Coming to New Zealand on CPAC money to provoke counter-protest and support for it from the left was also a beautifully executed propaganda campaign by the political right, who chose her well.
Given their plans for the USA (as a leader of the white race Five Eyes nations) dividing women against each other was essential to their cause.
I agree that PP/KJK is a divisive figure sponsored by CPAC. But the NZ media did themselves no credit by their alarmist behaviour, stirring up as much hate and fear as possible.
I don't see what's so scary about "letting women speak". The public is ill served by fact free invective
Did you make that up? Please provide some evidence that KJK used CPAC money for the NZ trip. My understanding is that CPAC provided liability insurance in Australia and that KJK funded the NZ trip herself, but am open to seeing evidence that CPAC paid for the NZ trip.
CPAC runs annual conferences of conservative political activists in Australia, the US and several other countries. The 2022 Australian conference included right-wing speakers such as Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Jacinta Price, Mark Latham, Rita Panahi and Nigel Farage from the UK, former leader of the right-wing populist UK Independence Party (UKIP).
CPAC actively opposes the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, arguing that it will “exacerbate racial division”. This is a classic racist argument to oppose greater political representation for Aboriginal people in this country.
KJK’s acceptance of sponsorship from this group, without expressing any critique of their positions, suggests her acceptance of conservative and racist ideas and plays into the left’s idea that being gender critical is a right-wing project.
CPAC’s sponsorship of KJK’s Australian tour follows a long-running pattern of interaction with the right and the extreme right.
Yes, I know that she got funding in Australia from CPAC, I said that in the comment you replied to. Does she say in the video that her whole Australian tour was funded by CPAC? A time stamp would be handy.
I was asking SPC for evidence for their claim that the NZ trip was funded by CPAC.
Because we have ACC, Molly, NZ event organisers do not have to insure against damage to attendees. That is not the case in other countries, where you may pay a sizeable premium against possible injury/death claims.
It's a little ambiguous whether CPAC were providing the insurance alone, or whether the sponsorship covers other costs on the Australian tour.
The issue here is whether KJK's position on this is a problem.
For GCFs, it is. The feministleft piece is a good explainer, Women's Liberation Aotearoa have also talked about this. KJK's tolerance of and working with the FR harms society via its contribution to rising fascism, and it harms GCF.
For TRAs, it also is. It harms trans people, rainbow people, people in general and society for the same rising fascism reasons. However, for TRAs, anyone who is critical of gender identity ideology is now being attached to fascism, and that's neither true nor helpful. It's a harm itself as well. Terf = Nazi rhetoric makes informed debate much harder and renders left wing, feminist GC positions invisible.
Those positions are the ones that support trans rights and women's rights, so it's an own goal by TRAs to conflate GC with fascism.
KJK arise out of the vacuum left by No Debate. She's all sorts of problems for GCFs, but I also understand her position of refusing guilty by association. Nothing will ever be enough for TRAs, and in that sense the demand for her to do whatever is dishonest. She's wrong not to distance herself from Nazis/FR, but if she did, TRAs would just find another stick to beat her with because of her fundamental support for women's sex based rights. That's the thing that cannot be tolerated.
My view on this is informed by the frequency with which left wing, gender critical feminists are called Nazis.
"I find many of her views repugnant, and am concerned by the way in which she courts some of the most vile people and groups around including white supremacists," Wood said.
"The group reportedly held signs calling transgender people offensive names, and repeatedly performed the Nazi salute."
“I will not sit at home as Nazis and TERFS steal my right to be who I am,” Lal said.
Maybe if the MSM were so concerned about hate speech they should stop publishing Lal and Tweedie
I'm not the one claiming bias in the main street media. Roblogic was and the photos in that article simply justify the reporting in the MSM about Nazis. Those visuals were on our TV reports as well. If Roblogic can't, how about you link to any quote in the MSM that "PP is a fascist" if not you have no value in this discussion.
But it was her scheduled stop at the Parliament House in Melbourne that caused the most concern among Australian politicians, after a group of neo-Nazis joined the “gender-critical” rally, chanting “white power” and using the Nazi salute.
I've not seen any evidence that the neo Nazis joined the rally. From the accounts I've read they didn't join the rally but counter protested the TRA counter protest as well as making their own stand.
“I think once the initial shock died down everyone was just furious, seeing Nazis doing salutes uninterrupted and interacting with the TERFs.”
Go on then Pink News, show us the video. You've got a tiktok influencer in your piece, where is their video?
The legit liberal argument here is why neo Nazis would consider it useful to do what they did. Is it because KJK is a secret Nazi and was signalling them to come? Is it because they hate trans people and coopted the event? The latter seems much more likely to me, even allowing for KJK's conservative, populist, playing all sides position. Her position is an obvious problem, but it's not the same as being a Nazi sympathiser.
If Roblogic can't back up their comment that the MSM called "PP is a fascist" or "Feminists are Nazis" how about you do. I notice you're asking for evidence at 1.4 because comments counter your view yet you are santioning, by agreement, misinformation and disinformation . As you say "Weird fucking times"
I notice you're asking for evidence at 1.4 because comments counter your view yet you are santioning, by agreement, misinformation and disinformation
You cannot make shit up about my motivations. If you do, I will moderate.
There are other ways to make your point here without thinking you can mindread. For instance, you could say that you think it's unfair that Roblogic got to make an inaccurate claim and you didn't (with and explanation). But you can't make declaratory statements about and author/mod's views and motivations when you don't know what they are.
I'm pointing this out because it's becoming a habit here and it has to stop (for obvious reasons). Please acknowledge that you have read and understood. I'm happy to clarify anything if asked.
Yes Weka I acknowledge your pre-moderation. In my honest opinion you have not evenly moderated on this topic. You, of course, will claim you have.
None of this would be necessary if you had, as has been asked for a long time, allowed a "Daily GC Debate" like the "Open Mike" or "Daily Review" Then it would be much less likely some of us would get triggered by lies and misinformation and then hooked into a debate we don't belong in I believe it would save you a substantial amount of moderating time.
It’s not about allowing a daily GC debate, it’s about the work involved in doing that, and whether it’s best for the site. Last year it was mooted, to keep OM clear of gender/sex debate, but at that time it wasn’t happening on a daily basis so I didn’t see the need.
A few weeks ago it was raised again, and it’s something I have been thinking about for a while, but it looks to me like what’s happened since then is that there are less gender/sex comments in OM and people are continuing conversations from previous days’ threads instead. This seems a good thing to me.
allowed a “Daily GC Debate” like the “Open Mike” or “Daily Review” Then it would be much less likely some of us would get triggered by lies and misinformation and then hooked into a debate we don’t belong in I believe it would save you a substantial amount of moderating time.
The idea wasn’t to ghetto-ise GC debate into a single post, it was to set up a dedicated post for anyone to talk about any aspect of the gender/sex wars (I have also considered doing some dedicated posts on GC topics, but that’s a different thing).
What you seem to be saying is that some people here should take their politics somewhere else, and that’s just not going to happen. Especially not in an election year. I won’t ghetto-ise GCs any more than I would TRAs. It’s against the ethos of the site.
In terms of being triggered, that’s happening on both sides. I can only suggest learning how to step back and then re-engage from a place of evidenced-based robust debate. I made this suggestion to a GC person a few days ago, in case you think I am being unfair.
Any lies and misinformation on TS, on any topic, get dealt with in two ways. One is by commenters holding other commenters to account. The other is by moderation. The first is preferable, because that’s how informed debate happens and because it lessens the mod workload. What’s happened in DR here is a really good example of that working well.
If you see any lies being told, you are free to do a reply comment to me with a link and a brief explanation of what the lie is, and I will run my moderator eye over it.
You challenged, I responded, you reject the evidence (or my interpretation thereof). That is your perogative, I suppose. Everyone brings their own perspective. My original comment was simply an observation of MSM hypocrisy around certain narratives.
There was a Nazi group, New Zealandia, who came to support Posie at Albert Park. And let's face it, your group here are trans exclusionary. Doesn't sound like hate speech to me, just reasonable descriptors of some attendees. Hate speech is stuff like "trans men should be sterilised" and "of course autogynephiles also exhibit other paraphilia, like pedophilia" (Posie Parker).
You are aware that quite a few of the gender critical right are literally Nazis right? As in believers in facism?
And because intersectionality is, of course, bullshit woke ideology, there's no shades of grey here. They're either what I arbitrarily a Nazi, or they're not. And to be honest, I don't want to share a bathroom or a safe space with Nazis.
If only we had a theory to describe how people's identities are comprised of more than one aspect. Or, suggested that the mislabelling of minorities by a powerful majority was a bad thing.
You are aware that quite a few of the gender critical right are literally Nazis right? As in believers in facism?
Maybe give us some examples of the literal Nazis who are gender critical. The far right like gender and want it enforced (think Matt Walsh), so I'm curious who you had in mind.
I know about language, and I know that this is based on something that we call the big lie. Do you know the big lie? The big lie was first described by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf. The big lie is such a big lie that ordinary people like us think, ‘Well, that can’t be a lie because I would never tell such a big lie as that. We only lie in small ways.’ The big lie, well there is one big lie going on, and it was begun by men in the early part of the twentieth century. It began when they had an erotic fantasy and they decided they were going to sell us the big lie — and what is the big lie? The big lie is that trans women are women. But they’re not are they? They’re men and we know that.
Last year I watched the video of that woman at Let Women Speak. I know it's hard to credit that someone could be so politically naive as to a) reference Hitler's ideas and b) do so with that idea in some kind of backwards way so that GC people are compared to Hitler and TRAs to Jews, but there it is.
But was there any evidence that she talks and acts like a Nazi apart from that? Someone surely has tracked her work or online presence outside that speech and found pictures of her with Nazis, or agreeing with Nazis.
I also haven't seen anything to suggest she is right wing
Having watched her speech, I think she was just stupid. But I'm open to being wrong. It's entirely possible that she is a Nazi sympathiser and Jew hater. I haven't seen the evidence for that. But good effort, I agree that if she is a Nazi sympathiser then this would be an example of a Nazi being kind of gender critical. Any other examples? You did say "quite a few of the gender critical right are literally Nazis right"
Btw, I'll note that your link doesn't link to the video. I wonder why. It's very unlikely that the woman speaking is a trans exclusionary radical feminist, so I'll take the piece as being firmly entrenched in terf = nazi ideology and not able to parse truth or meaning very well.
I'll take the piece as being firmly entrenched in terf = nazi ideology and not able to parse truth or meaning very well.
I beg to differ that understanding there's a significant overlap between the elements, beliefs and tactics of the gender critical movement and those of facism is sign of subscribing to an ideology.
But we live in a democracy, this a place for open and robust debate, and even reasonable people can strongly disagree from time-to-time.
the 'gender critical movement' is really a hodge podge of different views on gender identity ideology and its main central point is believing the biological sex matters.
People who think there is a significant overlap between the 'GC movement' and fascism either don't understand what the range of GC thought is, or do but choose to ignore and render invisible the large left wing and progressive and feminist gender critical movements.
Terf is a slur and it's been used online to promote some of the worst misogynistic abuse many of us have seen. Leftie TRAs have had this pointed out to them and still won't condemn it. It's basically been sanctioned by the neoliberal left.
if you're not familiar with this then please take a good look
terfisaslur.com/
Anyone using the term terf as a pejorative after seeing that is actively engaging in intentional marginalisation of women and/or is using it for propaganda purposes. Not even the worst of left wing rhetoric against right wing women went there (think Ruth Richardson or Thatcher). But now it is acceptable to target women with sexualised and death violence messaging for political purposes.
Know who else does that? Men's Rights Activists and right to rape men. If terf = nazi, then anti-terfers = MRAs and rapists. See how fucking stupid that is?
I'd like it if 'men in skirts' and autogynephile were banned at The Standard too as disrespectful. The twitter feed of the man who coined that second term 40 years ago is disgustingly transphobic.
'Autogynephile', when used outside research or therapy settings that examine sexual visualisation, is a nasty perjorative. The original researcher claimed autogynephilia, fantasising about having a woman's body for sexual gratification, was a paraphilia, an abnormal, uncontrollable fetishism, and it was the way that trans women attracted to other women developed. Those two research conclusions have since been debunked, but the term has stuck.
Posie Parker is on video claiming autogynephiles exhibit other paraphilia, specifically pedophilia. Yuk, Posie, another lie.
At least TERF is just an acronym for trans exclusionary radical feminists, even if said with a nasty sneer. I do have to confess, I've been using the 'men in skirts' ironically today, but I can control myself if needed.
Who is someone who believes in fascism who is gender critical? What examples do you have of someone with both these views in NZ?
Most gender critical feminists are of course left leaning. The majority of SUFW are Labour/Green voters.
I am not sure what you are talking about other than slinging around some labels like Nazi and fascist. This I think was the point of Roblogics comment that two people who both happen to be women were called Nazis/likened to Adolf Hitler.
Association for Women in Development is an international feminist organisation. As part of its brief, according to Wikipedia, AWID
" coordinates the Observatory on the Universality of Rights (OURs), a collaborative project with over 20 other NGOs, that aims "to monitor, analyse, share information and do collaborative advocacy on […] anti-rights initiatives threatening international and regional human rights systems" from a feminist perspective. OURs' working group includes Planned Parenthood, the World Council of Churches, Muslims for Progressive Values and other organizations."
As part of this monitoring, AWID reported in 2021 on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which has had concerted attacks on progressive feminist positions by state and political lobby groups who are trying to roll back womens' rights internationally.
From this report I quote specifically on attacks at Commission meetings on trans rights (point 3 of the report):
"This year’s CSW saw an alarming increase in the presence of anti-trans feminists. A parallel event, “Defending Women’s Sex Based Rights” was organised by trans-exclusionary feminists associated with the Women’s Human Rights Campaign to promote their Declaration on Women’s Sex-based Rights. The crux of their campaign asserts that trans people – trans women in particular – are a threat to cisgender women and endanger women-only spaces. The event used images depicting gender-based violence to leverage false accusations against trans women. The event also used images of trans people, evidently without their consent, invalidating their identities. Similar to other anti-rights actors, it becomes clear that the Campaign engages in sensationalism, and fear-mongering to get their messages across, for example invoking sexual trauma of cisgender women to paint trans people as a threat. Trans-exclusionary feminists flooded the Zoom chats of many events, especially those focused on sex workers and LGBTIQ rights, with the Declaration and related messages. They also claimed they were being censored, a narrative commonly used by trans-exclusionary feminists and anti-rights actors more broadly, despite their views being given space on many mainstream media platforms."
Here is an international womens' rights organisation vitally concerned that attacks on transgender rights framed by a section of gender-critical feminists negatively impacts on womens' rights overall.
This is feminists worried about other feminists denying trans rights with messaging that will be eerily familiar to readers of The Standard.
"The crux of their campaign asserts that trans people – trans women in particular – are a threat to cisgender women and endanger women-only spaces."
This interpretation assumes a lot:
Women's single-sex spaces are only about safety from physical assault;
There is no value in single-sex provision in terms of accommodation of particular needs, dignity or privacy;
Men with gender identities are not included in women's single-sex provisions because they are transgender – rather than that they are men;
Inclusion and equality is not already in place when those with gender identities are included in the expectation that they will use the provisions and accommodations for whatever categories are provided to which they belong.
What is being demanded is exclusion from that societal expectation so that boundaries for single-sex spaces can be broken.
"This is feminists worried about other feminists denying trans rights with messaging that will be eerily familiar to readers of The Standard."
It might be a strange notion, but women – including some who call themselves feminists – are not a hive mind. There are plenty of organisations that have aims that are contrary to their chosen names. eg. Taxpayers Union
"There are plenty of organisations that have aims that are contrary to their chosen names". If 'Let Women Speak' doesn't consider the opinion of the 'Association of Women in Development' to be women speaking, then it certainly doesn't live up to a claim of speaking for all of us. Exactly like the misnamed Taxpayers' Union, so thanks for making that point.
I really can't understand your toilet usage paragraph. Having 'a feeling' that trans women in NZ public toilets and change spaces are not 'right', or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it', is just not enough for me as an argument.
I absolutely agree that everyone using those spaces should BE safe. Please show the data that trans women are a significant threat in NZ public toilets and change areas to other users. To help, I've calculated the number of NZ's trans women population for you.
Stats NZ reported that 4.2% of adult NZers identified as LGBT+ and 0.8% as transgender or non-binary. Of these, 33.2% identified themselves as male-to-female. In 2020, with a resident population of 4.9 mi, and 87.8% aged 15+ this gave
4,900,000 x 0.878 x 0.008 x 0.332 = 11,400 trans women, or 'men in skirts' as they have been so charmingly identified on this site.
Currently, access in NZ of transwomen to toilets and change rooms in public spaces, gyms, schools, etc is either open and unpoliced, or is set on a case by case basis depending on the organisation/club/school administering the space. In other words, no one is stopping trans women accessing many of these facilities, so we already have a mostly-integrated system.
How many cases of intimidation or violence by these 11,400 transwomen in toilet/changing rooms were reported or prosecuted around toilets and change areas in the last 5 years? To get the whole picture, what are the stats for intimidation and violence experienced by trans women using either mens' toilets or womens' toilets? And, of course, your data must also include criminal behaviour by 'unskirted' men in such 'women-safe' spaces as a benchmark.
When you can give me validated data, or point to multiple media-reported examples relevant to our own country that trans women commonly physically or verbally attack other users in 'women-safe' spaces, then I will give some respect to your feelings about the dangerousness of NZ trans women.
It's important to note that I don't expect there to be no examples – that would hold trans women to an inhuman standard of good behaviour. The critical data is not 0 cases, but the proportion in those 11,400 trans women who offend in such circumstances.
"I really can't understand your toilet usage paragraph. Having 'a feeling' that trans women in NZ public toilets and change spaces are not 'right', or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it', is just not enough for me as an argument."
Which paragraph is this?
I have not referred to 'a feeling', not 'right' or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it' – so, you are either misunderstanding me, or setting up a framework of objections that I haven't made in order to refute them.
"I absolutely agree that everyone using those spaces should BE safe. Please show the data that trans women are a significant threat in NZ public toilets and change areas to other users. "
I have not claimed they are a threat. I support their safety. Men should make all men welcome and safe in their single-sex provisions – including those with gender identities.
"To help, I've calculated the number of NZ's trans women population for you."
Unnecessary – but thank you. This calculation will continue to be somewhat hampered as both NZ Statistics and the latest NZ Census are reluctant to distinguish between sex and identity.
"When you can give me validated data, or point to multiple media-reported examples relevant to our own country that trans women commonly physically or verbally attack other users in 'women-safe' spaces, then I will give some respect to your feelings about the dangerousness of NZ trans women."
Once again, it is not the ‘dangerousness of NZ trans women’ that excludes them from single-sex provisions – it is their male sex. As well as excluding men who have gender identities, I exclude my father, my grandfathers, my brother, my partner of over thirty years, and my three adult sons. Not because I think they are predatory or dangerous – but because they are men.
And here is a very pertinent consideration: All those men self-excluded because they respect women, and have consideration for them.
Along with single-sex safety boundaries – BASED on risk assessment statistics – is the value single-sex spaces hold for women and girls of privacy and dignity.
Consent is also an issue.
Women cannot consent for others in shared single-sex spaces – eg. I cannot claim the men in my life are trustworthy – so everyone should allow them in. In terms of single-sex provision, many women are saying it should be maintained by SEX. In an individual private life, individual women are able to consent according to their own perspectives, but that automatic dismantling does not apply in public areas.
For someone who wants (further) data collated on harm – where is your data regarding the harm to men with gender identities using their sexed based provisions?
And when you do collate it, then we can weight it against the provision for other vulnerable males who are also at risk, and the existing risk assessment evidence that determined single-sex provision was of benefit in terms of reducing risk for women. Oh yes, and those other aspects of privacy, dignity and consent.
This request from tWiggle falls in to trap we have seen before of requesting data before something happens rather than being able to extrapolate from human behaviour occuring now, and back into the mists of time, with male/female violence.
To me this is unconsionable that a woman/women has to be a fall guy, excuse the phrase, before caution is acted on. So how many women who are distressed, injured, killed in a so-called womens safe space before we say 'oh dear…perhaps we should do something?' 10, 20 one in each country or one in each large city in each country?
For instance we don't say to zoos 'We know lions are dangerous and you want to import one but let's try having it out roaming around in the wild in our cities first', or wait until agricultural pests get established before saying 'oh dear we knew mealie bugs were dangerous to crops and maybe we shouldn't have let them in.'
We work on the concept of dangerousness by sex and work to mitigate risks.
As humans we are able to, and do, carefully extrapolate from a given situation to a another situation.
The point is that fully intact males will be able to enter women's safe spaces. They need not even be on the road to transition, they need not even have a female changed birth certicate. We need to look at worst case scenarios and work our way back to a point of safety for women.
If a nation moves to a position of including all as equal citizens regardless of difference (for example gender), which is human rights centred, there is still the issue of public safety.
If it is decided that gender trumps sex, then there is increased risk from those born male to biological females that requires counter-veiling policy.
Denying gender ID placement/access to women spaces to those who are seen as a risk (as we screen places such as schools).
Women refuges – allowing them to exclude on grounds of safety, as they see fit.
Allowing sports organisations to determine fair competition and participation rules based on the well being of the sport and those of it
Allowing women's groups to exclude those not born female as they choose (as we allow religious groups their sovereignty).
Establish a group that focuses on the provision of safe spacing. and which provides funds for this purpose.
You are conflating equality with same treatment, which is not equality – it is defaulting to a universal concept.
Provision for different needs – ie. age, mobility, sex etc so that they have equal ACCESS to education, health, legislative consideration, employment, housing etc. is the outcome that is sought.
Shanreagh. Did you not see the bit where we already have trans women access to womens' toilets in many places? It's happening now. It's been happening for years.
that would be transsexual women who by and large pass. Not any male who says they are a woman. Trans woman now means any male who self-IDs. They don't even have to transition. It also means men who cross dress for sexual arousal and then masturbate in women's spaces. There's a whole porn genre of that.
Is this in NZ? I refuse to see anything pulled from the big wide world if it doesn't come from here. Why should I be exposed to your schlock material designed for outrage? You’re feeding me this chaff as a distraction. Where's your kiwi facts? Fact up! Not schlock up!
women in other countries matter to me, I guess they don’t to you?
But you seem to have missed the point. I was demonstrating that trans woman no longer means someone like Georgina Beyer who has fully transitioned and presents as a woman. When TW meant that, there was no problem sharing women’s toilets etc. That’s no longer the situation.
What I showed you isn’t schlock. It’s men being sexual aggressors in women’s spaces. How many incidents would make it meaningful to take women seriously?
TBH, weka, these incidents don't seem to make a blind bit of difference in terms of addressing the harms of breaking single-sex boundaries in provisions for women.
And to be clear – women should just be able to say "No". And have that "No" respected.
Respected by other women, legislators, policy writers, men with gender identities who seek access to those provisions, allies of both sexes that support that access.
It should not be a case of we will review this change after:
n instances of voyeurism, exhibitionism, verbal abuse, physical or sexual assault.
the point of that in your face stuff is to show tWiggle what ‘trans woman’ means now. If I had more time I’d post the trans umbrella, the history of J Yaniv, that video from years ago of the trans identified male who looked just like a young man, in the group of trans people interrupting a meeting at a women’s book shop. Or any number of other events where TW are actually blokes not transsexuals like Georgina Beyer. Because whatever tWiggle thinks about the TIMs, there’s no way tWiggle can claim that all those blokes have been calling themselves TW and using the women’s loos all these years. Someone would have noticed.
tWiggle: – "Is this in NZ? I refuse to see anything pulled from the big wide world if it doesn't come from here. Why should I be exposed to your schlock material designed for outrage. Feed me this chaff as a distraction. Whete's your kiwi facts."
Yes I know. I worked with two transwomen years ago. They used our womens toilets in our offices. They always dressed as females. Everyone knew they were males but they had done the 'hard yards' as it were to move to their new identity by following the procedures that were then laid out to change birth sex.
This is totally different though.
Following on from the NO Debate Self ID concept it will allow fully intact, non or minimally transitioning/ed males access to women's safe spaces.
I fail to see why women should be the ones to cater for this? Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males inot thier spaces. Or why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built always with the over riding principle that women are to be kept safe.
Do you have answers to these questions tWiggle please?
1 Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males into their spaces.
2 Why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built?
No-one seems to want to answer these questions? Could it be that men are seen as dangerous?
that was a five minute twitter search. This stuff has been normalised, I see it reported on twitter fairly often.
So, you either know this is going on and sanction it. Or you don't know this is going on and really have no idea what the problems are that women are trying to talk about but are happy to say that TW have always used women's toilets.
The "terminology transition" from “transsexual women” to “transgender women”, so that it now includes unprocessed males, is part of the issue.
There are those on the side of transsexual woman (and thus allow them to identify as transgender women) and those against the access of those with a penis (who also identify as transgender women) into separate women's areas because of the safety issue that could result.
Both are fair positions.
That the UK has problems with safety, despite having a transition process rather than self ID is concerning – given we have gone further and closer to self ID. That said the UK has allowed greater access to women's spaces for those who identify as women than we have.
They (current government) now seem set on moving to a women's birth sex ID criteria for access to separate spaces for females – which would be a tragedy for transsexual transgender women there.
We could ourselves move to allow discrimination against transgender women with a penis, or at least against those who chose self ID rather than go through a process over time. That would reduce risk somewhat.
They seem set on moving to a women’s birth sex ID criteria for access to separate spaces for females – which would be a tragedy for transsexual transgender women there.
UK Labour have just done a policy position shift to support women’s sex based rights (in some areas at least, this is in the context of hospital wards).
sukitransgirl had multiple accounts that I viewed on different platforms when they were up.
The screenshot above was available as a video without a sensitivity warning on their Twitter account.
It seemed to be an actual women's toilet facility, as an older women is seen washing her hands and exiting without noticing the act, but later on two young girls come in and are startled when they see what is going on. They exit fairly quickly.
As I said Suki Trans was on multiple public sites with these posts, not just porn sites:
I can’t prove it is retrospect, but here are some of the broken links now that the accounts have been removed that I retrieved from my history:
I didn't download the video, because frankly, there was just too much on the accounts, and I found it hard to even watch for confirmation. But there were many videos of this person filming themselves masturbating it what clearly looks like female single-sex spaces spaces, while they were being used by females of all ages.
Japan's $20 billion US p/a porn industry is the world's largest and produces enormous volumes of stomach-turning voyeur material, anime and manga child porn, and abuse/fantasy content that's beyond belief.
"Japan's $20 billion US p/a porn industry is the world's largest and produces enormous volumes of stomach-turning voyeur material, anime and manga child porn, and abuse/fantasy content that's beyond belief."
You suggested that the screenshot was only available on pornsites. I just clarified that it was on easily accessible platforms without sensitive content warnings, and gave you the broken links as confirmation I had viewed it. Non-consenting women and girls were part of the video I saw and described.
If examples are not able to be provided of harm, because they are also used to generate income via pornsites, and acknowledgement of harm or imposition on girls and women requires some form of evidence, then this is going to hinder any acknowledgement of imposition or impact on girls
Once again: Why are men unable to accommodate males with gender identities in their single-sex spaces?
"Cherry picking from that content is disingenuous."
BTW, if you do go and look at Pornhub there will be a significant difference in the amount of material you will be able to find of men identifying as women, filming themselves exposed or masturbating in women's bathrooms, compared to the number of women doing the same.
Because there is a biological difference in the prevalence of such behaviour in communal spaces.
Molly, do you routinely trust everything that is flicked your way on this topic? Personally, as I said, I do not want to look at nasty images that may be posed, faked, or taken out of context, as the Japanese porn. There are 8 billion people on the planet, and connectivity allows access to the imaginings of most of them. These images are anecdotal evidence, not hard data.
Did you see the AWID report section stating that faked images of trans people were presented in the alternate session organised by trans-exclusionary feminists at the UN Council on the Status of Women? They also presented images of trans people taken out of context to suit their narrative.
I'd think hard if I were you about whether some of your mates are doctoring or miscontexting the images they send you.
Molly, do you routinely trust everything that is flicked your way on this topic?
No. But I will give it at least a cursory look before determining that I think it is bollocks.
Personally, as I said, I do not want to look at nasty images that may be posed, faked, or taken out of context, as the Japanese porn. There are 8 billion people on the planet, and connectivity allows access to the imaginings of most of them. These images are anecdotal evidence, not hard data.
Did you see the AWID report section stating that faked images of trans people were presented in the alternate session organised by trans-exclusionary feminists at the UN Council on the Status of Women? They also presented images of trans people taken out of context to suit their narrative.
George Orwell, 1984: "“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
I'd think hard if I were you about whether some of your mates are doctoring or miscontexting the images they send you.
This might be unusual in your neck of the woods, but I don't have mates sending me porn…. I also deliberately choose not to put contentious images on this platform, even though I have seen quite a few, because I think it will derail the discussion – which is frail as it is.
However, I had seen the account that posted the video that provided the screenshot in question, not on a pornsite but on both Instagram and Twitter without any sensitive content warning, which meant it could be viewed by minors. I was probably not the only one who reported it, which was why those accounts are no longer active.
Of course, you can choose not to believe my personal account is real, but it's there for others to add to the information provided and make up their own minds.
Actually I get images like this everyday on my twitter feed and they are often from concerned individuals (M/F) who want help in reporting the sites.
Mostly I do this.
So the slur that women who are concerned somehow find their way to Japanese porn sites is ridiculous.
Recently we had a 'person' threatening to kill prominent women. I am not sure if this was taken down or not. I know I tried to report it.
Often known women campaingers get this stuff sent to them as a form of harassment along with signs saying 'suck my trans dick' or C**t. Some of these signs were in evidence at Albert Park on 25/3.
Welcome to the world of women fighting this stuff.
It is males who are the most significat users of porn (four times more likely than females)
To me it is more likely to be males who access and send this stuff on. The number of women who have received 'dick pics' shows that this is more likely to be males doing this. NB Women don't have d**ks'
Could you please answer these two questions I asked you?
1 Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males into their spaces.
2 Why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built?
These are serious questions and in my expereince when women meet and the topic turns to trans issues, these are usually the first couple of questions asked.
If these could be answered it would take the issue well along the way to looking at solutions.
It seems that many in the trans world are intent on making us believe white is black or 2+2 = 5. It seems we first have to agree to a biological impossibility before anything happens.
Transsexuals have been accommodated for many years – despite the fact that this accommodation may have meant some women excluded themselves for reasons of belief, privacy, dignity or perceived safety.
So, there was already a cost to women and girls of such accommodation.
Transsexuals made up only 5-13% of transwomen in this study from 2019. (Table 1)
Also Shanreagh, if you think the self-id legislation will open floodgates of 'men in skirts' molesting girls in the toilets, then you are quite simply wrong. Ireland, also with 5 mi people and probably a similar size of trans population, passed a similar law in 2015. Around 200 people a year there apply for self-id 100 of whom are 'men in skirts'. One hundred, while thousands of Irish trans women are happy to continue with their lives as they are. Does Ireland have a trans woman violence problem? I haven't heard anything, do you know something I don't?
Sure, have a strong opinion, no problem. There is plenty plenty of your material to wade through on this site. But nobody can try to change the laws, or my opinion, without hard facts and a position that is open to critique.
I've been reading on this topic since I came here naive to the issue. The more factual information I read, the less sympathetic I become to the opinions of your group. Your ideas need challenging because many don't stand up to scrutiny, as I've found by reading around trans woman in prisons, puberty blocking in adolescence and the co-opting of trans issues by the UK Conservatives and the US Republicans.
Remember, I really knew little or nothing about this topic two months ago. I am better informed now, but not by you as a group. The posts on this issue I have read here are long on feelings, very short on analysis, and have been pretty much fact-free. Discussion I have tried to open neutrally at least three times on areas of interest have been mostly hmmed or ignored when inconvenient to your views.
I'll finish by saying I cannot stomach Kellie-Jay whatsmaname. I find her a smug, dangerously-smart demagogue and provocateur. She's looking for reaction, not for debate. I feel her opinions on my country and on Jacinda Arden to be knowingly ignorant, and really quite repulsive.
"The posts on this issue I have read here are long on feelings, very short on analysis, and have been pretty much fact-free. "
Your comments fit into this description – are you aware?
You've been asked to providence the evidence of harm to men with gender identities who use the provisions allocated to their sex.
Could you at least do that.
Data from Ireland, and other captured countries are going to be hard to collate and assess for a couple of reasons:
1. Violence against women and girls is often ignored, dismissed or not considered violence and so is not recorded;
2. In countries where men such as Barbie Kardashian are referred to as women in media, and official documentation evidence is going to be hard to recognise when it is recorded, and collated. (BTW, that is a feature not a bug)
My comments are long on facts. I reference international reports as a starting point. I did have those Ireland stats from their government reporting page, but couldn't find it readily, otherwise you would have seen the link. I reference Stats NZ. In the past I've put up interesting articles to open up discussion on trans issues and public toilets in Victoria, which was balanced and went to an effort to look for solutions. I've linked to an interview with a cool kiwi trans woman netball coach with heaps of mana in her field. Guess what, no discussion from your group.
I asked you people to confirm a story in PP's pre-visit video before NZ, regarding a girl harassed by a trans student in a NZ school bathroom who was then suspended when she complained. I went searching on line and found a faintly related story from many years ago, with none of the outcomes PP claimed. Not one of your group replied to my genuine request if this was the event PP referred to. I took your deafening silence to mean PP just made a story up, conflated stories from other countries to suit her mean-trans narrative.
I put up an article from AWID. Your group did not reply to me directly to open a debate, but took apart the language between yourselves to somehow invalidate this report of gender-critical feminists drowning out valid debate. You know what concerned me most in that trans section? The fact that false information was presented, that trans peoples' images were pasted without correct attribution or context to create an anti trans narrative. You call yourselves left wing feminists, but you ignored the chilling earlier parts of the report on rightwing attacks against womens' rights internationally by state and religious actors. Because the way you write, all, all your roads lead to a penis in a bathroom.
You and others most often reference that unimpeachable source Twitter, Posie Parker, and the UK infowars journal, The Critic. In that, I admit, well-written article the other day on safety threats to trans women in the UK, why were only trans murders and anti-trans hate speech mentioned? Maybe because the stats on other types of violence against UK trans women are shocking? But hey, we don't know, because, boom, bang, distraction achieved. And you congratulate yourself on your rebuttal to someone on the strength of this article? Really?
More chaff from you, now I'm the person who has to provide data to debunk some mythical data you have yet to present? Please, at least I make the effort.
1 Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males into their spaces.
2 Why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built?
Just a point your views on LWS seem to be imbued with personal animus towards the founder rather than a considered look at what her motivation were in bringing up and pushing back on the excesses of the self ID process. I see this as a weakness in your argument. It may even be an extension of the old trope about men not liking women who they feel may be smart especially if they are too good looking or not good looking enough (ie lose: lose) .
There is any amount of material about this and many women have had to battle against it in everyday life.
Do you understand the concept of women's safe spaces?
Do you see the value in protecting women's safe spaces?
If not why not?
Do you feel women should have been granted the right to vote in NZ in 1893?
Are men able to fully represent the views of women on women's safe spaces?
I see this whole non acceptance of womens safe spaces as test of sincerity about suffrage (M/F). That is the ability of women to express concern, and be listened to about that concern without other extraneous views.
Geez Shanreagh, all those men questions. Do you think I'm a 'bio' man, or a trans woman? Hahaha! Surely I must get extra girlie points for having fulfilled my womanly function by procreating. Only once, mind.
…'without extraneous views'… Is that coded language for 'ideas I find too uncomfortable to debate'?
You know Posie Parker's setting up a political party on the back of her mosh pit squash in Albert Park? Not to mention she got a million UK ladies to complain to the management of NZ about our poor service.
She thinks our country is dire for women. Posie is from England, where police rape and abuse women without consequence for years, almost no other rape cases are brought to law, and where women can't walk down the street without being harassed by men for a smile, then sworn at. We're so much worse off here.
Once again, she is a demagogue and a provocateur, not even a feminist. She got her funding to visit us and look down her nose at us from CPAC, which really likes to clamp down on womens' and trans' and voters' rights.
But boy, she sure is mean on those penises in womens' bathrooms.
School leadership initially told the transgender student she could use the gender-neutral toilets, but she successfully campaigned to access the girls' halfway through the school year.
Laura said it was then that she spoke to the school's management, voicing her concerns for her and other students' safety.
"And at that point I was like 'No this isn't right'," she says in the video.
"As a girl I feel uncomfortable with a guy being in the same toilets [as me]. There are already gender-neutral toilets in the school.
"Girls going through puberty and stuff, it can be quite stressful and embarrassing. And knowing that there could be a guy that could walk in, it's a little bit terrifying to think about that."
Laura says her concerns fell on deaf ears, and the principal told her if she had a problem with being in the same toilet block as the other student, she could use the unisex toilets herself.
"And that's when I thought 'hold on a minute. I'm at an all-girls' school with these girls' bathrooms and you're telling me if I don't want to use them I can go to a unisex toilet?' It doesn't make sense. It really doesn't."
Dear Molly, thanks for finally confirming Posie Parker flat out lied. Yes, this is the reporting from 2017, when it was raised by the Family First party during election year, about an even earlier event. I think my article came from Stuff.
In our NZ 'true-fact' story, a trans student enrolled in an all-girls' school, presumably as she was legally entitled to under human rights legislation. The lovely girlie in the article was firstly, horrified, frankly horrified at having a trans at her school. But the straw that broke the camel's back was learning that, after a while the trans student petitioned, and was granted permission to use the female toilets, for what ever reason, perhaps because the unisex loo was far from class.
In 'true-fact' NZ, lovely girlie spread her dismay across social media. Sadly for the 'alternative-fact' Posie narrative, there was no weepy showdown in the toilet cubicle between lovely girlie and evil penis trans, and no suspension, unless she got one for her social media posting. At the time I had read a story reported from somewhere like Utah. I'm sorry, it was a passing read, so I can't verify it, but I do remember it was pretty close to PP's 'alt' version.
In the newspaper article, trans groups criticised Family First for trying to make political gold from this thin straw, saying the whole issue had been well sorted out by constructive mediation at the time.
I only slightly apologise for the snarky tone. The first time around narrating this story, back whenever, I wrote in a factual, straightforward way. Second time round I find myself liking lovely girlie's behavour even less. Let alone ol' Posie's lying.
tWiggle. have you seen the LWS event from Belfast?
It was able to take place because of competent policing in Belfast that kept the protesters at bay. This meant that we were able to experience what usually happens at these events. The testimonies from the women who spoke were moving, For some it was the first time they had publicly spoken on their events of concern.
I feel her opinions on my country and on Jacinda Arden to be knowingly ignorant, and really quite repulsive.
Thanks Molly…..of course these are KJm’s views.
She is entitled to them.
These are none springing to mind. She gave as good as she got when pushing back on the misinformation promulgated by Govt Ministers. Did you actually watch the events of 25/3? KJM did not speak, she was not able to.
NZ then, and with the fluffing around by our PM on what is a woman have put NZ into somewhat of a world laughing stock. Recently there was an event planned where NZ children would shoot so-called feral cats. This has also joined the OMG what are they doing down there?
Some people have taken issue with her views
"no women has a penis"
"no man has a vagina".
To say otherwise is to deny biology.
Rather than denying biology isn't it better to accept biology and work from there, hence the queries about separate spaces for transwomen?
Shanreagh, yes the Brits are animal mad. They worry more about saving feral cats that damage native species in a country on the other side of the world or saving racing horses than they worry about the almost one in three children living in poverty in their own country. And that was for 2021-22, while food inflation is running at 19% for the last 12 months, so it'll be higher now.
Their government seems to ignore this completely, as do the press, the well-off, and the animal-mad, of course. The government was going to cut certain school meals a couple of years ago. It's only because a popular footballer ran a personal campaign that school meals were retained. Good thing, otherwise there would be probably be little human corpses littering the streets of England.
Your comments are long, and you've connected to analysis not data.
"I asked you people to confirm a story in PP's pre-visit video before NZ, regarding a girl harassed by a trans student in a NZ school bathroom who was then suspended when she complained. I went searching on line and found a faintly related story from many years ago, with none of the outcomes PP claimed. Not one of your group replied to my genuine request if this was the event PP referred to. I took your deafening silence to mean PP just made a story up, conflated stories from other countries to suit her mean-trans narrative."
OK. As one of "you people" I posted the article below the video as I thought it was the one she referred to. Kellie Jay Keen made a video of it back when it happened several years ago, but you'll have to trawl through to find out the details, as it was a while ago.
I linked to a Herald article that referenced a video, which I believe is the one that KJK watched and references:
"More chaff from you, now I'm the person who has to provide data to debunk some mythical data you have yet to present? Please, at least I make the effort."
I've provided plenty of referenced links from medical sources that you have not acknowledged or made comment about.
Many of us take time to answer your questions, while you bypass any attempt at answering those asked of you.
"Remember, I really knew little or nothing about this topic two months ago. I am better informed now, but not by you as a group. The posts on this issue I have read here are long on feelings, very short on analysis, and have been pretty much fact-free. Discussion I have tried to open neutrally at least three times on areas of interest have been mostly hmmed or ignored when inconvenient to your views."
You don't need to analyse reality.
Sex is binary and immutable.
Gender identity is a belief system, and I remain an atheist.
I read your linked article, and found it wanting. Apparently, others did too. We stated why.
That whole 2 immutable sexes/genders thingy is clearly the bedrock of your faith. Not much point in arguing with you over your religious beliefs, you're right. I'll leave you to that.
Still keen on any info you have showing how dangerous trans women are in ladies' bathrooms. Remember, NZ data, NZ stories, because NZ trans women have been using these for years. Why NZ? Because you and I live here, because our society differs from others in its experiences and the way it’s grown.
"Dear Molly, thanks for finally confirming Posie Parker flat out lied. Yes, this is the reporting from 2017, when it was raised by the Family First party during election year, about an even earlier event. I think my article came from Stuff."
I have posted the Family First video after searching for it FOR YOU, which may add clarity. But I'm not going to do that further research through Kellie Jay Keen's videos to find her original one, because frankly you have the capability to do it, and I don't understand what the value of this is in terms of the conversation to hand.
"I only slightly apologise for the snarky tone. The first time around narrating this story, back whenever, I wrote in a factual, straightforward way. Second time round I find myself not liking lovelie girlie's behavour very much. Let alone ol' Posie's lying."
I don't find your tone particularly snarky, just unconvincing in argument, and concerned with trivialities rather than the impact of legislative and policy changes.
You appear to take the position that significant changes to single-sex provisions are nothing to worry about. And if there was something to worry about, then prove it. And for you, proving it requires official documentation which is hampered by conflation of sex and gender identity in reporting and recording, but who cares?
Eg. We have a report (that I have to chase up using OIA) about sexual assault in NZ women's prisons:
Now, there was a later conviction of a "woman" for sexual assault in the Department of Corrections reports, but they were from another prison. And an OIA has to be submitted to see if this conviction relates to the article, because there is no transparency in the data in relation to recording gender identity.
This is true of many of the government available reports.
Teenage girls in schools, going through puberty and dealing with the usual sexist behaviour of teenage boys, will not have their incidents of embarrassment, shame and intimidation recorded in any official record when they lose their single-sex provisions. They will however, understand that their feelings are not important compared to that of a teenage boy with a gender identity.
That whole 2 immutable sexes/genders thingy is clearly the bedrock of your faith. Not much point in arguing with you over your religious beliefs, you're right. I'll leave you to that.
Ah, I see. We've probably discovered the basis of our apposite perspectives here.
I base my understanding in reality and truth. There are only two sexes for humans, and they cannot be changed.
If you believe otherwise, then perhaps that could be the sole topic of discussion. Because I'm sure it'll be a doozy.
Still keen on any info you have showing how dangerous trans women are in ladies' bathrooms. Remember, NZ data, NZ stories, because NZ trans women have been using these for years. Why NZ? Because you and I live here, because our society differs from others in its experiences and the way it’s grown.
As it has been pointed out MANY times, previous accommodation of transsexuals in women single-sex spaces did take place. As has also been pointed out, this accommodation probably came at a cost to women who self-excluded for reasons of their own. HOWEVER, this accommodation should not be expected to expand to accommodate all men who declare a gender identity, because that cohort is much more diverse, and far greater in number.
The reason that I will not provide you with the data that you demand is because the demand comes after you fail to provide data to support your demand for the breaking of single-sex boundaries. That data will also be impossible to find, because no-one has collated it. So, we are left with a discussion that looks at the costs and benefits – and you seem unable to have that discussion on that level.
Sorry, who asked the first question? As far as I can parse your logic thread, you refuse to enter a fact-based debate about safety in toilets because I first have to justify trans womens' access to those spaces on a theoretical level? Why?
Based on 'truth and reality' I don't need to justify the theoretical basis because it already happens. It's been happening for years in NZ. I don't need to pass your theory test to earn the right to debate you because we're already talking about real life! Goodness gracious!
Let's flip your request on its head. What's your theoretical justification for excluding NZ trans women from womens' toilets? After all, you are taking a right away from people that they currently have and use.
So here we get to the nitty gritty. You are not talking about 'usual' trans women, but bad faith men who self-id in order to prey on people in womens' toilets. Let's walk through this logically.
In Ireland, 100 trans women a year take up their self-id option. There is a vetting process, this is not just a rubber-stamp.
Do they all then rush off an attack women in toilets once they get their ticket? No, because Ireland would have amended its laws in the 7 years since. I can guarantee we would have heard about such a 'cock-up', so to speak, ad infinitum from the anti-trans movement.
So that debunks the rather shaky theory that 'self-id will lead inevitably to hundreds of trans women exposing penises to real women in the toilets'. Of course, you are free to provide any hard data to the contrary.
I understand your fixation on safety in public spaces. I am completely for toilets being safe spaces, free of harassment and assault. After all, I use them too (although I've found art gallery toilets to be a cut above the usual).
However, the simple fact is, if anyone, male, transgender, or female, wants to attack someone in a womens' toilet, verbally or physically, all they need to do is to walk in and do it. If they're a cis-male, they can even dress as a woman to do so, and some have. But the crucial point here NO SELF-ID IS NEEDED for someone out to do such harm.
As well, safety is not the same as comfort. We live in the real world. Sometimes we will feel uncomfortable around others, because they're loud and in a group, or they're dressed to make a provocative statement, or they're from a different ethnic background and we're unsure of their body language, or they smell bad because they live on the streets.
That may happen in public toilets, places where some already feel uncomfortable or ashamed about bodily functions. I support the right to expect safety there, but I do not support your demand to feel comfortable 100% of the time in public toilets and equivalent shared spaces. It's an impossible demand from facilities shared by diverse communities.
Your personal rights do not trump others' rights to be who they are, and to relieve themselves safely. That's not my opinion, that's the entry fee you pay for living in our society. We share these spaces. We do not control them for our sole benefit. You have said again and again you do not speak for all women. You can say that again.
In my opinion, if you feel threatened by the patriarchy, by penises, by male violence don't side with the patriarchy in scapegoating the transgender community, as you have been doing in all this discussion. Don't demand transgender men and women all to be angels, they're only human, and will have the usual range of arseholes and evil-doers, like the rest of us.
Let women speak never claimed to "speak for all of us"
If representatives of Women in Development had have turned up in Albert Park, they would have been given a chance to speak. But of course, if they had have been there, they wouldn't have got their chance. They would have had to leave quickly because of the violence and intimadation going on.
No womens group can claim to speak for all women.
How many cases of trans women, who are maled bodied attacking women in toilets and change rooms would you tolerate?
Its not just attacking women. By allowing gender self id, you have made it legitimate for trans women (men) to be in womens spaces with women and girls, naked and in a state of undress. Are you o.k. with a maled bodied person being naked in a change room with his penis out around women and girls?
You see the gender self ID law has just made two sexual offences legal. Voyerism and exhibitionism. Any male bodied person (trans women) can now claim they have a female identity, so they are allowed to be in a change room displaying their genitals and watching other women change.
asking for clarity on the policy that was discussed:
"7.10 Change room arrangements
e. ensure female identifying persons do not enter male change rooms, and male identifying persons do not enter female change rooms;"
Because I thought it was important to determine what the policy was, rather than declare as certain, either of the viewpoints.
To date I have not had a reply – so I'll send again.
This is what I wrote today which is pretty similar to what I sent previously (- I didn't keep a copy):
"Hi,
Could you please clarify whether the phrase "female identifying persons" includes males with female gender identities when it is used in 7.10 (e) of the SLSA-Member-Protection-Policy-6.05.
"7.10 Change room arrangements
e. ensure female identifying persons do not enter male change rooms, and male identifying persons do not enter female change rooms;"
Thank you."
If you have clarification, it'd be great if you could post it. As you can see, I've got nothing so far after three weeks.
Na just the original story where a woman in her 50's was told she was expected to be covered by a towel while undressed in the changing room.
I’m guessing they have changed their rules to cover transgender women in the female changing areas. And is designed to keep the exhibitionists out (but will not stop any voyeurism …)
They could just ban those with a penis entry (but the “transgender women voyeurs” would cover up anyhow).
"Na just the original story where a woman in her 50's was told she was expected to be covered by a towel while undressed in the changing room."
The thread I linked to carried on with possible reasons for this.
"I’m guessing they have changed their rules to cover transgender women in the female changing areas. And is designed to keep the exhibitionists out (but will not stop any voyeurism …)
They could just ban those with a penis entry (but the “transgender women voyeurs” would cover up anyhow)."
I agree that appears to be part of the policy change.
But the original article and justification actually shamed older women, in the contortions used to allow men into a female single-sex space.
Clearly the answer regarding "how many" for you is "none". As I wrote, to expect every single trans women to behave perfectly is an unhuman expectation. Again I challenge you not about a hypothetical future, but NZ facts about the present, where many trans women already share womens' facilities. Come on, where's your NZ data? Media posts? Anything?
"Clearly the answer regarding "how many" for you is "none".
Women and girls are never guaranteed safety from incidents and assaults in any space.
Risk assessments resulting in single-SEX provision, use data and evidence to determine that such provision reduces the likelihood of assault by a significant degree.
As always, you completely ignore the additional value to women of privacy, dignity and consent.
"As I wrote, to expect every single trans women to behave perfectly is an unhuman expectation. "
I don't care about their behaviour. I care about their access to single-sex spaces provided for women. Well behaved and trustworthy men are also excluded – because they are men.
"Again I challenge you not about a hypothetical future, but NZ facts about the present, where many trans women already share womens' facilities. Come on, where's your NZ data? Media posts? Anything?"
I am a data point. I along with other women say "No" to men – even those with gender identities – in women's single-sex spaces.
Consent for such communal places should require the consent of all affected. I say No.
Dear Molly, did Posie Parker lie? Yes. That was the point. Are these trivial things? Possibly, it's all in the past. I don't need the FF rubbish. I wanted to confirm or refute Posie's story at the time. By the way, how do you feel about Posie's creative story-telling to present NZ as a hellhole for women?
Surely, don't bother to laboriously extract my text just to dismiss it as trivia. Why waste your time and mine? And really, you skimped a bit on the Herald article, just copying and pasting stuff without providing context or interpretation. That's why I bothered to contextualise it again for others. If you had done the job I wouldn't have needed to. I appreciate the link to PP's video, thanks muchly, that really helped.
RE : legislation. Please keep up. I've already covered today what I think will happen with the legislation. What happened in Ireland in the 7 years since they introduced it. Nothing. Unless you have facts about an upswing in transgender violence since 2015 against Irish women that you can share? Just asking again, you know, in case.
I do have to say I'll be happy with Irish data regarding transgender violence, as well as NZ's, because of the legislation, similar population size, and approximately similar culture.
See, this is what I consider a discussion, in places, you raise points, I interact, give my point of view. But a lot of the stuff you write seems like burble to me. You can't provide me with NZ facts about transgender violence against women in toilets because of some conflating of gender and sex in reporting? What does that even mean? I said I'd accept media reports too.
And others think they have thoroughly debunked the AWID article by unpicking a few phrases? Then swapping in-housebgobbldegook with one another? Gosh, there sure is a big divide in what us hard science types think is valid critique and you soft science types.
I saw no concrete discussion relating to any of the issues raised by the article itself, or of my stated concerns and interpretation based on what I read in the article. Perhaps you're still stuck on semantics? The death of any committee, arguing over word definitions.
Anker, again I make the point trans women, even trans women with penises, have been using these spaces for years in NZ. Where's the stats for the resultant transgender agression? Please?
"Dear Molly, did Posie Parker lie? Yes. That was the point. Are these trivial things? Possibly, it's all in the past. I don't need the FF rubbish. I wanted to confirm or refute Posie's story at the time. By the way, how do you feel about Posie's creative story-telling to present NZ as a hellhole for women?"
TBH, I'm not a tribal or acolyte type of person. What I really think about KJK is that she – and everyone else – is entitled to express their views. In terms of political context – which I believe she was referring to – hellhole is a pretty descriptive word to use for the amount of political suppression of women's rights. We've just seen it displayed at Albert Park on 25th 2023 – and by the comments of politicians in the lead up and aftermath. Don't forget our Domestic Violence statistics were also released around that time. I personally wouldn't call it a hellhole, but I wouldn't say it is a picnic either.
"Why waste your time and mine? And really, you skimped a bit on the Herald article, just copying and pasting stuff without providing context or interpretation. "
Yes. My approach is to assume people can read for themselves, and come to their own conclusions. So, if I am providing information that I have to hand on a topic that I didn't start, I choose to post without commentary. I figure it's just information, and people can add to their knowledge and perspectives without me influencing their positions by unnecessary commentary.
If I introduce a topic, and add links – I'll often take a different approach to get the discussion rolling.
The rest of your comment reiterates a demand for concrete evidence of harm by the removal of women's single-sex provisions.
But several times it has been pointed out that you are ignoring the statistical evidence regarding the statistics on sexual violence and assault that show the biological sex variance in both perpetrator and victim.
THAT is the starting point. Are you able to show that this body of evidence is flawed? Because it is this evidence, that provides the risk assessment that resulted in the provision of single-sex spaces because it reduced the likelihood of harm.
"I saw no concrete discussion relating to any of the issues raised by the article itself, or of my stated concerns and interpretation based on what I read in the article. Perhaps you're still stuck on semantics? The death of any committee, arguing over word definitions."
I don't know about the others.
But every sentence of that article, is familiar and a deliberate narrative that seeks to dismiss any concerns re women's rights, or sexual orientation, etc as anti-trans. I did skim read it, because it's a courtesy, but it was also a courtesy not to give it the full detailed dismissal it could have generated in order to keep the discussion alive.
For you, I've decided to select one fact to investigate:
"Between 2013 and 2017, the “anti-gender” movement received over $3.7 billion USD in funding – more than triple the funding for LGBTIQ groups globally in those years.3"
Pages 7-9 have the information regarding the calculation of the $3.7 billion of their "anti-trans" funding.
These are the questions that are raised by the information presented:
They don't differentiate between total expenditure and "anti-trans" expenditure. In fact, it appears they are talking about the amount of money in these organisations, and the movement of it.
They have dismissed the concern's of women's rights organisations, and lesbian and gay rights movements as trojan horses for funded 'anti-trans' rhetoric, but show no link in these pages to any funding.
These pages are mostly mapping the monies of large Christian organisations and making the assumption that all spending is "anti-trans"
To investigate further, read the footnotes 14 – 18.
I can't be bothered with the ones without links – because life is short = but here are the two available links provided:
"I really can't understand your toilet usage paragraph. Having 'a feeling' that trans women in NZ public toilets and change spaces are not 'right', or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it', is just not enough for me as an argument."
Oh the irony feelings aren't good enough when its women feeling uncomfortable with men peeing in women's toilets, but when its a man who feels like a woman, its all good, reason to change laws etc.
Here's some good hard data from the US where non-discrimination laws allowed transgender access to womens' bathrooms in many states for up to 10 years before this article in 2015.
The article covers background to a 'preventative' bathroom law, framed to protect women from transgender "sexual predators". It was proposed in Florida in 2015. The article appeared in a young peoples' lifestyle mag, ie, not some iniquitous den of trans writing you might mistrust, but a bog-standard publication.
The bill sponsor "did not provide any evidence that a trans person has ever attacked cis-gendered (non-transgender) people in public restrooms when pressed".
"Spokespeople from the Transgender Law Center, thr Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union [ you may poopoo the first source, but the other 2 are trusted civil right organisations] told 'Mic' [magazine] that no statistical evidence of violence exists to warrant this legislation". This section is labelled 'Big Fat Zero' because other reputable sources support this lack of evidence.
It goes on to say "'Those who claim otherwise have no evidence that [claims of such violence are] true and use this notion to prey on the public's sterotypes and fears sbout transgender people"
The article include quotes from Human Rights Commisions, police departments and sexual violence coordinators across multiple states who completely deny the idea that public restroom inclusivity for transgenger people increased violence by transgender people against others in these vulnerable spaces.
A survey by Brinker and Maza of 15 law enforcement staff, victim support personnel for sexual assault, and others in 12 US states yielded no incidents of trans people harassing or assaulting others in public restrooms "They declared that the claim that sexual predators will exploit non-discrimination laws to sneak into bathrooms is a lie, pure and simple".
On the other hand, "roughly 70% of trans people have been denied entrance, assaulted, or harassed while using a restroom". Poor things.
I've found a lot more different sources saying the aame thing, but cutandpaste is clapped out and I don't want to hand write it up.
""Spokespeople from the Transgender Law Center, thr Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union [ you may poopoo the first source, but the other 2 are trusted civil right organisations] told 'Mic' [magazine] that no statistical evidence of violence exists to warrant this legislation". This section is labelled 'Big Fat Zero' because other reputable sources support this lack of evidence."
I have to go and get on with errands, but have read your comment and thought you may want to investigate further in regard to this statement – or not –
American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Campaign might be considered misnomers now, for these long-established organisations. As mentioned earlier, this information is provided not to be directive but provide a possible avenue of further information.
You can look yourself for other sources but here are a couple of starting points:
Archive from New York Times: Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis
Strange as it might seem to you tWiggle the concern is not just about access to toilets.
What about sport?
What about prisons?
Still OK to have males competing against females? Riley Gaines being beaten by a male, the women volleyball player who was injured by a male on the opposing female side to an extent that she was concussed and not able to play.
The more there is push back against males in female sports the more the onus shifts, correctly, from wommen defending thier rights to compete with fairness, to the sports bodies to devise ways to enable trans athletes to compete without bringing women's sports into it. Perhaps in open categories or with a time handicap etc.
The same ability to work out their own solutions exists for the trans community to say, work with architects, planners, city councils to ensure that toilet facilities keep them safe without compromising women's safety.
Why do you think that this is not happening? Do you think they still believe the fairy dust magic that it is possible to chnage biological sex? Which of course it isn't.
Clearly the answer regarding "how many" for you is "none". As I wrote, to expect every single trans women to behave perfectly is an unhuman expectation.
I think you are missing my point tWiggle. Its not about how many women will be assaulted, although that is a concern of course.
It is about whether I and many, many other women want to share our bathrooms and change rooms with male bodied people. Many of us don't. I have asked if you think it is appropriate for a male bodied trans women to be naked in a change room around women and girls and you don't appear to have answered. I feel strongly that this must not be allowed. I could give you all sorts of reasons why like voyerism, exhibitionism, child safe guarding etc etc, but actually women are allowed to say no without having to justify why. Its coming across a bit like men who want to have sex with you and you say no and they say "poor old me, I just want a release blah blah" and what I say to that is it is your problem.
Telling me there are very few, if any assaults (tbh, I couldn't be bothered reading the stats, as I have read examples) is a form of gas lighting. "See only .xxxx numbers of attacks, so you are exaggerating, being mean and trans phobic"
Find another solution to whatever problem has been identified.
I see nothing untoward or unreasonable about this approach. The proponents seem to be without an answer as to why males should not continue to use male toilets and if for some reason that is not suitable then to press for separate arrangements.
I must say I read the article with mounting scepticism as unbiased commentators usually refrain from framing or words used by one of the proponents.
This article includes 'loaded' ant women words like
cis
terf
and loaded thoughts like
a concern for safe spaces means lack of rights for one of the parties.
(Not so as many of us have suggested ways to meet halfway such as more flexible design of safe spaces so transwomen had thier own safe spaces)
Over use of exaggerating words:
flooding
'sensationalism and fear-mongering'
I know that some UN adjacent agencies have been 'captured'. I am sure we all would like a careful and spare report with goodwill brought to bear to recognise the concerns of both sides. This report though should not force acceptance that trans women are women (the sex). Transwomen are transwomen ie biological males.
On digging deeper into the report there is this paragraph
The Campaign acts to undermine and water down the progressions of human rights standards that protect the rights of trans and gender non-conforming persons, by claiming they only apply to cis women on the basis of their “biological sex.” One event organiser argued that the concept of “gender” in international human rights law threatens to erase “biological women”. The Yogyakarta Principles in particular were targeted as “soft laws that were not applicable.” Similarly, another event attempted to frame “bodily rights” as a threat to SRHR, which the speakers claimed to be grounded only in women’s “sex-based” rights.
A red flag, for me, if the 'captured language was not enough, is the reference to the Yogyakarta Principles. These are pushed as being UN principles but they are not. They have not been formally ratified and are what I call UN-adjacent.
We have seen reference to these Principles before on TS, our Human Rights Commissioner is one of the 20 signatories. (My view is that this is an intense conflict of interest and I am hoping that he does recuse himself when dealing with Trans & women's rights. His report, after visiting the scene of the aborted KJM event in Wellington on 26/3, is unedifying to me. I have followed it up, had no response and sent the correspondence on to SUFW.)
One of the signatories, Dr Wintermute from KCL, has concerns now & says
Professor Wintemute says that women’s rights were not considered during the meeting where the principles were written and the authors “failed to consider” that fully intact males would seek to access female-only spaces.
and
Birth sex is less important now, with same-sex marriage and equal state pension ages. But in my view birth sex is not an irrelevant detail and should not be automatically ‘trumped’ by gender identity in single-sex situations.”
I am alway grateful to read these articles and reinforce Molly's point that women/feminists are not hive minded ie all think the same any more than Maori are hive minded and all think the same on issues.
We just have to look at the approaches of concern from Christian often RW women in the US and Left wing women, though not exclusively in the UK, Aus, NZ.
It is an issue for women that often transcends political boundaries though solutions will have to rely on politicians of good will and they can come from left or right.
Despite the fact that Principle 3 specifically rejected requirements for medical treatment before legal transition Wintemute says he assumed that most trans women would want to have surgery. “I see now that Principle 3 was silent on whether a diagnosis, a waiting period, or any other safeguards could be required.”
The majority of the 2006 Yogyakarta signatories were men and trans men. “The issue of access to single-sex spaces largely affects women and not men. So it was easy for the men in the group to be swept along by concern for LGBT rights and ignore this issue,” says Wintemute. Of the women present, some had been asked to focus on particular angles, such as health, and limited their contributions to these areas. So far as Wintemute recalls, the other female signatories did not raise questions about potential conflicts between women’s rights and transgender rights.
The omission may not have been a simple oversight. The female co-chair of the meeting, Brazilian sexual rights activist Sonia Correa, wants references to inequality of the sexes eliminated from human rights discourse and holds up the Yogyakarta Principles as an example to follow because they do not mention the word “woman”.
The Campaign acts to undermine and water down the progressions of human rights standards that protect the rights of trans and gender non-conforming persons, by claiming they only apply to cis women on the basis of their “biological sex.” One event organiser argued that the concept of “gender” in international human rights law threatens to erase “biological women”. The Yogyakarta Principles in particular were targeted as “soft laws that were not applicable.” Similarly, another event attempted to frame “bodily rights” as a threat to SRHR, which the speakers claimed to be grounded only in women’s “sex-based” rights.
One would have presumed that human rights applied to all regardless of sex, gender and sexuality as well as ethnicity, race and political creed etc (religion – theist, atheist, deist and agnostic).
"Neither, sex nor gender need to overlay the other."
For sake of clarity, I'll assume you mean gender identity when you say "gender" above.
Then it becomes clear – these are two distinctly separate classification categories.
Provisions for one protected characteristic – such as sex, are not automatically relevant for provisions – such as age, (even though someone protected by sex, will also have an age characteristic).
It is conflation to assume that provisions made for women on the basis of sex, automatically apply to men with gender identities, because that assumption relies on mixing two separate classification categories. Which is basically, nonsensical.
While there may be some areas of crossover – separate provisions for transgender community should be identified, supported and implemented. The appropriation of existing protections for women on the basis of sex, is disrespectful and a form of discrimination. ie. women's sex based provisions are not protected from such appropriation.
No gender is better than gender ID in that context.
There is sometimes discrimination against both men and women because they do not conform to the expectation of masculine and feminine social presentation/demeanour etc.
Otherwise the issue is more whether one identifies people based on male/female birth sex or male/female gender.
Neither option is ideal. The latter includes those who now identify differently to their birth sex. But that involves greater risk to the safety of women and why there is resistance to doing this.
Thus an issue for society to resolve, as we did the inclusion of same sex attracted to the point of same sex civil marriages (despite some of religion claiming that those involved are living "in sin" – once requiring placements in prison or mental institutions).
"No gender is better than gender ID in that context."
Can you be specific here?
Because you could mean:
'No sex is better than gender ID in that context'. – are you meaning exclude sex as a protected characteristic?
OR
'No recognition of gender identity is better than recognition of gender identity in that context' – meaning remove gender identity as a protected characteristic because without the conflation with biological sex it has no meaning?
… or something else?
"There is sometimes discrimination against both men and women because they do not conform to the expectation of masculine and feminine social presentation/demeanour etc."
Not really discrimination as in unable to access healthcare, education, employment or housing. Rather you are talking about society reactions to those who don't follow regressive gender stereotypes. In the same way there are societal reactions to people with excessive body modifications – such as tattoos, piercings, etc.
Gender critical people are critical of any expectations placed on someone's activities, interests, achievements, presentations based on those gendered stereotypes.
"Otherwise the issue is more whether one identifies people based on male/female birth sex or male/female gender."
In some areas – sex matters. In all other cases, gender identity can be recognised.
Regardless, it is not an OR. People will always have a sex, and in some cases will declare a gender identity.
"The latter includes those who now identify differently to their birth sex. But that involves greater risk to the safety of women and why there is resistance to doing this."
There is no risk to women by men claiming a gender identity.
There is an impact (which may include increased safety risk) when those men's gender identities are considered by legislative and policies as granting access to women's single-sex provisions.
"Thus an issue for society to resolve, as we did the inclusion of same sex attracted to the point of same sex civil marriages (despite some of religion claiming that those involved are living "in sin" – once requiring placements in prison or mental institutions)."
Same-sex orientation did not require others to pretend their partners were the opposite sex, or that mimicry of performance of heterosexual sex practices made them heterosexual. It asked for freedom from the discrimination outlined above, and equal consideration from society and legislation.
The parsing is annoying and takes the debate out of context to score points.
I said human rights as per sex, gender and sexuality.
I did not say gender ID, because gender includes that and gender in the context of men and women conforming to stereotypes as to masculine and feminine norms etc.
"The parsing is annoying and takes the debate out of context to score points.
I said human rights as per sex, gender and sexuality.
The parsing may be annoying (I'll ignore why you think that is) but it remains necessary otherwise we may be talking about entirely different things.
For example:
"I did not say gender ID, because gender includes that and gender in the context of men and women conforming to stereotypes as to masculine and feminine norms etc."
– this reads as though you believe gendered stereotypes are part and parcel of gender identity, which make it a performative act not an innate knowledge of oneself.
"I did not say gender ID, because gender includes that and gender in the context of men and women conforming to stereotypes as to masculine and feminine norms etc."
– this reads as though you believe gendered stereotypes are part and parcel of gender identity, which make it a performative act not an innate knowledge of oneself.
Not to all readers. the word gender in human rights legislation would include gender ID and also in wider ways such as preventing discrimination against men and women not conforming to stereotypical norms of masculinity and femininity (whereas use of the specific, gender ID, would not). That would be useful to more than the transgender such as the non binary etc, some lesbian women and homosexual men in seeking employment.
I would have thought anyone seeking to use gender in human rights, in place of birth sex, had this in mind because it was more broadly useful.
But for mine it should include both. Just as we have a ban on discrimination based on ethnicity, race and origin (rather than just someone "different/foreign"). More helps to clarify.
But sure I would not oppose sex and gender ID and gender “non-conformity” to clarify, but sex and gender (here as a catch all) has ease of use advantages.
Cases in this area can include dress codes, and discrimination in employment based on images on social media etc.
"Cases in this area can include dress codes, and discrimination in employment based on images on social media etc."
That inclusion regarding non-conformity is not really discrimination though. It could extend to elimination of expected dress codes or standards, and appropriate social media policies for employees with company recognition roles.
Conflation of terms works against full and frank discussion, and identifying specific forms of need and/or harm.
"What conflation of terms? Do there need to be agreed definitions to discuss an issue? And if so, who decides?"
Conflation of gender identity, gender stereotypes and gender identity all under the one term of gender.
No-one gets to decide, but clear definitions are a basic necessity for needed discussions regarding legislative and policies changes.
"As I said I prefer sex, gender and sexuality as categories for protection from discrimination."
Sexuality or sexual orientation?
Queer theory has Minor Attracted People as a sexuality.
Do you want to have paedophiles as a protected characteristic, or are you really speaking about sexual orientation – as it currently exists?
(Queer Theory holds the position that recognising Minor Attracted Persons as a sexuality removes the stigma from those that are sexually attracted to children, but who do not necessarily act on that attraction.
Using the same logic, should kleptomaniacs be a protected characteristic – and their compulsion recognised as a mitigating factor when they are caught, charged and convicted of theft?)
The author Allyson Walker is an interesting person to research.
It's a strong example, but one that emphasises the importance of clear definitions.
"I see this as important to prevent either birth sex or gender ID being the universal identity determinant."
Once again. Why is it necessary to have a universal identity determinant?
Eg: A mobility impaired female pensioner, will have specific needs and provisions relating to three of the categories to which she belongs:
1. Female provisions for a myriad of services and facilities;
2. Accessibility and associated healthcare provisions;
3. Social welfare provisions and associated healthcare.
What you do not do, is provide a protected characteristic that seeks to amalgamate all three categories, because that increases the likelihood of confusion, lack of transparency, lack of adequate provision, and lack of accountability.
It'd also probably provide legislation where discrimination is hard to prove or disprove.
Sex and gender identity are two distinct different classification types. The conflation of these two categories was one of the concerns put forward in submissions and ignored.
By conflating gender identity with sex – neither category is adequately provided for. In the case of women – the provision for their sex is appropriated without discussion or consent – by this illogical conflation.
I see this as important to prevent either birth sex or gender ID being the universal identity determinant.
Once again. Why is it necessary to have a universal identity determinant?
I did not say there had to be one. But that neither should be used as one.
I think what you are thinking, but not saying out loud is that sex should not take priority over gender identity if there is a conflict.
On this I disagree.
Not because there necessarily is a conflict, but because a conflict is created when conflation between sex and gender identity occurs, and single-sex provisions for women are assumed to be included in the provisions for men with gender identities.
This sleight-of-hand in terms of language and conflation of two classification systems, effectively removes the single-sex provisions for women with absolutely no regard for their value, or the consent of women and girls.
what you are thinking, but not saying out loud is that sex should not take priority over gender identity if there is a conflict.
On this I disagree.
The advantage of gender ID is that it includes those who transition. The disadvantage is that it can also include those who do not.
Whatever society decides, it has to take account of different perspectives – such as it does with religious groups who do not support same sex activity or marriages. That should include women's groups right to exclude those not born female. A refuge's right to exclude anyone seen as a threat etc.
We might need a group focused on developing safe spaces and funding for this. That might allow those with transitioned bodies being allowed into women's separate spaces, but others not.
This sleight-of-hand in terms of language and conflation of two classification systems, effectively removes the single-sex provisions for women with absolutely no regard for their value, or the consent of women and girls.
I think the risk is greater while we have sex in the HRA and this is then seen as interchangeable with gender (as per gender ID) in other legislation. Having sex and gender in the HRA separately would be more likely to result in focus on the overlap issue.
"what you are thinking, but not saying out loud is that sex should not take priority over gender identity if there is a conflict.
On this I disagree.
The advantage of gender ID is that it includes those who transition. The disadvantage is that it can also include those who do not.
Why is that a disadvantage? Religious belief is a protected characteristic, but not everyone has a religious belief.
Whatever society decides, it has to take account of different perspectives – such as it does with religious groups who do not support same sex activity or marriages.
The secular government we have ensures that despite other's beliefs, those same sex marriages can take place. They have the right to their belief but not to impose the restrictions of that belief on others. So it should be.
That should include women's groups right to exclude those not born female. A refuge's right to exclude anyone seen as a threat etc.
Sex is immutable, and single-sex provisions for women are inextricably linked to their sex. It is not about only about threats, although that plays a part – and is constantly ignored when these female sex provisions are appropriated by men. This is also not about belief – but about reality.
It is gender identity that is a belief. As such it can be protected, but as a separate characteristic – because it IS a completely separate characteristic from sex. And as it is both fluid and unquantifiable it should not override sex-based provisions, because those are specific to sex and retain value for women and girls.
The believers of a gender identity should not impose that belief on others. This is true regardless of the number of people who share such a belief.
Thus an issue for society to resolve, as we did the inclusion of same sex attracted to the point of same sex civil marriages (despite some of religion claiming that those involved are living "in sin" – once requiring placements in prison or mental institutions).
You've said this a couple of times now IIRC, and the comparison is flawed still.
Deal with the reality of sex, and the belief system of gender ideology without reaching for justifications from other protected characteristics and we may get somewhere.
Because some women do not want transgender women self ID to result in male bodies in women's spaces.
Sex is immutable, and single-sex provisions for women are inextricably linked to their sex
Yes, you want separation based on birth sex, thus the exclusion of transexuals/transitioned transgender women.
You've said this a couple of times now IIRC, and the comparison is flawed still.
No, and not in the post you are replying to.
I have of course mentioned on occasion our history of becoming more inclusive, whether that is women voting and the societal change that resulted and also same sex relationships. And like many see that as leading to a progressive impulse on the gender ID issue.
Deal with the reality of sex, and the belief system of gender ideology without reaching for justifications from other protected characteristics and we may get somewhere.
I will restate something from my last post
"I think the risk (to women's safety) is greater while we only have have sex in the HRA and this is then seen as interchangeable with gender (as per gender ID) in other legislation".
This leads to confusion with how to deal with women's safety concerns resulting from self ID.
If both are included in the HRA, this would require some thought as to distinction in various legislation.
Possibly the best path to the realisation of the maintenance of the birth sex category you seek is to accept a separate and also protected gender identity.
Because some women do not want transgender women self ID to result in male bodies in women's spaces.
Men who identify as women belong to a different protected characteristic, and should not be given access to women's single-sex spaces because of it.
You are effectively saying the logical thing to do, is a disadvantage because it excludes men from women's single-sex spaces (and that is not the outcome you want).
Sex is immutable, and single-sex provisions for women are inextricably linked to their sex
Yes, you want separation based on birth sex, thus the exclusion of transexuals/transitioned transgender women.
I want the single-sex provisions for women and girls to remain single-sex provisions. They were never – gendered stereotype provisions for those who conform to gendered stereotypes (which I am using because your idea of gender identity seems to be inextricably linked to stereotypes for some reason).
You've said this a couple of times now IIRC, and the comparison is flawed still.
No, and not in the post you are replying to.
I have of course mentioned on occasion our history of becoming more inclusive, whether that is women voting and the societal change that resulted and also same sex relationships. And like many see that as leading to a progressive impulse on the gender ID issue.
Gender ideology is a belief system. One that is unquantifiable, and one that is fluid. Like a religious belief. Not only is is not SEX, it has a myriad of other identities not associated with sex at all. Why people continue to conflate the two categories, is a question for the ages.
My suspicion is, like your illogical reasoning above, is because it allows a predetermined outcome to be achieved, because it bypasses accuracy, logic and any recognition of impact, or concerns about consent.
For example: how do you protect sexual orientation when you conflate gender identity with sex?
At the most ridiculous extreme of this conflation, you can have a lesbian association composed entirely of men with female gender identities who call themselves lesbians because they are heterosexual.
Or two lesbian women who refer to themselves as gay men because they identify as men, and consider their sexuality to be that associated only with men.
Deal with the reality of sex, and the belief system of gender ideology without reaching for justifications from other protected characteristics and we may get somewhere.
I will restate something from my last post
"I think the risk (to women's safety) is greater while we only have have sex in the HRA and this is then seen as interchangeable with gender (as per gender ID) in other legislation".
This leads to confusion with how to deal with women's safety concerns resulting from self ID.
If both are included in the HRA, this would require some thought as to distinction in various legislation.
I disagree. The danger is the deliberate conflation of sex with gender identity, by politicians during legislative change, government ministries and departments, and policy makers.
It is not ONLY safety concerns. Single-sex provisions hold value also for privacy and dignity. And there are issues of consent that are ignored.
Many submitters asked for clarification in the legislation and were ignored. But while the confusion reigns, many also refuse to accept that confusion means a de facto breaking of single-sex provisions until it gets sorted out.
Possibly the best path to the realisation of the maintenance of the birth sex category you seek is to accept a separate and also protected gender identity.
Why should women have to advocate for a certain belief system, in order to ensure their single-sex provisions and language is maintained? Is this requirement requested of any other existing protected characteristic? ie. Did same-sex oriented people have to ensure that religious belief was fully recognised before gaining their recognition, or was that already protected?
I have given my advice that one option to secure a continuing biological sex ID is to promote a separate gender category in the HRA.
There are always other ways of doing things (for example we never explored having half seats for women voters and half for male voters to ensure 50% representation within parliament).
Men who identify as women belong to a different protected characteristic
They and women who identify as men are not protected under gender in the HRA.
I note that for you this is not about safety, but exclusive right of women's ID to biological sex –
as per privacy and dignity
and thus acceptance of transgender men and non binary people born female in women's spaces, rather than transsexual transgender women?
You are effectively saying the logical thing to do, is a disadvantage because it excludes men from women's single-sex spaces (and that is not the outcome you want).
No, not at all. I wrote this
"The advantage of gender ID is that it includes those who transition. The disadvantage is that it can also include those who do not."
Most people want others to feel included and were inclined to go along with gender identity, but going as far as to include those who do not transition is such a disadvantage to women's safety it might lead to review (as per the UK).
(which I am using because your idea of gender identity seems to be inextricably linked to stereotypes for some reason).
Why? You are taking out of context a comment in relation to the utility of use of the the term gender rather than gender ID in any HRA inclusion (as a catch all including gender ID but also wider issues of discrimination based on gender).
My suspicion is, like your illogical reasoning above, is because it allows a predetermined outcome to be achieved, because it bypasses accuracy, logic and any recognition of impact, or concerns about consent.
I could say stuff about how zealots lose perspective, if I was to debate in that way … but it really just indicates we have reached the end of this discussion.
For example: how do you protect sexual orientation when you conflate gender identity with sex?
And if one only identifies people by their birth sex
At the most ridiculous extreme of this conflation
a transsexual transgender woman having sex with a male is engaged in a homosexual act and two transgender men together are engaged in a lesbian relationship and should be invited to lesbian social occasions …
Before I respond, I just want to say I appreciate the time and care with which you are expressing your views, and I am attempting to replicate your approach even as it seems we are still talking past one another, and not quite understanding each other's point of view.
If you wanted to stick to one point of discussion until we both clearly demonstrate an understanding of each other's point of view, and then move to the next. I'm happy to do that. You choose.
But in the spirit that has got us thus far, I'll go through your last response in detail. (TBH it's easier doing it this way because the cut and paste stops me from having to scroll up and down to respond to your points, but it comes at a cost, because I'm not adding to the discussion but of responding only. I'll have to work on that…)
I have given my advice that one option to secure a continuing biological sex ID is to promote a separate gender category in the HRA.
The sex characteristic IS biological sex. It has been appropriated – by some – to refer to a undefined gender identity.
As mentioned, many submissions to the BDMMR bill wanted this clarified before the bill was passed. These requests were ignored, by the politicians promoting the bill and the select committee.
The deliberate replacement of sex with gender identity has occurred in the Sentencing Act 2003. But that was intended to accommodate those with GRS, not Self-ID, and was a cursory substitution not a well-considered one.
I won't post a myriad of links on this, it's worth a whole post.
There are always other ways of doing things (for example we never explored having half seats for women voters and half for male voters to ensure 50% representation within parliament).
Men who identify as women belong to a different protected characteristic
They and women who identify as men are not protected under gender in the HRA.
The provision of single-sex spaces is mentioned under 'sex' not gender in the HRA:
"Exceptions in relation to access by the public to places, vehicles, and facilities
(1) Section 42 shall not prevent the maintenance of separate facilities for each sex on the ground of public decency or public safety."
Where are you finding the reference to gender you are talking about?
I note that for you this is not about safety, but exclusive right of women's ID to biological sex –
as per privacy and dignity
and thus acceptance of transgender men and non binary people born female in women's spaces, rather than transsexual transgender women?
I do have concerns about safety, but that is not the only value of single-sex provisions for women and girls, so I endeavour to ensure those other values are considered. For some women, they are AS important as the safety issue.
Point needs to be made that although you and I know what you mean when talking about transgender men, and transsexual transgender women – many others will not know whether you are talking about a man with a trans identity or a woman with a trans identity.
" but exclusive right of women's ID to biological sex"
I snipped and repeated this because it is a common refrain. That women who resist the appropriation of womenhood, and/or the amalgamation of biology reality with a completely separate classification category, are somehow cruelly withholding "rights" from men with gender identities.
Biological sex categories are not "rights" – they are simply categories. You either belong to one group or the other.
You are effectively saying the logical thing to do, is a disadvantage because it excludes men from women's single-sex spaces (and that is not the outcome you want).
No, not at all. I wrote this
"The advantage of gender ID is that it includes those who transition. The disadvantage is that it can also include those who do not."
Most people want others to feel included and were inclined to go along with gender identity, but going as far as to include those who do not transition is such a disadvantage to women's safety it might lead to review (as per the UK).
It hasn't lead to a review. A review has been the result of a concerted effort of women in the UK, to force politicians to address the issues. Many women have done this despite public shaming, loss of income, harassment and threats of violence. It has been politically forced also by the insistence of the SNP to pass a bill that impacted on the rest of the UK, triggering a response from Westminster. A lot of work and effort has been necessary to get to this quite reasonable starting point that you suggest. Here, we are not anywhere near that position.
(which I am using because your idea of gender identity seems to be inextricably linked to stereotypes for some reason).
Why? You are taking out of context a comment in relation to the utility of use of the the term gender rather than gender ID in any HRA inclusion (as a catch all including gender ID but also wider issues of discrimination based on gender).
My suspicion is, like your illogical reasoning above, is because it allows a predetermined outcome to be achieved, because it bypasses accuracy, logic and any recognition of impact, or concerns about consent.
I could say stuff about how zealots lose perspective, if I was to debate in that way … but it really just indicates we have reached the end of this discussion.
To put it simply, because you have used gender in several different ways, making it difficult to follow your reasoning (but not impossible) – how would you yourself define gender identity so that can be included as a protective characteristic?
(I'm assuming that you agree that sex is biological and binary, but if you believe otherwise, a clear definition may improve the discussion.)
For example: how do you protect sexual orientation when you conflate gender identity with sex?
And if one only identifies people by their birth sex
Most people refer to others by name. I take issue with this "only", because that is not what is occurring. In some areas – sex matters – it is those areas which are under discussion.
At the most ridiculous extreme of this conflation
a transsexual transgender woman having sex with a male is engaged in a homosexual act and two transgender men together are engaged in a lesbian relationship and should be invited to lesbian social occasions …
If you mean, what I think you mean – then while I agree with you, this is not the interpretation being given by Rainbow Support organisations.
They used to have a glossary, which I can't find at present but have a look around the site. If you do find a reference to homosexuality – it will state that it is a sexual orientation to gender identity – not sex. Effectively replacing the conversion of gays to heterosexuality, with an assumed conversion of gays and lesbians (and by implication also heterosexuals) to bisexuality.
The Inside Out training organisation and resource centre is here:
A person’s enduring physical, romantic, emotional and/or spiritual attraction to others. Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same. Trans people can be heterosexual, gay, lesbian, pansexual, queer, etc. just like anyone else. For example, a trans woman who is primarily attracted to other women may identify as lesbian.
These are well-funded and very visible organisations, that are present to support young people with same-sex orientations, but appear reluctant to accept that same-sex orientation restricts your choice of intimate partner to the same as your biological sex.
I invite you to have a look and see what you think about the messaging.
What points did you find compelling in this video?
I'll admit I haven't watched this one (more of a reader than a viewer, but have seen a couple of ContraPoints videos in the past, and find them entertaining but not very informative or comprehensive, just selectively framed).
Molly you are extraordinary. So patient but so clear in addressing the "arguments"
I take my hate off to you.
The males who identify as women who want to come into women's bathrroms/change rooms, show themselves up to have the male psyche. Women, generally speaking would never insist on inserting themselves to spaces where they weren't wanted.
I'll take your hate, and return it with affection….
Thanks for the compliment. I see many contributors here that have a good grasp of the discussion, and only enter when I feel I haven't been lifting my share of the burden.
It is usually carried quite admirably by a few stalwarts, including yourself.
Two guys agreeing that the "pill and access to abortion" (feminism) in the west has caused a demographic threat to its civilisation.
No awareness of global warming is indicated, nor open (just inferred) support for right wing moves in the USA to diminish access to thee "things" by the GOP patriarchy. More breeding people and economic growth without immigration is the birther cause.
At least we can watch with horror as the past Weimar past comes for us once again safe in our own place .. or can we .. are we now not in Wichita with the Koch brothers propaganda machine witnessing the idolising of those women proud not to be a feminist.
Two guys agreeing that the "pill and access to abortion" (feminism) in the west has caused a demographic threat to its civilisation.
No awareness of global warming is indicated, nor open (just inferred) support for right wing moves in the USA to diminish access to these "things" by the GOP patriarchy. More breeding people and economic growth without immigration is the birther cause.
At least we can watch with horror as the Weimar past comes for us once again safe in our own place .. or can we .. are we not also being taken by the Koch brothers of Wichita Kansas propaganda machine to another place to witness the idolising of those women proud not to be a feminist?
On that note, I have been privileged several times now to visit one of the most beautiful church buildings in the world, Saint Chapelle Chapel in Paris.
But, it was built in the built in the 13th Century by Louis IX to house the supposed crown of thorns from the crucifiction. That, despite the fact that the crown of thorns, being made of organic material, would likely have decomposed centuries before.
The amount of cost and work to build that building must have been enormous. All for what almost certainly was a hoax.
Nevertheless, it is definitely worth the look if anyone is in France. They do violin concerts there which sound incredible. I have heard the Four Seasons played in there. Incredible acoustics.
The building is quite modern in a lot of ways, in that it has an incredible effect from light with the huge stained glass windows. Most of the similar buildings of that time tended not to have so much glass. And the stained glass wasn't great for letting in light. So a lot of those buildings seem quite dark and dingy. But this one is something else.
Thanks for this. Clearly the institution of the papacy has been around for years.
Does this date add anything to the idea about idea of shards of the cross being sent to King Charles or the concept of beauty in church building all around Europe?
We don't need to believe in the reality of reliquaries but we can see the influence of the Church on the beauty, layout and spirtuality of churches especially to my eyes those built in Gothic times.
King Charles by all accounts takes his role in Christian matters seriously and works tirelssly to foster an ecumenical approach among the world's christian churches. The gift from the Pope recognises this and is a gift of remembrance of a shared past, in my view, rather than forcing a belief in the actuality of a reliquary.
For that matter, neither is the British monarchy a medieval institution.
In the current constitutional form, (monarchy limited by law) it is a creation of the late 17th century (1688 is the generally accepted date) – well past the medieval period.
I suspect that 'medieval' is being (inaccurately) used as a synonym for 'old' in this post.
Representative democracy necessarily means candidates can't represent all their constituents views simultaneously. If you find that there isn't a candidate that adequately represents your views, then the obvious solution is to run yourself.
It may well be considered vital but democracy is also inherently competitive, with definitive victors. Complaints about 'lack of democracy' often are made by those whose favoured representatives did not garner enough support to win their race.
As important as elections are, I am more than happy to complain about the lack of democracy in almost every other aspect of our lives however. The vast majority of us spend most of our lives labouring for someone else with very little say in how we do our jobs let alone the purpose of our labour. This seems to me to be a far more impactful and tangible 'lack of democracy' in our lives that goes on incessantly and largely uncommented.
"The vast majority of us spend most of our lives labouring for someone else with very little say in how we do our jobs let alone the purpose of our labour"
We do…and the system that enables/promotes that is determined by?….
I am under no illusions that the current system, that is enforced, will be fundamentally changed by elections.
That being said, voting requires such little investment for the massive amount of harm minimisation that it can achieve. We just have to be pragmatic and strategic.
It is a general question to establish whether voters feel their views are represented by the existing political organisations….candidate nominations dont close for a few months yet leaving the opportunity for options to change.
Buzz from the Beehive Much more media attention is being paid to something Winston Peters said about former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr than to a speech he delivered to the New Zealand China Council. One word is missing from the speech: AUKUS. But AUKUS loomed large in his considerations ...
Is the economy in another long stagnation? If so, why?This is about the time that the Treasury will be locking up its economic forecasts to be published in the 2024 Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (BEFU) on budget day, 30 May. I am not privy to what they will be ...
The annual list of who's been bribing our politicians is out, and journalists will no doubt be poring over it to find the juiciest and dirtiest bribes. The government's fast-track invite list is likely to be a particular focus, and we already know of one company on the list which ...
In the weeks after the October 7 Hamas attacks on Southern Israel I wrote about the possible 2nd, 3rd and even 4th order effects of the conflict. These included new fronts being opened in the West Bank (with Hamas), Golan … Continue reading → ...
Peter Dunne writes – It is one of the oldest truisms that there is never a good time for MPs to get a pay rise. This week’s announcement of pay raises of around 2.8% backdated to last October could hardly have come at a worse time, with the ...
David Farrar writes – Newshub reports: Newshub can reveal a fresh allegation of intimidation against Green MP Julie-Anne Genter. Genter is subject to a disciplinary process for aggressively waving a book in the face of National Minister Matt Doocey in the House – but it’s not the first time ...
The Treasury has published a paper today on the global productivity slowdown and how it is playing out in New Zealand: The productivity slowdown: implications for the Treasury’s forecasts and projections. The Treasury Paper examines recent trends in productivity and the potential drivers of the slowdown. Productivity for the whole economy ...
Winston Peters’ comments about former Australian foreign minister look set to be an ongoing headache for both him and Luxon. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The podcast above of the weekly ‘hoon’ webinar for subscribers features co-hosts and , along with regular guests on Gaza and ...
These puppet strings don't pull themselvesYou're thinking thoughts from someone elseHow much time do you think you have?Are you prepared for what comes next?The debating chamber can be a trying place for an opposition MP. What with the person in charge, the speaker, typically being an MP from the governing ...
The land around Lyme Regis, where Meryl Streep once stood, in a hood, on the Cobb, is falling into the sea.MerylThe land around Lyme Regis, around the Cobb that made it rich, has always been falling slowly but surely into the sea. Read more ...
Buzz from the Beehive Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters was bound to win headlines when he set out his thinking about AUKUS in his speech to the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs. The headlines became bigger when – during an interview on RNZ’s Morning Report today – he criticised ...
The Post reports on how the government is refusing to release its advice on its corrupt Muldoonist fast-track law, instead using the "soon to be publicly available" refusal ground to hide it until after select committee submissions on the bill have closed. Fast-track Minister Chris Bishop's excuse? “It's not ...
As pressure on it grows, the livestock industry’s approach to the transition to Net Zero is increasingly being compared to that of fossil fuel interests. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / Getty ImagesTL;DR: Here’s the top five news items of note in climate news for Aotearoa-NZ this week, and a discussion above ...
The New Zealand Herald reports – Stats NZ has offered a voluntary redundancy scheme to all of its workers as a way to give staff some control over their “future” amidst widespread job losses in the public sector. In an update to staff this morning, seen by the Herald, Statistics New Zealand ...
On Werewolf/Scoop, I usually do two long form political columns a week. From now on, there will be an extra column each week about music and movies. But first, some late-breaking political events:The rise in unemployment numbers for the March quarter was bigger than expected – and especially sharp ...
David Farrar writes – The Herald reports: TVNZ says it is dealing with about 50 formal complaints over its coverage of the latest 1News-Verian political poll, with some viewers – as well as the Prime Minister and a former senior Labour MP – critical of the tone of the 6pm report. ...
Muriel Newman writes – When Meridian Energy was seeking resource consents for a West Coast hydro dam proposal in 2010, local Maori “strenuously” objected, claiming their mana was inextricably linked to ‘their’ river and could be damaged. After receiving a financial payment from the company, however, the Ngai Tahu ...
Alwyn Poole writes – “An SEP,’ he said, ‘is something that we can’t see, or don’t see, or our brain doesn’t let us see, because we think that it’s somebody else’s problem. That’s what SEP means. Somebody Else’s Problem. The brain just edits it out, it’s like a ...
Our trust in our political institutions is fast eroding, according to a Maxim Institute discussion paper, Shaky Foundations: Why our democracy needs trust. The paper – released today – raises concerns about declining trust in New Zealand’s political institutions and democratic processes, and the role that the overuse of Parliamentary urgency ...
This article was prepared for publication yesterday. More ministerial announcements have been posted on the government’s official website since it was written. We will report on these later today …. Buzz from the BeehiveThere we were, thinking the environment is in trouble, when along came Jones. Shane Jones. ...
New Zealand now has the fourth most depressed construction sector in the world behind China, Qatar and Hong Kong. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy at 8:46am on Thursday, May 2:The Lead: ...
Hi,I am just going to state something very obvious: American police are fucking crazy.That was a photo gracing the New York Times this morning, showing New York City police “entering Columbia University last night after receiving a request from the school.”Apparently in America, protesting the deaths of tens of thousands ...
Winston Peters’ much anticipated foreign policy speech last night was a work of two halves. Much of it was a standard “boilerplate” Foreign Ministry overview of the state of the world. There was some hardening up of rhetoric with talk of “benign” becoming “malign” and old truths giving way to ...
Graham Adams assesses the fallout of the Cass Review — The press release last Thursday from the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls didn’t make the mainstream news in New Zealand but it really should have. The startling title of Reem Alsalem’s statement — “Implementation of ‘Cass ...
This open-for-business, under-new-management cliché-pockmarked government of Christopher Luxon is not the thing of beauty he imagines it to be. It is not the powerful expression of the will of the people that he asserts it to be. It is not a soaring eagle, it is a malodorous vulture. This newest poll should make ...
The latest labour market statistics, showing a rise in unemployment. There are now 134,000 unemployed - 14,000 more than when the National government took office. Which is I guess what happens when the Reserve Bank causes a recession in an effort to Keep Wages Low. The previous government saw a ...
Three opinion polls have been released in the last two days, all showing that the new government is failing to hold their popular support. The usual honeymoon experienced during the first year of a first term government is entirely absent. The political mood is still gloomy and discontented, mainly due ...
National's Finance Minister once met a poor person.A scornful interview with National's finance guru who knows next to nothing about economics or people.There might have been something a bit familiar if that was the headline I’d gone with today. It would of course have been in tribute to the article ...
Rob MacCulloch writes – Throughout the pandemic, the new Vice-Chancellor-of-Otago-University-on-$629,000 per annum-Can-you-believe-it-and-Former-Finance-Minister Grant Robertson repeated the mantra over and over that he saved “lives and livelihoods”.As we update how this claim is faring over the course of time, the facts are increasingly speaking differently. NZ ...
Chris Trotter writes – IT’S A COMMONPLACE of political speeches, especially those delivered in acknowledgement of electoral victory: “We’ll govern for all New Zealanders.” On the face of it, the pledge is a strange one. Why would any political leader govern in ways that advantaged the huge ...
Bryce Edwards writes – The list of former National Party Ministers being given plum and important roles got longer this week with the appointment of former Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett as the chair of Pharmac. The Christopher Luxon-led Government has now made key appointments to Bill ...
TL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy at 10:06am on Wednesday, May 1:The Lead: Business confidence fell across the board in April, falling in some areas to levels last seen during the lockdowns because of a collapse in ...
Over the past 36 hours, Christopher Luxon has been dong his best to portray the centre-right’s plummeting poll numbers as a mark of virtue. Allegedly, the negative verdicts are the result of hard economic times, and of a government bravely set out on a perilous rescue mission from which not ...
Auckland Transport have started rolling out new HOP card readers around the network and over the next three months, all of them on buses, at train stations and ferry wharves will be replaced. The change itself is not that remarkable, with the new readers looking similar to what is already ...
Completed reads for April: The Difference Engine, by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling Carnival of Saints, by George Herman The Snow Spider, by Jenny Nimmo Emlyn’s Moon, by Jenny Nimmo The Chestnut Soldier, by Jenny Nimmo Death Comes As the End, by Agatha Christie Lord of the Flies, by ...
On February 14, 2023 we announced our Rebuttal Update Project. This included an ask for feedback about the added "At a glance" section in the updated basic rebuttal versions. This weekly blog post series highlights this new section of one of the updated basic rebuttal versions and serves as a ...
Have a story to share about St Paul’s, but today just picturesPopular novels written at this desk by a young man who managed to bootstrap himself out of father’s imprisonment and his own young life in a workhouse Read more ...
The list of former National Party Ministers being given plum and important roles got longer this week with the appointment of former Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett as the chair of Pharmac. The Christopher Luxon-led Government has now made key appointments to Bill English, Simon Bridges, Steven Joyce, Roger Sowry, ...
Newsroom has a story today about National's (fortunately failed) effort to disestablish the newly-created Inspector-General of Defence. The creation of this agency was the key recommendation of the Inquiry into Operation Burnham, and a vital means of restoring credibility and social licence to an agency which had been caught lying ...
Holding On To The Present:The moment a political movement arises that attacks the whole idea of social progress, and announces its intention to wind back the hands of History’s clock, then democracy, along with its unwritten rules, is in mortal danger.IT’S A COMMONPLACE of political speeches, especially those delivered in ...
Stuck In The Middle With You:As Christopher Luxon feels the hot breath of Act’s and NZ First’s extremists on the back of his neck and, as he reckons with the damage their policies are already inflicting upon a country he’s described as “fragile”, is there not some merit in reaching out ...
The unpopular coalition government is currently rushing to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. The clause is Oranga Tamariki's Treaty clause, and was inserted after its systematic stealing of Māori children became a public scandal and resulted in physical resistance to further abductions. The clause created clear obligations ...
Buzz from the Beehive The government’s official website – which Point of Order monitors daily – not for the first time has nothing much to say today about political happenings that are grabbing media headlines. It makes no mention of the latest 1News-Verian poll, for example. This shows National down ...
It Takes A Train To Cry:Surely, there is nothing lonelier in all this world than the long wail of a distant steam locomotive on a cold Winter’s night.AS A CHILD, I would lie awake in my grandfather’s house and listen to the traffic. The big wooden house was only a ...
Packing A Punch: The election of the present government, including in its ranks politicians dedicated to reasserting the rights of the legislature in shaping and determining the future of Māori and Pakeha in New Zealand, should have alerted the judiciary – including its anomalous appendage, the Waitangi Tribunal – that its ...
Dead Woman Walking: New Zealand’s media industry had been moving steadily towards disaster for all the years Melissa Lee had been National’s media and communications policy spokesperson, and yet, when the crisis finally broke, on her watch, she had nothing intelligent to offer. Christopher Luxon is a patient man - but he’s not ...
Chris Trotter writes – New Zealand politics is remarkably easy-going: dangerously so, one might even say. With the notable exception of John Key’s flat ruling-out of the NZ First Party in 2008, all parties capable of clearing MMP’s five-percent threshold, or winning one or more electorate seats, tend ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Polling shows that Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau has the lowest approval rating of any mayor in the country. Siting at -12 per cent, the proportion of constituents who disapprove of her performance outweighs those who give her the thumbs up. This negative rating is ...
Luxon will no doubt put a brave face on it, but there is no escaping the pressure this latest poll will put on him and the government. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on Aotearoa-NZ’s political ...
This is a re-post from The Climate Brink by Andrew Dessler In the wake of any unusual weather event, someone inevitably asks, “Did climate change cause this?” In the most literal sense, that answer is almost always no. Climate change is never the sole cause of hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, or ...
Something odd happened yesterday, and I’d love to know if there’s more to it. If there was something which preempted what happened, or if it was simply a throwaway line in response to a journalist.Yesterday David Seymour was asked at a press conference what the process would be if the ...
Hi,From time to time, I want to bring Webworm into the real world. We did it last year with the Jurassic Park event in New Zealand — which was a lot of fun!And so on Saturday May 11th, in Los Angeles, I am hosting a lil’ Webworm pop-up! I’ve been ...
Education Minister Erica Standford yesterday unveiled a fundamental reform of the way our school pupils are taught. She would not exactly say so, but she is all but dismantling the so-called “inquiry” “feel good” method of teaching, which has ruled in our classrooms since a major review of the New ...
Exactly where are we seriously going with this government and its policies? That is, apart from following what may as well be a Truss-Lite approach on the purported economic “plan“, and Victorian-era regression when it comes to social policy.Oh it’ll work this time of course, we’re basically assured, “the ...
Hey Uncle Dave, When the Poms joined the EEC, I wasn't one of those defeatists who said, Well, that’s it for the dairy job. And I was right, eh? The Chinese can’t get enough of our milk powder and eventually, the Poms came to their senses and backed up the ute ...
Polling shows that Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau has the lowest approval rating of any mayor in the country. Siting at -12 per cent, the proportion of constituents who disapprove of her performance outweighs those who give her the thumbs up. This negative rating is higher than for any other mayor ...
Buzz from the Beehive Pharmac has been given a financial transfusion and a new chair to oversee its spending in the pharmaceutical business. Associate Health Minister David Seymour described the funding for Pharmac as “its largest ever budget of $6.294 billion over four years, fixing a $1.774 billion fiscal cliff”. ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Many criticisms are being made of the Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill, including by this writer. But as with everything in politics, every story has two sides, and both deserve attention. It’s important to understand what the Government is trying to achieve and its ...
TL;DR: Here’s my top 10 ‘pick ‘n’ mix of links to news, analysis and opinion articles as of 10:10am on Monday, April 29:Scoop: The children's ward at Rotorua Hospital will be missing a third of its beds as winter hits because Te Whatu Ora halted an upgrade partway through to ...
span class=”dropcap”>As hideous as David Seymour can be, it is worth keeping in mind occasionally that there are even worse political figures (and regimes) out there. Iran for instance, is about to execute the country’s leading hip hop musician Toomaj Salehi, for writing and performing raps that “corrupt” the nation’s ...
Yesterday marked 10 years since the first electric train carried passengers in Auckland so it’s a good time to look back at it and the impact it has had. A brief history The first proposals for rail electrification in Auckland came in the 1920’s alongside the plans for earlier ...
Right now, in Aotearoa-NZ, our ‘animal spirits’ are darkening towards a winter of discontent, thanks at least partly to a chorus of negative comments and actions from the Government Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on ...
You make people evil to punish the paststuck inside a sequel with a rotating castThe following photos haven’t been generated with AI, or modified in any way. They are flesh and blood, human beings. On the left is Galatea Young, a young mum, and her daughter Fiadh who has Angelman ...
April has been a quiet month at A Phuulish Fellow. I have had an exceptionally good reading month, and a decently productive writing month – for original fiction, anyway – but not much has caught my eye that suggested a blog article. It has been vaguely frustrating, to be honest. ...
A listing of 31 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, April 21, 2024 thru Sat, April 27, 2024. Story of the week Anthropogenic climate change may be the ultimate shaggy dog story— but with a twist, because here ...
Hi,I spent about a year on Webworm reporting on an abusive megachurch called Arise, and it made me want to stab my eyes out with a fork.I don’t regret that reporting in 2022 and 2023 — I am proud of it — but it made me angry.Over three main stories ...
The new Victoria University Vice-Chancellor decided to have a forum at the university about free speech and academic freedom as it is obviously a topical issue, and the Government is looking at legislating some carrots or sticks for universities to uphold their obligations under the Education and Training Act. They ...
Do you remember when Melania Trump got caught out using a speech that sounded awfully like one Michelle Obama had given? Uncannily so.Well it turns out that Abraham Lincoln is to Winston Peters as Michelle was to Melania. With the ANZAC speech Uncle Winston gave at Gallipoli having much in ...
The Government is again adding to New Zealand’s growing unemployment, this time cutting jobs at the agencies responsible for urban development and growing much needed housing stock. ...
With Minister Karen Chhour indicating in the House today that she either doesn’t know or care about the frontline cuts she’s making to Oranga Tamariki, we risk seeing more and more of our children falling through the cracks. ...
The Labour Party is saddened to learn of the death of Sir Robert Martin, a globally renowned disability advocate who led the way for disability rights both in New Zealand and internationally. ...
Labour is calling for the Government to urgently rethink its coalition commitment to restart live animal exports, Labour animal welfare spokesperson Rachel Boyack said. ...
Today’s Financial Stability Report has once again highlighted that poverty and deep inequality are political choices - and this Government is choosing to make them worse. ...
The Green Party is calling on the Government to do more for our households in most need as unemployment rises and the cost of living crisis endures. ...
Unemployment is on the rise and it’s only going to get worse under this Government, Labour finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds said. Stats NZ figures show the unemployment rate grew to 4.3 percent in the March quarter from 4 percent in the December quarter. “This is the second rise in unemployment ...
The New Zealand Labour Party welcomes the entering into force of the European Union and New Zealand free trade agreement. This agreement opens the door for a huge increase in trade opportunities with a market of 450 million people who are high value discerning consumers of New Zealand goods and ...
The National-led Government continues its fiscal jiggery pokery with its Pharmac announcement today, Labour Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall says. “The government has increased Pharmac funding but conceded it will only make minimal increases in access to medicine”, said Ayesha Verrall “This is far from the bold promises made to fund ...
This afternoon’s interim Waitangi Tribunal report must be taken seriously as it affects our most vulnerable children, Labour children’s spokesperson Willow-Jean Prime. ...
Te Pāti Māori are demanding the New Zealand Government support an international independent investigation into mass graves that have been uncovered at two hospitals on the Gaza strip, following weeks of assault by Israeli troops. Among the 392 bodies that have been recovered, are children and elderly civilians. Many of ...
Our two-tiered system for veterans’ support is out of step with our closest partners, and all parties in Parliament should work together to fix it, Labour veterans’ affairs spokesperson Greg O’Connor said. ...
Stripping two Ministers of their portfolios just six months into the job shows Christopher Luxon’s management style is lacking, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said. ...
Tonight’s court decision to overturn the summons of the Children’s Minister has enabled the Crown to continue making decisions about Māori without evidence, says Te Pāti Māori spokesperson for Children, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. “The judicial system has this evening told the nation that this government can do whatever they want when ...
It appears Nicola Willis is about to pull the rug out from under the feet of local communities still dealing with the aftermath of last year’s severe weather, and local councils relying on funding to build back from these disasters. ...
The Government is making short-sighted changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) that will take away environmental protection in favour of short-term profits, Labour’s environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking said today. ...
Labour welcomes the release of the report into the North Island weather events and looks forward to working with the Government to ensure that New Zealand is as prepared as it can be for the next natural disaster. ...
The Labour Party has called for the New Zealand Government to recognise Palestine, as a material step towards progressing the two-State solution needed to achieve a lasting peace in the region. ...
Some of our country’s most important work, stopping the sexual exploitation of children and violent extremism could go along with staff on the frontline at ports and airports. ...
The Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill will give projects such as new coal mines a ‘get out of jail free’ card to wreak havoc on the environment, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said today. ...
The government's decision to reintroduce Three Strikes is a destructive and ineffective piece of law-making that will only exacerbate an inherently biased and racist criminal justice system, said Te Pāti Māori Justice Spokesperson, Tākuta Ferris, today. During the time Three Strikes was in place in Aotearoa, Māori and Pasifika received ...
Cuts to frontline hospital staff are not only a broken election promise, it shows the reckless tax cuts have well and truly hit the frontline of the health system, says Labour Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall. ...
The Green Party has joined the call for public submissions on the fast-track legislation to be extended after the Ombudsman forced the Government to release the list of organisations invited to apply just hours before submissions close. ...
New Zealand’s good work at reducing climate emissions for three years in a row will be undone by the National government’s lack of ambition and scrapping programmes that were making a difference, Labour Party climate spokesperson Megan Woods said today. ...
More essential jobs could be on the chopping block, this time Ministry of Education staff on the school lunches team are set to find out whether they're in line to lose their jobs. ...
Te Pāti Māori is disgusted at the confirmation that hundreds are set to lose their jobs at Oranga Tamariki, and the disestablishment of the Treaty Response Unit. “This act of absolute carelessness and out of touch decision making is committing tamariki to state abuse.” Said Te Pāti Māori Oranga Tamariki ...
The Government is trying to bring in a law that will allow Ministers to cut corners and kill off native species, Labour environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking said. ...
Cancelling urgently needed new Cook Strait ferries and hiking the cost of public transport for many Kiwis so that National can announce the prospect of another tunnel for Wellington is not making good choices, Labour Transport Spokesperson Tangi Utikere said. ...
A laundry list of additional costs for Tāmaki Makarau Auckland shows the Minister for the city is not delivering for the people who live there, says Labour Auckland Issues spokesperson Shanan Halbert. ...
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi, and Mema Paremata mō Tāmaki-Makaurau, Takutai Tarsh Kemp, will travel to the Gold Coast to strengthen ties with Māori in Australia next week (15-21 April). The visit, in the lead-up to the 9th Australian National Kapa haka Festival, will be an opportunity for both ...
The Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, Chris Bishop today released his decision on four recommendations referred to him by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, opening the door to housing growth in the area. The Council’s Plan Change 92 allows more homes to be built in existing and new ...
Thank you, John McKinnon and the New Zealand China Council for the invitation to speak to you today. Thank you too, all members of the China Council. Your effort has played an essential role in helping to build, shape, and grow a balanced and resilient relationship between our two ...
The Government is modernising insurance law to better protect Kiwis and provide security in the event of a disaster, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly announced today. “These reforms are long overdue. New Zealand’s insurance law is complicated and dated, some of which is more than 100 years old. ...
The coalition Government is refreshing its approach to supporting pay equity claims as time-limited funding for the Pay Equity Taskforce comes to an end, Public Service Minister Nicola Willis says. “Three years ago, the then-government introduced changes to the Equal Pay Act to support pay equity bargaining. The changes were ...
Structured literacy will change the way New Zealand children learn to read - improving achievement and setting students up for success, Education Minister Erica Stanford says. “Being able to read and write is a fundamental life skill that too many young people are missing out on. Recent data shows that ...
Trade Minister Todd McClay says Canada’s refusal to comply in full with a CPTPP trade dispute ruling in our favour over dairy trade is cynical and New Zealand has no intention of backing down. Mr McClay said he has asked for urgent legal advice in respect of our ‘next move’ ...
The rights of our children and young people will be enhanced by changes the coalition Government will make to strengthen oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system, including restoring a single Children’s Commissioner. “The Government is committed to delivering better public services that care for our most at-risk young people and ...
The Government is making it easier for minor changes to be made to a building consent so building a home is easier and more affordable, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says. “The coalition Government is focused on making it easier and cheaper to build homes so we can ...
New Zealand lost a true legend when internationally renowned disability advocate Sir Robert Martin (KNZM) passed away at his home in Whanganui last night, Disabilities Issues Minister Louise Upston says. “Our Government’s thoughts are with his wife Lynda, family and community, those he has worked with, the disability community in ...
Good evening – Before discussing the challenges and opportunities facing New Zealand’s foreign policy, we’d like to first acknowledge the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs. You have contributed to debates about New Zealand foreign policy over a long period of time, and we thank you for hosting us. ...
From today, passengers travelling internationally from Auckland Airport will be able to keep laptops and liquids in their carry-on bags for security screening thanks to new technology, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Creating a more efficient and seamless travel experience is important for holidaymakers and businesses, enabling faster movement through ...
People with an interest in the health of Northland’s marine ecosystems are invited to a public meeting to discuss how to deal with kina barrens, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. Mr Jones will lead the discussion, which will take place on Friday, 10 May, at Awanui Hotel in ...
Kiwi exporters are $100 million better off today with the NZ EU FTA entering into force says Trade Minister Todd McClay. “This is all part of our plan to grow the economy. New Zealand's prosperity depends on international trade, making up 60 per cent of the country’s total economic activity. ...
There are heartening signs that the extractive sector is once again becoming an attractive prospect for investors and a source of economic prosperity for New Zealand, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. “The beginnings of a resurgence in extractive industries are apparent in media reports of the sector in the past ...
The return of the historic Ō-Rākau battle site to the descendants of those who fought there moved one step closer today with the first reading of Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara / The Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill. The Bill will entrust the 9.7-hectare battle site, five kilometres west ...
Energy Minister Simeon Brown has announced 25 new high-speed EV charging hubs along key routes between major urban centres and outlined the Government’s plan to supercharge New Zealand’s EV infrastructure. The hubs will each have several chargers and be capable of charging at least four – and up to 10 ...
The coalition Government will not proceed with the previous Government’s plans to regulate residential property managers, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “I have written to the Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee to inform him that the Government does not intend to support the Residential Property Managers Bill ...
The Government has announced an independent review into the disability support system funded by the Ministry of Disabled People – Whaikaha. Disability Issues Minister Louise Upston says the review will look at what can be done to strengthen the long-term sustainability of Disability Support Services to provide disabled people and ...
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has attended the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva and outlined the Government’s plan to restore law and order. “Speaking to the United Nations Human Rights Council provided us with an opportunity to present New Zealand’s human rights progress, priorities, and challenges, while responding to issues and ...
The Government and Rotorua Lakes Council are committed to working closely together to end the use of contracted emergency housing motels in Rotorua. Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing) Tama Potaka says the Government remains committed to ending the long-term use of contracted emergency housing motels in Rotorua by the ...
Trade Minister Todd McClay heads overseas today for high-level trade talks in the Gulf region, and a key OECD meeting in Paris. Mr McClay will travel to Riyadh to meet with counterparts from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). “New Zealand’s goods and services exports to the Gulf region ...
Education Minister Erica Stanford has outlined six education priorities to deliver a world-leading education system that sets Kiwi kids up for future success. “I’m putting ambition, achievement and outcomes at the heart of our education system. I want every child to be inspired and engaged in their learning so they ...
The new NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) App is a secure ‘one stop shop’ to provide the services drivers need, Transport Minister Simeon Brown and Digitising Government Minister Judith Collins say. “The NZTA App will enable an easier way for Kiwis to pay for Vehicle Registration and Road User Charges (RUC). ...
Whānau with tamariki growing up in emergency housing motels will be prioritised for social housing starting this week, says Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka. “Giving these whānau a better opportunity to build healthy stable lives for themselves and future generations is an essential part of the Government’s goal of reducing ...
Racing Minister Winston Peters has paid tribute to an icon of the industry with the recent passing of Dave O’Sullivan (OBE). “Our sympathies are with the O’Sullivan family with the sad news of Dave O’Sullivan’s recent passing,” Mr Peters says. “His contribution to racing, initially as a jockey and then ...
Assalaamu alaikum, greetings to you all. Eid Mubarak, everyone! I want to extend my warmest wishes to you and everyone celebrating this joyous occasion. It is a pleasure to be here. I have enjoyed Eid celebrations at Parliament before, but this is my first time joining you as the Minister ...
Associate Health Minister David Seymour has announced Pharmac’s largest ever budget of $6.294 billion over four years, fixing a $1.774 billion fiscal cliff. “Access to medicines is a crucial part of many Kiwis’ lives. We’ve committed to a budget allocation of $1.774 billion over four years so Kiwis are ...
Hon Paula Bennett has been appointed as member and chair of the Pharmac board, Associate Health Minister David Seymour announced today. "Pharmac is a critical part of New Zealand's health system and plays a significant role in ensuring that Kiwis have the best possible access to medicines,” says Mr Seymour. ...
Hundreds of New Zealand families affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) will benefit from a new Government focus on prevention and treatment, says Health Minister Dr Shane Reti. “We know FASD is a leading cause of preventable intellectual and neurodevelopmental disability in New Zealand,” Dr Reti says. “Every day, ...
Regional Development Minister Shane Jones today attended the official opening of Kaikohe’s new $14.7 million sports complex. “The completion of the Kaikohe Multi Sports Complex is a fantastic achievement for the Far North,” Mr Jones says. “This facility not only fulfils a long-held dream for local athletes, but also creates ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ engagements in Türkiye this week underlined the importance of diplomacy to meet growing global challenges. “Returning to the Gallipoli Peninsula to represent New Zealand at Anzac commemorations was a sombre reminder of the critical importance of diplomacy for de-escalating conflicts and easing tensions,” Mr Peters ...
Ambassador Millar, Burgemeester, Vandepitte, Excellencies, military representatives, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen – good morning and welcome to this sacred Anzac Day dawn service. It is an honour to be here on behalf of the Government and people of New Zealand at Buttes New British Cemetery, Polygon Wood – a deeply ...
Distinguished guests - It is an honour to return once again to this site which, as the resting place for so many of our war-dead, has become a sacred place for generations of New Zealanders. Our presence here and at the other special spaces of Gallipoli is made ...
Mai ia tawhiti pamamao, te moana nui a Kiwa, kua tae whakaiti mai matou, ki to koutou papa whenua. No koutou te tapuwae, no matou te tapuwae, kua honoa pumautia. Ko nga toa kua hinga nei, o te Waipounamu, o te Ika a Maui, he okioki tahi me o ...
Paul Goldsmith will take on responsibility for the Media and Communications portfolio, while Louise Upston will pick up the Disability Issues portfolio, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced today. “Our Government is relentlessly focused on getting New Zealand back on track. As issues change in prominence, I plan to adjust Ministerial ...
Recreational catch limits will be reduced in areas of Fiordland and the Chatham Islands to help keep those fisheries healthy and sustainable, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. The lower recreational daily catch limits for a range of finfish and shellfish species caught in the Fiordland Marine Area and ...
Energy Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed an important milestone in New Zealand’s hydrogen future, with the opening of the country’s first network of hydrogen refuelling stations in Wiri. “I want to congratulate the team at Hiringa Energy and its partners K one W one (K1W1), Mitsui & Co New Zealand ...
The coalition Government is delivering on its commitment to improve resource management laws and give greater certainty to consent applicants, with a Bill to amend the Resource Management Act (RMA) expected to be introduced to Parliament next month. RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop has today outlined the first RMA Amendment ...
Overseas models for regulating the oil and gas sector, including their decommissioning regimes, are being carefully scrutinised as a potential template for New Zealand’s own sector, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. The Coalition Government is focused on rebuilding investor confidence in New Zealand’s energy sector as it looks to strengthen ...
Emergency Management and Recovery Minister Mark Mitchell has today released the Report of the Government Inquiry into the response to the North Island Severe Weather Events. “The report shows that New Zealand’s emergency management system is not fit-for-purpose and there are some significant gaps we need to address,” Mr Mitchell ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicola Henry, Professor & Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Social and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University Shutterstock Following an emergency meeting of the National Cabinet this week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a raft of measures to tackle the problem ...
Analysis - A poll showing the opposition is more popular than the government raises questions, politicians go through their 'trial by pay rise' and a Green MP loses her cool in the debating chamber. ...
The entire stretch of Tokomaru Bay on the East Coast will be subject to a joint customary marine title for two hapū, and extending up to four miles out to sea. A High Court judge has found the two groups, who during the case settled a dispute over boundaries for ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Hall, Lecturer, Media & Cultural Studies, Edith Cowan University A longstanding feud between TikTok and Universal Music Group seems to have finally reached an end, with both parties signing a deal that will see Universal-backed music returned to the social media ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Siobhan O’Dean, Postdoctoral Research Associate, The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, University of Sydney After several highly publicised alleged murders of women in Australia, the Albanese government this week pledged more than A$925 million over five years ...
Political parties have now fully disclosed the donations they received last year - with National getting more than double the cash of any other party. ...
A Pacific regionalism expert has called out New Zealand's Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters for withholding information from the public on AUKUS military pact. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard de Grijs, Professor of Astrophysics, Macquarie University Bruno Scramgnon/Pexels All systems are “go” for tonight’s launch of China’s next step in a carefully planned lunar exploration program. Placed on top of a powerful Long March 5 rocket, the Chang’e 6 ...
National returned a massive donation the day after a Newsroom story linked the donors to a property being investigated for operating unlawfully as a migrant workers’ hostel. The party’s 2023 donation filings, released on Friday, show it returned a $200,000 donation from Buen Holdings on August 23. That was the ...
Pacific Media Watch New Zealand has slumped to an unprecedented 19th place in the annual Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index survey released today on World Press Freedom Day — May 3. This was a drop of six places from 13th last year when it slipped out of its ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Black, Political Historian and Administrator Officer, Australian Historical Association, Australian National University Australia has had its fair share of public record-keeping controversies in recent years. Some have been mere farce, as in the case of two formerly government-owned filing cabinets (containing ...
Heavenly Culture, World Peace, Restoration of Light (HWPL), a United Nations-affiliated organization dedicated to fostering peace through civilian-led initiatives, has issued a statement in response to the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. ...
A poem by Tessa Keenan, from AUP New Poets 10. Mātou These days we are a photograph; one of a farm strewn with cows that used to be bright harakeke or swamp. The kids point at it and say the sun sits behind a smudge (left by someone at Christmas); ...
The only published and available best-selling indie book chart in New Zealand is the top 10 sales list recorded every week at Unity Books’ stores in High St, Auckland, and Willis St, Wellington.AUCKLAND1 Small Things Like These by Claire Keegan (Faber & Faber, $25)The masterful Irish writer ...
Marriage and civil union statistics record the number of marriages and civil unions registered in New Zealand each year, and divorce statistics record the number of divorces granted in New Zealand each year. Key facts Marriages and civil unions In ...
Marriage and civil union statistics record the number of marriages and civil unions registered in New Zealand each year, and divorce statistics record the number of divorces granted in New Zealand each year. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lennon Y.C. Chang, Associate Professor of Cyber Risk and Policy, Deakin University Taiwan stands out as a beacon of democracy, innovation and resilience in an increasingly autocratic region. But this is under growing threat. In recent years, China has used a variety ...
In this excerpt from her new memoir, Dame Susan Devoy remembers her turn as star contestant on the 2022 season of Celebrity Treasure Island. The most anxious time of every day was pre-elimination, when you knew this could be your final day on the show. I felt such contradictory emotions, ...
A week that began in triumph ended in an all-too-familiar disaster for the Green Party. Duncan Greive asks if there’s something in the mission that breaks its best and brightest. A long, strange week for the Green party began with a fantastic poll result. On one level this is hardly ...
By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific journalist Vanuatu’s former prime minister and opposition MP Ishmael Kalsakau has stepped down — just two days after he confirmed he was the rightful opposition leader. Kalsakau, MP for Port Vila, confirmed to ABC’s Pacific Beat, and the Vanuatu Daily Post on Thursday that he ...
What’s to blame for the coalition’s choppy start? Six months in, and the mojo meter is in the doldrums. A new poll would put National out of power and sees its leader, Chris Luxon, sliding in popularity. How much is it about policy, how much coalition management and a perception ...
The striking report goes far beyond the proposed repeal of the Oranga Tamariki Act’s Treaty of Waitangi provision, and its impact should be felt far beyond the unique circumstances of the claim it addresses. Earlier this week, the Waitangi Tribunal released an interim report on the government’s proposed repeal of ...
The world has been experiencing a productivity slowdown, from which New Zealand has not been exempt. COVID-19 temporarily boosted labour productivity, but more recently, productivity has retreated. The overall trend since 2007 has been one of slow productivity ...
What’s more wasteful than spending $315k on syrup and machine maintenance? Trying to drum up a controversy about it.Cast your mind back to the pre-pandemic idylls of 2019. A “rat” was a disgusting rodent and not a self-administered plague test; the sixth Labour government was in power; and the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Professor of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Monash University Ken stocker/Shutterstock In the wake of numerous killings of women allegedly by men’s violence in 2024, thousands of Australians have joined rallies across the country to demand action ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Cutler, Professor and Director, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University Oleg Ivanov IL/Shutterstock Waiting times for public hospital elective surgery have been in the news ahead of this year’s federal budget. That’s the type of non-emergency surgery ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow, Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne Amna Artist/Shutterstock One of the earliest descriptions of someone with cancer comes from the fourth century BC. Satyrus, tyrant of the city of Heracleia on the Black Sea, ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Rose, Professor of Sustainable Future Transport, University of Sydney LanaElcova/Shutterstock Electric vehicles are often seen as the panacea to cutting emissions – and air pollution – from transport. Is this view correct? Yes – but only once uptake accelerates. Despite the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giselle Natassia Woodley, Researcher and Phd Candidate, Edith Cowan University There is widespread agreement Australia needs to do better when it comes to gender-based violence. Anger and frustration at the numbers of women being killed saw national rallies over the weekend and ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Graham, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney Mark and Anna Photography/Shutterstock As home ownership moves further out of reach for many Australians, “rentvesting” is being touted as a lifesaver. Rentvesting is the practice of renting one property to live ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sukhmani Khorana, Associate Professor, Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, UNSW Sydney Netflix The new season of Heartbreak High is garnering mixed reviews. Critics are writing about the racy story lines, comparing it to other coming-of-age series about teenage relationships and ...
Bob Carr intends to launch legal action against Winston Peters and Julie Anne Genter is facing a second allegation of bullying. Both sucked the air out of an announcement on education, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell in this excerpt from The Bulletin, The Spinoff’s morning news round-up. To receive The Bulletin in ...
In 1995, Sally Clark went out on her own in a bold and unorthodox attempt to join an illustrious group of equestrian riders conquering the world. In the days of glovebox road maps, brick cell phones, and the hit song How Bizarre, Clark refused to follow Sir Mark Todd, Blyth ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Beaglehole, Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago niphon/Getty Images The number of people accessing medication for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Aotearoa New Zealand increased significantly between 2006 and 2022. But the disorder is still under-diagnosed and ...
To celebrate the start of New Zealand music month, we look back at the best local tuneage that managed to weasel its way into Hollywood productions. There’s nothing quite like the thrilling zap of recognition when New Zealand weasels its way into a glamorous Hollywood production. Crack open a Tui ...
People trust other people more than institutions. So how can the media gain that trust through journalists without losing what’s important about the institution? Anna Rawhiti-Connell reflects on two years of curating the news for The Bulletin.Amonth ago, armed cops descended on my neighbourhood as calls to “lock your ...
A warning – suicide is discussed in this podcast New Zealand’s own long-running soap Shortland Street doesn’t hesitate to kill off its much-loved characters. But would TVNZ dare to kill off our favourite soap? That’s the fear as times get tough in television – even though it’s been pointed out ...
Essay: If the Crown harms children, how do you hold it accountable? Analysis by Aaron Smale in light of the Waitangi Tribunal court decision. The post The Crown versus Māori Children appeared first on Newsroom. ...
Opinion: PFAS – per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – are a class of thousands of man-made chemicals used widely in everyday consumer items such as textiles, packaging, and cookware, popular for their water, grease and stain-repellent properties. However, the very properties that make PFAS so attractive to manufacturers are also what ...
NONFICTION 1 The Last Secret Agent by Pippa Latour & Jude Dobson (Allen & Unwin, $37.99)’ This is the hottest book in New Zealand, number one with a bullet in its first week, selling more than any overseas title, and demand is so huge that it’s already been reprinted. A ...
Loading…(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){var ql=document.querySelectorAll('A,DIV,A[data-quiz],DIV[data-quiz]'); if(ql){if(ql.length){for(var k=0;k<ql.length;k++){ql[k].id='quiz-embed-'+k;ql[k].href="javascript:var i=document.getElementById('quiz-embed-"+k+"');try{qz.startQuiz(i)}catch(e){i.start=1;i.style.cursor='wait';i.style.opacity='0.5'};void(0);"}}};i['QP']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)})(window,document,'script','https://take.quiz-maker.com/3012/CDN/quiz-embed-v1.js','qp'); Got a good quiz question?Send Newsroom your questions. The post Newsroom daily quiz, Friday 3 May appeared first on Newsroom. ...
Asia Pacific Report A West Papuan resistance leader has condemned the United Nations role in allowing Indonesia to “integrate” the Melanesian Pacific region in what is claimed to be an “egregious act of inhumanity” on 1 May 1963. In an open letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, Organisasi Papua Merdeka-OPM ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra A key part of the Albanese government’s political strategy is to fill the news cycle with its presence and messaging. Ministers are deployed to the maximum, even when they’ve little to say. This week ...
Recent extreme weather events showed the importance of a well-functioning insurance system, says Commerce and Consumer Affairs minister Andrew Bayly. ...
By Jo Moir, RNZ News political editor, and Craig McCulloch, deputy political editor New Zealand’s Labour Party is demanding Winston Peters be stood down as Foreign Minister for opening up the government to legal action over his “totally unacceptable” attack on a prominent AUKUS critic. In an interview on RNZ’s ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Brakenridge, Postdoctoral research fellow at Swinburne University, Centre for Urban Transitions, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute The Conversation, Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock People have a pretty intuitive sense of what is healthy – standing is better than sitting, exercise is great for overall ...
The Wellington-based Reserve Force soldier is now almost three years into his New Zealand Army career with 5th/7th Battalion, Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment. ...
"The Government needs to release the review immediately as this reckless approach to change risks disjointed decision making and creates more distress and uncertainty for staff," Fitzsimons said. ...
MSM in March: Posie Parker is a fascist! Feminists are Nazis!
MSM in April: It is terrible that a National party candidate wrote a poem about Jacinda being Hitler. This is unconscionable!
lol. Weird fucking times.
Thanks for the triggered disinformation. Now I know for sure I am not in Kansas.
You, of course, have links showing the MSN calling Posie Parker a fascist, and that feminists are Nazis.
Stuff 1 2 3 4
Herald 1 2 3
Spinoff 1 2 3
RNZ 1 2 3
1 news 1 2 3
It was a beautifully executed propaganda campaign
Just show two quotes. saying either of them.
Coming to New Zealand on CPAC money to provoke counter-protest and support for it from the left was also a beautifully executed propaganda campaign by the political right, who chose her well.
Given their plans for the USA (as a leader of the white race Five Eyes nations) dividing women against each other was essential to their cause.
You can lead a horse to water, etc.
I agree that PP/KJK is a divisive figure sponsored by CPAC. But the NZ media did themselves no credit by their alarmist behaviour, stirring up as much hate and fear as possible.
I don't see what's so scary about "letting women speak". The public is ill served by fact free invective
This phrase is very apt.
What is/was so scary about LWS?
Have we not learnt from the vaccine rollout about 'fact free invective'.
Even though it in this case of KJM it was promulgated by MSM and not shady overseas dis-mis-information from the Disinformation dozen.
Did you make that up? Please provide some evidence that KJK used CPAC money for the NZ trip. My understanding is that CPAC provided liability insurance in Australia and that KJK funded the NZ trip herself, but am open to seeing evidence that CPAC paid for the NZ trip.
https://feministleft.wordpress.com/2023/03/06/are-you-thinking-of-going-to-kellie-jay-keens-events-in-australia-or-nz-read-this-first/
Yes, I know that she got funding in Australia from CPAC, I said that in the comment you replied to. Does she say in the video that her whole Australian tour was funded by CPAC? A time stamp would be handy.
I was asking SPC for evidence for their claim that the NZ trip was funded by CPAC.
From 13:00mins in the video:
IIRC, liability insurance for events?
Because we have ACC, Molly, NZ event organisers do not have to insure against damage to attendees. That is not the case in other countries, where you may pay a sizeable premium against possible injury/death claims.
@tWiggle
I think someone else on TS has mentioned this applied only to Australia. The logo was probably left as a courtesy to CPAC, or an admin oversight.
There is a KJK video where she confirms that she receives no money from CPAC.
(TBH, I don't care. If CPAC is a legal organisation, who BTW have a pretty bland conservative set of aims, then what is the problem?)
thanks arkie!
It's a little ambiguous whether CPAC were providing the insurance alone, or whether the sponsorship covers other costs on the Australian tour.
The issue here is whether KJK's position on this is a problem.
For GCFs, it is. The feministleft piece is a good explainer, Women's Liberation Aotearoa have also talked about this. KJK's tolerance of and working with the FR harms society via its contribution to rising fascism, and it harms GCF.
For TRAs, it also is. It harms trans people, rainbow people, people in general and society for the same rising fascism reasons. However, for TRAs, anyone who is critical of gender identity ideology is now being attached to fascism, and that's neither true nor helpful. It's a harm itself as well. Terf = Nazi rhetoric makes informed debate much harder and renders left wing, feminist GC positions invisible.
Those positions are the ones that support trans rights and women's rights, so it's an own goal by TRAs to conflate GC with fascism.
KJK arise out of the vacuum left by No Debate. She's all sorts of problems for GCFs, but I also understand her position of refusing guilty by association. Nothing will ever be enough for TRAs, and in that sense the demand for her to do whatever is dishonest. She's wrong not to distance herself from Nazis/FR, but if she did, TRAs would just find another stick to beat her with because of her fundamental support for women's sex based rights. That's the thing that cannot be tolerated.
My view on this is informed by the frequency with which left wing, gender critical feminists are called Nazis.
Plenty of links, none saying what you said.
The associations were obvious and egregious.
Maybe if the MSM were so concerned about hate speech they should stop publishing Lal and Tweedie
https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/03/24/lilah-lilahrpg-posie-parker-kellie-jay-keen-minshull/
The photos here legitimize all the quotes you are wrongly using as a MSM bias.
Yes, because "Prick News" is totally unbiased – just like Stonewall UK. They are both "Trans Rights" organisations shrouded in a stolen rainbow flag.
I'm not the one claiming bias in the main street media. Roblogic was and the photos in that article simply justify the reporting in the MSM about Nazis. Those visuals were on our TV reports as well. If Roblogic can't, how about you link to any quote in the MSM that "PP is a fascist" if not you have no value in this discussion.
I've not seen any evidence that the neo Nazis joined the rally. From the accounts I've read they didn't join the rally but counter protested the TRA counter protest as well as making their own stand.
Go on then Pink News, show us the video. You've got a tiktok influencer in your piece, where is their video?
The legit liberal argument here is why neo Nazis would consider it useful to do what they did. Is it because KJK is a secret Nazi and was signalling them to come? Is it because they hate trans people and coopted the event? The latter seems much more likely to me, even allowing for KJK's conservative, populist, playing all sides position. Her position is an obvious problem, but it's not the same as being a Nazi sympathiser.
If Roblogic can't back up their comment that the MSM called "PP is a fascist" or "Feminists are Nazis" how about you do. I notice you're asking for evidence at 1.4 because comments counter your view yet you are santioning, by agreement, misinformation and disinformation . As you say "Weird fucking times"
Two people, including yourself, have already called Roblogic out on what he said, he's responded. Two things are clear from that exchange,
That's TS functioning well. Commenters hold each other accountable. The less mods have to intervene the better.
Mod note,
You cannot make shit up about my motivations. If you do, I will moderate.
There are other ways to make your point here without thinking you can mindread. For instance, you could say that you think it's unfair that Roblogic got to make an inaccurate claim and you didn't (with and explanation). But you can't make declaratory statements about and author/mod's views and motivations when you don't know what they are.
I'm pointing this out because it's becoming a habit here and it has to stop (for obvious reasons). Please acknowledge that you have read and understood. I'm happy to clarify anything if asked.
Yes Weka I acknowledge your pre-moderation. In my honest opinion you have not evenly moderated on this topic. You, of course, will claim you have.
None of this would be necessary if you had, as has been asked for a long time, allowed a "Daily GC Debate" like the "Open Mike" or "Daily Review" Then it would be much less likely some of us would get triggered by lies and misinformation and then hooked into a debate we don't belong in I believe it would save you a substantial amount of moderating time.
In my humble opinion.
thanks RBO.
It’s not about allowing a daily GC debate, it’s about the work involved in doing that, and whether it’s best for the site. Last year it was mooted, to keep OM clear of gender/sex debate, but at that time it wasn’t happening on a daily basis so I didn’t see the need.
A few weeks ago it was raised again, and it’s something I have been thinking about for a while, but it looks to me like what’s happened since then is that there are less gender/sex comments in OM and people are continuing conversations from previous days’ threads instead. This seems a good thing to me.
The idea wasn’t to ghetto-ise GC debate into a single post, it was to set up a dedicated post for anyone to talk about any aspect of the gender/sex wars (I have also considered doing some dedicated posts on GC topics, but that’s a different thing).
What you seem to be saying is that some people here should take their politics somewhere else, and that’s just not going to happen. Especially not in an election year. I won’t ghetto-ise GCs any more than I would TRAs. It’s against the ethos of the site.
In terms of being triggered, that’s happening on both sides. I can only suggest learning how to step back and then re-engage from a place of evidenced-based robust debate. I made this suggestion to a GC person a few days ago, in case you think I am being unfair.
Any lies and misinformation on TS, on any topic, get dealt with in two ways. One is by commenters holding other commenters to account. The other is by moderation. The first is preferable, because that’s how informed debate happens and because it lessens the mod workload. What’s happened in DR here is a really good example of that working well.
If you see any lies being told, you are free to do a reply comment to me with a link and a brief explanation of what the lie is, and I will run my moderator eye over it.
You challenged, I responded, you reject the evidence (or my interpretation thereof). That is your perogative, I suppose. Everyone brings their own perspective. My original comment was simply an observation of MSM hypocrisy around certain narratives.
Are you trying to claim that is unbiased reporting? Jeepers
There was a Nazi group, New Zealandia, who came to support Posie at Albert Park. And let's face it, your group here are trans exclusionary. Doesn't sound like hate speech to me, just reasonable descriptors of some attendees. Hate speech is stuff like "trans men should be sterilised" and "of course autogynephiles also exhibit other paraphilia, like pedophilia" (Posie Parker).
"Your group are trans exclusionary"
That is true, but the falsehood is when this is equated with hatefulness. This is simply an abusive gaslighting tactic.
Women are allowed to say "no" to men
And so I say No! to you. I've no idea why, though.
You are aware that quite a few of the gender critical right are literally Nazis right? As in believers in facism?
And because intersectionality is, of course, bullshit woke ideology, there's no shades of grey here. They're either what I arbitrarily a Nazi, or they're not. And to be honest, I don't want to share a bathroom or a safe space with Nazis.
If only we had a theory to describe how people's identities are comprised of more than one aspect. Or, suggested that the mislabelling of minorities by a powerful majority was a bad thing.
/sarc
Maybe give us some examples of the literal Nazis who are gender critical. The far right like gender and want it enforced (think Matt Walsh), so I'm curious who you had in mind.
Direct quote from a person speaking at a Posy Parker rally which I found at https://aninjusticemag.com/terfs-are-totally-not-nazis-c489c5cecf30
So you can talk like a Nazi, act like a Nazi, literally quote Adolf Hitler. but somehow, magically not be a Nazi?
Last year I watched the video of that woman at Let Women Speak. I know it's hard to credit that someone could be so politically naive as to a) reference Hitler's ideas and b) do so with that idea in some kind of backwards way so that GC people are compared to Hitler and TRAs to Jews, but there it is.
But was there any evidence that she talks and acts like a Nazi apart from that? Someone surely has tracked her work or online presence outside that speech and found pictures of her with Nazis, or agreeing with Nazis.
I also haven't seen anything to suggest she is right wing
Having watched her speech, I think she was just stupid. But I'm open to being wrong. It's entirely possible that she is a Nazi sympathiser and Jew hater. I haven't seen the evidence for that. But good effort, I agree that if she is a Nazi sympathiser then this would be an example of a Nazi being kind of gender critical. Any other examples? You did say "quite a few of the gender critical right are literally Nazis right"
Btw, I'll note that your link doesn't link to the video. I wonder why. It's very unlikely that the woman speaking is a trans exclusionary radical feminist, so I'll take the piece as being firmly entrenched in terf = nazi ideology and not able to parse truth or meaning very well.
Here's the video.
https://youtu.be/uopOdwuHjo4
I beg to differ that understanding there's a significant overlap between the elements, beliefs and tactics of the gender critical movement and those of facism is sign of subscribing to an ideology.
But we live in a democracy, this a place for open and robust debate, and even reasonable people can strongly disagree from time-to-time.
So I respect your criticism and your disagreement
the 'gender critical movement' is really a hodge podge of different views on gender identity ideology and its main central point is believing the biological sex matters.
People who think there is a significant overlap between the 'GC movement' and fascism either don't understand what the range of GC thought is, or do but choose to ignore and render invisible the large left wing and progressive and feminist gender critical movements.
Terf is a slur and it's been used online to promote some of the worst misogynistic abuse many of us have seen. Leftie TRAs have had this pointed out to them and still won't condemn it. It's basically been sanctioned by the neoliberal left.
if you're not familiar with this then please take a good look
terfisaslur.com/
Anyone using the term terf as a pejorative after seeing that is actively engaging in intentional marginalisation of women and/or is using it for propaganda purposes. Not even the worst of left wing rhetoric against right wing women went there (think Ruth Richardson or Thatcher). But now it is acceptable to target women with sexualised and death violence messaging for political purposes.
Know who else does that? Men's Rights Activists and right to rape men. If terf = nazi, then anti-terfers = MRAs and rapists. See how fucking stupid that is?
I'd like it if 'men in skirts' and autogynephile were banned at The Standard too as disrespectful. The twitter feed of the man who coined that second term 40 years ago is disgustingly transphobic.
'Autogynephile', when used outside research or therapy settings that examine sexual visualisation, is a nasty perjorative. The original researcher claimed autogynephilia, fantasising about having a woman's body for sexual gratification, was a paraphilia, an abnormal, uncontrollable fetishism, and it was the way that trans women attracted to other women developed. Those two research conclusions have since been debunked, but the term has stuck.
Posie Parker is on video claiming autogynephiles exhibit other paraphilia, specifically pedophilia. Yuk, Posie, another lie.
At least TERF is just an acronym for trans exclusionary radical feminists, even if said with a nasty sneer. I do have to confess, I've been using the 'men in skirts' ironically today, but I can control myself if needed.
Cheers for that. It's always better when there is that degree of capacity for disagreement but still being able to respect people.
You mean, like the widespread slandering of women attempting to speak about the erosion of their rights?
Who is someone who believes in fascism who is gender critical? What examples do you have of someone with both these views in NZ?
Most gender critical feminists are of course left leaning. The majority of SUFW are Labour/Green voters.
I am not sure what you are talking about other than slinging around some labels like Nazi and fascist. This I think was the point of Roblogics comment that two people who both happen to be women were called Nazis/likened to Adolf Hitler.
Association for Women in Development is an international feminist organisation. As part of its brief, according to Wikipedia, AWID
" coordinates the Observatory on the Universality of Rights (OURs), a collaborative project with over 20 other NGOs, that aims "to monitor, analyse, share information and do collaborative advocacy on […] anti-rights initiatives threatening international and regional human rights systems" from a feminist perspective. OURs' working group includes Planned Parenthood, the World Council of Churches, Muslims for Progressive Values and other organizations."
As part of this monitoring, AWID reported in 2021 on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which has had concerted attacks on progressive feminist positions by state and political lobby groups who are trying to roll back womens' rights internationally.
From this report I quote specifically on attacks at Commission meetings on trans rights (point 3 of the report):
"This year’s CSW saw an alarming increase in the presence of anti-trans feminists. A parallel event, “Defending Women’s Sex Based Rights” was organised by trans-exclusionary feminists associated with the Women’s Human Rights Campaign to promote their Declaration on Women’s Sex-based Rights. The crux of their campaign asserts that trans people – trans women in particular – are a threat to cisgender women and endanger women-only spaces. The event used images depicting gender-based violence to leverage false accusations against trans women. The event also used images of trans people, evidently without their consent, invalidating their identities. Similar to other anti-rights actors, it becomes clear that the Campaign engages in sensationalism, and fear-mongering to get their messages across, for example invoking sexual trauma of cisgender women to paint trans people as a threat. Trans-exclusionary feminists flooded the Zoom chats of many events, especially those focused on sex workers and LGBTIQ rights, with the Declaration and related messages. They also claimed they were being censored, a narrative commonly used by trans-exclusionary feminists and anti-rights actors more broadly, despite their views being given space on many mainstream media platforms."
AWID 2021 report on UN Commission on the Status of Women
Here is an international womens' rights organisation vitally concerned that attacks on transgender rights framed by a section of gender-critical feminists negatively impacts on womens' rights overall.
This is feminists worried about other feminists denying trans rights with messaging that will be eerily familiar to readers of The Standard.
"The crux of their campaign asserts that trans people – trans women in particular – are a threat to cisgender women and endanger women-only spaces."
This interpretation assumes a lot:
What is being demanded is exclusion from that societal expectation so that boundaries for single-sex spaces can be broken.
"This is feminists worried about other feminists denying trans rights with messaging that will be eerily familiar to readers of The Standard."
It might be a strange notion, but women – including some who call themselves feminists – are not a hive mind. There are plenty of organisations that have aims that are contrary to their chosen names. eg. Taxpayers Union
"There are plenty of organisations that have aims that are contrary to their chosen names". If 'Let Women Speak' doesn't consider the opinion of the 'Association of Women in Development' to be women speaking, then it certainly doesn't live up to a claim of speaking for all of us. Exactly like the misnamed Taxpayers' Union, so thanks for making that point.
I really can't understand your toilet usage paragraph. Having 'a feeling' that trans women in NZ public toilets and change spaces are not 'right', or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it', is just not enough for me as an argument.
I absolutely agree that everyone using those spaces should BE safe. Please show the data that trans women are a significant threat in NZ public toilets and change areas to other users. To help, I've calculated the number of NZ's trans women population for you.
Stats NZ reported that 4.2% of adult NZers identified as LGBT+ and 0.8% as transgender or non-binary. Of these, 33.2% identified themselves as male-to-female. In 2020, with a resident population of 4.9 mi, and 87.8% aged 15+ this gave
4,900,000 x 0.878 x 0.008 x 0.332 = 11,400 trans women, or 'men in skirts' as they have been so charmingly identified on this site.
Currently, access in NZ of transwomen to toilets and change rooms in public spaces, gyms, schools, etc is either open and unpoliced, or is set on a case by case basis depending on the organisation/club/school administering the space. In other words, no one is stopping trans women accessing many of these facilities, so we already have a mostly-integrated system.
How many cases of intimidation or violence by these 11,400 transwomen in toilet/changing rooms were reported or prosecuted around toilets and change areas in the last 5 years? To get the whole picture, what are the stats for intimidation and violence experienced by trans women using either mens' toilets or womens' toilets? And, of course, your data must also include criminal behaviour by 'unskirted' men in such 'women-safe' spaces as a benchmark.
When you can give me validated data, or point to multiple media-reported examples relevant to our own country that trans women commonly physically or verbally attack other users in 'women-safe' spaces, then I will give some respect to your feelings about the dangerousness of NZ trans women.
It's important to note that I don't expect there to be no examples – that would hold trans women to an inhuman standard of good behaviour. The critical data is not 0 cases, but the proportion in those 11,400 trans women who offend in such circumstances.
"I really can't understand your toilet usage paragraph. Having 'a feeling' that trans women in NZ public toilets and change spaces are not 'right', or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it', is just not enough for me as an argument."
Which paragraph is this?
I have not referred to 'a feeling', not 'right' or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it' – so, you are either misunderstanding me, or setting up a framework of objections that I haven't made in order to refute them.
"I absolutely agree that everyone using those spaces should BE safe. Please show the data that trans women are a significant threat in NZ public toilets and change areas to other users. "
I have not claimed they are a threat. I support their safety. Men should make all men welcome and safe in their single-sex provisions – including those with gender identities.
"To help, I've calculated the number of NZ's trans women population for you."
Unnecessary – but thank you. This calculation will continue to be somewhat hampered as both NZ Statistics and the latest NZ Census are reluctant to distinguish between sex and identity.
"When you can give me validated data, or point to multiple media-reported examples relevant to our own country that trans women commonly physically or verbally attack other users in 'women-safe' spaces, then I will give some respect to your feelings about the dangerousness of NZ trans women."
Once again, it is not the ‘dangerousness of NZ trans women’ that excludes them from single-sex provisions – it is their male sex. As well as excluding men who have gender identities, I exclude my father, my grandfathers, my brother, my partner of over thirty years, and my three adult sons. Not because I think they are predatory or dangerous – but because they are men.
And here is a very pertinent consideration: All those men self-excluded because they respect women, and have consideration for them.
Along with single-sex safety boundaries – BASED on risk assessment statistics – is the value single-sex spaces hold for women and girls of privacy and dignity.
Consent is also an issue.
Women cannot consent for others in shared single-sex spaces – eg. I cannot claim the men in my life are trustworthy – so everyone should allow them in. In terms of single-sex provision, many women are saying it should be maintained by SEX. In an individual private life, individual women are able to consent according to their own perspectives, but that automatic dismantling does not apply in public areas.
For someone who wants (further) data collated on harm – where is your data regarding the harm to men with gender identities using their sexed based provisions?
And when you do collate it, then we can weight it against the provision for other vulnerable males who are also at risk, and the existing risk assessment evidence that determined single-sex provision was of benefit in terms of reducing risk for women. Oh yes, and those other aspects of privacy, dignity and consent.
This request from tWiggle falls in to trap we have seen before of requesting data before something happens rather than being able to extrapolate from human behaviour occuring now, and back into the mists of time, with male/female violence.
To me this is unconsionable that a woman/women has to be a fall guy, excuse the phrase, before caution is acted on. So how many women who are distressed, injured, killed in a so-called womens safe space before we say 'oh dear…perhaps we should do something?' 10, 20 one in each country or one in each large city in each country?
For instance we don't say to zoos 'We know lions are dangerous and you want to import one but let's try having it out roaming around in the wild in our cities first', or wait until agricultural pests get established before saying 'oh dear we knew mealie bugs were dangerous to crops and maybe we shouldn't have let them in.'
We work on the concept of dangerousness by sex and work to mitigate risks.
As humans we are able to, and do, carefully extrapolate from a given situation to a another situation.
The point is that fully intact males will be able to enter women's safe spaces. They need not even be on the road to transition, they need not even have a female changed birth certicate. We need to look at worst case scenarios and work our way back to a point of safety for women.
If a nation moves to a position of including all as equal citizens regardless of difference (for example gender), which is human rights centred, there is still the issue of public safety.
If it is decided that gender trumps sex, then there is increased risk from those born male to biological females that requires counter-veiling policy.
Denying gender ID placement/access to women spaces to those who are seen as a risk (as we screen places such as schools).
Women refuges – allowing them to exclude on grounds of safety, as they see fit.
Allowing sports organisations to determine fair competition and participation rules based on the well being of the sport and those of it
Allowing women's groups to exclude those not born female as they choose (as we allow religious groups their sovereignty).
Establish a group that focuses on the provision of safe spacing. and which provides funds for this purpose.
You are conflating equality with same treatment, which is not equality – it is defaulting to a universal concept.
Provision for different needs – ie. age, mobility, sex etc so that they have equal ACCESS to education, health, legislative consideration, employment, housing etc. is the outcome that is sought.
Not a dismissal of those differences, and needs.
Shanreagh. Did you not see the bit where we already have trans women access to womens' toilets in many places? It's happening now. It's been happening for years.
that would be transsexual women who by and large pass. Not any male who says they are a woman. Trans woman now means any male who self-IDs. They don't even have to transition. It also means men who cross dress for sexual arousal and then masturbate in women's spaces. There's a whole porn genre of that.
https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1169574509827022848?s=20
https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1180010806206963713
Is this in NZ?
Is this in NZ? I refuse to see anything pulled from the big wide world if it doesn't come from here. Why should I be exposed to your schlock material designed for outrage? You’re feeding me this chaff as a distraction. Where's your kiwi facts? Fact up! Not schlock up!
women in other countries matter to me, I guess they don’t to you?
But you seem to have missed the point. I was demonstrating that trans woman no longer means someone like Georgina Beyer who has fully transitioned and presents as a woman. When TW meant that, there was no problem sharing women’s toilets etc. That’s no longer the situation.
What I showed you isn’t schlock. It’s men being sexual aggressors in women’s spaces. How many incidents would make it meaningful to take women seriously?
TBH, weka, these incidents don't seem to make a blind bit of difference in terms of addressing the harms of breaking single-sex boundaries in provisions for women.
And to be clear – women should just be able to say "No". And have that "No" respected.
Respected by other women, legislators, policy writers, men with gender identities who seek access to those provisions, allies of both sexes that support that access.
It should not be a case of we will review this change after:
n instances of voyeurism, exhibitionism, verbal abuse, physical or sexual assault.
the point of that in your face stuff is to show tWiggle what ‘trans woman’ means now. If I had more time I’d post the trans umbrella, the history of J Yaniv, that video from years ago of the trans identified male who looked just like a young man, in the group of trans people interrupting a meeting at a women’s book shop. Or any number of other events where TW are actually blokes not transsexuals like Georgina Beyer. Because whatever tWiggle thinks about the TIMs, there’s no way tWiggle can claim that all those blokes have been calling themselves TW and using the women’s loos all these years. Someone would have noticed.
@weka
Fair enough. It'll be interesting to see tWiggle's response.
Is this in NZ?
@weka
tWiggle: – "Is this in NZ?"
.https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-20-04-2023/#comment-1946699
tWiggle: – "Is this in NZ?"
.https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-20-04-2023/#comment-1946698
tWiggle: – "Is this in NZ? I refuse to see anything pulled from the big wide world if it doesn't come from here. Why should I be exposed to your schlock material designed for outrage. Feed me this chaff as a distraction. Whete's your kiwi facts."
.https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-20-04-2023/#comment-1946700
Not interesting as such, but familiar…
https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1169574517850746881?s=20
https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1169574526218395649?s=20
https://twitter.com/YahtaheiT/status/1644150246258212865?s=20
Yes I know. I worked with two transwomen years ago. They used our womens toilets in our offices. They always dressed as females. Everyone knew they were males but they had done the 'hard yards' as it were to move to their new identity by following the procedures that were then laid out to change birth sex.
This is totally different though.
Following on from the NO Debate Self ID concept it will allow fully intact, non or minimally transitioning/ed males access to women's safe spaces.
I fail to see why women should be the ones to cater for this? Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males inot thier spaces. Or why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built always with the over riding principle that women are to be kept safe.
Do you have answers to these questions tWiggle please?
1 Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males into their spaces.
2 Why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built?
No-one seems to want to answer these questions? Could it be that men are seen as dangerous?
"would you be ok with a man, dressed as a woman, masturbating in a mirror in a woman's bathroom, and call that man a woman?"
https://twitter.com/Liberacrat/status/1642671897841156096
that was a five minute twitter search. This stuff has been normalised, I see it reported on twitter fairly often.
So, you either know this is going on and sanction it. Or you don't know this is going on and really have no idea what the problems are that women are trying to talk about but are happy to say that TW have always used women's toilets.
which is?
A two minute search confirms that someone is using a screen grab (sfw) from a series of Japanese porn vids.
Thanks Joe90 for the fact checking?
The "terminology transition" from “transsexual women” to “transgender women”, so that it now includes unprocessed males, is part of the issue.
There are those on the side of transsexual woman (and thus allow them to identify as transgender women) and those against the access of those with a penis (who also identify as transgender women) into separate women's areas because of the safety issue that could result.
Both are fair positions.
That the UK has problems with safety, despite having a transition process rather than self ID is concerning – given we have gone further and closer to self ID. That said the UK has allowed greater access to women's spaces for those who identify as women than we have.
They (current government) now seem set on moving to a women's birth sex ID criteria for access to separate spaces for females – which would be a tragedy for transsexual transgender women there.
We could ourselves move to allow discrimination against transgender women with a penis, or at least against those who chose self ID rather than go through a process over time. That would reduce risk somewhat.
UK Labour have just done a policy position shift to support women’s sex based rights (in some areas at least, this is in the context of hospital wards).
"Unprocessed males" Charming phrase that makes transgender women sound like sides of beef.
@joe90
sukitransgirl had multiple accounts that I viewed on different platforms when they were up.
The screenshot above was available as a video without a sensitivity warning on their Twitter account.
It seemed to be an actual women's toilet facility, as an older women is seen washing her hands and exiting without noticing the act, but later on two young girls come in and are startled when they see what is going on. They exit fairly quickly.
As I said Suki Trans was on multiple public sites with these posts, not just porn sites:
I can’t prove it is retrospect, but here are some of the broken links now that the accounts have been removed that I retrieved from my history:
.https://linktr.ee/transgirlsuki
.https://www.instagram.com/sukitrans/reels/
.https://twitter.com/SukiTrans/status/1613187978557546498
I didn't download the video, because frankly, there was just too much on the accounts, and I found it hard to even watch for confirmation. But there were many videos of this person filming themselves masturbating it what clearly looks like female single-sex spaces spaces, while they were being used by females of all ages.
Japan's $20 billion US p/a porn industry is the world's largest and produces enormous volumes of stomach-turning voyeur material, anime and manga child porn, and abuse/fantasy content that's beyond belief.
Cherry picking from that content is disingenuous.
@joe90
"Japan's $20 billion US p/a porn industry is the world's largest and produces enormous volumes of stomach-turning voyeur material, anime and manga child porn, and abuse/fantasy content that's beyond belief."
You suggested that the screenshot was only available on pornsites. I just clarified that it was on easily accessible platforms without sensitive content warnings, and gave you the broken links as confirmation I had viewed it. Non-consenting women and girls were part of the video I saw and described.
If examples are not able to be provided of harm, because they are also used to generate income via pornsites, and acknowledgement of harm or imposition on girls and women requires some form of evidence, then this is going to hinder any acknowledgement of imposition or impact on girls
Once again: Why are men unable to accommodate males with gender identities in their single-sex spaces?
"Cherry picking from that content is disingenuous."
BTW, if you do go and look at Pornhub there will be a significant difference in the amount of material you will be able to find of men identifying as women, filming themselves exposed or masturbating in women's bathrooms, compared to the number of women doing the same.
Because there is a biological difference in the prevalence of such behaviour in communal spaces.
One not affected by gender identity.
Molly, do you routinely trust everything that is flicked your way on this topic? Personally, as I said, I do not want to look at nasty images that may be posed, faked, or taken out of context, as the Japanese porn. There are 8 billion people on the planet, and connectivity allows access to the imaginings of most of them. These images are anecdotal evidence, not hard data.
Did you see the AWID report section stating that faked images of trans people were presented in the alternate session organised by trans-exclusionary feminists at the UN Council on the Status of Women? They also presented images of trans people taken out of context to suit their narrative.
I'd think hard if I were you about whether some of your mates are doctoring or miscontexting the images they send you.
@tWiggle
No. But I will give it at least a cursory look before determining that I think it is bollocks.
George Orwell, 1984: "“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
This might be unusual in your neck of the woods, but I don't have mates sending me porn…. I also deliberately choose not to put contentious images on this platform, even though I have seen quite a few, because I think it will derail the discussion – which is frail as it is.
However, I had seen the account that posted the video that provided the screenshot in question, not on a pornsite but on both Instagram and Twitter without any sensitive content warning, which meant it could be viewed by minors. I was probably not the only one who reported it, which was why those accounts are no longer active.
Of course, you can choose not to believe my personal account is real, but it's there for others to add to the information provided and make up their own minds.
Actually I get images like this everyday on my twitter feed and they are often from concerned individuals (M/F) who want help in reporting the sites.
Mostly I do this.
So the slur that women who are concerned somehow find their way to Japanese porn sites is ridiculous.
Recently we had a 'person' threatening to kill prominent women. I am not sure if this was taken down or not. I know I tried to report it.
Often known women campaingers get this stuff sent to them as a form of harassment along with signs saying 'suck my trans dick' or C**t. Some of these signs were in evidence at Albert Park on 25/3.
Welcome to the world of women fighting this stuff.
It is males who are the most significat users of porn (four times more likely than females)
https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-prevalent-is-pornography#:~:text=Men%20are%20four%20times%20more,most%20frequent%20use%20of%20pornography.
To me it is more likely to be males who access and send this stuff on. The number of women who have received 'dick pics' shows that this is more likely to be males doing this. NB Women don't have d**ks'
@ tWiggle.
Could you please answer these two questions I asked you?
1 Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males into their spaces.
2 Why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built?
These are serious questions and in my expereince when women meet and the topic turns to trans issues, these are usually the first couple of questions asked.
If these could be answered it would take the issue well along the way to looking at solutions.
It seems that many in the trans world are intent on making us believe white is black or 2+2 = 5. It seems we first have to agree to a biological impossibility before anything happens.
Transsexuals have been accommodated for many years – despite the fact that this accommodation may have meant some women excluded themselves for reasons of belief, privacy, dignity or perceived safety.
So, there was already a cost to women and girls of such accommodation.
Transsexuals made up only 5-13% of transwomen in this study from 2019. (Table 1)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626314/
The transgender umbrella is now broader, and that percentage is likely even lower due the recognition of self-id.
These are some of the justifications made by self-id men with reference to women.
The disdain for the sex category of women seems clear to me, perhaps not for you. Note: these are a mild selection, not the most violent I've seen.
https://twitter.com/salltweets/status/1648841780128002052?s=20
https://www.tiktok.com/@dylanmulvaney/video/7174529186302856491
https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1648828802997407746?s=20
Also Shanreagh, if you think the self-id legislation will open floodgates of 'men in skirts' molesting girls in the toilets, then you are quite simply wrong. Ireland, also with 5 mi people and probably a similar size of trans population, passed a similar law in 2015. Around 200 people a year there apply for self-id 100 of whom are 'men in skirts'. One hundred, while thousands of Irish trans women are happy to continue with their lives as they are. Does Ireland have a trans woman violence problem? I haven't heard anything, do you know something I don't?
Sure, have a strong opinion, no problem. There is plenty plenty of your material to wade through on this site. But nobody can try to change the laws, or my opinion, without hard facts and a position that is open to critique.
I've been reading on this topic since I came here naive to the issue. The more factual information I read, the less sympathetic I become to the opinions of your group. Your ideas need challenging because many don't stand up to scrutiny, as I've found by reading around trans woman in prisons, puberty blocking in adolescence and the co-opting of trans issues by the UK Conservatives and the US Republicans.
Remember, I really knew little or nothing about this topic two months ago. I am better informed now, but not by you as a group. The posts on this issue I have read here are long on feelings, very short on analysis, and have been pretty much fact-free. Discussion I have tried to open neutrally at least three times on areas of interest have been mostly hmmed or ignored when inconvenient to your views.
I'll finish by saying I cannot stomach Kellie-Jay whatsmaname. I find her a smug, dangerously-smart demagogue and provocateur. She's looking for reaction, not for debate. I feel her opinions on my country and on Jacinda Arden to be knowingly ignorant, and really quite repulsive.
"The posts on this issue I have read here are long on feelings, very short on analysis, and have been pretty much fact-free. "
Your comments fit into this description – are you aware?
You've been asked to providence the evidence of harm to men with gender identities who use the provisions allocated to their sex.
Could you at least do that.
Data from Ireland, and other captured countries are going to be hard to collate and assess for a couple of reasons:
1. Violence against women and girls is often ignored, dismissed or not considered violence and so is not recorded;
2. In countries where men such as Barbie Kardashian are referred to as women in media, and official documentation evidence is going to be hard to recognise when it is recorded, and collated. (BTW, that is a feature not a bug)
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/03/22/barbie-kardashian-the-grisly-reality-of-self-id/
Why the requirement for specific Kiwi instances? Are NZ men with gender identities a unique cohort?
Why exactly are men not making space their non-conforming males with gender-identities in their single-sex spaces?
Why can women just not say "No".
My comments are long on facts. I reference international reports as a starting point. I did have those Ireland stats from their government reporting page, but couldn't find it readily, otherwise you would have seen the link. I reference Stats NZ. In the past I've put up interesting articles to open up discussion on trans issues and public toilets in Victoria, which was balanced and went to an effort to look for solutions. I've linked to an interview with a cool kiwi trans woman netball coach with heaps of mana in her field. Guess what, no discussion from your group.
I asked you people to confirm a story in PP's pre-visit video before NZ, regarding a girl harassed by a trans student in a NZ school bathroom who was then suspended when she complained. I went searching on line and found a faintly related story from many years ago, with none of the outcomes PP claimed. Not one of your group replied to my genuine request if this was the event PP referred to. I took your deafening silence to mean PP just made a story up, conflated stories from other countries to suit her mean-trans narrative.
I put up an article from AWID. Your group did not reply to me directly to open a debate, but took apart the language between yourselves to somehow invalidate this report of gender-critical feminists drowning out valid debate. You know what concerned me most in that trans section? The fact that false information was presented, that trans peoples' images were pasted without correct attribution or context to create an anti trans narrative. You call yourselves left wing feminists, but you ignored the chilling earlier parts of the report on rightwing attacks against womens' rights internationally by state and religious actors. Because the way you write, all, all your roads lead to a penis in a bathroom.
You and others most often reference that unimpeachable source Twitter, Posie Parker, and the UK infowars journal, The Critic. In that, I admit, well-written article the other day on safety threats to trans women in the UK, why were only trans murders and anti-trans hate speech mentioned? Maybe because the stats on other types of violence against UK trans women are shocking? But hey, we don't know, because, boom, bang, distraction achieved. And you congratulate yourself on your rebuttal to someone on the strength of this article? Really?
More chaff from you, now I'm the person who has to provide data to debunk some mythical data you have yet to present? Please, at least I make the effort.
Sorry, infowars not correct term fell out of my brain.
But you have not answered my queries?
Are you intending to?
1 Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males into their spaces.
2 Why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built?
Just a point your views on LWS seem to be imbued with personal animus towards the founder rather than a considered look at what her motivation were in bringing up and pushing back on the excesses of the self ID process. I see this as a weakness in your argument. It may even be an extension of the old trope about men not liking women who they feel may be smart especially if they are too good looking or not good looking enough (ie lose: lose) .
There is any amount of material about this and many women have had to battle against it in everyday life.
Do you understand the concept of women's safe spaces?
Do you see the value in protecting women's safe spaces?
If not why not?
Do you feel women should have been granted the right to vote in NZ in 1893?
Are men able to fully represent the views of women on women's safe spaces?
I see this whole non acceptance of womens safe spaces as test of sincerity about suffrage (M/F). That is the ability of women to express concern, and be listened to about that concern without other extraneous views.
Geez Shanreagh, all those men questions. Do you think I'm a 'bio' man, or a trans woman? Hahaha! Surely I must get extra girlie points for having fulfilled my womanly function by procreating. Only once, mind.
…'without extraneous views'… Is that coded language for 'ideas I find too uncomfortable to debate'?
You know Posie Parker's setting up a political party on the back of her mosh pit squash in Albert Park? Not to mention she got a million UK ladies to complain to the management of NZ about our poor service.
She thinks our country is dire for women. Posie is from England, where police rape and abuse women without consequence for years, almost no other rape cases are brought to law, and where women can't walk down the street without being harassed by men for a smile, then sworn at. We're so much worse off here.
Once again, she is a demagogue and a provocateur, not even a feminist. She got her funding to visit us and look down her nose at us from CPAC, which really likes to clamp down on womens' and trans' and voters' rights.
But boy, she sure is mean on those penises in womens' bathrooms.
For the record, Kellie Jay Keen on Jacinda Ardern, and the article she refers to that got her interested in NZ:
https://www.youtube.com/live/C8xre6ZH4-A?feature=share
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/trans-community-hits-back-after-teen-slams-schools-trans-toilet-policy/ABSY5R4AH5PKN3GDXYET66KYEM/
Dear Molly, thanks for finally confirming Posie Parker flat out lied. Yes, this is the reporting from 2017, when it was raised by the Family First party during election year, about an even earlier event. I think my article came from Stuff.
In our NZ 'true-fact' story, a trans student enrolled in an all-girls' school, presumably as she was legally entitled to under human rights legislation. The lovely girlie in the article was firstly, horrified, frankly horrified at having a trans at her school. But the straw that broke the camel's back was learning that, after a while the trans student petitioned, and was granted permission to use the female toilets, for what ever reason, perhaps because the unisex loo was far from class.
In 'true-fact' NZ, lovely girlie spread her dismay across social media. Sadly for the 'alternative-fact' Posie narrative, there was no weepy showdown in the toilet cubicle between lovely girlie and evil penis trans, and no suspension, unless she got one for her social media posting. At the time I had read a story reported from somewhere like Utah. I'm sorry, it was a passing read, so I can't verify it, but I do remember it was pretty close to PP's 'alt' version.
In the newspaper article, trans groups criticised Family First for trying to make political gold from this thin straw, saying the whole issue had been well sorted out by constructive mediation at the time.
I only slightly apologise for the snarky tone. The first time around narrating this story, back whenever, I wrote in a factual, straightforward way. Second time round I find myself liking lovely girlie's behavour even less. Let alone ol' Posie's lying.
tWiggle. have you seen the LWS event from Belfast?
It was able to take place because of competent policing in Belfast that kept the protesters at bay. This meant that we were able to experience what usually happens at these events. The testimonies from the women who spoke were moving, For some it was the first time they had publicly spoken on their events of concern.
Thanks Molly…..of course these are KJm’s views.
She is entitled to them.
These are none springing to mind. She gave as good as she got when pushing back on the misinformation promulgated by Govt Ministers. Did you actually watch the events of 25/3? KJM did not speak, she was not able to.
NZ then, and with the fluffing around by our PM on what is a woman have put NZ into somewhat of a world laughing stock. Recently there was an event planned where NZ children would shoot so-called feral cats. This has also joined the OMG what are they doing down there?
Some people have taken issue with her views
"no women has a penis"
"no man has a vagina".
To say otherwise is to deny biology.
Rather than denying biology isn't it better to accept biology and work from there, hence the queries about separate spaces for transwomen?
Shanreagh, yes the Brits are animal mad. They worry more about saving feral cats that damage native species in a country on the other side of the world or saving racing horses than they worry about the almost one in three children living in poverty in their own country. And that was for 2021-22, while food inflation is running at 19% for the last 12 months, so it'll be higher now.
Their government seems to ignore this completely, as do the press, the well-off, and the animal-mad, of course. The government was going to cut certain school meals a couple of years ago. It's only because a popular footballer ran a personal campaign that school meals were retained. Good thing, otherwise there would be probably be little human corpses littering the streets of England.
Your comments are long, and you've connected to analysis not data.
"I asked you people to confirm a story in PP's pre-visit video before NZ, regarding a girl harassed by a trans student in a NZ school bathroom who was then suspended when she complained. I went searching on line and found a faintly related story from many years ago, with none of the outcomes PP claimed. Not one of your group replied to my genuine request if this was the event PP referred to. I took your deafening silence to mean PP just made a story up, conflated stories from other countries to suit her mean-trans narrative."
OK. As one of "you people" I posted the article below the video as I thought it was the one she referred to. Kellie Jay Keen made a video of it back when it happened several years ago, but you'll have to trawl through to find out the details, as it was a while ago.
I linked to a Herald article that referenced a video, which I believe is the one that KJK watched and references:
https://youtu.be/BLXj2vtLwkM
"More chaff from you, now I'm the person who has to provide data to debunk some mythical data you have yet to present? Please, at least I make the effort."
I've provided plenty of referenced links from medical sources that you have not acknowledged or made comment about.
Many of us take time to answer your questions, while you bypass any attempt at answering those asked of you.
"Remember, I really knew little or nothing about this topic two months ago. I am better informed now, but not by you as a group. The posts on this issue I have read here are long on feelings, very short on analysis, and have been pretty much fact-free. Discussion I have tried to open neutrally at least three times on areas of interest have been mostly hmmed or ignored when inconvenient to your views."
You don't need to analyse reality.
Sex is binary and immutable.
Gender identity is a belief system, and I remain an atheist.
I read your linked article, and found it wanting. Apparently, others did too. We stated why.
Our answered questions remain:
.https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-20-04-2023/#comment-1946706
That whole 2 immutable sexes/genders thingy is clearly the bedrock of your faith. Not much point in arguing with you over your religious beliefs, you're right. I'll leave you to that.
Still keen on any info you have showing how dangerous trans women are in ladies' bathrooms. Remember, NZ data, NZ stories, because NZ trans women have been using these for years. Why NZ? Because you and I live here, because our society differs from others in its experiences and the way it’s grown.
@tWiggle
"Dear Molly, thanks for finally confirming Posie Parker flat out lied. Yes, this is the reporting from 2017, when it was raised by the Family First party during election year, about an even earlier event. I think my article came from Stuff."
I have posted the Family First video after searching for it FOR YOU, which may add clarity. But I'm not going to do that further research through Kellie Jay Keen's videos to find her original one, because frankly you have the capability to do it, and I don't understand what the value of this is in terms of the conversation to hand.
"I only slightly apologise for the snarky tone. The first time around narrating this story, back whenever, I wrote in a factual, straightforward way. Second time round I find myself not liking lovelie girlie's behavour very much. Let alone ol' Posie's lying."
I don't find your tone particularly snarky, just unconvincing in argument, and concerned with trivialities rather than the impact of legislative and policy changes.
You appear to take the position that significant changes to single-sex provisions are nothing to worry about. And if there was something to worry about, then prove it. And for you, proving it requires official documentation which is hampered by conflation of sex and gender identity in reporting and recording, but who cares?
Eg. We have a report (that I have to chase up using OIA) about sexual assault in NZ women's prisons:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/05/transgender-assault-allegation-renews-call-for-separate-prisons.html
Now, there was a later conviction of a "woman" for sexual assault in the Department of Corrections reports, but they were from another prison. And an OIA has to be submitted to see if this conviction relates to the article, because there is no transparency in the data in relation to recording gender identity.
This is true of many of the government available reports.
Teenage girls in schools, going through puberty and dealing with the usual sexist behaviour of teenage boys, will not have their incidents of embarrassment, shame and intimidation recorded in any official record when they lose their single-sex provisions. They will however, understand that their feelings are not important compared to that of a teenage boy with a gender identity.
You have some thinking to do.
Ah, I see. We've probably discovered the basis of our apposite perspectives here.
I base my understanding in reality and truth. There are only two sexes for humans, and they cannot be changed.
If you believe otherwise, then perhaps that could be the sole topic of discussion. Because I'm sure it'll be a doozy.
As it has been pointed out MANY times, previous accommodation of transsexuals in women single-sex spaces did take place. As has also been pointed out, this accommodation probably came at a cost to women who self-excluded for reasons of their own. HOWEVER, this accommodation should not be expected to expand to accommodate all men who declare a gender identity, because that cohort is much more diverse, and far greater in number.
The reason that I will not provide you with the data that you demand is because the demand comes after you fail to provide data to support your demand for the breaking of single-sex boundaries. That data will also be impossible to find, because no-one has collated it. So, we are left with a discussion that looks at the costs and benefits – and you seem unable to have that discussion on that level.
Sorry, who asked the first question? As far as I can parse your logic thread, you refuse to enter a fact-based debate about safety in toilets because I first have to justify trans womens' access to those spaces on a theoretical level? Why?
Based on 'truth and reality' I don't need to justify the theoretical basis because it already happens. It's been happening for years in NZ. I don't need to pass your theory test to earn the right to debate you because we're already talking about real life! Goodness gracious!
Let's flip your request on its head. What's your theoretical justification for excluding NZ trans women from womens' toilets? After all, you are taking a right away from people that they currently have and use.
So here we get to the nitty gritty. You are not talking about 'usual' trans women, but bad faith men who self-id in order to prey on people in womens' toilets. Let's walk through this logically.
In Ireland, 100 trans women a year take up their self-id option. There is a vetting process, this is not just a rubber-stamp.
Do they all then rush off an attack women in toilets once they get their ticket? No, because Ireland would have amended its laws in the 7 years since. I can guarantee we would have heard about such a 'cock-up', so to speak, ad infinitum from the anti-trans movement.
So that debunks the rather shaky theory that 'self-id will lead inevitably to hundreds of trans women exposing penises to real women in the toilets'. Of course, you are free to provide any hard data to the contrary.
I understand your fixation on safety in public spaces. I am completely for toilets being safe spaces, free of harassment and assault. After all, I use them too (although I've found art gallery toilets to be a cut above the usual).
However, the simple fact is, if anyone, male, transgender, or female, wants to attack someone in a womens' toilet, verbally or physically, all they need to do is to walk in and do it. If they're a cis-male, they can even dress as a woman to do so, and some have. But the crucial point here NO SELF-ID IS NEEDED for someone out to do such harm.
As well, safety is not the same as comfort. We live in the real world. Sometimes we will feel uncomfortable around others, because they're loud and in a group, or they're dressed to make a provocative statement, or they're from a different ethnic background and we're unsure of their body language, or they smell bad because they live on the streets.
That may happen in public toilets, places where some already feel uncomfortable or ashamed about bodily functions. I support the right to expect safety there, but I do not support your demand to feel comfortable 100% of the time in public toilets and equivalent shared spaces. It's an impossible demand from facilities shared by diverse communities.
Your personal rights do not trump others' rights to be who they are, and to relieve themselves safely. That's not my opinion, that's the entry fee you pay for living in our society. We share these spaces. We do not control them for our sole benefit. You have said again and again you do not speak for all women. You can say that again.
In my opinion, if you feel threatened by the patriarchy, by penises, by male violence don't side with the patriarchy in scapegoating the transgender community, as you have been doing in all this discussion. Don't demand transgender men and women all to be angels, they're only human, and will have the usual range of arseholes and evil-doers, like the rest of us.
Here resteth the toilet case.
@tWiggle
It's all good. You seem comfortable where you are .
Just remember: Consent is not transferable.
Let women speak never claimed to "speak for all of us"
If representatives of Women in Development had have turned up in Albert Park, they would have been given a chance to speak. But of course, if they had have been there, they wouldn't have got their chance. They would have had to leave quickly because of the violence and intimadation going on.
No womens group can claim to speak for all women.
How many cases of trans women, who are maled bodied attacking women in toilets and change rooms would you tolerate?
Its not just attacking women. By allowing gender self id, you have made it legitimate for trans women (men) to be in womens spaces with women and girls, naked and in a state of undress. Are you o.k. with a maled bodied person being naked in a change room with his penis out around women and girls?
You see the gender self ID law has just made two sexual offences legal. Voyerism and exhibitionism. Any male bodied person (trans women) can now claim they have a female identity, so they are allowed to be in a change room displaying their genitals and watching other women change.
The two obvious moves to manage the risk from self ID are
banning a person with a penis from women's changing rooms (unless explicit consent is given)
(that said over in Oz their surf life saving clubs are banning adult women from being seen naked by girls in changing rooms)
and
refusing self ID to those who have committed sexual violence/violence against females.
PS voyerism and exhibitionism are not legal offences
(see strippers seek better employment conditions as contractors at their workplaces
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018879636/the-strippers-fighting-for-better-work-rights)
"(that said over in Oz their surf life saving clubs are banning adult women from being seen naked by girls in changing rooms)"
I recall this conversation:
.https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-31-03-2023/#comment-1942978
The day of our exchange, I sent a request to the via the website:
https://sls.com.au/contact-us/
asking for clarity on the policy that was discussed:
Because I thought it was important to determine what the policy was, rather than declare as certain, either of the viewpoints.
To date I have not had a reply – so I'll send again.
This is what I wrote today which is pretty similar to what I sent previously (- I didn't keep a copy):
If you have clarification, it'd be great if you could post it. As you can see, I've got nothing so far after three weeks.
Na just the original story where a woman in her 50's was told she was expected to be covered by a towel while undressed in the changing room.
I’m guessing they have changed their rules to cover transgender women in the female changing areas. And is designed to keep the exhibitionists out (but will not stop any voyeurism …)
They could just ban those with a penis entry (but the “transgender women voyeurs” would cover up anyhow).
@SPC
"Na just the original story where a woman in her 50's was told she was expected to be covered by a towel while undressed in the changing room."
The thread I linked to carried on with possible reasons for this.
"I’m guessing they have changed their rules to cover transgender women in the female changing areas. And is designed to keep the exhibitionists out (but will not stop any voyeurism …)
They could just ban those with a penis entry (but the “transgender women voyeurs” would cover up anyhow)."
I agree that appears to be part of the policy change.
But the original article and justification actually shamed older women, in the contortions used to allow men into a female single-sex space.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65133860
This is what happens when ideology meets reality, and the mantra of TWAW means your young daughter is sharing a communal changing room with males.
Clearly the answer regarding "how many" for you is "none". As I wrote, to expect every single trans women to behave perfectly is an unhuman expectation. Again I challenge you not about a hypothetical future, but NZ facts about the present, where many trans women already share womens' facilities. Come on, where's your NZ data? Media posts? Anything?
"Clearly the answer regarding "how many" for you is "none".
Women and girls are never guaranteed safety from incidents and assaults in any space.
Risk assessments resulting in single-SEX provision, use data and evidence to determine that such provision reduces the likelihood of assault by a significant degree.
As always, you completely ignore the additional value to women of privacy, dignity and consent.
"As I wrote, to expect every single trans women to behave perfectly is an unhuman expectation. "
I don't care about their behaviour. I care about their access to single-sex spaces provided for women. Well behaved and trustworthy men are also excluded – because they are men.
"Again I challenge you not about a hypothetical future, but NZ facts about the present, where many trans women already share womens' facilities. Come on, where's your NZ data? Media posts? Anything?"
I am a data point. I along with other women say "No" to men – even those with gender identities – in women's single-sex spaces.
Consent for such communal places should require the consent of all affected. I say No.
Dear Molly, did Posie Parker lie? Yes. That was the point. Are these trivial things? Possibly, it's all in the past. I don't need the FF rubbish. I wanted to confirm or refute Posie's story at the time. By the way, how do you feel about Posie's creative story-telling to present NZ as a hellhole for women?
Surely, don't bother to laboriously extract my text just to dismiss it as trivia. Why waste your time and mine? And really, you skimped a bit on the Herald article, just copying and pasting stuff without providing context or interpretation. That's why I bothered to contextualise it again for others. If you had done the job I wouldn't have needed to. I appreciate the link to PP's video, thanks muchly, that really helped.
RE : legislation. Please keep up. I've already covered today what I think will happen with the legislation. What happened in Ireland in the 7 years since they introduced it. Nothing. Unless you have facts about an upswing in transgender violence since 2015 against Irish women that you can share? Just asking again, you know, in case.
I do have to say I'll be happy with Irish data regarding transgender violence, as well as NZ's, because of the legislation, similar population size, and approximately similar culture.
See, this is what I consider a discussion, in places, you raise points, I interact, give my point of view. But a lot of the stuff you write seems like burble to me. You can't provide me with NZ facts about transgender violence against women in toilets because of some conflating of gender and sex in reporting? What does that even mean? I said I'd accept media reports too.
And others think they have thoroughly debunked the AWID article by unpicking a few phrases? Then swapping in-housebgobbldegook with one another? Gosh, there sure is a big divide in what us hard science types think is valid critique and you soft science types.
I saw no concrete discussion relating to any of the issues raised by the article itself, or of my stated concerns and interpretation based on what I read in the article. Perhaps you're still stuck on semantics? The death of any committee, arguing over word definitions.
Anker, again I make the point trans women, even trans women with penises, have been using these spaces for years in NZ. Where's the stats for the resultant transgender agression? Please?
@tWiggle
"Dear Molly, did Posie Parker lie? Yes. That was the point. Are these trivial things? Possibly, it's all in the past. I don't need the FF rubbish. I wanted to confirm or refute Posie's story at the time. By the way, how do you feel about Posie's creative story-telling to present NZ as a hellhole for women?"
TBH, I'm not a tribal or acolyte type of person. What I really think about KJK is that she – and everyone else – is entitled to express their views. In terms of political context – which I believe she was referring to – hellhole is a pretty descriptive word to use for the amount of political suppression of women's rights. We've just seen it displayed at Albert Park on 25th 2023 – and by the comments of politicians in the lead up and aftermath. Don't forget our Domestic Violence statistics were also released around that time. I personally wouldn't call it a hellhole, but I wouldn't say it is a picnic either.
"Why waste your time and mine? And really, you skimped a bit on the Herald article, just copying and pasting stuff without providing context or interpretation. "
Yes. My approach is to assume people can read for themselves, and come to their own conclusions. So, if I am providing information that I have to hand on a topic that I didn't start, I choose to post without commentary. I figure it's just information, and people can add to their knowledge and perspectives without me influencing their positions by unnecessary commentary.
If I introduce a topic, and add links – I'll often take a different approach to get the discussion rolling.
The rest of your comment reiterates a demand for concrete evidence of harm by the removal of women's single-sex provisions.
But several times it has been pointed out that you are ignoring the statistical evidence regarding the statistics on sexual violence and assault that show the biological sex variance in both perpetrator and victim.
THAT is the starting point. Are you able to show that this body of evidence is flawed? Because it is this evidence, that provides the risk assessment that resulted in the provision of single-sex spaces because it reduced the likelihood of harm.
"I saw no concrete discussion relating to any of the issues raised by the article itself, or of my stated concerns and interpretation based on what I read in the article. Perhaps you're still stuck on semantics? The death of any committee, arguing over word definitions."
I don't know about the others.
But every sentence of that article, is familiar and a deliberate narrative that seeks to dismiss any concerns re women's rights, or sexual orientation, etc as anti-trans. I did skim read it, because it's a courtesy, but it was also a courtesy not to give it the full detailed dismissal it could have generated in order to keep the discussion alive.
For you, I've decided to select one fact to investigate:
The footnote leads you to:
3 Global Philanthropy Project. 2020. Meet the Moment: A Call for Progressive Philanthropic Response to the Anti-Gender Movement.https://globalphilanthropyproject.org/2020/11/12/meet-the-moment/
When opened the report Meet the Moment can be downloaded and viewed.
https://globalphilanthropyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Meet-the-Moment-2020-English.pdf
Pages 7-9 have the information regarding the calculation of the $3.7 billion of their "anti-trans" funding.
These are the questions that are raised by the information presented:
To investigate further, read the footnotes 14 – 18.
I can't be bothered with the ones without links – because life is short = but here are the two available links provided:
16 Provost, Claire and Ramsay, Adam, “Revealed: Trump-linked US Christian ‘fundamentalists’ pour millions of ‘dark money’ into Europe, boosting the far right,” openDemocracy, March 27, 2019
See also Provost, Claire and Archer, Nandini, “Revealed: $280m ‘dark money’ spent by US Christian right groups globally,” openDemocracy, October 27, 2020.
To me clear definitions are essential for discussion. And facts based in truth are the only starting point.
If you consider the above to indicate high quality reporting, then that is your informed opinion.
Mine differs.
"I really can't understand your toilet usage paragraph. Having 'a feeling' that trans women in NZ public toilets and change spaces are not 'right', or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it', is just not enough for me as an argument."
Oh the irony feelings aren't good enough when its women feeling uncomfortable with men peeing in women's toilets, but when its a man who feels like a woman, its all good, reason to change laws etc.
Here's some good hard data from the US where non-discrimination laws allowed transgender access to womens' bathrooms in many states for up to 10 years before this article in 2015.
https://www.mic.com/articles/114066/statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-people-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms
The article covers background to a 'preventative' bathroom law, framed to protect women from transgender "sexual predators". It was proposed in Florida in 2015. The article appeared in a young peoples' lifestyle mag, ie, not some iniquitous den of trans writing you might mistrust, but a bog-standard publication.
The bill sponsor "did not provide any evidence that a trans person has ever attacked cis-gendered (non-transgender) people in public restrooms when pressed".
"Spokespeople from the Transgender Law Center, thr Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union [ you may poopoo the first source, but the other 2 are trusted civil right organisations] told 'Mic' [magazine] that no statistical evidence of violence exists to warrant this legislation". This section is labelled 'Big Fat Zero' because other reputable sources support this lack of evidence.
It goes on to say "'Those who claim otherwise have no evidence that [claims of such violence are] true and use this notion to prey on the public's sterotypes and fears sbout transgender people"
The article include quotes from Human Rights Commisions, police departments and sexual violence coordinators across multiple states who completely deny the idea that public restroom inclusivity for transgenger people increased violence by transgender people against others in these vulnerable spaces.
https://www.mediamatters.org/sexual-harassment-sexual-assault/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathroom-myth#
A survey by Brinker and Maza of 15 law enforcement staff, victim support personnel for sexual assault, and others in 12 US states yielded no incidents of trans people harassing or assaulting others in public restrooms "They declared that the claim that sexual predators will exploit non-discrimination laws to sneak into bathrooms is a lie, pure and simple".
On the other hand, "roughly 70% of trans people have been denied entrance, assaulted, or harassed while using a restroom". Poor things.
I've found a lot more different sources saying the aame thing, but cutandpaste is clapped out and I don't want to hand write it up.
""Spokespeople from the Transgender Law Center, thr Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union [ you may poopoo the first source, but the other 2 are trusted civil right organisations] told 'Mic' [magazine] that no statistical evidence of violence exists to warrant this legislation". This section is labelled 'Big Fat Zero' because other reputable sources support this lack of evidence."
I have to go and get on with errands, but have read your comment and thought you may want to investigate further in regard to this statement – or not –
American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Campaign might be considered misnomers now, for these long-established organisations. As mentioned earlier, this information is provided not to be directive but provide a possible avenue of further information.
You can look yourself for other sources but here are a couple of starting points:
Archive from New York Times: Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis
https://archive.ph/deO59
Blog series regarding the Human Rights Campaign:
Part One: https://www.the11thhourblog.com/post/all-aboard-the-human-rights-campaign-and-the-making-of-transgender-industry-leaders-part-i
Strange as it might seem to you tWiggle the concern is not just about access to toilets.
What about sport?
What about prisons?
Still OK to have males competing against females? Riley Gaines being beaten by a male, the women volleyball player who was injured by a male on the opposing female side to an extent that she was concussed and not able to play.
https://www.marca.com/en/ncaa/2023/02/09/63e579f722601d44558b4623.html
https://talk.tv/news/12380/transgender-riley-gaines-payton-mcbann-volleyball-video-biological-male
We have had a couple of instances of male sports people stating they were women to get access to womens events to show the inequity of this.
One in the States, won against another male and on winning gave the trophy to the actual female who at that stage was in third place.
In NZ Dale Shepherd entered to show the inequity.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/300855409/governing-body-denies-male-powerlifter-entry-into-womens-competition
So it is not just World Athletics that needs to state its concerns/actions.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/women-in-sport/300838188/world-athletics-bans-transgender-women-athletes-to-protect-the-female-category
The more there is push back against males in female sports the more the onus shifts, correctly, from wommen defending thier rights to compete with fairness, to the sports bodies to devise ways to enable trans athletes to compete without bringing women's sports into it. Perhaps in open categories or with a time handicap etc.
The same ability to work out their own solutions exists for the trans community to say, work with architects, planners, city councils to ensure that toilet facilities keep them safe without compromising women's safety.
Why do you think that this is not happening? Do you think they still believe the fairy dust magic that it is possible to chnage biological sex? Which of course it isn't.
Thanks for reminding me, Shanreagh – I intended to reference Roviel Detenamo who lost out when Laurel Hubbard was selected.
Here's an NZ link to a couple of examples:
https://www.lostwomensrights.com/nz-s-s-s
And a wiki compilation of other instances:
http://shewon.org/index.html
Another good link for sport:
https://boysvswomen.com
Clearly the answer regarding "how many" for you is "none". As I wrote, to expect every single trans women to behave perfectly is an unhuman expectation.
I think you are missing my point tWiggle. Its not about how many women will be assaulted, although that is a concern of course.
It is about whether I and many, many other women want to share our bathrooms and change rooms with male bodied people. Many of us don't. I have asked if you think it is appropriate for a male bodied trans women to be naked in a change room around women and girls and you don't appear to have answered. I feel strongly that this must not be allowed. I could give you all sorts of reasons why like voyerism, exhibitionism, child safe guarding etc etc, but actually women are allowed to say no without having to justify why. Its coming across a bit like men who want to have sex with you and you say no and they say "poor old me, I just want a release blah blah" and what I say to that is it is your problem.
Telling me there are very few, if any assaults (tbh, I couldn't be bothered reading the stats, as I have read examples) is a form of gas lighting. "See only .xxxx numbers of attacks, so you are exaggerating, being mean and trans phobic"
Yes that is a key point Anker.
Women say 'no'.
It should end there.
Find another solution to whatever problem has been identified.
I see nothing untoward or unreasonable about this approach. The proponents seem to be without an answer as to why males should not continue to use male toilets and if for some reason that is not suitable then to press for separate arrangements.
Another reason why it sucks to be a woman, reduced to being a feeling or an idea of one in a man’s head but not allowed to have them ourselves.
Good points Molly.
I must say I read the article with mounting scepticism as unbiased commentators usually refrain from framing or words used by one of the proponents.
This article includes 'loaded' ant women words like
cis
terf
and loaded thoughts like
a concern for safe spaces means lack of rights for one of the parties.
(Not so as many of us have suggested ways to meet halfway such as more flexible design of safe spaces so transwomen had thier own safe spaces)
Over use of exaggerating words:
flooding
'sensationalism and fear-mongering'
I know that some UN adjacent agencies have been 'captured'. I am sure we all would like a careful and spare report with goodwill brought to bear to recognise the concerns of both sides. This report though should not force acceptance that trans women are women (the sex). Transwomen are transwomen ie biological males.
On digging deeper into the report there is this paragraph
A red flag, for me, if the 'captured language was not enough, is the reference to the Yogyakarta Principles. These are pushed as being UN principles but they are not. They have not been formally ratified and are what I call UN-adjacent.
We have seen reference to these Principles before on TS, our Human Rights Commissioner is one of the 20 signatories. (My view is that this is an intense conflict of interest and I am hoping that he does recuse himself when dealing with Trans & women's rights. His report, after visiting the scene of the aborted KJM event in Wellington on 26/3, is unedifying to me. I have followed it up, had no response and sent the correspondence on to SUFW.)
https://tikatangata.org.nz/news/no-human-right-eclipses-another-is-lesson-from-parker
Of concern is that although the Yogyakarta Principles talk of gender and identity, women are not included.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/yogyakarta-principles/
One of the signatories, Dr Wintermute from KCL, has concerns now & says
The full article is here
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/yogyakarta-principles/
I am alway grateful to read these articles and reinforce Molly's point that women/feminists are not hive minded ie all think the same any more than Maori are hive minded and all think the same on issues.
We just have to look at the approaches of concern from Christian often RW women in the US and Left wing women, though not exclusively in the UK, Aus, NZ.
It is an issue for women that often transcends political boundaries though solutions will have to rely on politicians of good will and they can come from left or right.
The referenced Critic article:
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/april-2021/the-trans-rights-that-trump-all/
Well argued, back in form with that one …
One would have presumed that human rights applied to all regardless of sex, gender and sexuality as well as ethnicity, race and political creed etc (religion – theist, atheist, deist and agnostic).
Neither sex nor gender need to overlay the other.
"Neither, sex nor gender need to overlay the other."
For sake of clarity, I'll assume you mean gender identity when you say "gender" above.
Then it becomes clear – these are two distinctly separate classification categories.
Provisions for one protected characteristic – such as sex, are not automatically relevant for provisions – such as age, (even though someone protected by sex, will also have an age characteristic).
It is conflation to assume that provisions made for women on the basis of sex, automatically apply to men with gender identities, because that assumption relies on mixing two separate classification categories. Which is basically, nonsensical.
While there may be some areas of crossover – separate provisions for transgender community should be identified, supported and implemented. The appropriation of existing protections for women on the basis of sex, is disrespectful and a form of discrimination. ie. women's sex based provisions are not protected from such appropriation.
No gender is better than gender ID in that context.
There is sometimes discrimination against both men and women because they do not conform to the expectation of masculine and feminine social presentation/demeanour etc.
Otherwise the issue is more whether one identifies people based on male/female birth sex or male/female gender.
Neither option is ideal. The latter includes those who now identify differently to their birth sex. But that involves greater risk to the safety of women and why there is resistance to doing this.
Thus an issue for society to resolve, as we did the inclusion of same sex attracted to the point of same sex civil marriages (despite some of religion claiming that those involved are living "in sin" – once requiring placements in prison or mental institutions).
"No gender is better than gender ID in that context."
Can you be specific here?
Because you could mean:
'No sex is better than gender ID in that context'. – are you meaning exclude sex as a protected characteristic?
OR
'No recognition of gender identity is better than recognition of gender identity in that context' – meaning remove gender identity as a protected characteristic because without the conflation with biological sex it has no meaning?
… or something else?
"There is sometimes discrimination against both men and women because they do not conform to the expectation of masculine and feminine social presentation/demeanour etc."
Not really discrimination as in unable to access healthcare, education, employment or housing. Rather you are talking about society reactions to those who don't follow regressive gender stereotypes. In the same way there are societal reactions to people with excessive body modifications – such as tattoos, piercings, etc.
Gender critical people are critical of any expectations placed on someone's activities, interests, achievements, presentations based on those gendered stereotypes.
"Otherwise the issue is more whether one identifies people based on male/female birth sex or male/female gender."
In some areas – sex matters. In all other cases, gender identity can be recognised.
Regardless, it is not an OR. People will always have a sex, and in some cases will declare a gender identity.
"The latter includes those who now identify differently to their birth sex. But that involves greater risk to the safety of women and why there is resistance to doing this."
There is no risk to women by men claiming a gender identity.
There is an impact (which may include increased safety risk) when those men's gender identities are considered by legislative and policies as granting access to women's single-sex provisions.
"Thus an issue for society to resolve, as we did the inclusion of same sex attracted to the point of same sex civil marriages (despite some of religion claiming that those involved are living "in sin" – once requiring placements in prison or mental institutions)."
Same-sex orientation did not require others to pretend their partners were the opposite sex, or that mimicry of performance of heterosexual sex practices made them heterosexual. It asked for freedom from the discrimination outlined above, and equal consideration from society and legislation.
The parsing is annoying and takes the debate out of context to score points.
I said human rights as per sex, gender and sexuality.
I did not say gender ID, because gender includes that and gender in the context of men and women conforming to stereotypes as to masculine and feminine norms etc.
@SPC
"The parsing is annoying and takes the debate out of context to score points.
I said human rights as per sex, gender and sexuality.
The parsing may be annoying (I'll ignore why you think that is) but it remains necessary otherwise we may be talking about entirely different things.
For example:
"I did not say gender ID, because gender includes that and gender in the context of men and women conforming to stereotypes as to masculine and feminine norms etc."
– this reads as though you believe gendered stereotypes are part and parcel of gender identity, which make it a performative act not an innate knowledge of oneself.
"I did not say gender ID, because gender includes that and gender in the context of men and women conforming to stereotypes as to masculine and feminine norms etc."
Not to all readers. the word gender in human rights legislation would include gender ID and also in wider ways such as preventing discrimination against men and women not conforming to stereotypical norms of masculinity and femininity (whereas use of the specific, gender ID, would not). That would be useful to more than the transgender such as the non binary etc, some lesbian women and homosexual men in seeking employment.
@SPC
So – you want to add "gender non-conformity" as a protected characteristic?
Has there been widespread discrimination due to gender non-conformity?
I would have thought anyone seeking to use gender in human rights, in place of birth sex, had this in mind because it was more broadly useful.
But for mine it should include both. Just as we have a ban on discrimination based on ethnicity, race and origin (rather than just someone "different/foreign"). More helps to clarify.
But sure I would not oppose sex and gender ID and gender “non-conformity” to clarify, but sex and gender (here as a catch all) has ease of use advantages.
Cases in this area can include dress codes, and discrimination in employment based on images on social media etc.
"Cases in this area can include dress codes, and discrimination in employment based on images on social media etc."
That inclusion regarding non-conformity is not really discrimination though. It could extend to elimination of expected dress codes or standards, and appropriate social media policies for employees with company recognition roles.
Conflation of terms works against full and frank discussion, and identifying specific forms of need and/or harm.
What conflation of terms? Do there need to be agreed definitions to discuss an issue? And if so, who decides?
As I said I prefer sex, gender and sexuality as categories for protection from discrimination.
I see this as important to prevent either birth sex or gender ID being the universal identity determinant.
"What conflation of terms? Do there need to be agreed definitions to discuss an issue? And if so, who decides?"
Conflation of gender identity, gender stereotypes and gender identity all under the one term of gender.
No-one gets to decide, but clear definitions are a basic necessity for needed discussions regarding legislative and policies changes.
"As I said I prefer sex, gender and sexuality as categories for protection from discrimination."
Sexuality or sexual orientation?
Queer theory has Minor Attracted People as a sexuality.
Do you want to have paedophiles as a protected characteristic, or are you really speaking about sexual orientation – as it currently exists?
(Queer Theory holds the position that recognising Minor Attracted Persons as a sexuality removes the stigma from those that are sexually attracted to children, but who do not necessarily act on that attraction.
Using the same logic, should kleptomaniacs be a protected characteristic – and their compulsion recognised as a mitigating factor when they are caught, charged and convicted of theft?)
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3317&context=gc_etds
The author Allyson Walker is an interesting person to research.
It's a strong example, but one that emphasises the importance of clear definitions.
"I see this as important to prevent either birth sex or gender ID being the universal identity determinant."
Once again. Why is it necessary to have a universal identity determinant?
Eg: A mobility impaired female pensioner, will have specific needs and provisions relating to three of the categories to which she belongs:
1. Female provisions for a myriad of services and facilities;
2. Accessibility and associated healthcare provisions;
3. Social welfare provisions and associated healthcare.
What you do not do, is provide a protected characteristic that seeks to amalgamate all three categories, because that increases the likelihood of confusion, lack of transparency, lack of adequate provision, and lack of accountability.
It'd also probably provide legislation where discrimination is hard to prove or disprove.
The existing human rights legislation has it as sexual orientation
It currently has sex, but not gender as a separate category – this results in conflation of the two.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/whole.html#DLM304475
I see this as important to prevent either birth sex or gender ID being the universal identity determinant.
I did not say there had to be one. But that neither should be used as one.
@SPC
I know, that's why I considered it important to distinguish from the sexuality you referred to in the previous comment.
Sex and gender identity are two distinct different classification types. The conflation of these two categories was one of the concerns put forward in submissions and ignored.
By conflating gender identity with sex – neither category is adequately provided for. In the case of women – the provision for their sex is appropriated without discussion or consent – by this illogical conflation.
I think what you are thinking, but not saying out loud is that sex should not take priority over gender identity if there is a conflict.
On this I disagree.
Not because there necessarily is a conflict, but because a conflict is created when conflation between sex and gender identity occurs, and single-sex provisions for women are assumed to be included in the provisions for men with gender identities.
This sleight-of-hand in terms of language and conflation of two classification systems, effectively removes the single-sex provisions for women with absolutely no regard for their value, or the consent of women and girls.
The advantage of gender ID is that it includes those who transition. The disadvantage is that it can also include those who do not.
Whatever society decides, it has to take account of different perspectives – such as it does with religious groups who do not support same sex activity or marriages. That should include women's groups right to exclude those not born female. A refuge's right to exclude anyone seen as a threat etc.
We might need a group focused on developing safe spaces and funding for this. That might allow those with transitioned bodies being allowed into women's separate spaces, but others not.
I think the risk is greater while we have sex in the HRA and this is then seen as interchangeable with gender (as per gender ID) in other legislation. Having sex and gender in the HRA separately would be more likely to result in focus on the overlap issue.
@SPC
Why is that a disadvantage? Religious belief is a protected characteristic, but not everyone has a religious belief.
The secular government we have ensures that despite other's beliefs, those same sex marriages can take place. They have the right to their belief but not to impose the restrictions of that belief on others. So it should be.
Sex is immutable, and single-sex provisions for women are inextricably linked to their sex. It is not about only about threats, although that plays a part – and is constantly ignored when these female sex provisions are appropriated by men. This is also not about belief – but about reality.
It is gender identity that is a belief. As such it can be protected, but as a separate characteristic – because it IS a completely separate characteristic from sex. And as it is both fluid and unquantifiable it should not override sex-based provisions, because those are specific to sex and retain value for women and girls.
The believers of a gender identity should not impose that belief on others. This is true regardless of the number of people who share such a belief.
You've said this a couple of times now IIRC, and the comparison is flawed still.
Deal with the reality of sex, and the belief system of gender ideology without reaching for justifications from other protected characteristics and we may get somewhere.
Because some women do not want transgender women self ID to result in male bodies in women's spaces.
Yes, you want separation based on birth sex, thus the exclusion of transexuals/transitioned transgender women.
No, and not in the post you are replying to.
I have of course mentioned on occasion our history of becoming more inclusive, whether that is women voting and the societal change that resulted and also same sex relationships. And like many see that as leading to a progressive impulse on the gender ID issue.
I will restate something from my last post
"I think the risk (to women's safety) is greater while we only have have sex in the HRA and this is then seen as interchangeable with gender (as per gender ID) in other legislation".
This leads to confusion with how to deal with women's safety concerns resulting from self ID.
If both are included in the HRA, this would require some thought as to distinction in various legislation.
Possibly the best path to the realisation of the maintenance of the birth sex category you seek is to accept a separate and also protected gender identity.
@SPC
Men who identify as women belong to a different protected characteristic, and should not be given access to women's single-sex spaces because of it.
You are effectively saying the logical thing to do, is a disadvantage because it excludes men from women's single-sex spaces (and that is not the outcome you want).
I want the single-sex provisions for women and girls to remain single-sex provisions. They were never – gendered stereotype provisions for those who conform to gendered stereotypes (which I am using because your idea of gender identity seems to be inextricably linked to stereotypes for some reason).
Gender ideology is a belief system. One that is unquantifiable, and one that is fluid. Like a religious belief. Not only is is not SEX, it has a myriad of other identities not associated with sex at all. Why people continue to conflate the two categories, is a question for the ages.
My suspicion is, like your illogical reasoning above, is because it allows a predetermined outcome to be achieved, because it bypasses accuracy, logic and any recognition of impact, or concerns about consent.
For example: how do you protect sexual orientation when you conflate gender identity with sex?
At the most ridiculous extreme of this conflation, you can have a lesbian association composed entirely of men with female gender identities who call themselves lesbians because they are heterosexual.
Or two lesbian women who refer to themselves as gay men because they identify as men, and consider their sexuality to be that associated only with men.
I disagree. The danger is the deliberate conflation of sex with gender identity, by politicians during legislative change, government ministries and departments, and policy makers.
It is not ONLY safety concerns. Single-sex provisions hold value also for privacy and dignity. And there are issues of consent that are ignored.
Many submitters asked for clarification in the legislation and were ignored. But while the confusion reigns, many also refuse to accept that confusion means a de facto breaking of single-sex provisions until it gets sorted out.
Why should women have to advocate for a certain belief system, in order to ensure their single-sex provisions and language is maintained? Is this requirement requested of any other existing protected characteristic? ie. Did same-sex oriented people have to ensure that religious belief was fully recognised before gaining their recognition, or was that already protected?
I have given my advice that one option to secure a continuing biological sex ID is to promote a separate gender category in the HRA.
There are always other ways of doing things (for example we never explored having half seats for women voters and half for male voters to ensure 50% representation within parliament).
They and women who identify as men are not protected under gender in the HRA.
I note that for you this is not about safety, but exclusive right of women's ID to biological sex –
and thus acceptance of transgender men and non binary people born female in women's spaces, rather than transsexual transgender women?
No, not at all. I wrote this
"The advantage of gender ID is that it includes those who transition. The disadvantage is that it can also include those who do not."
Most people want others to feel included and were inclined to go along with gender identity, but going as far as to include those who do not transition is such a disadvantage to women's safety it might lead to review (as per the UK).
Why? You are taking out of context a comment in relation to the utility of use of the the term gender rather than gender ID in any HRA inclusion (as a catch all including gender ID but also wider issues of discrimination based on gender).
I could say stuff about how zealots lose perspective, if I was to debate in that way … but it really just indicates we have reached the end of this discussion.
And if one only identifies people by their birth sex
a transsexual transgender woman having sex with a male is engaged in a homosexual act and two transgender men together are engaged in a lesbian relationship and should be invited to lesbian social occasions …
@SPC
Before I respond, I just want to say I appreciate the time and care with which you are expressing your views, and I am attempting to replicate your approach even as it seems we are still talking past one another, and not quite understanding each other's point of view.
If you wanted to stick to one point of discussion until we both clearly demonstrate an understanding of each other's point of view, and then move to the next. I'm happy to do that. You choose.
But in the spirit that has got us thus far, I'll go through your last response in detail. (TBH it's easier doing it this way because the cut and paste stops me from having to scroll up and down to respond to your points, but it comes at a cost, because I'm not adding to the discussion but of responding only. I'll have to work on that…)
The sex characteristic IS biological sex. It has been appropriated – by some – to refer to a undefined gender identity.
As mentioned, many submissions to the BDMMR bill wanted this clarified before the bill was passed. These requests were ignored, by the politicians promoting the bill and the select committee.
The deliberate replacement of sex with gender identity has occurred in the Sentencing Act 2003. But that was intended to accommodate those with GRS, not Self-ID, and was a cursory substitution not a well-considered one.
I won't post a myriad of links on this, it's worth a whole post.
The provision of single-sex spaces is mentioned under 'sex' not gender in the HRA:
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304617.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_human+rights+act_resel_25_a&p=1
Where are you finding the reference to gender you are talking about?
I do have concerns about safety, but that is not the only value of single-sex provisions for women and girls, so I endeavour to ensure those other values are considered. For some women, they are AS important as the safety issue.
Point needs to be made that although you and I know what you mean when talking about transgender men, and transsexual transgender women – many others will not know whether you are talking about a man with a trans identity or a woman with a trans identity.
I snipped and repeated this because it is a common refrain. That women who resist the appropriation of womenhood, and/or the amalgamation of biology reality with a completely separate classification category, are somehow cruelly withholding "rights" from men with gender identities.
Biological sex categories are not "rights" – they are simply categories. You either belong to one group or the other.
It hasn't lead to a review. A review has been the result of a concerted effort of women in the UK, to force politicians to address the issues. Many women have done this despite public shaming, loss of income, harassment and threats of violence. It has been politically forced also by the insistence of the SNP to pass a bill that impacted on the rest of the UK, triggering a response from Westminster. A lot of work and effort has been necessary to get to this quite reasonable starting point that you suggest. Here, we are not anywhere near that position.
To put it simply, because you have used gender in several different ways, making it difficult to follow your reasoning (but not impossible) – how would you yourself define gender identity so that can be included as a protective characteristic?
(I'm assuming that you agree that sex is biological and binary, but if you believe otherwise, a clear definition may improve the discussion.)
Most people refer to others by name. I take issue with this "only", because that is not what is occurring. In some areas – sex matters – it is those areas which are under discussion.
If you mean, what I think you mean – then while I agree with you, this is not the interpretation being given by Rainbow Support organisations.
Rainbow Youth
https://ry.org.nz/sexuality-101
They used to have a glossary, which I can't find at present but have a look around the site. If you do find a reference to homosexuality – it will state that it is a sexual orientation to gender identity – not sex. Effectively replacing the conversion of gays to heterosexuality, with an assumed conversion of gays and lesbians (and by implication also heterosexuals) to bisexuality.
The Inside Out training organisation and resource centre is here:
https://insideout.org.nz/#foryouth
Gender Minorities Aotearoa is here:
https://genderminorities.com/glossary-transgender/#Sexual-Orientation
These are well-funded and very visible organisations, that are present to support young people with same-sex orientations, but appear reluctant to accept that same-sex orientation restricts your choice of intimate partner to the same as your biological sex.
I invite you to have a look and see what you think about the messaging.
It's as described in Right Wing Women (1983) by Angela Dworkin – a fresh perspective here from 1 hour 26 minutes.
It may be of interest to some to post the actual podcast as well,
The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling – The Free Press
Apple Podcasts:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-witch-trials-of-j-k-rowling/id1671691064
Spotify:
https://open.spotify.com/show/2K186zrvRgeE2w0wQjbaw7
Thank-you!SPC!
What points did you find compelling in this video?
I'll admit I haven't watched this one (more of a reader than a viewer, but have seen a couple of ContraPoints videos in the past, and find them entertaining but not very informative or comprehensive, just selectively framed).
Molly you are extraordinary. So patient but so clear in addressing the "arguments"
I take my hate off to you.
The males who identify as women who want to come into women's bathrroms/change rooms, show themselves up to have the male psyche. Women, generally speaking would never insist on inserting themselves to spaces where they weren't wanted.
"I take my hate off to you."
I'll take your hate, and return it with affection….
Thanks for the compliment. I see many contributors here that have a good grasp of the discussion, and only enter when I feel I haven't been lifting my share of the burden.
It is usually carried quite admirably by a few stalwarts, including yourself.
100% Roblogic.
Bros with multi-billion dollar hoards blaming an imagined societal collapse on the poors not having the babies they can’t afford.
FFS.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1648489776289558530
Two guys agreeing that the "pill and access to abortion" (feminism) in the west has caused a demographic threat to its civilisation.
No awareness of global warming is indicated, nor open (just inferred) support for right wing moves in the USA to diminish access to thee "things" by the GOP patriarchy. More breeding people and economic growth without immigration is the birther cause.
At least we can watch with horror as the past Weimar past comes for us once again safe in our own place .. or can we .. are we now not in Wichita with the Koch brothers propaganda machine witnessing the idolising of those women proud not to be a feminist.
The fear of a white minority.
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/26/1107710215/roe-overturned-mary-miller-historic-victory-for-white-life
https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlsons-history-fearmongering-about-white-replacement-genocide-and-race-war
See above my reply to tWiggle (video) as per the importance of biological sex as to the status of women as breeders to the white race nation right.
"See above my reply to tWiggle (video) as per the importance of biological sex as to the status of women as breeders to the white race nation right."
Men appropriating the reproductive function of the female biological sex for their own purposes is ubiquitous.
It is not restricted to any particular ethnicity, political perspective, or religious group.
failed edit to
Two guys agreeing that the "pill and access to abortion" (feminism) in the west has caused a demographic threat to its civilisation.
No awareness of global warming is indicated, nor open (just inferred) support for right wing moves in the USA to diminish access to these "things" by the GOP patriarchy. More breeding people and economic growth without immigration is the birther cause.
At least we can watch with horror as the Weimar past comes for us once again safe in our own place .. or can we .. are we not also being taken by the Koch brothers of Wichita Kansas propaganda machine to another place to witness the idolising of those women proud not to be a feminist?
When medieval institutions collaborate.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/04/20/pope-sent-king-charles-shards-of-jesus-christs-cross-for-coronation/
On that note, I have been privileged several times now to visit one of the most beautiful church buildings in the world, Saint Chapelle Chapel in Paris.
But, it was built in the built in the 13th Century by Louis IX to house the supposed crown of thorns from the crucifiction. That, despite the fact that the crown of thorns, being made of organic material, would likely have decomposed centuries before.
The amount of cost and work to build that building must have been enormous. All for what almost certainly was a hoax.
Nevertheless, it is definitely worth the look if anyone is in France. They do violin concerts there which sound incredible. I have heard the Four Seasons played in there. Incredible acoustics.
The building is quite modern in a lot of ways, in that it has an incredible effect from light with the huge stained glass windows. Most of the similar buildings of that time tended not to have so much glass. And the stained glass wasn't great for letting in light. So a lot of those buildings seem quite dark and dingy. But this one is something else.
Jesus would have preferred St Julian de Pauvre over the other side of the river, one of the earliest in Paris.
The Pope is not a medieval institution.
What does this mean?
The office of the Pope was formed 1,940 years ago, approximately.
https://www.google.com/search?q=earliest+popes&rlz=1C1GCEB_enNZ1041NZ1041&oq=earliest+popes&aqs=chrome..69i57.1691j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The medieval period arrived about 400 years after the Papacy was formed.
Thanks for this. Clearly the institution of the papacy has been around for years.
Does this date add anything to the idea about idea of shards of the cross being sent to King Charles or the concept of beauty in church building all around Europe?
We don't need to believe in the reality of reliquaries but we can see the influence of the Church on the beauty, layout and spirtuality of churches especially to my eyes those built in Gothic times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Minster
https://decombo.com/gothic-cathedrals-churches/.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce
https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2010/smith-reliquaries#:~:text=Reliquaries%20were%20designed%20as%20receptacles,martyrs%20by%20the%20Christian%20church.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shroud-of-Turin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross#:~:text=Four%20cross%20particles%20%E2%80%93%20of%20ten,came%20all%20together%20from%20olive.%22
King Charles by all accounts takes his role in Christian matters seriously and works tirelssly to foster an ecumenical approach among the world's christian churches. The gift from the Pope recognises this and is a gift of remembrance of a shared past, in my view, rather than forcing a belief in the actuality of a reliquary.
For that matter, neither is the British monarchy a medieval institution.
In the current constitutional form, (monarchy limited by law) it is a creation of the late 17th century (1688 is the generally accepted date) – well past the medieval period.
I suspect that 'medieval' is being (inaccurately) used as a synonym for 'old' in this post.
There is an election coming….do you have a candidate whom you can vote for who represents your views?
More or less.
Representative democracy necessarily means candidates can't represent all their constituents views simultaneously. If you find that there isn't a candidate that adequately represents your views, then the obvious solution is to run yourself.
Running yourself is certainly an option….but one most appear unwilling to subject themselves to.
Having someone who represents your views could be considered vital in a democracy…the lack of is a regular complaint.
It may well be considered vital but democracy is also inherently competitive, with definitive victors. Complaints about 'lack of democracy' often are made by those whose favoured representatives did not garner enough support to win their race.
As important as elections are, I am more than happy to complain about the lack of democracy in almost every other aspect of our lives however. The vast majority of us spend most of our lives labouring for someone else with very little say in how we do our jobs let alone the purpose of our labour. This seems to me to be a far more impactful and tangible 'lack of democracy' in our lives that goes on incessantly and largely uncommented.
"The vast majority of us spend most of our lives labouring for someone else with very little say in how we do our jobs let alone the purpose of our labour"
We do…and the system that enables/promotes that is determined by?….
elections.
I am under no illusions that the current system, that is enforced, will be fundamentally changed by elections.
That being said, voting requires such little investment for the massive amount of harm minimisation that it can achieve. We just have to be pragmatic and strategic.
Well, it depends which views. Most people are unlikely to find a candidate who will reflect the entirety of their political and personal philosophy.
The best you can do is identify which are the most important (to you) elements and try to find a candidate which reflects those.
Do you mean the electorate vote? Haven't looked.
Party vote will go to the Greens, because in terms of MMP strategy this is the best hope we have of climate action.
It is a general question to establish whether voters feel their views are represented by the existing political organisations….candidate nominations dont close for a few months yet leaving the opportunity for options to change.
👍
Some of my views are represented by existing political organisations. Not wholly, but I'm pragmatic about that.
Late night tunes… another great Oz anthem