UK ‘Green’ Party Wants The Words ‘mother’ And ‘father’ ERASED
The far-left British ‘green’ party is going to war against language, having decided the words “mother” and “father” are no longer fit for its members
Ahead of its conference in Brighton this weekend, Zack Polanski’s party has circulated an ‘Inclusive Terminology Guidance’ telling activists to drop “mothers and fathers” for “parents and carers”, and warning that the wrong vocabulary can create “unwelcoming or exclusionary” environments and feed into bullying and harassment under the party’s own code of conduct.
The Telegraph reports that the document, already in use as equalities training, brands a run of ordinary English “unacceptable”, then tells members what to say instead.
‘Sexual preference’ is out because it “implies that attraction is a choice”.
‘Transsexual’ is out because it “does not encompass non-binary people”.
‘Homosexual’ is discouraged for the same reason.
‘Lunatic’ and ‘nutter’ are non-compliant because they “reinforce negative stereotypes and stigma about mental health”.
‘Elderly’, ‘youngster’, ‘able-bodied’, ‘sex-change’, ‘female politician’ and ‘lady doctor’ are all on the discouraged list.
Gendered job titles go too: ‘chair’, not ‘chairman’; ‘police officer’, not ‘policeman’.
The race section is the same project in different clothes. Members are steered toward “global majority”, described as an umbrella for people of Black, Asian, Brown, Indigenous and Latin American heritage, on the grounds that these groups are most of the world’s population and are “often minoritised” in countries such as the UK.
‘Brown’ should be “used with caution,” while “racially minoritised” is preferred because it “emphasises that minority status is created by social and power structures, rather than being inherent”.
“Black, Asian and minority ethnic” is to be handled carefully, because “many people are uncomfortable with grouping diverse experiences under a single label”.
A section titled “What if I get it wrong?” tells members “it’s OK to make mistakes from time to time”, provided they are trying to be more “inclusive”.
The approved response is to apologise, thank the person who corrected you, and “adjust your language moving forward”.
Then the stick: “repeated or deliberate behaviour may be considered harassment, which is unlawful”.
A Green Party spokesman told the Telegraph and the Daily Mail:
“This is an existing and standard equalities training document, similar to those found in other organisations that also take equalities seriously. It is a guide and nothing else.”
The spokesman did not say when it was published.
The Free Speech Union called it “absolutely mental”.
Conservative Party chairman Kevin Hollinrake said:
“The Greens are obsessed with policing people’s language and thoughts in the name of their increasingly bizarre crusade against ordinary Brits.
Last week they were dictating who people spend time with and what jokes they make. Now they’re attempting to prohibit perfectly normal words like ‘mother’ and ‘father’.”
He added, “This extraordinary obsession with censoring how people speak and behave in their everyday lives is made even more nonsensical by Polanski’s inability to get a grip of the vile antisemitism within his own party.”
He further said that Polanski should “look closer to home before lecturing others about what they can and cannot say.”
JK Rowling answered in the only register the document deserves:
“Speaking as the elderly mother of three youngsters, who hasn’t had a sex change and knows many homosexuals, it is my able-bodied and sexually-preferred opinion that the Greens are turning into total nutters.”
None of this arrives in a vacuum. Polanski took leadership of the party in September 2025. Membership has since jumped from about 68,000 to 200,000 by March 2026, with 441 new councillors elected in May, a haul swollen by left-wing activists who left Labour under Sir Keir Starmer after Polanski put Palestinian activism and transgender rights ahead of anything resembling environmental policy.
A YouGov poll this week found Britons now rate the Greens “weak, out of touch, incompetent and serving their own interests”, with net favourability sliding from plus five to minus 19 on his watch.
The language guide is the internal version of positions the party has already taken in public. Last year, on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Polanski was asked if a woman can have a penis and answered yes.
He called biological sex “not necessarily” binary, described gender as a “spectrum”, and claimed he knew better than the UK Supreme Court, whose April 2025 ruling in For Women Scotland had defined sex under the Equality Act as biological sex at birth.
By March 2026 a leaked ‘green’ dossier was proposing a Department of Migration that would work with education authorities to “disseminate knowledge” in classrooms about “the situations from which those seeking asylum and resettling refugees are fleeing, and the need for and moral obligation of asylum and humanitarian protection.”
In May, Scotland’s loosened rules produced Green MSP Dr Q Manivannan, a transgender Tamil immigrant on a temporary student visa, without British citizenship or permanent residence.
The victory speech introduced “a transgender Tamil immigrant” whose pronouns are “they/them”, and included the claim that “Transness is Blackness. Transness is womanhood. Transness is disability.”
A party that will not say mother and father had already elected someone for whom every category is interchangeable.
In July, two weeks after Reform’s Ann Widdecombe was killed in a hammer attack at her Dartmoor home, Polanski shared an Instagram post of a man in a T-shirt bearing a guillotine and the line “We’re only making plans for Nigel.”
Reform UK reported him to the Metropolitan Police for incitement. He later unshared it.
A party spokesman said he “unequivocally does not support this type of dangerous message” and had accepted the collaboration “without realising there was more to it.”
Nigel Farage said:
“If I was to post anything as inciteful then I would expect to be arrested, and so should Polanski.”
The same week as the language guide, the Mail on Sunday reported ‘Green’ training that told members to police friends’ jokes, log “what happened, including dates, times, locations”, and audit the race of their closest friends to fight “affinity bias”.
The attempt to retire “mother” and “father” flattens a biological relation into an administrative one.
The Communist Manifesto treats the charge of wanting to abolish the family as a boast as much as an accusation, and answers it by declaring that the bourgeois family vanishes with capital. Engels, in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, cast the monogamous household as a property arrangement whose job was to produce heirs, and looked forward to its supersession once private property was abolished.
Later Western Marxism kept the target and dropped the economics. The family became the workshop in which “oppressive” norms, sex roles, and authority were said to be reproduced.
Erasing words is how that is done without a manifesto. “Mother” names a woman who carried a child. “Father” names the man who fathered one. “Carer” names a function anyone can be assigned.
Once the specific words are marked as harmful, the specific institution becomes harder to defend, because the defence has to be made in the replacement language.
This is exactly what George Orwell warned of in 1984.
A party that already tells children they owe a moral debt to asylum policy, that already treats sex as a spectrum, and that already elevates identity over citizenship, has every reason to want “mother” and “father” filed as unacceptable.
The family is the rival loyalty. Marxism has always understood that. The ‘Green’ guide is the HR version.
See more here modernity.news
Header image: Bloomberg.com
Bold emphasis added
Seriously
| #
Polanski appears to have been bullied extensively for being a nutter. His Followers increase has been repeated throughout history so not surprising… but still depressing, unfathomable 🤨… more deranged you are, the more likely to have infinite power over some populace!!
Seriously, what if these people procreate? Is the baby just going to call them ‘Harold or Maude’? ‘Parent #1 or parent #2, Carer #1 #2….to differentiate? Obviously madness…but then we as a species tend to fall right along with them and blow up the world…repeatedly….SIGH…
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Socialism is Communism managed by a gang (of elite). Socialism cannot exist without a ruling class to determine who gets what and who does what (to support the state). And human nature determines this kind of power is very corrupting and some people are unfairly favored under Communism.
Marx also knew that a communist economy would not work (human nature says that meeting quotas lacks all kinds of real motivations to do well and report real numbers). Things eventually stagnate. As Margaret Thatcher said, “It works until they run out of other people’s money (as their economy does not generate or create wealth). Rather, it destroys wealth. Thus, it works for a while in countries that have done well with a free market and then subverted by socialism/Marxism.
Why is Marxism so appealing? The basic family unit is socialist as the weakest individual gets the most support and resources. Marx was appealing to that kind of life, ignoring that, as the individuals grow up and mature, they learn how to work, be responsible, plan ahead, and be truly productive, running their subsequent family perforce as a socialist unit.
The family unit has to go for Marxism to exist, as loyalty to these units is counter to worshipping the state. And, the kids need to be taught never to grow up into mature, responsible people. We have done that in our public schools, with lots of useful idiots relating to Marxism through their life in the family unit, i.e., socialist life. Also, religion has to go as it is another form of loyalty that the communist state cannot tolerate.
Reply
Aaron
| #
Who cares what ‘they’ want
Reply