Green Party statement

[hackmum]

Currently the first post on Jonathan Bartleby's Facebook page is a statement from the Green Party leadership about its commitment to equality and in particular trans rights: "We have been very disturbed to see the rise in all of these, transphobia in particular, in recent years and months across the press and social media."

Strangely, there is no mention of the David Challenor case, or the Verita report, or the shameful way Andy Healey was treated when he tried to raise safeguarding concerns about Coventry Green Party. It appears they intend to merrily go on their way pretending it never happened.

A few people have taken them to task in the comments. Worth a read. Comments are open:

www.facebook.com/jonathan.bartley

where transphobia = questioning orthodoxy, attempting to keep children and vulnerable adults safe and women not doing as they are told

fuck off the Green Party

childish, but at this point an appropriate response to people who care so little about paedophilia I think

I get "page not found".

*fuck off the Green Party

childish, but at this point an appropriate response to people who care so little about paedophilia I think*

Quite.

Transphobia = women not meekly handing over the rights and safeguarding and children on command.

Fuck off Green Party.

Echoing 'Fuck off Green Party' along with all the others who refuse to defend us. But it's good to read the comments - not giving GP any quarter.

What is more important:

Climate change

Transphobia

Or drill a bit deeper. What is transphobia? Women trying to preserve hard won rights?

Easy then. Which is the green party more interested in. Halting climate change, or subjugating women.

At least a lot of the stuff is out there that is easily refutable with facts and evidence, and there is a sizeable proportion of the Green Party that is really unhappy with this. Note the calm and factual responses from GC members versus the usual abuse and lack of facts from TRAs.

A Green Party canvasser came to my door recently; he was wearing a 'Trans Rights' badge. I was polite and smiled and took the survey form from him, and, thinking he must know a bit about the current debates, asked him what he thought of the cotton ceiling - and he said he'd never heard of it. Never heard of the Challoners, never heard of the safeguarding concerns raised. Never heard of the abusive language from TRAs toward Caroline Lucas. Never heard of any of it, he said.

I filled in the form and sent it back, asking to be contacted about women's rights. Never heard a thing.

I filled in the form and sent it back, asking to be contacted about women's rights. Never heard a thing

women's rights are boring and irrelevant to environmental concerns obvs

the rights of males who feel compelled to comply with sexist stereotypes typically associated with femininity are very important and will totes help fight climate change

or something

The Green party allowed Aimee Challoner to rise because they believed that Transwomen ARE women.

It's their policy. Gender critical views are seen as transphobic.

They are also pro-legalisation of prostituting people for sex and for the porn industry.

It's very clear that they work against the female interests and that it would be risk to elect any green councillor in May.

Gender critical views are seen as transphobic.

This is a faith based position.

We have human rights not to be compelled to enact or share in or be forcibly converted to faith based beliefs. We have human rights to hold our own beliefs.

You are welcome to believe in flat earth, creationism, Anglicanism, Spiritualism and the fairies at the bottom of your garden. I'm entitled to my beliefs and to have them equally respected.

The Green Party need to re familiarise themselves with the Equality Act and the Human Rights act and we need to start facing them flat out with 'I do not believe in genderism and I have these protected rights to freedom of belief'. so fuck off

It also shows a naivety of the membership, what the hell did they think would happen when they posted that statement - it was fairly obvious that it would expose divisions within the Party and make it public - really not a good look.

I meant naivety of the leadership.

But maintaining and increasing women's rights is going to be essential for its wider effects on the ecosystem, so they are total chumps if they think it's a boring sideline.

The world needs women to have wide and easy access to education and public life for the sake of everyone's future.

I'll get my rant ready for the next unfortunate canvasser.

Can anyone explain to me how the Green Party's stance on identity politics and genderism, which is profoundly biology-denying, sit alongside a pro-biology ethos, namely protecting the natural world from human exploitation and despoilment? Green represents chlorophyll, ie at the heart of biology. I don't understand it... I'm not asking this rhetorically, I'm genuinely struggling to try to understand philosophically what's going on here. Denying sexual dimorphism seems like denying photosynthesis.

Yes, the statement was very ill-advised. There is a strong GC contingent within the Green Party and I think the leadership over-estimate how popular the idea of 'TWAW and TMAM' is within the party.

Recently a few high-profile TRAs have stepped back from active roles, or even left the party entirely, citing 'transphobia'. This seems to have frightened the leadership into thinking they are losing all the young people.

I imagine they'll be quite taken aback by all the critical responses the statement has generated.

It's clear they have bought into the ideology completely, referring to women's rights groups as 'anti-trans'. It's also clear they've learned nothing from the Aimee Challenor debacle. They simply cannot be bothered to even try to listen to or understand the concerns of many of their members.

Can anyone explain to me how the Green Party's stance on identity politics and genderism, which is profoundly biology-denying, sit alongside a pro-biology ethos, namely protecting the natural world from human exploitation and despoilment?

I was a member during the rise of Aimee Challoner, the persecution and discipling of gender critics and the take-over by liberal feminists intent on legalising the prostitution of people and 'inclusivity' in the definition of women.

The Party is prone to being infiltrated by single-issue activists who then become very 'helpful', indispensible and who turn out to put leaflets through doors. There is a price to be paid for their labour. They push through new policies and the party indulges them - knowing that it hasn't a hope in hell of getting into government and having to stand by the policy.

The point is that the Green Party now have a load of councillors, elected on an 'environmental' ticket - but also in a position to push mermaids, mixed sex changing rooms in leisure centres and withold funding from Rape Crisis Centres that don't cater for men.

The Green party allowed Aimee Challoner to rise because they believed that Transwomen ARE women.

It's their policy. Gender critical views are seen as transphobic.

Aimee Challenor wrote / influenced many of the Green Party policies.

Aimee Challenor has talked about how influential Stonewall werein enabling Challenor's political succes, achieving influential postions within the Green Party etc

Aimee Challenor was 17 years old (I believe) when first involved with the Stonewall trans groups.
Aimee Challenor has described at this point being a vulnerable young person, Care leaver etc and the family circumstances at the time are becoming better known.

It would be interesting to know which adults guided Aimee CHallenor towards political influence & whether the charity recognised its responsibility & duty of care.

Has he deleted the post? I could see it but now I can't.

The post has gone, or has at least been unpinned.

page not available

it's not on his page any more.

I saw it earlier and thought the Challoners were noticeable by their absence both in the statement and the supportive (and indeed not so supportive) comments.

Has it been deleted? It doesn't seem to be there now.

It's on Amelia Womack's page, however, with entirely positive comments including one about how nasty the comments were on Jonathan's....

www.facebook.com/GreenAmeliaWomack/

Thanks Pam. So you're saying it's simple entryism and that the activists like AC basically chose the Green Party cos they're small, but prominent enough, and therefore much easier to gain leverage to influence policy in a smaller outfit? Guess it's similar with the other parties as well, vulnerable to new, enthusiastic grassroots members pushing through new policy ideas in return for leg work on the doorsteps. Still can't get my head around how all this seems to have bypassed the critical faculties of people who are scientific/sceptical/rational thinking-minded in the higher up positions though.

Just seems really ironic the Greens are effectively trying to eradicate biology (or at least the political meaning attached to it) when we're facing a climate change, extinction, pollution and population crisis... when with the latter it is crucial to recognise each role in the reproductive process. They are busy telling gender fairystories, while the earth warms and more plastic washes up on the shore

How many entryists does it take to gain traction in a political party? 🤔

The Green party allowed Aimee Challoner to rise because they believed that Transwomen ARE women.

Slight nitpick here. If they genuinely believed Aimee was a woman, wouldn’t Aimee be at the bottom of the heap with all the other young women?

And Fuck Off seems to be the general (and wholly appropriate) response.

Why is it that so many idiots keep mentioning this enormous rise in transphobia, but can’t manage to work out that there may be a valid reason so many intelligent and educated women have suddenly (in their eyes) become wholly unreasonable?