Greens favour gender discrimination - female-only swimming

Don't expect sense from the Greens.

Pro-homosexuality, pro-gender-bending of every description, and supposedly "pro-equality".

Yet somehow despite all that, they now claim they want long term dedicated government-funded female-only swimming space.

'It's not just for Muslim women, it's for all women. Pregnant women, older women, women who've just had a baby, women who are self-conscious about their size and weight, women with disabilities.'

Yah - what about man women?

I feel like a woman, and remember, you have no right to tell me what gender I am.

Just look at Occupy Everything - one of the rules purportedly posted at the entryway to one of their camps said you must not assume anyone's gender, but wait for it to be disclosed.

So hey, I might look hairy on my chest, and my breasts might be remarkably diminuitive, but I'm a woman, and I'll sue you if you say otherwise.

Hey - they sued Andrew Bolt for questionning the ethnic identification of fractional Aborigines, so I'll sue the gehenna out of you if you question my gender affiliation.

That's what the Greens stand for, right? Sexual freedom, gender freedom, equality, all that bizzo.

So any pool that purports to be for "all women" but excludes "man women" is absolutely hypocricy on the part of the Greens.

Ever heard of bigender? I could even swim in the women's area one minute, then decide I'm male the next.

And so all those Muslim women so glad to shelter in a protected women's-only swimming area, kindly funded by taxpayers courtesy of Green vision, they might get quite a shock when their female bliss is interrupted by a male who the same Greens define as a female based on self-identified gender affiliation.

And the Greens love it. Well, everywhere except this pool perhaps.

There ain't nothin' Green about women's-only swimming areas when your very ideology says anyone of any birth gender can identify with whatever gender they want.

Kinda looks like an attempt to buy Muslim votes.

Y'know, those same Muslim votes swayed by this carrot, might be most hideously repulsed when the hand that feeds them turns a blind eye to the shemales who grace the same pool.

And this :

'The government is happy to explore ways to meet women's-only options, and we're investigating options at the new Gungahlin facility and in other facilities, both public and private,'

That's nice - so gender discrimination is actually ok, just so long as you favour women?

Get this, men, "gender equality" doesn't mean "gender equality", it means "female superiority". Although of course even Obama admits that - saying publicly in one speech that women will surpass men in accomplishments because, hey, they're just better than men.

And now, winning illogic-of-the-hour award :

'Ensuring broad community access is important and we don't want to exclude half the population from a significant new piece of infrastructure.'

Um - exactly which half of the population is being excluded here? The male half, as far as I can tell.

Last I knew, a lot of femmes like strutting their stuff in front of men. If they didn't, why in my short lifetime has the typical swimsuit gone from one piece to two iddy-biddy-tiny pieces? Why are the 8 year old girls at the swimming pool dressed in outfits more scant than a new bride's lingerie of decades past? As best I can tell, a lot of 'em like it the way it is. If they didn't, they'd wear something ... substantial.

So this "half the population" bizzo is absolute nonsense.

Reference : For our eyes only

UPDATE :

Just a few more salient snippets :

'It's not just about them looking at us, it's about us being exposed to men wearing Speedos.'

'Women who feel they cannot be in swimmers in front of men for religious or cultural reasons are among those likely to use the facility but also older women, those who feel self-conscious about their bodies and women recovering from injury or illness such as breast cancer.'

Swap the gender and see how ridiculous claims of "gender equality" are. Can you imagine the government going along with the following?

'We need male-only swimming areas. It's not just about women trying to alure us, it's about us being exposed to women wearing bikinis. Men who feel they cannot view parades of female flesh for religious or cultural reasons are among those likely to use the facility, but also older men, men who feel self-conscious about lacking a six-pack or recovering from hernia surgery, or illness such as cancer of the privy member.'

Somehow, strangely, the Greens would scream "DISCRIMINATION! GENDER FAVOURITISM!", but they go right along with it - nay, champion the cause - if it puts women ahead of men.

They don't believe their own "equality" mantra.

But then again, hey, who's surprised - Greens ideology just doesn't work when rubber meets road.

Moral high-ground for Bob Brown the Atheist

Moral high-ground is of course a very funny thing for an atheist to claim, and yet some do. The Greens, an Australian political party, were founded by avowed atheists, and yet in all their advertising, they claim to be standing up for what's "right".

"Right", by whose measure? It's like bulldozing a pile of dirt into a mound then climbing atop it and claiming you're king. If you invent the mound to favour you, it's easy to claim the "high ground".

But all this talk of "right" is just bovine excrement, as it were. My mound - my moral high-ground - is butchering people just for the sadistic fun of it. My actions are "right" by that standard, and I am the king of that castle.

So long Greens. Intellectually duplicitous. Moral crusaders for their own defined cause, against the obvious principle of nature : atoms have no moral value, and neither do collections of atoms, such as humans, if atheism's materialistic underpinnings are correct.

Of course, if there is a "god", as I maintain is evident, then the Greens are not merely duplicitous (aka hypocrites), but right royally stuffed. But hey - that's their choice, and who am I to deny them their right to choose?

If only they would hold the same in reverse - but they don't.

They are vehemently anti-choice, suggesting that babies be given no choice over whether they live or die, Christian business leaders be given no choice but to register with the government (presumably for "permission" to continue the pernicious pursuit of earning money whilst - horrors - holding different beliefs to the Greens) *1, suggesting that I be given no choice when it comes to questioning the unquestionable virtues of homosexual lifestyles, and the list goes on.

Greens would equal hypocrites, if it weren't for the not-so-subtle socialist undertones that permeate the party. They are, after all, only hypocrites insofar as their actions decry their public platitudes. But their public platitudes are not reflective of their core ideology. As their actions reveal, they are hell-bent on deceiving the public whilst they busily work on promoting their agenda of deep government control over pretty much everything that happens outside the four walls of your house, and much of what happens within.

So, Greens = hypocrites? No, just outright liars with a deadly agenda. So long, Greens, once more...

Footnotes :

*1 Yes, you read that right - Bob Brown issued a press release calling for all businesses owned by members of a particular religious minority to be forced to register. Kinda like forcing Greens supporters to wear a green triangle armband. Reminds me of a German who once forced a religious minority there to wear armbands with stars... And ANYONE takes this Bob Brown nuthead seriously? I'm not a fan of the particular religious group in question, but c'mon, surely requiring them to register - do you not know that that is exactly how the war against Jews started in Nazi Germany - they were merely required to register. It is completely unacceptable to anyone with any sense of decency that this kind of call can be made, when as very ably demonstrated by Senator Abetz in the following linked Hansard record, there are other APPROPRIATE courses available to be followed : Hansard - look for Senator Abetz's comments

Please disengage your brains : The Greens want your vote

I've been surprised and delightfully amused by some nauseatingly MINDLESS ads by the Greens in the leadup to the Victorian state elections.

Utilising the Google ad platform, the Greens so far have brought me two stellar pieces of education :

"Standing up for what's right, not just what's easy. Vote The Greens"

Tell me, how do you know, oh omniscient Greens, what is "right"? Oh, that's right - you were founded by an "ethicist", Peter Singer, who says it's "right" to kill babies after they're born alive and well, and says that humans have no more rights than any other lifeforms (see my satirical article The Truly Green Party).

His entire religio-philosophical system is based on a materialistic assumption that there is no god, but then he makes himself a god by telling the rest of us how to behave.

Tell me, what is "right" about him imposing his sanctimonious and entirely arbitrary views on the rest of the nation?

But the Greens don't want you to think - they just want you to "feel" good 'coz you voted for what's "right" - after all, the Greens told you so, and they would know.

And then, today's doozy :

"The Victorian Greens - My values haven't changed, my vote has. Vote VIC Greens this election."

Um... my values haven't changed? Let's get this straight : you're either insulting the intelligence of the electorate by telling them that they used to vote against their values (neither Labour nor Liberal is pro-infanticide, both of those parties have many committed Christians who cherish the sanctity of human life, and generally members of those parties hold that the individual human is worth more than say a bacterium), OR ELSE you're insulting the intelligence of the electorate by telling them you're really a pretty moderate party, relying on their ignorance of your deeper political agenda to win their vote.

I think the latter - you think the voters are ignorant, and you're happy to exploit that.

A charming thought really, but I don't see any other possibility - "My values haven't changed, my vote has" is an insult to the voting public whichever way you look at it.

So thanks Greens for these tid-bits. Strangely absent from your ads is any detailed appeal to reason. You're soliciting knee-jerk unthinking "feel good" votes. Yup - that's what I like to see. Not. Needless to say, you won't be getting my vote - I actually think about issues. Oh wait - that removes me from your target market. Sorry about that.

It's happening very slowly, but mainstream media and public persons are finally beginning to discuss the bloody red so-called "Green" agendas. Two recent examples :
Read the fine print on the Greens' tin - former Treasurer Peter Costello
Kevin Andrews MP takes a look at the Greens' ideology