I see much of value in this proposal, but this: ‘The GRP affirms our Human Rights position is not up for debate or discussion, unless the discussion is for the purposes of advancing the GRP’s understanding and affirmation of a future evolved feminist movement that is inclusive of newly recognized marginalized or oppressed identity groups.’
This seems too restrictive to me, and unnecessary: ‘…Human Rights position is not up for debate or discussion’
Discussion of what human rights are and should be, and what Green-Rainbow party’s human rights position is and should be, seems to me to need continual discussion in the way of educating each other and growing our thinking. For example, if there was no discussion during /after second wave feminism, we’d be stuck there.
We all can be victims of violence ( by which I mean physical bodily harm). Isn’t it the threat of violence that can make some discussion seem threatening? If we soundly affirm non-violent (that being the absence of physical bodily harm) conflict resolution, isn’t that enough to render discussion safe?
On the other hand, if we pass this law, but are ineffective in extending protection from violence into society, what have we accomplished? Nothing important, as far as I can tell.
We can all tolerate unruly discussion in a peaceful situation – If we don’t want to discuss anything further, we can ignore or leave the discussion and remain safe. Trans people are not more frail than others in this regard, or in any other.
There is no such thing a violent speech, in my opinion. Freedom of expression is important for society to be civil.

Please note The proposal has been revised as of 09-08-21. Please see revised proposal in this comment:

Title: Strengthening our Understanding of Feminism within the GRP

Sponsor:Jamie Guerin; Lisa Anne Richards
Co-sponsors:Elizabeth Humphrey; Carole Oyler; Mike Heichman; Juan Sanchez; Danny Factor; Richard Vaillette; Jordan Hodges (AKA – J. Stewart); Roni Beal; Lois Gagnon; Richard Purcell; Manny Pintado; Dan Kontoff; Tom Grzybowski
Vetting Committees: AdCom; StateCom; Policy & ProcedureCom
Floor Manager: Sean Connell
Shepherd: Carole Oyler
 
Summary: 
The first wave of feminism in the US (after the suffrage movement) created a framework to address the patriarchy that mostly accounted for affluent white women shaking traditional gender roles.
The second and third waves of feminism focused on intersectionality; it brought people of color and global feminist movements into the fold while also understanding gender as more of a spectrum. Creating these connections between gender and race strengthened the legitimacy of both movements. 
The fourth wave of feminism, that is being spearheaded by young people, is not only intersectional but also cross generational. This new wave of feminism is intertwined and identifies with the struggle that our trans siblings are facing; the same heteronormative patriarchy that the first few waves addressed. Bringing trans women and trans men into traditionally “male” and “female” spaces strengthens the feminist movements of our past and the 4th wave feminist movement as it has evolved with society’s understanding of Human Rights and Feminism. 
In no way does our affirmation of the more inclusive and broad reaching 4th wave of the feminist movement, diminish cis women’s hard won rights in our historical feminist movements. 
 
Background: 
The Green Rainbow Party has been in a tough place with trans rights recently.  There exists a minority of members who still defer to the less evolved historical waves of the feminist movement &/or right wing talking points when speaking about trans rights issues in sports, bathroom access, and transitioning.  Example- Instead of calling trans women ‘women’, they are referred to as “men with female gender identity” 
Young people are absolutely leading the way on this issue. The GRP stands to lose youth, LGBTQIA+ and other diverse, marginalized &/or oppressed identity memberships without addressing this core value and affirming in absolute terms that trans rights are human rights and our evolved understanding of the feminist movement.
 
Text of Proposal:
The GRP affirms that TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS 
The GRP understands Human Rights extend to ALL human beings; ESPECIALLY to marginalized and oppressed identity groups.
The GRP affirms our Human Rights position is not up for debate or discussion, unless the discussion is for the purposes of advancing the GRP’s understanding and affirmation of a future evolved feminist movement that is inclusive of newly recognized marginalized or oppressed identity groups.
The feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s is not the same or as broad reaching and inclusive as the coalition-based 4th wave feminism we see today. Fourth Wave Feminism provides an intersectional, cross-generational rationale for updating previous language to now explicitly include transgender rights as an essential component in order to expand and strengthen our understanding of Feminism.
The GRP recognizes that Gender Identity is, and should be, a protected class along with sex. The GRP supports full legal protections for Gender Identity and the self determination of Trans Women and Trans Men and non-binary people.
 
Implementation:
The GRP will use text within this document to write the language affirming 4th wave feminism and trans rights to create an ADDENDUM to our Party Agenda. This will ensure the GRP maintains a safe space for young and upcoming trans and LGBTQIA+ youth and adults.  Without implementing this proposal, outreach for more diverse and youth membership will continue to be hampered as well as diminish current diverse, youth, and LGBTQIA+ membership.  
 
Financial Implications:  None

Alterations to the texts of the Ten Key Values to suit current fashions is a good way of making them fashionable. The Democratic Party is far more suitable for dividing the oppressed into countable votes. “What is your issue?” is what tells the candidate what to say, The text of the value Feminism in the GRP version is one of the few that are identical with that of the GPUS. There is no easy way of altering this that would improve its place in the whole. At a moment in history when women in much of the world are suffering setbacks in the struggle for equal treatment, singling out one group of women as differently oppressed, or specially oppressed, merely invites confusion in the common struggle for human liberty, This may not be widely achievable in the short run. But their remains something strange in saying “we are more oppressed than you are.” “We want to be recognized ,embers of the largest and most vulnerable sector.” The way the proposal is worded, leaves the resulting change in the hands of anyone to make it, No matter how unfamiliar with the values involved.

Em Gee- No one has erased any category of male or female. Non binary people simply exist outside the confines of binary sex because of a myriad of reasons that are often biological, physiological, and cultural in nature. As a non binary person myself, I simply go to the mall and buy whatever I want. I dress and appear female or masculine depending on the day. People have called me sir and mam over the phone and to my face and I’m okay with either. Other people take the time to transition so they can present in the body of their choice. That’s the whole point of this trans rights debate to me— to allow trans folx access to the treatments and procedures they have deemed fit for themselves. I would like to know more about why you feel erased or denied simply because we are opening up to the new emergent ideas that sex and gender are intersectional and fluid.

Thistle Pettersen — In no way are humans sexually dimorphic outside of child rearing. Our bodies are complex. Intersex people and hermaphroditism exist. It is literally possible here in the 21st century that one can change their sex. They may not be able to reproduce but that is not the end all and be all of sex.

Please stop with this harmful nonsense. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species and it is impossible to change one’s sex with invasive surgeries, hormones and compelled speech.

I’m sorry, but what is woman, and man, and why are they meaningful and distinct categories? How many genders are there and where do those outside the binary go? You appear to be pro-segregationists, but I don’t understand why. Why not just end segregation now, and segregation forever?

You’re loosing me green party. Other people have spoken on this much better than me – but I feel erased and like my existence is denied.

-Josephine

The entire point of this document is ensure that we can have common ground and common visions when it comes to feminism. The feminism that is espoused by the DNE group mirrors right wing understandings of feminism. That is to say they are limited in scope and see women only if they menstruate and or give birth. That was literally stated by Matt Andrews on an email chain. I do not see womyn as some sum of their body parts. I see the feminism of the future being intersectional. I see the future of feminism as understanding the value of diversity and the freedom of bodily autonomy. Unfortunately the limited scope that David and Matt talk about are just that- limited. Limited to what constitutes a “woman”. Limited to issues that are non starters or already have protections in place (ie the right to choose a doctor or to have rules about club/spaces. David’s belief that trans women aren’t women is explicitly transphobic. Please tell someone like Laverne Cox they aren’t a woman. If you do so….surprise! You might also be transphobic. The comments on this proposal alone necessitate the reasons why we must pass this and defend our trans siblings. All this “since the beginning of time” stuff is narrow minded thinking that belongs in the 18th and 19th centuries. This is the 21st century and we need to seriously affirm our commitment to the ever changing ideas of sex, gender, and orientation, the spectrums that come with that, and do so in a way that will attract younger members. Because right now, young people would scoff at this debate and wonder why we even needed to have it in the first place. StateCom is the governing body of the Green Rainbow Party and as such should take this proposal up and pass it.

This proposal is necessary if we are to become/remain an inclusive party as free as humanly possible of marginalization of vulnerable groups.

Either/or implementations of proposals are irresponsible. What’s new!

Green-Rainbow Values are not decidable by State Committee majorities. Nor are their statements alterable by ignorance of the “Place of values in a world of facts.” Any careful reading of Feminism why this is the least altered of the nexts. And has national as well as international standing.

If a woman needs intimate care, such is commonly the case with disability, injury, or just becoming elderly, do they have the right to define who is a woman when they need help showering or going to the bathroom? What about women in prisons or shelters who may be subject to searches and surveillance? What about women coming from abusive relationships, extremely misogynistic societies, or just conservative cultures? It seems to me that these questions have not been resolved and yet this proposal would close the door on their discussion and inappropriately label women as transphobic for wanting sex-based rights.
This proposal makes it sound like the GRP wants the state to decide who is a woman. I prefer to let each woman decide on her own. The right to refuse consent, without being morally judged, in situations that involve intimate physical spaces is a cornerstone of women’s rights that we must re-affirm.

Rather than increase anyone’s understanding of feminism, this document offers to reduce or erase it. Feminism is “the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.” There are two sexes, male and female, and the male sex has oppressed the female one for millennia.

The first wave of feminism achieved suffrage for women and some other legal rights; the second challenged inequality more generally, campaigning notably for reproductive freedom. Both waves were mass movements that won cultural changes. Since the Second Wave, the women’s movement has been met by a male-led backlash, the latest manifestation of which is the claim that being a woman is a choice of identification.

The document states, falsely, “Transwomen are women.” This claim blatantly contradicts biological fact, given that the primary definition of “women” as female adult humans. The word “women” is heavily gendered, however, and its secondary definition is “feminine people or people who behave or identify as female.”

As such, “transwomen are women” is at best a misleading slogan, often used to coerce women who insist on the right to all-female spaces or who insist on the primary definition. The slogan is used to silence women who assert their opinions and their rights.

The proposal to formally approve this slogan is out of order and will have no effect whether “adopted” or defeated. It is not in order for a State Committee meeting to amend the platform, which clearly identifies women as adults born female.

For example, the platform states: “Women’s right to control their bodies is non-negotiable. It is essential that the option of a safe, legal abortion remains available” (II.A.1, “Reproductive Rights”).

It is not in order for StateCom to overturn a reality that humans have known, about the two sexes, since humans first appeared on earth. Its passage would reduce the political legitimacy of the State Committee meeting.

I have challenged the proposal’s assertion that such matters as sex and gender are “not up for debate or discussion” and no one has defended that wording. Such silencing is in direct contradiction to our basic values. (Is the attempt to forbid discussion the reason why only two of us have contributed to discussion of this proposal? If so, then it is evidence that intimidation works. Note that outlawing discussion is out of order!)

Women, as females, are the oppressed sex. The UN and the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution have recognized that women are a sex. As victims of male violence, women have the right to all-female spaces and to privacy in such spaces. They have the right to compete in all-female sports. They have the right to express their views of sex and gender issues.

While this “proposal” can have no legitimacy no matter how many votes it receives, the fact that it is signed by sixteen members signals a crisis situation for the Green-Rainbow Party, requiring that we reaffirm at our state convention what is in the platform about women and that we also formally affirm that women have the rights listed in the previous paragraph.

The root of this problem in the Green Party is the anti-feminist backlash that has occurred since the Second Wave. Whereas feminists on the left, like Silvia Federici and Maria Mies, have deepened the understanding of patriarchy beyond what male writers on the left, like Marx and Engels, could see, the majority of the left, including Greens, have decided that, contrary to Kate Millett and Simone de Beauvoir, gender (sex stereotyping) is wonderful.

The left has now joined a clamor for children who fail to conform to stereotypes to be “affirmed” as of the opposite sex. If their behavior doesn’t conform to the stereotypes associated with their bodies, then their bodies are to be modified accordingly.

It was lesbians who contributed greatly to the Second Wave of feminism, as women who love women. Now a backlash against lesbians has gone so far as to produce claims that same-sex orientation is “transphobic.” Lesbians report widespread harassment from males who claim to be lesbians.

To enforce an anti-feminist policy, we see here an official interpretation of feminism being offered for a vote. Not being a religion with dogmas and credos, the GRP cannot adopt such histories. It is evident that many members are unaware of basic feminist ideas, in the absence of educational discussion sessions to learn about feminist history and ideas.

It is claimed that feminism is a key value of the Green party. Yet feminism’s observations about sex and gender are being erased today and the Green Party is in the process of adopting the Democratic Party version of the patriarchal gender ideology shared by the two-party duopoly. This predicts a fall back of the Green Party into Democratic Party politics.

David Keil, West Metro region

Are we going to be taking positions on the Kronstadt Rebellion, the Cuban Revolution, and other historical events as well? We are not a political sect and I don’t think it’s appropriate to create a policy judging particular political movements in history. The strength of the Green movement is its ability to unite people from different political tendencies, including different perspectives within feminism, into a single party that can run candidates against the corporate establishment.

Among members of the Green-Rainbow Party, some define words differently from others. Some define “woman” as any person who identifies as a woman. Others use the dictionary definition: a woman is an adult human female.

This proposal accepts members who use the first definition and excludes those who use the second. Moreover, it labels its definition the only “Human Rights” one and states that it “is not up for debate or discussion”.

Well, debate and discussion is what this blog is for.

David Keil, Metrowest