Dogwhistle guidance from the LGBTIQA Greens

[Justme56]

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

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?

That's a dogwhistle question! It's morally wrong to ask that!

Yes, the term itself is misgendering many.

So in their definition ‘phobia’ now includes ‘dislike’ ( an oddly genteel word in the context of the rest of the document).

I dislike Pringles , but I don’t have an irrational terror of them, I don’t imagine that I see them lurking amongst perfectly guiltless vanilla biscuits.

Defending the indefensible is misguided, but explicable; this document just seems to be trying to explain the inexplicable .

Pringlephobe!

I never have heard the word ‘dog whistle’ used in this term.

When I read the tills, I was thinking of an actual dog whistle(, ie. one man and his dog) was puzzled how that could be a trans issue.

Then I thought about a wolf whistle and wondered whether it referred to this.

Then I started reading the article and gave up. Just reading through the definitions did my head in. I don’t dis-respect people being trans but I do argue that biologically they’re not women (or men), and I was NOT assigned at birth. This isn’t the Hunger games when you get given a role in life.

Total, not tills.

Title!

So are they saying all the men abusing the system are genuinely trans? Transphobes!

No it’s not bad faith. It’s literally the issue at the core of your entire concept. If you can’t define it, your entire argument falls. That’s why we ask it.

@Bluelagoon16

1984: limit language=limit thought

And Humpty Dumpty: "When I say a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean."

Perhaps it's a pastiche, Alice in 84?

*CorruptedCauldron · Today 13:43

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

Or to reduce it: "Just lie and demand that they accept it."

That’s a guide for how to promote ‘dogwhistle politics’ and use ‘dogwhistles’ to promote an activist agenda.

It’s actually funny that the people behind this don’t realise that THEY - greenpeace - are an organised group with an agenda. And publishing this guidance is actively pursuing that agenda. Painting anyone who recognises this as some sort of paranoid conspiracy theorist is gaslighting.

Sorry not greenpeace. But LGBTQIA+ Greens.

How to disarm the dogwhistle question What is a Woman?

Its incredible how asking for a legal definition, so you can make the law fair and workable, rather than enforcable and likely to end up in multiple court cases until what a woman is, is established in law is somehow a dogwhistle.

Its almost as if a politicial party which seeks to win elected positions to make laws and to consider laws that are not working, doesn't understand how laws are made and how laws work.

If you wanted a walking advertisement of who not to elect, then putting something out that says your organisation is so feck witted they don't understand what their actual elected purpose would be, is quite the thing!

‘Protecting children’ in quotes is a dog whistle argument?

Fking hell

Why don’t they just get on with saving the planet from extinction?

Maybe they’re trying to eradicate the human species as a means to that end?

It ends not with a bang, but with a whistle

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)

...Amazing so those people who believe sex is based on there being two sexes are mainly white and middle class????? I don't think so. Working class and ethnic minority people are not exactly walking around talking about there being 100 genders or championing male rapists being put in women's prisons.

Then, sex essentialism is dangerous and hurts gender non-conforming people especially.

But we can't just pretend sex doesn't exist because whether we like it or not, it does. It's not 'dangerous' and gender non-conformity is perfectly normal in the sex binary.

😂

'The idea that potentially penetrative sex for a queer person with a vagina invalidates their sexuality is an incredibly reductive view'

That is the creepiest, most fucking rapey thing I've read in a while.

You forgot homophobic.

"That is the creepiest, most fucking rapey and homophobic thing I've read in a while".

I thought I’d look up “bad faith” to see which it could possibly mean in the context of asking the question “what is a woman?”

The definition said:

noun: bad faith

1. intent to deceive. "frustrated industry representatives accused them of negotiating in bad faith"
2. (in existentialist philosophy) refusal to confront facts or choices.

So which of these could apply to asking a question? How can asking a question be an attempt to deceive?

As for number 2, well the entire point of asking the question is to reveal that the person replying is refusing to confront facts or choices. So the question is not asked in bad faith, so much as it is fully intended to reveal the bad faith of those being asked it.

They are so ridiculous aren't they.

This crap has been blurted out by 1000s of people already and got them nowhere.

Numpties. If a dim green said anything like this I would just laugh at them.

Hilarious.