Green Party Women has been answering questions on that terrible post today, and answering them so cluelessly it’s clear they haven’t understood a word anyone said.

Their reply to Magdalen Berns for instance.

Magdalen Berns As a lesbian, I am particularly offended by the implicit homophobia and misogyny underlying your baseless assertion that womanhood is somehow a gender; it’s as if you believe female people somehow choose to be subjected to sex-based oppression and that you’re saying women who don’t present themselves in a stereotypically “feminine” way are not “actual women”, but “non-males”. I hope the Scottish Greens don’t win a single seat in the Holyrood elections this May as a direct result of your disgraceful disregard for the humanity of 51% of the population.

Green Party Women Magdalen Berns Thank you for your feedback, and very sorry for any confusion – as per the statement above, GPW would like to reassure our sisters that we by no means intend to erase women’s identities by forcing members to define relation to men. “Non-male” and “women” are not synonymous – it was used in this instance as an umbrella term for women PLUS non-binary individuals for example. We certainly do not believe that women who present in a way that isn’t stereotypically feminine are not women, and we believe all individual’s affirmed gender as valid :)

Or Ellen Pasternack Murray’s:

Ellen Pasternack Murray Not sure why a self described ~~women’s group~~ should be erasing women in order to include people who don’t even consider themselves to be women.

Green Party Women Hi Ellen, very sorry to see this, and thank you for the support you have given the party up till now. We very much want to reassure our members that the term non-male was used in the context of reserving spaces for marginalised/oppressed groups withinour political structure. The Green Party Women’s group remains the group in the party for women, and we do not believe that the terms “non-male” and “woman” are synonymous

But it doesn’t. The Green Party Women’s group doesn’t remain the group in the party for women, because it’s expanded it to include other groups, including ones that explicitly do not “identify as” women.

And Victoria Smith:

How do you understand the structural oppression of someone who is non-binary? Many feminists would argue that everyone is non-binary if what we are aiming to capture is some “inner essence” beyond gender as a social hierarchy. But you seem to have decided that people who see gender in terms of inner identity rather than class and choose to access a particular vocabulary to describe it are more marginalised than “binary” women – even, one assumes, if these people present as and are taken to be men. How does this marginalisation function? Whom does it benefit? It just strikes me that this is all coming close to not really thinking sexism exists as a meaningful axis of oppression. Instead you see your role as offering succour to anyone and everyone who feels a bit bad about gender. But that’s not politics and it’s not going to liberate anyone.

Green Party Women Hi Victoria Smith, apologies for any confusion, GPW strongly believe that sexism exists as a meaningful axis of oppression. As part of the wider party, we respect and support individual’s affirmed identities, whether that is non-binary, or as women or men. GPW remains the group for women in the party :)

And it just goes on like that, the same reply pasted in in multiple places, complete with smiley.

Hopeless.