Georgia Green Party Supports women's rights, TRA's furious, want them expelled from national party unless they recant

[CumannNamBan]

Part of a recent statement:

"At the Georgia Green Party’s recent Bonaire Nominating Convention on February 22d, Delegates without objection adopted an amendment to the Platform of the state party endorsing the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights. Late that night, the news was released in the form of a two sentence plus a link post on the party’s social media profile. Within a few days, that post attracted an international mobbing of the party’s facebook profile by Greens around the country and trans-rights-activists around the world who equated standing up for the rights of women as an attack on trans identified individuals.

The following week, the national Party’s Lavender Caucus published a statement demanding that our party ‘rescind its endorsement of the Declaration’, issue a ‘formal, written apology’, ‘commit to educating (our)selves and (our) membership about the necessity of gender affirmation’ and that failing to take these steps, that ‘the Georgia Green Party must be disaccredited and disavowed by the Green Party of the United States’.

...As the conversation unfolded in national party channels the hateful rhetoric and name-calling targeting the women in the Party who were speaking up to defend the position taken by the Georgia Green Party was punctuated with threats of actual violence and doxxing. Multiple women were banned from national party social media forums for comments grounded in biological reality and their defense the rights of children to be protected from conversion therapy."

Full piece here along with relevant links

georgiagreenparty.org/georgia-party-responds-to-invitation-from-lavender-caucus/

It's shocking.

I think GC political parties are going to start to emerge out of this.

Georgia greens are extremely brave here.

Unfortunately in the USA gender expression and trans gender status are not currently protected categories so trans people can still lose their jobs or housing if they are outed as trans.

Reconciliation in the USA needs to include work to protect these rights and those of the LGB while also not steamrolling over women’s sex based rights. A legal analysis of the subject showing the middle ground to revise the Equality Act was recently submitted by a feminist lawyer in the US, but promptly ignored by everyone in the debate.

Trans rights activists however are not looking likely to compromise. They want gender identity to supersede sex in all legal matters and will settle for No Debate.

Well done on the Georgia Greens for taking a stand.

I this might be the first major crack on the left in the US? The behaviour towards GC women might open some people's eyes also.

I am amazed actually that any party on the left is showing some backbone. They must have spent ages working on the issue internally.

Lurker, I'd be intersted in that lawyers document if you have a link? I will have a look at the twitter feed of someone I have seen who is a GC lawyer in the US as it might be from her

Unfortunately in the USA gender expression and trans gender status are not currently protected categories so trans people can still lose their jobs or housing if they are outed as trans.

How does this sort of thing relate to the larger question of firing without cause? In the US that is still legal and many people defend it, including people who consider themselves progressives.

In places where there has to be cause, is it really necessary to have a specific mention of a characteristic like being trans for firing someone for that reason to be considered illegal? I don't mean necessarily that people have never tried to do so or even got away with it. But I really do wonder about excluding people from being fired for things like being trans, or even sex or race, when it is perfectly acceptable to do it because you'd rather hire someone else cheaper or you don't like their squeaky shoes or whatever.

Its good that it's getting this specific.

Recant and submit a declaration of commitment to denying female humans their rights. So that would be unquestioning commitment to male supremacism then.

That's what this means, let's be honest about it with voters. Don't think it's going to fly well, but they're entitled to stand on their own beliefs.

Apologies! This was not suppose to be on the thread.

Goosefoot

So to me the issue is that right now if you say anything about eg sex needing to be a protected characteristic and not gender you are considered a bigot who is against equality and wants trans people to be jobless and homeless. That’s because the current thrust of Trans in the USA rights has been coupled to LGB and Women’s rights via the attempted passage of the USA equality act which unlike your EA2010 has no language for exemptions protecting single sex rights. The Us Equality act is good in that it adds sex and sexual orientation, as protected characteristics. However by also adding “gender” and “gender identity” without any caveats or further explanation it leaves open the likely possibility that single sex spaces will be made illegal.

I’ll try to dig up the paper and link it. I think I saw it on Kathleen Stocks Twitter.

How does this sort of thing relate to the larger question of firing without cause?

As I understand it, if you have a protected characteristic the employer risks a lawsuit even in at will employment states. The employer will be much more cautious of firing someone in cases where a reasonable person might assume it was due to a protected characteristic.

This is definitely progress. You'd hope it might open the door to further discussion, but no surprise that the US Greens are going to have to weather a "no debate" storm first.

As I understand it, if you have a protected characteristic the employer risks a lawsuit even in at will employment states. The employer will be much more cautious of firing someone in cases where a reasonable person might assume it was due to a protected characteristic.

Yes, I think that is so. What I wonder though is whether that doesn't up the stakes of the whole question of protected characteristics in the US. Both in terms of people wanting more things included so they have at least some protection, and possibly in terms of causing resentment among those who aren't in a protected category.

causing resentment among those who aren't in a protected category.

But everyone is a member of a protected category - several in fact. Lawsuits have been successfully pursued to protect discrimination on the basis of someone being male, for example.

But everyone is a member of a protected category - several in fact. Lawsuits have been successfully pursued to protect discrimination on the basis of someone being male, for example.

I suppose.

And yet I can't imagine that anyone who gets fired for no good reason is in a position to use that fact.

The power imbalance between employer and employee is just so significant there.

Good luck to the Georgia Greens and all those who have the courage to defend women’s rights.

I'm not sure that making it harder to fire someone with a protected characteristic is progressive. I'd have thought that just leads to them being less likely to be employed in the first place. I don't like protected characteristics. We should all be equal. People shouldn't face discrimination but they also shouldn't expect or get special treatment. It just fuels resentment and leads to poor legislation like Scotland's proposed hate laws.
Well done Georgia Greens.

Reviving this thread as my understanding is that the Georgia Greens still face issues around their stance in connection to their signature to the Women's Human Rights Declaration and position on women's rights.

I'm wondering what would happen if they were formally ejected from he federation of green parties. I've been unable to check (website is down for maintenance) but if the global charter includes TWAW, TMAM and NBAV then the Georgia Greens may be considered in breach and are at risk of being kicked out?

I think it's a problem for the greens across the world. In the UK the Spring Conference rejected women's sex-based rights and didn't hear the motion on puberty blockers, to the treatment of Emma Bateman and now the strikes and resignations to the NZ greens. As the pressure builds are there more cracks opening up?

(Ani O'Brien and Jill Abigail speakupforwomen.nz/jill-abigail-the-nz-green-party-and-gender-identity/)

(recently resigned Cllr Dom Armstrong talks more about why he resigned here

A formal apology required for daring to state a commitment to protecting women's rights.

Tells you all you need to know. Inclusive? Kind? No conflict of rights? Rights are not pie?

Thanks for this Oholy

And it's ironic as the deep green resistance very much know what a woman is.

I can envisage quite a clash coming in many green parties.

This article on protected characteristics may be of interest, although I don't agree with all of it. freethepeople.org/the-inequality-of-the-equality-act-when-governments-good-intentions-backfire/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=bastiatinstitute

Thanks Bingle for that

I agree Warrior - Deep Green Resistance have stood firm. I must revisit that group. I was disappointed with XR when they made a statement about diversity or inclusivity or some such and I remember speaking to one XR member about how the name Mumsnet was exclusive and should be renamed Parents Net

“We are eager to address concerns with the document we have adopted. But such concerns must be explicitly stated. In fact, we invite you to prepare a written critique of the Declaration to which we might respond. Being called hateful bigots or transphobes provides us not a single clue about the substance of the name¬-caller’s concerns.”

What a sensible suggestion.

I don’t suppose it went down well with the TRA’s.

Here is the statement from USA Greens

gpus.org/committees/diversity/diversity-documents/statement-on-georgia-green-party-decision/?fbclid=IwAR0cahdoJtgwlBDqR66MUC0_rRl82w9tvXMIODged2hauxfZky-7kpYx3bQ

It reminds me of sport federations and how they all follow the IOC so to be considered for the competition, so it's a top-down approach with the same old shut up and do as you're told sentiment.

What if the Georgia Greens don't shut up?

Georgia Green Party has been an accredited member since 1999 of the Green Party of the United States. It is currently fighting an effort to purge our state party from the national federation, the Green Party of the United States, for the apparently mortal sin of endorsing the Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights.
Sorry for any duplication in this thread. Here are various links for more info. The first one is to a Google Form you can sign in support.
www.dialoguenotexpulsion.org/engage/sign_the_Dialogue_not_Expulsion_statement

Please see generally:
www.dialoguenotexpulsion.org/

and specifically:

GaGP Response to complaint by
National Lavender Committee to Accreditation Committee
www.dialoguenotexpulsion.org/Documents/Georgia_Party_Responds_to_Lavender_Caucus_Complaint_Seeking_to_Purge_Georgia_Party--FULL_TEXT

Ann Menasche Responds to the
Lavender Caucus Complaint Seeking to Purge Georgia Party
www.dialoguenotexpulsion.org/Documents/Ann_Menasche_Responds_to_the_Lavender_Caucus_Complaint_Seeking_to_Purge_Georgia_Party--FULL_TEXT

"Greens for Dialogue not Expulsion" responds to
NLGC complaint against the Georgia Green Party
www.dialoguenotexpulsion.org/documents/DNE_responds_to_NLGC_complaint_against_the_GaGP

and the latest:

Green Feminists (USA) Response to Lavender Caucus Complaint
www.dialoguenotexpulsion.org/documents/Green-Feminists-Response-to-LC-Complaint

but also generally:
www.dialoguenotexpulsion.org/internal-democracy-threatened/women-silenced