Thinly veiled misogyny

The Green Party v Reality:

The Green Party was once, however briefly, a genuine refuge for people who believed that politics ought to be grounded in material reality: in the physical world, in measurable consequences, in science. It believed in ecosystems and feedback loops; in the hard logic of cause and effect. It understood that you cannot simply wish away inconvenient truths, whether those truths concern carbon emissions or the biological distinction between male and female human beings. That, at least, is what many of its founding members believed they had joined.

What they discovered instead is something altogether more alarming: a party leadership so in thrall to a well-funded ideological orthodoxy that it is prepared to break its own rules, exhaust its own finances, and silence its own women rather than acknowledge what a unanimous Supreme Court has since confirmed in law. On 16 April 2025, in a ruling that shook every HR department, equality body, and political party in Britain, the Supreme Court declared that the words ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. The party’s response was to dismiss the judgment as ‘thinly veiled transphobia.’ You could not, if you tried, design a more perfect illustration of a movement that has ceased to engage with reality.

Now, the Green Women’s Declaration (GWD), a group of Green Party members who hold what the law explicitly recognises as protected beliefs, has formally commenced legal proceedings against the party for discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. For more than two years they raised formal complaints and asked reasonable questions about the treatment of women who hold gender-critical views. For more than two years they were met with silence, hostility, or expulsion. This is not an internal spat. It is a reckoning.

Women are not a fantasy or a feeling or a self-image. Women are real just as men are real, just as water and soil and carbon dioxide are real.

Comments

5 responses to “Thinly veiled misogyny”

  1. Mostly Cloudy Avatar
    Mostly Cloudy

    Excellent article there.

    Also, what does the “queerphobia” that the Green Party is so concerned about, actually mean? A lot of people who call themselves “queer” nowadays are just straight people who like dressing in a mildly unconventional manner:

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/can-straight-people-be-queer-435/

    Are there people afraid of such “queer” people in the Green Party?

  2. NightCrow Avatar

    The Green Party have helpfully made available this nine-page document headed ‘Guidance to Identify Queerphobia’.

    Here’s a sample:

    Everyone has the right to use the labels that they feel most closely fit with their identity and/or knowledge of themselves. Knowingly using a label for a person that doesn’t describe their identity and/or knowledge of themselves can denote bigotry, prejudice and/or discrimination. … Some of the exceptions to this are: … Defining a label to disrespect or disregard another person’s autonomy, for example, trying to use the word lesbian to only refer to cis women who are attracted to cis women, excluding trans women on the wrongful belief that trans women aren’t “real women”.

    Twisted manipulative crap. All power to the Green Women’s Declaration.

  3. Sumi Avatar

    So if an real woman were to identify as a trans woman would she be able to get a TIM kicked out of the party for calling her “cis?”

  4. guest Avatar

    @2 oh wow, this is quite a find, thanks for sharing. Here is some other helpful advice from an actual political party in the UK:

    ‘[C]alling a gay person queer when they don’t feel that term fits with their identity and/or knowledge of themselves could be considered homophobic.’

    People have the right to self-identify as whatever they want, unless they:

    [use] a label that seeks to intentionally confuse who and what is included in the LGBTIQA+ community. For example, the term “Minor Attracted Person (MAP),” which seeks to discredit work towards LGBTIQA+ rights by wrongly suggesting paedophiles are included in the LGBTIQA+ community. (though apparently anyone and everyone can be ‘queer’ – just not people that make us look bad I guess)

    Some other self-identifying labels that are not permitted:

    [T]he term “Sapiosexual,” which is supposedly an attraction to intelligence, can be considered to be ableist, classist and in some situations racist or sexist.

    [A] label that suggests there is a difference between a trans person’s gender and a cis person’s gender, for example: “super straight” or “super gay” – terms used for people who identify as straight/gay, but do not find themselves attracted to trans people of the opposite/same gender. (so you’re not allowed to have a label to identify your actual sexual attraction, OK that makes perfect sense)

  5. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    Everyone has the right to use the labels that they feel most closely fit with their identity and/or knowledge of themselves.

    What a ridiculous claim. Of course everyone has no such right! Hello fraud? Identity theft? They’re crimes, not rights. This ideology turns people’s brains to oatmeal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *