Daily review 20/04/2023

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, April 20th, 2023 - 173 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

173 comments on “Daily review 20/04/2023 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. roblogic 1
    20 April 2023 at 6:48 pm

    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!

    • weka 1.1
      20 April 2023 at 6:51 pm

      lol. Weird fucking times.

    • SPC 1.2
      20 April 2023 at 7:58 pm

      Thanks for the triggered disinformation. Now I know for sure I am not in Kansas.

    • Red Blooded One 1.3
      20 April 2023 at 8:06 pm

      You, of course, have links showing the MSN calling Posie Parker a fascist, and that feminists are Nazis.

      • roblogic 1.3.1
        20 April 2023 at 9:56 pm

        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

        • SPC 1.3.1.1
          20 April 2023 at 10:56 pm

          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.

          • roblogic 1.3.1.1.1
            20 April 2023 at 11:37 pm

            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

            • Shanreagh 1.3.1.1.1.1
              21 April 2023 at 1:18 pm

              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.

          • weka 1.3.1.1.2
            21 April 2023 at 8:19 am

            Coming to New Zealand on CPAC money…

            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.

            • arkie 1.3.1.1.2.1
              21 April 2023 at 8:30 am
              1. The Standing for Women Australian tour is sponsored by right-wing organisation CPAC (Conservative Political Action Coalition/Conference).

              KJK confirmed this in this video.

              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.

              https://feministleft.wordpress.com/2023/03/06/are-you-thinking-of-going-to-kellie-jay-keens-events-in-australia-or-nz-read-this-first/

              • weka …
                21 April 2023 at 8:41 am

                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.

                • arkie …
                  21 April 2023 at 8:55 am

                  From 13:00mins in the video:

                  CPAC came along and said they would sponsor our events and cover all of our insurance throughout our whole trip

                  • Molly …
                    21 April 2023 at 9:33 am

                    IIRC, liability insurance for events?

                    • tWiggle …
                      22 April 2023 at 5:08 am

                      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.

                    • Molly …
                      22 April 2023 at 8:52 am

                      @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?)

                  • weka …
                    21 April 2023 at 10:09 am

                    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.

        • Red Blooded One 1.3.1.2
          21 April 2023 at 12:59 am

          Plenty of links, none saying what you said.

          • roblogic 1.3.1.2.1
            21 April 2023 at 1:08 am

            The associations were obvious and egregious.

            "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

            • Red Blooded One 1.3.1.2.1.1
              21 April 2023 at 7:20 am

              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.

              • Visubversa …
                21 April 2023 at 8:12 am

                Yes, because "Prick News" is totally unbiased – just like Stonewall UK. They are both "Trans Rights" organisations shrouded in a stolen rainbow flag.

                • Red Blooded One …
                  21 April 2023 at 8:43 am

                  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.

              • weka …
                21 April 2023 at 8:27 am

                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.

                • Red Blooded One …
                  21 April 2023 at 8:53 am

                  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"

                  • weka …
                    21 April 2023 at 9:09 am

                    Two people, including yourself, have already called Roblogic out on what he said, he's responded. Two things are clear from that exchange,

                    1. the MSM didn't call KJK a Nazi or fascist (understandably because it's not true and it would be defamatory).
                    2. the MSM reported in such a way as to imply that KJK is strongly connected to Nazis/fascism

                    That's TS functioning well. Commenters hold each other accountable. The less mods have to intervene the better.

                  • weka …
                    21 April 2023 at 9:13 am

                    Mod note,

                    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.

                    • Red Blooded One …
                      21 April 2023 at 9:34 am

                      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.

                    • weka []
                      21 April 2023 at 9:58 am

                      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.

                      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.

                  • roblogic …
                    22 April 2023 at 6:39 am

                    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.

              • roblogic …
                22 April 2023 at 6:48 am

                Are you trying to claim that is unbiased reporting? Jeepers

            • tWiggle 1.3.1.2.1.2
              22 April 2023 at 5:16 am

              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).

              • roblogic …
                22 April 2023 at 6:52 am

                "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

    • Res Publica 1.4
      20 April 2023 at 8:13 pm

      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

      • weka 1.4.1
        20 April 2023 at 8:45 pm

        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.

        • Res Publica 1.4.1.1
          21 April 2023 at 11:13 am

          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.

          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?

          • weka 1.4.1.1.1
            21 April 2023 at 11:50 am

            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

            • Res Publica 1.4.1.1.1.1
              21 April 2023 at 2:24 pm

              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.

              So I respect your criticism and your disagreement

              • weka …
                21 April 2023 at 2:36 pm

                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?

                • tWiggle …
                  22 April 2023 at 2:30 am

                  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.

              • weka …
                21 April 2023 at 2:37 pm

                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

                Cheers for that. It's always better when there is that degree of capacity for disagreement but still being able to respect people.

      • roblogic 1.4.2
        20 April 2023 at 10:09 pm

        Or, suggested that the mislabelling of minorities by a powerful majority was a bad thing.

        You mean, like the widespread slandering of women attempting to speak about the erosion of their rights?

      • Anker 1.4.3
        20 April 2023 at 10:32 pm

        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.

        • tWiggle 1.4.3.1
          21 April 2023 at 12:26 am

          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.

          • Molly 1.4.3.1.1
            21 April 2023 at 9:44 am

            "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:

            1. Women's single-sex spaces are only about safety from physical assault;
            2. There is no value in single-sex provision in terms of accommodation of particular needs, dignity or privacy;
            3. Men with gender identities are not included in women's single-sex provisions because they are transgender – rather than that they are men;
            4. 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 wink

            • tWiggle 1.4.3.1.1.1
              21 April 2023 at 12:37 pm

              "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.

              • Molly …
                21 April 2023 at 12:58 pm

                "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.

              • Shanreagh …
                21 April 2023 at 1:06 pm

                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.

                • SPC …
                  21 April 2023 at 1:34 pm

                  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.

                  • Molly …
                    21 April 2023 at 2:27 pm

                    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.

                • tWiggle …
                  21 April 2023 at 2:11 pm

                  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.

                  • weka …
                    21 April 2023 at 2:18 pm

                    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

                    • tWiggle []
                      21 April 2023 at 3:35 pm

                      Is this in NZ?

                    • tWiggle []
                      21 April 2023 at 3:40 pm

                      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!

                    • weka []
                      21 April 2023 at 8:14 pm

                      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?

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 2:38 pm

                      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.

                    • weka []
                      21 April 2023 at 2:54 pm

                      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.

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 2:59 pm

                      @weka

                      Fair enough. It'll be interesting to see tWiggle's response.

                    • tWiggle …
                      21 April 2023 at 3:36 pm

                      Is this in NZ?

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 3:47 pm

                      @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… laugh

                  • Shanreagh …
                    21 April 2023 at 2:24 pm

                    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?

                  • weka …
                    21 April 2023 at 2:24 pm

                    "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

                  • weka …
                    21 April 2023 at 2:26 pm

                    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.

                    • weka …
                      21 April 2023 at 2:56 pm

                      which is?

                    • joe90 …
                      21 April 2023 at 3:01 pm

                      A two minute search confirms that someone is using a screen grab (sfw) from a series of Japanese porn vids.

                    • tWiggle []
                      21 April 2023 at 3:47 pm

                      Thanks Joe90 for the fact checking?

                    • SPC …
                      21 April 2023 at 3:13 pm

                      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.

                    • weka []
                      21 April 2023 at 3:21 pm

                      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).

                    • tWiggle []
                      22 April 2023 at 5:27 am

                      "Unprocessed males" Charming phrase that makes transgender women sound like sides of beef.

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 3:40 pm

                      @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.

                    • joe90 …
                      21 April 2023 at 11:05 pm

                      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.

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 11:19 pm

                      @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.

                    • tWiggle []
                      22 April 2023 at 2:57 am

                      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 …
                      22 April 2023 at 8:48 am

                      @tWiggle

                      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. wink

                      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…laugh. 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.

                    • Shanreagh …
                      22 April 2023 at 9:53 am

                      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'

                    • Shanreagh …
                      22 April 2023 at 10:32 am

                      @ 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.

                  • Molly …
                    21 April 2023 at 3:26 pm

                    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

                  • tWiggle …
                    21 April 2023 at 3:30 pm

                    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.

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 3:57 pm

                      "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".

                    • tWiggle []
                      21 April 2023 at 9:32 pm

                      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.

                    • tWiggle []
                      21 April 2023 at 9:48 pm

                      Sorry, infowars not correct term fell out of my brain.

                    • Shanreagh …
                      21 April 2023 at 4:14 pm

                      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.

                    • tWiggle []
                      21 April 2023 at 9:57 pm

                      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'?

                    • tWiggle []
                      21 April 2023 at 11:28 pm

                      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.

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 4:27 pm

                      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/

                      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."

                    • tWiggle []
                      21 April 2023 at 10:39 pm

                      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.

                    • Shanreagh …
                      21 April 2023 at 4:34 pm

                      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?

                    • tWiggle []
                      22 April 2023 at 3:28 am

                      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.

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 10:40 pm

                      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

                      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".

                    • tWiggle []
                      21 April 2023 at 11:45 pm

                      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.

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 10:59 pm

                      @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.

                    • Molly …
                      22 April 2023 at 8:36 am

                      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.

                    • tWiggle []
                      22 April 2023 at 5:22 pm

                      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!

                    • tWiggle []
                      22 April 2023 at 5:33 pm

                      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.

                    • tWiggle []
                      22 April 2023 at 6:59 pm

                      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.

                    • Molly …
                      22 April 2023 at 5:36 pm

                      @tWiggle

                      It's all good. You seem comfortable where you are yes.

                      Just remember: Consent is not transferable.

              • Anker …
                21 April 2023 at 1:45 pm

                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.

                • SPC …
                  21 April 2023 at 1:59 pm

                  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)

                  • Molly …
                    21 April 2023 at 2:22 pm

                    "(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:

                    "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.

                    • SPC …
                      21 April 2023 at 2:29 pm

                      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).

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 2:47 pm

                      @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.

                • tWiggle …
                  21 April 2023 at 3:54 pm

                  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?

                  • Molly …
                    21 April 2023 at 4:05 pm

                    "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.

                • tWiggle …
                  22 April 2023 at 12:51 am

                  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?

                  • Molly …
                    22 April 2023 at 9:40 am

                    @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:

                    "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"

                    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:

                    1. 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.
                    2. 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.
                    3. 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:

                    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.

              • Anker …
                21 April 2023 at 1:47 pm

                "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.

                • tWiggle …
                  22 April 2023 at 4:58 am

                  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.

                  • Molly …
                    22 April 2023 at 9:55 am

                    ""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 – laugh

                    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

                  • Shanreagh …
                    22 April 2023 at 10:19 am

                    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.

                  • Anker …
                    22 April 2023 at 4:19 pm

                    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"

                    • Shanreagh …
                      22 April 2023 at 7:37 pm

                      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.

                    • Charlotte Rust []
                      23 April 2023 at 5:20 pm

                      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.

            • Shanreagh 1.4.3.1.1.2
              21 April 2023 at 12:45 pm

              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

              • 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.)

              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

              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.”

              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.

              • Molly …
                21 April 2023 at 1:07 pm

                The referenced Critic article:

                https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/april-2021/the-trans-rights-that-trump-all/

                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”.

              • SPC …
                21 April 2023 at 1:13 pm

                Well argued, back in form with that one …

                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.

                • Molly …
                  21 April 2023 at 1:25 pm

                  "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.

                  • SPC …
                    21 April 2023 at 1:46 pm

                    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).

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 2:04 pm

                      "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 blush made them heterosexual. It asked for freedom from the discrimination outlined above, and equal consideration from society and legislation.

                    • SPC …
                      21 April 2023 at 2:16 pm

                      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.

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 2:32 pm

                      @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.

                    • SPC …
                      21 April 2023 at 2:57 pm

                      "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.

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 3:02 pm

                      @SPC

                      So – you want to add "gender non-conformity" as a protected characteristic?

                      Has there been widespread discrimination due to gender non-conformity?

                    • SPC …
                      21 April 2023 at 3:28 pm

                      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.

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 4:10 pm

                      "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.

                    • SPC …
                      21 April 2023 at 4:32 pm

                      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.

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 4:54 pm

                      "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.

                    • SPC …
                      21 April 2023 at 5:24 pm

                      The existing human rights legislation has it as sexual orientation

                      which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual 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.

                      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.

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 7:47 pm

                      @SPC

                      The existing human rights legislation has it as sexual orientation

                      which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.

                      I know, that's why I considered it important to distinguish from the sexuality you referred to in the previous comment.

                      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

                      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.

                    • SPC …
                      21 April 2023 at 8:37 pm

                      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.

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 9:18 pm

                      @SPC

                      "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.

                    • SPC …
                      21 April 2023 at 9:49 pm

                      Why is that a disadvantage.

                      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.

                    • Molly …
                      21 April 2023 at 10:12 pm

                      @SPC

                      Why is that a disadvantage?

                      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?

                    • SPC …
                      21 April 2023 at 11:45 pm

                      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 …

                    • Molly …
                      22 April 2023 at 11:33 am

                      @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…)

                      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."

                      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 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.

                      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

                      Sexual orientation.

                      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.

          • SPC 1.4.3.1.2
            21 April 2023 at 12:23 pm

            It's as described in Right Wing Women (1983) by Angela Dworkin – a fresh perspective here from 1 hour 26 minutes.

            • Molly 1.4.3.1.2.1
              21 April 2023 at 1:13 pm

              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

            • tWiggle 1.4.3.1.2.2
              21 April 2023 at 2:06 pm

              Thank-you!SPC!

              • Molly …
                21 April 2023 at 3:08 pm

                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).

                • Anker …
                  21 April 2023 at 10:52 pm

                  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.

                  • Molly …
                    21 April 2023 at 11:02 pm

                    "I take my hate off to you."

                    I'll take your hate, and return it with affection…laugh.

                    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.

    • Anker 1.5
      20 April 2023 at 10:25 pm

      100% Roblogic.

  2. joe90 2
    20 April 2023 at 7:58 pm

    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

    • SPC 2.1
      20 April 2023 at 8:12 pm

      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.

        • SPC 2.1.1.1
          21 April 2023 at 12:31 pm

          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.

          • Molly 2.1.1.1.1
            21 April 2023 at 1:46 pm

            "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.

      • SPC 2.1.2
        20 April 2023 at 11:13 pm

        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?

  4. pat 4
    20 April 2023 at 8:15 pm

    There is an election coming….do you have a candidate whom you can vote for who represents your views?

    • arkie 4.1
      20 April 2023 at 9:43 pm

      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.

      • pat 4.1.1
        20 April 2023 at 9:49 pm

        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.

        • arkie 4.1.1.1
          20 April 2023 at 10:01 pm

          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.

          • pat 4.1.1.1.1
            20 April 2023 at 10:18 pm

            "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.

            • arkie 4.1.1.1.1.1
              20 April 2023 at 10:31 pm

              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.

        • Belladonna 4.1.1.2
          22 April 2023 at 8:03 pm

          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.

    • weka 4.2
      21 April 2023 at 8:43 am

      There is an election coming….do you have a candidate whom you can vote for who represents your views?

      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.

      • pat 4.2.1
        21 April 2023 at 9:50 am

        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.

        • weka 4.2.1.1
          21 April 2023 at 10:01 am

          👍

          Some of my views are represented by existing political organisations. Not wholly, but I'm pragmatic about that.

  5. roblogic 5
    21 April 2023 at 1:26 am

    Late night tunes… another great Oz anthem