The Australian Greens opposed a motion put by One Nation banning the use of so-called gender-neutral language, such as “chestfeeding,” in government materials. Now, why would a party supposed to be concerned about the climate crisis, allegedly threatening human civilisation, take the time to worry about this? In fact, most issues pursued by the Green parties across the world deal with social justice warrior issues. The reason is simply that these parties are primarily concerned with Leftist social justice issues, with the environment, second. Thus, most Green parties would allow open borders, even though this would result in the tragedy of the commons. This makes people of my mind-set mighty sceptical of the environmentalism of Greens. Green on the skin, but the meat underneath is red. I don’t know what fruit is like that, maybe some mutant strawberry, or grape, something unpleasant.
“The Australian Senate has passed a motion brought by One Nation banning the use of “distorted” gender-neutral language such as “chestfeeding” in official government materials.
One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts put forward the motion in the Upper House on Wednesday, with the Morrison government voting to approve the ban.
The motion narrowly passed 33-31.
Tasmanian Liberal Senator Jonathon “Jonno” Duniam read a statement outlining the government’s position before the vote.
“The government supports the rights of individuals to make use of any pronouns or descriptors they prefer, while encouraging respect for the preferences of others,” he said.
“The government will use language in communications that is appropriate for the purpose of those communications and is respectful of its audiences.”
Mr Roberts’ motion stated that “our fundamental biology and relationships are represented through the following descriptors – mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, boy, girl, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, female, male, man, woman, lady, gentleman, Mr, Mrs, Ms, sir, madam, dad, mum, husband, wife”.
“Broad scale genuine inclusion cannot be achieved through distortions of biological and relational descriptors,” it said.
“An individual’s right to choose their descriptors and pronouns for personal use must not dehumanise the human race and undermine gender.”
Mr Roberts referred to a doctor from Queensland who “reports incidences of young children feeling stressed and panicked about whether it is okay to use the words boy and girl, and pushing gender-neutral language is no replacement for appropriate emotional and psychological support for children while growing up”.
The motion called on the federal government to “reject the use of distorted language such as gestational/non-gestational parent, chest-feeding, human milk, lactating parent, menstruators, birthing/non-birthing parent, and ensure all federal government and federal government funded agencies do not include these terms in their material, including legislation, websites, employee documentation and training materials”.
Greens Senator Janet Rice asked to speak but was denied permission, Daily Mail Australia reported.
Posting on Twitter shortly after, she slammed the Morrison government for voting in favour of the “bigoted” motion.”
Still, crazy Sweden beats Australia this week in the theatre of the absurd:
Swedish Green Party spokeswoman Märta Stenevi has claimed that in order for foreign minority women to get power in Sweden, native-born white Swedish women must move aside.
Stenevi made her statements during a podcast interview after being asked about the differences between the voting patterns of male and female voters in the country.
According to Stenevi, there is an “alarming trend” of Swedish men becoming more conservative and that they think Sweden is already “equal” enough as it is today, Aftonbladet reports.
When asked why so many women vote for the Greens compared to men, Stenevi stated that power may be a factor and stated that those with “privileges” may feel threatened over a new division of power.
Going even further, she stated that not only must Swedish men give up on power, but native-born Swedish white women must do so as well: “If foreign-born women are to gain power, white, domestically born women will have to move.”
Similar comments have been made in the past by members of the Swedish Green Party, such as in 2018 when local Green Party members in the town of Eslöv suggested that native Swedes who had a problem with multiculturalism should just leave.
“There is another party that wants to persuade immigrants to relocate,” Lars Ahlfors, chairman of the local Greens, said, referring to the anti-mass migration Sweden Democrats, and added: “We think that if you do not enjoy multiculturalism, there should be an opportunity to give a helping hand to move.”
The Greens in Eslöv later apologised for the statements made by Ahlfors, claiming later that they were satire.
Last year, in the southern region of Skåne, the Greens made headlines again after suggesting that in the wake of the anti-mass migration, pro-family Polish government oversaw the introduction of new restrictions on abortions, Swedish taxpayers should foot the bill for Polish women to have abortion procedures in Sweden.”
I am surprised that Sweden still exists. What would the Vikings of 1,200 years ago think of the place?