Coming to New Zealand on CPAC money to provoke counter-protest and support for it from the left was also a beautifully executed propaganda campaign by the political right, who chose her well.
Given their plans for the USA (as a leader of the white race Five Eyes nations) dividing women against each other was essential to their cause.
I agree that PP/KJK is a divisive figure sponsored by CPAC. But the NZ media did themselves no credit by their alarmist behaviour, stirring up as much hate and fear as possible.
I don't see what's so scary about "letting women speak". The public is ill served by fact free invective
Did you make that up? Please provide some evidence that KJK used CPAC money for the NZ trip. My understanding is that CPAC provided liability insurance in Australia and that KJK funded the NZ trip herself, but am open to seeing evidence that CPAC paid for the NZ trip.
CPAC runs annual conferences of conservative political activists in Australia, the US and several other countries. The 2022 Australian conference included right-wing speakers such as Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Jacinta Price, Mark Latham, Rita Panahi and Nigel Farage from the UK, former leader of the right-wing populist UK Independence Party (UKIP).
CPAC actively opposes the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, arguing that it will “exacerbate racial division”. This is a classic racist argument to oppose greater political representation for Aboriginal people in this country.
KJK’s acceptance of sponsorship from this group, without expressing any critique of their positions, suggests her acceptance of conservative and racist ideas and plays into the left’s idea that being gender critical is a right-wing project.
CPAC’s sponsorship of KJK’s Australian tour follows a long-running pattern of interaction with the right and the extreme right.
Yes, I know that she got funding in Australia from CPAC, I said that in the comment you replied to. Does she say in the video that her whole Australian tour was funded by CPAC? A time stamp would be handy.
I was asking SPC for evidence for their claim that the NZ trip was funded by CPAC.
Because we have ACC, Molly, NZ event organisers do not have to insure against damage to attendees. That is not the case in other countries, where you may pay a sizeable premium against possible injury/death claims.
It's a little ambiguous whether CPAC were providing the insurance alone, or whether the sponsorship covers other costs on the Australian tour.
The issue here is whether KJK's position on this is a problem.
For GCFs, it is. The feministleft piece is a good explainer, Women's Liberation Aotearoa have also talked about this. KJK's tolerance of and working with the FR harms society via its contribution to rising fascism, and it harms GCF.
For TRAs, it also is. It harms trans people, rainbow people, people in general and society for the same rising fascism reasons. However, for TRAs, anyone who is critical of gender identity ideology is now being attached to fascism, and that's neither true nor helpful. It's a harm itself as well. Terf = Nazi rhetoric makes informed debate much harder and renders left wing, feminist GC positions invisible.
Those positions are the ones that support trans rights and women's rights, so it's an own goal by TRAs to conflate GC with fascism.
KJK arise out of the vacuum left by No Debate. She's all sorts of problems for GCFs, but I also understand her position of refusing guilty by association. Nothing will ever be enough for TRAs, and in that sense the demand for her to do whatever is dishonest. She's wrong not to distance herself from Nazis/FR, but if she did, TRAs would just find another stick to beat her with because of her fundamental support for women's sex based rights. That's the thing that cannot be tolerated.
My view on this is informed by the frequency with which left wing, gender critical feminists are called Nazis.
"I find many of her views repugnant, and am concerned by the way in which she courts some of the most vile people and groups around including white supremacists," Wood said.
"The group reportedly held signs calling transgender people offensive names, and repeatedly performed the Nazi salute."
“I will not sit at home as Nazis and TERFS steal my right to be who I am,” Lal said.
Maybe if the MSM were so concerned about hate speech they should stop publishing Lal and Tweedie
I'm not the one claiming bias in the main street media. Roblogic was and the photos in that article simply justify the reporting in the MSM about Nazis. Those visuals were on our TV reports as well. If Roblogic can't, how about you link to any quote in the MSM that "PP is a fascist" if not you have no value in this discussion.
But it was her scheduled stop at the Parliament House in Melbourne that caused the most concern among Australian politicians, after a group of neo-Nazis joined the “gender-critical” rally, chanting “white power” and using the Nazi salute.
I've not seen any evidence that the neo Nazis joined the rally. From the accounts I've read they didn't join the rally but counter protested the TRA counter protest as well as making their own stand.
“I think once the initial shock died down everyone was just furious, seeing Nazis doing salutes uninterrupted and interacting with the TERFs.”
Go on then Pink News, show us the video. You've got a tiktok influencer in your piece, where is their video?
The legit liberal argument here is why neo Nazis would consider it useful to do what they did. Is it because KJK is a secret Nazi and was signalling them to come? Is it because they hate trans people and coopted the event? The latter seems much more likely to me, even allowing for KJK's conservative, populist, playing all sides position. Her position is an obvious problem, but it's not the same as being a Nazi sympathiser.
If Roblogic can't back up their comment that the MSM called "PP is a fascist" or "Feminists are Nazis" how about you do. I notice you're asking for evidence at 1.4 because comments counter your view yet you are santioning, by agreement, misinformation and disinformation . As you say "Weird fucking times"
I notice you're asking for evidence at 1.4 because comments counter your view yet you are santioning, by agreement, misinformation and disinformation
You cannot make shit up about my motivations. If you do, I will moderate.
There are other ways to make your point here without thinking you can mindread. For instance, you could say that you think it's unfair that Roblogic got to make an inaccurate claim and you didn't (with and explanation). But you can't make declaratory statements about and author/mod's views and motivations when you don't know what they are.
I'm pointing this out because it's becoming a habit here and it has to stop (for obvious reasons). Please acknowledge that you have read and understood. I'm happy to clarify anything if asked.
Yes Weka I acknowledge your pre-moderation. In my honest opinion you have not evenly moderated on this topic. You, of course, will claim you have.
None of this would be necessary if you had, as has been asked for a long time, allowed a "Daily GC Debate" like the "Open Mike" or "Daily Review" Then it would be much less likely some of us would get triggered by lies and misinformation and then hooked into a debate we don't belong in I believe it would save you a substantial amount of moderating time.
It’s not about allowing a daily GC debate, it’s about the work involved in doing that, and whether it’s best for the site. Last year it was mooted, to keep OM clear of gender/sex debate, but at that time it wasn’t happening on a daily basis so I didn’t see the need.
A few weeks ago it was raised again, and it’s something I have been thinking about for a while, but it looks to me like what’s happened since then is that there are less gender/sex comments in OM and people are continuing conversations from previous days’ threads instead. This seems a good thing to me.
allowed a “Daily GC Debate” like the “Open Mike” or “Daily Review” Then it would be much less likely some of us would get triggered by lies and misinformation and then hooked into a debate we don’t belong in I believe it would save you a substantial amount of moderating time.
The idea wasn’t to ghetto-ise GC debate into a single post, it was to set up a dedicated post for anyone to talk about any aspect of the gender/sex wars (I have also considered doing some dedicated posts on GC topics, but that’s a different thing).
What you seem to be saying is that some people here should take their politics somewhere else, and that’s just not going to happen. Especially not in an election year. I won’t ghetto-ise GCs any more than I would TRAs. It’s against the ethos of the site.
In terms of being triggered, that’s happening on both sides. I can only suggest learning how to step back and then re-engage from a place of evidenced-based robust debate. I made this suggestion to a GC person a few days ago, in case you think I am being unfair.
Any lies and misinformation on TS, on any topic, get dealt with in two ways. One is by commenters holding other commenters to account. The other is by moderation. The first is preferable, because that’s how informed debate happens and because it lessens the mod workload. What’s happened in DR here is a really good example of that working well.
If you see any lies being told, you are free to do a reply comment to me with a link and a brief explanation of what the lie is, and I will run my moderator eye over it.
You challenged, I responded, you reject the evidence (or my interpretation thereof). That is your perogative, I suppose. Everyone brings their own perspective. My original comment was simply an observation of MSM hypocrisy around certain narratives.
There was a Nazi group, New Zealandia, who came to support Posie at Albert Park. And let's face it, your group here are trans exclusionary. Doesn't sound like hate speech to me, just reasonable descriptors of some attendees. Hate speech is stuff like "trans men should be sterilised" and "of course autogynephiles also exhibit other paraphilia, like pedophilia" (Posie Parker).
You are aware that quite a few of the gender critical right are literally Nazis right? As in believers in facism?
And because intersectionality is, of course, bullshit woke ideology, there's no shades of grey here. They're either what I arbitrarily a Nazi, or they're not. And to be honest, I don't want to share a bathroom or a safe space with Nazis.
If only we had a theory to describe how people's identities are comprised of more than one aspect. Or, suggested that the mislabelling of minorities by a powerful majority was a bad thing.
You are aware that quite a few of the gender critical right are literally Nazis right? As in believers in facism?
Maybe give us some examples of the literal Nazis who are gender critical. The far right like gender and want it enforced (think Matt Walsh), so I'm curious who you had in mind.
I know about language, and I know that this is based on something that we call the big lie. Do you know the big lie? The big lie was first described by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf. The big lie is such a big lie that ordinary people like us think, ‘Well, that can’t be a lie because I would never tell such a big lie as that. We only lie in small ways.’ The big lie, well there is one big lie going on, and it was begun by men in the early part of the twentieth century. It began when they had an erotic fantasy and they decided they were going to sell us the big lie — and what is the big lie? The big lie is that trans women are women. But they’re not are they? They’re men and we know that.
Last year I watched the video of that woman at Let Women Speak. I know it's hard to credit that someone could be so politically naive as to a) reference Hitler's ideas and b) do so with that idea in some kind of backwards way so that GC people are compared to Hitler and TRAs to Jews, but there it is.
But was there any evidence that she talks and acts like a Nazi apart from that? Someone surely has tracked her work or online presence outside that speech and found pictures of her with Nazis, or agreeing with Nazis.
I also haven't seen anything to suggest she is right wing
Having watched her speech, I think she was just stupid. But I'm open to being wrong. It's entirely possible that she is a Nazi sympathiser and Jew hater. I haven't seen the evidence for that. But good effort, I agree that if she is a Nazi sympathiser then this would be an example of a Nazi being kind of gender critical. Any other examples? You did say "quite a few of the gender critical right are literally Nazis right"
Btw, I'll note that your link doesn't link to the video. I wonder why. It's very unlikely that the woman speaking is a trans exclusionary radical feminist, so I'll take the piece as being firmly entrenched in terf = nazi ideology and not able to parse truth or meaning very well.
I'll take the piece as being firmly entrenched in terf = nazi ideology and not able to parse truth or meaning very well.
I beg to differ that understanding there's a significant overlap between the elements, beliefs and tactics of the gender critical movement and those of facism is sign of subscribing to an ideology.
But we live in a democracy, this a place for open and robust debate, and even reasonable people can strongly disagree from time-to-time.
the 'gender critical movement' is really a hodge podge of different views on gender identity ideology and its main central point is believing the biological sex matters.
People who think there is a significant overlap between the 'GC movement' and fascism either don't understand what the range of GC thought is, or do but choose to ignore and render invisible the large left wing and progressive and feminist gender critical movements.
Terf is a slur and it's been used online to promote some of the worst misogynistic abuse many of us have seen. Leftie TRAs have had this pointed out to them and still won't condemn it. It's basically been sanctioned by the neoliberal left.
if you're not familiar with this then please take a good look
terfisaslur.com/
Anyone using the term terf as a pejorative after seeing that is actively engaging in intentional marginalisation of women and/or is using it for propaganda purposes. Not even the worst of left wing rhetoric against right wing women went there (think Ruth Richardson or Thatcher). But now it is acceptable to target women with sexualised and death violence messaging for political purposes.
Know who else does that? Men's Rights Activists and right to rape men. If terf = nazi, then anti-terfers = MRAs and rapists. See how fucking stupid that is?
I'd like it if 'men in skirts' and autogynephile were banned at The Standard too as disrespectful. The twitter feed of the man who coined that second term 40 years ago is disgustingly transphobic.
'Autogynephile', when used outside research or therapy settings that examine sexual visualisation, is a nasty perjorative. The original researcher claimed autogynephilia, fantasising about having a woman's body for sexual gratification, was a paraphilia, an abnormal, uncontrollable fetishism, and it was the way that trans women attracted to other women developed. Those two research conclusions have since been debunked, but the term has stuck.
Posie Parker is on video claiming autogynephiles exhibit other paraphilia, specifically pedophilia. Yuk, Posie, another lie.
At least TERF is just an acronym for trans exclusionary radical feminists, even if said with a nasty sneer. I do have to confess, I've been using the 'men in skirts' ironically today, but I can control myself if needed.
Who is someone who believes in fascism who is gender critical? What examples do you have of someone with both these views in NZ?
Most gender critical feminists are of course left leaning. The majority of SUFW are Labour/Green voters.
I am not sure what you are talking about other than slinging around some labels like Nazi and fascist. This I think was the point of Roblogics comment that two people who both happen to be women were called Nazis/likened to Adolf Hitler.
Association for Women in Development is an international feminist organisation. As part of its brief, according to Wikipedia, AWID
" coordinates the Observatory on the Universality of Rights (OURs), a collaborative project with over 20 other NGOs, that aims "to monitor, analyse, share information and do collaborative advocacy on […] anti-rights initiatives threatening international and regional human rights systems" from a feminist perspective. OURs' working group includes Planned Parenthood, the World Council of Churches, Muslims for Progressive Values and other organizations."
As part of this monitoring, AWID reported in 2021 on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which has had concerted attacks on progressive feminist positions by state and political lobby groups who are trying to roll back womens' rights internationally.
From this report I quote specifically on attacks at Commission meetings on trans rights (point 3 of the report):
"This year’s CSW saw an alarming increase in the presence of anti-trans feminists. A parallel event, “Defending Women’s Sex Based Rights” was organised by trans-exclusionary feminists associated with the Women’s Human Rights Campaign to promote their Declaration on Women’s Sex-based Rights. The crux of their campaign asserts that trans people – trans women in particular – are a threat to cisgender women and endanger women-only spaces. The event used images depicting gender-based violence to leverage false accusations against trans women. The event also used images of trans people, evidently without their consent, invalidating their identities. Similar to other anti-rights actors, it becomes clear that the Campaign engages in sensationalism, and fear-mongering to get their messages across, for example invoking sexual trauma of cisgender women to paint trans people as a threat. Trans-exclusionary feminists flooded the Zoom chats of many events, especially those focused on sex workers and LGBTIQ rights, with the Declaration and related messages. They also claimed they were being censored, a narrative commonly used by trans-exclusionary feminists and anti-rights actors more broadly, despite their views being given space on many mainstream media platforms."
Here is an international womens' rights organisation vitally concerned that attacks on transgender rights framed by a section of gender-critical feminists negatively impacts on womens' rights overall.
This is feminists worried about other feminists denying trans rights with messaging that will be eerily familiar to readers of The Standard.
"The crux of their campaign asserts that trans people – trans women in particular – are a threat to cisgender women and endanger women-only spaces."
This interpretation assumes a lot:
Women's single-sex spaces are only about safety from physical assault;
There is no value in single-sex provision in terms of accommodation of particular needs, dignity or privacy;
Men with gender identities are not included in women's single-sex provisions because they are transgender – rather than that they are men;
Inclusion and equality is not already in place when those with gender identities are included in the expectation that they will use the provisions and accommodations for whatever categories are provided to which they belong.
What is being demanded is exclusion from that societal expectation so that boundaries for single-sex spaces can be broken.
"This is feminists worried about other feminists denying trans rights with messaging that will be eerily familiar to readers of The Standard."
It might be a strange notion, but women – including some who call themselves feminists – are not a hive mind. There are plenty of organisations that have aims that are contrary to their chosen names. eg. Taxpayers Union
"There are plenty of organisations that have aims that are contrary to their chosen names". If 'Let Women Speak' doesn't consider the opinion of the 'Association of Women in Development' to be women speaking, then it certainly doesn't live up to a claim of speaking for all of us. Exactly like the misnamed Taxpayers' Union, so thanks for making that point.
I really can't understand your toilet usage paragraph. Having 'a feeling' that trans women in NZ public toilets and change spaces are not 'right', or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it', is just not enough for me as an argument.
I absolutely agree that everyone using those spaces should BE safe. Please show the data that trans women are a significant threat in NZ public toilets and change areas to other users. To help, I've calculated the number of NZ's trans women population for you.
Stats NZ reported that 4.2% of adult NZers identified as LGBT+ and 0.8% as transgender or non-binary. Of these, 33.2% identified themselves as male-to-female. In 2020, with a resident population of 4.9 mi, and 87.8% aged 15+ this gave
4,900,000 x 0.878 x 0.008 x 0.332 = 11,400 trans women, or 'men in skirts' as they have been so charmingly identified on this site.
Currently, access in NZ of transwomen to toilets and change rooms in public spaces, gyms, schools, etc is either open and unpoliced, or is set on a case by case basis depending on the organisation/club/school administering the space. In other words, no one is stopping trans women accessing many of these facilities, so we already have a mostly-integrated system.
How many cases of intimidation or violence by these 11,400 transwomen in toilet/changing rooms were reported or prosecuted around toilets and change areas in the last 5 years? To get the whole picture, what are the stats for intimidation and violence experienced by trans women using either mens' toilets or womens' toilets? And, of course, your data must also include criminal behaviour by 'unskirted' men in such 'women-safe' spaces as a benchmark.
When you can give me validated data, or point to multiple media-reported examples relevant to our own country that trans women commonly physically or verbally attack other users in 'women-safe' spaces, then I will give some respect to your feelings about the dangerousness of NZ trans women.
It's important to note that I don't expect there to be no examples – that would hold trans women to an inhuman standard of good behaviour. The critical data is not 0 cases, but the proportion in those 11,400 trans women who offend in such circumstances.
"I really can't understand your toilet usage paragraph. Having 'a feeling' that trans women in NZ public toilets and change spaces are not 'right', or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it', is just not enough for me as an argument."
Which paragraph is this?
I have not referred to 'a feeling', not 'right' or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it' – so, you are either misunderstanding me, or setting up a framework of objections that I haven't made in order to refute them.
"I absolutely agree that everyone using those spaces should BE safe. Please show the data that trans women are a significant threat in NZ public toilets and change areas to other users. "
I have not claimed they are a threat. I support their safety. Men should make all men welcome and safe in their single-sex provisions – including those with gender identities.
"To help, I've calculated the number of NZ's trans women population for you."
Unnecessary – but thank you. This calculation will continue to be somewhat hampered as both NZ Statistics and the latest NZ Census are reluctant to distinguish between sex and identity.
"When you can give me validated data, or point to multiple media-reported examples relevant to our own country that trans women commonly physically or verbally attack other users in 'women-safe' spaces, then I will give some respect to your feelings about the dangerousness of NZ trans women."
Once again, it is not the ‘dangerousness of NZ trans women’ that excludes them from single-sex provisions – it is their male sex. As well as excluding men who have gender identities, I exclude my father, my grandfathers, my brother, my partner of over thirty years, and my three adult sons. Not because I think they are predatory or dangerous – but because they are men.
And here is a very pertinent consideration: All those men self-excluded because they respect women, and have consideration for them.
Along with single-sex safety boundaries – BASED on risk assessment statistics – is the value single-sex spaces hold for women and girls of privacy and dignity.
Consent is also an issue.
Women cannot consent for others in shared single-sex spaces – eg. I cannot claim the men in my life are trustworthy – so everyone should allow them in. In terms of single-sex provision, many women are saying it should be maintained by SEX. In an individual private life, individual women are able to consent according to their own perspectives, but that automatic dismantling does not apply in public areas.
For someone who wants (further) data collated on harm – where is your data regarding the harm to men with gender identities using their sexed based provisions?
And when you do collate it, then we can weight it against the provision for other vulnerable males who are also at risk, and the existing risk assessment evidence that determined single-sex provision was of benefit in terms of reducing risk for women. Oh yes, and those other aspects of privacy, dignity and consent.
This request from tWiggle falls in to trap we have seen before of requesting data before something happens rather than being able to extrapolate from human behaviour occuring now, and back into the mists of time, with male/female violence.
To me this is unconsionable that a woman/women has to be a fall guy, excuse the phrase, before caution is acted on. So how many women who are distressed, injured, killed in a so-called womens safe space before we say 'oh dear…perhaps we should do something?' 10, 20 one in each country or one in each large city in each country?
For instance we don't say to zoos 'We know lions are dangerous and you want to import one but let's try having it out roaming around in the wild in our cities first', or wait until agricultural pests get established before saying 'oh dear we knew mealie bugs were dangerous to crops and maybe we shouldn't have let them in.'
We work on the concept of dangerousness by sex and work to mitigate risks.
As humans we are able to, and do, carefully extrapolate from a given situation to a another situation.
The point is that fully intact males will be able to enter women's safe spaces. They need not even be on the road to transition, they need not even have a female changed birth certicate. We need to look at worst case scenarios and work our way back to a point of safety for women.
If a nation moves to a position of including all as equal citizens regardless of difference (for example gender), which is human rights centred, there is still the issue of public safety.
If it is decided that gender trumps sex, then there is increased risk from those born male to biological females that requires counter-veiling policy.
Denying gender ID placement/access to women spaces to those who are seen as a risk (as we screen places such as schools).
Women refuges – allowing them to exclude on grounds of safety, as they see fit.
Allowing sports organisations to determine fair competition and participation rules based on the well being of the sport and those of it
Allowing women's groups to exclude those not born female as they choose (as we allow religious groups their sovereignty).
Establish a group that focuses on the provision of safe spacing. and which provides funds for this purpose.
You are conflating equality with same treatment, which is not equality – it is defaulting to a universal concept.
Provision for different needs – ie. age, mobility, sex etc so that they have equal ACCESS to education, health, legislative consideration, employment, housing etc. is the outcome that is sought.
Shanreagh. Did you not see the bit where we already have trans women access to womens' toilets in many places? It's happening now. It's been happening for years.
that would be transsexual women who by and large pass. Not any male who says they are a woman. Trans woman now means any male who self-IDs. They don't even have to transition. It also means men who cross dress for sexual arousal and then masturbate in women's spaces. There's a whole porn genre of that.
Is this in NZ? I refuse to see anything pulled from the big wide world if it doesn't come from here. Why should I be exposed to your schlock material designed for outrage? You’re feeding me this chaff as a distraction. Where's your kiwi facts? Fact up! Not schlock up!
women in other countries matter to me, I guess they don’t to you?
But you seem to have missed the point. I was demonstrating that trans woman no longer means someone like Georgina Beyer who has fully transitioned and presents as a woman. When TW meant that, there was no problem sharing women’s toilets etc. That’s no longer the situation.
What I showed you isn’t schlock. It’s men being sexual aggressors in women’s spaces. How many incidents would make it meaningful to take women seriously?
TBH, weka, these incidents don't seem to make a blind bit of difference in terms of addressing the harms of breaking single-sex boundaries in provisions for women.
And to be clear – women should just be able to say "No". And have that "No" respected.
Respected by other women, legislators, policy writers, men with gender identities who seek access to those provisions, allies of both sexes that support that access.
It should not be a case of we will review this change after:
n instances of voyeurism, exhibitionism, verbal abuse, physical or sexual assault.
the point of that in your face stuff is to show tWiggle what ‘trans woman’ means now. If I had more time I’d post the trans umbrella, the history of J Yaniv, that video from years ago of the trans identified male who looked just like a young man, in the group of trans people interrupting a meeting at a women’s book shop. Or any number of other events where TW are actually blokes not transsexuals like Georgina Beyer. Because whatever tWiggle thinks about the TIMs, there’s no way tWiggle can claim that all those blokes have been calling themselves TW and using the women’s loos all these years. Someone would have noticed.
tWiggle: – "Is this in NZ? I refuse to see anything pulled from the big wide world if it doesn't come from here. Why should I be exposed to your schlock material designed for outrage. Feed me this chaff as a distraction. Whete's your kiwi facts."
Yes I know. I worked with two transwomen years ago. They used our womens toilets in our offices. They always dressed as females. Everyone knew they were males but they had done the 'hard yards' as it were to move to their new identity by following the procedures that were then laid out to change birth sex.
This is totally different though.
Following on from the NO Debate Self ID concept it will allow fully intact, non or minimally transitioning/ed males access to women's safe spaces.
I fail to see why women should be the ones to cater for this? Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males inot thier spaces. Or why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built always with the over riding principle that women are to be kept safe.
Do you have answers to these questions tWiggle please?
1 Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males into their spaces.
2 Why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built?
No-one seems to want to answer these questions? Could it be that men are seen as dangerous?
that was a five minute twitter search. This stuff has been normalised, I see it reported on twitter fairly often.
So, you either know this is going on and sanction it. Or you don't know this is going on and really have no idea what the problems are that women are trying to talk about but are happy to say that TW have always used women's toilets.
The "terminology transition" from “transsexual women” to “transgender women”, so that it now includes unprocessed males, is part of the issue.
There are those on the side of transsexual woman (and thus allow them to identify as transgender women) and those against the access of those with a penis (who also identify as transgender women) into separate women's areas because of the safety issue that could result.
Both are fair positions.
That the UK has problems with safety, despite having a transition process rather than self ID is concerning – given we have gone further and closer to self ID. That said the UK has allowed greater access to women's spaces for those who identify as women than we have.
They (current government) now seem set on moving to a women's birth sex ID criteria for access to separate spaces for females – which would be a tragedy for transsexual transgender women there.
We could ourselves move to allow discrimination against transgender women with a penis, or at least against those who chose self ID rather than go through a process over time. That would reduce risk somewhat.
They seem set on moving to a women’s birth sex ID criteria for access to separate spaces for females – which would be a tragedy for transsexual transgender women there.
UK Labour have just done a policy position shift to support women’s sex based rights (in some areas at least, this is in the context of hospital wards).
sukitransgirl had multiple accounts that I viewed on different platforms when they were up.
The screenshot above was available as a video without a sensitivity warning on their Twitter account.
It seemed to be an actual women's toilet facility, as an older women is seen washing her hands and exiting without noticing the act, but later on two young girls come in and are startled when they see what is going on. They exit fairly quickly.
As I said Suki Trans was on multiple public sites with these posts, not just porn sites:
I can’t prove it is retrospect, but here are some of the broken links now that the accounts have been removed that I retrieved from my history:
I didn't download the video, because frankly, there was just too much on the accounts, and I found it hard to even watch for confirmation. But there were many videos of this person filming themselves masturbating it what clearly looks like female single-sex spaces spaces, while they were being used by females of all ages.
Japan's $20 billion US p/a porn industry is the world's largest and produces enormous volumes of stomach-turning voyeur material, anime and manga child porn, and abuse/fantasy content that's beyond belief.
"Japan's $20 billion US p/a porn industry is the world's largest and produces enormous volumes of stomach-turning voyeur material, anime and manga child porn, and abuse/fantasy content that's beyond belief."
You suggested that the screenshot was only available on pornsites. I just clarified that it was on easily accessible platforms without sensitive content warnings, and gave you the broken links as confirmation I had viewed it. Non-consenting women and girls were part of the video I saw and described.
If examples are not able to be provided of harm, because they are also used to generate income via pornsites, and acknowledgement of harm or imposition on girls and women requires some form of evidence, then this is going to hinder any acknowledgement of imposition or impact on girls
Once again: Why are men unable to accommodate males with gender identities in their single-sex spaces?
"Cherry picking from that content is disingenuous."
BTW, if you do go and look at Pornhub there will be a significant difference in the amount of material you will be able to find of men identifying as women, filming themselves exposed or masturbating in women's bathrooms, compared to the number of women doing the same.
Because there is a biological difference in the prevalence of such behaviour in communal spaces.
Molly, do you routinely trust everything that is flicked your way on this topic? Personally, as I said, I do not want to look at nasty images that may be posed, faked, or taken out of context, as the Japanese porn. There are 8 billion people on the planet, and connectivity allows access to the imaginings of most of them. These images are anecdotal evidence, not hard data.
Did you see the AWID report section stating that faked images of trans people were presented in the alternate session organised by trans-exclusionary feminists at the UN Council on the Status of Women? They also presented images of trans people taken out of context to suit their narrative.
I'd think hard if I were you about whether some of your mates are doctoring or miscontexting the images they send you.
Molly, do you routinely trust everything that is flicked your way on this topic?
No. But I will give it at least a cursory look before determining that I think it is bollocks.
Personally, as I said, I do not want to look at nasty images that may be posed, faked, or taken out of context, as the Japanese porn. There are 8 billion people on the planet, and connectivity allows access to the imaginings of most of them. These images are anecdotal evidence, not hard data.
Did you see the AWID report section stating that faked images of trans people were presented in the alternate session organised by trans-exclusionary feminists at the UN Council on the Status of Women? They also presented images of trans people taken out of context to suit their narrative.
George Orwell, 1984: "“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
I'd think hard if I were you about whether some of your mates are doctoring or miscontexting the images they send you.
This might be unusual in your neck of the woods, but I don't have mates sending me porn…. I also deliberately choose not to put contentious images on this platform, even though I have seen quite a few, because I think it will derail the discussion – which is frail as it is.
However, I had seen the account that posted the video that provided the screenshot in question, not on a pornsite but on both Instagram and Twitter without any sensitive content warning, which meant it could be viewed by minors. I was probably not the only one who reported it, which was why those accounts are no longer active.
Of course, you can choose not to believe my personal account is real, but it's there for others to add to the information provided and make up their own minds.
Actually I get images like this everyday on my twitter feed and they are often from concerned individuals (M/F) who want help in reporting the sites.
Mostly I do this.
So the slur that women who are concerned somehow find their way to Japanese porn sites is ridiculous.
Recently we had a 'person' threatening to kill prominent women. I am not sure if this was taken down or not. I know I tried to report it.
Often known women campaingers get this stuff sent to them as a form of harassment along with signs saying 'suck my trans dick' or C**t. Some of these signs were in evidence at Albert Park on 25/3.
Welcome to the world of women fighting this stuff.
It is males who are the most significat users of porn (four times more likely than females)
To me it is more likely to be males who access and send this stuff on. The number of women who have received 'dick pics' shows that this is more likely to be males doing this. NB Women don't have d**ks'
Could you please answer these two questions I asked you?
1 Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males into their spaces.
2 Why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built?
These are serious questions and in my expereince when women meet and the topic turns to trans issues, these are usually the first couple of questions asked.
If these could be answered it would take the issue well along the way to looking at solutions.
It seems that many in the trans world are intent on making us believe white is black or 2+2 = 5. It seems we first have to agree to a biological impossibility before anything happens.
Transsexuals have been accommodated for many years – despite the fact that this accommodation may have meant some women excluded themselves for reasons of belief, privacy, dignity or perceived safety.
So, there was already a cost to women and girls of such accommodation.
Transsexuals made up only 5-13% of transwomen in this study from 2019. (Table 1)
Also Shanreagh, if you think the self-id legislation will open floodgates of 'men in skirts' molesting girls in the toilets, then you are quite simply wrong. Ireland, also with 5 mi people and probably a similar size of trans population, passed a similar law in 2015. Around 200 people a year there apply for self-id 100 of whom are 'men in skirts'. One hundred, while thousands of Irish trans women are happy to continue with their lives as they are. Does Ireland have a trans woman violence problem? I haven't heard anything, do you know something I don't?
Sure, have a strong opinion, no problem. There is plenty plenty of your material to wade through on this site. But nobody can try to change the laws, or my opinion, without hard facts and a position that is open to critique.
I've been reading on this topic since I came here naive to the issue. The more factual information I read, the less sympathetic I become to the opinions of your group. Your ideas need challenging because many don't stand up to scrutiny, as I've found by reading around trans woman in prisons, puberty blocking in adolescence and the co-opting of trans issues by the UK Conservatives and the US Republicans.
Remember, I really knew little or nothing about this topic two months ago. I am better informed now, but not by you as a group. The posts on this issue I have read here are long on feelings, very short on analysis, and have been pretty much fact-free. Discussion I have tried to open neutrally at least three times on areas of interest have been mostly hmmed or ignored when inconvenient to your views.
I'll finish by saying I cannot stomach Kellie-Jay whatsmaname. I find her a smug, dangerously-smart demagogue and provocateur. She's looking for reaction, not for debate. I feel her opinions on my country and on Jacinda Arden to be knowingly ignorant, and really quite repulsive.
"The posts on this issue I have read here are long on feelings, very short on analysis, and have been pretty much fact-free. "
Your comments fit into this description – are you aware?
You've been asked to providence the evidence of harm to men with gender identities who use the provisions allocated to their sex.
Could you at least do that.
Data from Ireland, and other captured countries are going to be hard to collate and assess for a couple of reasons:
1. Violence against women and girls is often ignored, dismissed or not considered violence and so is not recorded;
2. In countries where men such as Barbie Kardashian are referred to as women in media, and official documentation evidence is going to be hard to recognise when it is recorded, and collated. (BTW, that is a feature not a bug)
My comments are long on facts. I reference international reports as a starting point. I did have those Ireland stats from their government reporting page, but couldn't find it readily, otherwise you would have seen the link. I reference Stats NZ. In the past I've put up interesting articles to open up discussion on trans issues and public toilets in Victoria, which was balanced and went to an effort to look for solutions. I've linked to an interview with a cool kiwi trans woman netball coach with heaps of mana in her field. Guess what, no discussion from your group.
I asked you people to confirm a story in PP's pre-visit video before NZ, regarding a girl harassed by a trans student in a NZ school bathroom who was then suspended when she complained. I went searching on line and found a faintly related story from many years ago, with none of the outcomes PP claimed. Not one of your group replied to my genuine request if this was the event PP referred to. I took your deafening silence to mean PP just made a story up, conflated stories from other countries to suit her mean-trans narrative.
I put up an article from AWID. Your group did not reply to me directly to open a debate, but took apart the language between yourselves to somehow invalidate this report of gender-critical feminists drowning out valid debate. You know what concerned me most in that trans section? The fact that false information was presented, that trans peoples' images were pasted without correct attribution or context to create an anti trans narrative. You call yourselves left wing feminists, but you ignored the chilling earlier parts of the report on rightwing attacks against womens' rights internationally by state and religious actors. Because the way you write, all, all your roads lead to a penis in a bathroom.
You and others most often reference that unimpeachable source Twitter, Posie Parker, and the UK infowars journal, The Critic. In that, I admit, well-written article the other day on safety threats to trans women in the UK, why were only trans murders and anti-trans hate speech mentioned? Maybe because the stats on other types of violence against UK trans women are shocking? But hey, we don't know, because, boom, bang, distraction achieved. And you congratulate yourself on your rebuttal to someone on the strength of this article? Really?
More chaff from you, now I'm the person who has to provide data to debunk some mythical data you have yet to present? Please, at least I make the effort.
1 Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males into their spaces.
2 Why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built?
Just a point your views on LWS seem to be imbued with personal animus towards the founder rather than a considered look at what her motivation were in bringing up and pushing back on the excesses of the self ID process. I see this as a weakness in your argument. It may even be an extension of the old trope about men not liking women who they feel may be smart especially if they are too good looking or not good looking enough (ie lose: lose) .
There is any amount of material about this and many women have had to battle against it in everyday life.
Do you understand the concept of women's safe spaces?
Do you see the value in protecting women's safe spaces?
If not why not?
Do you feel women should have been granted the right to vote in NZ in 1893?
Are men able to fully represent the views of women on women's safe spaces?
I see this whole non acceptance of womens safe spaces as test of sincerity about suffrage (M/F). That is the ability of women to express concern, and be listened to about that concern without other extraneous views.
Geez Shanreagh, all those men questions. Do you think I'm a 'bio' man, or a trans woman? Hahaha! Surely I must get extra girlie points for having fulfilled my womanly function by procreating. Only once, mind.
…'without extraneous views'… Is that coded language for 'ideas I find too uncomfortable to debate'?
You know Posie Parker's setting up a political party on the back of her mosh pit squash in Albert Park? Not to mention she got a million UK ladies to complain to the management of NZ about our poor service.
She thinks our country is dire for women. Posie is from England, where police rape and abuse women without consequence for years, almost no other rape cases are brought to law, and where women can't walk down the street without being harassed by men for a smile, then sworn at. We're so much worse off here.
Once again, she is a demagogue and a provocateur, not even a feminist. She got her funding to visit us and look down her nose at us from CPAC, which really likes to clamp down on womens' and trans' and voters' rights.
But boy, she sure is mean on those penises in womens' bathrooms.
School leadership initially told the transgender student she could use the gender-neutral toilets, but she successfully campaigned to access the girls' halfway through the school year.
Laura said it was then that she spoke to the school's management, voicing her concerns for her and other students' safety.
"And at that point I was like 'No this isn't right'," she says in the video.
"As a girl I feel uncomfortable with a guy being in the same toilets [as me]. There are already gender-neutral toilets in the school.
"Girls going through puberty and stuff, it can be quite stressful and embarrassing. And knowing that there could be a guy that could walk in, it's a little bit terrifying to think about that."
Laura says her concerns fell on deaf ears, and the principal told her if she had a problem with being in the same toilet block as the other student, she could use the unisex toilets herself.
"And that's when I thought 'hold on a minute. I'm at an all-girls' school with these girls' bathrooms and you're telling me if I don't want to use them I can go to a unisex toilet?' It doesn't make sense. It really doesn't."
Dear Molly, thanks for finally confirming Posie Parker flat out lied. Yes, this is the reporting from 2017, when it was raised by the Family First party during election year, about an even earlier event. I think my article came from Stuff.
In our NZ 'true-fact' story, a trans student enrolled in an all-girls' school, presumably as she was legally entitled to under human rights legislation. The lovely girlie in the article was firstly, horrified, frankly horrified at having a trans at her school. But the straw that broke the camel's back was learning that, after a while the trans student petitioned, and was granted permission to use the female toilets, for what ever reason, perhaps because the unisex loo was far from class.
In 'true-fact' NZ, lovely girlie spread her dismay across social media. Sadly for the 'alternative-fact' Posie narrative, there was no weepy showdown in the toilet cubicle between lovely girlie and evil penis trans, and no suspension, unless she got one for her social media posting. At the time I had read a story reported from somewhere like Utah. I'm sorry, it was a passing read, so I can't verify it, but I do remember it was pretty close to PP's 'alt' version.
In the newspaper article, trans groups criticised Family First for trying to make political gold from this thin straw, saying the whole issue had been well sorted out by constructive mediation at the time.
I only slightly apologise for the snarky tone. The first time around narrating this story, back whenever, I wrote in a factual, straightforward way. Second time round I find myself liking lovely girlie's behavour even less. Let alone ol' Posie's lying.
tWiggle. have you seen the LWS event from Belfast?
It was able to take place because of competent policing in Belfast that kept the protesters at bay. This meant that we were able to experience what usually happens at these events. The testimonies from the women who spoke were moving, For some it was the first time they had publicly spoken on their events of concern.
I feel her opinions on my country and on Jacinda Arden to be knowingly ignorant, and really quite repulsive.
Thanks Molly…..of course these are KJm’s views.
She is entitled to them.
These are none springing to mind. She gave as good as she got when pushing back on the misinformation promulgated by Govt Ministers. Did you actually watch the events of 25/3? KJM did not speak, she was not able to.
NZ then, and with the fluffing around by our PM on what is a woman have put NZ into somewhat of a world laughing stock. Recently there was an event planned where NZ children would shoot so-called feral cats. This has also joined the OMG what are they doing down there?
Some people have taken issue with her views
"no women has a penis"
"no man has a vagina".
To say otherwise is to deny biology.
Rather than denying biology isn't it better to accept biology and work from there, hence the queries about separate spaces for transwomen?
Shanreagh, yes the Brits are animal mad. They worry more about saving feral cats that damage native species in a country on the other side of the world or saving racing horses than they worry about the almost one in three children living in poverty in their own country. And that was for 2021-22, while food inflation is running at 19% for the last 12 months, so it'll be higher now.
Their government seems to ignore this completely, as do the press, the well-off, and the animal-mad, of course. The government was going to cut certain school meals a couple of years ago. It's only because a popular footballer ran a personal campaign that school meals were retained. Good thing, otherwise there would be probably be little human corpses littering the streets of England.
Your comments are long, and you've connected to analysis not data.
"I asked you people to confirm a story in PP's pre-visit video before NZ, regarding a girl harassed by a trans student in a NZ school bathroom who was then suspended when she complained. I went searching on line and found a faintly related story from many years ago, with none of the outcomes PP claimed. Not one of your group replied to my genuine request if this was the event PP referred to. I took your deafening silence to mean PP just made a story up, conflated stories from other countries to suit her mean-trans narrative."
OK. As one of "you people" I posted the article below the video as I thought it was the one she referred to. Kellie Jay Keen made a video of it back when it happened several years ago, but you'll have to trawl through to find out the details, as it was a while ago.
I linked to a Herald article that referenced a video, which I believe is the one that KJK watched and references:
"More chaff from you, now I'm the person who has to provide data to debunk some mythical data you have yet to present? Please, at least I make the effort."
I've provided plenty of referenced links from medical sources that you have not acknowledged or made comment about.
Many of us take time to answer your questions, while you bypass any attempt at answering those asked of you.
"Remember, I really knew little or nothing about this topic two months ago. I am better informed now, but not by you as a group. The posts on this issue I have read here are long on feelings, very short on analysis, and have been pretty much fact-free. Discussion I have tried to open neutrally at least three times on areas of interest have been mostly hmmed or ignored when inconvenient to your views."
You don't need to analyse reality.
Sex is binary and immutable.
Gender identity is a belief system, and I remain an atheist.
I read your linked article, and found it wanting. Apparently, others did too. We stated why.
That whole 2 immutable sexes/genders thingy is clearly the bedrock of your faith. Not much point in arguing with you over your religious beliefs, you're right. I'll leave you to that.
Still keen on any info you have showing how dangerous trans women are in ladies' bathrooms. Remember, NZ data, NZ stories, because NZ trans women have been using these for years. Why NZ? Because you and I live here, because our society differs from others in its experiences and the way it’s grown.
"Dear Molly, thanks for finally confirming Posie Parker flat out lied. Yes, this is the reporting from 2017, when it was raised by the Family First party during election year, about an even earlier event. I think my article came from Stuff."
I have posted the Family First video after searching for it FOR YOU, which may add clarity. But I'm not going to do that further research through Kellie Jay Keen's videos to find her original one, because frankly you have the capability to do it, and I don't understand what the value of this is in terms of the conversation to hand.
"I only slightly apologise for the snarky tone. The first time around narrating this story, back whenever, I wrote in a factual, straightforward way. Second time round I find myself not liking lovelie girlie's behavour very much. Let alone ol' Posie's lying."
I don't find your tone particularly snarky, just unconvincing in argument, and concerned with trivialities rather than the impact of legislative and policy changes.
You appear to take the position that significant changes to single-sex provisions are nothing to worry about. And if there was something to worry about, then prove it. And for you, proving it requires official documentation which is hampered by conflation of sex and gender identity in reporting and recording, but who cares?
Eg. We have a report (that I have to chase up using OIA) about sexual assault in NZ women's prisons:
Now, there was a later conviction of a "woman" for sexual assault in the Department of Corrections reports, but they were from another prison. And an OIA has to be submitted to see if this conviction relates to the article, because there is no transparency in the data in relation to recording gender identity.
This is true of many of the government available reports.
Teenage girls in schools, going through puberty and dealing with the usual sexist behaviour of teenage boys, will not have their incidents of embarrassment, shame and intimidation recorded in any official record when they lose their single-sex provisions. They will however, understand that their feelings are not important compared to that of a teenage boy with a gender identity.
That whole 2 immutable sexes/genders thingy is clearly the bedrock of your faith. Not much point in arguing with you over your religious beliefs, you're right. I'll leave you to that.
Ah, I see. We've probably discovered the basis of our apposite perspectives here.
I base my understanding in reality and truth. There are only two sexes for humans, and they cannot be changed.
If you believe otherwise, then perhaps that could be the sole topic of discussion. Because I'm sure it'll be a doozy.
Still keen on any info you have showing how dangerous trans women are in ladies' bathrooms. Remember, NZ data, NZ stories, because NZ trans women have been using these for years. Why NZ? Because you and I live here, because our society differs from others in its experiences and the way it’s grown.
As it has been pointed out MANY times, previous accommodation of transsexuals in women single-sex spaces did take place. As has also been pointed out, this accommodation probably came at a cost to women who self-excluded for reasons of their own. HOWEVER, this accommodation should not be expected to expand to accommodate all men who declare a gender identity, because that cohort is much more diverse, and far greater in number.
The reason that I will not provide you with the data that you demand is because the demand comes after you fail to provide data to support your demand for the breaking of single-sex boundaries. That data will also be impossible to find, because no-one has collated it. So, we are left with a discussion that looks at the costs and benefits – and you seem unable to have that discussion on that level.
Sorry, who asked the first question? As far as I can parse your logic thread, you refuse to enter a fact-based debate about safety in toilets because I first have to justify trans womens' access to those spaces on a theoretical level? Why?
Based on 'truth and reality' I don't need to justify the theoretical basis because it already happens. It's been happening for years in NZ. I don't need to pass your theory test to earn the right to debate you because we're already talking about real life! Goodness gracious!
Let's flip your request on its head. What's your theoretical justification for excluding NZ trans women from womens' toilets? After all, you are taking a right away from people that they currently have and use.
So here we get to the nitty gritty. You are not talking about 'usual' trans women, but bad faith men who self-id in order to prey on people in womens' toilets. Let's walk through this logically.
In Ireland, 100 trans women a year take up their self-id option. There is a vetting process, this is not just a rubber-stamp.
Do they all then rush off an attack women in toilets once they get their ticket? No, because Ireland would have amended its laws in the 7 years since. I can guarantee we would have heard about such a 'cock-up', so to speak, ad infinitum from the anti-trans movement.
So that debunks the rather shaky theory that 'self-id will lead inevitably to hundreds of trans women exposing penises to real women in the toilets'. Of course, you are free to provide any hard data to the contrary.
I understand your fixation on safety in public spaces. I am completely for toilets being safe spaces, free of harassment and assault. After all, I use them too (although I've found art gallery toilets to be a cut above the usual).
However, the simple fact is, if anyone, male, transgender, or female, wants to attack someone in a womens' toilet, verbally or physically, all they need to do is to walk in and do it. If they're a cis-male, they can even dress as a woman to do so, and some have. But the crucial point here NO SELF-ID IS NEEDED for someone out to do such harm.
As well, safety is not the same as comfort. We live in the real world. Sometimes we will feel uncomfortable around others, because they're loud and in a group, or they're dressed to make a provocative statement, or they're from a different ethnic background and we're unsure of their body language, or they smell bad because they live on the streets.
That may happen in public toilets, places where some already feel uncomfortable or ashamed about bodily functions. I support the right to expect safety there, but I do not support your demand to feel comfortable 100% of the time in public toilets and equivalent shared spaces. It's an impossible demand from facilities shared by diverse communities.
Your personal rights do not trump others' rights to be who they are, and to relieve themselves safely. That's not my opinion, that's the entry fee you pay for living in our society. We share these spaces. We do not control them for our sole benefit. You have said again and again you do not speak for all women. You can say that again.
In my opinion, if you feel threatened by the patriarchy, by penises, by male violence don't side with the patriarchy in scapegoating the transgender community, as you have been doing in all this discussion. Don't demand transgender men and women all to be angels, they're only human, and will have the usual range of arseholes and evil-doers, like the rest of us.
Let women speak never claimed to "speak for all of us"
If representatives of Women in Development had have turned up in Albert Park, they would have been given a chance to speak. But of course, if they had have been there, they wouldn't have got their chance. They would have had to leave quickly because of the violence and intimadation going on.
No womens group can claim to speak for all women.
How many cases of trans women, who are maled bodied attacking women in toilets and change rooms would you tolerate?
Its not just attacking women. By allowing gender self id, you have made it legitimate for trans women (men) to be in womens spaces with women and girls, naked and in a state of undress. Are you o.k. with a maled bodied person being naked in a change room with his penis out around women and girls?
You see the gender self ID law has just made two sexual offences legal. Voyerism and exhibitionism. Any male bodied person (trans women) can now claim they have a female identity, so they are allowed to be in a change room displaying their genitals and watching other women change.
asking for clarity on the policy that was discussed:
"7.10 Change room arrangements
e. ensure female identifying persons do not enter male change rooms, and male identifying persons do not enter female change rooms;"
Because I thought it was important to determine what the policy was, rather than declare as certain, either of the viewpoints.
To date I have not had a reply – so I'll send again.
This is what I wrote today which is pretty similar to what I sent previously (- I didn't keep a copy):
"Hi,
Could you please clarify whether the phrase "female identifying persons" includes males with female gender identities when it is used in 7.10 (e) of the SLSA-Member-Protection-Policy-6.05.
"7.10 Change room arrangements
e. ensure female identifying persons do not enter male change rooms, and male identifying persons do not enter female change rooms;"
Thank you."
If you have clarification, it'd be great if you could post it. As you can see, I've got nothing so far after three weeks.
Na just the original story where a woman in her 50's was told she was expected to be covered by a towel while undressed in the changing room.
I’m guessing they have changed their rules to cover transgender women in the female changing areas. And is designed to keep the exhibitionists out (but will not stop any voyeurism …)
They could just ban those with a penis entry (but the “transgender women voyeurs” would cover up anyhow).
"Na just the original story where a woman in her 50's was told she was expected to be covered by a towel while undressed in the changing room."
The thread I linked to carried on with possible reasons for this.
"I’m guessing they have changed their rules to cover transgender women in the female changing areas. And is designed to keep the exhibitionists out (but will not stop any voyeurism …)
They could just ban those with a penis entry (but the “transgender women voyeurs” would cover up anyhow)."
I agree that appears to be part of the policy change.
But the original article and justification actually shamed older women, in the contortions used to allow men into a female single-sex space.
Clearly the answer regarding "how many" for you is "none". As I wrote, to expect every single trans women to behave perfectly is an unhuman expectation. Again I challenge you not about a hypothetical future, but NZ facts about the present, where many trans women already share womens' facilities. Come on, where's your NZ data? Media posts? Anything?
"Clearly the answer regarding "how many" for you is "none".
Women and girls are never guaranteed safety from incidents and assaults in any space.
Risk assessments resulting in single-SEX provision, use data and evidence to determine that such provision reduces the likelihood of assault by a significant degree.
As always, you completely ignore the additional value to women of privacy, dignity and consent.
"As I wrote, to expect every single trans women to behave perfectly is an unhuman expectation. "
I don't care about their behaviour. I care about their access to single-sex spaces provided for women. Well behaved and trustworthy men are also excluded – because they are men.
"Again I challenge you not about a hypothetical future, but NZ facts about the present, where many trans women already share womens' facilities. Come on, where's your NZ data? Media posts? Anything?"
I am a data point. I along with other women say "No" to men – even those with gender identities – in women's single-sex spaces.
Consent for such communal places should require the consent of all affected. I say No.
Dear Molly, did Posie Parker lie? Yes. That was the point. Are these trivial things? Possibly, it's all in the past. I don't need the FF rubbish. I wanted to confirm or refute Posie's story at the time. By the way, how do you feel about Posie's creative story-telling to present NZ as a hellhole for women?
Surely, don't bother to laboriously extract my text just to dismiss it as trivia. Why waste your time and mine? And really, you skimped a bit on the Herald article, just copying and pasting stuff without providing context or interpretation. That's why I bothered to contextualise it again for others. If you had done the job I wouldn't have needed to. I appreciate the link to PP's video, thanks muchly, that really helped.
RE : legislation. Please keep up. I've already covered today what I think will happen with the legislation. What happened in Ireland in the 7 years since they introduced it. Nothing. Unless you have facts about an upswing in transgender violence since 2015 against Irish women that you can share? Just asking again, you know, in case.
I do have to say I'll be happy with Irish data regarding transgender violence, as well as NZ's, because of the legislation, similar population size, and approximately similar culture.
See, this is what I consider a discussion, in places, you raise points, I interact, give my point of view. But a lot of the stuff you write seems like burble to me. You can't provide me with NZ facts about transgender violence against women in toilets because of some conflating of gender and sex in reporting? What does that even mean? I said I'd accept media reports too.
And others think they have thoroughly debunked the AWID article by unpicking a few phrases? Then swapping in-housebgobbldegook with one another? Gosh, there sure is a big divide in what us hard science types think is valid critique and you soft science types.
I saw no concrete discussion relating to any of the issues raised by the article itself, or of my stated concerns and interpretation based on what I read in the article. Perhaps you're still stuck on semantics? The death of any committee, arguing over word definitions.
Anker, again I make the point trans women, even trans women with penises, have been using these spaces for years in NZ. Where's the stats for the resultant transgender agression? Please?
"Dear Molly, did Posie Parker lie? Yes. That was the point. Are these trivial things? Possibly, it's all in the past. I don't need the FF rubbish. I wanted to confirm or refute Posie's story at the time. By the way, how do you feel about Posie's creative story-telling to present NZ as a hellhole for women?"
TBH, I'm not a tribal or acolyte type of person. What I really think about KJK is that she – and everyone else – is entitled to express their views. In terms of political context – which I believe she was referring to – hellhole is a pretty descriptive word to use for the amount of political suppression of women's rights. We've just seen it displayed at Albert Park on 25th 2023 – and by the comments of politicians in the lead up and aftermath. Don't forget our Domestic Violence statistics were also released around that time. I personally wouldn't call it a hellhole, but I wouldn't say it is a picnic either.
"Why waste your time and mine? And really, you skimped a bit on the Herald article, just copying and pasting stuff without providing context or interpretation. "
Yes. My approach is to assume people can read for themselves, and come to their own conclusions. So, if I am providing information that I have to hand on a topic that I didn't start, I choose to post without commentary. I figure it's just information, and people can add to their knowledge and perspectives without me influencing their positions by unnecessary commentary.
If I introduce a topic, and add links – I'll often take a different approach to get the discussion rolling.
The rest of your comment reiterates a demand for concrete evidence of harm by the removal of women's single-sex provisions.
But several times it has been pointed out that you are ignoring the statistical evidence regarding the statistics on sexual violence and assault that show the biological sex variance in both perpetrator and victim.
THAT is the starting point. Are you able to show that this body of evidence is flawed? Because it is this evidence, that provides the risk assessment that resulted in the provision of single-sex spaces because it reduced the likelihood of harm.
"I saw no concrete discussion relating to any of the issues raised by the article itself, or of my stated concerns and interpretation based on what I read in the article. Perhaps you're still stuck on semantics? The death of any committee, arguing over word definitions."
I don't know about the others.
But every sentence of that article, is familiar and a deliberate narrative that seeks to dismiss any concerns re women's rights, or sexual orientation, etc as anti-trans. I did skim read it, because it's a courtesy, but it was also a courtesy not to give it the full detailed dismissal it could have generated in order to keep the discussion alive.
For you, I've decided to select one fact to investigate:
"Between 2013 and 2017, the “anti-gender” movement received over $3.7 billion USD in funding – more than triple the funding for LGBTIQ groups globally in those years.3"
Pages 7-9 have the information regarding the calculation of the $3.7 billion of their "anti-trans" funding.
These are the questions that are raised by the information presented:
They don't differentiate between total expenditure and "anti-trans" expenditure. In fact, it appears they are talking about the amount of money in these organisations, and the movement of it.
They have dismissed the concern's of women's rights organisations, and lesbian and gay rights movements as trojan horses for funded 'anti-trans' rhetoric, but show no link in these pages to any funding.
These pages are mostly mapping the monies of large Christian organisations and making the assumption that all spending is "anti-trans"
To investigate further, read the footnotes 14 – 18.
I can't be bothered with the ones without links – because life is short = but here are the two available links provided:
"I really can't understand your toilet usage paragraph. Having 'a feeling' that trans women in NZ public toilets and change spaces are not 'right', or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it', is just not enough for me as an argument."
Oh the irony feelings aren't good enough when its women feeling uncomfortable with men peeing in women's toilets, but when its a man who feels like a woman, its all good, reason to change laws etc.
Here's some good hard data from the US where non-discrimination laws allowed transgender access to womens' bathrooms in many states for up to 10 years before this article in 2015.
The article covers background to a 'preventative' bathroom law, framed to protect women from transgender "sexual predators". It was proposed in Florida in 2015. The article appeared in a young peoples' lifestyle mag, ie, not some iniquitous den of trans writing you might mistrust, but a bog-standard publication.
The bill sponsor "did not provide any evidence that a trans person has ever attacked cis-gendered (non-transgender) people in public restrooms when pressed".
"Spokespeople from the Transgender Law Center, thr Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union [ you may poopoo the first source, but the other 2 are trusted civil right organisations] told 'Mic' [magazine] that no statistical evidence of violence exists to warrant this legislation". This section is labelled 'Big Fat Zero' because other reputable sources support this lack of evidence.
It goes on to say "'Those who claim otherwise have no evidence that [claims of such violence are] true and use this notion to prey on the public's sterotypes and fears sbout transgender people"
The article include quotes from Human Rights Commisions, police departments and sexual violence coordinators across multiple states who completely deny the idea that public restroom inclusivity for transgenger people increased violence by transgender people against others in these vulnerable spaces.
A survey by Brinker and Maza of 15 law enforcement staff, victim support personnel for sexual assault, and others in 12 US states yielded no incidents of trans people harassing or assaulting others in public restrooms "They declared that the claim that sexual predators will exploit non-discrimination laws to sneak into bathrooms is a lie, pure and simple".
On the other hand, "roughly 70% of trans people have been denied entrance, assaulted, or harassed while using a restroom". Poor things.
I've found a lot more different sources saying the aame thing, but cutandpaste is clapped out and I don't want to hand write it up.
""Spokespeople from the Transgender Law Center, thr Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union [ you may poopoo the first source, but the other 2 are trusted civil right organisations] told 'Mic' [magazine] that no statistical evidence of violence exists to warrant this legislation". This section is labelled 'Big Fat Zero' because other reputable sources support this lack of evidence."
I have to go and get on with errands, but have read your comment and thought you may want to investigate further in regard to this statement – or not –
American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Campaign might be considered misnomers now, for these long-established organisations. As mentioned earlier, this information is provided not to be directive but provide a possible avenue of further information.
You can look yourself for other sources but here are a couple of starting points:
Archive from New York Times: Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis
Strange as it might seem to you tWiggle the concern is not just about access to toilets.
What about sport?
What about prisons?
Still OK to have males competing against females? Riley Gaines being beaten by a male, the women volleyball player who was injured by a male on the opposing female side to an extent that she was concussed and not able to play.
The more there is push back against males in female sports the more the onus shifts, correctly, from wommen defending thier rights to compete with fairness, to the sports bodies to devise ways to enable trans athletes to compete without bringing women's sports into it. Perhaps in open categories or with a time handicap etc.
The same ability to work out their own solutions exists for the trans community to say, work with architects, planners, city councils to ensure that toilet facilities keep them safe without compromising women's safety.
Why do you think that this is not happening? Do you think they still believe the fairy dust magic that it is possible to chnage biological sex? Which of course it isn't.
Clearly the answer regarding "how many" for you is "none". As I wrote, to expect every single trans women to behave perfectly is an unhuman expectation.
I think you are missing my point tWiggle. Its not about how many women will be assaulted, although that is a concern of course.
It is about whether I and many, many other women want to share our bathrooms and change rooms with male bodied people. Many of us don't. I have asked if you think it is appropriate for a male bodied trans women to be naked in a change room around women and girls and you don't appear to have answered. I feel strongly that this must not be allowed. I could give you all sorts of reasons why like voyerism, exhibitionism, child safe guarding etc etc, but actually women are allowed to say no without having to justify why. Its coming across a bit like men who want to have sex with you and you say no and they say "poor old me, I just want a release blah blah" and what I say to that is it is your problem.
Telling me there are very few, if any assaults (tbh, I couldn't be bothered reading the stats, as I have read examples) is a form of gas lighting. "See only .xxxx numbers of attacks, so you are exaggerating, being mean and trans phobic"
Find another solution to whatever problem has been identified.
I see nothing untoward or unreasonable about this approach. The proponents seem to be without an answer as to why males should not continue to use male toilets and if for some reason that is not suitable then to press for separate arrangements.
I must say I read the article with mounting scepticism as unbiased commentators usually refrain from framing or words used by one of the proponents.
This article includes 'loaded' ant women words like
cis
terf
and loaded thoughts like
a concern for safe spaces means lack of rights for one of the parties.
(Not so as many of us have suggested ways to meet halfway such as more flexible design of safe spaces so transwomen had thier own safe spaces)
Over use of exaggerating words:
flooding
'sensationalism and fear-mongering'
I know that some UN adjacent agencies have been 'captured'. I am sure we all would like a careful and spare report with goodwill brought to bear to recognise the concerns of both sides. This report though should not force acceptance that trans women are women (the sex). Transwomen are transwomen ie biological males.
On digging deeper into the report there is this paragraph
The Campaign acts to undermine and water down the progressions of human rights standards that protect the rights of trans and gender non-conforming persons, by claiming they only apply to cis women on the basis of their “biological sex.” One event organiser argued that the concept of “gender” in international human rights law threatens to erase “biological women”. The Yogyakarta Principles in particular were targeted as “soft laws that were not applicable.” Similarly, another event attempted to frame “bodily rights” as a threat to SRHR, which the speakers claimed to be grounded only in women’s “sex-based” rights.
A red flag, for me, if the 'captured language was not enough, is the reference to the Yogyakarta Principles. These are pushed as being UN principles but they are not. They have not been formally ratified and are what I call UN-adjacent.
We have seen reference to these Principles before on TS, our Human Rights Commissioner is one of the 20 signatories. (My view is that this is an intense conflict of interest and I am hoping that he does recuse himself when dealing with Trans & women's rights. His report, after visiting the scene of the aborted KJM event in Wellington on 26/3, is unedifying to me. I have followed it up, had no response and sent the correspondence on to SUFW.)
One of the signatories, Dr Wintermute from KCL, has concerns now & says
Professor Wintemute says that women’s rights were not considered during the meeting where the principles were written and the authors “failed to consider” that fully intact males would seek to access female-only spaces.
and
Birth sex is less important now, with same-sex marriage and equal state pension ages. But in my view birth sex is not an irrelevant detail and should not be automatically ‘trumped’ by gender identity in single-sex situations.”
I am alway grateful to read these articles and reinforce Molly's point that women/feminists are not hive minded ie all think the same any more than Maori are hive minded and all think the same on issues.
We just have to look at the approaches of concern from Christian often RW women in the US and Left wing women, though not exclusively in the UK, Aus, NZ.
It is an issue for women that often transcends political boundaries though solutions will have to rely on politicians of good will and they can come from left or right.
Despite the fact that Principle 3 specifically rejected requirements for medical treatment before legal transition Wintemute says he assumed that most trans women would want to have surgery. “I see now that Principle 3 was silent on whether a diagnosis, a waiting period, or any other safeguards could be required.”
The majority of the 2006 Yogyakarta signatories were men and trans men. “The issue of access to single-sex spaces largely affects women and not men. So it was easy for the men in the group to be swept along by concern for LGBT rights and ignore this issue,” says Wintemute. Of the women present, some had been asked to focus on particular angles, such as health, and limited their contributions to these areas. So far as Wintemute recalls, the other female signatories did not raise questions about potential conflicts between women’s rights and transgender rights.
The omission may not have been a simple oversight. The female co-chair of the meeting, Brazilian sexual rights activist Sonia Correa, wants references to inequality of the sexes eliminated from human rights discourse and holds up the Yogyakarta Principles as an example to follow because they do not mention the word “woman”.
The Campaign acts to undermine and water down the progressions of human rights standards that protect the rights of trans and gender non-conforming persons, by claiming they only apply to cis women on the basis of their “biological sex.” One event organiser argued that the concept of “gender” in international human rights law threatens to erase “biological women”. The Yogyakarta Principles in particular were targeted as “soft laws that were not applicable.” Similarly, another event attempted to frame “bodily rights” as a threat to SRHR, which the speakers claimed to be grounded only in women’s “sex-based” rights.
One would have presumed that human rights applied to all regardless of sex, gender and sexuality as well as ethnicity, race and political creed etc (religion – theist, atheist, deist and agnostic).
"Neither, sex nor gender need to overlay the other."
For sake of clarity, I'll assume you mean gender identity when you say "gender" above.
Then it becomes clear – these are two distinctly separate classification categories.
Provisions for one protected characteristic – such as sex, are not automatically relevant for provisions – such as age, (even though someone protected by sex, will also have an age characteristic).
It is conflation to assume that provisions made for women on the basis of sex, automatically apply to men with gender identities, because that assumption relies on mixing two separate classification categories. Which is basically, nonsensical.
While there may be some areas of crossover – separate provisions for transgender community should be identified, supported and implemented. The appropriation of existing protections for women on the basis of sex, is disrespectful and a form of discrimination. ie. women's sex based provisions are not protected from such appropriation.
No gender is better than gender ID in that context.
There is sometimes discrimination against both men and women because they do not conform to the expectation of masculine and feminine social presentation/demeanour etc.
Otherwise the issue is more whether one identifies people based on male/female birth sex or male/female gender.
Neither option is ideal. The latter includes those who now identify differently to their birth sex. But that involves greater risk to the safety of women and why there is resistance to doing this.
Thus an issue for society to resolve, as we did the inclusion of same sex attracted to the point of same sex civil marriages (despite some of religion claiming that those involved are living "in sin" – once requiring placements in prison or mental institutions).
"No gender is better than gender ID in that context."
Can you be specific here?
Because you could mean:
'No sex is better than gender ID in that context'. – are you meaning exclude sex as a protected characteristic?
OR
'No recognition of gender identity is better than recognition of gender identity in that context' – meaning remove gender identity as a protected characteristic because without the conflation with biological sex it has no meaning?
… or something else?
"There is sometimes discrimination against both men and women because they do not conform to the expectation of masculine and feminine social presentation/demeanour etc."
Not really discrimination as in unable to access healthcare, education, employment or housing. Rather you are talking about society reactions to those who don't follow regressive gender stereotypes. In the same way there are societal reactions to people with excessive body modifications – such as tattoos, piercings, etc.
Gender critical people are critical of any expectations placed on someone's activities, interests, achievements, presentations based on those gendered stereotypes.
"Otherwise the issue is more whether one identifies people based on male/female birth sex or male/female gender."
In some areas – sex matters. In all other cases, gender identity can be recognised.
Regardless, it is not an OR. People will always have a sex, and in some cases will declare a gender identity.
"The latter includes those who now identify differently to their birth sex. But that involves greater risk to the safety of women and why there is resistance to doing this."
There is no risk to women by men claiming a gender identity.
There is an impact (which may include increased safety risk) when those men's gender identities are considered by legislative and policies as granting access to women's single-sex provisions.
"Thus an issue for society to resolve, as we did the inclusion of same sex attracted to the point of same sex civil marriages (despite some of religion claiming that those involved are living "in sin" – once requiring placements in prison or mental institutions)."
Same-sex orientation did not require others to pretend their partners were the opposite sex, or that mimicry of performance of heterosexual sex practices made them heterosexual. It asked for freedom from the discrimination outlined above, and equal consideration from society and legislation.
The parsing is annoying and takes the debate out of context to score points.
I said human rights as per sex, gender and sexuality.
I did not say gender ID, because gender includes that and gender in the context of men and women conforming to stereotypes as to masculine and feminine norms etc.
"The parsing is annoying and takes the debate out of context to score points.
I said human rights as per sex, gender and sexuality.
The parsing may be annoying (I'll ignore why you think that is) but it remains necessary otherwise we may be talking about entirely different things.
For example:
"I did not say gender ID, because gender includes that and gender in the context of men and women conforming to stereotypes as to masculine and feminine norms etc."
– this reads as though you believe gendered stereotypes are part and parcel of gender identity, which make it a performative act not an innate knowledge of oneself.
"I did not say gender ID, because gender includes that and gender in the context of men and women conforming to stereotypes as to masculine and feminine norms etc."
– this reads as though you believe gendered stereotypes are part and parcel of gender identity, which make it a performative act not an innate knowledge of oneself.
Not to all readers. the word gender in human rights legislation would include gender ID and also in wider ways such as preventing discrimination against men and women not conforming to stereotypical norms of masculinity and femininity (whereas use of the specific, gender ID, would not). That would be useful to more than the transgender such as the non binary etc, some lesbian women and homosexual men in seeking employment.
I would have thought anyone seeking to use gender in human rights, in place of birth sex, had this in mind because it was more broadly useful.
But for mine it should include both. Just as we have a ban on discrimination based on ethnicity, race and origin (rather than just someone "different/foreign"). More helps to clarify.
But sure I would not oppose sex and gender ID and gender “non-conformity” to clarify, but sex and gender (here as a catch all) has ease of use advantages.
Cases in this area can include dress codes, and discrimination in employment based on images on social media etc.
"Cases in this area can include dress codes, and discrimination in employment based on images on social media etc."
That inclusion regarding non-conformity is not really discrimination though. It could extend to elimination of expected dress codes or standards, and appropriate social media policies for employees with company recognition roles.
Conflation of terms works against full and frank discussion, and identifying specific forms of need and/or harm.
"What conflation of terms? Do there need to be agreed definitions to discuss an issue? And if so, who decides?"
Conflation of gender identity, gender stereotypes and gender identity all under the one term of gender.
No-one gets to decide, but clear definitions are a basic necessity for needed discussions regarding legislative and policies changes.
"As I said I prefer sex, gender and sexuality as categories for protection from discrimination."
Sexuality or sexual orientation?
Queer theory has Minor Attracted People as a sexuality.
Do you want to have paedophiles as a protected characteristic, or are you really speaking about sexual orientation – as it currently exists?
(Queer Theory holds the position that recognising Minor Attracted Persons as a sexuality removes the stigma from those that are sexually attracted to children, but who do not necessarily act on that attraction.
Using the same logic, should kleptomaniacs be a protected characteristic – and their compulsion recognised as a mitigating factor when they are caught, charged and convicted of theft?)
The author Allyson Walker is an interesting person to research.
It's a strong example, but one that emphasises the importance of clear definitions.
"I see this as important to prevent either birth sex or gender ID being the universal identity determinant."
Once again. Why is it necessary to have a universal identity determinant?
Eg: A mobility impaired female pensioner, will have specific needs and provisions relating to three of the categories to which she belongs:
1. Female provisions for a myriad of services and facilities;
2. Accessibility and associated healthcare provisions;
3. Social welfare provisions and associated healthcare.
What you do not do, is provide a protected characteristic that seeks to amalgamate all three categories, because that increases the likelihood of confusion, lack of transparency, lack of adequate provision, and lack of accountability.
It'd also probably provide legislation where discrimination is hard to prove or disprove.
Sex and gender identity are two distinct different classification types. The conflation of these two categories was one of the concerns put forward in submissions and ignored.
By conflating gender identity with sex – neither category is adequately provided for. In the case of women – the provision for their sex is appropriated without discussion or consent – by this illogical conflation.
I see this as important to prevent either birth sex or gender ID being the universal identity determinant.
Once again. Why is it necessary to have a universal identity determinant?
I did not say there had to be one. But that neither should be used as one.
I think what you are thinking, but not saying out loud is that sex should not take priority over gender identity if there is a conflict.
On this I disagree.
Not because there necessarily is a conflict, but because a conflict is created when conflation between sex and gender identity occurs, and single-sex provisions for women are assumed to be included in the provisions for men with gender identities.
This sleight-of-hand in terms of language and conflation of two classification systems, effectively removes the single-sex provisions for women with absolutely no regard for their value, or the consent of women and girls.
what you are thinking, but not saying out loud is that sex should not take priority over gender identity if there is a conflict.
On this I disagree.
The advantage of gender ID is that it includes those who transition. The disadvantage is that it can also include those who do not.
Whatever society decides, it has to take account of different perspectives – such as it does with religious groups who do not support same sex activity or marriages. That should include women's groups right to exclude those not born female. A refuge's right to exclude anyone seen as a threat etc.
We might need a group focused on developing safe spaces and funding for this. That might allow those with transitioned bodies being allowed into women's separate spaces, but others not.
This sleight-of-hand in terms of language and conflation of two classification systems, effectively removes the single-sex provisions for women with absolutely no regard for their value, or the consent of women and girls.
I think the risk is greater while we have sex in the HRA and this is then seen as interchangeable with gender (as per gender ID) in other legislation. Having sex and gender in the HRA separately would be more likely to result in focus on the overlap issue.
"what you are thinking, but not saying out loud is that sex should not take priority over gender identity if there is a conflict.
On this I disagree.
The advantage of gender ID is that it includes those who transition. The disadvantage is that it can also include those who do not.
Why is that a disadvantage? Religious belief is a protected characteristic, but not everyone has a religious belief.
Whatever society decides, it has to take account of different perspectives – such as it does with religious groups who do not support same sex activity or marriages.
The secular government we have ensures that despite other's beliefs, those same sex marriages can take place. They have the right to their belief but not to impose the restrictions of that belief on others. So it should be.
That should include women's groups right to exclude those not born female. A refuge's right to exclude anyone seen as a threat etc.
Sex is immutable, and single-sex provisions for women are inextricably linked to their sex. It is not about only about threats, although that plays a part – and is constantly ignored when these female sex provisions are appropriated by men. This is also not about belief – but about reality.
It is gender identity that is a belief. As such it can be protected, but as a separate characteristic – because it IS a completely separate characteristic from sex. And as it is both fluid and unquantifiable it should not override sex-based provisions, because those are specific to sex and retain value for women and girls.
The believers of a gender identity should not impose that belief on others. This is true regardless of the number of people who share such a belief.
Thus an issue for society to resolve, as we did the inclusion of same sex attracted to the point of same sex civil marriages (despite some of religion claiming that those involved are living "in sin" – once requiring placements in prison or mental institutions).
You've said this a couple of times now IIRC, and the comparison is flawed still.
Deal with the reality of sex, and the belief system of gender ideology without reaching for justifications from other protected characteristics and we may get somewhere.
Because some women do not want transgender women self ID to result in male bodies in women's spaces.
Sex is immutable, and single-sex provisions for women are inextricably linked to their sex
Yes, you want separation based on birth sex, thus the exclusion of transexuals/transitioned transgender women.
You've said this a couple of times now IIRC, and the comparison is flawed still.
No, and not in the post you are replying to.
I have of course mentioned on occasion our history of becoming more inclusive, whether that is women voting and the societal change that resulted and also same sex relationships. And like many see that as leading to a progressive impulse on the gender ID issue.
Deal with the reality of sex, and the belief system of gender ideology without reaching for justifications from other protected characteristics and we may get somewhere.
I will restate something from my last post
"I think the risk (to women's safety) is greater while we only have have sex in the HRA and this is then seen as interchangeable with gender (as per gender ID) in other legislation".
This leads to confusion with how to deal with women's safety concerns resulting from self ID.
If both are included in the HRA, this would require some thought as to distinction in various legislation.
Possibly the best path to the realisation of the maintenance of the birth sex category you seek is to accept a separate and also protected gender identity.
Because some women do not want transgender women self ID to result in male bodies in women's spaces.
Men who identify as women belong to a different protected characteristic, and should not be given access to women's single-sex spaces because of it.
You are effectively saying the logical thing to do, is a disadvantage because it excludes men from women's single-sex spaces (and that is not the outcome you want).
Sex is immutable, and single-sex provisions for women are inextricably linked to their sex
Yes, you want separation based on birth sex, thus the exclusion of transexuals/transitioned transgender women.
I want the single-sex provisions for women and girls to remain single-sex provisions. They were never – gendered stereotype provisions for those who conform to gendered stereotypes (which I am using because your idea of gender identity seems to be inextricably linked to stereotypes for some reason).
You've said this a couple of times now IIRC, and the comparison is flawed still.
No, and not in the post you are replying to.
I have of course mentioned on occasion our history of becoming more inclusive, whether that is women voting and the societal change that resulted and also same sex relationships. And like many see that as leading to a progressive impulse on the gender ID issue.
Gender ideology is a belief system. One that is unquantifiable, and one that is fluid. Like a religious belief. Not only is is not SEX, it has a myriad of other identities not associated with sex at all. Why people continue to conflate the two categories, is a question for the ages.
My suspicion is, like your illogical reasoning above, is because it allows a predetermined outcome to be achieved, because it bypasses accuracy, logic and any recognition of impact, or concerns about consent.
For example: how do you protect sexual orientation when you conflate gender identity with sex?
At the most ridiculous extreme of this conflation, you can have a lesbian association composed entirely of men with female gender identities who call themselves lesbians because they are heterosexual.
Or two lesbian women who refer to themselves as gay men because they identify as men, and consider their sexuality to be that associated only with men.
Deal with the reality of sex, and the belief system of gender ideology without reaching for justifications from other protected characteristics and we may get somewhere.
I will restate something from my last post
"I think the risk (to women's safety) is greater while we only have have sex in the HRA and this is then seen as interchangeable with gender (as per gender ID) in other legislation".
This leads to confusion with how to deal with women's safety concerns resulting from self ID.
If both are included in the HRA, this would require some thought as to distinction in various legislation.
I disagree. The danger is the deliberate conflation of sex with gender identity, by politicians during legislative change, government ministries and departments, and policy makers.
It is not ONLY safety concerns. Single-sex provisions hold value also for privacy and dignity. And there are issues of consent that are ignored.
Many submitters asked for clarification in the legislation and were ignored. But while the confusion reigns, many also refuse to accept that confusion means a de facto breaking of single-sex provisions until it gets sorted out.
Possibly the best path to the realisation of the maintenance of the birth sex category you seek is to accept a separate and also protected gender identity.
Why should women have to advocate for a certain belief system, in order to ensure their single-sex provisions and language is maintained? Is this requirement requested of any other existing protected characteristic? ie. Did same-sex oriented people have to ensure that religious belief was fully recognised before gaining their recognition, or was that already protected?
I have given my advice that one option to secure a continuing biological sex ID is to promote a separate gender category in the HRA.
There are always other ways of doing things (for example we never explored having half seats for women voters and half for male voters to ensure 50% representation within parliament).
Men who identify as women belong to a different protected characteristic
They and women who identify as men are not protected under gender in the HRA.
I note that for you this is not about safety, but exclusive right of women's ID to biological sex –
as per privacy and dignity
and thus acceptance of transgender men and non binary people born female in women's spaces, rather than transsexual transgender women?
You are effectively saying the logical thing to do, is a disadvantage because it excludes men from women's single-sex spaces (and that is not the outcome you want).
No, not at all. I wrote this
"The advantage of gender ID is that it includes those who transition. The disadvantage is that it can also include those who do not."
Most people want others to feel included and were inclined to go along with gender identity, but going as far as to include those who do not transition is such a disadvantage to women's safety it might lead to review (as per the UK).
(which I am using because your idea of gender identity seems to be inextricably linked to stereotypes for some reason).
Why? You are taking out of context a comment in relation to the utility of use of the the term gender rather than gender ID in any HRA inclusion (as a catch all including gender ID but also wider issues of discrimination based on gender).
My suspicion is, like your illogical reasoning above, is because it allows a predetermined outcome to be achieved, because it bypasses accuracy, logic and any recognition of impact, or concerns about consent.
I could say stuff about how zealots lose perspective, if I was to debate in that way … but it really just indicates we have reached the end of this discussion.
For example: how do you protect sexual orientation when you conflate gender identity with sex?
And if one only identifies people by their birth sex
At the most ridiculous extreme of this conflation
a transsexual transgender woman having sex with a male is engaged in a homosexual act and two transgender men together are engaged in a lesbian relationship and should be invited to lesbian social occasions …
Before I respond, I just want to say I appreciate the time and care with which you are expressing your views, and I am attempting to replicate your approach even as it seems we are still talking past one another, and not quite understanding each other's point of view.
If you wanted to stick to one point of discussion until we both clearly demonstrate an understanding of each other's point of view, and then move to the next. I'm happy to do that. You choose.
But in the spirit that has got us thus far, I'll go through your last response in detail. (TBH it's easier doing it this way because the cut and paste stops me from having to scroll up and down to respond to your points, but it comes at a cost, because I'm not adding to the discussion but of responding only. I'll have to work on that…)
I have given my advice that one option to secure a continuing biological sex ID is to promote a separate gender category in the HRA.
The sex characteristic IS biological sex. It has been appropriated – by some – to refer to a undefined gender identity.
As mentioned, many submissions to the BDMMR bill wanted this clarified before the bill was passed. These requests were ignored, by the politicians promoting the bill and the select committee.
The deliberate replacement of sex with gender identity has occurred in the Sentencing Act 2003. But that was intended to accommodate those with GRS, not Self-ID, and was a cursory substitution not a well-considered one.
I won't post a myriad of links on this, it's worth a whole post.
There are always other ways of doing things (for example we never explored having half seats for women voters and half for male voters to ensure 50% representation within parliament).
Men who identify as women belong to a different protected characteristic
They and women who identify as men are not protected under gender in the HRA.
The provision of single-sex spaces is mentioned under 'sex' not gender in the HRA:
"Exceptions in relation to access by the public to places, vehicles, and facilities
(1) Section 42 shall not prevent the maintenance of separate facilities for each sex on the ground of public decency or public safety."
Where are you finding the reference to gender you are talking about?
I note that for you this is not about safety, but exclusive right of women's ID to biological sex –
as per privacy and dignity
and thus acceptance of transgender men and non binary people born female in women's spaces, rather than transsexual transgender women?
I do have concerns about safety, but that is not the only value of single-sex provisions for women and girls, so I endeavour to ensure those other values are considered. For some women, they are AS important as the safety issue.
Point needs to be made that although you and I know what you mean when talking about transgender men, and transsexual transgender women – many others will not know whether you are talking about a man with a trans identity or a woman with a trans identity.
" but exclusive right of women's ID to biological sex"
I snipped and repeated this because it is a common refrain. That women who resist the appropriation of womenhood, and/or the amalgamation of biology reality with a completely separate classification category, are somehow cruelly withholding "rights" from men with gender identities.
Biological sex categories are not "rights" – they are simply categories. You either belong to one group or the other.
You are effectively saying the logical thing to do, is a disadvantage because it excludes men from women's single-sex spaces (and that is not the outcome you want).
No, not at all. I wrote this
"The advantage of gender ID is that it includes those who transition. The disadvantage is that it can also include those who do not."
Most people want others to feel included and were inclined to go along with gender identity, but going as far as to include those who do not transition is such a disadvantage to women's safety it might lead to review (as per the UK).
It hasn't lead to a review. A review has been the result of a concerted effort of women in the UK, to force politicians to address the issues. Many women have done this despite public shaming, loss of income, harassment and threats of violence. It has been politically forced also by the insistence of the SNP to pass a bill that impacted on the rest of the UK, triggering a response from Westminster. A lot of work and effort has been necessary to get to this quite reasonable starting point that you suggest. Here, we are not anywhere near that position.
(which I am using because your idea of gender identity seems to be inextricably linked to stereotypes for some reason).
Why? You are taking out of context a comment in relation to the utility of use of the the term gender rather than gender ID in any HRA inclusion (as a catch all including gender ID but also wider issues of discrimination based on gender).
My suspicion is, like your illogical reasoning above, is because it allows a predetermined outcome to be achieved, because it bypasses accuracy, logic and any recognition of impact, or concerns about consent.
I could say stuff about how zealots lose perspective, if I was to debate in that way … but it really just indicates we have reached the end of this discussion.
To put it simply, because you have used gender in several different ways, making it difficult to follow your reasoning (but not impossible) – how would you yourself define gender identity so that can be included as a protective characteristic?
(I'm assuming that you agree that sex is biological and binary, but if you believe otherwise, a clear definition may improve the discussion.)
For example: how do you protect sexual orientation when you conflate gender identity with sex?
And if one only identifies people by their birth sex
Most people refer to others by name. I take issue with this "only", because that is not what is occurring. In some areas – sex matters – it is those areas which are under discussion.
At the most ridiculous extreme of this conflation
a transsexual transgender woman having sex with a male is engaged in a homosexual act and two transgender men together are engaged in a lesbian relationship and should be invited to lesbian social occasions …
If you mean, what I think you mean – then while I agree with you, this is not the interpretation being given by Rainbow Support organisations.
They used to have a glossary, which I can't find at present but have a look around the site. If you do find a reference to homosexuality – it will state that it is a sexual orientation to gender identity – not sex. Effectively replacing the conversion of gays to heterosexuality, with an assumed conversion of gays and lesbians (and by implication also heterosexuals) to bisexuality.
The Inside Out training organisation and resource centre is here:
A person’s enduring physical, romantic, emotional and/or spiritual attraction to others. Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same. Trans people can be heterosexual, gay, lesbian, pansexual, queer, etc. just like anyone else. For example, a trans woman who is primarily attracted to other women may identify as lesbian.
These are well-funded and very visible organisations, that are present to support young people with same-sex orientations, but appear reluctant to accept that same-sex orientation restricts your choice of intimate partner to the same as your biological sex.
I invite you to have a look and see what you think about the messaging.
What points did you find compelling in this video?
I'll admit I haven't watched this one (more of a reader than a viewer, but have seen a couple of ContraPoints videos in the past, and find them entertaining but not very informative or comprehensive, just selectively framed).
Molly you are extraordinary. So patient but so clear in addressing the "arguments"
I take my hate off to you.
The males who identify as women who want to come into women's bathrroms/change rooms, show themselves up to have the male psyche. Women, generally speaking would never insist on inserting themselves to spaces where they weren't wanted.
I'll take your hate, and return it with affection….
Thanks for the compliment. I see many contributors here that have a good grasp of the discussion, and only enter when I feel I haven't been lifting my share of the burden.
It is usually carried quite admirably by a few stalwarts, including yourself.
Two guys agreeing that the "pill and access to abortion" (feminism) in the west has caused a demographic threat to its civilisation.
No awareness of global warming is indicated, nor open (just inferred) support for right wing moves in the USA to diminish access to thee "things" by the GOP patriarchy. More breeding people and economic growth without immigration is the birther cause.
At least we can watch with horror as the past Weimar past comes for us once again safe in our own place .. or can we .. are we now not in Wichita with the Koch brothers propaganda machine witnessing the idolising of those women proud not to be a feminist.
Two guys agreeing that the "pill and access to abortion" (feminism) in the west has caused a demographic threat to its civilisation.
No awareness of global warming is indicated, nor open (just inferred) support for right wing moves in the USA to diminish access to these "things" by the GOP patriarchy. More breeding people and economic growth without immigration is the birther cause.
At least we can watch with horror as the Weimar past comes for us once again safe in our own place .. or can we .. are we not also being taken by the Koch brothers of Wichita Kansas propaganda machine to another place to witness the idolising of those women proud not to be a feminist?
On that note, I have been privileged several times now to visit one of the most beautiful church buildings in the world, Saint Chapelle Chapel in Paris.
But, it was built in the built in the 13th Century by Louis IX to house the supposed crown of thorns from the crucifiction. That, despite the fact that the crown of thorns, being made of organic material, would likely have decomposed centuries before.
The amount of cost and work to build that building must have been enormous. All for what almost certainly was a hoax.
Nevertheless, it is definitely worth the look if anyone is in France. They do violin concerts there which sound incredible. I have heard the Four Seasons played in there. Incredible acoustics.
The building is quite modern in a lot of ways, in that it has an incredible effect from light with the huge stained glass windows. Most of the similar buildings of that time tended not to have so much glass. And the stained glass wasn't great for letting in light. So a lot of those buildings seem quite dark and dingy. But this one is something else.
Thanks for this. Clearly the institution of the papacy has been around for years.
Does this date add anything to the idea about idea of shards of the cross being sent to King Charles or the concept of beauty in church building all around Europe?
We don't need to believe in the reality of reliquaries but we can see the influence of the Church on the beauty, layout and spirtuality of churches especially to my eyes those built in Gothic times.
King Charles by all accounts takes his role in Christian matters seriously and works tirelssly to foster an ecumenical approach among the world's christian churches. The gift from the Pope recognises this and is a gift of remembrance of a shared past, in my view, rather than forcing a belief in the actuality of a reliquary.
For that matter, neither is the British monarchy a medieval institution.
In the current constitutional form, (monarchy limited by law) it is a creation of the late 17th century (1688 is the generally accepted date) – well past the medieval period.
I suspect that 'medieval' is being (inaccurately) used as a synonym for 'old' in this post.
Representative democracy necessarily means candidates can't represent all their constituents views simultaneously. If you find that there isn't a candidate that adequately represents your views, then the obvious solution is to run yourself.
It may well be considered vital but democracy is also inherently competitive, with definitive victors. Complaints about 'lack of democracy' often are made by those whose favoured representatives did not garner enough support to win their race.
As important as elections are, I am more than happy to complain about the lack of democracy in almost every other aspect of our lives however. The vast majority of us spend most of our lives labouring for someone else with very little say in how we do our jobs let alone the purpose of our labour. This seems to me to be a far more impactful and tangible 'lack of democracy' in our lives that goes on incessantly and largely uncommented.
"The vast majority of us spend most of our lives labouring for someone else with very little say in how we do our jobs let alone the purpose of our labour"
We do…and the system that enables/promotes that is determined by?….
I am under no illusions that the current system, that is enforced, will be fundamentally changed by elections.
That being said, voting requires such little investment for the massive amount of harm minimisation that it can achieve. We just have to be pragmatic and strategic.
It is a general question to establish whether voters feel their views are represented by the existing political organisations….candidate nominations dont close for a few months yet leaving the opportunity for options to change.
Not since 1988 when Richard Prebble openly criticised David Lange have we seen such a challenge to a Prime Minister as that of David Seymour to Christopher Luxon last night. Prebble suggested Lange had mental health issues during a TV interview and was almost immediately fired. Seymour hasn’t gone quite ...
This video includes personal musings and conclusions of the creator climate scientist Dr. Adam Levy. It is presented to our readers as an informed perspective. Please see video description for references (if any). Wherever you look, you'll hear headlines claiming we've passed 1.5 degrees of global warming. And while 2024 saw ...
Photo by Heather M. Edwards on UnsplashHere’s the key news, commentary, reports and debate around Aotearoa’s politics and economy in the week to Feb 10 below. That’s ahead of live chats on the Substack App and The Kākā’s front page on Substack at 5pm with: on his column in The ...
Is there anyone in the world the National Party loves more than a campaign donor? Why yes, there is! They will always have the warmest hello and would you like to slip into something more comfortable for that great god of our age, the High Net Worth Individual.The words the ...
Waste and fraud certainly exist in foreign aid programs, but rightwing celebration of USAID’s dismantling shows profound ignorance of the value of soft power (as opposed to hard power) in projecting US influence and interests abroad by non-military/coercive means (think of “hearts and minds,” “hugs, not bullets,” “honey versus vinegar,” ...
Health New Zealand is proposing to cut almost half of its data and digital positions – more than 1000 of them. The PSA has called on the Privacy Commissioner to urgently investigate the cuts due to the potential for serious consequences for patients. NZNO is calling for an urgent increase ...
We may see a few more luxury cars on Queen Street, but a loosening of rules to entice rich foreigners to invest more here is unlikely to “turbocharge our economic growth”. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāLong stories short, the top six things in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate ...
Let us not dance daintily around the elephant in the room. Our politicians who serve us in the present are not honest, certainly not as honest as they should be, and while the right are taking out most of the trophies for warping narratives and literally redefining “facts”, the kiwi ...
A few weeks ago I took a look at public transport ridership in 2024. In today’s post I’m going to be looking a bit deeper at bus ridership. Buses make up the vast majority of ridership in Auckland with 70 million boardings last year out of a total of 89.4 ...
Oh, you know I did itIt's over and I feel fineNothing you could say is gonna change my mindWaited and I waited the longest nightNothing like the taste of sweet declineSongwriters: Chris Shiflett / David Eric Grohl / Nate Mendel / Taylor Hawkins.Hindsight is good, eh?The clarity when the pieces ...
Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on UnsplashHere’s what we’re watching in the week to February 16 and beyond in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty:Monday, February 10The Kākā’s weekly wrap-up of news about politics and the economy is due at midday, followed by webinar for paying subscribers in Substack’s ...
A listing of 23 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, February 2, 2025 thru Sat, February 8, 2025. This week's roundup is again published soleley by category. We are still interested in feedback to hone the categorization, so if ...
Today, I stumbled across a Twitter Meme: the ending of The Lord of the Rings as a Chess scenario: https://x.com/mellon_heads/status/1887983845917564991 It gets across the basic gist. Aragorn and Gandalf offering up ‘material’ at the Morannon allows Frodo and Samwise to catch Sauron unawares – fair enough. But there are a ...
Last week, Kieran McAnulty called out Chris Bishop and Nicola Willis for their claims that Kāinga Ora’s costs were too high.They had claimed Kāinga Ora’s cost were 12% higher than market i.e. private devlopersBut Kāinga Ora’s Chair had already explained why last year:"We're not building to sell, so we'll be ...
Stuff’s Political Editor Luke Malpass - A Fellow at New Zealand IniativeLast week I half-joked that Stuff / The Post’s Luke Malpass1 always sounded like he was auditioning for a job at the New Zealand Initiative.Mountain Tui is a reader-supported publication. For a limited time, subscriptions are 20% off. Thanks ...
At a funeral on Friday, there were A4-sized photos covering every wall of the Dil’s reception lounge. There must have been 200 of them, telling the story in the usual way of the video reel but also, by enlargement, making it more possible to linger and step in.Our friend Nicky ...
Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by Sue Bin Park from the Gigafact team in collaboration with members from our team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline. Is methane the ...
The Government’s idea is that the private sector and Community Housing Providers will fund, build and operate new affordable housing to address our housing crisis. Meanwhile, the Government does not know where almost half of the 1,700 children who left emergency housing actually went. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāLong ...
Oh, home, let me come homeHome is wherever I'm with youOh, home, let me come homeHome is wherever I'm with youSongwriters: Alexander Ebert / Jade Allyson CastrinosMorena,I’m on a tight time frame this morning. In about an hour and a half, I’ll need to pack up and hit the road ...
This is a post about the Mountain Tui substack, and small tweaks - further to the poll and request post the other day. Please don’t read if you aren’t interested in my personal matters. Thank you all.After oohing-and-aahing about how to structure the Substack model since November, including obtaining ...
This transcript of a recent conversation between the Prime Minister and his chief economic adviser has not been verified.We’ve announced we are the ‘Yes Government’. Do you like it?Yes, Prime Minister.Dreamed up by the PR team. It’s about being committed to growth. Not that the PR team know anything about ...
The other day, Australian Senator Nick McKim issued a warning in the Australian Parliement about the US’s descent into fascim.And of course it’s true, but I lament - that was true as soon as Trump won.What we see is now simply the reification of the intention, planning, and forces behind ...
Among the many other problems associated with Musk/DOGE sending a fleet of teenage and twenty-something cultists to remove, copy and appropriate federal records like social security, medicaid and other supposedly protected data is the fact that the youngsters doing the data-removal, copying and security protocol and filter code over-writing have ...
Jokerman dance to the nightingale tuneBird fly high by the light of the moonOh, oh, oh, JokermanSong by Bob Dylan.Morena folks, I hope this fine morning of the 7th of February finds you well. We're still close to Paihia, just a short drive out of town. Below is the view ...
It’s been an eventful week as always, so here’s a few things that we have found interesting. We also hope everyone had a happy and relaxing Waitangi Day! This week in Greater Auckland We’re still running on summer time, but provided two chewy posts: On Tuesday, a guest ...
Queuing on Queen St: the Government is set to announce another apparently splashy growth policy on Sunday of offering residence visas to wealthy migrants. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāLong stories short, the top six things in our political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Friday, February 7:PM Christopher ...
The fact that Waitangi ended up being such a low-key affair may mark it out as one of the most significant Waitangi Days in recent years. A group of women draped in “Toitu Te Tiriti” banners who turned their backs on the politicians’ powhiri was about as rough as it ...
Hi,This week’s Flightless Bird episode was about “fake seizure guy” — a Melbourne man who fakes seizures in order to get members of the public to sit on him.The audio documentary (which I have included in this newsletter in case you don’t listen to Flightless Bird) built on reporting first ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Karin Kirk The 119th Congress comes with a price tag. The oil and gas industry gave about $24 million in campaign contributions to the members of the U.S. House and Senate expected to be sworn in January 3, 2025, according to a ...
Early morning, the shadows still long, but you can already feel the warmth building. Our motel was across the road from the historic homestead where Henry Williams' family lived. The evening before, we wandered around the gardens, reading the plaques and enjoying the close proximity to the history of the ...
Thanks folks for your feedback, votes and comments this week. I’ll be making the changes soon. Appreciate all your emails, comments and subscriptions too. I know your time is valuable - muchas gracias.A lot is happening both here and around the world - so I want to provide a snippets ...
Data released today by Statistics NZ shows that unemployment rose to 5.1%, with 33,000 more people out of work than last year said NZCTU Te Kauae Kaimahi Economist Craig Renney. “The latest data shows that employment fell in Aotearoa at its fastest rate since the GFC. Unemployment rose in 8 ...
The December labour market statistics have been released, showing yet another increase in unemployment. There are now 156,000 unemployed - 34,000 more than when National took office. And having thrown all these people out of work, National is doubling down on cruelty. Because being vicious will somehow magically create the ...
Boarded up homes in Kilbirnie, where work on a planned development was halted. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāLong stories short, the top six things in our political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Wednesday, February 5 are;Housing Minister Chris Bishop yesterday announcedKāinga Ora would be stripped of ...
This week Kiwirail and Auckland Transport were celebrating the completion of the summer rail works that had the network shut or for over a month and the start of electric trains to Pukekohe. First up, here’s parts of the press release about the shutdown works. Passengers boarding trains in Auckland ...
Through its austerity measures, the coalition government has engineered a rise in unemployment in order to reduce inflation while – simultaneously – cracking down harder and harder on the people thrown out of work by its own policies. To that end, Social Development Minister Louise Upston this week added two ...
This year, we've seen a radical, white supremacist government ignoring its Tiriti obligations, refusing to consult with Māori, and even trying to legislatively abrogate te Tiriti o Waitangi. When it was criticised by the Waitangi Tribunal, the government sabotaged that body, replacing its legal and historical experts with corporate shills, ...
Poor old democracy, it really is in a sorry state. It would be easy to put all the blame on the vandals and tyrants presently trashing the White House, but this has been years in the making. It begins with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and the spirit of Gordon ...
The new school lunches came in this week, and they were absolutely scrumptious.I had some, and even though Connor said his tasted like “stodge” and gave him a sore tummy, I myself loved it!Look at the photos - I knew Mr Seymour wouldn’t lie when he told us last year:"It ...
The tighter sanctions are modelled on ones used in Britain, which did push people off ‘the dole’, but didn’t increase the number of workers, and which evidence has repeatedly shown don’t work. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāLong stories short, the top six things in our political economy around housing, ...
Catching you up on the morning’s global news and a quick look at the parallels -GLOBALTariffs are backSharemarkets in the US, UK and Europe have “plunged” in response to Trump’s tariffs. And while Mexico has won a one month reprieve, Canada and China will see their respective 25% and 10% ...
This post by Nicolas Reid was originally published on Linked in. It is republished here with permission. Gondolas are often in the news, with manufacturers of ropeway systems proposing them as a modern option for mass transit systems in New Zealand. However, like every next big thing in transport, it’s hard ...
This is a re-post from The Climate BrinkBoth 2023 and 2024 were exceptionally warm years, at just below and above 1.5C relative to preindustrial in the WMO composite of surface temperature records, respectively. While we are still working to assess the full set of drivers of this warmth, it is clear that ...
Hi,I woke up feeling nervous this morning, realising that this weekend Flightless Bird is going to do it’s first ever live show. We’re heading to a sold out (!) show in Seattle to test the format out in front of an audience. If it works, we’ll do more. I want ...
From the United-For-Now States of America comes the thrilling news that a New Zealander may be at the very heart of the current coup. Punching above our weight on the world stage once more! Wait, you may be asking, what New Zealander? I speak of Peter Thiel, made street legal ...
Even Stevens: Over the 33 years between 1990 and 2023 (and allowing for the aberrant 2020 result) the average level of support enjoyed by the Left and Right blocs, at roughly 44.5 percent each, turns out to be, as near as dammit, identical.WORLDWIDE, THE PARTIES of the Left are presented ...
Back in 2023, a "prominent political figure" went on trial for historic sex offences. But we weren't allowed to know who they were or what political party they were "prominent" in, because it might affect the way we voted. At the time, I said that this was untenable; it was ...
I'm going, I'm goingWhere the water tastes like wineI'm going where the water tastes like wineWe can jump in the waterStay drunk all the timeI'm gonna leave this city, got to get awayI'm gonna leave this city, got to get awayAll this fussing and fighting, man, you know I sure ...
Waitangi Day is a time to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi and stand together for a just and fair Aotearoa. Across the motu, communities are gathering to reflect, kōrero, and take action for a future built on equity and tino rangatiratanga. From dawn ceremonies to whānau-friendly events, there are ...
Subscribe to Mountain Tūī ! Where you too can learn about exciting things from a flying bird! Tweet.Yes - I absolutely suck at marketing. It’s a fact.But first -My question to all readers is:How should I set up the Substack model?It’s been something I’ve been meaning to ask since November ...
Here’s the key news, commentary, reports and debate around Aotearoa’s political economy on politics and in the week to Feb 3:PM Christopher Luxon began 2025’s first day of Parliament last Tuesday by carrying on where left off in 2024, letting National’s junior coalition partner set the political agenda and dragging ...
The PSA have released a survey of 4000 public service workers showing that budget cuts are taking a toll on the wellbeing of public servants and risking the delivery of essential services to New Zealanders. Economists predict that figures released this week will show continued increases in unemployment, potentially reaching ...
The Prime Minister’s speech 10 days or so ago kicked off a flurry of commentary. No one much anywhere near the mainstream (ie excluding Greens supporters) questioned the rhetoric. New Zealand has done woefully poorly on productivity for a long time and we really need better outcomes, and the sorts ...
President Trump on the day he announced tariffs against Mexico, Canada and China, unleashing a shock to supply chains globally that is expected to slow economic growth and increase inflation for most large economies. Photo: Getty ImagesLong stories short, the top six things in our political economy around housing, climate ...
Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on UnsplashHere’s what we’re watching in the week to February 9 and beyond in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty:Monday, February 3Politics: New Zealand Government cabinet meeting usually held early afternoon with post-cabinet news conference possible at 4 pm, although they have not been ...
Trump being Trump, it won’t come as a shock to find that he regards a strong US currency (bolstered by high tariffs on everything made by foreigners) as a sign of America’s virility, and its ability to kick sand in the face of the world. Reality is a tad more ...
A listing of 24 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, January 26, 2025 thru Sat, February 1, 2025. This week's roundup is again published soleley by category. We are still interested in feedback to hone the categorization, so if ...
What seems to be the common theme in the US, NZ, Argentina and places like Italy under their respective rightwing governments is what I think of as “the politics of cruelty.” Hate-mongering, callous indifference in social policy-making, corporate toadying, political bullying, intimidation and punching down on the most vulnerable with ...
If you are confused, check with the sunCarry a compass to help you alongYour feet are going to be on the groundYour head is there to move you aroundSo, stand in the place where you liveSongwriters: Bill Berry / Michael Mills / Michael Stipe / Peter Buck.Hot in the CityYesterday, ...
Shane Jones announced today he would be contracting out his thinking to a smarter younger person.Reclining on his chaise longue with a mouth full of oysters and Kina he told reporters:Clearly I have become a has-been, a palimpsest, an epigone, a bloviating fossil. I find myself saying such things as: ...
Warning: This post contains references to sexual assaultOn Saturday, I spent far too long editing a video on Tim Jago, the ACT Party President and criminal, who has given up his fight for name suppression after 2 years. He voluntarily gave up just in time for what will be a ...
Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by Sue Bin Park from the Gigafact team in collaboration with members from our team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline. Is global warming ...
Our low-investment, low-wage, migration-led and housing-market-driven political economy has delivered poorer productivity growth than the rest of the OECD, and our performance since Covid has been particularly poor. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāLong stories short, the top six things in our political economy around housing, climate and poverty this ...
..Thanks for reading Frankly Speaking ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.As far as major government announcements go, a Three Ministers Event is Big. It can signify a major policy development or something has gone Very Well, or an absolute Clusterf**k. When Three Ministers assemble ...
One of those blasts from the past. Peter Dunne – originally neoliberal Labour, then leader of various parties that sought to work with both big parties (generally National) – has taken to calling ...
Completed reads for January: I Am Legend, by Richard Matheson The Black Spider, by Jeremias Gotthelf The Spider and the Fly (poem), by Mary Howitt A Noiseless Patient Spider (poem), by Walt Whitman August Heat, by W.F. Harvey Charlotte’s Web, by E.B. White The Shrinking Man, by Richard Matheson ...
Do its Property Right Provisions Make Sense?Last week I pointed out that it is uninformed to argue that the New Zealand’s apparently poor economic performance can be traced only to poor regulations. Even were there evidence they had some impact, there are other factors. Of course, we should seek to ...
Richard Wagstaff It was incredibly jarring to hear the hubris from the Prime Minister during his recent state of the nation address. I had just spent close to a week working though the stories and thoughts shared with us by nearly 2000 working people as part of our annual Mood ...
Odd fact about the Broadcasting Standards Authority: for the last few years, they’ve only been upholding about 5% of complaints. Why? I think there’s a range of reasons. Generally responsible broadcasters. Dumb complaints. Complaints brought under the wrong standard. Greater adherence to broadcasters’ rights to freedom of expression in the ...
And I said, "Mama, mama, mama, why am I so alone"'Cause I can't go outside, I'm scared I might not make it homeWell I'm alive, I'm alive, but I'm sinking inIf there's anyone at home at your place, darlingWhy don't you invite me in?Don't try to feed me'Cause I've been ...
New Zealand First has introduced a Member’s Bill aimed at preventing banks from refusing their services to businesses because of the current “Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Framework”. “This Bill ensures fairness and prevents ESG standards from perpetuating woke ideology in the banking sector being driven by unelected, globalist, climate ...
Erica Stanford has reached peak shortsightedness if today’s announcement is anything to go by, picking apart immigration settings piece by piece to the detriment of the New Zealand economy. ...
Our originating document, theTreaty of Waitangi, was signed on February 6, 1840. An agreement between Māori and the British Crown. Initially inked by Ngā Puhi in Waitangi, further signatures were added as it travelled south. The intention was to establish a colony with the cession of sovereignty to the Crown, ...
Te Whatu Ora Chief Executive Margie Apa leaving her job four months early is another symptom of this government’s failure to deliver healthcare for New Zealanders. ...
The Green Party is calling for the Prime Minister to show leadership and be unequivocal about Aotearoa New Zealand’s opposition to a proposal by the US President to remove Palestinians from Gaza. ...
The latest unemployment figures reveal that job losses are hitting Māori and Pacific people especially hard, with Māori unemployment reaching a staggering 9.7% for the December 2024 quarter and Pasifika unemployment reaching 10.5%. ...
Waitangi 2025: Waitangi Day must be community and not politically driven - Shane Jones Our originating document, theTreaty of Waitangi, was signed on February 6, 1840. An agreement between Māori and the British Crown. Initially inked by Ngā Puhi in Waitangi, further signatures were added as it travelled south. ...
Despite being confronted every day with people in genuine need being stopped from accessing emergency housing – National still won’t commit to building more public houses. ...
The Green Party says the Government is giving up on growing the country’s public housing stock, despite overwhelming evidence that we need more affordable houses to solve the housing crisis. ...
Before any thoughts of the New Year and what lies ahead could even be contemplated, New Zealand reeled with the tragedy of Senior Sergeant Lyn Fleming losing her life. For over 38 years she had faithfully served as a front-line Police officer. Working alongside her was Senior Sergeant Adam Ramsay ...
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson will return to politics at Waitangi on Monday the 3rd of February where she will hold a stand up with fellow co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick. ...
Te Pāti Māori is appalled by the government's blatant mishandling of the school lunch programme. David Seymour’s ‘cost-saving’ measures have left tamariki across Aotearoa with unidentifiable meals, causing distress and outrage among parents and communities alike. “What’s the difference between providing inedible food, and providing no food at all?” Said ...
The Government is doubling down on outdated and volatile fossil fuels, showing how shortsighted and destructive their policies are for working New Zealanders. ...
Green Party MP Steve Abel this morning joined Coromandel locals in Waihi to condemn new mining plans announced by Shane Jones in the pit of the town’s Australian-owned Gold mine. ...
The Green Party is calling on the Government to strengthen its just-announced 2030-2035 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement and address its woeful lack of commitment to climate security. ...
Today marks a historic moment for Taranaki iwi with the passing of the Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill in Parliament. "Today, we stand together as descendants of Taranaki, and our tūpuna, Taranaki Maunga, is now formally acknowledged by the law as a living tūpuna. ...
Labour is relieved to see Children’s Minister Karen Chhour has woken up to reality and reversed her government’s terrible decisions to cut funding from frontline service providers – temporarily. ...
It is the first week of David Seymour’s school lunch programme and already social media reports are circulating of revolting meals, late deliveries, and mislabelled packaging. ...
The Green Party says that with no-cause evictions returning from today, the move to allow landlords to end tenancies without reason plunges renters, and particularly families who rent, into insecurity and stress. ...
The Government’s move to increase speed limits substantially on dozens of stretches of rural and often undivided highways will result in more serious harm. ...
In her first announcement as Economic Growth Minister, Nicola Willis chose to loosen restrictions for digital nomads from other countries, rather than focus on everyday Kiwis. ...
The Government’s commitment to get New Zealand’s roads back on track is delivering strong results, with around 98 per cent of potholes on state highways repaired within 24 hours of identification every month since targets were introduced, Transport Minister Chris Bishop says. “Increasing productivity to help rebuild our economy is ...
The former Cadbury factory will be the site of the Inpatient Building for the new Dunedin Hospital and Health Minister Simeon Brown says actions have been taken to get the cost overruns under control. “Today I am giving the people of Dunedin certainty that we will build the new Dunedin ...
From today, Plunket in Whāngarei will be offering childhood immunisations – the first of up to 27 sites nationwide, Health Minister Simeon Brown says. The investment of $1 million into the pilot, announced in October 2024, was made possible due to the Government’s record $16.68 billion investment in health. It ...
New Zealand’s strong commitment to the rights of disabled people has continued with the response to an important United Nations report, Disability Issues Minister Louise Upston has announced. Of the 63 concluding observations of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), 47 will be progressed ...
Resources Minister Shane Jones has launched New Zealand’s national Minerals Strategy and Critical Minerals List, documents that lay a strategic and enduring path for the mineral sector, with the aim of doubling exports to $3 billion by 2035. Mr Jones released the documents, which present the Coalition Government’s transformative vision ...
Firstly I want to thank OceanaGold for hosting our event today. Your operation at Waihi is impressive. I want to acknowledge local MP Scott Simpson, local government dignitaries, community stakeholders and all of you who have gathered here today. It’s a privilege to welcome you to the launch of the ...
Racing Minister, Winston Peters has announced the Government is preparing public consultation on GST policy proposals which would make the New Zealand racing industry more competitive. “The racing industry makes an important economic contribution. New Zealand thoroughbreds are in demand overseas as racehorses and for breeding. The domestic thoroughbred industry ...
Business confidence remains very high and shows the economy is on track to improve, Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis says. “The latest ANZ Business Outlook survey, released yesterday, shows business confidence and expected own activity are ‘still both very high’.” The survey reports business confidence fell eight points to +54 ...
Enabling works have begun this week on an expanded radiology unit at Hawke’s Bay Fallen Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital which will double CT scanning capacity in Hawke’s Bay to ensure more locals can benefit from access to timely, quality healthcare, Health Minister Simeon Brown says. This investment of $29.3m in the ...
The Government has today announced New Zealand’s second international climate target under the Paris Agreement, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says. New Zealand will reduce emissions by 51 to 55 per cent compared to 2005 levels, by 2035. “We have worked hard to set a target that is both ambitious ...
Nine years of negotiations between the Crown and iwi of Taranaki have concluded following Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/the Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill passing its third reading in Parliament today, Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “This Bill addresses the historical grievances endured by the eight iwi ...
As schools start back for 2025, there will be a relentless focus on teaching the basics brilliantly so all Kiwi kids grow up with the knowledge, skills and competencies needed to grow the New Zealand of the future, Education Minister Erica Stanford says. “A world-leading education system is a key ...
Housing Minister Chris Bishop and Associate Agriculture Minister Mark Patterson have welcomed Kāinga Ora’s decision to re-open its tender for carpets to allow wool carpet suppliers to bid. “In 2024 Kāinga Ora issued requests for tender (RFTs) seeking bids from suppliers to carpet their properties,” Mr Bishop says. “As part ...
Associate Education Minister David Seymour has today visited Otahuhu College where the new school lunch programme has served up healthy lunches to students in the first days of the school year. “As schools open in 2025, the programme will deliver nutritious meals to around 242,000 students, every school day. On ...
Minister for Children Karen Chhour has intervened in Oranga Tamariki’s review of social service provider contracts to ensure Barnardos can continue to deliver its 0800 What’s Up hotline. “When I found out about the potential impact to this service, I asked Oranga Tamariki for an explanation. Based on the information ...
A bill to make revenue collection on imported and exported goods fairer and more effective had its first reading in Parliament, Customs Minister Casey Costello said today. “The Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill modernises the way in which Customs can recover the costs of services that are needed ...
Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden says the Department of Internal Affairs [the Department] has achieved significant progress in completing applications for New Zealand citizenship. “December 2024 saw the Department complete 5,661 citizenship applications, the most for any month in 2024. This is a 54 per cent increase compared ...
Reversals to Labour’s blanket speed limit reductions begin tonight and will be in place by 1 July, says Minister of Transport Chris Bishop. “The previous government was obsessed with slowing New Zealanders down by imposing illogical and untargeted speed limit reductions on state highways and local roads. “National campaigned on ...
Finance Minister Nicola Willis has announced Budget 2025 – the Growth Budget - will be delivered on Thursday 22 May. “This year’s Budget will drive forward the Government’s plan to grow our economy to improve the incomes of New Zealanders now and in the years ahead. “Budget 2025 will build ...
For the Government, 2025 will bring a relentless focus on unleashing the growth we need to lift incomes, strengthen local businesses and create opportunity. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon today laid out the Government’s growth agenda in his Statement to Parliament. “Just over a year ago this Government was elected by ...
Associate Education Minister David Seymour welcomes students back to school with a call to raise attendance from last year. “The Government encourages all students to attend school every day because there is a clear connection between being present at school and setting yourself up for a bright future,” says Mr ...
The Government is relaxing visitor visa requirements to allow tourists to work remotely while visiting New Zealand, Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis, Immigration Minister Erica Stanford and Tourism Minister Louise Upston say. “The change is part of the Government’s plan to unlock New Zealand’s potential by shifting the country onto ...
The opening of Kāinga Ora’s development of 134 homes in Epuni, Lower Hutt will provide much-needed social housing for Hutt families, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “I’ve been a strong advocate for social housing on Kāinga Ora’s Epuni site ever since the old earthquake-prone housing was demolished in 2015. I ...
Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay will travel to Australia today for meetings with Australian Trade Minister, Senator Don Farrell, and the Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum (ANZLF). Mr McClay recently hosted Minister Farrell in Rotorua for the annual Closer Economic Relations (CER) Trade Ministers’ meeting, where ANZLF presented on ...
A new monthly podiatry clinic has been launched today in Wairoa and will bring a much-needed service closer to home for the Wairoa community, Health Minister Simeon Brown says.“Health New Zealand has been successful in securing a podiatrist until the end of June this year to meet the needs of ...
The Judicial Conduct Commissioner has recommended a Judicial Conduct Panel be established to inquire into and report on the alleged conduct of acting District Court Judge Ema Aitken in an incident last November, Attorney-General Judith Collins said today. “I referred the matter of Judge Aitken’s alleged conduct during an incident ...
Students who need extra help with maths are set to benefit from a targeted acceleration programme that will give them more confidence in the classroom, Education Minister Erica Stanford says. “Last year, significant numbers of students did not meet the foundational literacy and numeracy level required to gain NCEA. To ...
Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has announced three new diplomatic appointments. “Our diplomats play an important role in ensuring New Zealand’s interests are maintained and enhanced across the world,” Mr Peters says. “It is a pleasure to announce the appointment of these senior diplomats from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and ...
Ki te kahore he whakakitenga, ka ngaro te Iwi – without a vision, the people will perish. The Government has achieved its target to reduce the number of households in emergency housing motels by 75 per cent five years early, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says. The number of households ...
The opening of Palmerston North’s biggest social housing development will have a significant impact for whānau in need of safe, warm, dry housing, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says. The minister visited the development today at North Street where a total of 50 two, three, and four-bedroom homes plus a ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters has announced the new membership of the Public Advisory Committee on Disarmament and Arms Control (PACDAC), who will serve for a three-year term. “The Committee brings together wide-ranging expertise relevant to disarmament. We have made six new appointments to the Committee and reappointed two existing members ...
Ka nui te mihi kia koutou. Kia ora, good morning, talofa, malo e lelei, bula vinaka, da jia hao, namaste, sat sri akal, assalamu alaikum. It’s so great to be here and I’m ready and pumped for 2025. Can I start by acknowledging: Simon Bridges – CEO of the Auckland ...
The Government has unveiled a bold new initiative to position New Zealand as a premier destination for foreign direct investment (FDI) that will create higher paying jobs and grow the economy. “Invest New Zealand will streamline the investment process and provide tailored support to foreign investors, to increase capital investment ...
Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Judith Collins today announced the largest reset of the New Zealand science system in more than 30 years with reforms which will boost the economy and benefit the sector. “The reforms will maximise the value of the $1.2 billion in government funding that goes into ...
Turbocharging New Zealand’s economic growth is the key to brighter days ahead for all Kiwis, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says. In the Prime Minister’s State of the Nation Speech in Auckland today, Christopher Luxon laid out the path to the prosperity that will affect all aspects of New Zealanders’ lives. ...
The latest set of accounts show the Government has successfully checked the runaway growth of public spending, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. “In the previous government’s final five months in office, public spending was almost 10 per cent higher than for the same period the previous year. “That is completely ...
The Government’s welfare reforms are delivering results with the number of people moving off benefits into work increasing year-on-year for six straight months. “There are positive signs that our welfare reset and the return consequences for job seekers who don't fulfil their obligations to prepare for or find a job ...
Jon Kroll and Aimee McCammon have been appointed to the New Zealand Film Commission Board, Arts Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “I am delighted to appoint these two new board members who will bring a wealth of industry, governance, and commercial experience to the Film Commission. “Jon Kroll has been an ...
Finance Minister Nicola Willis has hailed a drop in the domestic component of inflation, saying it increases the prospect of mortgage rate reductions and a lower cost of living for Kiwi households. Stats NZ reported today that inflation was 2.2 per cent in the year to December, the second consecutive ...
Two new appointed members and one reappointed member of the Employment Relations Authority have been announced by Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden today. “I’m pleased to announce the new appointed members Helen van Druten and Matthew Piper to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) and welcome them to ...
Comment: Saturday February 1 was the grim fourth anniversary of the military coup in Myanmar. The date seems to have gone unnoticed back here in New Zealand. Even before war in Ukraine and then Gaza, Myanmar got little attention. Yet it is the most destructive conflict in our region. The ...
We’re on the brink of a ‘tidal wave’ of misinformation.No one knows the size of it, but there’s a warning that leaving it to the government to sort out won’t work.In the year of local government elections, expect computer-generated content where the sources and authenticity are murky; more complaints about ...
Comment: The next four years are going to bring a terrible information environment, with absurd claims bubbling up from fever swamps overseas The post Paranoia and politics appeared first on Newsroom. ...
Swirly World Sails South, by Andrew Fagan (2012)I feel Andrew is totally under-rated as an author. Alongside his latest book, Swirly World: Lost at Sea, his earlier sailing book is among my favourites. It tells of his trip around New Zealand – via the Auckland Islands. When he set out, ...
A lineup of prominent figures have joined the call to halt the deportation of a mother convicted of inflicting injuries on her baby, as fears grow she could be another victim of a ...
Yasser Abdulaal, who has lived in Ōtautahi Christchurch for five years, said his two sisters had lost their homes in the 15-month-long war. “Toxic wasteland” . . . Palestinians take shelter in tents set up amid heavily damaged buildings in Jabalia in the northern Gaza Strip. Image: Al Jazeera screenshot ...
RNZ PacificMarshall Islands Journal editor Giff Johnson says US President Donald Trump’s decision on aid “is an opening for anybody else who wants to fill the gap” in the Pacific. Trump froze all USAID for 90 days on his first day in office and is now looking to significantly ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Mazza, Director, SPHERE NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health in Primary Care and Professor and Head of the Department of General Practice, Monash University PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock Ahead of the government’s response this week ...
COMMENTARY:By Eugene Doyle It generally ends badly. An old tyrant embarks on an ill-considered project that involves redrawing maps. They are heedless to wise counsel and indifferent to indigenous interests or experience. Before they fail, are killed, deposed or otherwise disposed of, these vicious old men can cause immense ...
The Cook Islands PM is in Beijing to sign an agreement with China - but the government says he failed to consult with NZ on the matter, as is required. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katinka van de Ven, Alcohol and other drug specialist, UNSW Sydney Fewer young Australians are drinking. And when they do drink, they are drinking less and less often than previous generations at the same age. It’s a trend happening all around the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flavio Macau, Associate Dean – School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University Hitra/Shutterstock Coles is reducing its product range by at least 10%, a move that has sparked public backlash and renewed discussions about the role of supermarkets in the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacinta Humphrey, Research Fellow in Urban Ecology, RMIT University Golf courses are sometimes seen as harmful to the environment. According to the popular notion, the grass soaks up too much water, is cut too short and sprayed with dangerous chemicals. But in ...
New Zealand has long championed a fair, stable, and resilient global order. As a nation with deep ties to the Pacific and beyond, we cannot afford to be passive in the face of these shifts. ...
Things are going to look a little different this year. Here’s what to expect.Good news, Shortland Street fans: after a well-earned summer holiday, New Zealand’s longest running drama returns to TVNZ2 and TVNZ+ tonight. Ahead of us is a fresh year of living, loving and laughing in the nation’s ...
The poll, conducted between 02 and 04 February, shows National up 2.3 points to 31.9 percent, while Labour has risen 0.4 points from last month to 31.3 percent. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katrina McFerran, Professor and Head of Creative Arts and Music Therapy Research Unit; Director of Researcher Development Unit, The University of Melbourne New York Public Library Many of us take pleasure in listening to music. Music accompanies important life events and ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katrina McFerran, Professor and Head of Creative Arts and Music Therapy Research Unit; Director of Researcher Development Unit, The University of Melbourne New York Public Library Many of us take pleasure in listening to music. Music accompanies important life events and ...
The Cook Islands finds itself in a precarious dance — one between the promises of foreign investments and the integrity of our own sovereignty. As the country sways between partners China and Aotearoa New Zealand, the Cook Islands News asks: “Do we continue to haka with the Taniwha, our constitutional ...
A diplomatic scuffle with the Cook Islands. Plus: What went down at Waitangi. The Cook Islands prime minister, Mark Brown, has provoked the wrath of the New Zealand foreign minister with his decision to head to China to sign a new strategic deal. By failing to consult on the ...
The deputy chairperson of the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine, Dr Michael Connelly, said simply setting targets without "resourcing" them was a pointless exercise, as the number of patients - and their acuity - continuing to grow. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Suvradip Maitra, PhD Student, Australian National University Tero Vesalainen/Shutterstock Late last year, ChatGPT was used by a Victorian child protection worker to draft documents. In a glaring error, ChatGPT referred to a “doll” used for sexual purposes as an “age-appropriate toy”. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niven Winchester, Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology Getty Images Donald Trump has already made good on his threat to impose an additional 10% tax on Chinese goods, and is due to announce a 25% tariff on all steel and ...
Diplomatic tension between the Cook Islands and New Zealand is growing. Here's what it's about about, what China has to do with it, and why it matters. ...
Sick of human reality TV? Alex Casey has found a perfect solution in David Attenborough’s latest. I’m know I’m not alone when I say this: humans are bleaking me out at the moment. Turn on the news for the bleakest updates imaginable. Try to numb the pain with Married at ...
MSM in March: Posie Parker is a fascist! Feminists are Nazis!
MSM in April: It is terrible that a National party candidate wrote a poem about Jacinda being Hitler. This is unconscionable!
lol. Weird fucking times.
Thanks for the triggered disinformation. Now I know for sure I am not in Kansas.
You, of course, have links showing the MSN calling Posie Parker a fascist, and that feminists are Nazis.
Stuff 1 2 3 4
Herald 1 2 3
Spinoff 1 2 3
RNZ 1 2 3
1 news 1 2 3
It was a beautifully executed propaganda campaign
Just show two quotes. saying either of them.
Coming to New Zealand on CPAC money to provoke counter-protest and support for it from the left was also a beautifully executed propaganda campaign by the political right, who chose her well.
Given their plans for the USA (as a leader of the white race Five Eyes nations) dividing women against each other was essential to their cause.
You can lead a horse to water, etc.
I agree that PP/KJK is a divisive figure sponsored by CPAC. But the NZ media did themselves no credit by their alarmist behaviour, stirring up as much hate and fear as possible.
I don't see what's so scary about "letting women speak". The public is ill served by fact free invective
This phrase is very apt.
What is/was so scary about LWS?
Have we not learnt from the vaccine rollout about 'fact free invective'.
Even though it in this case of KJM it was promulgated by MSM and not shady overseas dis-mis-information from the Disinformation dozen.
Did you make that up? Please provide some evidence that KJK used CPAC money for the NZ trip. My understanding is that CPAC provided liability insurance in Australia and that KJK funded the NZ trip herself, but am open to seeing evidence that CPAC paid for the NZ trip.
https://feministleft.wordpress.com/2023/03/06/are-you-thinking-of-going-to-kellie-jay-keens-events-in-australia-or-nz-read-this-first/
Yes, I know that she got funding in Australia from CPAC, I said that in the comment you replied to. Does she say in the video that her whole Australian tour was funded by CPAC? A time stamp would be handy.
I was asking SPC for evidence for their claim that the NZ trip was funded by CPAC.
From 13:00mins in the video:
IIRC, liability insurance for events?
Because we have ACC, Molly, NZ event organisers do not have to insure against damage to attendees. That is not the case in other countries, where you may pay a sizeable premium against possible injury/death claims.
@tWiggle
I think someone else on TS has mentioned this applied only to Australia. The logo was probably left as a courtesy to CPAC, or an admin oversight.
There is a KJK video where she confirms that she receives no money from CPAC.
(TBH, I don't care. If CPAC is a legal organisation, who BTW have a pretty bland conservative set of aims, then what is the problem?)
thanks arkie!
It's a little ambiguous whether CPAC were providing the insurance alone, or whether the sponsorship covers other costs on the Australian tour.
The issue here is whether KJK's position on this is a problem.
For GCFs, it is. The feministleft piece is a good explainer, Women's Liberation Aotearoa have also talked about this. KJK's tolerance of and working with the FR harms society via its contribution to rising fascism, and it harms GCF.
For TRAs, it also is. It harms trans people, rainbow people, people in general and society for the same rising fascism reasons. However, for TRAs, anyone who is critical of gender identity ideology is now being attached to fascism, and that's neither true nor helpful. It's a harm itself as well. Terf = Nazi rhetoric makes informed debate much harder and renders left wing, feminist GC positions invisible.
Those positions are the ones that support trans rights and women's rights, so it's an own goal by TRAs to conflate GC with fascism.
KJK arise out of the vacuum left by No Debate. She's all sorts of problems for GCFs, but I also understand her position of refusing guilty by association. Nothing will ever be enough for TRAs, and in that sense the demand for her to do whatever is dishonest. She's wrong not to distance herself from Nazis/FR, but if she did, TRAs would just find another stick to beat her with because of her fundamental support for women's sex based rights. That's the thing that cannot be tolerated.
My view on this is informed by the frequency with which left wing, gender critical feminists are called Nazis.
Plenty of links, none saying what you said.
The associations were obvious and egregious.
Maybe if the MSM were so concerned about hate speech they should stop publishing Lal and Tweedie
https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/03/24/lilah-lilahrpg-posie-parker-kellie-jay-keen-minshull/
The photos here legitimize all the quotes you are wrongly using as a MSM bias.
Yes, because "Prick News" is totally unbiased – just like Stonewall UK. They are both "Trans Rights" organisations shrouded in a stolen rainbow flag.
I'm not the one claiming bias in the main street media. Roblogic was and the photos in that article simply justify the reporting in the MSM about Nazis. Those visuals were on our TV reports as well. If Roblogic can't, how about you link to any quote in the MSM that "PP is a fascist" if not you have no value in this discussion.
I've not seen any evidence that the neo Nazis joined the rally. From the accounts I've read they didn't join the rally but counter protested the TRA counter protest as well as making their own stand.
Go on then Pink News, show us the video. You've got a tiktok influencer in your piece, where is their video?
The legit liberal argument here is why neo Nazis would consider it useful to do what they did. Is it because KJK is a secret Nazi and was signalling them to come? Is it because they hate trans people and coopted the event? The latter seems much more likely to me, even allowing for KJK's conservative, populist, playing all sides position. Her position is an obvious problem, but it's not the same as being a Nazi sympathiser.
If Roblogic can't back up their comment that the MSM called "PP is a fascist" or "Feminists are Nazis" how about you do. I notice you're asking for evidence at 1.4 because comments counter your view yet you are santioning, by agreement, misinformation and disinformation . As you say "Weird fucking times"
Two people, including yourself, have already called Roblogic out on what he said, he's responded. Two things are clear from that exchange,
That's TS functioning well. Commenters hold each other accountable. The less mods have to intervene the better.
Mod note,
You cannot make shit up about my motivations. If you do, I will moderate.
There are other ways to make your point here without thinking you can mindread. For instance, you could say that you think it's unfair that Roblogic got to make an inaccurate claim and you didn't (with and explanation). But you can't make declaratory statements about and author/mod's views and motivations when you don't know what they are.
I'm pointing this out because it's becoming a habit here and it has to stop (for obvious reasons). Please acknowledge that you have read and understood. I'm happy to clarify anything if asked.
Yes Weka I acknowledge your pre-moderation. In my honest opinion you have not evenly moderated on this topic. You, of course, will claim you have.
None of this would be necessary if you had, as has been asked for a long time, allowed a "Daily GC Debate" like the "Open Mike" or "Daily Review" Then it would be much less likely some of us would get triggered by lies and misinformation and then hooked into a debate we don't belong in I believe it would save you a substantial amount of moderating time.
In my humble opinion.
thanks RBO.
It’s not about allowing a daily GC debate, it’s about the work involved in doing that, and whether it’s best for the site. Last year it was mooted, to keep OM clear of gender/sex debate, but at that time it wasn’t happening on a daily basis so I didn’t see the need.
A few weeks ago it was raised again, and it’s something I have been thinking about for a while, but it looks to me like what’s happened since then is that there are less gender/sex comments in OM and people are continuing conversations from previous days’ threads instead. This seems a good thing to me.
The idea wasn’t to ghetto-ise GC debate into a single post, it was to set up a dedicated post for anyone to talk about any aspect of the gender/sex wars (I have also considered doing some dedicated posts on GC topics, but that’s a different thing).
What you seem to be saying is that some people here should take their politics somewhere else, and that’s just not going to happen. Especially not in an election year. I won’t ghetto-ise GCs any more than I would TRAs. It’s against the ethos of the site.
In terms of being triggered, that’s happening on both sides. I can only suggest learning how to step back and then re-engage from a place of evidenced-based robust debate. I made this suggestion to a GC person a few days ago, in case you think I am being unfair.
Any lies and misinformation on TS, on any topic, get dealt with in two ways. One is by commenters holding other commenters to account. The other is by moderation. The first is preferable, because that’s how informed debate happens and because it lessens the mod workload. What’s happened in DR here is a really good example of that working well.
If you see any lies being told, you are free to do a reply comment to me with a link and a brief explanation of what the lie is, and I will run my moderator eye over it.
You challenged, I responded, you reject the evidence (or my interpretation thereof). That is your perogative, I suppose. Everyone brings their own perspective. My original comment was simply an observation of MSM hypocrisy around certain narratives.
Are you trying to claim that is unbiased reporting? Jeepers
There was a Nazi group, New Zealandia, who came to support Posie at Albert Park. And let's face it, your group here are trans exclusionary. Doesn't sound like hate speech to me, just reasonable descriptors of some attendees. Hate speech is stuff like "trans men should be sterilised" and "of course autogynephiles also exhibit other paraphilia, like pedophilia" (Posie Parker).
"Your group are trans exclusionary"
That is true, but the falsehood is when this is equated with hatefulness. This is simply an abusive gaslighting tactic.
Women are allowed to say "no" to men
And so I say No! to you. I've no idea why, though.
You are aware that quite a few of the gender critical right are literally Nazis right? As in believers in facism?
And because intersectionality is, of course, bullshit woke ideology, there's no shades of grey here. They're either what I arbitrarily a Nazi, or they're not. And to be honest, I don't want to share a bathroom or a safe space with Nazis.
If only we had a theory to describe how people's identities are comprised of more than one aspect. Or, suggested that the mislabelling of minorities by a powerful majority was a bad thing.
/sarc
Maybe give us some examples of the literal Nazis who are gender critical. The far right like gender and want it enforced (think Matt Walsh), so I'm curious who you had in mind.
Direct quote from a person speaking at a Posy Parker rally which I found at https://aninjusticemag.com/terfs-are-totally-not-nazis-c489c5cecf30
So you can talk like a Nazi, act like a Nazi, literally quote Adolf Hitler. but somehow, magically not be a Nazi?
Last year I watched the video of that woman at Let Women Speak. I know it's hard to credit that someone could be so politically naive as to a) reference Hitler's ideas and b) do so with that idea in some kind of backwards way so that GC people are compared to Hitler and TRAs to Jews, but there it is.
But was there any evidence that she talks and acts like a Nazi apart from that? Someone surely has tracked her work or online presence outside that speech and found pictures of her with Nazis, or agreeing with Nazis.
I also haven't seen anything to suggest she is right wing
Having watched her speech, I think she was just stupid. But I'm open to being wrong. It's entirely possible that she is a Nazi sympathiser and Jew hater. I haven't seen the evidence for that. But good effort, I agree that if she is a Nazi sympathiser then this would be an example of a Nazi being kind of gender critical. Any other examples? You did say "quite a few of the gender critical right are literally Nazis right"
Btw, I'll note that your link doesn't link to the video. I wonder why. It's very unlikely that the woman speaking is a trans exclusionary radical feminist, so I'll take the piece as being firmly entrenched in terf = nazi ideology and not able to parse truth or meaning very well.
Here's the video.
https://youtu.be/uopOdwuHjo4
I beg to differ that understanding there's a significant overlap between the elements, beliefs and tactics of the gender critical movement and those of facism is sign of subscribing to an ideology.
But we live in a democracy, this a place for open and robust debate, and even reasonable people can strongly disagree from time-to-time.
So I respect your criticism and your disagreement
the 'gender critical movement' is really a hodge podge of different views on gender identity ideology and its main central point is believing the biological sex matters.
People who think there is a significant overlap between the 'GC movement' and fascism either don't understand what the range of GC thought is, or do but choose to ignore and render invisible the large left wing and progressive and feminist gender critical movements.
Terf is a slur and it's been used online to promote some of the worst misogynistic abuse many of us have seen. Leftie TRAs have had this pointed out to them and still won't condemn it. It's basically been sanctioned by the neoliberal left.
if you're not familiar with this then please take a good look
terfisaslur.com/
Anyone using the term terf as a pejorative after seeing that is actively engaging in intentional marginalisation of women and/or is using it for propaganda purposes. Not even the worst of left wing rhetoric against right wing women went there (think Ruth Richardson or Thatcher). But now it is acceptable to target women with sexualised and death violence messaging for political purposes.
Know who else does that? Men's Rights Activists and right to rape men. If terf = nazi, then anti-terfers = MRAs and rapists. See how fucking stupid that is?
I'd like it if 'men in skirts' and autogynephile were banned at The Standard too as disrespectful. The twitter feed of the man who coined that second term 40 years ago is disgustingly transphobic.
'Autogynephile', when used outside research or therapy settings that examine sexual visualisation, is a nasty perjorative. The original researcher claimed autogynephilia, fantasising about having a woman's body for sexual gratification, was a paraphilia, an abnormal, uncontrollable fetishism, and it was the way that trans women attracted to other women developed. Those two research conclusions have since been debunked, but the term has stuck.
Posie Parker is on video claiming autogynephiles exhibit other paraphilia, specifically pedophilia. Yuk, Posie, another lie.
At least TERF is just an acronym for trans exclusionary radical feminists, even if said with a nasty sneer. I do have to confess, I've been using the 'men in skirts' ironically today, but I can control myself if needed.
Cheers for that. It's always better when there is that degree of capacity for disagreement but still being able to respect people.
You mean, like the widespread slandering of women attempting to speak about the erosion of their rights?
Who is someone who believes in fascism who is gender critical? What examples do you have of someone with both these views in NZ?
Most gender critical feminists are of course left leaning. The majority of SUFW are Labour/Green voters.
I am not sure what you are talking about other than slinging around some labels like Nazi and fascist. This I think was the point of Roblogics comment that two people who both happen to be women were called Nazis/likened to Adolf Hitler.
Association for Women in Development is an international feminist organisation. As part of its brief, according to Wikipedia, AWID
" coordinates the Observatory on the Universality of Rights (OURs), a collaborative project with over 20 other NGOs, that aims "to monitor, analyse, share information and do collaborative advocacy on […] anti-rights initiatives threatening international and regional human rights systems" from a feminist perspective. OURs' working group includes Planned Parenthood, the World Council of Churches, Muslims for Progressive Values and other organizations."
As part of this monitoring, AWID reported in 2021 on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which has had concerted attacks on progressive feminist positions by state and political lobby groups who are trying to roll back womens' rights internationally.
From this report I quote specifically on attacks at Commission meetings on trans rights (point 3 of the report):
"This year’s CSW saw an alarming increase in the presence of anti-trans feminists. A parallel event, “Defending Women’s Sex Based Rights” was organised by trans-exclusionary feminists associated with the Women’s Human Rights Campaign to promote their Declaration on Women’s Sex-based Rights. The crux of their campaign asserts that trans people – trans women in particular – are a threat to cisgender women and endanger women-only spaces. The event used images depicting gender-based violence to leverage false accusations against trans women. The event also used images of trans people, evidently without their consent, invalidating their identities. Similar to other anti-rights actors, it becomes clear that the Campaign engages in sensationalism, and fear-mongering to get their messages across, for example invoking sexual trauma of cisgender women to paint trans people as a threat. Trans-exclusionary feminists flooded the Zoom chats of many events, especially those focused on sex workers and LGBTIQ rights, with the Declaration and related messages. They also claimed they were being censored, a narrative commonly used by trans-exclusionary feminists and anti-rights actors more broadly, despite their views being given space on many mainstream media platforms."
AWID 2021 report on UN Commission on the Status of Women
Here is an international womens' rights organisation vitally concerned that attacks on transgender rights framed by a section of gender-critical feminists negatively impacts on womens' rights overall.
This is feminists worried about other feminists denying trans rights with messaging that will be eerily familiar to readers of The Standard.
"The crux of their campaign asserts that trans people – trans women in particular – are a threat to cisgender women and endanger women-only spaces."
This interpretation assumes a lot:
What is being demanded is exclusion from that societal expectation so that boundaries for single-sex spaces can be broken.
"This is feminists worried about other feminists denying trans rights with messaging that will be eerily familiar to readers of The Standard."
It might be a strange notion, but women – including some who call themselves feminists – are not a hive mind. There are plenty of organisations that have aims that are contrary to their chosen names. eg. Taxpayers Union
"There are plenty of organisations that have aims that are contrary to their chosen names". If 'Let Women Speak' doesn't consider the opinion of the 'Association of Women in Development' to be women speaking, then it certainly doesn't live up to a claim of speaking for all of us. Exactly like the misnamed Taxpayers' Union, so thanks for making that point.
I really can't understand your toilet usage paragraph. Having 'a feeling' that trans women in NZ public toilets and change spaces are not 'right', or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it', is just not enough for me as an argument.
I absolutely agree that everyone using those spaces should BE safe. Please show the data that trans women are a significant threat in NZ public toilets and change areas to other users. To help, I've calculated the number of NZ's trans women population for you.
Stats NZ reported that 4.2% of adult NZers identified as LGBT+ and 0.8% as transgender or non-binary. Of these, 33.2% identified themselves as male-to-female. In 2020, with a resident population of 4.9 mi, and 87.8% aged 15+ this gave
4,900,000 x 0.878 x 0.008 x 0.332 = 11,400 trans women, or 'men in skirts' as they have been so charmingly identified on this site.
Currently, access in NZ of transwomen to toilets and change rooms in public spaces, gyms, schools, etc is either open and unpoliced, or is set on a case by case basis depending on the organisation/club/school administering the space. In other words, no one is stopping trans women accessing many of these facilities, so we already have a mostly-integrated system.
How many cases of intimidation or violence by these 11,400 transwomen in toilet/changing rooms were reported or prosecuted around toilets and change areas in the last 5 years? To get the whole picture, what are the stats for intimidation and violence experienced by trans women using either mens' toilets or womens' toilets? And, of course, your data must also include criminal behaviour by 'unskirted' men in such 'women-safe' spaces as a benchmark.
When you can give me validated data, or point to multiple media-reported examples relevant to our own country that trans women commonly physically or verbally attack other users in 'women-safe' spaces, then I will give some respect to your feelings about the dangerousness of NZ trans women.
It's important to note that I don't expect there to be no examples – that would hold trans women to an inhuman standard of good behaviour. The critical data is not 0 cases, but the proportion in those 11,400 trans women who offend in such circumstances.
"I really can't understand your toilet usage paragraph. Having 'a feeling' that trans women in NZ public toilets and change spaces are not 'right', or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it', is just not enough for me as an argument."
Which paragraph is this?
I have not referred to 'a feeling', not 'right' or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it' – so, you are either misunderstanding me, or setting up a framework of objections that I haven't made in order to refute them.
"I absolutely agree that everyone using those spaces should BE safe. Please show the data that trans women are a significant threat in NZ public toilets and change areas to other users. "
I have not claimed they are a threat. I support their safety. Men should make all men welcome and safe in their single-sex provisions – including those with gender identities.
"To help, I've calculated the number of NZ's trans women population for you."
Unnecessary – but thank you. This calculation will continue to be somewhat hampered as both NZ Statistics and the latest NZ Census are reluctant to distinguish between sex and identity.
"When you can give me validated data, or point to multiple media-reported examples relevant to our own country that trans women commonly physically or verbally attack other users in 'women-safe' spaces, then I will give some respect to your feelings about the dangerousness of NZ trans women."
Once again, it is not the ‘dangerousness of NZ trans women’ that excludes them from single-sex provisions – it is their male sex. As well as excluding men who have gender identities, I exclude my father, my grandfathers, my brother, my partner of over thirty years, and my three adult sons. Not because I think they are predatory or dangerous – but because they are men.
And here is a very pertinent consideration: All those men self-excluded because they respect women, and have consideration for them.
Along with single-sex safety boundaries – BASED on risk assessment statistics – is the value single-sex spaces hold for women and girls of privacy and dignity.
Consent is also an issue.
Women cannot consent for others in shared single-sex spaces – eg. I cannot claim the men in my life are trustworthy – so everyone should allow them in. In terms of single-sex provision, many women are saying it should be maintained by SEX. In an individual private life, individual women are able to consent according to their own perspectives, but that automatic dismantling does not apply in public areas.
For someone who wants (further) data collated on harm – where is your data regarding the harm to men with gender identities using their sexed based provisions?
And when you do collate it, then we can weight it against the provision for other vulnerable males who are also at risk, and the existing risk assessment evidence that determined single-sex provision was of benefit in terms of reducing risk for women. Oh yes, and those other aspects of privacy, dignity and consent.
This request from tWiggle falls in to trap we have seen before of requesting data before something happens rather than being able to extrapolate from human behaviour occuring now, and back into the mists of time, with male/female violence.
To me this is unconsionable that a woman/women has to be a fall guy, excuse the phrase, before caution is acted on. So how many women who are distressed, injured, killed in a so-called womens safe space before we say 'oh dear…perhaps we should do something?' 10, 20 one in each country or one in each large city in each country?
For instance we don't say to zoos 'We know lions are dangerous and you want to import one but let's try having it out roaming around in the wild in our cities first', or wait until agricultural pests get established before saying 'oh dear we knew mealie bugs were dangerous to crops and maybe we shouldn't have let them in.'
We work on the concept of dangerousness by sex and work to mitigate risks.
As humans we are able to, and do, carefully extrapolate from a given situation to a another situation.
The point is that fully intact males will be able to enter women's safe spaces. They need not even be on the road to transition, they need not even have a female changed birth certicate. We need to look at worst case scenarios and work our way back to a point of safety for women.
If a nation moves to a position of including all as equal citizens regardless of difference (for example gender), which is human rights centred, there is still the issue of public safety.
If it is decided that gender trumps sex, then there is increased risk from those born male to biological females that requires counter-veiling policy.
Denying gender ID placement/access to women spaces to those who are seen as a risk (as we screen places such as schools).
Women refuges – allowing them to exclude on grounds of safety, as they see fit.
Allowing sports organisations to determine fair competition and participation rules based on the well being of the sport and those of it
Allowing women's groups to exclude those not born female as they choose (as we allow religious groups their sovereignty).
Establish a group that focuses on the provision of safe spacing. and which provides funds for this purpose.
You are conflating equality with same treatment, which is not equality – it is defaulting to a universal concept.
Provision for different needs – ie. age, mobility, sex etc so that they have equal ACCESS to education, health, legislative consideration, employment, housing etc. is the outcome that is sought.
Not a dismissal of those differences, and needs.
Shanreagh. Did you not see the bit where we already have trans women access to womens' toilets in many places? It's happening now. It's been happening for years.
that would be transsexual women who by and large pass. Not any male who says they are a woman. Trans woman now means any male who self-IDs. They don't even have to transition. It also means men who cross dress for sexual arousal and then masturbate in women's spaces. There's a whole porn genre of that.
https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1169574509827022848?s=20
https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1180010806206963713
Is this in NZ?
Is this in NZ? I refuse to see anything pulled from the big wide world if it doesn't come from here. Why should I be exposed to your schlock material designed for outrage? You’re feeding me this chaff as a distraction. Where's your kiwi facts? Fact up! Not schlock up!
women in other countries matter to me, I guess they don’t to you?
But you seem to have missed the point. I was demonstrating that trans woman no longer means someone like Georgina Beyer who has fully transitioned and presents as a woman. When TW meant that, there was no problem sharing women’s toilets etc. That’s no longer the situation.
What I showed you isn’t schlock. It’s men being sexual aggressors in women’s spaces. How many incidents would make it meaningful to take women seriously?
TBH, weka, these incidents don't seem to make a blind bit of difference in terms of addressing the harms of breaking single-sex boundaries in provisions for women.
And to be clear – women should just be able to say "No". And have that "No" respected.
Respected by other women, legislators, policy writers, men with gender identities who seek access to those provisions, allies of both sexes that support that access.
It should not be a case of we will review this change after:
n instances of voyeurism, exhibitionism, verbal abuse, physical or sexual assault.
the point of that in your face stuff is to show tWiggle what ‘trans woman’ means now. If I had more time I’d post the trans umbrella, the history of J Yaniv, that video from years ago of the trans identified male who looked just like a young man, in the group of trans people interrupting a meeting at a women’s book shop. Or any number of other events where TW are actually blokes not transsexuals like Georgina Beyer. Because whatever tWiggle thinks about the TIMs, there’s no way tWiggle can claim that all those blokes have been calling themselves TW and using the women’s loos all these years. Someone would have noticed.
@weka
Fair enough. It'll be interesting to see tWiggle's response.
Is this in NZ?
@weka
tWiggle: – "Is this in NZ?"
.https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-20-04-2023/#comment-1946699
tWiggle: – "Is this in NZ?"
.https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-20-04-2023/#comment-1946698
tWiggle: – "Is this in NZ? I refuse to see anything pulled from the big wide world if it doesn't come from here. Why should I be exposed to your schlock material designed for outrage. Feed me this chaff as a distraction. Whete's your kiwi facts."
.https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-20-04-2023/#comment-1946700
Not interesting as such, but familiar…
https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1169574517850746881?s=20
https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1169574526218395649?s=20
https://twitter.com/YahtaheiT/status/1644150246258212865?s=20
Yes I know. I worked with two transwomen years ago. They used our womens toilets in our offices. They always dressed as females. Everyone knew they were males but they had done the 'hard yards' as it were to move to their new identity by following the procedures that were then laid out to change birth sex.
This is totally different though.
Following on from the NO Debate Self ID concept it will allow fully intact, non or minimally transitioning/ed males access to women's safe spaces.
I fail to see why women should be the ones to cater for this? Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males inot thier spaces. Or why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built always with the over riding principle that women are to be kept safe.
Do you have answers to these questions tWiggle please?
1 Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males into their spaces.
2 Why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built?
No-one seems to want to answer these questions? Could it be that men are seen as dangerous?
"would you be ok with a man, dressed as a woman, masturbating in a mirror in a woman's bathroom, and call that man a woman?"
https://twitter.com/Liberacrat/status/1642671897841156096
that was a five minute twitter search. This stuff has been normalised, I see it reported on twitter fairly often.
So, you either know this is going on and sanction it. Or you don't know this is going on and really have no idea what the problems are that women are trying to talk about but are happy to say that TW have always used women's toilets.
which is?
A two minute search confirms that someone is using a screen grab (sfw) from a series of Japanese porn vids.
Thanks Joe90 for the fact checking?
The "terminology transition" from “transsexual women” to “transgender women”, so that it now includes unprocessed males, is part of the issue.
There are those on the side of transsexual woman (and thus allow them to identify as transgender women) and those against the access of those with a penis (who also identify as transgender women) into separate women's areas because of the safety issue that could result.
Both are fair positions.
That the UK has problems with safety, despite having a transition process rather than self ID is concerning – given we have gone further and closer to self ID. That said the UK has allowed greater access to women's spaces for those who identify as women than we have.
They (current government) now seem set on moving to a women's birth sex ID criteria for access to separate spaces for females – which would be a tragedy for transsexual transgender women there.
We could ourselves move to allow discrimination against transgender women with a penis, or at least against those who chose self ID rather than go through a process over time. That would reduce risk somewhat.
UK Labour have just done a policy position shift to support women’s sex based rights (in some areas at least, this is in the context of hospital wards).
"Unprocessed males" Charming phrase that makes transgender women sound like sides of beef.
@joe90
sukitransgirl had multiple accounts that I viewed on different platforms when they were up.
The screenshot above was available as a video without a sensitivity warning on their Twitter account.
It seemed to be an actual women's toilet facility, as an older women is seen washing her hands and exiting without noticing the act, but later on two young girls come in and are startled when they see what is going on. They exit fairly quickly.
As I said Suki Trans was on multiple public sites with these posts, not just porn sites:
I can’t prove it is retrospect, but here are some of the broken links now that the accounts have been removed that I retrieved from my history:
.https://linktr.ee/transgirlsuki
.https://www.instagram.com/sukitrans/reels/
.https://twitter.com/SukiTrans/status/1613187978557546498
I didn't download the video, because frankly, there was just too much on the accounts, and I found it hard to even watch for confirmation. But there were many videos of this person filming themselves masturbating it what clearly looks like female single-sex spaces spaces, while they were being used by females of all ages.
Japan's $20 billion US p/a porn industry is the world's largest and produces enormous volumes of stomach-turning voyeur material, anime and manga child porn, and abuse/fantasy content that's beyond belief.
Cherry picking from that content is disingenuous.
@joe90
"Japan's $20 billion US p/a porn industry is the world's largest and produces enormous volumes of stomach-turning voyeur material, anime and manga child porn, and abuse/fantasy content that's beyond belief."
You suggested that the screenshot was only available on pornsites. I just clarified that it was on easily accessible platforms without sensitive content warnings, and gave you the broken links as confirmation I had viewed it. Non-consenting women and girls were part of the video I saw and described.
If examples are not able to be provided of harm, because they are also used to generate income via pornsites, and acknowledgement of harm or imposition on girls and women requires some form of evidence, then this is going to hinder any acknowledgement of imposition or impact on girls
Once again: Why are men unable to accommodate males with gender identities in their single-sex spaces?
"Cherry picking from that content is disingenuous."
BTW, if you do go and look at Pornhub there will be a significant difference in the amount of material you will be able to find of men identifying as women, filming themselves exposed or masturbating in women's bathrooms, compared to the number of women doing the same.
Because there is a biological difference in the prevalence of such behaviour in communal spaces.
One not affected by gender identity.
Molly, do you routinely trust everything that is flicked your way on this topic? Personally, as I said, I do not want to look at nasty images that may be posed, faked, or taken out of context, as the Japanese porn. There are 8 billion people on the planet, and connectivity allows access to the imaginings of most of them. These images are anecdotal evidence, not hard data.
Did you see the AWID report section stating that faked images of trans people were presented in the alternate session organised by trans-exclusionary feminists at the UN Council on the Status of Women? They also presented images of trans people taken out of context to suit their narrative.
I'd think hard if I were you about whether some of your mates are doctoring or miscontexting the images they send you.
@tWiggle
No. But I will give it at least a cursory look before determining that I think it is bollocks.
George Orwell, 1984: "“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
This might be unusual in your neck of the woods, but I don't have mates sending me porn…
. I also deliberately choose not to put contentious images on this platform, even though I have seen quite a few, because I think it will derail the discussion – which is frail as it is.
However, I had seen the account that posted the video that provided the screenshot in question, not on a pornsite but on both Instagram and Twitter without any sensitive content warning, which meant it could be viewed by minors. I was probably not the only one who reported it, which was why those accounts are no longer active.
Of course, you can choose not to believe my personal account is real, but it's there for others to add to the information provided and make up their own minds.
Actually I get images like this everyday on my twitter feed and they are often from concerned individuals (M/F) who want help in reporting the sites.
Mostly I do this.
So the slur that women who are concerned somehow find their way to Japanese porn sites is ridiculous.
Recently we had a 'person' threatening to kill prominent women. I am not sure if this was taken down or not. I know I tried to report it.
Often known women campaingers get this stuff sent to them as a form of harassment along with signs saying 'suck my trans dick' or C**t. Some of these signs were in evidence at Albert Park on 25/3.
Welcome to the world of women fighting this stuff.
It is males who are the most significat users of porn (four times more likely than females)
https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-prevalent-is-pornography#:~:text=Men%20are%20four%20times%20more,most%20frequent%20use%20of%20pornography.
To me it is more likely to be males who access and send this stuff on. The number of women who have received 'dick pics' shows that this is more likely to be males doing this. NB Women don't have d**ks'
@ tWiggle.
Could you please answer these two questions I asked you?
1 Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males into their spaces.
2 Why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built?
These are serious questions and in my expereince when women meet and the topic turns to trans issues, these are usually the first couple of questions asked.
If these could be answered it would take the issue well along the way to looking at solutions.
It seems that many in the trans world are intent on making us believe white is black or 2+2 = 5. It seems we first have to agree to a biological impossibility before anything happens.
Transsexuals have been accommodated for many years – despite the fact that this accommodation may have meant some women excluded themselves for reasons of belief, privacy, dignity or perceived safety.
So, there was already a cost to women and girls of such accommodation.
Transsexuals made up only 5-13% of transwomen in this study from 2019. (Table 1)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626314/
The transgender umbrella is now broader, and that percentage is likely even lower due the recognition of self-id.
These are some of the justifications made by self-id men with reference to women.
The disdain for the sex category of women seems clear to me, perhaps not for you. Note: these are a mild selection, not the most violent I've seen.
https://twitter.com/salltweets/status/1648841780128002052?s=20
https://www.tiktok.com/@dylanmulvaney/video/7174529186302856491
https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1648828802997407746?s=20
Also Shanreagh, if you think the self-id legislation will open floodgates of 'men in skirts' molesting girls in the toilets, then you are quite simply wrong. Ireland, also with 5 mi people and probably a similar size of trans population, passed a similar law in 2015. Around 200 people a year there apply for self-id 100 of whom are 'men in skirts'. One hundred, while thousands of Irish trans women are happy to continue with their lives as they are. Does Ireland have a trans woman violence problem? I haven't heard anything, do you know something I don't?
Sure, have a strong opinion, no problem. There is plenty plenty of your material to wade through on this site. But nobody can try to change the laws, or my opinion, without hard facts and a position that is open to critique.
I've been reading on this topic since I came here naive to the issue. The more factual information I read, the less sympathetic I become to the opinions of your group. Your ideas need challenging because many don't stand up to scrutiny, as I've found by reading around trans woman in prisons, puberty blocking in adolescence and the co-opting of trans issues by the UK Conservatives and the US Republicans.
Remember, I really knew little or nothing about this topic two months ago. I am better informed now, but not by you as a group. The posts on this issue I have read here are long on feelings, very short on analysis, and have been pretty much fact-free. Discussion I have tried to open neutrally at least three times on areas of interest have been mostly hmmed or ignored when inconvenient to your views.
I'll finish by saying I cannot stomach Kellie-Jay whatsmaname. I find her a smug, dangerously-smart demagogue and provocateur. She's looking for reaction, not for debate. I feel her opinions on my country and on Jacinda Arden to be knowingly ignorant, and really quite repulsive.
"The posts on this issue I have read here are long on feelings, very short on analysis, and have been pretty much fact-free. "
Your comments fit into this description – are you aware?
You've been asked to providence the evidence of harm to men with gender identities who use the provisions allocated to their sex.
Could you at least do that.
Data from Ireland, and other captured countries are going to be hard to collate and assess for a couple of reasons:
1. Violence against women and girls is often ignored, dismissed or not considered violence and so is not recorded;
2. In countries where men such as Barbie Kardashian are referred to as women in media, and official documentation evidence is going to be hard to recognise when it is recorded, and collated. (BTW, that is a feature not a bug)
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/03/22/barbie-kardashian-the-grisly-reality-of-self-id/
Why the requirement for specific Kiwi instances? Are NZ men with gender identities a unique cohort?
Why exactly are men not making space their non-conforming males with gender-identities in their single-sex spaces?
Why can women just not say "No".
My comments are long on facts. I reference international reports as a starting point. I did have those Ireland stats from their government reporting page, but couldn't find it readily, otherwise you would have seen the link. I reference Stats NZ. In the past I've put up interesting articles to open up discussion on trans issues and public toilets in Victoria, which was balanced and went to an effort to look for solutions. I've linked to an interview with a cool kiwi trans woman netball coach with heaps of mana in her field. Guess what, no discussion from your group.
I asked you people to confirm a story in PP's pre-visit video before NZ, regarding a girl harassed by a trans student in a NZ school bathroom who was then suspended when she complained. I went searching on line and found a faintly related story from many years ago, with none of the outcomes PP claimed. Not one of your group replied to my genuine request if this was the event PP referred to. I took your deafening silence to mean PP just made a story up, conflated stories from other countries to suit her mean-trans narrative.
I put up an article from AWID. Your group did not reply to me directly to open a debate, but took apart the language between yourselves to somehow invalidate this report of gender-critical feminists drowning out valid debate. You know what concerned me most in that trans section? The fact that false information was presented, that trans peoples' images were pasted without correct attribution or context to create an anti trans narrative. You call yourselves left wing feminists, but you ignored the chilling earlier parts of the report on rightwing attacks against womens' rights internationally by state and religious actors. Because the way you write, all, all your roads lead to a penis in a bathroom.
You and others most often reference that unimpeachable source Twitter, Posie Parker, and the UK infowars journal, The Critic. In that, I admit, well-written article the other day on safety threats to trans women in the UK, why were only trans murders and anti-trans hate speech mentioned? Maybe because the stats on other types of violence against UK trans women are shocking? But hey, we don't know, because, boom, bang, distraction achieved. And you congratulate yourself on your rebuttal to someone on the strength of this article? Really?
More chaff from you, now I'm the person who has to provide data to debunk some mythical data you have yet to present? Please, at least I make the effort.
Sorry, infowars not correct term fell out of my brain.
But you have not answered my queries?
Are you intending to?
1 Why are men not urged to accept and protect non conforming males into their spaces.
2 Why provisions could not be made for separate facilities to be built?
Just a point your views on LWS seem to be imbued with personal animus towards the founder rather than a considered look at what her motivation were in bringing up and pushing back on the excesses of the self ID process. I see this as a weakness in your argument. It may even be an extension of the old trope about men not liking women who they feel may be smart especially if they are too good looking or not good looking enough (ie lose: lose) .
There is any amount of material about this and many women have had to battle against it in everyday life.
Do you understand the concept of women's safe spaces?
Do you see the value in protecting women's safe spaces?
If not why not?
Do you feel women should have been granted the right to vote in NZ in 1893?
Are men able to fully represent the views of women on women's safe spaces?
I see this whole non acceptance of womens safe spaces as test of sincerity about suffrage (M/F). That is the ability of women to express concern, and be listened to about that concern without other extraneous views.
Geez Shanreagh, all those men questions. Do you think I'm a 'bio' man, or a trans woman? Hahaha! Surely I must get extra girlie points for having fulfilled my womanly function by procreating. Only once, mind.
…'without extraneous views'… Is that coded language for 'ideas I find too uncomfortable to debate'?
You know Posie Parker's setting up a political party on the back of her mosh pit squash in Albert Park? Not to mention she got a million UK ladies to complain to the management of NZ about our poor service.
She thinks our country is dire for women. Posie is from England, where police rape and abuse women without consequence for years, almost no other rape cases are brought to law, and where women can't walk down the street without being harassed by men for a smile, then sworn at. We're so much worse off here.
Once again, she is a demagogue and a provocateur, not even a feminist. She got her funding to visit us and look down her nose at us from CPAC, which really likes to clamp down on womens' and trans' and voters' rights.
But boy, she sure is mean on those penises in womens' bathrooms.
For the record, Kellie Jay Keen on Jacinda Ardern, and the article she refers to that got her interested in NZ:
https://www.youtube.com/live/C8xre6ZH4-A?feature=share
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/trans-community-hits-back-after-teen-slams-schools-trans-toilet-policy/ABSY5R4AH5PKN3GDXYET66KYEM/
Dear Molly, thanks for finally confirming Posie Parker flat out lied. Yes, this is the reporting from 2017, when it was raised by the Family First party during election year, about an even earlier event. I think my article came from Stuff.
In our NZ 'true-fact' story, a trans student enrolled in an all-girls' school, presumably as she was legally entitled to under human rights legislation. The lovely girlie in the article was firstly, horrified, frankly horrified at having a trans at her school. But the straw that broke the camel's back was learning that, after a while the trans student petitioned, and was granted permission to use the female toilets, for what ever reason, perhaps because the unisex loo was far from class.
In 'true-fact' NZ, lovely girlie spread her dismay across social media. Sadly for the 'alternative-fact' Posie narrative, there was no weepy showdown in the toilet cubicle between lovely girlie and evil penis trans, and no suspension, unless she got one for her social media posting. At the time I had read a story reported from somewhere like Utah. I'm sorry, it was a passing read, so I can't verify it, but I do remember it was pretty close to PP's 'alt' version.
In the newspaper article, trans groups criticised Family First for trying to make political gold from this thin straw, saying the whole issue had been well sorted out by constructive mediation at the time.
I only slightly apologise for the snarky tone. The first time around narrating this story, back whenever, I wrote in a factual, straightforward way. Second time round I find myself liking lovely girlie's behavour even less. Let alone ol' Posie's lying.
tWiggle. have you seen the LWS event from Belfast?
It was able to take place because of competent policing in Belfast that kept the protesters at bay. This meant that we were able to experience what usually happens at these events. The testimonies from the women who spoke were moving, For some it was the first time they had publicly spoken on their events of concern.
Thanks Molly…..of course these are KJm’s views.
She is entitled to them.
These are none springing to mind. She gave as good as she got when pushing back on the misinformation promulgated by Govt Ministers. Did you actually watch the events of 25/3? KJM did not speak, she was not able to.
NZ then, and with the fluffing around by our PM on what is a woman have put NZ into somewhat of a world laughing stock. Recently there was an event planned where NZ children would shoot so-called feral cats. This has also joined the OMG what are they doing down there?
Some people have taken issue with her views
"no women has a penis"
"no man has a vagina".
To say otherwise is to deny biology.
Rather than denying biology isn't it better to accept biology and work from there, hence the queries about separate spaces for transwomen?
Shanreagh, yes the Brits are animal mad. They worry more about saving feral cats that damage native species in a country on the other side of the world or saving racing horses than they worry about the almost one in three children living in poverty in their own country. And that was for 2021-22, while food inflation is running at 19% for the last 12 months, so it'll be higher now.
Their government seems to ignore this completely, as do the press, the well-off, and the animal-mad, of course. The government was going to cut certain school meals a couple of years ago. It's only because a popular footballer ran a personal campaign that school meals were retained. Good thing, otherwise there would be probably be little human corpses littering the streets of England.
Your comments are long, and you've connected to analysis not data.
"I asked you people to confirm a story in PP's pre-visit video before NZ, regarding a girl harassed by a trans student in a NZ school bathroom who was then suspended when she complained. I went searching on line and found a faintly related story from many years ago, with none of the outcomes PP claimed. Not one of your group replied to my genuine request if this was the event PP referred to. I took your deafening silence to mean PP just made a story up, conflated stories from other countries to suit her mean-trans narrative."
OK. As one of "you people" I posted the article below the video as I thought it was the one she referred to. Kellie Jay Keen made a video of it back when it happened several years ago, but you'll have to trawl through to find out the details, as it was a while ago.
I linked to a Herald article that referenced a video, which I believe is the one that KJK watched and references:
https://youtu.be/BLXj2vtLwkM
"More chaff from you, now I'm the person who has to provide data to debunk some mythical data you have yet to present? Please, at least I make the effort."
I've provided plenty of referenced links from medical sources that you have not acknowledged or made comment about.
Many of us take time to answer your questions, while you bypass any attempt at answering those asked of you.
"Remember, I really knew little or nothing about this topic two months ago. I am better informed now, but not by you as a group. The posts on this issue I have read here are long on feelings, very short on analysis, and have been pretty much fact-free. Discussion I have tried to open neutrally at least three times on areas of interest have been mostly hmmed or ignored when inconvenient to your views."
You don't need to analyse reality.
Sex is binary and immutable.
Gender identity is a belief system, and I remain an atheist.
I read your linked article, and found it wanting. Apparently, others did too. We stated why.
Our answered questions remain:
.https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-20-04-2023/#comment-1946706
That whole 2 immutable sexes/genders thingy is clearly the bedrock of your faith. Not much point in arguing with you over your religious beliefs, you're right. I'll leave you to that.
Still keen on any info you have showing how dangerous trans women are in ladies' bathrooms. Remember, NZ data, NZ stories, because NZ trans women have been using these for years. Why NZ? Because you and I live here, because our society differs from others in its experiences and the way it’s grown.
@tWiggle
"Dear Molly, thanks for finally confirming Posie Parker flat out lied. Yes, this is the reporting from 2017, when it was raised by the Family First party during election year, about an even earlier event. I think my article came from Stuff."
I have posted the Family First video after searching for it FOR YOU, which may add clarity. But I'm not going to do that further research through Kellie Jay Keen's videos to find her original one, because frankly you have the capability to do it, and I don't understand what the value of this is in terms of the conversation to hand.
"I only slightly apologise for the snarky tone. The first time around narrating this story, back whenever, I wrote in a factual, straightforward way. Second time round I find myself not liking lovelie girlie's behavour very much. Let alone ol' Posie's lying."
I don't find your tone particularly snarky, just unconvincing in argument, and concerned with trivialities rather than the impact of legislative and policy changes.
You appear to take the position that significant changes to single-sex provisions are nothing to worry about. And if there was something to worry about, then prove it. And for you, proving it requires official documentation which is hampered by conflation of sex and gender identity in reporting and recording, but who cares?
Eg. We have a report (that I have to chase up using OIA) about sexual assault in NZ women's prisons:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/05/transgender-assault-allegation-renews-call-for-separate-prisons.html
Now, there was a later conviction of a "woman" for sexual assault in the Department of Corrections reports, but they were from another prison. And an OIA has to be submitted to see if this conviction relates to the article, because there is no transparency in the data in relation to recording gender identity.
This is true of many of the government available reports.
Teenage girls in schools, going through puberty and dealing with the usual sexist behaviour of teenage boys, will not have their incidents of embarrassment, shame and intimidation recorded in any official record when they lose their single-sex provisions. They will however, understand that their feelings are not important compared to that of a teenage boy with a gender identity.
You have some thinking to do.
Ah, I see. We've probably discovered the basis of our apposite perspectives here.
I base my understanding in reality and truth. There are only two sexes for humans, and they cannot be changed.
If you believe otherwise, then perhaps that could be the sole topic of discussion. Because I'm sure it'll be a doozy.
As it has been pointed out MANY times, previous accommodation of transsexuals in women single-sex spaces did take place. As has also been pointed out, this accommodation probably came at a cost to women who self-excluded for reasons of their own. HOWEVER, this accommodation should not be expected to expand to accommodate all men who declare a gender identity, because that cohort is much more diverse, and far greater in number.
The reason that I will not provide you with the data that you demand is because the demand comes after you fail to provide data to support your demand for the breaking of single-sex boundaries. That data will also be impossible to find, because no-one has collated it. So, we are left with a discussion that looks at the costs and benefits – and you seem unable to have that discussion on that level.
Sorry, who asked the first question? As far as I can parse your logic thread, you refuse to enter a fact-based debate about safety in toilets because I first have to justify trans womens' access to those spaces on a theoretical level? Why?
Based on 'truth and reality' I don't need to justify the theoretical basis because it already happens. It's been happening for years in NZ. I don't need to pass your theory test to earn the right to debate you because we're already talking about real life! Goodness gracious!
Let's flip your request on its head. What's your theoretical justification for excluding NZ trans women from womens' toilets? After all, you are taking a right away from people that they currently have and use.
So here we get to the nitty gritty. You are not talking about 'usual' trans women, but bad faith men who self-id in order to prey on people in womens' toilets. Let's walk through this logically.
In Ireland, 100 trans women a year take up their self-id option. There is a vetting process, this is not just a rubber-stamp.
Do they all then rush off an attack women in toilets once they get their ticket? No, because Ireland would have amended its laws in the 7 years since. I can guarantee we would have heard about such a 'cock-up', so to speak, ad infinitum from the anti-trans movement.
So that debunks the rather shaky theory that 'self-id will lead inevitably to hundreds of trans women exposing penises to real women in the toilets'. Of course, you are free to provide any hard data to the contrary.
I understand your fixation on safety in public spaces. I am completely for toilets being safe spaces, free of harassment and assault. After all, I use them too (although I've found art gallery toilets to be a cut above the usual).
However, the simple fact is, if anyone, male, transgender, or female, wants to attack someone in a womens' toilet, verbally or physically, all they need to do is to walk in and do it. If they're a cis-male, they can even dress as a woman to do so, and some have. But the crucial point here NO SELF-ID IS NEEDED for someone out to do such harm.
As well, safety is not the same as comfort. We live in the real world. Sometimes we will feel uncomfortable around others, because they're loud and in a group, or they're dressed to make a provocative statement, or they're from a different ethnic background and we're unsure of their body language, or they smell bad because they live on the streets.
That may happen in public toilets, places where some already feel uncomfortable or ashamed about bodily functions. I support the right to expect safety there, but I do not support your demand to feel comfortable 100% of the time in public toilets and equivalent shared spaces. It's an impossible demand from facilities shared by diverse communities.
Your personal rights do not trump others' rights to be who they are, and to relieve themselves safely. That's not my opinion, that's the entry fee you pay for living in our society. We share these spaces. We do not control them for our sole benefit. You have said again and again you do not speak for all women. You can say that again.
In my opinion, if you feel threatened by the patriarchy, by penises, by male violence don't side with the patriarchy in scapegoating the transgender community, as you have been doing in all this discussion. Don't demand transgender men and women all to be angels, they're only human, and will have the usual range of arseholes and evil-doers, like the rest of us.
Here resteth the toilet case.
@tWiggle
It's all good. You seem comfortable where you are
.
Just remember: Consent is not transferable.
Let women speak never claimed to "speak for all of us"
If representatives of Women in Development had have turned up in Albert Park, they would have been given a chance to speak. But of course, if they had have been there, they wouldn't have got their chance. They would have had to leave quickly because of the violence and intimadation going on.
No womens group can claim to speak for all women.
How many cases of trans women, who are maled bodied attacking women in toilets and change rooms would you tolerate?
Its not just attacking women. By allowing gender self id, you have made it legitimate for trans women (men) to be in womens spaces with women and girls, naked and in a state of undress. Are you o.k. with a maled bodied person being naked in a change room with his penis out around women and girls?
You see the gender self ID law has just made two sexual offences legal. Voyerism and exhibitionism. Any male bodied person (trans women) can now claim they have a female identity, so they are allowed to be in a change room displaying their genitals and watching other women change.
The two obvious moves to manage the risk from self ID are
banning a person with a penis from women's changing rooms (unless explicit consent is given)
(that said over in Oz their surf life saving clubs are banning adult women from being seen naked by girls in changing rooms)
and
refusing self ID to those who have committed sexual violence/violence against females.
PS voyerism and exhibitionism are not legal offences
(see strippers seek better employment conditions as contractors at their workplaces
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018879636/the-strippers-fighting-for-better-work-rights)
"(that said over in Oz their surf life saving clubs are banning adult women from being seen naked by girls in changing rooms)"
I recall this conversation:
.https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-31-03-2023/#comment-1942978
The day of our exchange, I sent a request to the via the website:
https://sls.com.au/contact-us/
asking for clarity on the policy that was discussed:
Because I thought it was important to determine what the policy was, rather than declare as certain, either of the viewpoints.
To date I have not had a reply – so I'll send again.
This is what I wrote today which is pretty similar to what I sent previously (- I didn't keep a copy):
If you have clarification, it'd be great if you could post it. As you can see, I've got nothing so far after three weeks.
Na just the original story where a woman in her 50's was told she was expected to be covered by a towel while undressed in the changing room.
I’m guessing they have changed their rules to cover transgender women in the female changing areas. And is designed to keep the exhibitionists out (but will not stop any voyeurism …)
They could just ban those with a penis entry (but the “transgender women voyeurs” would cover up anyhow).
@SPC
"Na just the original story where a woman in her 50's was told she was expected to be covered by a towel while undressed in the changing room."
The thread I linked to carried on with possible reasons for this.
"I’m guessing they have changed their rules to cover transgender women in the female changing areas. And is designed to keep the exhibitionists out (but will not stop any voyeurism …)
They could just ban those with a penis entry (but the “transgender women voyeurs” would cover up anyhow)."
I agree that appears to be part of the policy change.
But the original article and justification actually shamed older women, in the contortions used to allow men into a female single-sex space.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65133860
This is what happens when ideology meets reality, and the mantra of TWAW means your young daughter is sharing a communal changing room with males.
Clearly the answer regarding "how many" for you is "none". As I wrote, to expect every single trans women to behave perfectly is an unhuman expectation. Again I challenge you not about a hypothetical future, but NZ facts about the present, where many trans women already share womens' facilities. Come on, where's your NZ data? Media posts? Anything?
"Clearly the answer regarding "how many" for you is "none".
Women and girls are never guaranteed safety from incidents and assaults in any space.
Risk assessments resulting in single-SEX provision, use data and evidence to determine that such provision reduces the likelihood of assault by a significant degree.
As always, you completely ignore the additional value to women of privacy, dignity and consent.
"As I wrote, to expect every single trans women to behave perfectly is an unhuman expectation. "
I don't care about their behaviour. I care about their access to single-sex spaces provided for women. Well behaved and trustworthy men are also excluded – because they are men.
"Again I challenge you not about a hypothetical future, but NZ facts about the present, where many trans women already share womens' facilities. Come on, where's your NZ data? Media posts? Anything?"
I am a data point. I along with other women say "No" to men – even those with gender identities – in women's single-sex spaces.
Consent for such communal places should require the consent of all affected. I say No.
Dear Molly, did Posie Parker lie? Yes. That was the point. Are these trivial things? Possibly, it's all in the past. I don't need the FF rubbish. I wanted to confirm or refute Posie's story at the time. By the way, how do you feel about Posie's creative story-telling to present NZ as a hellhole for women?
Surely, don't bother to laboriously extract my text just to dismiss it as trivia. Why waste your time and mine? And really, you skimped a bit on the Herald article, just copying and pasting stuff without providing context or interpretation. That's why I bothered to contextualise it again for others. If you had done the job I wouldn't have needed to. I appreciate the link to PP's video, thanks muchly, that really helped.
RE : legislation. Please keep up. I've already covered today what I think will happen with the legislation. What happened in Ireland in the 7 years since they introduced it. Nothing. Unless you have facts about an upswing in transgender violence since 2015 against Irish women that you can share? Just asking again, you know, in case.
I do have to say I'll be happy with Irish data regarding transgender violence, as well as NZ's, because of the legislation, similar population size, and approximately similar culture.
See, this is what I consider a discussion, in places, you raise points, I interact, give my point of view. But a lot of the stuff you write seems like burble to me. You can't provide me with NZ facts about transgender violence against women in toilets because of some conflating of gender and sex in reporting? What does that even mean? I said I'd accept media reports too.
And others think they have thoroughly debunked the AWID article by unpicking a few phrases? Then swapping in-housebgobbldegook with one another? Gosh, there sure is a big divide in what us hard science types think is valid critique and you soft science types.
I saw no concrete discussion relating to any of the issues raised by the article itself, or of my stated concerns and interpretation based on what I read in the article. Perhaps you're still stuck on semantics? The death of any committee, arguing over word definitions.
Anker, again I make the point trans women, even trans women with penises, have been using these spaces for years in NZ. Where's the stats for the resultant transgender agression? Please?
@tWiggle
"Dear Molly, did Posie Parker lie? Yes. That was the point. Are these trivial things? Possibly, it's all in the past. I don't need the FF rubbish. I wanted to confirm or refute Posie's story at the time. By the way, how do you feel about Posie's creative story-telling to present NZ as a hellhole for women?"
TBH, I'm not a tribal or acolyte type of person. What I really think about KJK is that she – and everyone else – is entitled to express their views. In terms of political context – which I believe she was referring to – hellhole is a pretty descriptive word to use for the amount of political suppression of women's rights. We've just seen it displayed at Albert Park on 25th 2023 – and by the comments of politicians in the lead up and aftermath. Don't forget our Domestic Violence statistics were also released around that time. I personally wouldn't call it a hellhole, but I wouldn't say it is a picnic either.
"Why waste your time and mine? And really, you skimped a bit on the Herald article, just copying and pasting stuff without providing context or interpretation. "
Yes. My approach is to assume people can read for themselves, and come to their own conclusions. So, if I am providing information that I have to hand on a topic that I didn't start, I choose to post without commentary. I figure it's just information, and people can add to their knowledge and perspectives without me influencing their positions by unnecessary commentary.
If I introduce a topic, and add links – I'll often take a different approach to get the discussion rolling.
The rest of your comment reiterates a demand for concrete evidence of harm by the removal of women's single-sex provisions.
But several times it has been pointed out that you are ignoring the statistical evidence regarding the statistics on sexual violence and assault that show the biological sex variance in both perpetrator and victim.
THAT is the starting point. Are you able to show that this body of evidence is flawed? Because it is this evidence, that provides the risk assessment that resulted in the provision of single-sex spaces because it reduced the likelihood of harm.
"I saw no concrete discussion relating to any of the issues raised by the article itself, or of my stated concerns and interpretation based on what I read in the article. Perhaps you're still stuck on semantics? The death of any committee, arguing over word definitions."
I don't know about the others.
But every sentence of that article, is familiar and a deliberate narrative that seeks to dismiss any concerns re women's rights, or sexual orientation, etc as anti-trans. I did skim read it, because it's a courtesy, but it was also a courtesy not to give it the full detailed dismissal it could have generated in order to keep the discussion alive.
For you, I've decided to select one fact to investigate:
The footnote leads you to:
3 Global Philanthropy Project. 2020. Meet the Moment: A Call for Progressive Philanthropic Response to the Anti-Gender Movement.https://globalphilanthropyproject.org/2020/11/12/meet-the-moment/
When opened the report Meet the Moment can be downloaded and viewed.
https://globalphilanthropyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Meet-the-Moment-2020-English.pdf
Pages 7-9 have the information regarding the calculation of the $3.7 billion of their "anti-trans" funding.
These are the questions that are raised by the information presented:
To investigate further, read the footnotes 14 – 18.
I can't be bothered with the ones without links – because life is short = but here are the two available links provided:
16 Provost, Claire and Ramsay, Adam, “Revealed: Trump-linked US Christian ‘fundamentalists’ pour millions of ‘dark money’ into Europe, boosting the far right,” openDemocracy, March 27, 2019
See also Provost, Claire and Archer, Nandini, “Revealed: $280m ‘dark money’ spent by US Christian right groups globally,” openDemocracy, October 27, 2020.
To me clear definitions are essential for discussion. And facts based in truth are the only starting point.
If you consider the above to indicate high quality reporting, then that is your informed opinion.
Mine differs.
"I really can't understand your toilet usage paragraph. Having 'a feeling' that trans women in NZ public toilets and change spaces are not 'right', or 'make me uncomfortable because I'm not used to it', is just not enough for me as an argument."
Oh the irony feelings aren't good enough when its women feeling uncomfortable with men peeing in women's toilets, but when its a man who feels like a woman, its all good, reason to change laws etc.
Here's some good hard data from the US where non-discrimination laws allowed transgender access to womens' bathrooms in many states for up to 10 years before this article in 2015.
https://www.mic.com/articles/114066/statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-people-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms
The article covers background to a 'preventative' bathroom law, framed to protect women from transgender "sexual predators". It was proposed in Florida in 2015. The article appeared in a young peoples' lifestyle mag, ie, not some iniquitous den of trans writing you might mistrust, but a bog-standard publication.
The bill sponsor "did not provide any evidence that a trans person has ever attacked cis-gendered (non-transgender) people in public restrooms when pressed".
"Spokespeople from the Transgender Law Center, thr Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union [ you may poopoo the first source, but the other 2 are trusted civil right organisations] told 'Mic' [magazine] that no statistical evidence of violence exists to warrant this legislation". This section is labelled 'Big Fat Zero' because other reputable sources support this lack of evidence.
It goes on to say "'Those who claim otherwise have no evidence that [claims of such violence are] true and use this notion to prey on the public's sterotypes and fears sbout transgender people"
The article include quotes from Human Rights Commisions, police departments and sexual violence coordinators across multiple states who completely deny the idea that public restroom inclusivity for transgenger people increased violence by transgender people against others in these vulnerable spaces.
https://www.mediamatters.org/sexual-harassment-sexual-assault/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathroom-myth#
A survey by Brinker and Maza of 15 law enforcement staff, victim support personnel for sexual assault, and others in 12 US states yielded no incidents of trans people harassing or assaulting others in public restrooms "They declared that the claim that sexual predators will exploit non-discrimination laws to sneak into bathrooms is a lie, pure and simple".
On the other hand, "roughly 70% of trans people have been denied entrance, assaulted, or harassed while using a restroom". Poor things.
I've found a lot more different sources saying the aame thing, but cutandpaste is clapped out and I don't want to hand write it up.
""Spokespeople from the Transgender Law Center, thr Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union [ you may poopoo the first source, but the other 2 are trusted civil right organisations] told 'Mic' [magazine] that no statistical evidence of violence exists to warrant this legislation". This section is labelled 'Big Fat Zero' because other reputable sources support this lack of evidence."
I have to go and get on with errands, but have read your comment and thought you may want to investigate further in regard to this statement – or not –
American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Campaign might be considered misnomers now, for these long-established organisations. As mentioned earlier, this information is provided not to be directive but provide a possible avenue of further information.
You can look yourself for other sources but here are a couple of starting points:
Archive from New York Times: Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis
https://archive.ph/deO59
Blog series regarding the Human Rights Campaign:
Part One: https://www.the11thhourblog.com/post/all-aboard-the-human-rights-campaign-and-the-making-of-transgender-industry-leaders-part-i
Strange as it might seem to you tWiggle the concern is not just about access to toilets.
What about sport?
What about prisons?
Still OK to have males competing against females? Riley Gaines being beaten by a male, the women volleyball player who was injured by a male on the opposing female side to an extent that she was concussed and not able to play.
https://www.marca.com/en/ncaa/2023/02/09/63e579f722601d44558b4623.html
https://talk.tv/news/12380/transgender-riley-gaines-payton-mcbann-volleyball-video-biological-male
We have had a couple of instances of male sports people stating they were women to get access to womens events to show the inequity of this.
One in the States, won against another male and on winning gave the trophy to the actual female who at that stage was in third place.
In NZ Dale Shepherd entered to show the inequity.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/300855409/governing-body-denies-male-powerlifter-entry-into-womens-competition
So it is not just World Athletics that needs to state its concerns/actions.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/women-in-sport/300838188/world-athletics-bans-transgender-women-athletes-to-protect-the-female-category
The more there is push back against males in female sports the more the onus shifts, correctly, from wommen defending thier rights to compete with fairness, to the sports bodies to devise ways to enable trans athletes to compete without bringing women's sports into it. Perhaps in open categories or with a time handicap etc.
The same ability to work out their own solutions exists for the trans community to say, work with architects, planners, city councils to ensure that toilet facilities keep them safe without compromising women's safety.
Why do you think that this is not happening? Do you think they still believe the fairy dust magic that it is possible to chnage biological sex? Which of course it isn't.
Thanks for reminding me, Shanreagh – I intended to reference Roviel Detenamo who lost out when Laurel Hubbard was selected.
Here's an NZ link to a couple of examples:
https://www.lostwomensrights.com/nz-s-s-s
And a wiki compilation of other instances:
http://shewon.org/index.html
Another good link for sport:
https://boysvswomen.com
Clearly the answer regarding "how many" for you is "none". As I wrote, to expect every single trans women to behave perfectly is an unhuman expectation.
I think you are missing my point tWiggle. Its not about how many women will be assaulted, although that is a concern of course.
It is about whether I and many, many other women want to share our bathrooms and change rooms with male bodied people. Many of us don't. I have asked if you think it is appropriate for a male bodied trans women to be naked in a change room around women and girls and you don't appear to have answered. I feel strongly that this must not be allowed. I could give you all sorts of reasons why like voyerism, exhibitionism, child safe guarding etc etc, but actually women are allowed to say no without having to justify why. Its coming across a bit like men who want to have sex with you and you say no and they say "poor old me, I just want a release blah blah" and what I say to that is it is your problem.
Telling me there are very few, if any assaults (tbh, I couldn't be bothered reading the stats, as I have read examples) is a form of gas lighting. "See only .xxxx numbers of attacks, so you are exaggerating, being mean and trans phobic"
Yes that is a key point Anker.
Women say 'no'.
It should end there.
Find another solution to whatever problem has been identified.
I see nothing untoward or unreasonable about this approach. The proponents seem to be without an answer as to why males should not continue to use male toilets and if for some reason that is not suitable then to press for separate arrangements.
Another reason why it sucks to be a woman, reduced to being a feeling or an idea of one in a man’s head but not allowed to have them ourselves.
Good points Molly.
I must say I read the article with mounting scepticism as unbiased commentators usually refrain from framing or words used by one of the proponents.
This article includes 'loaded' ant women words like
cis
terf
and loaded thoughts like
a concern for safe spaces means lack of rights for one of the parties.
(Not so as many of us have suggested ways to meet halfway such as more flexible design of safe spaces so transwomen had thier own safe spaces)
Over use of exaggerating words:
flooding
'sensationalism and fear-mongering'
I know that some UN adjacent agencies have been 'captured'. I am sure we all would like a careful and spare report with goodwill brought to bear to recognise the concerns of both sides. This report though should not force acceptance that trans women are women (the sex). Transwomen are transwomen ie biological males.
On digging deeper into the report there is this paragraph
A red flag, for me, if the 'captured language was not enough, is the reference to the Yogyakarta Principles. These are pushed as being UN principles but they are not. They have not been formally ratified and are what I call UN-adjacent.
We have seen reference to these Principles before on TS, our Human Rights Commissioner is one of the 20 signatories. (My view is that this is an intense conflict of interest and I am hoping that he does recuse himself when dealing with Trans & women's rights. His report, after visiting the scene of the aborted KJM event in Wellington on 26/3, is unedifying to me. I have followed it up, had no response and sent the correspondence on to SUFW.)
https://tikatangata.org.nz/news/no-human-right-eclipses-another-is-lesson-from-parker
Of concern is that although the Yogyakarta Principles talk of gender and identity, women are not included.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/yogyakarta-principles/
One of the signatories, Dr Wintermute from KCL, has concerns now & says
The full article is here
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/yogyakarta-principles/
I am alway grateful to read these articles and reinforce Molly's point that women/feminists are not hive minded ie all think the same any more than Maori are hive minded and all think the same on issues.
We just have to look at the approaches of concern from Christian often RW women in the US and Left wing women, though not exclusively in the UK, Aus, NZ.
It is an issue for women that often transcends political boundaries though solutions will have to rely on politicians of good will and they can come from left or right.
The referenced Critic article:
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/april-2021/the-trans-rights-that-trump-all/
Well argued, back in form with that one …
One would have presumed that human rights applied to all regardless of sex, gender and sexuality as well as ethnicity, race and political creed etc (religion – theist, atheist, deist and agnostic).
Neither sex nor gender need to overlay the other.
"Neither, sex nor gender need to overlay the other."
For sake of clarity, I'll assume you mean gender identity when you say "gender" above.
Then it becomes clear – these are two distinctly separate classification categories.
Provisions for one protected characteristic – such as sex, are not automatically relevant for provisions – such as age, (even though someone protected by sex, will also have an age characteristic).
It is conflation to assume that provisions made for women on the basis of sex, automatically apply to men with gender identities, because that assumption relies on mixing two separate classification categories. Which is basically, nonsensical.
While there may be some areas of crossover – separate provisions for transgender community should be identified, supported and implemented. The appropriation of existing protections for women on the basis of sex, is disrespectful and a form of discrimination. ie. women's sex based provisions are not protected from such appropriation.
No gender is better than gender ID in that context.
There is sometimes discrimination against both men and women because they do not conform to the expectation of masculine and feminine social presentation/demeanour etc.
Otherwise the issue is more whether one identifies people based on male/female birth sex or male/female gender.
Neither option is ideal. The latter includes those who now identify differently to their birth sex. But that involves greater risk to the safety of women and why there is resistance to doing this.
Thus an issue for society to resolve, as we did the inclusion of same sex attracted to the point of same sex civil marriages (despite some of religion claiming that those involved are living "in sin" – once requiring placements in prison or mental institutions).
"No gender is better than gender ID in that context."
Can you be specific here?
Because you could mean:
'No sex is better than gender ID in that context'. – are you meaning exclude sex as a protected characteristic?
OR
'No recognition of gender identity is better than recognition of gender identity in that context' – meaning remove gender identity as a protected characteristic because without the conflation with biological sex it has no meaning?
… or something else?
"There is sometimes discrimination against both men and women because they do not conform to the expectation of masculine and feminine social presentation/demeanour etc."
Not really discrimination as in unable to access healthcare, education, employment or housing. Rather you are talking about society reactions to those who don't follow regressive gender stereotypes. In the same way there are societal reactions to people with excessive body modifications – such as tattoos, piercings, etc.
Gender critical people are critical of any expectations placed on someone's activities, interests, achievements, presentations based on those gendered stereotypes.
"Otherwise the issue is more whether one identifies people based on male/female birth sex or male/female gender."
In some areas – sex matters. In all other cases, gender identity can be recognised.
Regardless, it is not an OR. People will always have a sex, and in some cases will declare a gender identity.
"The latter includes those who now identify differently to their birth sex. But that involves greater risk to the safety of women and why there is resistance to doing this."
There is no risk to women by men claiming a gender identity.
There is an impact (which may include increased safety risk) when those men's gender identities are considered by legislative and policies as granting access to women's single-sex provisions.
"Thus an issue for society to resolve, as we did the inclusion of same sex attracted to the point of same sex civil marriages (despite some of religion claiming that those involved are living "in sin" – once requiring placements in prison or mental institutions)."
Same-sex orientation did not require others to pretend their partners were the opposite sex, or that mimicry of performance of heterosexual sex practices
made them heterosexual. It asked for freedom from the discrimination outlined above, and equal consideration from society and legislation.
The parsing is annoying and takes the debate out of context to score points.
I said human rights as per sex, gender and sexuality.
I did not say gender ID, because gender includes that and gender in the context of men and women conforming to stereotypes as to masculine and feminine norms etc.
@SPC
"The parsing is annoying and takes the debate out of context to score points.
I said human rights as per sex, gender and sexuality.
The parsing may be annoying (I'll ignore why you think that is) but it remains necessary otherwise we may be talking about entirely different things.
For example:
"I did not say gender ID, because gender includes that and gender in the context of men and women conforming to stereotypes as to masculine and feminine norms etc."
– this reads as though you believe gendered stereotypes are part and parcel of gender identity, which make it a performative act not an innate knowledge of oneself.
"I did not say gender ID, because gender includes that and gender in the context of men and women conforming to stereotypes as to masculine and feminine norms etc."
Not to all readers. the word gender in human rights legislation would include gender ID and also in wider ways such as preventing discrimination against men and women not conforming to stereotypical norms of masculinity and femininity (whereas use of the specific, gender ID, would not). That would be useful to more than the transgender such as the non binary etc, some lesbian women and homosexual men in seeking employment.
@SPC
So – you want to add "gender non-conformity" as a protected characteristic?
Has there been widespread discrimination due to gender non-conformity?
I would have thought anyone seeking to use gender in human rights, in place of birth sex, had this in mind because it was more broadly useful.
But for mine it should include both. Just as we have a ban on discrimination based on ethnicity, race and origin (rather than just someone "different/foreign"). More helps to clarify.
But sure I would not oppose sex and gender ID and gender “non-conformity” to clarify, but sex and gender (here as a catch all) has ease of use advantages.
Cases in this area can include dress codes, and discrimination in employment based on images on social media etc.
"Cases in this area can include dress codes, and discrimination in employment based on images on social media etc."
That inclusion regarding non-conformity is not really discrimination though. It could extend to elimination of expected dress codes or standards, and appropriate social media policies for employees with company recognition roles.
Conflation of terms works against full and frank discussion, and identifying specific forms of need and/or harm.
What conflation of terms? Do there need to be agreed definitions to discuss an issue? And if so, who decides?
As I said I prefer sex, gender and sexuality as categories for protection from discrimination.
I see this as important to prevent either birth sex or gender ID being the universal identity determinant.
"What conflation of terms? Do there need to be agreed definitions to discuss an issue? And if so, who decides?"
Conflation of gender identity, gender stereotypes and gender identity all under the one term of gender.
No-one gets to decide, but clear definitions are a basic necessity for needed discussions regarding legislative and policies changes.
"As I said I prefer sex, gender and sexuality as categories for protection from discrimination."
Sexuality or sexual orientation?
Queer theory has Minor Attracted People as a sexuality.
Do you want to have paedophiles as a protected characteristic, or are you really speaking about sexual orientation – as it currently exists?
(Queer Theory holds the position that recognising Minor Attracted Persons as a sexuality removes the stigma from those that are sexually attracted to children, but who do not necessarily act on that attraction.
Using the same logic, should kleptomaniacs be a protected characteristic – and their compulsion recognised as a mitigating factor when they are caught, charged and convicted of theft?)
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3317&context=gc_etds
The author Allyson Walker is an interesting person to research.
It's a strong example, but one that emphasises the importance of clear definitions.
"I see this as important to prevent either birth sex or gender ID being the universal identity determinant."
Once again. Why is it necessary to have a universal identity determinant?
Eg: A mobility impaired female pensioner, will have specific needs and provisions relating to three of the categories to which she belongs:
1. Female provisions for a myriad of services and facilities;
2. Accessibility and associated healthcare provisions;
3. Social welfare provisions and associated healthcare.
What you do not do, is provide a protected characteristic that seeks to amalgamate all three categories, because that increases the likelihood of confusion, lack of transparency, lack of adequate provision, and lack of accountability.
It'd also probably provide legislation where discrimination is hard to prove or disprove.
The existing human rights legislation has it as sexual orientation
It currently has sex, but not gender as a separate category – this results in conflation of the two.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/whole.html#DLM304475
I see this as important to prevent either birth sex or gender ID being the universal identity determinant.
I did not say there had to be one. But that neither should be used as one.
@SPC
I know, that's why I considered it important to distinguish from the sexuality you referred to in the previous comment.
Sex and gender identity are two distinct different classification types. The conflation of these two categories was one of the concerns put forward in submissions and ignored.
By conflating gender identity with sex – neither category is adequately provided for. In the case of women – the provision for their sex is appropriated without discussion or consent – by this illogical conflation.
I think what you are thinking, but not saying out loud is that sex should not take priority over gender identity if there is a conflict.
On this I disagree.
Not because there necessarily is a conflict, but because a conflict is created when conflation between sex and gender identity occurs, and single-sex provisions for women are assumed to be included in the provisions for men with gender identities.
This sleight-of-hand in terms of language and conflation of two classification systems, effectively removes the single-sex provisions for women with absolutely no regard for their value, or the consent of women and girls.
The advantage of gender ID is that it includes those who transition. The disadvantage is that it can also include those who do not.
Whatever society decides, it has to take account of different perspectives – such as it does with religious groups who do not support same sex activity or marriages. That should include women's groups right to exclude those not born female. A refuge's right to exclude anyone seen as a threat etc.
We might need a group focused on developing safe spaces and funding for this. That might allow those with transitioned bodies being allowed into women's separate spaces, but others not.
I think the risk is greater while we have sex in the HRA and this is then seen as interchangeable with gender (as per gender ID) in other legislation. Having sex and gender in the HRA separately would be more likely to result in focus on the overlap issue.
@SPC
Why is that a disadvantage? Religious belief is a protected characteristic, but not everyone has a religious belief.
The secular government we have ensures that despite other's beliefs, those same sex marriages can take place. They have the right to their belief but not to impose the restrictions of that belief on others. So it should be.
Sex is immutable, and single-sex provisions for women are inextricably linked to their sex. It is not about only about threats, although that plays a part – and is constantly ignored when these female sex provisions are appropriated by men. This is also not about belief – but about reality.
It is gender identity that is a belief. As such it can be protected, but as a separate characteristic – because it IS a completely separate characteristic from sex. And as it is both fluid and unquantifiable it should not override sex-based provisions, because those are specific to sex and retain value for women and girls.
The believers of a gender identity should not impose that belief on others. This is true regardless of the number of people who share such a belief.
You've said this a couple of times now IIRC, and the comparison is flawed still.
Deal with the reality of sex, and the belief system of gender ideology without reaching for justifications from other protected characteristics and we may get somewhere.
Because some women do not want transgender women self ID to result in male bodies in women's spaces.
Yes, you want separation based on birth sex, thus the exclusion of transexuals/transitioned transgender women.
No, and not in the post you are replying to.
I have of course mentioned on occasion our history of becoming more inclusive, whether that is women voting and the societal change that resulted and also same sex relationships. And like many see that as leading to a progressive impulse on the gender ID issue.
I will restate something from my last post
"I think the risk (to women's safety) is greater while we only have have sex in the HRA and this is then seen as interchangeable with gender (as per gender ID) in other legislation".
This leads to confusion with how to deal with women's safety concerns resulting from self ID.
If both are included in the HRA, this would require some thought as to distinction in various legislation.
Possibly the best path to the realisation of the maintenance of the birth sex category you seek is to accept a separate and also protected gender identity.
@SPC
Men who identify as women belong to a different protected characteristic, and should not be given access to women's single-sex spaces because of it.
You are effectively saying the logical thing to do, is a disadvantage because it excludes men from women's single-sex spaces (and that is not the outcome you want).
I want the single-sex provisions for women and girls to remain single-sex provisions. They were never – gendered stereotype provisions for those who conform to gendered stereotypes (which I am using because your idea of gender identity seems to be inextricably linked to stereotypes for some reason).
Gender ideology is a belief system. One that is unquantifiable, and one that is fluid. Like a religious belief. Not only is is not SEX, it has a myriad of other identities not associated with sex at all. Why people continue to conflate the two categories, is a question for the ages.
My suspicion is, like your illogical reasoning above, is because it allows a predetermined outcome to be achieved, because it bypasses accuracy, logic and any recognition of impact, or concerns about consent.
For example: how do you protect sexual orientation when you conflate gender identity with sex?
At the most ridiculous extreme of this conflation, you can have a lesbian association composed entirely of men with female gender identities who call themselves lesbians because they are heterosexual.
Or two lesbian women who refer to themselves as gay men because they identify as men, and consider their sexuality to be that associated only with men.
I disagree. The danger is the deliberate conflation of sex with gender identity, by politicians during legislative change, government ministries and departments, and policy makers.
It is not ONLY safety concerns. Single-sex provisions hold value also for privacy and dignity. And there are issues of consent that are ignored.
Many submitters asked for clarification in the legislation and were ignored. But while the confusion reigns, many also refuse to accept that confusion means a de facto breaking of single-sex provisions until it gets sorted out.
Why should women have to advocate for a certain belief system, in order to ensure their single-sex provisions and language is maintained? Is this requirement requested of any other existing protected characteristic? ie. Did same-sex oriented people have to ensure that religious belief was fully recognised before gaining their recognition, or was that already protected?
I have given my advice that one option to secure a continuing biological sex ID is to promote a separate gender category in the HRA.
There are always other ways of doing things (for example we never explored having half seats for women voters and half for male voters to ensure 50% representation within parliament).
They and women who identify as men are not protected under gender in the HRA.
I note that for you this is not about safety, but exclusive right of women's ID to biological sex –
and thus acceptance of transgender men and non binary people born female in women's spaces, rather than transsexual transgender women?
No, not at all. I wrote this
"The advantage of gender ID is that it includes those who transition. The disadvantage is that it can also include those who do not."
Most people want others to feel included and were inclined to go along with gender identity, but going as far as to include those who do not transition is such a disadvantage to women's safety it might lead to review (as per the UK).
Why? You are taking out of context a comment in relation to the utility of use of the the term gender rather than gender ID in any HRA inclusion (as a catch all including gender ID but also wider issues of discrimination based on gender).
I could say stuff about how zealots lose perspective, if I was to debate in that way … but it really just indicates we have reached the end of this discussion.
And if one only identifies people by their birth sex
a transsexual transgender woman having sex with a male is engaged in a homosexual act and two transgender men together are engaged in a lesbian relationship and should be invited to lesbian social occasions …
@SPC
Before I respond, I just want to say I appreciate the time and care with which you are expressing your views, and I am attempting to replicate your approach even as it seems we are still talking past one another, and not quite understanding each other's point of view.
If you wanted to stick to one point of discussion until we both clearly demonstrate an understanding of each other's point of view, and then move to the next. I'm happy to do that. You choose.
But in the spirit that has got us thus far, I'll go through your last response in detail. (TBH it's easier doing it this way because the cut and paste stops me from having to scroll up and down to respond to your points, but it comes at a cost, because I'm not adding to the discussion but of responding only. I'll have to work on that…)
The sex characteristic IS biological sex. It has been appropriated – by some – to refer to a undefined gender identity.
As mentioned, many submissions to the BDMMR bill wanted this clarified before the bill was passed. These requests were ignored, by the politicians promoting the bill and the select committee.
The deliberate replacement of sex with gender identity has occurred in the Sentencing Act 2003. But that was intended to accommodate those with GRS, not Self-ID, and was a cursory substitution not a well-considered one.
I won't post a myriad of links on this, it's worth a whole post.
The provision of single-sex spaces is mentioned under 'sex' not gender in the HRA:
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304617.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_human+rights+act_resel_25_a&p=1
Where are you finding the reference to gender you are talking about?
I do have concerns about safety, but that is not the only value of single-sex provisions for women and girls, so I endeavour to ensure those other values are considered. For some women, they are AS important as the safety issue.
Point needs to be made that although you and I know what you mean when talking about transgender men, and transsexual transgender women – many others will not know whether you are talking about a man with a trans identity or a woman with a trans identity.
I snipped and repeated this because it is a common refrain. That women who resist the appropriation of womenhood, and/or the amalgamation of biology reality with a completely separate classification category, are somehow cruelly withholding "rights" from men with gender identities.
Biological sex categories are not "rights" – they are simply categories. You either belong to one group or the other.
It hasn't lead to a review. A review has been the result of a concerted effort of women in the UK, to force politicians to address the issues. Many women have done this despite public shaming, loss of income, harassment and threats of violence. It has been politically forced also by the insistence of the SNP to pass a bill that impacted on the rest of the UK, triggering a response from Westminster. A lot of work and effort has been necessary to get to this quite reasonable starting point that you suggest. Here, we are not anywhere near that position.
To put it simply, because you have used gender in several different ways, making it difficult to follow your reasoning (but not impossible) – how would you yourself define gender identity so that can be included as a protective characteristic?
(I'm assuming that you agree that sex is biological and binary, but if you believe otherwise, a clear definition may improve the discussion.)
Most people refer to others by name. I take issue with this "only", because that is not what is occurring. In some areas – sex matters – it is those areas which are under discussion.
If you mean, what I think you mean – then while I agree with you, this is not the interpretation being given by Rainbow Support organisations.
Rainbow Youth
https://ry.org.nz/sexuality-101
They used to have a glossary, which I can't find at present but have a look around the site. If you do find a reference to homosexuality – it will state that it is a sexual orientation to gender identity – not sex. Effectively replacing the conversion of gays to heterosexuality, with an assumed conversion of gays and lesbians (and by implication also heterosexuals) to bisexuality.
The Inside Out training organisation and resource centre is here:
https://insideout.org.nz/#foryouth
Gender Minorities Aotearoa is here:
https://genderminorities.com/glossary-transgender/#Sexual-Orientation
These are well-funded and very visible organisations, that are present to support young people with same-sex orientations, but appear reluctant to accept that same-sex orientation restricts your choice of intimate partner to the same as your biological sex.
I invite you to have a look and see what you think about the messaging.
It's as described in Right Wing Women (1983) by Angela Dworkin – a fresh perspective here from 1 hour 26 minutes.
It may be of interest to some to post the actual podcast as well,
The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling – The Free Press
Apple Podcasts:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-witch-trials-of-j-k-rowling/id1671691064
Spotify:
https://open.spotify.com/show/2K186zrvRgeE2w0wQjbaw7
Thank-you!SPC!
What points did you find compelling in this video?
I'll admit I haven't watched this one (more of a reader than a viewer, but have seen a couple of ContraPoints videos in the past, and find them entertaining but not very informative or comprehensive, just selectively framed).
Molly you are extraordinary. So patient but so clear in addressing the "arguments"
I take my hate off to you.
The males who identify as women who want to come into women's bathrroms/change rooms, show themselves up to have the male psyche. Women, generally speaking would never insist on inserting themselves to spaces where they weren't wanted.
"I take my hate off to you."
I'll take your hate, and return it with affection…
.
Thanks for the compliment. I see many contributors here that have a good grasp of the discussion, and only enter when I feel I haven't been lifting my share of the burden.
It is usually carried quite admirably by a few stalwarts, including yourself.
100% Roblogic.
Bros with multi-billion dollar hoards blaming an imagined societal collapse on the poors not having the babies they can’t afford.
FFS.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1648489776289558530
Two guys agreeing that the "pill and access to abortion" (feminism) in the west has caused a demographic threat to its civilisation.
No awareness of global warming is indicated, nor open (just inferred) support for right wing moves in the USA to diminish access to thee "things" by the GOP patriarchy. More breeding people and economic growth without immigration is the birther cause.
At least we can watch with horror as the past Weimar past comes for us once again safe in our own place .. or can we .. are we now not in Wichita with the Koch brothers propaganda machine witnessing the idolising of those women proud not to be a feminist.
The fear of a white minority.
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/26/1107710215/roe-overturned-mary-miller-historic-victory-for-white-life
https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlsons-history-fearmongering-about-white-replacement-genocide-and-race-war
See above my reply to tWiggle (video) as per the importance of biological sex as to the status of women as breeders to the white race nation right.
"See above my reply to tWiggle (video) as per the importance of biological sex as to the status of women as breeders to the white race nation right."
Men appropriating the reproductive function of the female biological sex for their own purposes is ubiquitous.
It is not restricted to any particular ethnicity, political perspective, or religious group.
failed edit to
Two guys agreeing that the "pill and access to abortion" (feminism) in the west has caused a demographic threat to its civilisation.
No awareness of global warming is indicated, nor open (just inferred) support for right wing moves in the USA to diminish access to these "things" by the GOP patriarchy. More breeding people and economic growth without immigration is the birther cause.
At least we can watch with horror as the Weimar past comes for us once again safe in our own place .. or can we .. are we not also being taken by the Koch brothers of Wichita Kansas propaganda machine to another place to witness the idolising of those women proud not to be a feminist?
When medieval institutions collaborate.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/04/20/pope-sent-king-charles-shards-of-jesus-christs-cross-for-coronation/
On that note, I have been privileged several times now to visit one of the most beautiful church buildings in the world, Saint Chapelle Chapel in Paris.
But, it was built in the built in the 13th Century by Louis IX to house the supposed crown of thorns from the crucifiction. That, despite the fact that the crown of thorns, being made of organic material, would likely have decomposed centuries before.
The amount of cost and work to build that building must have been enormous. All for what almost certainly was a hoax.
Nevertheless, it is definitely worth the look if anyone is in France. They do violin concerts there which sound incredible. I have heard the Four Seasons played in there. Incredible acoustics.
The building is quite modern in a lot of ways, in that it has an incredible effect from light with the huge stained glass windows. Most of the similar buildings of that time tended not to have so much glass. And the stained glass wasn't great for letting in light. So a lot of those buildings seem quite dark and dingy. But this one is something else.
Jesus would have preferred St Julian de Pauvre over the other side of the river, one of the earliest in Paris.
The Pope is not a medieval institution.
What does this mean?
The office of the Pope was formed 1,940 years ago, approximately.
https://www.google.com/search?q=earliest+popes&rlz=1C1GCEB_enNZ1041NZ1041&oq=earliest+popes&aqs=chrome..69i57.1691j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The medieval period arrived about 400 years after the Papacy was formed.
Thanks for this. Clearly the institution of the papacy has been around for years.
Does this date add anything to the idea about idea of shards of the cross being sent to King Charles or the concept of beauty in church building all around Europe?
We don't need to believe in the reality of reliquaries but we can see the influence of the Church on the beauty, layout and spirtuality of churches especially to my eyes those built in Gothic times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Minster
https://decombo.com/gothic-cathedrals-churches/.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce
https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2010/smith-reliquaries#:~:text=Reliquaries%20were%20designed%20as%20receptacles,martyrs%20by%20the%20Christian%20church.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shroud-of-Turin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross#:~:text=Four%20cross%20particles%20%E2%80%93%20of%20ten,came%20all%20together%20from%20olive.%22
King Charles by all accounts takes his role in Christian matters seriously and works tirelssly to foster an ecumenical approach among the world's christian churches. The gift from the Pope recognises this and is a gift of remembrance of a shared past, in my view, rather than forcing a belief in the actuality of a reliquary.
For that matter, neither is the British monarchy a medieval institution.
In the current constitutional form, (monarchy limited by law) it is a creation of the late 17th century (1688 is the generally accepted date) – well past the medieval period.
I suspect that 'medieval' is being (inaccurately) used as a synonym for 'old' in this post.
There is an election coming….do you have a candidate whom you can vote for who represents your views?
More or less.
Representative democracy necessarily means candidates can't represent all their constituents views simultaneously. If you find that there isn't a candidate that adequately represents your views, then the obvious solution is to run yourself.
Running yourself is certainly an option….but one most appear unwilling to subject themselves to.
Having someone who represents your views could be considered vital in a democracy…the lack of is a regular complaint.
It may well be considered vital but democracy is also inherently competitive, with definitive victors. Complaints about 'lack of democracy' often are made by those whose favoured representatives did not garner enough support to win their race.
As important as elections are, I am more than happy to complain about the lack of democracy in almost every other aspect of our lives however. The vast majority of us spend most of our lives labouring for someone else with very little say in how we do our jobs let alone the purpose of our labour. This seems to me to be a far more impactful and tangible 'lack of democracy' in our lives that goes on incessantly and largely uncommented.
"The vast majority of us spend most of our lives labouring for someone else with very little say in how we do our jobs let alone the purpose of our labour"
We do…and the system that enables/promotes that is determined by?….
elections.
I am under no illusions that the current system, that is enforced, will be fundamentally changed by elections.
That being said, voting requires such little investment for the massive amount of harm minimisation that it can achieve. We just have to be pragmatic and strategic.
Well, it depends which views. Most people are unlikely to find a candidate who will reflect the entirety of their political and personal philosophy.
The best you can do is identify which are the most important (to you) elements and try to find a candidate which reflects those.
Do you mean the electorate vote? Haven't looked.
Party vote will go to the Greens, because in terms of MMP strategy this is the best hope we have of climate action.
It is a general question to establish whether voters feel their views are represented by the existing political organisations….candidate nominations dont close for a few months yet leaving the opportunity for options to change.
👍
Some of my views are represented by existing political organisations. Not wholly, but I'm pragmatic about that.
Late night tunes… another great Oz anthem