The Spectator reports:
Inside the Green party’s Orwellian language guide
The Green party has produced an Orwellian glossary of ‘unacceptable’ language ahead of its conference this weekend. Its new ‘Inclusive Terminology Guidance’ instructs members to stop using words and phrases including ‘elderly’, ‘female politician’ and ‘mothers and fathers’. Also discouraged are ‘able-bodied’, ‘sex-change’, ‘homosexual’, ‘lady doctor’, ‘youngster’ and ‘sexual preference’.
Oh dear, we musn't trigger the Green snowflakes with unacceptable language.
There is no such thing as unacceptable language except maybe at certain times or places.
There's no excuse for praising Nazis at Auschwitz for example (or praising Nazis at any time for that matter, as they do in Ukraine).
According to The Telegraph, the Greens are also worried about being labeled TERFS:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/10/01/greens-ban-gender-critical-group-from-conference/
Greens ban gender-critical group from conference
Green Women’s Declaration told its presence would make ‘trans members feel unsafe’
So how big a risk is this?
According to AI, the 2021 census in England and Wales found that 0.5% of people aged 16 and over reported a gender identity different from their sex registered at birth. That seems hard to believe but let's run with it.
So let's assume that the Green Party has around 230,000 members as claimed by AI, then that makes around 1150 potentially trans members if the Greens reflect the census percentage.
Is that number of members truly worth banning alternative viewpoints for?
But then again, this is not half as unsafe as being a trans connected to Chinese parents as the New York Post reports:
A grandmother who allegedly gunned down her transgender New York Times executive son-in-law accused him of inspiring her grandson to wear his sister’s dresses, court documents show.