to observe as well that that issue of currency that you just described also rears its hideous head at that point.

It's like it's a competition between the women that you're talking about to see who can virtue signal the loudest about their loving kindness and tolerance, and that becomes monstrous and devouring when taken beyond a certain point. That's certainly what Freud observed, for example, when he wrote extensively about the Edible Complex, because what we're seeing in the culture right now is the Edible Complex gone mad on a scale that would, I'm sure, make Freud rotate in his coffin at about 150—you know, 150 spins per second.

[Music]

Thank you.