The letter below, dated March 21, 2020, by Wisconsin Green Party supporter Kerri Bruss, appealed to four of the six then admins / moderators of the national party's facebook page requesting a more balanced and equitable moderation of the page. These individuals, responsible for the fair enforcement of the page's rules, were appointed by the Media Committee of the Green Party of the United States. Ms. Bruss supported her request with a 52 page report, linked below, that documents the ongoing purge of content presented from a gender critical feminist perspective, as well as the ongoing verbal abuse and threatening behavior directed at gender critical feminists and their allies in that space.
To date there has been no response, while the purging of GC content, silencing of GC voices, and verbal abuse directed at GC feminists and their allies on the GPUS FB page continues unabated. But there was a new appointment by the Media Committee to the forum management team. On the facebook profile of the National Lavender Caucus this development was celebrated with the post reproduced here. Shortly afterwards, Paula Densnow was purged from this forum, altogether and has since been unable to either read or post to the party group.
The appeal by Kerri Bruss follows; . . .
"Attached is another pdf documenting still more instances of gender critical voices being silenced on the GPUS group's Facebook page via targeted content removal. I trust some of you are taking the time to review these documents that I am taking great care to produce. They are meant to establish that we seek more balance and respect for diverse opinions that appears to be lacking of late within Green Party spaces. It may very well be that the opinions we gender critical Greens hold are minority views, but it is also true that many Greens have been identifying themselves to and thanking us for speaking up as these conversations have been unfolding.
Many on the Lavender Caucus' side of this debate are quick to reference the party platform sections that relate specifically to 'gender identity' in defense of their position, however the fact that conflicting planks in that platform exist seems to all too often be ignored. I am specifically speaking to the social justice planks referencing support for women's rights that also acknowledge women as an oppressed class, as well as those that speak to the education and health and welfare of children.
In US civil rights law, the protected characteristic is SEX, and adding 'gender identity' removes those protections. Full stop. Which makes this plank "We will work to add sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression to the existing civil rights act" diametrically opposed to the sex-based rights of women and girls.
Women DO have rights. They are just like everyone else, and when their rights are being violated, they get to identify the problem and insist that it stop, just like everyone else. Even when doing so may hurt someone's feelings.
To be clear, we are asking for some consideration along the following lines:
-- that we want a fair and across the board application of the rules,
-- that we not be compelled to speak in a vocabulary which fails to convey our understanding of how the world works,
-- that if our position is to be mis-characterized, that we will continue to insist on an opportunity to correct the record, and to use the language we feel is necessary to do so accurately,
-- that we seek an equitable enforcement of the rules around name calling, that we not be referred to as bigots, hateful, nazis, terfs, cis, etc.
All of the above are in my view fair and equitable requests that do not stem from a place of hate or bigotry as is currently being portrayed."