The GRP stands for discussion and Green Unity

For Jill Stein and All's Amended Proposal, please see:

Proposal sponsor/shepherd: Matt Andrews

Floor manager: Maureen Doyle

Co-sponsors: Elie Yarden, David Keil, Maureen Doyle

Contact info for floor manager: [email protected]

Summary: StateCom opposes expulsions or dis-accreditations over perceived platform differences.

Background: A complaint against the Georgia Green Party is under consideration in the Accreditation Committee.

Text of Proposal:

The Green-Rainbow Party affirms support for the human rights of transgender people. Transgender people are oppressed, and we need to defend them.

The Green-Rainbow Party opposes the petition for punitive action against the Georgia Green Party being considered by the GPUS Accreditation Committee, which is not based on explicit rules, but rather on interpretations of the GPUS platform.  The GPUS platform is an inappropriate standard for membership or the accreditation of state parties.

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. In the absence of specific evidence, an assumption of good faith among fellow Greens must be maintained. The right of Green-Rainbow Party members to participate in our democratic process, including the right to make proposals and request a vote, shall not be infringed by bureaucratic maneuvers or peer pressure campaigns.

Democratic discussion will be facilitated if participants' race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, self-identification, dis-ability, and good faith disagreements of opinion are respected.

Implementation: The text of this proposal as adopted will be sent by a member of our National Committee delegation to the “NatlComAffairs” list.

Financial Implications: none.


Showing 307 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-25 10:52:06 -0400
    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 Certainly our proposal would be withdrawn upon withdrawal of the proposal to expel the Georgia state party.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.
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-25 09:21:37 -0400
    I agree with Mike H.
    Please do not reword this proposal. Please just completely withdraw it!
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-03-25 09:00:39 -0400

    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.
    Mike H
  • Michael Vaglica
    commented 2021-03-25 06:14:07 -0400
    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…”

  • Elie Yarden
    commented 2021-03-24 23:12:36 -0400
    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.
  • Matthew Andrews
    commented 2021-03-24 21:20:43 -0400
    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.
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-03-24 18:17:15 -0400
    Every state party, when they apply to the GPUS to be accepted into the “GP Federation of state parties”, acknowledges it’s responsibilities that the GPUS will hold them accountable to. The GPUS offers a democratic process to amend the platform if the state party finds aspects of that platform that they differ from and want to change.

    Those opposed to this proposal are not demanding that all green party members think the same or have the same opinions personally and individually. We are disagreeing that differences of values and aspects of the platform should be acceptable without first applying a democratic process to decide if all state parties agree to be associated with those differences as members of a national federation of state parties.

    An example of why we are opposed to this proposals affirmation:
    Members or even an entire state party BELIEVING in some aspects of the Democratic Party Platform &/or DNC values is not the same thing as giving a GP platform to those DNC differences rendering the GPUS no different than the DNC.

    How could we call our party anything different than the DNC or continue to keep the trust of our membership and constituents’ trust in our candidates not to flip flop or compromise our values which we proclaim and promise to be different from either of the two major party duopoly or from all the parties on the US political stage for that matter?

    We are walking a dangerous path if we compromise party platform and values that were constructed by democratic process by all the state parties participation, based on one member’s or one state’s differences of ideology in a federation of multiple state parties. One compromise leads to another, ultimately leading to no value that can not be compromised based on this argument of manipulating the meaning of free speech and decentralization and use of semantics.

    Let me ask what exactly does this mean written in this proposal?
    “The Green-Rainbow Party affirms the right of its members and members of other state parties to differ with aspects of the Green Party US platform while accepting the platform and Ten Key Values overall ”

    What is the definition of “overall” in this statement that the sponsors hold as true?

    Does “overall” mean 9 out of 10 or 6 out of 10 key values, etc..?
    Does it mean aspects equaling over 50% of the aspects of the GPUS platform?

    What are the values we will not be held accountable for abandoning and what 50% of the aspects of the platform will we amend on our platform or be OK with on other GP state party platform amendments?

    And with what other aspects will we be affirming it is OK to amend state platforms with?

    Where are those aspects different from GPUS coming from, the DNC, the Libertarians, Republicans or maybe just ideological organizations such as religious orgs?

    Because all those parties and organizations have different aspects to GPUS platforms and values. Which aspects and sources are OK to compromise on and which aspects and sources are NOT OK to compromise on?

    Affirming to accept any differences of platform and ideology; broad sweeping, un-named,and based on the vast possibilities of individual member &/or state differences of ideology with no consequences to affiliation with the GPUS would mean we affirm the GPUS should be rendered powerless in what values and aspects of platform it is affiliated with, which in turn renders all other state parties powerless in our association to that one member or state party’s ideology and platform.

    Then why do we even have a GPUS? Some might say that even having a national party is a centralized party.

    Why not just have separate state parties, using the same name, fending for themselves with their separate ideology and platforms; free from responsibilities to other state parties’ democratic input of what the GP should be and stand for, also rendering the state parties paralyzed to run a GP candidate for POTUS on the national political stage.
    Why not? Because that would be ridiculous.

    A democratically run, decentralized organization that upholds freedom of speech and thought, does not mean it must be an organization absent of democratically agreed upon responsibilities to be a part of that organization.
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-24 15:33:21 -0400
    Please resign, David Keil. We understand you resigned from the SPUSA a few years ago because members grew tired of the anti-trans ideology that you were constantly trying to inflict upon the party and they what was described to me “chased you out”. I understand that you fear there is a (in your words) a “purge” or “witch hunt” for you and others who share your ideology when the truth is had you and the DNE group that you constructed not been forcing anti-trans ideology down the throats of multiple committees and caucuses on national for the past 16 months unknown to the GRP, that was in kept in the dark about this, no one would even have known this about you.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-24 15:00:18 -0400
    Mike Heichman writes that this proposal to challenge the proposed expulsion of the Georgia party “has brought tremendous pain and suffering to many members of our party.” The idea of not expelling those they disagree with is painful to some members.

    There is a stampede to purge the Green Party of dissent on sex and gender issues. This stampede is evident in the discussion of the current proposal, which argues for coexistence rather than taking sides between the Georgia party’s positions and those who criticize them.

    The stampede to purge the Green Party US is beginning to swamp democratic discussion in the Green-Rainbow Party.

    It is true, as Maha Visnu Gray says, that “productive and educational discussions on difficult but critical subject matters will not take place within Green Party spaces.” As an example of Green Party spaces, this discussion thread has been dominated by name calling and demands that there be no discussion or dissent.

    Mike predicts, “you will lose big time.” We’ll see. Indeed, a “big time” defeat for this proposal would tell everyone that the GRP is not a place where members can voice their ideas about sex and gender freely.

    It is fair to ask if a purge of the GRP is being prepared, perhaps unwittingly. Are those resisting it being asked to cooperate with their own silencing?

    The results of the vote on this StateCom proposal will tell us for how long dissent will be tolerated in the GRP.
  • Andre Gray
    commented 2021-03-24 08:57:58 -0400


    (Tuesday, March 16, 2021)

    At the conclusion of my two-part Green Round Table yesterday (Monday, March 15, 2021) a number of things became clear to me:

    1) I know little about LGBTQIA+ and Women’s issues and must immediately rectify this.
    2) I must proactively expand and develop the GRT, as productive and educational discussions on difficult but critical subject matters will not take place within Green Party spaces.
    3) The DNE document, which I signed, is deeply flawed (as I now understand it), and I must not only immediately work to remove my signature from that document but craft a statement of my own that is true to my personal beliefs.

    While my education on LGBTQIA+ and Women’s issues will continue unabated and in earnest the principles outlined in this statement I hold as my own. As a lifelong student, teacher and proponent of Vaisnava philosophy these principles have always been a natural expression of my belief system.

    To avoid making the same error I did with the DNE document, I carefully perused the relevant principles of the Green Party platform to ensure they reflected and represented my true and core beliefs. Taken directly, word for word, from our Green Party platform these principles are an accurate statement of beliefs I’ve always held.

    Civil Rights and Equal Rights

    One of our key values is respect for diversity. We are committed to establishing relationships that honor diversity; that support the self-definition and self-determination of all people; that consciously confront the barriers of racism, sexism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, class oppression, ageism, and ableism, and the many ways that our culture and laws separate us from working together. We support affirmative action to remedy discrimination, to protect constitutional rights, and to provide equal opportunity under the law.

    - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
    In keeping with the Green Key Values of diversity, social justice and feminism, we support full legal and political equality for all persons regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity, characteristics, and expression.

    1. The Green Party affirms the rights of all individuals to freely choose intimate partners, regardless of their sex, gender, or gender identity.

    2. The Green Party recognizes the full civil rights of sexual and gender minorities. The existing civil rights act prohibits discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, and disability. We will work to add sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression to the existing civil rights act.

    3. The Green Party will be inclusive of language in local, state and federal anti- discrimination law that ensures the rights of intersex individuals and prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, characteristics, and expression as well as on sex, gender, or sexual orientation. We are opposed to non-consenting intersex genital surgery.

    4. The Green Party affirms the right of all persons to self-determination with regard to gender identity and sex. We affirm the right of choosing non-binary and gender fluid identification. We therefore support the right of individuals to be free from coercion and involuntary assignment of gender or sex.

    5. We will pursue legislation where offenders must pay compensation to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual (LGBTQIA) people who have suffered violence and injustice.

    6. The Green Party will end all Federal military aid to national governments whose laws result in the death, other harm, or imprisonment of its citizens and residents who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual (LGBTQIA).

    7. The Green Party will enact a policy that the U. S. Government recognize all same sex marriages or legal equivalents such as civil unions, in processing visitor and immigration visas.

    8. The Green Party would end security surveillance and covert infiltration of organizations that promote rights for sexual and gender minorities.


    I believe and stand for the principle that all civil and human rights should be available to all human beings, everywhere and for all time. I have no issue recognizing/calling a transgender woman a woman, if that person identifies as such; and particularly if that identity, in itself, doesn’t infringe upon, deny or abridge the rights of any other person.

    I believe and stand for the principle that when and where the civil and human rights, of any person, are being infringed upon, denied or abridged, by any other person, then and there immediate redress and rectification must be made.

    I believe and stand for the dual principle of Sva-bhava (to know one’s own unique and innate nature) and Sva-karma (the right to live the life and pursue the activities born of that unique and innate nature).

    I believe and live by the principle of Ksatriya-dharma (the leader’s duty to ensure all living beings have the space, opportunities and safety to live their Sva-bhava and Sva-karma).

    These are the principles I have always believed and for which I will always stand.

    In service,

    Maha Visnu Gray
    Co-chair, GRP Massachusetts
  • Andre Gray
    commented 2021-03-24 08:49:47 -0400
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-03-21 16:48:57 -0400
    Matt, Maureen, Elie and David K:

    I have my own beliefs and opinions. I have stated some of them at the two meetings that Maha had sponsored. The proposal calls for discussion rather than dis-accreditation. There are other choices. I believe that there is minimal support for this proposal. If it goes forward, it will overwhelmingly be defeated. We have discussed this national issue which has brought tremendous pain and suffering to many members of our party. I don’t think that there is anything important to add to this discussion. I don’t believe that hearts and minds will change. The sponsors of this proposal have the power to continue this discussion and keep the proposal. The pain will continue. Pursuing our positive party work will continue to suffer. Your upcoming statecom will be infected. ( I’m so happy that I decided not to be on StateCom.) Are you looking forward to the next statecom meeting? If this proposal is discussed, it will continue to be painful. And you will loose big time.

    OR….The sponsors of this proposal have the power to withdraw this proposal. Pain will subside. Relationships will improve. There will be more time and energy working on essential and important party work.

    I worry about the viability of our party.

    I respectfully request that you withdraw this proposal.


    Mike Heichman
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-21 15:33:46 -0400
    The GRP should not feel threatened by what if scenarios of purges if we follow the 10 key values which I’ve never seen us not do.

    We are not Georgia, We are the Mass GRP leaders in the Green party movement. Our members have been candidates for president, Vice President, statewide/local positions and have held all kinds of titles and positions within the National Green Party.

    We have been leaders on a wide variety of issues and years ahead of other parties in our stances thus creating a environment where people like me feel welcome.

    As long as we stay true to what our role as a party is, remember our purpose, and continue to renevision how to create a more inclusive left wing party I don’t see Deaccredidation on the table ever.
  • Matthew Andrews
    commented 2021-03-21 14:54:34 -0400
    I am fine with taking time off discussion of sex-based rights and gender-based rights if we can call for unity of the GRP and GPUS. I hear Michael Heichman’s comments as a call to unity. Unfortunately, I don’t think unity can be built by silencing discussion of the purges that are already underway in our party. I don’t want to wait around until I am next, or the whole GRP is next for that matter.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-21 12:49:59 -0400
    If you’re suggesting a break from discussing sex and gender, fine. The proposal to StateCom is not about sex and gender, however, it’s about whether members are allowed to have their own opinions about sex and gender. You are asking for withdrawal of a proposal to allow members to have their own opinions. That would be moving forward only toward expulsions.
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-03-21 11:16:18 -0400

    I’m asking for the GRP to stop discussing this issue. You have your beliefs and have made them clear. I have by beliefs and have made them clear. Others have made their opinions clear. This national controversy has brought much pain to our state party as well as others. I believe that further discussion by our party will bring very little light. Instead it will continue to bring more anger and pain. Please withdraw the proposal and let’s move forward.


  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-21 09:54:37 -0400
    Mike H. Isn’t confused about what is going on here. He actually took the time to do his research. I won’t allow him to be condescended. We all know if the Georgia Green Party withdraws their Anti-Trans amendments, this would go away. Why don’t you write a proposal asking them to do that? Anyway, The GRP isn’t the GAGP. Their fate is up to them.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-21 09:42:20 -0400
    Mike, there are two proposals, one to the GRP State Committee, which we are discussing, and one to the national Accreditation Committee. The national proposal is to expel the Georgia state party for ideological offenses. The GRP StateCom proposal is to challenge ideological expulsions. Are you asking those targeted with expulsion to accept it so as to avoid “civil wars”?
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-03-21 08:42:42 -0400
    We spend so much time engaged in civil wars. We tear each other apart. We generate much more heat than light. Sometimes the wisest thing to do is to desist. I encourage the sponsors of this proposal to withdraw it. Let’s move forward working on a positive agenda for “People, Planet and Peace”. Love, Mike Heichman
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-03-20 17:59:06 -0400
    Maureen, Thank you for your thoughtful response as well. I believe the other proposal on this page (Exploring and Reactivating our historic Rainbow Coalition and Merger) is offering us, as a party, to do just what you encourage in your response.
    “I would encourage putting that energy into our society’s acceptance of all people and respecting all rights (human, animal, and nature). Thank you for the thoughtful responses of Sean, David Kiel, Margaret Elizebeth, Juan, and Jamie (and anyone i forgot).
    Thank you for your time. have a good day! peace, Maureen Doyle "
    Peace be with you too Maureen
  • John Blumenstiel
    commented 2021-03-20 10:26:08 -0400
    I have avoided this discussion as I feel limited in my overal understanding of the issue. However, I will comment on the “process” which I feel leaves a great deal to be desired. I suggest a starting point. Each contributor review their own post and self critique it as if it were not yours, but an opposing view. Critique it to separate “wheat and chaff” edit out all statements that are derogatory, inflammatory, flippant, sarcastic, disrespectful, that goes about asking questions of the opposing person and then proceeds to answer it themselves, labels individual persons or groups of those with differing views as Nazi, idiots or some other shaming label. We have had enough of this and our opposing media and political adversaries will provide more than needed. These behaviors are not contributors to a meaningful political debate. In fact they are significant inhibitors of one.

    Let’s go to the “wheat” of the debate. Each of the aggrieved parties clarify how their position is most consistent with our 10 Key Values and the opposing perspective in in violation of same. This can hopefully lead to a better understanding of all points of view in relationship to our foundational Values.

    Let’s. Remember that the nihilistic forces of our economic and imperialist system continues grinding forward. Closed door, my way or the highway thinking gives THEM comfort and solace.

    John Blumenstiel
  • Maureen Doyle
    commented 2021-03-19 10:25:28 -0400
    Many comments, many opinions (well, not that many; many repeated opinions). I am wondering why this email exchange is happening on the state website where people not in the party can theoretically express their point (without having the background of the GP behind them)? there are several folks on here whose names I do not recognize. We have wanted to grow the Party for years and if they are newer members, welcome. (Daniel, Cora, and David K. in particular) I have to wonder what the GA GOP (Republicans) have to do with this? Also, this is the state website that anyone can see to find out about the party. One person said to me that that was the reason to stop the GA state website- now it is happening to the GRP website; wouldn’t the same logic apply? This is not the face of the GRP that we want our fellow brothers and sisters to see, is it? One person commented that he was warned about the GP and i know my partner always says there is so much infighting- so, we want to reinforce this viewpoint?!

    I would encourage you all (newer and older members) to look at the GA documents and the proposal on which you are commenting. I would suggest moving this to the statecom listserve.

    A lot of time and research has gone into these responses. I would encourage putting that energy into our society’s acceptance of all people and respecting all rights (human, animal, and nature). Thank you for the thoughtful responses of Sean, David Kiel, Margaret Elizebeth, Juan, and Jamie (and anyone i forgot).
    Thank you for your time. have a good day! peace, Maureen Doyle
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-19 07:50:01 -0400
    Hi Elie. There are imposters in all aspects of life. The way to deal with those rare situations is on an individual basis, not stripping rights from an entire group of people just in case a sutuation like that may arise.
  • Elie Yarden
    commented 2021-03-19 01:08:25 -0400
    The more I read of what is on this site, the more I realize that I do not know what people are talking about. Everyone educated person knows that gender identity classes are socially constructed, as are all abstractions. So if I make the assertion that the class transgender female is a subset of the more general class, ‘female.’ No problem. Has nothing to do with being Green. But I could have a problem if I had reason to believe that some people are showing bad faith, So I ask, how do I determine whether a person who asserts that she is a members of the subclass transgender female? I can only take them at their word. But if someone tells me that “x” is not really transgender female and is pretending to be, how do I refute this. I would like to be able tp do this. So somebody please tell me how. And we can move forward if need be, At present I know and have know people who are transgender female, and one transgender male. At least ten, and most of them prefer to be speaking about other subjects that their identity, From my inclusive standpoint I have no difficulty in accepting people on their terms, however intolerant they may be of me. But I have heard women who reject binary gender stereotyping criticize them as socially regressive because they accept female roles such as mothering children and serving men. My closest friends, and a remarkable poet, and who became a very good cook, learning from me at the beginning of our friendship the pleasures of preparing food, did not want it known that his love for his mate resembled that of a woman, He was homosexual. A neighbor mothered a daughter of a straight man who accepted his partner as transgender female. He was accepting of his marital partner as female, and thus the main caregiver of the daughter they reared. She saw nothing peculiar in how she had grown up. I must be missing something when I see people quarreling about personal problems instead of doing the political work that no one else will do together with people who feel matters differently. I have always known that my freedom from oppression is limited by the oppression experienced by others — we are all related — and if we refuse people who suffering from transphobia, and thus more oppressed than I am, I would like to reassure them. It is not easy to do this in a competitive society where people are taught to take advantage of one another, and are afraid that the Jew is going to outsmart them.
    Eli Yarden
    philadelphian jew (for those who require fixation of personal identity)
    weber of GBS
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-18 14:12:32 -0400
    This proposal is divisive.
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-18 11:15:40 -0400
    If this party welcomes TRANS EXCLUSION RADICAL FEMINISTS as a valid viewpoint in worshops or discussions I along with many others are OUT. I consider this to be ABUSIVE. I think you know this David. I am questioning why you are trying to interject this here like you also did in the SPUSA.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-18 11:10:28 -0400
    As we approach the State Committee meeting, two weeks from tonight, our state party has big challenges. We adopted a “Goals and Foci” statement at the previous StateCom and we are agreed that as a party we are determined to run candidates to contest the duopoly in the elections. We’re determined to build movements for justice and social change.

    We’re divided by an effort to expel a state party for some of its political positions, and by differences over a motion to StateCom to oppose such expulsions. The motion says that the GRP “affirms the right of its members and members of other state parties to differ with aspects of the Green Party US platform while accepting the platform and Ten Key Values overall.” Why are we even debating this?

    Opposition to the motion, centered in one chapter, is vehement. In my opinion, defeat of the motion would place in question the right of members to dissent and would encourage a fracturing that we are seeing nationally and in Massachusetts.

    A group in the GRP is so insistent on expulsion for political differences that it has discussed walking out if this unity proposal is adopted. Members have implied that supporters of the motion should be excluded from the GRP. Please re-think this, fellow members! One of our values is grassroots democracy.

    The differences over gender and sex are not over whether to solidarize with trans people, but how. The proposal to StateCom is not about sex and gender, but about democracy and unity.

    There is concern about transphobia, and also about misogyny and patriarchy. Why not consider more educational sessions with speakers and Q&A? Shall we invite trans people or activists, and radical feminists, from Massachusetts, to meet with us?

    I agree with Carole that multiple options are needed for resolving conflicts — not just dis-accreditation. Certainly motions to issue statements disavowing actions of state parties are in order, and indeed that would have been appropriate in cases like Rhode Island and Alaska. Those complaining have chosen to propose expulsion, however.

    In response to Lois, I agree that chapters and co-chairs have the democratic right to choose their affiliations. But let’s try to arrive at coexisting in the same party even when some of our ideas are different. How can we avoid shattering and get on with our work as decided at the winter StateCom?
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-18 10:43:55 -0400
    Edit. Not smothered
    That was a typo. The word is ssupposed to be “mothered”
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-18 10:41:34 -0400
    Linda, this has all been explained to you multiple times by several folks on the NC listserv. GP recognizes self determination .The legal protections trans people want to PROTECT are related to GENDER IDENTITY which is in addition to all the other rights that already exist, and will remain in tact. Your DNE faction and international/inter- party/left-right hodgepodge multi organizationally targeted anti-trans ideology interjection campaign wishes to STRIP GENDER IDENTITY as a protected status. Period! The ask from Lavender Caucus of GAGP, as spelled out in the complaint, is simply the removal of the amendments to HR3 and HR4 and the rescinding of their endorsement of the Declaration. This is supported by the WOMEN’S CAUCUS, the Diversity Caucus, The Youth Caucus, and 17 states and locals so far.

    Should GA do that, this complaint goes away. Should y’all remove this proposal, that does nothing but asks the GRP to align with the anti-trans bigotry of the GAGP, be withdrawn, the faster we can get on with the work we need to do in the GRP in the midst of a society that is on the verge of collapse.

    The rest of your talking points are coming from alt right propaganda! No trans woman I know, and this is my community as a pans/ace sexual minority, so I know many trans people in real life and I have smothered one for a while (and by the way the medical info your side is spewing is FALSE and based on pseudo-science. I know a child who had to wait a very long time, and go through rigorous medical evaluations and therapy for years in MASSACHSUETTS before they could even get REVERSIBLE hormone treatments 2 years after becoming a legal adult ), feels uncomfortable about me talking about and naming my body parts or mentioning my period. The transwomen I know don’t even feel any desire to participate in conversations about my periods, not are they trying to bumrush the red tent circles or get you to stop taking about these things. I also know trans people who love the Vagina Monologues. You are generalizing trans people based on unreasonable fear…which is the definition of PHOBIA

    You are always welcome to start a private club that does genital and internal exams at the door if that’s what you want. In most cases trans women don’t even want to be in these spaces with you.

    The whole transracial argument that you keep bringing up has already been debunked to you on the NC listserv several times as well. That’s not a legit comparison for so many reasons that i would have to write a novella to break it down and it has already been broken down to you.

    Are you really tokenizing Jimmy Cooper and saying that the movement for human rights and equality for trans people is a BIG PHARMA creation? Yeah, you are really saying that.

    Don’t worry, Linda. I will be here to respond to every single comment that you make even though I have a lot of party building work to do and would rather not be doing this AT ALL. This attack has been introduced on my community by y’all so I have no choice. This is why I ask your small faction to withdraw the proposal, that interestingly enough your name is not on even though you have been one of the major players spearheading this on National with David K. and Hugh forcing transpeople to resign from committees and caucuses. If you want to twist that into smearing and trying to shut you up, by all means. Twist away. I’m here for it.

    This conversation and dialogue has been going on for over a year and now we have cisgender, white, straight, men talking about the “tone”. Unbelievable!

    It comes down to this: are we going to be a party of intersectional feminism, or not.
    If we are not going to be a party of intersectional feminism, I and many others are no longer safe here. If you do not feel safe around intersectional feminism, well please do some soul searching.

    Withdraw this proposal so we can get some work done!!!
  • Linda Thompson-Lancz
    commented 2021-03-17 20:30:02 -0400
    The party doesn’t have a position that trans women are women. Never did. But people are acting as if agreeing with that is a condition of membership. They are confusing the right to self ID with legal rights to women’s protections. Their are different issues for both and their are similar issues as well. I agree with self ID and respect that. I criticize the declaration on sex based rights for calling trans women males. Therefore I can’t sign it. And wouldn’t.

    But I have serious questions about only the legal implications in sports and affirmative action provisions and leadership etc. because I don’t understand and never get an answer about how this differs from transracial people who also self ID.
    The black and Latinx community have totally rejected self ID for transracial people who feel exactly the same as transgender people. Most people of color reject self ID for transracial people so what’s the difference? Why don’t they get called bigots and nazis and slurs? Is it because transracial people don’t yet have a powerful movement backed by Big Pharma? I ask and ask and never get an answer. If Rachel Dolezol joins the Green Party is she welcome in the black caucus? She IDs as black. I’m not arguing I’m asking..

    There are protections for many medical issues
    and procedures for kids. I’m concerned that young people aren’t in a position to make life changing decisions that lead to sterility. Am I a nazis for asking?

    Is anyone else concerned like Glen Greenwald that all of a sudden so many kids think their problem might be they are trans instead of typical adolescent angst and problems?

    Are we concerned that detransitioners support groups are forming on line to support people who feel they screwed up and made a mistake about transitioning?

    Why are trans women uncomfortable with women claiming their right to name our body parts? Why was the vagina monologues shut down by trans activists?

    Are the statistics wrong saying 80 percent of young people who think they may be trans outgrow it?

    None of these questions in anyway insult or
    demean trans people? Any new culture change raises questions and it is not a reason for hysteria and driving comrades out of the party.
    I feel that these kind of issues are totally different from the right wing that does hate trans people.

    Jimmy Cooper has worked and represented the GA party for years, is trans, and doesn’t think
    GA comrades are transphobic. Should he know better than people who don’t work with them every day?
    If you want to influence GA these are the kind of answers you need to deal with.
    That is if you want to influence anybody or
    Just smear them to shut them up.

    Linda Thompson