I love being on HRT so much, but being happy about it is just making me cry more" says Green Party Women's leader

[FreshFreesias]

The new chair of Green Party Women, a transwoman going under the name of Kathryn Bristow, one of whose personal pronouns is `fae' (no me neither), is really thrilled at the effects of her HRT (that's where it all is! No shortage for some!) recently tweeted:

twitter.com/KathrynBristow/status/1343259759701618688?s=20

"Just started crying for no particular reason.
It's so wonderful, I've always just wanted to be able to feel my emotions. I love being on HRT so much, but being happy about it is just making me cry more".

The casual and offensive sexist stereotyping is off the scale of course.

A quick glance through her tweets shows absolutely zero interest in er, Green stuff. No tweets about climate change, animal welfare, recycling... anything remotely environmental at all.

I know the Green Party's innate misogyny is nothing new here but I had to vent. They are going from bad to worse. The trouble is, those not active on Twitter or social media are not aware of the danger this Party poses.

I'm not even sure if Kathryn is even transitioned?

And why do so many transwomen have an annoying little `cute' smile in their profile pics? It's just annoying.

I used to have a position of responsibility in the Green Party in the noughties and there was none of this rubbish. We were completely consumed with environmental concerns and animal welfare. People used to make fun of us because we were beardy and sandal clad and unworldly but at least we were authentic.

I do know sooo many Gp women who are fighting this behind the scenes. Some will never know how much. Thank you for what you've been doing.

Have to say it makes me more determined but I'm stubborn like that,

Of course so many are working mothers stretched right the limit in a suffocating pandemic while these childless blokes organise on the Internet and swing a vote where only a few hundred votes were cast.

I'm also fairly sure sunlight will work it's magic soon.

I also think this whole event will make more take notice of this stupidity.

Honestly, nails and tears? It's offensive.

Tbh, I'm a floating voter and I am not sufficiently aligned to the Green Party at the best of times to become a member.

That said, it's not beyond the realms of impossibility that I would vote for them at a local level. I do often vote for smaller parties on my ward, for instance.

However, this is enough to categorically put me off ever considering casting a vote for them.

Good luck to the women who want to change this from the inside - I fear your journey will be a long one.

If we had sufficient numbers of members who were aware of the problems and tactics of the other side, and who were willing to stand up and vote, we could break this.

As exemplified by recent SNP NEC elections. I get the impression that took a lot of exposure though - from the outside it looks like Wings Over Scotland may have been pivotal.

I guess in this case Kathryn is now doing a lot of the "exposure" work for free, which must help for the next round.

Kathryn talks about "people who menstruate". I think the word she's looking for is 'women'

Brilliant. Perhaps scope for a group "Green Menstruators and former Menstruators"?

Or would they not qualify under intersectionality, in the way that Kathryn does (in multiple ways).

And yet Kathryn witters that calling women 'females' is dehumanising.

Kathryn's logic somewhat inconsistent there. Not to mention interesting that Kathryn feels entitled to direct women as to what they may and may not call themselves, which would appear to indicate a feeling of some kind of superior status and right to direct women in this? Wonder what it could possibly be.

Sorry for the incoherence of that last paragraph. Trying to put this naicely with proper female socialisation to comply with guidelines is not easy. Not being allowed to be my authentic best self over here Kathryn.

Nonsense. The sort of person you're taking about would be a typical man, you know, the type which has oppressed women throughout history and sees them as a subsidiary sort of "other" which can be used and discarded as desired - and there are clearly none of those in today's narrative Michelle.

KB was elected with a very small margin, as a result of a fuck-ton of male allies claiming to be women, registering with GPW and unfortunately had to be given a vote.

Well, obviously they had to be given a vote when the party has a self-identification policy, which must have been approved at conference at some point?

Zsizzer so true. Sorry.

Must take more glue. Need allll the glue. Then possibly I can make this make sense.

Oh my poor little pink brain.

I don't know enough about the route that was used to approve the policy, other than it was done sneakily.

There will be others who can explain, I'm sure.

@EdgeOfACoin
In my view, there is no difference between the fight for our rights in the wider sphere, which has been increasingly fraught and upsetting over the last three years and more, and the fight within the GPEW.

Both are long journeys and we have had to dig deep into our reserves of strength and determination. In both cases, we have to be in it to win it. If we don't stand firm and fight back with truth, science and reasonableness, women and girls will be allowed no boundaries at all and our hard-won rights will be erased. The same applies to the GPEW - if we don't fight and try to encourage allies to stand with us, we will not succeed at anything. We do need allies though, particularly as the other side of this so-called 'debate' are willing to employ the dirties tactics they can devise.

Anything that anyone can do to help is crucial. Really.

The bottom line is that the GPEW should be dealing with the climate crisis. The only way we can do this is to shake the foundations of the obsession with identity politics held by some of the Party's controlling voices and elect the right people who are genuine Greens and who will fight for the environment and our future.

Not glue perhaps. Why not try testosterone. Assuming it is effectively opposite to oestrogen. So no weepyness. Just strong manliness. Perhaps.

@GreenieFingers

I don't know enough about the route that was used to approve the policy, other than it was done sneakily. There will be others who can explain, I'm sure.

Bit of googling suggests that the motion was proposed by Challenor and passed by conference in 2018. Have there been any motions since to remove the policy? Is it even legal for a political party to ignore the protected characteristic of sex and allow anyone to 'identify as a non-male' while claiming to have a gender quota for key positions? It seems futile and a waste of time to try and hang on to seats on the women's committee while that party-wide policy is in place.

Why not try testosterone. Assuming it is effectively opposite to oestrogen

Interesting thing about testosterone. Women have testosterone in our bodies. Good female friend of mine had all sorts of weird physical symptoms - tests showed she was low on testosterone.

Yes, and I was sort of joking. It’s as if people slept through GCSE biology, so oestrogen is an opposite of testosterone, rather than both being part of complex hormonal systems. And female is a sort girly giggly frilly dress wearing opposite of male (strong butch and hunky).

Perhaps a useful focus for Green Women would be to get something through at the next conference. Women need to be defined. I would go for the legal one, ie female plus those with GRCs. There is no point in any separate group if people are able to self-id.

Or parity. So anyone can self-id as BAME, young or LGBT+. (I spotted a couple of tweets by one of Kat’s supporters which were clearly racist, misogynistic and ageist, complaining about rich, so presumably older, white women, as if some people get to identify, and others are identified.) Actually I suspect that the women’s group is not alone, and there will be some green LGBs who would claim their group is now a bewildering mix of NBs etc and that they feel unrepresented as the focus has shifted to trans. And that a frequent common denominator are young greens.

Yes, it's ridiculous, isn't it @Needmoresleep - all the guff about non-binary (when really they mean gender non-conforming) but the ideology extremists have created and rely upon an extreme and inaccurate binary, such as oestrogen v testosterone

@KittyValentine

Was this the one who claims to be solo-poly (no me neither) -amorous and was excited to join a Green Party shagging club?

Solo-poly? Doesn't that mean 'desperate will accept anything and everything'?

Fae can sod off with faes womanly tears.

I thought intersectionality was supposed to help ensure less represented groups had a voice. However with the Greens we now have:

Young greens - dominated by mainly white men
LGBT+++ - dominated by mainly white men
Green Women - dominated by mainly white men.

Yes women will be there, but heaven forbid they act as anything other than servants for the men. They should know their place, as Twitter users are currently pointing out to Emma Bateman. Woe betide if they fail to give validation to the men.

Can I just add straight, educated, affluent and able bodied in there too?

This song very much springs to mind.

(Love billy nomates, clearly v feminist from a few other songs and interviews.)

"Time and tide will wait for no wo-man"

DH and I ended our joint GP membership yesterday. Him for different reasons, but the whole KB thing was behind my decision. I voted in the initial elections which then went poof (and I don't think it was ever explained why they had to be re-run) and then to vote again I had to declare that I "identify as a woman". I didn't want to make that declaration because I don't identify as one, I am one, but I knew it was the only way I was able to vote.

The GP can fuck right off. How can they ever be credible in terms of the science of climate change when they don't seem to understand the science of sex?

I genuinely have no clue who I can vote for from now on. If Starmer ever comes out and lets us know what a woman is, that makes Labour a possibility, but he's had a long time now to make that statement and has remained tight lipped. I can't/won't ever vote for the Tories and the LibDems are a no too.

Why is it so hard to publicly accept that women and transwomen are completely different and that each have their own issues? I despair.

and I don't think it was ever explained why they had to be re-run

Good point. Why was it rerun? Anybody know?