Green Party calls for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn

[RipleyJones]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o.amp

The Green Party have been a waste of space for a long time.

I have donated to Emma Bateman’s crowdfunder as a direct result of Carla’s recent disappointing stance.

Me too. Watched Carla Denyer on Laura K yesterday pre-judging and smearing the new EHRC guidance as rushed and not thought through so I have donated to Emma Bateman. I think there will be much manoeuvring and lobbying to not extend Baroness Falkner’s contract and to replace her with someone more to the TRAs’ liking.

Rather it is the Green's response which is "rushed and not thought through". The panel of Supreme Court judges are esteemed and well regarded legal minds, and they investigated very thoroughly the interaction of the GRA with the protected category of 'Sex' in the equalities act, and found it was lacking in practical consistency, coherency and cogency.

I bet she's not even read the ruling.

Yes, the complete lack of political nous is mindboggling besides supporting gender ideology in the fist place.

It is all very reminiscent of Elizabeth Kubler Ross's 'five stages of grief':

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

It is going to take most captured organisations and individuals a while to get to full acceptance

Carla seems to have slightly the wrong emphasis though. As I read it, in practical terms, it’s more about what the society calls itself relating to the list of people they can exclude.

So an association can be set up for lesbians, called the Lesbian Society, its stated objectives are to be a social group for lesbians and can therefore lawfully exclude anyone who is not a lesbian ie. heterosexual women and all men.

Another association is set up that intends to be for lesbians and men who identify as lesbians but because ‘identity’ is not a protected characteristic and they want to include some men, they can’t lawfully exclude any men and because the specific men they want to include are heterosexual, they can’t then exclude heterosexual women either. So it becomes an association for everyone. The Everyone Society.

Surely that makes perfect sense within the intentions of the Equality Act?

Well as I see it, EVEN IF it is really important to her that lesbians and transgender men who are attracted to women can form their own society, and exclude everyone else, it is fairly clear that that is not allowed at present.

That isn’t the fault of the Supreme Court, nor can it be changed by guidance.

But what is clear is the single sex spaces must exclude the opposite sex.

Does she or doesn’t she agree with that is surely more fundamental (and she doesn’t seem to want to dwell on that bit, funnily enough)

If she could say ‘law is now clarified, I fundamentally agree with it in most part but I have just found this small bit that maybe we could look at changing’ she would look a lot more credible and grown up.

As it is, what she is saying is ‘I want to continue saying TWAW does not affect women’s rights, and so I am not addressing the really important bits’

Dr Upton thinks that both he & his wife are lesbians. He even claimed that they had suffered homophobia.

Tbf, if it takes their allies Cibyl two and a half years to publish the results of a relatively small survey, I'm not surprised they (claim to) think the SC rushed things over a mere six years or so.

The Official Greens statement:

Greens respond to interim EHRC guidance
https://greenparty.org.uk/2025/04/27/greens-respond-to-interim-ehrc-guidance/

It doesn't make much sense and ignores the law.

The Greens if they continue down this road are going to go bankrupt. They will keep getting sued.

I mean this idea that you can't have little mixed sex groups for alaphbet people is not a problem really. I mean there are tonnes of trans groups which include people with zero intention of transitioning so they don't have protection of gender reassignment. No one has sued them. Especially if they are saying it is includes non binary people which is a totally mixed sex category with no legal standing.

No one sues all the dubious religious group there are and says prove you are religious. Basically they could just say it is the church of gender and they can create any group they want and they can meet up. In reality that is what it was all along a belief system. Remember religions can say awful stuff like half the human race - the female half are completely useless and can't look after themselves. They can say gay people are sinful just for existing. It is irritating, but we have to put up with it.

Shahrar Ali
The Green Party is out of control. Torn between rock and hard place, they simply cannot bring themselves to admit that they were wrong side of history all along. Leaders, officers and spokespeople are in the grip of gender ideological fanaticism, some of whom are front line proselytisers (notably Sian Berry and Zack Polanski), others of whom are terrified of losing their position if they were to align themselves with sex realism or commonsense (Adrian Ramsay). Still others have been exiled from the party for speaking out and speaking truly on the rights of women, girls and children to safety, dignity or medical due diligence. Greensinexile

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling, just like with Cass, the Green Party avoided any kind of official statement. Sian Berry was left to fill that vacuum on BBC Any Questions with her legally illiterate pronouncements, premised on the preposterous assertion that sex is not binary in human beings. This is directly contrary to actual Green Party policy - which does advocate for single-sex hospital wards and the right of children to be taught the medical realities of reproduction (which is of course binary).

The rock is that, deep down, they must know how increasingly unpalatable gender identity extremism is with the public - which resulted in the loss of ministerial position in Scotland following the ill-fated Gender Recognition Reform Bill - so they cannot articulate their party position vocally without loss of electoral credibility. The hard place is that if the leaders do not capitulate to the fanatics within they know they face disciplinary repercussions through a weaponised complaints system or loss of position. Therefore they prefer to fudge simple definitional questions or avoid probing interviews because they know they would be had. None of this is doing politics differently in a good way.

It is notable that in their cackhanded statements to date, they continue to centre presumed thoughts and feelings of transgender women; never safety and dignity of actual women and girls.

https://x.com/ShahrarAli/status/1916088028386271551

Does anyone else wonder if the Greens have been infiltrated by oil funded deep cover gender idealogues in order to bring environmentalism into disrepute?

It's almost like their core aim is now too mainstream so like Stonewall they've sailed off into the land of self-ID. Maybe oil rigs could self-ID as wind farm, that would help with net zero.

I think you're right and if I remember correctly from my nurse training back in days of yore, it's not necessarily a linear path or one where you visit each stage only once.

I think the gnashing of teeth will continue for a bit longer as tra supporters realise the game is up and slowly drift away and find another cause they can monetise.

Yes, this thought has crossed my mind previously, ditto left wing politics in general because it seems so incredulous thing to support.

But then I remember Labours support for PIE and realise, no these people are genuinely cannot see the wood for the trees. Imagine thinking a group who promoted paedophiles was a good one to support 😳

As I see it if you were wanting to set up a LGBT group at University as an association (more than 25 members) and aim to admit people from more than two protected characteristics (e.g. gay and trans) - so therefore be open to everyone (as you can't exclude other men for example). How about in the rules and codes of conduct you could require everyone to agree to be a trans ally and if they don't accept the rules or break them they are out/unable to join. Heterosexually inclined allies are welcome. The lesbians (proper lesbians is what I mean) will have their own exclusive organisations (now allowed Yay!) and may or may not apply.

What I am trying to say is that I could set up a group that is 'not for' a certain group because its about a niche interest and I would expect that the way that this group went about its business would be unappealing for the people it was not set up for and rules might be in place that stop anyone who wants to join just to be disruptive.

Wouldn't this work and defuse the 'we are being prevented from having the societies we always had' complaints.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but justlikeus is highly suspect. They are bankrolled by j p Morgan and provide stats for groups who then go into schools and use it to teach genderwoo.

There are a whole bunch of groups with similar names like PlacetoBe who all seem to back each other up with stats that come from self-report surveys.

Agree - people have societies for all sorts of reasons.

I heard Carla Denyer being interviewed on Tom Swarbrick’s show. She had been making some appeal or other in connection to prioritising the entitled claims of men to trample over women. Parroting off her party piece with a bit of ‘lives like a woman’. Regarding a man. A man who ‘lives like a woman’.

The presenter asked her what living like a woman means. Does it mean you read certain books, or wear pink? In reply, the Green went off on a bit of ‘bubble, bubble, bubble’, finished of with a hilarious ‘I don’t know how much clearer I can be’. It could have been a skit. These sort of people must know how contra reality their stance is. They cannot give any substance. And, what they do warble on about is unintelligible. You’d have to wonder what is the reward for people parroting such anti-science guff, because they must know how ridiculous they sound, and how dishonest their ‘beliefs’ come across. And the supposed Green Party no less.

Bit of paraphrasing by me above. Can’t remember the exact words.

This, I think

https://youtube.com/shorts/ChPAf8GoPgA?si=1xAoaYm3S0H5Kbgi

On the plus side, at least the headline is "Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn," not "Greens call for transphobic guidance to be withdrawn"!

It's a headline that's nice and clear and that is surely(?) hard to argue with.

Haha, he's nice and calm and she's just waffling. "It means what I said... er, er... If someone, blah, blah, because they've experienced misogynistic abuse...".

No, no, no. Women, not men claiming to be women, experience misogynistic abuse.

It'll appeal to people who like their green credentials and also like to align themselves with the trans 'cause' or in other words make lofty pronouncements about how 'trans rights are human rights' <<side-eyes DP>>

I really resent the Green Party. The world burns whisky they focus their energy on misogyny.