Finally! A detailed reference document to define Queerphobia!

Isn't this sort of thing really counterproductive to non-male and non-female people? Won't this drive men and women away from interacting with them in every possible way?

And the rather amazing stance that everyone else has to adapt their language (in all situations - because misgendering through pronouns is transphobia even if it just happens in your head 🙄) to fit what each individual person in the flag of many letters says they want to be referred to.

But wanting to have any say in how you are referred to is transphobia and, indeed, erasing trans people.

😫

If they really were the Green party and worried about the environment, they could have saved a lot of energy by just using this:

In short, all that burble really boils down to is: you shall have no other god but me. For I am a jealous god.

With a bit of five year old 'you have to do what I say or I won't let you play' over the top of the Bronze Age Abrahamic stuff.

Misidentifying neutral terms that describe someone not having an LGBTIQA+ identity as insults, for example: straight, monosexual, cisgender, allosexual, perisex or endosex.

Absolute clowns 🤣🤣🤣

Heterosexism is apparently a term encompassing biphobia, homophobia, transphobia (of course!). Cissexism includes transphobia. The presenter didn't give any other examples after transphobia because, as we all know, transphobia is the most serious of all.

These things are queerphobic:

Claiming, implying or insinuating that there is a conflict between the human rights of the LGBTIQA+ community (or any part of it) and those of any other marginalised group.

So it is queerphobic to argue that there can ever be a conflict between women's rights and the rights of the alphabets or any letters within that group.

Misidentifying neutral terms that describe someone not having an LGBTIQA+ identity as insults, for example: straight, monosexual, cisgender, allosexual, perisex or endosex.

So it is transphobic not to belong to the secular-religious sect of Abstract Gender Identities, because 'cis' only makes sense within that sect as it demands that all who are not transgender or nonbinary still possess an abstract, inner feeling of femininity (if we are women) which is not at all based on being female but just happens to coincide with it. So we are not women because we are female, but because we love skirts and makeup and long hair and so on. I presume male people can't be men because they are male, but because they like beer and football and burping etc.

Using phrases or language to describe trans people which are designed to suggest that trans people are a separate category of person from the gender they identify as or that their gender identity is not valid. Examples include referring to a trans woman or non-binary person as a “biological man” or a trans man or non-binary person as a “biological woman”, which eradicates the trans person’s gender identity and/or knowledge of themselves in favour of their biology assigned at birth.

This means that gender identity must always be prioritised over biological sex and that 'the biology' of person is assigned at birth. The latter is total rubbish, given that our 'biology' is assigned at conception and observed even before birth, but it's more dangerous to privilege a quasi-religious belief about gender identities over material facts.

Now that guide was a fascinating read! It makes me think how lovely it would be if I could write a guide for the whole world about how best to treat me, how my rights supersede the rights of everyone else, how I have the right to demand others to tiptoe around me and so on. And when I write that guide into internal contradictions I will just continue and expect nobody else to notice anything wrong there.

The whole thing is from Through The Looking-Glass:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Some more detailed points below.

Heterosexism… is that a newfangled way of saying homophobia (without having to admit that people can be, and are, same sex attracted)?

Or is it some vehicle that allows people to pretend that, actually, straight, white men are, in fact, the most oppressed and victimised group of all time?

Or both maybe?

My guess is it’s intersectional bullshit gesturing towards at least one of the above.

Jeez, it's as bad as a talk I had to go to at work last week, we were told that there are various types of discrimination including "cissexism" and "heterosexism". Needless to say, the presenter identified as queer.

I enjoyed this comment:

“Personally, I think basing your politics around an obvious untruth, so that it’s the Trumpian lunatics who end up looking like the sensible ones, is what plays into the hands of extreme right-wing ideologies — but perhaps that’s just me.”

I also wonder if anyone involved gave any thought whatsoever to how many gay and lesbian people feel about the term queer. Actually, I don’t wonder. They obviously didn’t and don’t give a fuck about LBG people who aren’t down with the ideological fashion of the 2020s.

Just as well that they’re politically irrelevant then, isn’t it?

Hmm. But wouldn't your refusal to do 'men', Froodwithatowel, be because you consider that a person with a penis is a man and thus your perception that the identity of a person-with-a-penis-who-says-they-are-a-woman is invalid. I think you must have to do some sort of queerphobia top trumps.

How do they order coffee or do their shopping?

I think that us plebs are supposed to buy them coffee and stuff as per the how to be a trans ally article.

I love the Greens- they are terrific value for money.

They are already at risk of bankruptcy from their current legal problems around this issue but they produce a policy that 15 minutes on google would reveal (to even to most uninformed person) is illiegal.

I just can't imagine going through life being this inept and arrogant. It would be facinating to just follow the people who wrote this around for a few days. How do they order coffee or do their shopping?

That's an amazing piece of writing. Every single word. Thank you. I feel an urge to learn it by heart ❤️

Datun, that article is beyond ridiculous.

I particularly liked the bit where trans men (a women) can describe themselves as lesbian if they want to but for me to describe a trans man (a woman) who's in a relationship with a woman as a lesbian is transphobic if that woman doesn't agree.

Good lord. The green party aren't just behind the curve and they're not even a dot in the distance - they're in a completely different galaxy.

You'd need to totally re-define the words 'curve', 'behind', and 'the' in order to describe how far away from the end of it they are.

They say the refusal to date / have sex with a trans person is not in itself transphobic. But to say that being attracted to a trans person is abnormal is transphobic.

You've missed out the second part, which is fairly clearly saying that not being attracted to a group of people you should be attracted to because you don't see their "gender" as valid (because you see them as the opposite sex) is transphobic.

I'd also question: why is to say to someone, however gently, 'I am homosexual and you are in fact biologically male' is invalidating their identity as a trans person,

but saying to someone 'you should re learn your genital prejudices and learn to do some males in the name of social duty' is not invalidating their identity as a lesbian and is fine.

The double standards going on here are more in the realms of unpaid sex worker/abusive relationship than mutual respect, aren't they? I suppose my first criteria for anyone I want to get intimate with is 'has the capacity to see me as equally human'.

Add in the second part: to say that you won't have sex with a male person because you're homosexual and they're male is to say their 'identity is not valid'.

You must validate the male person's identity with your body by abandoning your homosexuality, laying back and thinking of Stonewall.

I cannot answer that without swearing. But the answer in short, is no.

No.

Very, very, very much no. Gender identity of a male does not trump homosexuality in a female, and female people's bodies are not validation tools for male people. And any male person who thinks they are is not dating material whatever their identity. They are run a bloody mile material.

I'm sure they'll find a way to explain to us how climate change is actually caused by queerphobia.

In fact I'm sure Pink News or something similar had an article not so long ago about how trans people are particularly vulnerable to climate change.

Climate change is very much secondary to men's sexual rights.

Oh no, not the Green Party again! Haven’t they got more pressing issues to draw our attention to eg climate change?