Ante ups for Georgia Green Party

In my first post here, last week, I noted that, with the Rhode Island GP withdrawing from the national party rather than face a de-accreditation fight, and the Alaska GP losing such a fight, in both cases over lack of support for 2020 presidential nominee Howie Hawkins, a number of Greens wondered if these were dominoes specifically lined up to create momentum to boot the Georgia Green Party next, over entirely different issues, issues which defenders of the party argue aren’t even addressable by de-accreditation.

The Green Party’s national Lavender Caucus fired an official complaint with the GP’s Accreditation Committee just before Christmas. The complaint asks for either formal de-accreditation, or what I call “backdoor de-accreditation” of either suspending the Georgia GP or else putting it on “inactive” status.

The Georgia party has now fired back.

The nutgraf is here:

The NLC complaint fails to state an actionable claim that either proposed outcome [author: suspension/inactive or de-accreditation] is justified. We urge that this committee (1) reject this complaint, (2) exercise patience that the party’s process for the democratic revision to its platform will function to resolve disputes among accredited members over platform language and (3) allow our state and national parties to return to the important work of building capacity for the election cycle which began as the polls closed November 3rd, 2020.

Per a PDF at the Georgia GP’s link with full information, the Lavender Caucus claims de-accreditation is warranted because the state party’s 2020 platform statement on women’s sex workers’ rights undermines the social justice commitment among the national GP’s Four Key Pillars.

From what I know of timetables and other things, a denouement of some sort is likely within 30-60 days. For people who are interested in the details of the issue, click through the Georgia GP webpage to the PDF.

7 thoughts on “Ante ups for Georgia Green Party

  1. SocraticGadfly Post author

    And, I totally disagree with you, Fernando. They’re not idiots and the state platform plank (which I’ve actually read) is not “anti-trans.”

    Thanks for being honest at least.

  2. SocraticGadfly Post author

    Gender is not sex. Period and end of story.

    And, I am sure I’ll be repeating that more in 2021.

    Is that to say that every claim on this issue is correct? No.

    Is it to say that men who wear a dress and makeup, but have no intention of transitioning their *sex* not gender, but want to use certain phraseology and framing, DO exist? Yes.

    Gender is not sex. Period and end of story.

    And, “transsexual” is thus not the same as “transgender.”

    And, no, per Wittgenstein and others on philosophy of language, and on sociology of language, “transsexual” is not pejorative.

    And, per the Twitter thread? I don’t know who’s blacked out, but I do know who Hugh is. And, I think he’s more right than wrong.

    To be pre-emptive? If you feel about what I just said, the same way you told Hugh what you said on Twitter, you can have that statement back at yourself.

  3. Fernando Mercado

    Only person claiming here Sex and Gender are the same are the Transphobes who keep conflating the two together.

    Gender is how you identify and present yourself to the world, usually falling under the social or cultural standpoints. Sex can have a part in how you identify, but it is not the end all be all.

    I do not see how Hugh is “more right than wrong” when he is literally saying that the Trans-Rights movement is a Men’s Rights movement and has supported a document that rails against Trans Women claiming they are not valid.

  4. SocraticGadfly

    First, again, I never said that I agree with everything Hugh and others say.

    Second, no, people like you are, IMO, better identified as the conflators. Or even more accurate, perhaps as the sleight-of-handers.

  5. SocraticGadfly

    Oh, one other thought:

    Many defenders of the GAGP vs de-accreditation actually don’t totally agree with its platform in general or the women’s sex worker rights plank in particular. However, they do feel that:
    1. The Lavender Caucus has not acted in good faith, and has not wanted to be an open discussion partner;
    2. That this is not a violation of the Four Pillars as claimed.
    Within this group of supporters, even some that find the particular plank a matter of concern do not feel that de-accreditation, or de-accreditation light by suspension is a warranted action, or one that is even open to the Accreditation Committee.

    In other words, per Iranian philosopher Idries Shah:
    ‘To ‘see both sides’ of a problem is the surest way to prevent its complete solution. Because there are always more than two sides.’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *