Thus far I have stayed aloof from this entire discussion – honestly feeling (even after reading all of the links that Elizabeth so helpfully provided) that I have no way to gain meaningful insight into a situation whose original antagonists are so remote from my circle of contact.

Individuals who I respect deeply in the state party have lined up on either side of this particular dispute, and are evidently digging themselves into positions that are harder and harder to reconcile. That is a recipe for disintegration.
My own cis-male gender identity puts me at such a disadvantage (with respect to taking a legitimate position on the merits or harms of anyone signing the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights) that my instinct is to abstain on any proposal whose effect would either validate or censure that act in itself. I am even tempted to call upon all cis-male StateCom delegates to join me (on April 1) in refraining from speaking either for or against the proposal, so that our women and transgender colleagues can fully have the floor to share their views and concerns about the divisive issue that provoked the problematic situation in Georgia’s Green Party in the first place.
My heart, however, stands in total solidarity with brother Mike Heichman’s most recent plea, which I repeat here in part:
“I wonder how much this controversy has slowed down the positive energy and work of our party.
I wonder how much this controversy has moved us into 2 warring camps at the expense of deepening our comradely spirit.
I wonder how many of us will believe that this controversy was worth it when there is no light and life left in our party.
I wonder how much love and respect still lives in our party.
Sisters, Brothers, Siblings, I repeat my request that the sponsors of this proposal withdraw it before the upcoming statecom meeting.”

“Amendments” proposed in this forum have been rejections of the no-expulsions proposal and demands to withdraw it. There is currently no negotiation over amendments, as far as I know. We have six days until this proposal comes up formally for vote. Those who oppose it may wish to ask for an emergency counter-proposal.

We have been hearing (falsely) that even to propose non-expulsion is actually the same as upholding the views that the Georgia state party; that is, to incur the penalty of expulsion. Thus many are openly campaigning already to purge the GRP.

Expulsion of the GaGP would launch a series of political expulsions in the GPUS. Rejection of the no-expulsions proposal by the GRP would tend to confirm that dissenting views are not accepted in the GRP, with all the consequences that would follow.

Elizabeth, standing up for human rights and defending our values is not “vitriol”. Interjecting this well known wedge issue that solits the party and interjecting anti-trans ideology into the party to.cahnge we we are and what we stand for IS VITRIOL and an ideological attack ob out party from as the DNE website shows INTERNATIONAL AND OUTSIDE FORCES. Accusing people who are defending themselves and defending trans rights and our values of “Vitriol” is PROJECTION AND GASLIGHTING. It’s just plain gross!
Sponsors, Withdraw this proposal or accept Mike H. and Juan’s ammendements

I concur with Jamie and stand with Mike Heichman, Juan Sanchez and Jamie Guerin.
Withdraw the proposal or accept Mike H.‘s amendments with Juan S.’s wording.

Not to mention that identity caucuses are who we are supposed to consult about their own issues. That’s their point. Here we have the Lavender (LGBTQ+) Caucus standing with the Women’s Caucus, the Youth Caucus, and the Diversity Caucuses (and 17 state parties and locals)
And the GRP , in a couple memners perceived superiority, wants stand against them ALL and be the only entity besides the DNE ,which is an entity OUTSIDE of the GP consisting of people from other parties, countries and other groups 65 being “anonymous supporters” (how non transparent and unsafe is that?), to align with GAGP’s anti-trans ideology and bigotry
Embarrassing!
This ideological takeover must be stopped!
Withdraw this proposal or accept Mike Heichman"s amendments with Juan Sanchez’s wording.

& YES, my last comment could be interpreted as “vitriol” & “hyperbolic” BUT Matt, if that is how you or anyone else interprets my comment, you argument would have to be as well…

Matt,
What kind of mental gymnastics are you performing to get to an argument like this one?

“How would we feel if the situation were reversed and the GAGP demanded the GRP make changes to its platform to remain in the GPUS? What if 48 other states did the same thing? As an association of state parties there’s no mechanism for meddling in another state’s platform, and that’s probably a good thing for our sanity. Let’s not try it. The GAGP is accountable to GA Greens, not us, and not the Lavender Caucus.”

If the GPUS and 48 other states were demanding we change our platform to include anti-trans or ANY exclusionary IDEOLOGICAL differences, I would be the first one to submit a request to statecom to disaffiliate ourselves from the GPUS.

Then I would start planning to leave the US all together because when the GPUS has been TAKEN OVER IDEOLOGICALLY, I know the time to stand & fight is over & it is time to run & hide…

I don’t understand why telling people that hate has no home in the GRP makes them feel like they are being purged.

If the case was reversed and we did what Georgia GP did I would be the first to condemn the GRP and ask for change fyi because we are supposed to hold the party accountable to its values.

Decentralization doesn’t mean we get to pick and choose which one of the 10 key values we choose to.acknowledge. it doesn’t mean we can take a stance that clearly goes against what the GP stands for. In reading the lavender caucus complaint it is very clear as to what the process was and how we ended up at the point of disaccredidation.

Discussions, Investigations, mediations, etc have all occurred and so have the votes 20 yes to move forward with the complaints and 20 votes yes 2 days ago to agree to the rules to send to SC.

Multiple times it was offered to our delegates to offer amendments to give accreditation committee more options and that was not done which in my opinion is a disservice.

Also in speaking with national delegates throughout the country it has been made clear to me that we are the only state party entertaining this. We are the only state party who seems to be confused as to what the GP stands for and theyve expressed how it’s no surprise as per national delegates from.other states 2 of our delegates have been on the side of Georgia not only on the disaccredidation issue but have aligned themselves with Georgia’s stances.

It’s crazy to me to talk about unity when I had to defend my sex life, whether or not I believe women are I ndanger in locker rooms, whether or not I stand with women, and the list goes on.

You can think critically about whatever you want Matt No one is stopping you from.thibkibg and researching whatever you want but I will make clear and tell you that I thibk you’re wrong and that your critical thinking and feelings on this issue along with those of others is causing the party so much harm.

Again I will say if you thibk me saying hate has no home here is a bad thing or trying to silence people maybe you should look internally and ask yourself why?

“We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” ~ Robert Jones Jr.

That is where we find ourselves here. Is critical thinking/discussion which leads to oppression and denial of humanity and right to exist worth alienating our brothers and sisters? We are a political party not a college philosophy class where everyone’s deep thoughts about every topic needs to be discussed especially when it’s as divisive as this.

Georgia GPS actions is what created this issue, Matt. Everything that has happened since is in direct correlation to that. It’s not the calls of leaving that have caused this issue, it’s Georgia’s stance and the GRPs entertaining of that stance that has gotten us to this point..

Nice try, Matt. However what we have been saying all along still holds true. We had this “discussion” in the green party 11 years ago and concluded thats our party supports full human rights for trans people and support gender identity as a protected status. We also had this conversation and reaffirmed this again in 2018 in the GRP. I will refer you once again to your very own statement for YES ON 3 in this very website. 2018 was also the year the Socialist Party secretary states that David Keil “resigned from their party before he could be recalled” for anti-trans ideology that he constantly pushed upon that party which destroyed his local that to this day has not yet been re-built. Weren’t you also in that party around that time with him? In His local? You know I have and save receipts. David’s fear of being “purged” is now taking up all the air in the room. He has convinced by deception and manipulattion multiple people that a conspiracy is happening to purge bigots. All this nonsense for his irrational fear of something he is forcing and bringing upon himself. The narrative y’all is pushing is inaccurate. This is not a conspiracy of a purge. There is a IDEOLOGICAL TAKEOVER attempting to completely change who we are! You don’t want a discussion. That discussion already happened like I already said and it has been happening for the past 16 months pertaining to GAGP specifically. There is no discsuion. We just go round and round at this point. You don’t want dialogue, You want to wear us down and verbally beat us into submission until we Accept anti-trans ideology into the green party and into the GRP. Stop this wrecker business! Call for David Keil to resign. Accept Mike Heichman and Juan Sanchez’s ammedments, which finds a way for the GRP to do what you want and stand by GAGP or Withdraw this proposal and resign yourself. The pioneer valley chapter has made it very clear that we don’t want to be a part of a party that accepts the anti-trans ideology that you and the DNE campaign are pushing . We reserve the right to not be a part of this party should this proposal pass as is.
Amend, withdraw, resign! (Do you like that slogan?l

Thanks for the suggestions Bigmike. I will bring your suggestions to the attention of the other sponsors.

How would we feel if the situation were reversed and the GAGP demanded the GRP make changes to its platform to remain in the GPUS? What if 48 other states did the same thing? As an association of state parties there’s no mechanism for meddling in another state’s platform, and that’s probably a good thing for our sanity. Let’s not try it. The GAGP is accountable to GA Greens, not us, and not the Lavender Caucus.
Mike Heichman’s proposal sends us directly into a discussion about the politics of sex and gender based rights. I thought opponents of our motion opposed having that conversation? I think it’s necessary to postpone that conversation until we re-affirm our commitment to civil dialogue and organizational unity. How can I freely express my opinions when others are being asked to resign from the party for their past remarks? How can I freely express my opinions while some are calling for GAGP to be dis-accredited?
Assigning blame and making ultimatums is what created this crisis. My hope is that dialog will show that both sides have valid concerns and reveal we actually agree 95% and can work together on that basis.
I am happy to consider amendments that improve our motion and help us win more votes from State Committee members. I hope we can also satisfy others who have been active in the GRP, but I’m not going to line up behind purges, or hand my right to think critically about these issues over to the Lavender Caucus.
Our proposal is already simple and modest. It does not take a position on the GAGP platform. At the moment it looks like our proposal has majority support. The adoption of this proposal doesn’t exclude the possibility of adopting other proposals on the matter.

I also support the sponsors withdrawing this proposal. Alternately, I will accept the amendment which Mike Heichman proposed together with the language that Juan Sanchez suggested. I remain fully in alignment with the national Green Party US ruling on this matter.

Jamie and Juan,

Thanks for your comments and support. I urge that those who oppose the current statecom proposal come together and come up with an agreed counter proposal. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there would be an agreement before 4/01.

Mike H

Responses to David from Mike Heichman

David, you wrote,

1." I’m afraid that Mike appears to be proposing to support the expulsion of the Georgia party if it fails immediately to meet the demands already made a year ago that it change its platform. "

The last couple of years, outside of the GBC, I have talked and worked with you more than anyone else in the party. We talked earlier today just before I submitted my “compromise” proposal. I said that you were present when I spoke at both of Maha’s meetings and have read everything that I have written about this controversy. We both know that I have never said or written anything that said that I have or do favor the suspension of Georgia. To be clear I have also never expressed an opinion that Georgia should not be suspended. That is my current position.

2. You wrote—My comments below are in CAPITALS.

“Our problem in the GRP is that there are two groups with different perceptions:

1. The group making the StateCom proposal sincerely considers the expulsion proposal to be the launching of a purge in which all state parties and members of the GPUS who have views deemed “transphobic” will be expelled; hence the expulsion of Georgia would in that view lead to the end of grassroots democracy in the entire GPUS, including the GRP."

ARE YOU SPEAKING FOR ALL OF THE SPONSORS OF THIS GROUP? I THINK THAT “the laughing of a purge” THIS IS NONSENSE.

2. A group opposed to the StateCom proposal sincerely considers it to be a motion to uphold the positions of the Georgia GP, whose positions it views as transphobic and intolerable for any state party or member; hence in that view the adoption of the StateCom proposal would convert the GRP into a transphobic group.

I DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO READ THE MINDS OF ANYONE OR EVERYONE IN THIS GROUP. MY POSITION IS THAT I WOULD RATHER THAT THE SPONSORS OF THIS PROPOSAL WITHDRAW IT, WHICH I HOPE WOULD LEAD TO MORE PRODUCTIVE ENERGIES AND COLLECTIVE WORK.

HOWEVER, I DO NOTE THAT YOUR PROPOSAL DOES SUPPORT GEORGIA’S POSITION. IT’S LIKE BEING OPPOSED TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND BEING SILENT AND IGNORING THE CRIMES THAT HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.

I BELIEVE THAT MY PROPOSAL IS A COMPROMISE. IN EXCHANGE FOR BLAMING GEORGIA FOR THIS NATIONAL GPUS CONTROVERSY AND CALLING FOR THEM TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION, THE BALL WOULD BE SENT BACK TO GEORGIA, WHERE IT BELONGS, AND IF IT TOOK POSITIVE ACTION, THE GRP WOULD GO ON RECORD OPPOSING EXPULSION, WHJICH IS WHAT YOU WANT.

Mike H

I support the sponsors withdrawing this proposal. However, if they choose not to despite the multiple requests and the overwhelming display of lack of support for this proposal, I will accept and support the amendment Mike Heichman proposed with the language that Juan Sanchez suggested.
I, Along with a whole lot of other people, would also support a future proposal that gives the Accreditation Committee more options to work with , as was suggested that David Keil draft up propose several months ago if his concern was actually the disaccredidarion of state parties be they active parties, or paper parties that have been compromised in some way.

I’m afraid that Mike appears to be proposing to support the expulsion of the Georgia party if it fails immediately to meet the demands already made a year ago that it change its platform. Or is this a proposal to advocate withdrawal of the complaint against the GaGP so as to allow more time for negotiation?

Our problem in the GRP is that there are two groups with different perceptions:

1. The group making the StateCom proposal sincerely considers the expulsion proposal to be the launching of a purge in which all state parties and members of the GPUS who have views deemed “transphobic” will be expelled; hence the expulsion of Georgia would in that view lead to the end of grassroots democracy in the entire GPUS, including the GRP.

2. A group opposed to the StateCom proposal sincerely considers it to be a motion to uphold the positions of the Georgia GP, whose positions it views as transphobic and intolerable for any state party or member; hence in that view the adoption of the StateCom proposal would convert the GRP into a transphobic group.

Exiting this crisis would require that we find some common ground that would allow us to overcome these conflicting sincere perceptions and find ways to work together. Those not in the above two groups would need to step in and find ways to address the concerns of both groups.

Mike Thank you so much for taking time to put this together.

My suggestions for steps that would fix this situation is that Georgia GP remove hr3 and hr 4 from their platforms and remove their name from signing The women’s declaration on sex based rights. This would allow me at least to feel comfortable with standing with them against deaccredidation. We can then move from this and have a real dialogue on disaccredidation and what that looks like and how we as a party can help strengthen that internally and to help National come up with ideas.

Comrades,

I have been advocating for the cosponsors to withdraw this proposal because it has been damaging to our state party. It has made it difficult for many of us to contribute to our party and move it in a positive direction.

I am fearful that what I’m going to say and propose next. I do not want to add to the agony and division. However, I believe that it is possible that a compromise proposal might work. Maybe both sides can get something positive that they would like and hold their nose about the other part of the proposal.

I’m not going to come up with the exact language. There are members of this party that can do a much better job than me.

1. I believe that a major goal of the co-sponsors of the statecom proposal is for our party to go on record opposing the expulsion of Georgia.
2. I believe that many members of our party are furious with the Georgia State Party and the damage that they have already done to our national and our state party. In my 1-1 discussions with some of those who don’t want Georgia expelled, no one has said that Georgia does not deserve some blame.

Therefore…

1. The GRP condemns (or another synonym—castigates, censures, denounces) the Georgia State Party for actions harmful to our national party (GPUS) and our own state party.
2. We call on the Georgia State Party to take the following steps:

(Other members add the steps that Georgia should take to avoid hostile action.)

3. If Georgia will take these appropriate steps, the GRP will go on record and request that Georgia not be expelled from the GPUS.

I pray that this proposal will be helpful.

Love,

Mike Heichman

A quick response to Mike Heichman. My understanding is that some members are considering compromises that would change the wording of the proposal we are discussing here. Mike V. has suggested friendly amendments that are helpful. I know that those proposing the motion will consider adding or deleting text, within the overall goal of accepting that members have diverse views and insisting that members not be expelled for ideological differences.

Mike H. also suggests taking a break from discussing the controversial, divisive issues of sex and gender. I agree with that. We have had plenty of discussion of it in two Green Round Tables and on this discussion page. There is no proposal for StateCom to take positions on sex and gender. That seems wise at this time, so that we can take a break.

We are all tired and perhaps many are even disgusted with others. It is not a good time for members or chapters to leave the GRP or for anyone to encourage it. Let’s remember that we’ve got work to do, everyone joined for good reasons, and in the kind of situation we’re in, our positive features aren’t always on display.

https://www.lavendergreens.net/nlgc_dispute_with_georgia_green_party?fbclid=IwAR1iGxbpt4PVU2PbFKemuboPQ5A3fa6QaVUX44weOeqxjGjNl3ahBbEECl0

I am a founding member of our party. For a number of reasons, including this uncivil discussion, I am 98% out of the door as an active member of our party. I’m an active member of the Boston Education Justice Alliance and the Boston May Day Coalition and working with my other comrades, doing important work. Outside of requesting that Adcom endorse the May 1st BMDC event and selecting a speaker and attending Maha’s discussions, I’m no longer an active member of my party.

It looks like I won’t be the last person out of the room and shuts out the lights.

David, I have previously participated in the discussions, including a number of 1 on 1 conversations with you. In our recent conversation, I encouraged you to discuss with your co-sponsors and take a step toward compromise. Instead of moving in this direction, more fuel is being sprayed on the fire.

Yes, you and your co-spoonsors are clear. You don’t want Georgia to be expelled from the GPUS. And you want more discussion. I have to ask, discussion where and for what purpose? I am not active with the GPUS—maybe it would be productive for our national party. I doubt it. A daily enema might be more helpful.

Continued discussion for our state party has been very harmful. A daily enema would be more productive. As for me, I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired of being engaged in this shit!

Personally, I have been harmed. My attempts to get assistance from the state party over the Corona Virus has been unsuccessful. I will continue my boycott of GBC meetings. I have no faith that Adcom has the psychic space to play a positive role. I had attempted with success to persuade ComCom to make a proposal which would attempt to engage our general membership to support the political direction of our party as spelled out by the Feb. 2021 StateCom meeting. There was not enough support for this proposal at the previous meeting of Adcom and I don’t believe that it will be on tomorrow night’s agenda.

Of course it’s not on the agenda. It’s a positive proposal to engage our membership. Who in our leadership has the energy and space for this. Instead, we choose to engage in this shit.

In the words of the great African-American philosopher, Rodney King, “Why can’t we get along?”

Every time I read this discussion. Every time I participate in this discussion. My faith that my party will survive this uncivil war gets smaller.

I repeat my post from just a few hours ago:

Michael Heichman commented 4 hours ago · Flag
3/25/21

I wonder how much this controversy has slowed down the positive energy and work of our party.
I wonder how much this controversy has moved us into 2 warring camps at the expense of deepening our comradely spirit.
I wonder how many of us will believe that this controversy was worth it when there is no light and life left in our party.
I wonder how much love and respect still lives in our party.
Sisters, Brothers, Siblings, I repeat my request that the sponsors of this proposal withdraw it before the upcoming statecom meeting.
I wonder how many of you are looking forward with positive anticipation the upcoming 3 statecom meetings starting on 4/01-April Fools Day!
Please withdraw this proposal. Please stop this uncivil war.
Love,
Mike H

Also to try and peg People into certain camps such as what Mr. Keil did with Mike H below is what’s divisive. Those who stand against your order are saying that hate has no home here including several women. I want to stand for Mike H as he is someone who has dedicated years of his time knowledge and passions to the GRP and is truly worried about the repercussions of entertaining this discussion. No one can question Mike Hs dedication to the GRP. To try and twist it into where he may stand on the issue as opposed to what he said is quite the word spnning however it seems a pattern of people trying to read in between lines or read in more into what people have said repeatedly and I believe has been made clear.

I know some ppl like to write things while leaving out details or to put a twist that will benefit their cause but I ask all of the GRP members to look at Mike Hs questions and genuinely answer them as they are important or my questions or JamiezElizabeth’s and everyone else’s questions you’ve consistently evaded.which would bring a lot more clarity for everyone because the constant back and forth instead of being honest about your motives is disrespectful to all of us.

Yes their are certain beliefs and ideologies that aren’t welcome in the GRP. If I was racist, I wouldn’t be welcome or if I was a white supremacist I wouldn’t be welcome.

I’m glad that message us becoming clearer and clearer to you David Hate has no home In the GRP if that makes you feel unwelcome or unwanted or qe are trying to “Purge” you for your hateful views then by all means sit with it own it and feel it because that is the point that I’m trying to get across.

If you chose to not express hateful views we wouldn’t be here. If you abd others who put up this proposal actually cared about the party you would withdraw this proposal. By your admission below your anti trans crusade has been going on for years and you’re using the issue of disaccredidation to try and grow that garden here.

I for one do not welcome it. I am only speaking for myself.

Matt, thank for your many “Mansplanations” of this issue you make clear I know nothing about. hmmm…
But since you so kindly point out from your superior experience and intellect, what you think I should be doing – quote from you comment directed to me personally below:

“If you think your interpretation of the 10 Key Values has majority support, use it to carry out the activism you want to see”

I point out to you, that by my comments here and doing the research into this well known “wedge issue” of trans-rights that has been inserted into leftist orgs and groups all over the US & abroad; I am doing exactly that which you so kindly “schooled” me to do…

I’m replying to a couple of recent comments on this page.

Mike H., you ask again for withdrawal of the above StateCom proposal. You may wish to state your reasons other than worries about the chorus of abuse uttered against it. Certainly our proposal would be withdrawn upon withdrawal of the proposal to expel the Georgia state party.

The root of the problem is in fact the effort to drive dissenters out of the Green Party. If your reason for wanting us to withdraw our proposal is that you are in favor of the expulsion of Georgia on ideological grounds, then you may wish to says so.

If you favor the expulsion of the GaGP because you want to expel all those who agree with some of its views, then you don’t want some of us to withdraw our proposal, you want some of us out of the GRP.

That’s the case with Jamie G., who writes, “Please resign, David Keil” and who is evidently “tired of the anti-trans ideology that [I am] constantly trying to inflict” and that I have been “forcing down the throats of multiple committees and caucuses.”

These are words of a political purge campaign to drive out heretics. Instead of discussion of ideas, we hear words of condemnation of individuals. This is a method of discourse that spreads from one issue under debate to another and that suppresses debate and stimulates departures. In this case it is motivated by an insistence that all Green Party members, every single one, must agree with a certain definition of the word “woman.”

Jamie has false information about the Socialist Party. I joined the editorial board of the SP’s magazine ‘The Socialist’ in 2011, helped start a local of that party in 2015, was elected in that year to its national committee, and resigned from the party in 2018 over the lack of discussion of sex and gender and the lack of due process. In 2018, I became aware of the suppression of feminists in left organizations and wrote an article about that. The editors and others rejected it with contempt, and ruled out discussion of these serious concerns, and I left.

I respect the SP, which nominated Hawkins and Walker before the GPUS did. A quick check of the SPUSA web site will show that it still does not address sex or gender issues that are under debate; no longer publishes an actual magazine, just some occasional articles; and no longer has a chapter in Massachusetts.

Among the toxic debates in the GPUS is one about eco-socialism; some members want eco-socialists to rule the GP and others are afraid that socialists like the SP are taking over the GP.

The traditional left, having failed to embrace feminism or to account for the role of witch hunting in the rise of capitalism, has forever fragmented itself in mostly tiny internal witch hunts and is now destroying itself in the campaign to silence feminists. The Green Party of the US risks throwing itself on the same bonfire. Feminists are working to give birth to a healthy left.

I agree with Mike H.
Please do not reword this proposal. Please just completely withdraw it!

3/25/21

I wonder how much this controversy has slowed down the positive energy and work of our party.
I wonder how much this controversy has moved us into 2 warring camps at the expense of deepening our comradely spirit.
I wonder how many of us will believe that this controversy was worth it when there is no light and life left in our party.
I wonder how much love and respect still lives in our party.
Sisters, Brothers, Siblings, I repeat my request that the sponsors of this proposal withdraw it before the upcoming statecom meeting.
I wonder how many of you are looking forward with positive anticipation the upcoming 3 statecom meetings starting on 4/01-April Fools Day!
Please withdraw this proposal. Please stop this uncivil war.
Love,
Mike H

Friendly amendments from BigMike

Paragraph 1 – find language to condense the double use of the word “members”

Paragraph 2 – semicolon before “we”, and add “we would advocate”, and plural “debates”. Then, at the last sentance, “free of profane language” instead of the list of commas.

Paragraph 3 – add words “expression of an individuals opinion…”

regards
Bigmike

For any National Committee (NC) or Working Committee of the NC to censure an official caucus or affiliated party for deviating from a policy decided by the NC, in an acceptable manner, clarity about the concerns may be unattainable. One of the cornerstones in many State Bylaws is a a dual co-chairpersoship (in MA two spokepersons — one female, the other male. It may be easy for me to accept a transgender female as such, but I do not know how to explain this if in a rapidly growing number of cases what to sat ro cisgender woman that she will have to compete with another woman who is transgender and also can handle the work better.
That said, I see no reason for Georgia Party to request the swearing in of witnesses. We rely on the TenKey Values for Truth and honesty, The passions aroused by this issue are due to intolerance of difference, and that intolerance shows up in the poor quality of the discussion.

Elizabeth, I agree that the GPUS should hold state parties accountable to rules and democratic decisions. I do not believe the platform is the place to do that. The platform attempts to comment on every possible issue (yet actually doesn’t get into the details of sex and gender rights!). Full agreement is impossible. There is no rule saying the GAGP must conform to the GPUS platform, and no reason to believe they were not acting within their own rights as a state party when they amended their own state platform. Please quote to us what rule the GAGP has violated? The 10 Key Values are broad enough to allow many different perspectives. If you think your interpretation of the 10 Key Values has majority support, use it to carry out the activism you want to see. Setting the precedent of dis-accrediting state parties every time they take a slightly different approach on a particular issue is going to scare people away and wreck the party.