Green party, go off. Do not tolerate intolerance.
Indeed. The party itself supports trans rights so they should take a zero tolerance stance especially when it comes to hate.
Exactly. Don’t do what Labour is doing, trying to thread the needle and just pissing off everybody.
I don’t understand why labour feels the need to try and appease people. They got this one in the bag they might as well take the opportunity to do away with irritating identity politics.
Seriously just tell the old crowd to get lost, if they want to appeal to the younger voter then the old crowd aren’t doing them any favours at all.
I don’t think they’re trying to appeal to old labour, but rather grab old tories, they’re talking about how great thatcher was and controlling immigration. Tories are very far right at this point, I think labour feel that if they go slightly right of centre they’ll capture the moderate tories.
Not sure the strategy is wrong, but it won’t lead to a labour government that I’m happy with.
I swear the very mention of Thatcher is catnip to some on the left. I wouldn’t say the one line in the piece about her was praise, just an observation about the changes she put in.
But the strategy makes sense: convince the centerists voters who absolutely will vote that Kier is a safe pair of hands. The alternative is appealing to the younger radical voters who may not bother to turn up to the voting booth because they’re unhappy he’s not as ideologically pure as they want him to be.
The party’s official position is that it supports transgender people and backs making it easier to change legal sex via self-determination.
But there are long-running tensions with members who hold gender-critical beliefs, which includes that a person’s sex cannot be changed.
They mean gender right? Who in this is confusing sex and gender again? Is it the green party or the BBC or both, I literally cannot tell after reading this.
“Gender critical” people chant “sex cannot be changed” like a mantra.
It’s not meant to make sense. It’s not even a real argument, because it’s overly vague and doesn’t even attempt to address the arguments of their opponents. It’s just a flat reassertion of their ideology. And if you follow gender criticals for long enough, you will see that they do this constantly.
My guess is that the error originates in one of the Green Womens’ Group terf people that the article quotes at length. Article authors repeated it in their own text and subeditor didn’t pick up on it.
The BBC has had a lot of TERFy journalists (as has The Guardian), so could be they intentionally ran with the line used by this disaffiliated GPW group.
Gender identity cannot be changed, that’d be akin to conversion therapy.
Gender expression can be changed, and it’s part of socially transitioning, but trans people do change their sex through hormones and surgeries.
My current understanding is this:
Sex is chromosomes, immutable, unchanged, majority binary with some exceptions (xxy etc).
Gender is expression and roles, which is just social construct stuff, how it’s expected genders to look and act, tradition, doesn’t really matter, can change as we see fit.
Your post has very much confused me, would you defining sex, gender, gender expression and gender identity for me?
I’m an ally but I need concrete definitions to make arguments against the anti-trans folks.
Okay, I’m not an expert so take this with a grain of salt, but my understanding is:
-
Gender identity: your “brain sex”, determines what gender you are.
-
Gender expression: social stuff like your clothes, how you talk, and other things related to presentation. Doesn’t determine your gender.
-
Sex: in a social context, sex is more about primary and secondary sex characteristics and less about reproduction and chromosomes. Many secondary sex characteristics change with hormones, and primary ones can be changed via surgery.
-
TERF island is at it again…
Why do they have so many terfs there anyway? Is it something in the water?
What I find shocking is not the amount of transphobia per se (unfortunately that is common the world over) but just how pervasive it is across all facets of UK society including progressive newspapers, academia and the friggin Green Party.
@vzq maybe that’s what makes it so noticeable. I’ve seen UK terfs brigade New Zealand twitter, news site comments etc on trans issues.
This has momsnet written all over it.
Prosecco Stormfront at it again.
It’s just the right wing idiots in general, it’s not like the US
@echodot I don’t know about the US. But the UK seems to have terfs where I wouldn’t expect them, like the Green Party or Guardian columnists, and they’re also quite brigade-y.
You know I can see the reply right, you don’t need to at me about it.
@echodot kbin autopopulates the ats, I guess because it is useful for mastodon who we also federate with.
Sometimes I leave it in because threading is still a bit dicey so it helps me keep track of who I’m talking to, can stop if it bugs you though.
I’ve definitely noticed it bugs some people. I wonder if those people maybe just don’t understand why it’s happening, combined with it looking silly on Lemmy when you don’t know why it’s happening? That it autopopulates just like it does on Mastodon and did on Twitter, like you said. Although, I definitely remember people getting annoyed with it on Twitter, too, lol. Anywho, you’re not hurting anybody, but it’s kind of you to offer to stop if it’s bugging them. :) Maybe a PSA about it, why it happens, and why people leave the tags in their replies, posted to a lot of different communities/magazines/topics would help?
I don’t really mind it was just a bit odd so I brought it up.
The biggest problem is it results in me getting two notifications, the first one for the comment reply, and then another one because my username has been mentioned.
It makes me feel like I’m 50% more popular than I really am
Til, this is the first time it’s come up for me. I think it’s probably best to bring my threading problem up with Kbin’s dev when he’s a bit less busy.
Good to see the Green Party of England and Wales catching up with the Scottish Greens on this issue. Maybe next they can kick out the people who oppose building high-speed rail because every tree has feelings.
They’re not a political party they are just a single issue activist group run by unrealistic ex hippies.
They’re the same type of people that say that nuclear energy is as bad as fossil fuels, which really undermines their own philosophy, and that genetically modified crops are the root of all evil conveniently forgetting that they’ve been in use for decades at this point. If it weren’t for nitrogen fixing plants we probably will be dead by now or at least have a severely depleted population.
They’re not a political party they are just a single issue activist group
One might say the same about Ukip…
Well yeah. That’s why they don’t exist anymore.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Senior members of Green Party Women (GPW) claim the group was “disaffiliated” because of their promotion of “gender-critical views”.
The party’s official position is that it supports transgender people and backs making it easier to change legal sex via self-determination.
The BBC has seen documents that show the Green Party disaffiliated the GPW for failing to run its planned Autumn 2021 committee election until January 2022.
Zoe Hatch, the GPW’s most recently elected co-chair who is currently suspended from the party, described the decision as a “convenient way for the ruling bodies to shut down the women’s group”.
Emma Bateman, a former co-chair of GPW who was briefly expelled from the party, said the disaffiliation was to “demonstrate that women stepping out of line will be punished”.
The party also supports making it easier for trans people to change their legal status without the need for a Gender Reassignment Certificate (GRC).
The original article contains 726 words, the summary contains 151 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
don’t let the door hit you on your arse on the way out, terfs.
