Gender row ‘stops Greens focusing on climate change’

Yes, exactally.

A really good example that I see right now where I live is the power company, which is semi-private, has for years been working to increase energy from renewables. And they were mandated to do this by the government, it's not a choice. This is very expensive.

With other issues this summer, they applied to increase power rates by about 50% over the next year and a bit. People were of course freaking out, and the request was denied, they were given a much lower rate increase. And basically they came back and said, fine - but we can't make these infrastructure changes if that is what you are giving us.

Now, could they trim what is going to fat cats? Maybe, but that really isn't solving the problem in any serious way. Which is that they need money to do the environmental stuff, and people can't pay it. The province also is not in a position to do much for people directly. So....

@MangyInseam I think your point about the impact on poorer groups is very important, and something progressive groups are unable to acknowledge - along with the impact of promoting trans rights on women's rights. This not only closes down debate but also means that it becomes impossible to discuss ways of limiting the damage of policies to specific groups, or of reformulating policies so that they aren't damaging in the first place.

This AND arguably their stance is harmful for the environment by it's promotion of unnecessary medical interventions and drugs.

Because of the context of the post which used the word.

Why are people arguing this is their zenith not nadir? Why is this complete failure of the greens party ability to focus on their sole priority their nadir? It had better not be their zenith or what hope is there for the environment…

I think there is something in that. There's a certain amount of naivety involved, that anyone who joins the party joins because they want the same things the existing party / members want too. No anticipation that there could be bad actors, or cuckoos wishing to take over your party assets (manpower, goodwill, respectability) to their own end, or entryism ("the infiltration of a political party by members of another group, with the intention of subverting its policies or objectives"). No knowledge of human nature, in fact. Just dumb naivety that then bites them (and the electorate) on the bum.

Large established parties are more difficult to do that with, with their unwieldy rules of association and manifestos and committees and ruling councils and a goodly number of people out for themselves and therefore alert to would-be entryists.

I think that's true, but in general I don't think they have actually addressed that well. And that is not just in the UK, but any Green Parties I have seen.

While long term it's certainly true that being poor makes people more vulnerable to climate change, in the short term being poor often means being more vulnerable to programs and policies recommended by environmentalists. And it's not something that they tend to address in a useful, concrete way, or even in an entirely honest way.

SO I am just a little skeptical that, in the end, it's really about that. They may think it is about that, but I think there are very mixed motivations.

I think the GP have always been pro-social justice, arguing that climate collapse will hurt the poorest and most disadvantaged more than anything. So I guess it's then a short step to taking on board the claims of a group who consistently claim to be more disadvantaged than anyone.

But - even if that were true - why is it being allowed to override environmental disaster? Nothing beats that.

Where I am there's a lovely GP councillor who posts frequently about trans rights, and I just feel despair that no one will focus on actual green issues.

I've come to think that part of the problem with some of the more member-directed parties may be due to institutional weaknesses in the way they function. It's actually made me rethink a lot of things I used to believe about how to run public institutions.

How did this happen? Why would concern for the planet nudge you towards an ideology which leads to increased waste and pollution? I am angry about the WEP but I can see the route which led to their position - co-opting intersectional "feminism", libfem insistence that women are exactly the same as men. But with the Greens, I am baffled.

Zenith. Not nadir. Nadir is the lowest point. I am anal.

Absolutely, Kucinghitam!

The sexist bias is so strong

Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

When the Green Party prioritises TRA mantras over and above their supposed founding purpose, the Righteous people either applaud delightedly (or at best, ignore). But when women say "Umm, hang on a minute, can we talk about how this issue affects female sex-based rights?" then those same Righteous people sneer about how unimportant this issue is compared to Proper World Problems, can't these silly women see where the real priorities lie?

Can we stop calling it "trans rights" please? It's not. It's special treatment (privileges, if you will) for humans who call themselves trans.

This is very true. Who benefits? Fingers have been pointed at Big Pharma, why not Big Oil too?

I'm not given to conspiracy theories and machinations behind the scenes. But the world is full of opportunists and all it would take is a few narcissists bent on being the centre of attention to target such a small political party with a possibly less-than-airtight structure.

Treaclemine you make a very good point. Who benefits from this? we know that oil companies have used some sophisticated methods to obscure climate breakdown in the past. Is this another strand of that?

Very well put.

The sexist bias is so strong that they cannot even be honest about what the problem really is .

Absolutely this!

Trans people currently have all the same rights as everyone else, no one thinks they shouldn't.

Absolutely, FOJN. That point is spelled out very well in Sonia Sodha's new piece in The Observer: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4686198-sonia-sodha-on-sturgeons-grc-reform

MrsOverton (neat username, btw), yes, it is literally like one of those "You had one job..." memes.

This is an issue where the question of who benefits needs to be asked. With infiltration of the WI, it is not particularly obvious, but here, it is maybe getting to the heart of the matter. Who would be most invested in shutting up the Greens? And not only shutting them up, but making it very hard for anyone in future taking their science based approach seriously.
"They are against coal mining in Appalachia and the Australian outback? So what. They think men can turn into women."

Odd isn't it - the Greens have one main focus yet have got diverted by the trans lobby. Just as a the sad old Women's Equality Party had one main task - but failed at the first hurdle.
Shame .

Laughing, that's it: I don't trust that they can think logically about the most important issue to the human race

I was brought up in a pretty radical green household in the 70/80s, albeit not in the UK, and the party activists which attended regional meetings at our house were mostly veterans of Greenpeace and anti-nuclear campaigns. They were pro-science and single-mindedly focussed on ecological and environmental preservation. For all the reasons we have known for decades.
The idea that gender ideology would have even featured as a topic of discussion in that cohort is risible.
I watch my local Green Party tie itself in knots and entirely understand why anyone who is serious about action on the climate aligns themselves with XR, Just Stop Oil or Insulate Britain. XR have, hands down, been more effective at dragging the climate emergency onto the political agenda in the last 5 years, that the Green Party could have dreamed possible.

I’m glad this is being tackled. It’s ridiculous and hugely frustrating to have this issue as the focus of our Green Party when people are dying due to climate change and the planet is warming rapidly.

"The Green Party is clear that trans rights are human rights"

a) why are they copying the Tories' obsession with saying they're "clear" about things they patently aren't clear about?

b) if the trans rights they are fighting for are human rights - which they already have - either their job is done, or they're fighting for additional rights - which is it, and what are they?

Stupid, meaningless statement. It's why I can't get on board with the GP despite Green issues being a priority for me. I don't trust that they can think logically about the most important issue to the human race when they come out with vaccuous non-statements like that.