Green Party Deputy Leader on being 'gender critical'

[ArabellaScott]

https://thecritic.co.uk/it-isnt-easy-being-a-gender-critical-green/

'The Deputy Leader of the Green Party Zack Polanski also thinks people with gender critical views aren’t welcome in the party. He’s made it clear that “those members who claim that trans women are men and trans men are women – should not have a place in the Greens.”'

Quoting this interview from earlier this year:

https://leftfootforward.org/2023/03/zack-polanski-interview-transphobia-is-not-welcome-in-the-green-party/

'... he says that the small number of members who take a contrary view to the party’s policies on trans rights – specifically those members who claim that trans women are men and trans men are women – should not have a place in the Greens. He says: “I’m really clear that if you want to misgender someone then that is transphobic and transphobia is not welcome in the Green Party.”'

sounds like potential discrimination, to me.

I'd also add that saying a 'small number' of members are 'gender critical' is a deliberate distortion.

I don't know, it's difficult to imagine that particular scenario.

I highly doubt it would be considered acceptable unless, as Arabella said, it was fundamental to the aims of the organisation.

It's unlikely to happen but ideally I'd want an independent investigation into corruption within the party.
I'm aware of at least two instances where very high up TRA members tried to get rid of political rivals by misusing procedures.
The most glaring was after Emma Bateman was elected co-chair of Green Party Women and there were TRA Greens openly talking on Twitter about how to get rid of her.
I'd have to check the exact wording but I recall an exchange between one TRA and someone in a position of influence where the conversation went something like "She needs to go" and the answer was "We're working on it" and shortly after Emma was suspended.
I imagine this will come up in her court case. And this is what they were being open about. God only knows how bad it is behind the scenes.

Thank you for that list, that's really helpful to see.

So it's not like any of these, for example a Catholic or Muslim school or a women's group who reasonably wish to restrict the membership and focus. And that would be because this is not a group forming to meet their own needs within this group or to live peacefully alongside other groups. It is a group formed with the purpose of forming a government and enforcing policy on the country as a whole,.

So this would be more like a group forming openly around their prejudice against red headed people, banning them from membership and being clear they are not welcome, AND having a key open purpose in setting out policies to remove rights and equality and access from red headed people in law. To further and nationalise their prejudice and suppression of this part of the population, and to change laws that would protect and provide equality for all. Now subtitute 'red headed' for 'black'. 'Catholic'. 'Disabled'. 'Muslim'. 'Women'. And check why when it's women (and lets be honest, it's certain kinds of women, probably very much 'other women' that don't hold social cachet and aren't 'lovely friends') you don't mind so much.

I remember all the fuss about ohmigodFarrageisEVIL because of questionably racist policies and wording and comments regarding certain parts of the population. How is this any different?

Other than that women (and on the side, more quietly because not so popular as spitting on women for social virtue jollies, homosexuals, and child safeguarding) are all currently the fashionably righteous targets for letting your old time human prejudice hang right out?

This is the exact same argument used by slave owners - THIS kind of prejudice and treating this one particular unpopular group as subhuman and controlling and oppressing them in law in our favour is fine, because they're not really properly human, they're not like Us, they're not good people like us and Good People Properly Enact Not Liking Them, and this is the right side of history! The exact same argument used to put Jews in Ghettos and then move on from there. The exact same argument used to remove indigenous peoples from their lands and destroy their cultures. 'We are not doing anything wrong, because we're not prejudiced against GOOD and NICE people like us, we're only doing it to THOSE people who are horrible and vile and no good person would think they needed equality or rights, they're scum who should be controlled'.

No. If you support this you are not a good person. You are a very stupid person, with one hell of a lot of issues with prejudice, lying to yourself.

Is there no parliamentary place to make a complaint against this given that it appears to be a clear breach of the law of our land?

I'd think it was a clear breach of everything that Europe has tried to achieve from what it learned in WW1 and WW2, the human rights act, all the values the left spend so much time spouting about but apparently only identify as believing in.

But apparently it's time for another WW because the current political elite have learned fuck all and haven't the capacity to have actual morals and values rather than SPADs.

What's going on currently most resembles last months of the reign of Henry the Eighth with total chaos, corruption, extremism everywhere, and everyone afraid to mention a settled opinion, and people being arrested and burned alive in public for being suspected of believing the Wrong Fashionable Thing. I suppose at least at the moment it's virtual burning.

I think we are living through something very similar to the Salem witch trials and history will analyse the current madness ad infinitum.

I think we are living through something very similar to the Salem witch trials and history will analyse the current madness ad infinitum.

I agree. I've recently taken a brief social media break ( just a couple of weeks) and I've been hit by just how insane it all is.

'We are not doing anything wrong, because we're not prejudiced against GOOD and NICE people like us, we're only doing it to THOSE people who are horrible and vile and no good person would think they needed equality or rights, they're scum who should be controlled'.

What’s interesting Frood is that, in order to get buy-in to that mindset across civic society, the TRA lobby groups first of all launched a “most marginalised in society” victim narrative using inaccurate and exaggerated claims about violence against, suicide by, and suffering of people who identify as transgender; then followed that up by misrepresenting any questioning of male access to females in a state of undress as hostility and hatred towards unhappy individuals; and then launched an aggressive, uncompromising, and sustained campaign of silencing, denigrating and making persona non grata, targeted at anyone asking the most reasonable and mild of questions.

I concede the point that they don't appear to have a mandate for it. (From a quick look.)

It seems that merely disagreeing with an official policy wouldn't get you thrown out in general.

They could maybe argue something like "transphobia" would bring the party into disrepute.

But their own code of conduct says that they have to play nice over disagreements, and:

11.3 Members must not behave in a discriminatory manner towards someone on the basis of any protected characteristic that person may have.

12.1 As the Green Party welcomes people from a wide range of backgrounds, members may encounter people who hold differing political or philosophical worldviews. Freedom of belief and the right to change that belief is a fundamental human right. Members should therefore show tolerance and respect towards people that hold political or philosophical worldviews that differ from their own.

I'd say calling 'gc views' 'transphobia' is discrimination.

Well arguably yes, as I think it's a moral condemnation that accuses someone of an irrational prejudice, when there isn’t any clear justification for that. And actually, you can argue that it's the TWAW side that are guilty of being irrational.

It's heavily question-begging and inflammatory rhetoric.

Although you can say that people should be allowed to make the argument that such and such a position is bigotry.

I think it's bad behaviour to jump to calling people bigots, and one problem with trans-activists is that they maybe aren't going to even try to rationally defend it.

But in their minds, they will probably be convinced, and think they have a fair basis for making the accusation.

But in their minds, they will probably be convinced, and think they have a fair basis for making the accusation.

And hopefully they will be disabused of that notion, if they lose any of these cases.

They're already whining about having to defend themselves in court.

'You're transphobic' (you will not unconditionally enable and agree with the chosen fiction of someone from a more powerful group than you regardless of the impact of enacting this fiction on you and on others which may involve removing their equality,access, dignity, consent and safety where incompatible with protecting the fiction)

means quite simply 'you are a heretic/infidel'.

That's it. That's all.

Exactly, Frood.

Yes it's a mistake to think transphobic is the trans equivalent of homophobic.

Here's chesca being very cross about women doing what women have always had to do; organise.

x.com/emmabatemangpw/status/1711028613066146010?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

How dare green women think differently to her!

Woah, that's not on! How come? Are votes only in person, because that's really unfair on anyone who can't travel. Of course women with caring commitments will be more affected

Yep.

In that Twitter thread, Emma Bateman says:

"Chesca claims that she stood as a co chair of Green Party Women with the intention of 'healing the rift in the party'. She may want to work on her technique. Criminal damage is not a great way to signal that she is open to listening to those who disagree with her."

What the fuck is wrong with these people?!

'I have been outside@TheGreenParty conference giving out leaflets on women's rights alongside members of the Green Party who set up the Green Women's Declaration@GWDeclaration
@ChescaWalton (A Green Party PPC) ripped down the banner because she finds women's rights offensive.'

'Chesca claims that she stood as a co chair of Green Party Women with the intention of 'healing the rift in the party'. She may want to work on her technique. Criminal damage is not a great way to signal that she is open to listening to those who disagree with her

So it's loaded in favour of the privileged, then. Those who can take the time and money to travel, those without caring duties, the able bodied. Great. This has been discussed at conference before, all those issues were raised afair. They bloody know.

She ought to face a disciplinary for that.

Also attacking someone in public who has an open court case against the party probably isn't the best move.