Gender row ‘stops Greens focusing on climate change’

[Igneococcus]

Article about the legal challenges brought against the GP in the Sunday Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e83aa4ca-6dca-11ed-baff-fc7a2096b607?shareToken=2b38b04f29d8946eb0486b7e71e15437

Thank you so much for this; I know one of the people personally and their treatment has been horrific.

Women in the party who hold these views are becoming braver but you can see why it's challenging to speak out

Thank you for share token

I am pleased this is being reported (at last) in the MSM but I'm disappointed that it's nearly always characterised as friction about "trans rights". The discussion is about how proposed changes to legislation to extend the rights of trans people will impact women's rights.

Trans people currently have all the same rights as everyone else, no one thinks they shouldn't. TRA's feel it's discriminatory to refuse trans people special privileges which allow them to trample all over women's rights.

I've said it before - this is the time when the Greens should be in their political nadir. The rest of the world has caught up with the idea that the environment needs to be a priority. And where are the Greens? Infighting on issues that have nothing to do with the environment. Fools.

This. So this.

Yes, fools. I'm still there though.

I think you mean zenith rather than nadir? If so, I agree with you. The Green Party are back to being a single-issue patty, but that issue is no longer the environment.

The Party’s handling of the Challenor scandal was also disgraceful.

I do know dedicated GC coal face green workers. Working towards being councillors etc.

"The Green Party is clear that trans rights are human rights"

a) why are they copying the Tories' obsession with saying they're "clear" about things they patently aren't clear about?

b) if the trans rights they are fighting for are human rights - which they already have - either their job is done, or they're fighting for additional rights - which is it, and what are they?

Stupid, meaningless statement. It's why I can't get on board with the GP despite Green issues being a priority for me. I don't trust that they can think logically about the most important issue to the human race when they come out with vaccuous non-statements like that.

I’m glad this is being tackled. It’s ridiculous and hugely frustrating to have this issue as the focus of our Green Party when people are dying due to climate change and the planet is warming rapidly.

Laughing, that's it: I don't trust that they can think logically about the most important issue to the human race

I was brought up in a pretty radical green household in the 70/80s, albeit not in the UK, and the party activists which attended regional meetings at our house were mostly veterans of Greenpeace and anti-nuclear campaigns. They were pro-science and single-mindedly focussed on ecological and environmental preservation. For all the reasons we have known for decades.
The idea that gender ideology would have even featured as a topic of discussion in that cohort is risible.
I watch my local Green Party tie itself in knots and entirely understand why anyone who is serious about action on the climate aligns themselves with XR, Just Stop Oil or Insulate Britain. XR have, hands down, been more effective at dragging the climate emergency onto the political agenda in the last 5 years, that the Green Party could have dreamed possible.

Odd isn't it - the Greens have one main focus yet have got diverted by the trans lobby. Just as a the sad old Women's Equality Party had one main task - but failed at the first hurdle.
Shame .

This is an issue where the question of who benefits needs to be asked. With infiltration of the WI, it is not particularly obvious, but here, it is maybe getting to the heart of the matter. Who would be most invested in shutting up the Greens? And not only shutting them up, but making it very hard for anyone in future taking their science based approach seriously.
"They are against coal mining in Appalachia and the Australian outback? So what. They think men can turn into women."

MrsOverton (neat username, btw), yes, it is literally like one of those "You had one job..." memes.

Trans people currently have all the same rights as everyone else, no one thinks they shouldn't.

Absolutely, FOJN. That point is spelled out very well in Sonia Sodha's new piece in The Observer: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4686198-sonia-sodha-on-sturgeons-grc-reform

Absolutely this!

Very well put.

The sexist bias is so strong that they cannot even be honest about what the problem really is .

Treaclemine you make a very good point. Who benefits from this? we know that oil companies have used some sophisticated methods to obscure climate breakdown in the past. Is this another strand of that?

This is very true. Who benefits? Fingers have been pointed at Big Pharma, why not Big Oil too?

I'm not given to conspiracy theories and machinations behind the scenes. But the world is full of opportunists and all it would take is a few narcissists bent on being the centre of attention to target such a small political party with a possibly less-than-airtight structure.

Can we stop calling it "trans rights" please? It's not. It's special treatment (privileges, if you will) for humans who call themselves trans.

The sexist bias is so strong

Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

When the Green Party prioritises TRA mantras over and above their supposed founding purpose, the Righteous people either applaud delightedly (or at best, ignore). But when women say "Umm, hang on a minute, can we talk about how this issue affects female sex-based rights?" then those same Righteous people sneer about how unimportant this issue is compared to Proper World Problems, can't these silly women see where the real priorities lie?

Absolutely, Kucinghitam!

Zenith. Not nadir. Nadir is the lowest point. I am anal.

How did this happen? Why would concern for the planet nudge you towards an ideology which leads to increased waste and pollution? I am angry about the WEP but I can see the route which led to their position - co-opting intersectional "feminism", libfem insistence that women are exactly the same as men. But with the Greens, I am baffled.

I've come to think that part of the problem with some of the more member-directed parties may be due to institutional weaknesses in the way they function. It's actually made me rethink a lot of things I used to believe about how to run public institutions.