That is interesting. Whilst both have been used as protest parties, the parties themselves are very adversarial in their policies. A lot of Green Party voters are women, often more mature ones. I wonder how many have been turned off by the Green Party's determinedly Transwomen are Women stance and its pro-immigration stance ("all migrants are treated as citizens in waiting").
Based off my experience, they're usually the most persistent at knocking on doors, and the lower-ranking members of the party aren't usually the hyper-insane lunatics closer to the top that are immediately off-putting.
My one-time vote for the green party was in a local election, as they were the only ones who bothered to knock on my door instead of just carpeting the floor in front of my door with leaflets. Based on that, I imagine they get: the indifferent, the left/environmentalists and the protest-votes (who overlap with the indifferent).
It's not hard to understand why Saville got away with it until his death, his persona seems really off and icky to most people here but that's just how people from Leeds act.
One man's eccentric is another's pedo.
I just find it curious, it’s the natural extension I suppose of this ‘there is no difference between us’ mentality that’s been pushed. When you see stuff like this you see just how big the gap is. And you see how much that idea has been pushed at us all. Was this the vanguard for the tranny stuff, I wonder? Softening people up for the Troon invasion?
I think so, even if many of the underlying justifications aren't completely known to the trannies and their allies.
"Critical Feminist Theory" (which is responsible for the modern "there's no differences" sentiment) managed to subvert the old definition of "Feminism" right, where the latter was once just advocacy for equal rights (which were achieved), whereas the former insisted that oppression still exists and is perpetuated at both the subconscious level (both men and women) and institutional level (also men and self-serving women) that even if not explicit, was still there.
It mostly comes down in the end to psychological stuff, like,
early psychological stuff, which was largely just philosophy and metaphysics (Kant did irreversible damage to humanity if you look at everything he inspired). It's all very "mind over matter", and Queer Theory (the basis for modern trannydom) is built on the foundation of Critical Theory to reach the conclusion that "Men can become women, and the only reason they hadn't before is because of oppression and psychological self-repression". For Critical Feminist Theory, it's also literally, "Women are just as capable at anything as men are, they just don't do stuff because of male oppression and psychologically self-limits".
I've bloviated on this subject a ton elsewhere, but to make a long-story short:
Marxism: History is driven by class struggle and that a capitalist system inevitably leads to exploitation of the working class. In subsequent "theories" you can replace "class struggle" and "working class" with anything.
Freud: Unconscious desires and internalised repression can help sustain ideological control and social domination. Freudian sexuality also posits that human sexual development begins in childhood and progresses through psychosexual stages, with unconscious desires and conflicts — especially those centred around the family — shaping personality and behaviour (this + sexology = tranny/trans kids justification).
Critical Theory: Societal structures, especially those tied to power and capitalism, must be critically examined and challenged to reveal and overcome oppression and inequality. Influenced by Marxist lens of history, but also combined with Freudian psychoanalysis. (Reality isn't necessarily objective or self-evident because individual psychology can shape perception)
Post-Structuralism: Meaning, knowledge, and truth are not fixed or objective but are shaped by language, power, and cultural context, making all interpretations inherently unstable and open to critique. (There's no such thing as an objective truth because all truths are an equation of other things)
Feminist Theory: Analyses how systems of power and oppression — particularly patriarchy, capitalism, and racism — intersect to shape gender inequality and seeks to challenge and transform those systems. (Women in society are put into enforced roles, even if they willingly enter into those roles, it's because they've been conditioned to.)
Critical Queer Theory: Societal norms construct and regulate sexuality and gender. Seeks to deconstruct binaries like heterosexual/homosexual and male/female in order to challenge systems of power and promote liberation for all gender and sexual identities. (Similar to women conditioning themselves, men and women have been conditioned into their gender-identities and sexualities by self-perpetuation. This is why trannies and trans kids didn't exist before now - conditioning and language)
You can chuck sexology in there somewhere but I'd argue Freud is enough. I'm sure you've already heard of John Money - his "
study" was discounted after the full extent of what he did came out but the concept that gender was mostly mental had already embedded itself "in the science" and fed into the arguments of the Critical Queer Theorists and Feminist Theorists that it was all just mental so the damage was already done.
TLDR: Yeah, in a way, because "mind over matter", "societal truths are a creation to oppress", "objective reality is less important than our individual perception of it", and "to end oppression we must subvert societal norms", are all embedded in Critical Theory and its derivatives. It's kind've like religious ecumenicalism: one theory (Feminist theory) isn't any less invalid than another theory (Queer theory) even if there's disagreements over minutia. You support one you support all of them. Critical race theory (BLM and shit) -> Feminist theory (Gender wage gap, patriarchy, 3rd wave feminism) -> Queer theory (Non-heteros are oppressed, men/women oppressed by being locked in a binary, trannies have always existed).
