Civil open dialogue
There’s a move to purge feminist women from the Green Party.
Sign the Women’s Declaration International declaration on sex-based rights for women and you may run the risk of being thrown out of the Green Party.
Green Feminists who are also members of the Green Party of England and Wales need to be aware of the late motion being brought by Ani Stafford-Townsend co-chair of the Green Party Women committee which is given below:
Late Motion: Developing an intersectional approach to diversity in the Green Party
Synopsis:
GPEW accepts the damning results of the 25th January 2022 Council of Europe report “Combating rising hate against LGBTI people in Europe”. GPEW accepts that it has been subject to hard-line anti-trans activism for some time; issues cannot be tackled without understanding; and oppression of marginalised groups intersect.
Not including women though. Women aren’t marginalised.
They want a motion inserted into the record of policy statements.
The Green Party recognises the need for civil, open dialogue between party members on the topic of Trans Rights, in order to enable the party to make the most informed policy decisions possible.
And by “open” we mean “not including those bitches.”
The Green Party accepts that the “Gender Critical” movements in most UK political parties have been infiltrated by hard-line extremists, who advocate for the wholesale removal of virtually all trans rights as currently enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, and routinely share platforms with those who advocate for extremist positions such as the mass sterilization of trans people. These extremists have also been linked with attacks on women’s abortion rights, misinformation designed to provoke hatred towards trans people, and have benefitted from funding from the far-right.
Emphasis added. Have you ever seen anyone advocating that? I sure as hell haven’t.
The Green Party condemns hard-line anti-trans activists, including signatories of the “Women’s Declaration International”, which calls for the following:
A total ban on all trans women from entering any and all women’s spaces, including toilets, changing rooms, etc.
A ban on all internationally recommended trans healthcare of any kind on under 18s.
A ban on organisations that recognise Gender Identity (including policy that merely accepts the use of preferred pronouns) from having any involvement in children’s healthcare.
Legally protect the right to misgender trans women.
No, legally protect the right to call men “men.” Note also the failure to spell out what “trans healthcare” is. No feminists are advocating for trans people to be denied health care; the issue is drastic irreversible amputations or delays of puberty and the like. Items like that aren’t “health care” as commonly understood, and in the absence of the word “trans” would be seen as crimes against human rights.
Ban trans women from being legally recognised as mothers, and trans men form being legally recognised as fathers.
Ban scientific research into fertility treatment for trans women.
Ban all trans women from misogyny combating measures, such as all women shortlists, scholarships, etc.
That’s right. We want all-women shortlists and scholarships etc to be for women. It’s simple, and it’s not evil.
Ban all trans women and girls from women’s sports at all levels of competition, irrespective of the wishes of the organising sporting bodies.
Ban all trans women from women’s prisons.
Require all collected statistics to refer to trans women as male, and trans men as female.
Legally protect parents who seek to deny healthcare or therapy to transgender children.
There it is again. It’s not “healthcare.” I don’t think any feminist women want to deny therapy to trans children. We do think it should be competent though.
Conference instructs GPRC to suspend signatories of the WHRC/Women’s Declaration International.
Conference instructs GPEx to provide intersectional equalities & diversity training to elected members, internally & externally, and to local party officers, in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of how the challenges to the rights of all marginalised groups intersect.
Insert into the Code of Conduct:
10.11:
Members should under no circumstances sign or have signed public declarations calling for the explicit removal of LGBTQIA+ rights, as enshrined in the Equality Act 2010 (under “gender Identity” and “sexual orientation”), in particular the WHRC declaration/Women’s Declaration International. Those members who do or have done so should be suspended from the party permanently.
Purge the witches.
I have in fact seen people arguing for the mass sterilization of those who identify as trans – advocates for the widespread use of puberty blockers, HRT, and “gender affirmation” surgery.
Oh lord. Of course. I didn’t even think of that but you’re so right.
Yeah, that’s one of the first things I thought. And to be honest, yes, we do advocate for the transwomen to be banned from all single-sex women’s spaces. But not for trans to be banned; we are fine with biological females using women’s spaces.
As long as they continue calling them transwomen, people who don’t know much about the topic will not understand we want to ban men from women only spaces, shortlists, prisons, shelters, and other places where women are vulnerable.
They think this extremist garbage is self-evidently true.
It’s just classic twisting and obscuring, if not outright lying about, the facts. Both shameful and unsurprising.
…civil, open dialogue between party members… – but only if you already green with us.
…infiltrated by hard-line extremists,… – well poisoning.
…wholesale removal of virtually all trans rights… – I’ve seen no evidence of calls to remove all rights. Some that conflict with the rights of women and girls sure.
…advocate for extremist positions such as the mass sterilization of trans people. – I have literally never seen this from the GC side or on any shared platform, so if it has happened at all, it’s been vanishingly rare thing. In any case, the only people I’ve seen advocating for mass sterilisation are the TRAs who advocate for puberty blockers, HRT and bottom surgery. There’s your mass sterilisation.
…extremists have also been linked with attacks on women’s abortion rights… – Again, bollocks. GC feminists are most definitely not anti abortion.
A ban on all internationally recommended trans healthcare of any kind on under 18s. – Again, not true. Counselling, options review, talk therapy, exploration of other issues including mental health. All of these are supported by GC, so at the very least the word ‘all’ is wrong and I suspect most GC feminists would accept that there may actually rarely be cases where other interventions are plausible post puberty.
Legally protect the right to misgender trans women. – Otherwise known as identifying people by their actual sex, a right that is itself enshrined by law.
Require all collected statistics to refer to trans women as male, and trans men as female. – fair cop to this one. After all, it’s important to know how many people claiming self identity as women to get into a women prison are actually violent male sex offenders. Also important to know how many women’s positions are being filled by biological males and how many women’s sporting events and scholarships are won by males.
Legally protect parents who seek to deny healthcare or therapy to transgender children. – Damn straight. parents should have a role alongside health professionals in ensuring that their children lives are blighted and their health ruined by precipitous and irreversible health interventions.
Sorry, I couldn’t be bothered block quoting.
It’s interesting that this resolution is aimed at purging those who have signed the declaration, not those who hold and advocate the same views, but haven’t signed. it suggests that the proposers can see a battle coming and are seeking to decapitate the other side.
We’ve seen similar battles in other Green parties around the world. because the ecological aims of the party attracts progressives, the parties end up with a pool of members who actually care more about social issues than the ecological ones, or who hold a more socially conservative stance. In every case I’m aware of, the social progressives end up wresting power from the original eco-purists. The environmental advocacy always suffers as a result.
>These extremists have also been linked with attacks on women’s abortion rights
Say what? Most of what has been written here, although highly tendentious and at some points deliberately misleading in its phrasing, more or less accurately captures the “TERF” agenda. No, we don’t think male athletes should be allowed to compete under the fiction that they are female. No, we don’t think male prisoners should be incarcerated in female facilities. No, we don’t think minors can meaningfully consent to the (not yet fully known) lifelong consequences of having their endogenous puberty disrupted and “replaced” by an indefinite regimen of opposite-sex hormones. But, by god, we *do* think that women have the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Granted, there are no doubt individuals who find trans activist demands and abortion equally objectionable . . . but they’re not gender critical feminists. Not by a long shot.
Yeah, this is, of course, an attempt to entrench the idea that the GC feminists are part of the right wing. Because we happen to agree with some aspects of one issue with the right wing, we must by their standards be right wing extremists. People who might find our position worth considering and don’t know much about it will be hesitant to listen to us because…right wing.
As for the Green Party, yeah. They haven’t had much to do with ecology or the environment for a long time, at least not in the US. When I was researching the parties for a piece I was writing back in 2008, I was shocked to discover that the environment was listed only once in the top ten planks of the platform…it was number ten…and it was a pretty tepid committment.
ETA: I find this ironically reminiscent of pro-life rhetoric: “They want to kill innocent children in the womb!” They twist the actual platform of their opposition into an exercise in senseless malice, while quietly erasing the women whose wellbeing is at stake.
Sloppy thinking and/or writing.
What they mean, of course, is “A ban on all trans healthcare […] on under 18s…and it’s good health care. See? It’s internationally recommended”
But that’s not what they wrote. And the way they wrote it, the ban is contingent on international recommendation. So they’re apparently fine with a ban on trans healthcare where that healthcare is recommended only in Britain, but if the French also recommend it, then the people who want to ban it have to go.
I wouldn’t normally pick at people’s words like this, but when you’re talking about things that matter, like control of a political party, then yeah, words matter.
Official Summary of the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights.
Shortest form:
The full text is here.
I’ll highlight just one example of the misrepresentations in this Green Party motion:
This is what the Declaration says about sexual orientation (see full text, Article 2):
The feminists of Mumsnet have posted the text of the motion and are making some very apposite comments.
The overly-broad wording includes concerns about banning “healthcare or therapy for transgender children”. Given the way these things go, I expect some will assume GCs want to ban any and all healthcare for “transgender children”: no antibiotics for infections, no diagnosis and treatment of broken bones, no eyeglasses, nothing. It should be obvious that this is not the case, but we can’t assume everyone understands that.
I know what they’re referring to: GC attempts to compromise with TRAs by agreeing that any transwoman who has undergone “bottom surgery” be legally be considered a “woman.” It used to be a defining characteristic of transsexuals, and a lot of people still assume it’s standard for transwomen or that they’d be equally committed and willing.
Their response is that this forces transwomen to get castrated in order to be able to live their true gender. And, since they HAVE TO live as their true gender, this is therefore a program of mass sterilization.
@iknklast re: #7 I lost complete interest in the Minnesota Greens when I stopped at their booth at the State Fair and found that their positions WRT science were:
-> slow down childhood vaccines so that babies don’t get “overwhelmed.”
-> “Green the Vaccines” apparently to remove all traces of thimerasol
-> ban all GMO’s
-> Oppose any nuclear power (including, I would presume, nuclear fusion research.)
This was around 2012, I think.
#13, and it has only gotten worse. The Greens definitely embrace anti-science with open arms and closed minds.