Thanks Chris. I do think it could have done with a bit of trimming. The problem writing a somewhat technical story like this is that you need to aim it at two audiences: a) GP insiders and members ; b) non-members. It is always an issue how much details you need to give to both audiences.
I myself am a Green concerned about excesses of ostensible trans 'activism' which dangerously promotes hormones and surgery for children, and which fails to acknowledge the complications of post-puberty transitioned women in sports, as well as the need for women-safe spaces like women's shelters, prisons, locker rooms, and saunas.
But the constant refrain from trans sceptics that sex is "only binary" when there are millions of cases in which it clearly is not, and that gender somehow does not have a biological basis when peer reviewed science clearly shows that it does, are unnecessarily alienating sensible people who would otherwise listen if you weren't mixing faulty reductionist science into your thesis.
Here is an essay I put together to correct the record, and clearly show the science behind biological gender differences. Please read it.
"The Gender Spectrum Has Nothing To Do With Reproduction: Deconstructing Reactionary Attacks On Enlightened Gender Discussion"
This is far too long and should be summarised as a battle between different views on transgender. I was pro trans but the amount of time this has wasted me has almost turned me into a terf!
Here's a summary of the key points from the article:
1. The Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW) conference in Manchester was marked by contrasting events inside and outside the venue.
2. Dr. Pallavi Devulapalli, the party's health spokesperson, was suspended just before the conference due to comments about biological sex.
3. The party's disciplinary process is under scrutiny, with an independent investigation launched into recent suspensions and expulsions of over 20 members.
4. Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay expressed sympathy for Dr. Devulapalli in a BBC interview, putting him at odds with some party officials.
5. A group called "Greens in Exile," consisting of suspended or expelled members, protested outside the conference.
6. Former deputy leader Shahrar Ali was also suspended recently, preventing him from attending the conference.
7. There's an ongoing conflict within the party between those advocating for women's sex-based rights and those prioritizing transgender rights.
8. Several motions critical of the party's leadership and disciplinary processes were blocked from discussion at the conference.
9. The article suggests that a faction focused on identity politics, particularly transgender issues, has significant control over key party committees.
10. The author raises questions about the future of the Green Party, including concerns about losing members and potential legal challenges.
11. An interview with Dr. Devulapalli reveals her feelings of betrayal and disappointment with the party's actions against her.
The article portrays a party grappling with internal conflicts, particularly around issues of sex and gender, while attempting to maintain a public image of unity and progress.
Thanks Tom. Not a bad summary. Two key points missed:
a) Most of those attending the conference did not know most of this ( unless they were listening after midnight on the weekend to BBC Five Live.)
b) A few ideologues opposed to sex-based rights and elected by less that 1% of GPEW members (and in control of GPRC , SOC and the GP Discipline Committee) are deciding what gets discussed at GPEW meet and who can attend. Alan PS: And I don't think that is a good way to run a party. PPS: THE LEFT LANE needs more writers. Contact: theleftlanepolitics@gmail.com. I am only a Zoom call away.
The fact that "Every major party has endorsed Cass" should've been a red flag not to touch it with a ten-foot stick, to be honest.
Dragging the whole "gender-critical" hornets' nest into the party's door served less than no purpose; as those who find that crotch-cricketry so important can easily find representation in those other "major parties" should they choose.
Siding with GC as a party, on the other hand, undermines the potential for solidarity with both other elements of the left and non-aligned leftist individuals seeking a place to belong, politically. "Gender-critical" is right-coded identity politics; as most of the main proponents of that movement are right-wing and use it for right-wing "culture war" purposes.
Identity politics, of either coding, are both non-resolvable and non-material; and as such are a poison to left movements in general. The fact that others (outside of party or faction) get emotional about them does not raise them to the level of the manifold already-urgent concerns the left and the Greens are trying to organize to address.
Let the damage that resulted from the errors on both sides of this controversy within the Greens be a lesson to the rest of the left to say "No" + move on when someone or some group shows up at the door dragging such squalor behind them, wanting to be let in.
I saw the process as this clique took power over the Green Left forum. It resembles nothing more closely than the Israeli Hasbara system - absolute agreement, or else you are 'Beyond Redemption' - and deplatformed, at best.
What it also brings to mind is all the furore over the Georgian and Slovakian 'FARA' proposed laws, that would expose the machinations of the Anglo Empire deep state and its NGOs misusing youthful idealism for US Imperial ends.
As Alexander of the Duran asked recently - "How did the (German) Greens go from being the most pacifist Party to the most warmongering in such a rapid time?".
Because the US has infiltrated such movements with the black $Bns the American taxpayer gives them.
Once the GPEW "endorsed" NATO at the recent conference, I personally stopped giving 2 shits about the Party, it had become obvious the directon the GPEW were going in as well.
Good luck 'cleaning up the Greens' when the CIA, with all of their dark money funds, universal comms surveillance, and organisational depth, are behind this "clique".
The only true independent UK Party right now is Corbyn's new one.
Needless to say, it is not as though the CIA/Empire gives a real shit about Transrights, or Gay Rights, these are just the liberal fronts they use to trojan horse their own control virus into the targetted organisation/country.
Thank you for a very clearly written and well-presented article which covers the whole issue without wasting words.
Thanks Chris. I do think it could have done with a bit of trimming. The problem writing a somewhat technical story like this is that you need to aim it at two audiences: a) GP insiders and members ; b) non-members. It is always an issue how much details you need to give to both audiences.
More follow up from Greens in Exile: https://greensinexile.org.uk/ali-vs-gpew-dr-shahrar-ali-awarded-90000-costs
Greens need to pay £90,000 more after losing this court case to Shahrar Ali:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2dgd9d9503o
There is a key problem with your article.
I myself am a Green concerned about excesses of ostensible trans 'activism' which dangerously promotes hormones and surgery for children, and which fails to acknowledge the complications of post-puberty transitioned women in sports, as well as the need for women-safe spaces like women's shelters, prisons, locker rooms, and saunas.
But the constant refrain from trans sceptics that sex is "only binary" when there are millions of cases in which it clearly is not, and that gender somehow does not have a biological basis when peer reviewed science clearly shows that it does, are unnecessarily alienating sensible people who would otherwise listen if you weren't mixing faulty reductionist science into your thesis.
Here is an essay I put together to correct the record, and clearly show the science behind biological gender differences. Please read it.
"The Gender Spectrum Has Nothing To Do With Reproduction: Deconstructing Reactionary Attacks On Enlightened Gender Discussion"
https://ericbrooks.substack.com/p/the-gender-spectrum-has-nothing-to
Why wasn't this issue discussed at the recent Green Party conference in Manchester?
This is far too long and should be summarised as a battle between different views on transgender. I was pro trans but the amount of time this has wasted me has almost turned me into a terf!
Here's a summary of the key points from the article:
1. The Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW) conference in Manchester was marked by contrasting events inside and outside the venue.
2. Dr. Pallavi Devulapalli, the party's health spokesperson, was suspended just before the conference due to comments about biological sex.
3. The party's disciplinary process is under scrutiny, with an independent investigation launched into recent suspensions and expulsions of over 20 members.
4. Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay expressed sympathy for Dr. Devulapalli in a BBC interview, putting him at odds with some party officials.
5. A group called "Greens in Exile," consisting of suspended or expelled members, protested outside the conference.
6. Former deputy leader Shahrar Ali was also suspended recently, preventing him from attending the conference.
7. There's an ongoing conflict within the party between those advocating for women's sex-based rights and those prioritizing transgender rights.
8. Several motions critical of the party's leadership and disciplinary processes were blocked from discussion at the conference.
9. The article suggests that a faction focused on identity politics, particularly transgender issues, has significant control over key party committees.
10. The author raises questions about the future of the Green Party, including concerns about losing members and potential legal challenges.
11. An interview with Dr. Devulapalli reveals her feelings of betrayal and disappointment with the party's actions against her.
The article portrays a party grappling with internal conflicts, particularly around issues of sex and gender, while attempting to maintain a public image of unity and progress.
Thanks Tom. Not a bad summary. Two key points missed:
a) Most of those attending the conference did not know most of this ( unless they were listening after midnight on the weekend to BBC Five Live.)
b) A few ideologues opposed to sex-based rights and elected by less that 1% of GPEW members (and in control of GPRC , SOC and the GP Discipline Committee) are deciding what gets discussed at GPEW meet and who can attend. Alan PS: And I don't think that is a good way to run a party. PPS: THE LEFT LANE needs more writers. Contact: theleftlanepolitics@gmail.com. I am only a Zoom call away.
The fact that "Every major party has endorsed Cass" should've been a red flag not to touch it with a ten-foot stick, to be honest.
Dragging the whole "gender-critical" hornets' nest into the party's door served less than no purpose; as those who find that crotch-cricketry so important can easily find representation in those other "major parties" should they choose.
Siding with GC as a party, on the other hand, undermines the potential for solidarity with both other elements of the left and non-aligned leftist individuals seeking a place to belong, politically. "Gender-critical" is right-coded identity politics; as most of the main proponents of that movement are right-wing and use it for right-wing "culture war" purposes.
Identity politics, of either coding, are both non-resolvable and non-material; and as such are a poison to left movements in general. The fact that others (outside of party or faction) get emotional about them does not raise them to the level of the manifold already-urgent concerns the left and the Greens are trying to organize to address.
Let the damage that resulted from the errors on both sides of this controversy within the Greens be a lesson to the rest of the left to say "No" + move on when someone or some group shows up at the door dragging such squalor behind them, wanting to be let in.
I saw the process as this clique took power over the Green Left forum. It resembles nothing more closely than the Israeli Hasbara system - absolute agreement, or else you are 'Beyond Redemption' - and deplatformed, at best.
What it also brings to mind is all the furore over the Georgian and Slovakian 'FARA' proposed laws, that would expose the machinations of the Anglo Empire deep state and its NGOs misusing youthful idealism for US Imperial ends.
As Alexander of the Duran asked recently - "How did the (German) Greens go from being the most pacifist Party to the most warmongering in such a rapid time?".
Because the US has infiltrated such movements with the black $Bns the American taxpayer gives them.
Once the GPEW "endorsed" NATO at the recent conference, I personally stopped giving 2 shits about the Party, it had become obvious the directon the GPEW were going in as well.
Good luck 'cleaning up the Greens' when the CIA, with all of their dark money funds, universal comms surveillance, and organisational depth, are behind this "clique".
The only true independent UK Party right now is Corbyn's new one.
Needless to say, it is not as though the CIA/Empire gives a real shit about Transrights, or Gay Rights, these are just the liberal fronts they use to trojan horse their own control virus into the targetted organisation/country.