Dogwhistle guidance from the LGBTIQA Greens

The term ‘sex matters’, that relates to the concept of ‘sex essntialism’, is used to justify a set of policies that takes the imagery of ‘common sense’ to a constructed mainstream audience (which is mostly white and middle class)

...Amazing so those people who believe sex is based on there being two sexes are mainly white and middle class????? I don't think so. Working class and ethnic minority people are not exactly walking around talking about there being 100 genders or championing male rapists being put in women's prisons.

Then, sex essentialism is dangerous and hurts gender non-conforming people especially.

But we can't just pretend sex doesn't exist because whether we like it or not, it does. It's not 'dangerous' and gender non-conformity is perfectly normal in the sex binary.

It ends not with a bang, but with a whistle

Maybe they’re trying to eradicate the human species as a means to that end?

Why don’t they just get on with saving the planet from extinction?

‘Protecting children’ in quotes is a dog whistle argument?

Fking hell

How to disarm the dogwhistle question What is a Woman?

Its incredible how asking for a legal definition, so you can make the law fair and workable, rather than enforcable and likely to end up in multiple court cases until what a woman is, is established in law is somehow a dogwhistle.

Its almost as if a politicial party which seeks to win elected positions to make laws and to consider laws that are not working, doesn't understand how laws are made and how laws work.

If you wanted a walking advertisement of who not to elect, then putting something out that says your organisation is so feck witted they don't understand what their actual elected purpose would be, is quite the thing!

Sorry not greenpeace. But LGBTQIA+ Greens.

That’s a guide for how to promote ‘dogwhistle politics’ and use ‘dogwhistles’ to promote an activist agenda.

It’s actually funny that the people behind this don’t realise that THEY - greenpeace - are an organised group with an agenda. And publishing this guidance is actively pursuing that agenda. Painting anyone who recognises this as some sort of paranoid conspiracy theorist is gaslighting.

*CorruptedCauldron · Today 13:43

This never happens! Say it with certainty, Greens - and maybe you’ll convince yourselves.

Or to reduce it: "Just lie and demand that they accept it."

@Bluelagoon16

1984: limit language=limit thought

And Humpty Dumpty: "When I say a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean."

Perhaps it's a pastiche, Alice in 84?

No it’s not bad faith. It’s literally the issue at the core of your entire concept. If you can’t define it, your entire argument falls. That’s why we ask it.

So are they saying all the men abusing the system are genuinely trans? Transphobes!

Title!

Total, not tills.

I never have heard the word ‘dog whistle’ used in this term.

When I read the tills, I was thinking of an actual dog whistle(, ie. one man and his dog) was puzzled how that could be a trans issue.

Then I thought about a wolf whistle and wondered whether it referred to this.

Then I started reading the article and gave up. Just reading through the definitions did my head in. I don’t dis-respect people being trans but I do argue that biologically they’re not women (or men), and I was NOT assigned at birth. This isn’t the Hunger games when you get given a role in life.

Pringlephobe!

So in their definition ‘phobia’ now includes ‘dislike’ ( an oddly genteel word in the context of the rest of the document).

I dislike Pringles , but I don’t have an irrational terror of them, I don’t imagine that I see them lurking amongst perfectly guiltless vanilla biscuits.

Defending the indefensible is misguided, but explicable; this document just seems to be trying to explain the inexplicable .

Yes, the term itself is misgendering many.

Well, some male people have certainly abused women or children while identifying as trans.

So who was is it Greens? Self ID being abused or abusive trans women?

That's a dogwhistle question! It's morally wrong to ask that!

Is it still called a dogwhistle when someone is identifying as catgender?

The suggestion that we use suicide stats to suggest mental instability is about as far from the truth as it gets. The only arguments I have seen women’s rights campaigners make are that the suicide stats are massively exaggerated and that suicide stats should never be used as a persuasion method on the advice of charities such as the Samaritans on the grounds that suggesting a group may be suicidal can increase its prevalence and that reasons for suicide are complex and rarely down to one thing.

Similarly on sports, I see they are using the false accusation of racism when they are pretending that athletes with 5ARD were excluded because of their race and not because of their sex.

It continues to astonish me that those making these arguments are so willing to be disingenuous as well as that they have obviously not listened at all to what the arguments are. They have started a more general trend of using trans femme for men who claim they are women though. Wish they had done that from the start.

What did I just read??

What a load of straw-manning nonsense - I don't think I read one summary of a gender critical view in there that aligned even remotely with anything I've ever heard a gender critical person say.

Although it does explain how seemingly sane people end up coming out with such odd, illogical arguments when it comes to gender ideology if this is what the "experts" are advising them to say!

As well, the notion of 'protecting lesbians' from often straight individuals is infantilising.

I'm a lesbian and I don't feel infantilised by anyone agreeing with me that the Equality Act should continue to mean what was originally intended in terms of protecting homosexual people from homophobia.

If biological men can be women then lesbians lose the protection they clearly need from people harassing them for being exclusionary in their sexual orientation. I don't think people realise how often this happens to lesbians as a matter of course, especially nowadays when everything is about fluidity and inclusivity-for-all.

Well, some male people have certainly abused women or children while identifying as trans.

So who was is it Greens? Self ID being abused or abusive trans women?

• ''What is a woman?'

What it means: This question is usually asked in bad faith.

Cool, thanks for telling me my own mindset, Greens. What is the answer if it's asked in good faith, to find out what someone means when they state "X [any person or group of people] are women"?

BernardBlacks - yep - I'm too angry to engage with this bollocks.

I'll come back later when my blood pressure has gone down.