Green Party Women explain
Green Party Women on Facebook:
A recent issue, taken out of context of its intent, has arisen and caused quite a stir. As a result, the committee of Green Party Women would like to reassure our sisters that we by no means intend to erase women’s identities by forcing members to define [in] relation to men. “Non-male” and “women” are not synonymous.
However, Green Party Women are happy with uses of the term “non-male” as an umbrella term when gender balance practices are conducted. This umbrella term groups together all who face gendered oppression; women, transgender women and individuals of non-binary or no genders. We all deserve to be recognised and included.
For too long, marginalised women have been excluded from most women’s movements and circles. As a group we affirm that trans women are women, and that non-binary genders and other gender identities experience oppression and deserve respect. After all, we are part of a political party, The Green Party, which has a proud history of inclusivity.
We stand alongside our sister group, Young Greens Women, on the events that unfolded recently and apologise for any misunderstandings caused through incoherent statements on our part. We have since removed any posts that are not clear enough on this emotive issue, as some have left stances open to too much interpretation.
There will always be members who are anti-choice, anti-sex worker rights, disagree with terminology etc, as women are not a homogeneous group and occasionally members will disagree with each other. However, it is our duty to look out for and campaign with the most marginalised women in our society, and we would like to assure members that we remain committed to do so.
Green Party Women Committee
Sure, “non-binary genders and other gender identities” deserve respect. Everyone deserves respect. But how does that mean that non-binary genders and other gender identities need to be included in women’s groups even if they’re not in any way women? As I’ve asked before, why is it always women who have to move over?
Also, I dislike that dogwhistle “anti-sex worker rights” in the last paragraph. People who oppose full unregulated decriminalization are not anti-sex worker rights. On the contrary. I’m very sick of that calumny being thrown around.
Funny it never occurred to them, what with being the Green Party Women and all, to define themselves as women and non-women, eh? Too obvious?
I did not realize that the Green non-male party advocated for pimps and traffickers rights. Curiouser and curiouser.
And what the hell is meant by throwing in “anti-choice” with “anti-sex worker rights”? Apparently women who object to the label “non-male” are on a par with Ted Cruz when it comes to the actual *rights* of women.
So many angry women asked that question in the comments. Just nastiness, is my guess. The usual “You’re a TERF!!” bullshit.
They are more accepting of women who are anti-choice than women who think that when focusing on gender balance, non-penis-havers deserve consideration separate from penis-havers-who-change-pronouns?
That sums it up nicely.
It’s ironic really. As soon as they include transwomen, then the group becomes non-men and therefore erasing women. It’s possible to be inclusive without being stupid
Speaking of irony…
@ 4 Samantha Vimes
So the terms are not synonymous, until they actually want to do something important, at which point they become exactly synonymous!
Are they talking about women or non-males here? Or, has women suddenly become their default for all non-males, despite their statement above? The lack of consistency and rigour is itself suggestive of people who don’t actually fully internalise the bullshit they spout in public. you could forgive that in verbal speech (we all grow up saturated in the society we live in), but not in written.
And as for trying to tar anyone who disagrees with them as being anti-choice or anti-sex worker – fuck them. When you resort to games like that you’ve proven that you have no argument, no true understanding and are too morally cowardly to admit you’ve made a mistake.
This does give me the opportunity to quizz my local Green candidate to see if this rot has spread to NZ. If it has they can kiss more than just my vote goodbye.
But the ‘intersectional and shit’ crowd maintain that ‘intent is not magic’ and by this ‘argument’ dismiss all explanations resting on intent as mere noise, or possibly even further indictment.
Therefore, I dismiss thee!
The perils of bastardising aphorisms through overuse and in place of thoughtful discussion.
And what on Earth could be more crudely binary than a division between ‘male’ and ‘non-male?’
Count ’em. One…two. Everybody else just shut up.
John the Drunkard, I maintain it fails even the test of being binary. You need two points of reference for binary. Non-male isn’t a point of reference. It exists only in the space defined by ‘male’. What we’re dealing with here is a monopole.
Rob is correct. We do not have Set A and Set B, but Set A and A-complement.