The Pronoun Pile-On: How Bristol Greens Prove Paula O'Rourke Right.

The Pronoun Pile-On: How Bristol Greens Prove Paula O'Rourke Right Within 48 hours of a principled resignation, supporters proved exactly why she left.

Within 48 hours of former Lord Mayor Paula O’Rourke resigning from Bristol’s Green Party over free speech concerns, the party’s supporters did exactly what she warned about - they proved her point so thoroughly it almost looked staged.

O’Rourke left because her colleagues couldn’t handle hearing dissenting views from constituents. She cited the Supreme Court law about democratic duty. She made constitutional arguments about why councillors must listen to all citizens, not just the ones who make them comfortable.

The Green Party’s response? Deflect to trans rights. Ignore the constitutional arguments. Frame dissent as violence.

And now the broader Green ecosystem has provided the sequel: call your critics TERFs and equate them with Nazis in public discourse.

You cannot make this up.

The Receipts Arrive Fast.

On Twitter, Melissa Topping described Bristol City Council as “a bully council, that is full of misogynistic members that discriminate against anyone that doesn’t fit their own ideas.” She tagged @bristolgreen specifically, noting this is “exactly how they behave” and that “it’s worse behind closed doors.”

Topping’s complaint? The same behaviour O’Rourke cited in her resignation: ideological conformity enforced through institutional bullying.

But while Topping complained about discrimination against those who don’t fit approved ideas, another voice in the Green ecosystem was busy demonstrating exactly that discrimination.

Enter Malicia Dabrowicz, replying to a thread about O’Rourke’s resignation: “Every gender critical or terf nowadays.”

The tweet remains up. The accusation stands publicly: gender-critical people are TERFs, and by clear implication in the context of her reply thread, they’re comparable to Nazis.

This is the pattern O’Rourke described in her resignation statement. This is what happens when tribal signalling replaces substantive engagement. The goal isn’t truth or persuasion - it’s establishing in-group loyalty by identifying the approved targets.

When I asked Dabrowicz to explain what she meant, a separate tweet containing the explicit Nazi comparison was deleted. But the TERF accusation? That stays up. Apparently, calling people TERFs is defensible. Explaining the Nazi comparison isn’t.

The Irony Isn’t Lost, It’s Weaponised.

James Nelson, using He/Him pronouns, called someone “a TERF who wanted to simply cause issues internally (she isn’t the saint that she claims to be externally). She shouldn’t have been allowed to be a green councillor candidate.”

Read that again: “She shouldn’t have been allowed to be a green councillor candidate.”

This is exactly what O’Rourke was talking about. Nelson’s position is clear: certain views should disqualify people from democratic representation entirely. Not because they’re advocating violence. Not because they’re breaking the law. But because they hold gender-critical positions, the Green collective has decided are impermissible.

Topping identifies this as bullying and discrimination. Nelson demonstrates it in real-time. Dabrowicz’s TERF accusation remains visible for everyone to see.

This isn’t cognitive dissonance. This is the Green Party playbook operating exactly as designed.

The Pronoun Performance.

James Nelson announces He/Him pronouns in his bio, then declares someone “shouldn’t have been allowed to be a Green councillor candidate” because of their views.

The pronouns aren’t about inclusion. They’re a badge. Digital proof of tribal membership. Look how enlightened I am - now watch me argue against democratic representation for people who disagree.

It’s reminiscent of an earlier era when men insisted on being addressed as Mr - never Tim or Jane, always Mr, Mrs, or Miss. The formality wasn’t about clarity. It was about establishing hierarchy and demanding deference. The titles did the work of separating those who deserved respect from those who didn’t.

Now we’ve come full circle. Different badges, same function. The pronouns aren’t there to help anyone navigate language - they’re there to establish who sits in judgement and who gets judged.

It’s narcissism masquerading as allyship. The performance of identity politics has become inseparable from the policing of acceptable thought. Display the correct credentials, establish moral authority, then deploy it to exclude others.

O’Rourke cited Supreme Court law. Nelson cited pronouns and grievance. One approach treats democracy seriously. The other treats it as a theatre for performing virtue while practising authoritarian exclusion.

When self-regard becomes a political position, you get people who love themselves enough to believe their identity performance grants them authority over who deserves democratic rights.

Constitutional Duty Meets Rhetorical Terrorism.

O’Rourke didn’t make vague complaints about “party culture.” She referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in R (on the application of Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police and others [2020] UKSC 31, which established that elected representatives have a constitutional duty to hear from constituents regardless of whether those views are comfortable.

This is serious legal territory. O’Rourke wasn’t expressing personal discomfort - she was arguing that her Green colleagues were failing their statutory obligations as councillors.

The response from Green Party supporters? Call her supporters TERFs. Make Nazi comparisons in the same breath.

This is what happens when you’ve replaced democratic debate with rhetorical terrorism. You don’t need to engage with constitutional arguments when you can simply deploy “TERF” as a thought-terminating cliché.

The Green Party’s official response to O’Rourke’s resignation followed the same pattern. They thanked her for her service, then pivoted immediately to: “The Green Party stands firmly in support of trans people and will continue to fight for all those most marginalised in our community.”

Notice what’s absent? Any engagement with O’Rourke’s constitutional arguments. Any acknowledgement that councillors walking out during public comment periods might be inappropriate. Any recognition that “feeling safe” doesn’t mean “never hearing disagreement.”

Just reflexive deflection: we’re the good guys, anyone questioning our methods is attacking trans people, shut up.

What The Pile-On Reveals.

Strip away the rhetoric about protecting vulnerable communities, and what you’re left with is remarkably simple: the Green Party ecosystem cannot tolerate dissent.

Not because dissent is dangerous. But because acknowledging legitimate criticism would require the collective to examine its own behaviour, and that examination might reveal contradictions the hive cannot afford to process.

O’Rourke raised constitutional arguments. She cited Supreme Court precedent. She made the case that councillors walking out during public comment periods fail basic democratic standards.

The response? Ignore the legal arguments. Pivot to trans rights. Frame her departure as abandonment rather than principle. Call critics TERFs publicly and leave those accusations standing for all to see.

This is institutional failure dressed up as moral clarity.

The Question Green Leadership Won’t Answer.

Does Bristol Green Party leadership support calling gender-critical constituents TERFs? Do they support the Nazi comparisons made publicly by their supporters?

If yes, say so publicly. Own the position. Defend it with actual arguments instead of deflection.

If not, will you publicly distance yourselves from this rhetoric? Will you acknowledge that this behaviour might be exactly what O’Rourke was talking about when she cited democratic duty?

Because right now, the only coherent message coming from the Green ecosystem is this: we cannot engage with criticism, so we’ll label critics as TERFs, make Nazi comparisons, and hope that’s enough to shut down democratic debate.

That’s not progressive politics. That’s not inclusive governance. That’s not even effective activism.

It’s just cowardice with a moral superiority complex.

What Happens Next.

O’Rourke’s resignation stripped the Greens of their governing majority. They now hold 48.6% of council seats - still the largest bloc, but without the numbers to govern alone.

One person - maintaining their self-governance, refusing to surrender judgment to the collective, citing constitutional precedent over tribal allegiance - changed Bristol’s political landscape.

The Green Party will continue doing what they do: deflecting, performing, signalling tribal loyalty, and calling critics TERFs. The pattern is too deeply embedded to change.

But other councillors are watching. Other members are watching. Other voters are watching.

And they’re seeing exactly what happens when you raise legitimate concerns about democratic responsibility: you get called a TERF, someone makes Nazi comparisons, and the collective closes ranks while claiming they’re protecting vulnerable communities.

Bottom Line.

Paula O’Rourke left Bristol’s Green Party citing constitutional duty and democratic principle. Within 48 hours, party supporters proved exactly why - by calling critics TERFs and making Nazi comparisons rather than engaging with her constitutional arguments.

The former Lord Mayor maintained her integrity by leaving. The Green ecosystem maintained its collective identity by attacking her for it.

Neither side will convince the other.

But only one side needs to resort to TERF accusations and Nazi comparisons instead of addressing the actual arguments.