Green Party are at it again

[HermioneWeasley]

We are "non males" again

Yes, you're only seeing half the problem.

What's the other half?

And what is wrong with making the truthful distinction

Do we use the term non children when promoting something that is for adults only. It might be promoted as no children allowed but not non children only are invited to attend

I think we don't use the term "non children" because there is only one alternative to children, which is adults. So the term adult would be entirely inclusive and correct.

I think what they're doing is trying to include all people who would not be considered men, without making the statement that the only alternative to men is "women". It's generally accepted that trans women (among other gender non-binary groups) aren't considered as men in this context; would we have them be called women? Or would we have them excluded from the initiative all together?

Perhaps they should have said "women and non-men", which at least would have positively acknowledged women. However I don't think they're calling women non-men, I think they're trying to find a way to describe the group of people that includes (mostly) women but also those who are not generally identified as men however cause offence when they are explicitly called women. I guess they've decided what they all have in common is that they're "not men".

What about transmen eat? Do they come under men or 'non-men'?

Good question shuijiao, I would assume that's up to them

Eat - can you not see that this does for women's rights what an insistence on re-labelling "black lives matter" as "non-white-cis-het-male lives matter" would do for the push for racial equality?

It simply says "white male is normal, the rest of you can kind of lump together for the purposes of your little whinge fest." It doesn't enable feminists to tackle specifically women's issues like abortion rights (yes, abortion is a women's issue, because the reason abortion is denied to women is common or garden misogyny, and the very few transmen who need them but can't get them are collateral damage in an effort on the part of misogynist, right wing, religious types to restrict women's reproductive autonomy) or fgm (again, a women's issue, driven by men's attempts to control and police women's body, via a co-opted female handmaiden class who are tasked with policing it, but policing it ultimately for the benefit of men). Nor for that matter does it enable people campaigning for trans rights to tackle issues specific to trans people. No, we're all lumped together as "non-men" - no nuance, no useful campaigning allowed any more.

M0stly were the Greens trying to bring about the general and overall homogenising of women and other gender identities which are not male I would agree with you!

However they're using this term "non male" in a very specific context. They're saying men are disproportionately prevalent in politics, and they're trying to support people who are not men into those roles. It's a specific scenario where "non male", to me, seems like a reasonable (if clumsy) inclusive term for exactly what they mean.

I don't think this specific instance has any impact on feminism, because their initiative in this instance isn't about empowering feminism; it isn't about getting more women into politics, it's about breaking the dominance of men by introducing more people who are not men, not specifically so women's issues [sic] can be better represented but so that any issues which may not be prioritised by men can be represented.

Again, if they were generalising I would agree with you. But they're not. They just want less male dominance in politics and are willing to support people who aren't men to achieve this. I assume that would be in order to ensure the issues faced by other gender identities (not just women) are at least reasonably represented in politics, which seems an admirable aim to me.

So why not say "we're aiming for more diversity in our representation?" Why use the phrase "non-men"? It's pretty much a basic of any form of campaigning for minority rights that othering the minority in question by defining them simply as "not members of the dominant group" is adding to the problem, not addressing it.

But why on earth should we be defined by what we are not?

That is beyond insane.

If male dominance in politics is such a problem, then why not use a term for men that defines them by what they are not?

It is this men as default crap that drives me batty.

Yeah, that I do agree with M0stly, this is not the way I would have worded it.

FWIW I'm a Labour girl but I believe The Greens are decentralised when it comes to producing promotional materials so local party members can literally knock up a pamphlet and hand it out the next day with no "head office" proof reading, so to speak. I'd assume this was an individual's decision about how best to get their gist across rather than expression of a Green Party ideology.

It's pretty much a basic of any form of campaigning for minority rights that othering the minority in question by defining them simply as "not members of the dominant group" is adding to the problem, not addressing it.

With this though I don't think they're referring to the minority group as "not the dominant group" so much as trying to find a term for a number of different minority groups, the only thing these groups having in common is their "not being the dominant group". Unfortunately like you say whoever wrote this hasn't considered that this appears to closely resemble othering, and actually minority groups don't generally appreciate being lumped together with other minorities like this. Better to list all the minority groups in question, although these days you'd be hard pushed to list all the different variations of gender identity; I certainly wouldn't be confident to do it!

*I should say the variation of gender AND gender identity as personally I don't think my gender is an identity... but I appreciate others do. See, I'm slipping up already! Things have gotten mighty complicated; it's easy to put your foot in it.

I left the green party last time they pulled this shit.

Women are not a minority group. There are over a million more women than men in this country. Jesus.

This stuff is infuriating.

If Manchester City started to rebrand themselves as Non-Manchester United the fans would be rioting in the streets. Because they know that words matter. Identity matters. What people actually are matters.

Anyway, I must go. I am off in my non-Jaguar to the nearest non-city. I am going to see a non-stranger in her non-flat for some non-tea.

eatsleephokey but there already is a word to describe people who are not-men
It's women

They aren't calling men non-women are they. They're expecting women and all trans men and all trans women to be lumped together in one big mess which means the men can happily carry on getting on with running the show.

Can you really not see how this trans-trend inclusiveness suits patriarchy quite comfortably. This is a fine example.

Oh god, absolutely, women are not a minority group. They are however a minority group in politics

That's the thing though Ophelia, not all people who are not men are women.

Taking the least contentious example apparently "gender fluid" is a thing. The gender fluid individual is not a woman in the case of gender identity (separate from sex of course where they may or may not be female), but they are a "non-man" (ugh, not that I like that term, but I mean they're not a man).

I absolutely agree with the sentiment, however I don't this this particular instance is an example of anything that genuinely impinges on me as a woman in any way or inadvertently favours the patriarchy. Not this time, but that's just me.

Well even gender fluid folk will declare themself man or woman as it suits them. Trans folk declare themselves man or woman as ot suits them.
So its man, or woman according to whatever gender identity anyway so long as it suits them.

Oh, I think that's a slightly unkind generalisation Ophelia but I do understand your frustration.

so one minute we are being told to accept transwomen as women because apparently they are real woman and not to question if they are women should the present themselves in womens spaces

the next we should acknowledge that some women are not really women but so not the upset them women will now be referred to as non males so they feel included in that group

what happens if a man feels like a women but still presents himself as a man are they non male

how about all woman and those that identify as woman are invited

The fact that this upsets people is pretty petty and quite pathetic.

Really Serb and why is that exactly ?

Yes, Serb, I'm dying to know...

Because it's not as serious as everyone try's to make it out to be.it is basically saying females and trans people.i doubt it is trying to highlight 'non males' and making males superior.

Funny, because that's exactly how the Greens described it last time they did this. However, we'll all bow to your far superior knowledge of what the Greens meant.