This proposal is about one issue. Should the Green Party of the U.S. dis-accredit a state party for differences on a highly controversial
topic that is part of an international discussion between women, trans persons and gay men and lesbians about issues and laws that affect all of them. This discussion is entirely in order, is important and relative to all and should not be shut down by expelling a
state party with a minority point of view. The GPUS has historically agreed to disagree on many issues. It could be charged that
any one of these differing points of view like on Syria and Palestine for instance could be charged with the broad brush of being against our 10 key values. We can’t kick out parties without violating grass roots democracy on topics that are still under discussion on the
left and in the progressive movement without risking making mistakes in platform and policy issues..
Linda Thompson MA GRP NC Delegate

We need to think about the future of the party whether Mr. Keil likes it or not.

We are at a point in history and where we stand will have real consequences for the Grp and the trans people we claim.to stand with in the future. They are low hanging fruit, easy to target but this is how it always begins.

It’s not about age it’s about the future…is Mr Keils stance forward thinking? Is it going to place us in a position of strength? Will more young people join the party? Are we staying true to our stand for human rights?

All these things matter and yes no one should want people with hateful views in the party and Georgia has expressed and doubled down on views that are hateful. This has been expressed not.only.by.those directly.impacted by Georgia’s stance but the women’s Caucus diversity caucus youth Caucusanf 17 other states and chapters…..are they all wrong? The majority of national delegates have also expressed their views to mr Keil.and others for over a year. Om the lost.Again I will remind . Youthat trans people have been called the tranny taliban, misgendered, asked about how they use the bathroom? Yet someone gets called a bigot for siding with these ppl.who.have expressed this and we are the bullies…..

Is this welcome rhetoric?. Is this what we want to have deep discussions about?

Monolithic????

So what do you suggest Oligarchy where the voice of the few rule. Where somehow your point of view along with with very few ppl that align with those views get to determine what we discuss and what we dont….Their is nothing left to discuss. This is nothing but a empty symbolic gesture that will not change nationals point of view, anyone’s point of view who isn’t all ready in your side, or help the GRP in any way shape or form. All this would do is give. a W to the anti trans bigots who stand with Georgia nd the DNE….and then what do you expect people to come running to join, do you see a large group of funds being donated through our fundraising director, is our presence going to grow?

The answer is No nothing beneficial but so much to lose. I will continue to post as many times as need be because this is the lives of my friends and family we are trying to discuss and I will not stand for it.

The proposal we will vote on tomorrow states, “we oppose the petition for punitive action.” The justification given for punitive action is that member parties are not permitted to express a different view from a certain clause in the Platform valued by the petitioners. The views of members of all ages are of value. The concept of a monolithic party that expels dissenters is not a new one, however.

John, I’m all for respectful dialogue when people are trying to reach the same goal. I don’t think that’s the case here. There seems to be a culture in the GRP to avoid conflict at any cost. That cost can sometimes be very high. I believe this is one of those times. Please take what Juan and Jordan have said to heart. They will inherit this party if we can keep if from being derailed by issues that have already been settled, like human rights for all. Their generation should be leading us into the future, not having to drag us kicking and screaming out of the last century.

Don’t get confused John B. This isn’t an “argument about how we argue”. The whole process of discussion, mediation, attempted conflict resolution has already played out on National and has been going on for over a year. GA refused to heed the advice of Lavender Caucus, WOMEN’S CAUCUS and more and instead they doubled down on their Anti-trans stance. What this is about is whether or not the GRP would like to fiercely defend GA’s hyjacked party’s right to be anti-trans or not.
Most of us would rather defend trans roghts and see the Green Party members in GA liberated to form a new affiliated out if the clutches of those on an anti-trans crusade.
Peace!

Don’t get confused John B. This isn’t an “argument about how we argue”. The whole process of discussion, mediation, attempted conflict resolution has already played out on National and has been going on for over a year. GA refused to heed the advice of Lavender Caucus, WOMEN’S CAUCUS and more and instead they doubled down on their Anti-trans stance. What this is about is whether or not the GRP would like to fiercely defend GA’s hyjacked party’s right to be anti-trans or not.
Most of us would rather defend trans roghts and see the Green Party members in GA liberated to form a new affiliated out if the clutches of those on an anti-trans crusade.
Peace!

Also this discussion has been happening with GA GP for over a year and Georgia doubled down. So no it’s no longer about how we argue instead whether or not we stand with our trans community or a state green chapter that has doubled down, ran people off national, has shared articles calling trans people tranny taliban, calling one of our trqns national members who identifies a s female Mr, joined in asking a memwbr how do they pee, and the list goes on. I’m sorry you can’t see any of this Mr. Blumenstiel but you can’t day you care about the future.of the party yet not acknowledge the blatant anti trans crusade that has been happening and instead attack those who call it out. A person who really cared would abstain if they are bit informed enough.

Because human rights are human rights John. The problem.with the party is thay we all want to be intellectuals and have deep discussions. Please tell me where that has gotten us?

And yes John it’d important to understand intent and motive behind what people do in regards to human rights. I’m sorry that you don’t see the importance in this but that does not make me any less concerned in the livelihood of our party or dissway me from fighting for what I know is right.

Whether or not you see it you’re taking the side of the oppressor John. We’ve said time and time that human rights aren’t up for discussion and that is a deeply held belief that I and many others hold.

As you stated, their will be a time wheb you are no longer here and your words today convince me that you plan on taking the party with you. Instead of seeing passion you see pain, instead of seeing us fighting for the oppressed you take it as anger and name calling. Their is nothing I’m going to say that will change your mind. We are on the right side here John and we are the people who will inherit the party. What do you intend to leave us with by entertaining this further when so many of your fellow greens and the majority of national.stand against this?

From my perspective, this discussion has turned more into an argument about how we argue. If we had the ability to address and maintain this very serious issue from a higher level political, philosophical and scientific point of view we may have been much more productive in enhancing one another’s understanding. However, IMO, it has become destructive due to its decent into personal animus. When reasoned argument surrenders to assuming ill intent of another’s motives. resorts to inflammatory charges of alt-right ideology or other shaming epithets, we poison the water of dialogue. We can no longer listen and we head down a path in which we all become lost. A political party can and must have the tools to overcome serious differences while maintaining our ability grow and strengthen our cause.

The left, today, is fragmented and under increasing pressure by the corporate, repressive and imperialist state. A counterbalancing political movement is an absolute necessity. We do in fact face existential crises. The powers that be want nothing more than a demise of the progressive movement so that they can march forward with their own agenda which threatens
ALL of our lives, liberties and ability to fulfill our individual and collective human potential.
This is an all inclusive threat, regardless of age, race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation/sexual self identity or whatever fragmented categories the ruling class want to split us into. Our Green Values counter
this threat. Not much else does, especially in the realm of the economic and political world.

It is our responsibility as Greens, part of a global Green movement to continue our efforts for, as we like to say, “People, Planet and Peace” How do we accomplish this?. One is by refusing to run away from, or push away, those with whom we have major differences of understanding.

This current conflict between two critical and valued constituencies of our Green movement has the potential
of creating an irreparable schism within this essential Green movement. All parties must step
back from the brink, consider long term consequences of our actions and not allow fear of the other
and manipulation by the ruling class to divide and conquer us.

The extreme right in this country has been plotting and promoting their agenda for at least the past 50 years. They clearly have the upper hand and they are not going away. The only ones in danger of going away are we, the GP, and any semblance of an organized people driven progressive counterbalance. Many of us here today, will not be here 5,10,15 years from now. We hope the party will. We know the right wing, fascistic elements of our country will. If we think that splintering into a multitude of factions, each attending to their own constituency can survive alone, much less succeed in meeting their needs, I personally feel we are sadly delusional.

We need each other. The county and the world need Green values. We must learn the skills of negotiation and conflict resolution not the nihilism of implosion and self sabotage.

“As alternatives to censuring, suspending, or expelling state parties or individual members on issues of sex and gender we advocate: education, democratic discussion, and debates. These must be free of insults, slurs, threats, and profane language.”

If in 2021 we still have people in Green leadership who cannot comprehend that trans men are men, trans women are women, and that trans-exclusionary radical feminism is oppression and has zero place in the Green Party, then expelling or censuring them is a no-brainer. If people are truly ignorant, then yes education and informative discussion are merited. Trans validity, however, is not up for debate. Also, hiding behind a façade of “civility” so that one can invalidate trans folx out of one side of their mouth and cry about being called a transphobe out of the other is simply laughable.

Trans women are women and should be involved in discussions about women-only spaces. ON PERIODT.

UGH…. * creating

Thank you Juan,
After reading the article, it is apparent THIS conversation has been going on since 2009 and in a respectful way; in my opinion, unlike the way GAGP and their supporters have inserted this conversation in the GPUS and GRP. No wonder the LGBTQIA+ community has been questioning the motives of those who want to bring about this conversation from the point of view of those who seem to have refused to listen to over a decade long conversation and are under the impression we all here in the GPUS and the GRP need to rehash and beat the dead horse – for lack of a better word (I do not like those kinds of phrases but in this instance it actually seems appropriate)
What a lovely, inspiring and wholehearted comment Juan, showing your integrity and convictions to do what is createing true unity based on compassion and love – an example of why I joined the GP in the first place.

Today is the international transgender day of visibility. I leave you with this article and a quote or chant “Never forget my history, trans people fought for me” The first rock at stonewall was thrown by a black trans women named Marsha P Johnson who along eith Sylvia Rivera and others became advocates for the entire lgbtq+ community. They didn’t leave out the lesbians, gays, intersex etc because they understood as I do that If they come.for one of us they come for all of us and that we must stick together. I will fight for my trans brothers and sisters as they have fought and sacrificed for me and the rest of the Lgbtq community to be provided the same human rights and respect that we take for granted today.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/trans-day-of-visibility-offers-chance-for-community-to-stand-in-solidarity-and-support-157213

We’re at 169 reactions to date. Let’s welcome however many more come in before the presentations and voting on Thursday starting at 7pm Has everyone RSVP’d at https://www.green-rainbow.org/2021_spring_statecomm_rsvp? Let’s especially welcome contributions here by any who haven’t commented yet. This is also a time for exchanging questions about the proposal.

I just want to say that I hope y’all keep that same energy when trans rights are on the chopping block (again) here in Massachusetts (please actually READ this link. https://www.green-rainbow.org/yes_on_question_3_2018 ) like they are right this very moment in several Southern states (just one example https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/arkansas-governor-signs-bill-allowing-medical-workers-to-refuse-treatment-to-lgbtq-people). I hope the sponsors of this proposal will be defending trans rights as fiercely, as obsessively, and as relentless as some of them are attacking them on national and as fiercely as they are defending the hyjacked GAGP’s right to destroy them. Something tells me they won’t be. I am no fortune teller , but I do foresee that Pioneer Valley Chapter and most likely Central Mass will be standing on the right side of history.
You want to talk about unity? Around 90% of the party is pretty firmly and solidly united around this issue as is the lavender caucus, the women’s caucus, the Diversity Commitee, the Youth caucus 17 state and locals. I guess they are all as Linda would say “young and inexperienced” though, right?. Also, That’s some “faction”. I’m super-impressed.
Please stand on the right side of history GRP.
in service and solidarity,
Jamie Guerin

David R
I listened to both sides of this issue, I heard 1st hand GAGP claim a falsehood regarding children and gender blockers. The Lavender Caucus was up front and truthful. I worked on the front lines at Bay State Medical Center in Springfield Massachusetts this Pandenmic is NO HOAX, the only conspiracy is the thought process you use to describe anything that does not fit your Psychiatric defiance of all things actual and real. I will the leave the GRP if this proposal passes so that you and your band of renegade wordsmiths can continue to type meaningless words, but will I continue to be on the streets doing my Activist role without the GRP Brand and be very happy not listening to worthless words of udder nonsense that are simply words without meaningful humane results.
FULLY VACCINATED
Rick Purcell
Co Chair
PVGRP

My health is not even fully recovered from my 2018 statewide run. That was not fun for me. That was a sacrifice I made and it was an act of service. Juan and I both got over the 3% threshold to secure our 2020 ballot line and the Pioneer Valley chapter not only put up all the candidates, but collected more than HALF of the signatures needed to get our slate on the ballot. Our presense is consistent in our community and like Elizabeth said we WILL continue our work regardless of what happens. If this proposal passes we will not be able to continue our work as a part of the GRP. I put my heart and soul, my energy, my time into growing the GRP. I put my health and name and reputation on the line as a candidate for this party. You bet I am invested in the vitality of this party and in having it grow, evolve, and thrive. But…No, I do not wish to be associated with a party that goes on record taking
a backwards anti-trans stance due to a proposal that will only be a symbolic gesture as our delegates will vote they way they wish as we have already and and that will serve as nothing but putting the power of our state party behind David Keil’ s personal anti-trans crusade and behind his very tiny DNE faction on National and in the other orgs he is bringing this to. I can’t be a part of a party that is unsafe for my community, specifically my trans siblings. I and others reserve that right and reserve the right to make this very clear. Let ot be know (again) We are and have always been FULLY TRANSPARENT in word and in deed unlike the delegates who kept us in the dark regarding what was really happening on National to empower their own personal agenda. I will ask again for the sponsors to end this madness and to withdraw this very unpopular proposal. If not, you can count on me to put my heart amd soul, energy, time, health, name, and reputation into beating it and to working to make this a party that holds true to its values and a party that I am proud to be a part of.
Ps. I had relatives die to COVID19 This is not as David Rolde states a “hoax pandemic”

Darn auto correct… *seceding – not succeeding

David I did not accuse in my comments either.

I said: we hear from you the slanted, manipulation of facts in order to support your false claims & I said: Please stop belittling our convictions of our values and twisting them to support your narrative of bullying, “name calling” and “purge”.

Our chapter discussion about succeeding was NOT a discussion about how we would affect the vote.

Our discussion was about whether or not we all would want our names and political/social reputations to be associated with a state party that stood in solidarity with, and defense of, another state party within the GPUS federation that conflicted with GPUS, GRP and our own core values, the platform we believe in and our membership/chapter commitments to the GRP/GPUS.

We discussed the implications and consequences to our integrity and ability to be trusted in our community, and coalition work we are deeply dedicated to that requires a high level of trust and integrity.

Not to mention two of our chapter members hold positions within their local government which also requires a high level of integrity and trust.

We discussed the lose our party has already felt due to other GPUS states’ National Committee delegates retreating from the NC back to their state parties, leaving GPUS caucuses and committees, or leaving the GPUS altogether and GRP members announcing leaving the state party in order to escape this toxic discussion you and the sponsors of this proposal are insisting our party be held hostage to partake in.

TO BE CLEAR, those of us that had these serious discussions to succeed, will not stand in the way of any of our chapter members that change their minds and want to either form their own GRP chapter or keep the PVC after we leave BUT…

LET IT BE KNOWN, if we are forced to leave the GRP, this does not mean we will be stopping our work and deep dedication to our local communities or not work with individual GRP members we have formed good respectful working relationships with such as with the Central MA Chapter coalition work or even the GPUS if it is not also associated with these conflicts to our values and conscience.

The active members that have come to this difficult decision, will be our own Eco-socialist Pioneer Valley political/activist group in order to continue our community and coalition work with integrity and trustworthiness.

I think it is very important for GRP Statecom to adopt this proposal. It would be very wrong to kick the Georgia Green Party out of the GPUS over this issue. The members of the Georgia Green Party are clearly adhering to the Green Ten Key Values. The platform amendment at the Georgia Green Party state convention last year was clearly motivated by a concern for the protection of sex-based rights for women, and a concern about potentially harmful medical interventions on children. They were clearly not motivated by any kind of hatred for transgender people. In their platform decision Georgia Green Party called for the protection of the rights of transgender people as well as for the protection of women’s sex-based rights. I am not saying that I agree with the Georgia Green Party resolution as worded, or that MA GRP should take a similar position. I am saying that it is wrong to expel Green Party bodies or individuals who take such a position based on legitimate concerns that are in line with the key values. Furthermore, the Georgia Green Party platform, on this issue (I haven’t read their entire platform), does not contradict the GPUS Platform which has a long section on Women’s Rights that is clearly based on sex-based rights. Even if a state party were to actually take a position in contradiction to the GPUS Platform, that would be ok and not grounds for expulsion, but Georgia Green Party have not even contradicted the national platform.

The conflation of gender-based rights and sex-based rights, the erasure of biological sex as a concept, and the collapse of the concepts of male and female into a non-biological concept of gender, is a new cultural phenomenon that I first encountered about 15 years ago. Before the advent of this cultural phenomenon, almost everyone considered “woman” to be a sex-based category. There was already a big movement to stop the oppression of people who did not conform to the gender of their sex. But there was not a contradiction of gender-based rights over sex-based women’s rights. This contradiction is new. I know hundreds of Green Party activists, feminists, other progressive activists, and people from various cultures and sub-cultures and age cohorts on both sides of this issue and indeed all with their own nuanced opinions. It is a rapid and unstable cultural change. There are working class people in the U.S. with various opinions. A person’s opinion on this issue does not necessarily correlate with their opinion on any other political issue. The Green Party is a grassroots large-tent party. State Green Parties and the GPUS may take a position on gender-based rights and sex-based rights, but if we start kicking out state Green Parties or other GP formations or individuals over how they feel about this issue, then we will be dividing the population of people who need to stand up against corporate tyranny.

This gender/sex issue is not the most important issue to me. The most important issue now is to challenge the narrative around the fake pandemic, and the mass injections of experimental unapproved gene-therapy drugs, and the totalitarian erasure of all civil liberties that happened last year and that is potentially being carried forward with “vaccine passports”. The sponsors of this proposal that I am commenting on do not all agree on this most important issue. David Keil, and I assume Matt Andrews as well, support medical tyranny around the hoax pandemic. Whereas Maureen is a member of my Greens Against Covid Repression group, and Elie has expressed opposition to the tyranny too.

Conscience* srry I type on my phone so many typos

It should never get to the point where we are trying to boot members out do their is no reason to entertain your hypothetical scenario. This is one situation and has been addressed in one way. To entertain what thr chapter will do in the future for further situations is a disservice to the GRP. Your attempt to corner us is for naught Mr Keil because we are all about solidarity. At no point has anyone said they want to kick out members and yet you continue to entertain this possibility. Some would say that someone who fears something that hasn’t been proposed may have a guilty consignee and fear their doings may cause a conversation to happen in the future but it is not my call to determine why you continue to insist nor do I or any other member I’ve spoken with intend on kicking GRP members out. Asking you to resign isn’t telling you to leave but if you did I wouldn’t fight for you to stay so their is that. Hope that answers you r question.

I didn’t accuse. I wrote: “Am I mistaken to perceive possible bullying of a chapter member by virtue of false public claims that the chapter would unanimously ‘secede’, after the chapter member abstained on that secession threat? Will that chapter later threaten secession on some other issue, such as its possible future wish that dissenters in the GRP be expelled for dissenting?”

The first question has been addressed and not the second.

And indeed the threat to walk out has been very effective in influencing the pre-voting discussion of this proposal.

For the record David Keil,
I believe in your most recent comment you are referring to the section of the PVC statement posted on the first page of comments under this proposal (see quoted section below).

“PVC Members have had serious and unanimous discussions around seceding the chapter from the GRP if this proposal passes. We believe passing this proposal will create an unsafe place and hostile atmosphere for trans people.”

The member you mention from our chapter, who first voted abstain and voluntarily without prompt, voiced their reasoning for their vote as they had not been able to familiarize themselves enough and fully evaluate the issue and the background of Matt’s proposal (their exact reasoning is logged in our chapter meeting minutes and is available upon request).

That member was then RESPECTFULLY asked if they were willing to step aside.

Later, that member communicated their willingness to step aside via email, even after we had already posted the chapter’s statement that does not require their decision to step aside.

Yet again, we hear from you the slanted, manipulation of facts in order to support your false claims to paint those with strong convictions to their values – values we thought were unanimously held by our party – standing in solidarity with a vulnerable identity group under attack politically on the far right of the US political stage.

Please stop belittling our convictions of our values and twisting them to support your narrative of bullying, “name calling” and “purge”.

Again with the gaslighting from David Keil. No one bullied any of our members, we reached out to understand why he chose to do so and then why he chose to announce it and expressed our thoughts on him doing so.No one told him to change his vote or called him.any names or threats etc. Mr Keil loves to throw the word around bullying so much.

Fascinating for someone who has such a narrow view of the term women they sure have a broad view of what constitutes bullying. I’m no expert but as a person who was bullied, co founded my hs gsa, served 2 terms on the Mass council for lgbt youth, helped find and run more then 2 lgbtq+ youth groups I can tell you their experience of bullying.

Getting kicked out of their home to the streets

Being told to kill themselves that they are abominations by family and acquaintances

Being told that hey are a shame a pariah to society.

Being chased home after school.

Getting jumped, spat on, and the list goes on

None of this or anything even remotely close was done to Bryan C who Mr . keil states we’ve bullied.

Using the word “callous” to describe proposal sponsors is consistent with voting “no”. Kind of a super-no. Sounds like the loss of a state party is of no concern in our wish to avoid callousness, or perhaps to escape bullying.

The issue at hand is under consideration in a national body, with caucuses and other states having taken positions already. The next StateCom would be perhaps in July, too late to affect deliberations in the Accreditation Committee but not too late for NC deliberations … on expelling a state party and setting up a basis for expelling any dissenting member of any state party.

I repeat that it seems mandatory for NC members and others to facilitate the expression of members’ opinions on this crucial matter of the expulsion of Georgia. Your “no” vote, David Spanagel, will not be recorded in GRP history as a vote against callousness, but a vote for accepting the expulsion of a state party for ideological offenses with all that this implies. Be sure that’s what you want.

Am I mistaken to perceive possible bullying of a chapter member by virtue of false public claims that the chapter would unanimously “secede”, after the chapter member abstained on that secession threat? Will that chapter later threaten secession on some other issue, such as its possible future wish that dissenters in the GRP be expelled for dissenting?