This is hilariously and annoyingly ironic. After MONTHS of pushing “gender critical feminism” NOW all of a sudden opinions about this shouldn’t be pushed onto the entire party?!? That is complete nonsense.

I’m concerned that it will be difficult to get 2/3 support for any statement that is too narrow because a number of issues not addressed in the proposal will be inevitably tied to it and will prove unresolvable. A statement like this may need to say more, and to include language contributed by all interested parties. I also think that the principle that this proposal is addressing extends far beyond sex and gender issues, so I wish we could put things in context of our overarching Green principles. I’ll be very interested in whether this statement evolves or stagnates.

This is to advocate for the proposal, “Handling differences over sex and gender.” I hope that those who consider it impractical will give it another look.

It points the way to overcoming multiple fractures in the GRP, including some that haven’t yet appeared. I know that these fractures will emerge, because in my decades in left groups I have seen that differences of opinion are inevitable and that one fracture leads to others unless handled democratically. Current potential fractures in the GRP that already exist in the GPUS are over sex/gender, vaccination; and eco-socialism.

Eileen’s and Brian’s proposal offers conflict-resolution processes as a way to resolve differences without splitting.

In politics, it’s quite important to distinguish between a decision by vote and a split. In a decision by vote, a majority or perhaps a super-majority adopts a decision on what the group should do. In a split, some members leave, or else some members kick other members out of the group.

Building a party requires decisions but is not aided by splits. That’s why those of us whose StateCom motion failed in May didn’t leave the GRP; why we would never try to kick out others for disagreeing with us; and why we have made another motion for the August 20 StateCom that urges coexistence of different ideas in the GRP.

Dissent, debate, and discussion are part of politics and democracy.

I have seen left groups split and even implode when they have been unable to democratically discuss differences. In fact this splitting habit of the left is part of what made the Green Party movement necessary.

An example of unavoidable discussion is the age of consent for elective surgery. At what age should minors be considered able to give informed consent for puberty blockers, hormones, and elective surgery? 18? 16? 12? 8? 4? It is easy to talk about “medical care for trans youth,” but not so easy to define informed consent for minors and children.

Should women and girls have the right to define any all-female spaces at all?

Should people be allowed to express their opinions about gender and sex?

I happen to know that lots of trans people disagree with some of the claims that are made about dissenting ideas being “hate speech.” Two NC members who are trans voted “no” on the dis-accreditation of our Georgia state party. One is a leader of that party. The GPUS has just kicked out an outspoken state-party member who is transgender.

We are living in a very difficult time. We are waiting for the next major act of violence by white supremacists and Trumpists. A pandemic sharply threatens our health and well-being again. Heat waves, flooding, and other extreme weather are here this summer and promise worse. It is easy to think that we can build a party fast by purifying it of dissenting ideas. It is easy to be impatient with each other. I don’t think I’m the only one to feel impatient around here. But with patience, we can build a party that includes many differences of opinion.

Peace.

David Keil, Metrowest