Include everyone except women
The Green Party is more anti-women than most.
It’s a bit confusing because The Spectator article, by Julie Bindel, is from March – maybe there was a second vote this week? That went the same way? From the article:
At the Green party spring conference this weekend, a motion which sought to introduce a party policy on women’s sex-based rights was defeated. A whopping 289 delegates (out of 521) voted to not include biological females in the party’s list of oppressed groups.
Thus making official the weirdness I keep pointing out: that women are being treated as the privileged sex these days, the dominant sex, the exploiter sex, the sex that already has it made and needs to learn to shut up and share more.
All the motion aimed to do was simply add a paragraph to the Green party’s ‘Our Rights and Responsibilities Policy’. The motion reads:
‘This is to include the protected characteristic of sex as currently our Record of Policy statements supports the other eight characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, race, maternity, religion/belief, marriage/civil partnership) but not that of sex discrimination – aimed primarily at women…’
The motion was opposed because, in essence, it is considered ‘transphobic’ to recognise that women are targeted by male oppression precisely because of their female sex.
And people wonder why feminists are not fans of trans ideology.
The Green party leader Sian Berry, who has declared that she wishes London to be the most ‘trans inclusive’ city in the world, seemed to see this as a victory. In a series of tweets following the vote, Berry stated: ‘Motion E01 was defeated. My party voted for inclusive women’s rights and someone is having a big old cry. Thank you Greens!’ Berry signed off with, ‘Vote for inclusion and kindness!’
But by voting against the motion, the Green party has effectively contradicted the 2010 Equalities Act, which includes sex as a protected characteristic. In their rush to be ‘inclusive’ the Greens have ended up excluding 51 per cent of the population.
Is it because we’re all Karens?
The same Green Party who’s women’s group is led by a transsexual who stopped listening to women? Maybe they should call it the Men’s Party. Party on, dudes. :P
So this is what the “greens” are up to while Canada burns.
(What: how can “sexual orientation” be recognized if there is no sex? Am I confused?)
Speaking of Canada, here’s part of the Green Party of Canada’s Pride Month statement:
I’d say they’re probably captured, as they seem too be under the impression that “intersex” conditions have anything at all to do with “gender identity.” The only connection I ever see is the appropriation of the “assigned ____ at birth” phraseology. I’m frankly shocked to see no seperate mention of “valid” non-binary “identities,” though.
I think all left-leaning parties in Canada are trans compliant, unfortunately. It’s not a front-burner political issue here, and opposition to genderism would likely be painted as right-wing, conservative bigotry. The CBC is much like the BBC in its approach to issues touching on trans ideology. Unless and until there is some sort of shocking scandal*, or it falls out of fashion, trans activism has the upper hand in Canadian politics.
*Shockinger than men in women’s prisons. That’s already happened here. Ditto men on women’s teams.
It’s depressingly easy to see how this sort of thing happens. I have male privilege. I’m happy to keep giving up that privilege until parity is achieved. It’s extremely easy for me to do that because… well, because I’m privileged. The things I’m giving up aren’t important to me because I have more than enough of them. They are needed by other people – women – who don’t have enough.
If I tried to hold on to that privilege, it would make me a bad person. And – which seems somehow to be worse in today’s performative society – people might say on Twitter that I’m a bad person. Heaven forbid. So it would be easy, hypothetically, for me to agree to give up too much privilege because of my embarrassment of riches and my desire to look like the good person I wish I was. If I was made to feel over-entitled when really I wasn’t, I could easily be tricked into giving that entitlement up.
This is never going to happen to me or any other man, but isn’t something like that happening to women, here? Aren’t lots of men and some women gleefully nodding away women’s rights in favour of people they’ve been tricked to believe need them more? People who are….. men?
It’s a rhetorical question. Of course that’s what’s happening. And it’s disgusting. Women’s own decency is being used against them – by men – to erode their own rights and to feel good about themselves while they do it. And if a woman doesn’t feel good about it, she must go along with it anyway because we know all too well what will happen if she doesn’t.
Even as I write this, I can see how I will come across to some people as a bigot. Even as I say that I want parity of privilege for all people, including trans people, some will be comparing me to a pro-slavery or pro-nazi monster (probably both). I know this with absolute certainty because it happens to me every single day on Twitter. How people talk to me about me doesn’t bother me in the least but the attitude it reveals saps my energy like nothing else. That so many people are willing to use the historical suffering of others to diminish and abet the current suffering of women is a shameful indictment of our species and I will have no part of it.
All in obeisance to the <1% of the population that is trans, the majority of whom are male.
Next chance they get they will change that to gender orientation, and define sexual orientation as a genital fetish.
Suzanne Moore gets to the heart of the matter in a Substack post:
https://suzannemoore.substack.com/p/if-the-green-party-does-not-know?r=1hfti&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=copy
(I hope that link works.)
Here in the US I had wanted to support the greens, but on some key issues they seemed to me not to be very scientific in their approach wrt genetic modifications (giving in to Monsanto Hate,) and their allegiance to the naturalistic fallacy. I am not lost to them for this issue, but they certainly seem to be determined to drive thinking women away from their ever minority party.