2022. Chapter II. Social Justice A. Civil Rights and Equal Rights. 5. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (3)


This document is a proposed amendment to the 2020 Green Party of the United States platform, available at https://www.gp.org/platform, in accordance with the rules from the Platform Committee as available at https://gpus.org/committees/platform/platform-submission/.


Name of party/caucus/committee and co-chair contact information
Nevada Green Party, co-chair: Margery Hanson, nvgreenparty@gmail.com
South Carolina Green Party, co-chair: jalazenby27@gmail.com


Brief explanation of approval process and date of approval
Approved by GPNV steering committee consensus vote, 9/27/2021
Approved by SCGP steering committee consensus vote on list, 9/28/2021

Garret Wassermann, garret.wassermann@gp.org

Chapter II, Section (A)(5)(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.”

Add the following sentence to this plank, before the last sentence (before “We are opposed to…”):
“Gender critical or trans-exclusionary social theories such as the sex-based womens’ rights declaration are not recognized as radical inclusive feminism and will be opposed by the Green Party.”

We want to make it clear that so called “gender critical feminism” and related concepts like sex-based women’s rights declaration are not recognized as a radical inclusive feminism and therefore does not meet our 10 key values nor fit with the rest of our platform.

3 thoughts on “2022. Chapter II. Social Justice A. Civil Rights and Equal Rights. 5. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (3)”

  1. This is another demonstration the Green Party previously lied, when Georgia Greens and their defenders were attacked and expelled.

    Gender identity extremists pretended support of the sex-based rights of women and gender critical feminism were against party free speech and diversity rules, and censored all discussion. The party’s “clarified” positions on these matters are misogynistic, homophobic, and an attack on lesbians. The hatred and ignorance shown is this proposal is sad.

  2. Agreeing with Jeff that this proposal, if adopted, contradicts what we were told when the question of Georgia’s membership was on the table. At that time it was asserted that this action was just about one document, the “International Declaration of Women’s Sex-Based Rights” as a specific text that allegedly used transphobic formulations. It was not an action that rejects any belief in or discussion about women’s sex-based rights.

    On that substantive question we have different views in the Green Party. I know that I am not the only one who believes that the issue of women’s sex-based rights does require some attention, in the context of also wanting to affirm the human rights of transwomen and others. It is inappropriate, therefore, to adopt a blanket rejection of an entire political perspective. It is particularly inappropriate to do this in our platform, because our platform process should above all try to reflect our general commitment to consensus functioning.

    I would therefore urge the NC to vote “no.”

  3. ​​​I am concerned about the Law of Unintended Consequences I see playing out in this proposal. I think the proposal means well, but the difference between intention and impact troubles me greatly.

    Our platform already specifically endorses transgender-inclusive language; indeed, it was enough to disaccredit the Georgia Green Party for their endorsement of the Declaration. So we don’t need this amendment to deal with the Declaration.

    I oppose adding a ban on “gender critical” and “radical inclusive feminism.” Such broad terms have been used against me as a nonbinary/agender Lesbian and against more than a few other queers. I’m sometimes labeled “gender critical” and “non-inclusive” for the following two reasons:

    1. Sexual orientation is one of those sex-based (not gender-based) rights issues. Homosexuality doesn’t exist if sex (anatomy/biology) is not distinguished from gender (masculine/feminine/etc., regardless of anatomy). I’m a homosexual, not a homo“gender”al. As a Lesbian, some accuse me of being trans-exclusionary for rejecting transwomen as sexual/romantic partners. Such rejection is called the “cotton ceiling” in the trans community, and not all trans people subscribe to it. Straight men can also be considered anti-trans if they aren’t interested in transwomen.

    2. I consider masculine/feminine sex-role stereotypes the source of my oppression as a Lesbian and as one who is non-binary and assigned female at birth. This view offends some who identify with the sex-role stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, and often gets me labeled as “gender-critical.”

    I oppose writing some of us out of the platform and out of the queer community and saying we’re not Green. The Green Party is no more united on some of these questions than the LGBTQIA2S+ community is. We have a wide range of viewpoints, even if many of us are afraid to speak up. That wide range is to be expected, given that we are an extremely diverse group of people. Let’s keep the platform for language where we’re united, not where we’re divided.

    I ask that the authors consider withdrawing this proposal. If it remains, I ask that my colleagues join me in voting no.

Leave a Reply

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