Dogwhistle guidance from the LGBTIQA Greens

[Justme56]

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

The whole thing should be titled

Nonsense to say on Twitter.

Because that's where it all comes from and these dim bulbs have hidden behind blocks for so long they have no idea that people are already laughing at this twaddle in vast numbers.

Ah yes, the Green Party where David Challenor and Aimee Challenor found a home and twunts like Maggie Chapman think children as young as 8 should be able to vote and "change gender."

I wouldn't trust this bunch of utter melts to water my plants let alone safeguard children.

Recap

We hope this has been helpful. The key takeaways are:

Dogwhistles are meant to be subtle. They're meant to sound 'reasonable'.
Questioning the person to explain what they mean undercuts the effectiveness of dogwhistles.
Dogwhistles intersect with other bigotries.

So Greens too consider the majority of the UK population to be bigots.

That's their winning position!

Losers.

Wow.

I can't believe I gave these people my money and was actually a local party coordinator. I wouldn't trust them to tell me the time

Also I guess this thread is a Dogwhistle. Very effective way to shut down debate and dissent.

This argument always confuses me. Unless they're saying that the majority of trans people are intersex, why is it relevant? Or am I missing something?

There's an awful lot of pointing out going on in that execrable piece of propaganda. They actually mean "repeat the lie."

Also:

^Transphobia: the hatred, irrational fear, aversion or dislike of, or discrimination of a transgender person..."

Discrimination against, they mean. Perhaps they should have asked a British person to write their bullshit?

" (which is mostly white and middle class) "

Any guesses what the demographic of the person that wrote that lot of tripe is? :-/

But it's dislike of the person simply because of their trans identity, and that could fairly be argued to be a "phobia".

If you dislike a religion or trans-activism say, then sure that's not a "phobia" if you have evidence and some sort of reasonable position.

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.

I find these ’genitals’ and ‘what’s between your legs’ stock phrases highly offensive. The whole of what makes a female or male human is, and has always been, so much more than that - physically and mentally.

Meanwhile it is transgenderism that seems concerned with anatomy to the extent of going so far as to resort to pharmacy and surgery to remove or disguise it.

"Reducing to" is moronic as well. Could you describe yourself as Green? Yes? Well you're reducing yourself to a small part of the visible spectrum, how awful of you.
They mean "describing one aspect of a person" but they are dishonest and pretend it's something else.

It’s pretty goddamn offensive that they are implying people with GC views don’t actually care about children, but are using kids as a dogwhistle with the sole aim of disrupting gender ideology. Is it really so difficult for the Greens to understand that we genuinely care about children and want to protect them, there’s no hidden agenda? For crying out loud.

My thought exactly.

I don’t really understand what that means, as it seems to contradict itself, but I’ve probably totally misread/understood it.

• "Let kids be kids'

(...)

How to disarm: If this person generally sees themselves as progressive, ask them if they think being taught gayness existing at an early age is wrong. Otherwise, question why they think it's wrong. Why is it a safeguarding risk? Why is it intrinsically wrong to teach queerness? This should expose their ideas. As well, note that when something becomes more socially accepted, that thing increases in people identifying with it, from left handed writing to accepting they’re gay or bi. The same is happening with the wider queer identities now."

Versus

"Women's sports is being infiltrated'

What it means: Verges onto explicit at times, this dogwhistle is the call for trans femme exclusion from women's sports, and by extension trans masc exclusion from men's sports on the grounds of 'fairness' and/or 'safety'. This can force trans athletes into dysphoric situations and can lead to intense safeguarding issues for trans athletes."

Does safeguarding mean something different when it relates to children than when it relates to transpeople?

What it means: 'Trans Agenda' is the attempt to suggest that transitioning (especially medically transitioning), trans awareness and trans equality are all being pushed by ominous figures in the 'Establishment'. The 'Establishment' here includes 'big pharma (major multinational pharmaceutical companies collectively as a sector of industry.)' and 'globalists' (a rightist term describe 'unpatriotic' capitalists), e.g George Soros (a Jewish Billionaire who often supports progressive leaning projects around the world), and often ties in with antisemitic tropes of Jewish plots to undermine white patriarchy.

I would just say that it's obvious there is a "trans agenda", but you don't need to appeal to anything like "Jewish plots".

Rather, just look at the openly published material from left-wing political groups and "human rights" organisations or whatever.

I mean, the Green Party is pushing the trans agenda themselves!

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

That's hard, pronoun edicts are easy

I don’t get it either and I can’t be bothered to work it out. I’m really perplexed as to why a political party is talking about penetrative sex; at all more than anything, it seems inappropriate and way beyond/outside their remit.

Just save the rain forest please and stop banging on about what people do or don’t do in private.

..penetrative sex at all; more than anything…

This account of a school meeting in Canada shows that people aren't convinced by pat "explanations" similar to these ones, but reinforces that it's all about promoting ideology.

www.genderdissent.com/post/parents-revolt-in-bc-schools-sogi-information-session

How can one tell if you dislike someone because they are a knob or it's the gender?

I've met people and on first sight I cant stand them. I dont even know their name, I've certainly not got around to asking gender or pronouns (I never will ask for pronouns)
So do I just instantly dislike them and assume it's a gender Wang thing?

How can one tell if you dislike someone because they are a knob or it's the gender?

Hold the phone, I think I finally understand why non-binaries believe themselves to be oppressed by an enbyphobic society.

I'll try to translate:

'The idea that [penis in vagina] sex for a [lesbian] invalidates their sexuality is an incredibly reductive view.'

Apologies for anyone who might be understandably offended by that, btw.

OMG you could write a paper on that