Dogwhistle guidance from the LGBTIQA Greens

[Justme56]

https://lgbtiqa.greenparty.org.uk/2023/06/15/dogwhistle-guidance/

Notable that common or garden 'homophobia' is no longer worthy of notice for the Greens - only 'transphobia' or 'queerphobia' need to be called out, apparently...

(And 'queerphobia'? Even my spellchecker is saying that's not actually a word..)

Interesting. I do like their 'how to disarm' section, because it's clear that they have considered very little of the factors and arguments. I'd be quite happy to have a discussion with someone on all of those points because each of theirs is easily countered.
I really do dislike the term 'dogwhistle' though. It's become the go to for anyone who doesn't actually have a counter point. Very lazy and pretty much shows they have no real argument.

"Dogwhistle" now means "you didn't mean or say this, but I've decided that you did, and you can't convince me otherwise because we've decided that any wording you might use to clarify your own views is also a dogwhistle".

It's really come to something where all words lose their meaning if someone decides so. Is it more 1984, or Alice in Wonderland?

This reminds me of my favourite comment during the ‘clarify the definition of sex in the EA debate thread’

’You’re a dog whistle!’

seems the appropriate response to such nonsense

1984: limit language=limit thought

I've just read their first two points so far and they're doing that bloody irritating and inaccurate thing of applying American stuff to the UK. The dog whistle bit is almost in its entirety about the US and examples from their society, WHICH DO NOT APPLY HERE. FFS.

And they've used the wrong word: it's "whose" and not "who's" in the sense they're using it.

Bunch of morons.

How to disarm the dogwhistle question What is a Woman?

Pointing out that the question is flawed in how it seeks to reduce women to their genitals can work, but can backfire by seeming to avoid the question. If you go for a self ID answer, know the facts: say with certainty that cis men abusing this doesn't actually happen.

This never happens! Say it with certainty, Greens - and maybe you’ll convince yourselves.

That is such an embarrassing statement. It's more embarrassing than the way I feel about the money I have given the green party over the years.

If I 'say with certainty' I am the millionairess queen, do I get the crown and money?!

Anyone shouts "dogwhistle" at me when I express my carefully considered and rational views, I'll howl like a wolf at the moon.

I mean, don't we all feel like doing this sometimes in the face of the Full Moon insanity out there?

I just read the tediously woke Otto English blog on CatGate at the E. Sussex school, and he just came out and called the girls transphobic. Just like that.

But no, apparently this isn't considered a dogwhistle in today's upside down world. A total stranger slurring girls already degraded by their teacher.

the definitions are fun too

Transgender/Trans: To align/identifies with a gender (or non) that you were not assigned to at birth. This applies to non-binary people.

Cis: the opposite of trans; to identify with the gender you were assigned as.

Non-Binary/Enby: someone who's [argh, my eyes, my eyes] gender does not align with the binary conception of gender as 'man and woman'.

can we guess which word they fail to define? yes, that's right, it's 'gender'

• ''What is a woman?'

What it means: This question is usually asked in bad faith. The answer it demands from queer people is an answer that can easily be construed as 'big burly (cis) men with penises''

Mate, you said it, not me.

I couldn't get to the end but I feel more sympathy for my lesbian sisters than ever before after reading this bit:

How to disarm: The fact that the vast majority of lesbians actually don't feel threatened, on the contrary are supportive of, trans women should be noted. The idea that potentially penetrative sex for a queer person with a vagina invalidates their sexuality is an incredibly reductive view and also seeks to invalidate bi people as well as lesbians who have sex with people with penises. As well, the notion of 'protecting lesbians' from often straight individuals is infantilising.

So corrective rape is fine, now then?

'As well, noting how this language is that of the far right is also effective.'

They seem to have redefined the word 'effective', here.

'Nothing is worse in optics for our liberation than cis and/or het male allies engaging people aggressively'

The worst thing about male violence is it makes men look bad.

The term ‘sex matters’, that relates to the concept of ‘sex essntialism’, is used to justify a set of policies that takes the imagery of ‘common sense’ to a constructed mainstream audience (which is mostly white and middle class) which would lead to the policing of the bodies of all (cis and trans) woman by a misogynistic police force, and for all AFAB trans people a healthcare system that is even more humiliating than it already is. Then, sex essentialism is dangerous and hurts gender non-conforming people especially.

so many questions

what's the 'imagery of common sense'? A picture of Thomas Paine? that 'common sense' eh? who needs that?

what's a constructed mainstream audience? are they made from papier mache?

why did the person who constructed them make them all white and middle class?

how do these policies lead to the policing of bodies of all women and some men?

why is the healthcare system especially humiliating for men who like to role play as women? (is it maybe because they might get asked why they enjoy role playing as women?)

MAKE IT MAKE SENSE

making it clear that gender identity and all its variations in time and place has a role too in the oppression non-cis men face

gender identity has a role in oppression? that sounds bad

why are we writing massive long documents about how to defend gender identity as a concept then?

also what's a non-cis man? a woman who likes to role play as a man I think?

the point gender criticals make downplays how gender expression plays a role in oppression

MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T DECIDE WHO GETS TO GO TO WHICH PRISON BASED ON WHETHER THEY WEAR A SHIRT OR A BLOUSE THEN

sorry. time for me to step away from the internet I think

100% corrective rape. I can't even imagine the shitshow of trying to date as a young lesbian today, especially online. Like the queen in Alice in Wonderland they are literally asking them to believe (at least!) six impossible things before breakfast.

BernardBlacks - yep - I'm too angry to engage with this bollocks.

I'll come back later when my blood pressure has gone down.

• ''What is a woman?'

What it means: This question is usually asked in bad faith.

Cool, thanks for telling me my own mindset, Greens. What is the answer if it's asked in good faith, to find out what someone means when they state "X [any person or group of people] are women"?

Well, some male people have certainly abused women or children while identifying as trans.

So who was is it Greens? Self ID being abused or abusive trans women?

What did I just read??

What a load of straw-manning nonsense - I don't think I read one summary of a gender critical view in there that aligned even remotely with anything I've ever heard a gender critical person say.

Although it does explain how seemingly sane people end up coming out with such odd, illogical arguments when it comes to gender ideology if this is what the "experts" are advising them to say!

As well, the notion of 'protecting lesbians' from often straight individuals is infantilising.

I'm a lesbian and I don't feel infantilised by anyone agreeing with me that the Equality Act should continue to mean what was originally intended in terms of protecting homosexual people from homophobia.

If biological men can be women then lesbians lose the protection they clearly need from people harassing them for being exclusionary in their sexual orientation. I don't think people realise how often this happens to lesbians as a matter of course, especially nowadays when everything is about fluidity and inclusivity-for-all.

The suggestion that we use suicide stats to suggest mental instability is about as far from the truth as it gets. The only arguments I have seen women’s rights campaigners make are that the suicide stats are massively exaggerated and that suicide stats should never be used as a persuasion method on the advice of charities such as the Samaritans on the grounds that suggesting a group may be suicidal can increase its prevalence and that reasons for suicide are complex and rarely down to one thing.

Similarly on sports, I see they are using the false accusation of racism when they are pretending that athletes with 5ARD were excluded because of their race and not because of their sex.

It continues to astonish me that those making these arguments are so willing to be disingenuous as well as that they have obviously not listened at all to what the arguments are. They have started a more general trend of using trans femme for men who claim they are women though. Wish they had done that from the start.

Is it still called a dogwhistle when someone is identifying as catgender?