The Greens have determined that intolerance for women and men in their party who are gender critical is perfectly fine.
It is now unacceptable to defend, speak about or appeal to biological reality when addressing gender ideology.
The only view that will be tolerated by the Greens is agreeing with the lie that a person can change sex and feelings matter more than fact.
A very intolerant position.
A new statement on “transphobia” was put to the vote, with 10 members in favour and 3 opposed to the new position. Members are now left with three ways to respond: “to be supportive, ignorant or bigoted.”
Any member who rejects the lie that people can change sex could face censure, suspension or expulsion.
A new anti-discrimination provision inserted into the party’s code of conduct defines
transphobia as doing something that “harms or seriously risks harming trans people as a group by virtue of being trans” and proscribes as examples: vilifying trans people; discriminating against trans people; attempting to curtail the rights of trans people; intentionally misgendering trans people individually or as a group; denying that non-binary genders exist; promoting the unnecessary prioritisation of sex characteristics above gender; advocating for conversion practices; advocating for unnecessary restrictions on transition care; and, asking leading questions that cover for doing one of the above.
The rhetoric is based on lies and deception. No one can change sex. It is not ‘phobic’ to declare truth, appeal to scientific fact or biological reality. The statement is inflammatory and emotional, but not factual.
Two of the party’s parliamentary leaders, Victorian leader Samantha Ratnam and Senator Janet Rice, lobbied hard for the new definition. Ratnam on Friday described it as a line in the sand. “Debates are an important part of our society but as a community, we must draw a line in the sand when it comes to legitimising vilification or hate,” she said.
One trans activist, Bianca Haven, a member of the party went on to tweet: “I have finally won the war on women.”
Incredibly Haven, one of those who pushed for the new definition, has also been censured in the past for posting “repugnant material, including defending paedophilia and incest.”
One of her private accounts carries a warning that it contains sexual fantasies involving non-consent. Two months later, she was chosen by branch members to champion the new transphobia provision which, according to Greens leader Samantha Ratnam, “will ensure our party remains a safe and welcoming space for all”.
Safe for all who accept the lie and agree not to challenge the narrative that is. Haven’s strange beliefs were exposed in 2018, yet the activist is still influential in the party.
“While trans women do not properly menstruate, there are other aspects of periods, such as mood swings and cramps, that some trans women do experience, for reasons that have not yet been adequately studied,” the proposal claimed without citation.
The new definition of transphobia is a slap in the face to all women. It is laced with contempt and denies reality. Several female Greens members have either left the party or risk expulsion for opposing the new position. Many Greens supporters are outraged and feel they are now politically homeless.
City of Melbourne Greens councillor Rohan Leppert has said, “I don’t believe that sex and gender is a special category of policy not allowed to be discussed. Gender affects all of us.”
Linda Gale said,
“It has been repeatedly asserted that there is no conflict between the rights of trans people and the rights of women, and that to suggest otherwise is inherently transphobic. This is nonsense. “Human rights come into conflict all the time. It is silly to pretend that they do not and outrageous to suggest that it is inherently transphobic to raise the existence of such conflicts. The purpose of understanding the points of conflict is to find ways to resolve them, not to exclude any particular group from access to rights. But in the Greens, this discussion is announced as trans exclusionary.”
The party that spruiks tolerance as a value have proven to be one of the most intolerant of them all.
Do you like this page?