Daily review 23/06/2023

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, June 23rd, 2023 - 189 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

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

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

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

189 comments on “Daily review 23/06/2023 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Phillip ure 1
    23 June 2023 at 6:32 pm

    Rnz has just reported that musk and zuckerberg are going to have a cage fight…

    Hard to know who to root for…really..

    • joe90 1.1
      23 June 2023 at 7:02 pm

      Training, not wegovy, wins fights so mine's on Zuck.

    • Roy Cartland 1.2
      23 June 2023 at 7:39 pm

      A shark cage would be good. Get down there with the other billionaires.

      (What do you call a load of billionaires at the bottom of the sea – a good start.)

      • Molly 1.2.1
        24 June 2023 at 8:30 am

        Is this where political commentary is at the moment? Delighting in the sudden death of people because we don't like them?

    • Michael P 1.3
      27 June 2023 at 3:37 pm

      There's some clips floating around of Zuckerberg doing some BJJ training with Lex Friedman so I guess he's taking it seriously and according to Lex, Elon is training too.

      Good on them for taking up a martial art or arts it's great to see guys like this give something so far removed from their daily lives a serious go.

      I hope they don't get into the Octagon against each other though. I dislike any of these sorts of "celebrity" call outs / grudge match things. I guess some people find these sort of fights entertaining but in my opinion they should leave the Octagon to the pro's and instead just discover the many benefits they can receive simply from serious training. Or if they both feel they have to match then do it behind closed doors, not in front of millions for their entertainment.

  2. Ad 2
    23 June 2023 at 8:09 pm

    It's 6 months since Hipkins took power and it's time to remind ourselves what a wreck he is making out of the Labour Party caucus.

    On January 31 he propelled Ayesha Verral 11 levels up the ranking to take on health. In Dunedin she has somehow managed to trash the single largest health capital investment in a decade into a PR nightmare that worsens every week. Every waiting list continues to blow out faster than baby nappies.

    Also January 31 he appointed Jan Tinetti 9 levels up to take on education. She has managed to totally alienate the most loyal voting block Labour has in teachers, piss off the Speaker, wreck polytechs, and see all universities in massive downsizing in particular Otago resulting in multiple hundreds of jobs losing yet another core voting bloc for Labour.

    Hipkins also appointed Stuart Nash to Police. Nash was within 3 months found to have essentially sold Cabinet secrets to campaign donors. Nash fucked himself.

    Hipkins also accelerated Michael Wood up 8 ranks to take on transport and immigration. Remember when that was a good Idea? After 16 separate lies to the Cabinet Office, Wood was finally sacked. Also Wood enabled Mayor Brown to sell off any public influence over Auckland Airport or Ports of Auckland … because of his complicity in a family trust.

    Hipkins also demoted Nanaia Mahuta 7 ranks and she is on autopilot. She can now see all her water reforms implemented with slightly different boundaries … with none of the credit for 2 straight terms of work on it.

    Hipkins then steamrollered Willie Jackson by killing off the TVNZ-RNZ merger.

    His Minister of Finance Grant Robertson is now just phoning it in, not even bothering to defend either Auckland Airport shares or Ports of Auckland, or tax reform, or the Reserve Bank manufacturing a recession and enabling it to screw us all over, nor bothering to deliver a budget that could win an election.

    Ginny Anderson as new Minister of Police that Hipkins promoted over 10 places into Cabinet is now so out of touch with the rise of violent crime she may as well be back writing policy in a ministry. She has managed Police so bad that somehow Mark Mitchell looks competent which is a miracle akin to making Ross Meurant appear human.

    How Hipkins managed to both appoint Meka Whaitiri to oversee the $4b regional rebuild as the largest since Christchurch and also alienate her so fast that she jumped to another party, can only be explained by Hipkins' inability to judge, persuade, or lead.

    Also as a result of his leadership, there is now so little trust in Labour 3 months out from an election that even the Greens are getting more corporate donors than Labour. FFS the Greens.

    Hipkins' solipsist leadership is what you get when you install a man with no ideological soul, no objective other than to achieve power and promote those who suck up to him no matter their risk, no trust in anyone other than himself, a flicking purple tongue, blue metallic blood, and double translucent eyelids.

    • alwyn 2.1
      23 June 2023 at 8:25 pm

      I think you are being far to harsh in your evaluation of Mr Hipkins, Given what he has to work with in the way of a caucus I think he has done quite well.

      I'm sure I can work up a list of his successes. Give me a couple of months and I'll think of something.

    • weka 2.2
      23 June 2023 at 9:24 pm

      who should be PM instead?

      • Mac1 2.2.1
        23 June 2023 at 10:06 pm

        Luxon?

        Here's his team.

        https://www.national.org.nz/team

        With Seymour and ACT in support.

        That's a prospect for October, folks. That's what "Back on Track" looks like.

        Guess why I'm still involved in politics…….

      • Sabine 2.2.2
        24 June 2023 at 8:52 am

        Someone who puts country before party and self interest.

        Sadly we don't have that.

        • Patricia Bremner 2.2.2.1
          24 June 2023 at 10:56 am

          Wait 'till National Act get in Sabine. They will say "Do it yourself" "What have you got to sell?" (Before we help with a miniscule amount you will wait 13 weeks for) You haven't lived here with bad unemployment yet… oh and Act will "let there be guns" You want politicians who care for the country before themselves…. like who?

    • Patricia Bremner 2.3
      24 June 2023 at 1:37 am

      You forgot Robertson's scheme. Perhaps that is why he is on auto pilot.

      Don't forget Labours money comes mainly from ordinary bods, not billionaires.

    • Sabine 2.4
      24 June 2023 at 8:54 am

      Hipkins was Jacinda Arderns right hand. More so then Robertson i would say. They stood side by side to each other and never even said a peep even if they disagreed.

      Why would anyone expect the First Lieutenants to be different then the old captain? You expect different? lol.

    • Patricia Bremner 2.5
      24 June 2023 at 11:10 am

      Ad,"Solipsist" self centered person who believes only their interests are of concern.

      Plus a description of a Lizard. After accusations that all the difficulties are "self afflicted"

      Do you feel better for that bilious pile on?

    • SPC 2.6
      24 June 2023 at 11:40 am

      The origin of the attack line someone has no " soul" or has "various reptilian characteristics" come from Christian bigotry against those of secular social democracy. It has its traditions on the left, but usually from those opposed to the "socialist left/militant tendency or corbynism".

      Sure some on the “left” also use it against “technocrats” and “centrists”. The party caucus chose Hipkins to maintain connection with the centre and remain in the election race, it seems some are already planning for defeat in the campaign (blame) and the post election period (renewal).

    • SPC 2.7
      24 June 2023 at 12:08 pm

      As to arguments made

      A Min of Education for 6 months did not cause the polytech and university problems (no wage subsidy during the pandemic because they were of the state along with no foreign students for years and now a decline in domestic student numbers).

      And a Minister makes wage offers they have a budget for – while trying to improve teachers to pupil in class …

      And it's not the job of the Min of Finance to argue the case for council ownership of assets or dispute policy with the independent RBG.

    • ianmac 2.8
      24 June 2023 at 3:05 pm

      Ad a bit depressing but it is factual – I guess. I want to believe that stumbles are human and that of the stumbles you have highlighted, there appear to be none that show intent to defraud or cheat anyone. The stumbles feed the Opposition for their appetite to undermine the Government but hopefully the stumbles don't relate to the voters as much as a Tesla.

  3. tWiggle 3
    23 June 2023 at 8:11 pm

    Police say over 40000 charges and 8300 arrests have been made as part of an anti-criminal gang crackdown in the past 12 months. The operation is extended until next Feb.

    Labour not tough on crime? PoliceMinister ineffective? seems pretty concerted action to me, with real-world consequences.

    Some of the public disorder we see is pissed off gangs pushing back to scare the public. If you’re a gang making money the easy way, you stay quiet and concentrate on core business of drugs and extortion.

    The crackdown explains the 10% rise in prison population since 2022. I wondered why it was on the up.

    • Ad 3.1
      23 June 2023 at 8:28 pm

      New Zealand's prison population is its lowest since 2008. Arrest numbers are interesting but jail numbers are the reality.

      In 2017 when Labour got in there were about 4,500 gang members and there are now 8.900 and rising by the month.

      In 2022 there was a ram raid every 15 hours across New Zealand, and as a result are losing a previously super-loyal voter segment in Indian shopkeepers.

      Somehow Labour's Ginny Anderson is making Mark Mitchell look like a bastion of competence. This takes a lot of doing.

    • Sabine 3.2
      24 June 2023 at 8:42 am

      Home D is not prison. Its Netflix and chill.

      man who raped and sexually abused a young girl for years, including pinning her down and choking her, has been given an 85 per cent discount off his sentence after he claimed prison would be difficult.

      Dominic West, in his 20s, targeted his victim, who was several years younger than him, for years, often getting angry and threatening her when she would ask him to stop.

      West appeared at the Christchurch District Court on Friday where he was sentenced to 12 months of home detention for the abuse against his young victim, who sat in court watching.

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/christchurch-man-dominic-west-given-85-per-cent-discount-on-sentence-despite-raping-sexually-assaulting-young-girl/SNMTLB7FVVHFTBQ3F2A5OJ2ZSA/

      Labour is missing in action when it comes to crime. I don't expect N to be much better, but at some stage it must dawn even to the most fervent supporter of the current lot in government that these actions do not keep a community save, and that the victims are not served with justice either.

      For what its worth, the dude will receive money from Winz for his 'Home D' costs, what will the victim receive? A fight with ACC for counselling? A fight with Winz for money because they are so traumatized and depressed that working might not be something they can do? Life long nightmares about being choked and raped?

      • Belladonna 3.2.1
        24 June 2023 at 10:34 am

        While I don't think that Labour has helped much, with their focus on reducing prison numbers – I think the the real blame needs to be sheeted home to the independent judiciary. Activist judges have been progressively weakening sentences for the last 20 years (across multiple governments).

        And, we have multiple reported cases where rapes and assaults on women and children are considered to be only minor crimes (based on the sentences)

        • Incognito 3.2.1.1
          24 June 2023 at 11:08 am

          Activist judges have been progressively weakening sentences for the last 20 years (across multiple governments).

          What’s your point here?

          Instructions for sentencing of a person convicted of sexual violation date back to Crimes Act 1961, Section 128B (https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329064.html). Are you suggesting that over 60 years of case law should be ignored and that every convicted person should receive the maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment?

          • Belladonna 3.2.1.1.1
            24 June 2023 at 12:48 pm

            My point is that it's the judiciary, rather than the politicians, who are in charge of the sentencing.

            Also, my opinion, is that case law over length and severity of sentence has been progressively reducing over at least the last 20 years.

            We can see this is almost entirely the judiciary – since I can’t think of a single maximum sentence under 3 strikes which was actually imposed.

            Regardless of whether you think 3 strikes is a good thing or not – it was an attempt by Parliament to put parameters around the judiciary over sentences for specific crimes – and manifestly failed.

            • Belladonna 3.2.1.1.1.1
              24 June 2023 at 1:00 pm

              Indeed, it is telling that no New Zealand judge has sentenced a defendant to serve a third strike maximum sentence without parole.

              https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2018/07/13/nz-judges-three-strike-straightjacket.html

            • Incognito 3.2.1.1.1.2
              24 June 2023 at 2:02 pm

              My point is that it's the judiciary, rather than the politicians, who are in charge of the sentencing.

              MPs are the lawmakers in Parliament who should stay away from the judiciary.

              Also, my opinion, is that case law over length and severity of sentence has been progressively reducing over at least the last 20 years.

              I assume your opinion is based on your perception of reality from what you read in MSM and SM. That’s exactly how NACT like it when they beat the L & O drums. What happened to doing research of your own to fact-check what you read and test your own biases & assumptions? What happened to doing critical analysis and informed debate?

              We can see this is almost entirely the judiciary – since I can’t think of a single maximum sentence under 3 strikes which was actually imposed.

              Nice diversion. AFAIK, the Three Strikes Law did not apply to the ‘almost entire judiciary’. The final straw for the Law aka nail in the coffin was the manifestly unjust maximum sentence of Daniel Fitzgerald.

              Regardless of whether you think 3 strikes is a good thing or not – it was an attempt by Parliament to put parameters around the judiciary over sentences for specific crimes – and manifestly failed.

              This thread was not about the Three Strikes Law and you moved the goal posts. Nevertheless, the Law has been repealed because it was an example of bad law pushed through Parliament by ACT and National, which shows you what can happen when politicians meddle in justice. You would think that we have learned from this experience and moved on. But ACT wants to reintroduce the Law again if it does get into government. Go figure!

              Perhaps you’d like to go back to the original point of this thread, yes?

              • Belladonna …
                24 June 2023 at 5:13 pm

                I was responding to this comment

                "Labour is missing in action when it comes to crime. I don't expect N to be much better, but at some stage it must dawn even to the most fervent supporter of the current lot in government that these actions do not keep a community save, and that the victims are not served with justice either."

                And, pointing out that it is not politicians who determine sentences, but the judiciary. I used the 3-strikes as perhaps the most clear attempt in the last 20 years, where politicians tried to do this (mandate sentences), and failed.

                This is not deflection. It is an example.

                You've chosen to impose a rather bizarre interpretation on the quote you chose to excerpt:

                "We can see this is almost entirely the judiciary"

                I'm referring to the fact that sentences are almost entirely controlled by the judiciary not parliament. The point that was explicitly made in the first sentence of my comment.

                Are you even debating this??? It seems entirely non-controversial to me.

                The 3 strikes law (and specifically it's application by the judiciary) is an example of this, not a bizzare claim (which appears to have originated entirely in your brain) that 3 strikes applied to almost the whole judiciary.

                Perhaps you'd like to remove the log in your own eye. Yes?

                • Incognito …
                  24 June 2023 at 5:50 pm

                  The Three Strikes Law was a patent failure and one of the reasons was that it put impractical constraints on the judiciary to do its job because the politicians had crafted a prescriptive dictate. It was also in conflict with the BORA. Amongst other critical problems.

                  You seem to think that it was a response to “Activist judges have been progressively weakening sentences for the last 20 years (across multiple governments).”, for which you don’t provide any evidence.

                  You’re going around in circles with your fact-free reckons. Have you studied Law or are you a Barrister or a Judge?

                  Are you in favour of reintroducing the Three Strikes Law and let politicians once again dictate & severely restrict what the judiciary can or rather must do?

                  And all the while you keep ignoring over 60 years of case law regarding sexual violation, which started this sub-thread @ 3.2 (but that commenter did a spray & walk-away, as usual).

                  So, again, what’s the point that you’re trying to argue here? Stricter/harsher sentences? For sexual violation or across the entire spectrum of convictions? Take the task away from the judiciary because there are too many ‘activist judges’, whatever that means (presumably that they’re too soft on crims and not kind enough to the victims)?

                  • Belladonna …
                    24 June 2023 at 6:38 pm

                    All of that is coming entirely out of your own head, and from your own prejudices.

                    The only claims that I've made are:

                    • The judiciary is in control of sentences, not parliament. With which, as far as I can see, you are in agreement.
                    • That judges have been progressively lightening sentences over the last 20 years. Which, I also think you are in agreement with – since you have made the point many times that imprisonment doesn't improve recidivism – and made positive comments about the changes that have happened in sentencing.

                    Just what is your problem?

                    I used 3 strikes as an illustration that in recent history in NZ even when parliament tries to impose sentence conditions on the judiciary, it fails.

                    That's it. I did not suggest that it was a good policy. I did not suggest that it should be re-enacted.

                    And, if you are establishing a precedent that only barristers or judges can have opinions on the criminal justice system – then TS is going to be awfully silent on the topic.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      24 June 2023 at 7:15 pm

                      Anyone can critique the sentences imposed by NZ judges.
                      Who'd be a court judge in these 'interesting' times? Not me.

                      Also, my opinion, is that case law over length and severity of sentence has been progressively reducing over at least the last 20 years.

                      Sentencing Commissions and Guidelines: A Case Study in Policy Transfer [21 October 2022]
                      Between 1973 and 2018 Australia’s imprisonment rate increased from 99.7 per 100,000 adults to 221.2 per 100,000 adults. England and Wales” imprisonment rates increased from 103 to 185.2 per 100,000 adults and New Zealand’s from 134 to around 271 per 100,000 adults. [Leigh, The Second Convict Age: Explaining the Return of Mass Imprisonment in Australia]

                      Long-term insights on imprisonment, 1960 to 2050
                      [December 2022; PDF]
                      How and why has the prison population changed?
                      What has been tried to keep people out of prison?
                      What are the future risks and opportunities?
                      …
                      [p29] Fig. 3: Changes in the total prison population, sentenced population, and custodial remand population, 1960 to 2022
                      …
                      [p45] After more than three decades of growth, the total prison population began to drop in 2018. This initial decline was driven by a drop in the sentenced prisoner population which began in late 2017 and continued on to 2022.
                      …
                      The sentenced population fell by 37% between 30 June 2018 and 30 June 2022.
                      …
                      [p114] Conclusion: What do these trends and insights mean as we look to the future?
                      Preventing people from offending, and entering prison, requires the criminal justice system to work with other sectors and communities. We cannot fully grapple with, and respond to, the challenges and opportunities outlined in this briefing solely from within the criminal justice system. It is critical that we continue to respond to Māori over-representation.

                      Sentencing decisions
                      "The … core of the sentencing task is a process of balancing overlapping, contradictory and incommensurable objectives. The requirements of deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, punishment and restorative justice, do not generally point in the same direction. Specifically, the requirements of justice, in the sense of just deserts, and of mercy, often conflict. Yet we live in a society which values both justice and mercy."
                      – The Honourable JJ Spigelman, (former) Chief Justice of NSW

                      Is that opinion also (still) valid/relevant in Aotearoa NZ? Hope so.

                      Sentencing Guideline Judgments
                      [24 June 1999 (NSW); PDF]
                      As I emphasised in my judgments in Jurisic and Henry, guideline judgments are a mechanism for structuring discretion, not for restricting discretion. The continued existence of sentencing discretion is an essential component of the fairness of our criminal justice system.

                      Three-Strikes Sentencing in New Zealand
                      [UoC, 2021; PDF]
                      Similarly to the Californian three-strikes regime, New Zealand’s three-strikes regime was enacted amid public outcry about crime and the perceived leniency of the criminal justice system. Proponents of the regime claimed that it would increase public safety by reducing serious and violent offending, through the means of incapacitation and deterrence. Proponents also claimed that the New Zealand regime was better designed than the Californian regime, and therefore would not result in the unjust outcomes seen under the Californian regime. However, these promises do not appear to have been fulfilled.

                    • Incognito …
                      24 June 2023 at 7:17 pm

                      1) The judiciary should be in control of sentencing.

                      2) Where are the data to show that judges have been progressively lightening sentences over the last 20 years? Especially, in the context of sexual violation (cf. comment @ 3.2). Do you really want to use my unlinked comments here as evidence that I agree to your fact-free claim?

                      In any case, do you think this alleged lightening is a positive development?

                      The rest of your comment is not answering anything and merely states what you were not suggesting; it is evasive and not conducive to constructive debate.

                      Your last sentence is another deflection in the form of an if-then hypothetical statement and it answers nothing and adds nothing and thus we keep going around in circles.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      24 June 2023 at 9:14 pm

                      – then TS is going to be awfully silent on the topic.

                      Unlikely, according to JustSpeak (ha!) What's the bet that the impact of Aotearoa NZ's judicial system on Kiwis will remain topical in the lead up to the GE, on TS and elsewhere.

                      New Data Highlights Harm To Māori [23 June 2023]

                      "Our vision is for a society that gives everyone what they need while caring for each other and the planet. This requires the Government to address all evidence of social inequality. According to the latest data, Māori are identified as being at high risk of rights violations on nearly all the human rights measured. This highlights the urgent need for the Government to pick up its work towards upholding the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights," says Aphiphany Forward-Taua, Executive Director of JustSpeak.

          • SPC 3.2.1.1.2
            24 June 2023 at 6:16 pm

            There appears to be a trend to leniency based on age, or in one case appeal to the immaturity of a man in his late 20's – review of a prison sentence

            A Bay of Plenty woman who, as a teenager, was groomed for sex with a leader at her church was “bedridden with anxiety” after learning he’d been released from prison and had his sentence reduced for “emotional immaturity”.

            The man was 25 years old at the time of offending and his victim was 15.

            In analysis of the decision, a law expert and sexual violence advocate say the legal system’s “boys will be boys” mentality is setting a dangerous precedent for light sentences and dissuades women from reporting sex crimes.

            Tauranga man Luke Stainton, 29, was sentenced to two years and three months in prison on November 2022 after pleading guilty to the charge of sexual connection with a young person.

            While a youth leader at Otūmoetai Baptist Church, Stainton had initiated sex with one of the girls in his group, Jayde Leedes, beginning by exchanging intimate photos and progressing to sex at night in the church, and in the after school care where he also worked.

            After an appeal this month, opposed by the Crown, Judge Johnstone quashed Stainton’s prison sentence and replaced it with four months’ home detention.

            https://www.stuff.co.nz/bay-of-plenty/300860879/woman-paralysed-with-anxiety-after-youth-group-groomers-prison-sentence-overturned

            Open Justice revealed last month how the Tauranga teenager was sentenced to nine months' home detention for the rape of four 15-year-old girls and the sexual violation of another.

            https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/476977/crown-loses-appeal-over-teen-rapist-jayden-meyer-s-sentence

            The teenager admitted 10 charges including rape, unlawful sexual connection with a child, indecent assault and sexual conduct with a child and is serving a sentence of 12 months home detention.

            https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300842183/teen-rapist-convicted-after-breaching-home-detention-conditions

            • Incognito 3.2.1.1.2.1
              24 June 2023 at 6:58 pm

              I don’t see a trend; I see one case (or is it a few?) reported in MSM. Unless one diligently reads all Court reports, most of the information comes through the media filters.

              Belladonna made a claim spanning the last 20 years. What is that based on? Hearsay? Propaganda from NACT?

              Since every case is different, how can one establish a trend from one or a very few cases?

              Should judges not be able to consider circumstances in each case or should this option be restricted or removed entirely?

  4. Anker 4
    23 June 2023 at 9:37 pm
    • I agree with all you are saying about Labour Ad. I don’t blame Hipkins as such for Wood, Tinetti, Nash, Verrall, Anderson and I would add Allen.

    but I do blame Hipkins for the mega politic merger that has cost millions and only appears to have style guide to show for it. I also blame him for failing to address truancy sooner and falling educational standards. And also bringing in a radical school curriculum where 5year old are taught that they may have been born in the wrong body’s and that there are twenty plus different genders (in other words a science denial agenda).

    oh and course his failure to be able to answer what a woman is. He looked a complete idiot over that

    • Patricia Bremner 4.1
      24 June 2023 at 10:43 am

      Why would you add Allen? She overcame cancer to come back to work. A person offered her the use of a shop at a pepper corn rent, and a donation. It is not evil. and was probably to help her. Being offended after the fact because Meng Foon should have been more careful to be openly even handed is a bit sad.

      • Anker 4.1.1
        24 June 2023 at 11:44 am

        I would include Allen in that because she lectured Radio NZ at her fiancees farewell do at Radio NZ.

        A Minister should not interfere with public broadcasting.

        • Incognito 4.1.1.1
          24 June 2023 at 12:07 pm

          A Minister should not interfere with public broadcasting.

          Just as well she never did otherwise Adrian would have written several e-mails by now to the presenter(s) & producer(s) of the affected broadcast to whine about it.

  5. Mac1 5
    24 June 2023 at 8:15 am

    "oh and course his failure to be able to answer what a woman is."

    So there I was, answering questions from twenty people about the economy, foreign relations, the war in Ukraine, the size of classrooms, housing, floods, air port shares and the latest scandals……..

    Then somebody asked me, "What is a hamburger?"

    My mind went through all sorts of scenarios? Why am I being asked that? Where's the 'gotcha' hook in this one? Shall I answer a bun with a slab with cooked mince inside. Will that offend all the vegans? Should I offend the farmers if I answer facetiously, a resident of Hamburg?

    Should I ask whether they want fries with that?

    Maybe a bad-acting councillor?

    Should I refer the question to the Leader of the Opposition who once worked in an establishment that sold approximations of hamburgers?

    Should I say that I prefer sausage rolls, or that Gerry has a penchant for pies?

    Who asked that question? They usually ask me about leaks and government expenditure, and they want to know from the Prime Minister of New Zealand…..What was the question, again?

    What is a hamburger?

    FFS

    • Molly 5.1
      24 June 2023 at 8:27 am

      Equating women with hamburgers, mac1?

      Just to excuse our PM for his failure to answer a basic question, which provides a good indication of where a politician stands on protecting women's single-sex provisions, legal recognition and sports.

      Thank God, no one asked his name if that is the kind of neurotic though spiral you expect – we'd still be waiting for the answer.

    • Sabine 5.2
      24 June 2023 at 8:43 am

      Your birthing person is a hamburger? Medium rare or cooked?

      And again the answer of the PM was:

      ” This is a question from the left field. I do not have a preformulated answer to that, don’t know, can’t answer’.

      So we must assume that the PM was born to a thing, was married to a thing, that thing then birthed him some things and he would not know what a thing is. Including the previous PM who is also a thing. As are 50% of the parliament who are also things that can not be defined unless some one gives the PM a pre-formulated answer.

      And in saying that the dude could have had a laugh and said, the last PM is one. But then i think the PM – who may or may not be a man but for sure is male – did not get their job because they are smart and intelligent, they got this job, because the PM before them- who may or may not be a women but for sure is female – decided to quit.

    • Anne 5.3
      24 June 2023 at 10:18 am

      Satire is something some people do not understand. 🙁

      • Molly 5.3.1
        24 June 2023 at 10:51 am

        Joking away real concerns is very well understood. wink

        • Incognito 5.3.1.1
          24 June 2023 at 10:59 am

          And so is irony, at least by some.

        • Anne 5.3.1.2
          24 June 2023 at 12:19 pm

          Btw, I was responding to Mac1 who was, as far as I can gather, responding to Anker. It was not intended to reflect on your comment or Sabine's which I had not seen.

          • Sabine 5.3.1.2.1
            24 June 2023 at 12:26 pm

            sarcasm

            noun

            1. the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

            ditto for that word

            sardonic

            adjective

            1. grimly mocking or cynical.

            Not everyone understands it. And the Prime Minister – the bepenised one who does not know what a woman is, and is scared of questions asking about it, deserves nothing less then mockery.

            But maybe they don't know because their birthing person really is just a hamburger.

        • Sabine 5.3.1.3
          24 June 2023 at 12:34 pm

          it was actually funny to read. I mean what is a woman, no one knows, specially on the left, they all just crawled out of a birthing body who may or may not be something that no longer can be defined on the grounds that males want to be just that. OK.

          What is unlucky though is that the PM unwittingly admitted that all the questions during QT are screened and pre-asked, so that their million dollar PR team can write preformulated answers.

          And in this case we either have

          a. a PM who is lacking in wit and smart to answer an unexpected question

          b. a PM who shits himself publicly life on camera when asked an uncomfortable question, afraid of heresy or cancellation

          c. or we have a PM and government who only answers screened questions and then we no longer have a free press but a bunch of neutered stenographers that serve no one but themselves

          I personally think it is a combination of all three, but it should give people to think.

          • weka 5.3.1.3.1
            24 June 2023 at 12:39 pm

            d. his advisors had failed to do the mahi on the question and why it matters and thus he was caught off guard. Or possibly, their ideology stopped them from giving him the politically relevant perspectives (which would be even worse than mere ignorance)

            • Sabine 5.3.1.3.1.1
              24 June 2023 at 1:06 pm

              e. they are so arrogant that they never thought their neutered press corps would dare ask that question lest they get burned alive on the social media equivalent of the stake. Hence why only Plunkett would ask that question.

    • Patricia Bremner 5.4
      24 June 2023 at 10:37 am

      You have stirred the hornets Mac1. Always looking for a reason to bring up their topic.

      A loaded question is just that. A loaded question for a "gotcha."

      • Molly 5.4.1
        24 June 2023 at 10:55 am

        "You have stirred the hornets Mac1. Always looking for a reason to bring up their topic."

        A political topic on a political blog.

        Who would've thunk?

        "A loaded question is just that. A loaded question for a "gotcha.""

        A basic question that has a simple answer, is now considered a "gotcha"?

        Well, that merits a discussion about the politics involved…

      • Anker 5.4.2
        24 June 2023 at 11:47 am

        The point of the question that was asked the PM "what is a woman" is to see who politicians are prepared to throw under the bus. Are they going to reply an adult human female and risk the wrath of the gender extremists or are they going to throw women under the bus. Consistent with policies like self ID Hipkins threw women under the bus.

        • weka 5.4.2.1
          24 June 2023 at 12:43 pm

          Because of who asked the question, it's reasonable to assume it was also a gotcha. Plunkett is right wing and imo asked the question in part because it would embarrass Hipkins (which it did). Plunkett appears to have some concern about the immediate issues facing women from gender identity, but he's not an ally to women's rights generally.

        • Patricia Bremner 5.4.2.2
          24 June 2023 at 3:44 pm

          "A birthing woman" is rather hurtful to those who are not able to have children.

          • Molly 5.4.2.2.1
            25 June 2023 at 8:38 am

            All are born to a woman, is not equivalent to saying all women give birth.

            A category that assuredly does not give birth – is men.

            Saying "birthing women" is nothing other than descriptive.

            Women who are unable to have children when they want them, grieve that circumstance – not accurate descriptors.

            We should not go through life assuming a universal fragility for reality.

    • Anker 5.5
      24 June 2023 at 11:52 am

      Mac in your jest you fail to realise what many of us know about liberal men and gender ideology. They fail to comprehend why the erosion of female language, sex based rights and women only sports (an here I refer to our Minister of Sport Grant Robertson saying it was petty and trivial not to include men who masquerade as women in female sports).

      I am use to this on this blogsite though.

      Feel free to continue to show yourself up as someone who has no clue about women'ssex based rights and why the question "what is a women" has merit

      • SPC 5.5.1
        24 June 2023 at 12:13 pm

        New Zealand rules allow sports to to organise in line with international rules as to fair competition and have a focus on safety in domestic sport.

      • Anne 5.5.2
        24 June 2023 at 12:33 pm

        Except that you've gone on and on and on about it for what seems like eternity (an exaggeration for effect btw). Everybody is getting fed up with it – hence Mac1's attempt at satirical humour.

        Btw, I have a recollection that Mac1 is/was a teacher by profession and an established counsellor on sexual/gender relations and other related issues within that profession. If I have got it correct you could learn a lot more from him than the other way round.

        • weka 5.5.2.1
          24 June 2023 at 12:36 pm

          Everybody isn't fed up with it, which is why we are all here talking about it today.

          Mac1, whatever their professional background, was either dismissive of women's concerns about sex based rights or is ignorant of them. Or both. On a political blog that's going to get responded to. It's not a problem. If you are fed up with the topic, you can always talk about something else.

          • Mac1 5.5.2.1.1
            24 June 2023 at 1:24 pm

            Weka, Mac1 was doing neither. Mac1 was responding to a criticism of a politician's reaction to a flummoxing, unexpected and un-contexted question.

            Such a question causes mental flurries.

            Similar to mine when returning after three hours tutoring music to read the reactions that had occurred while teaching fourteen children how to play tunes ranging from "Ode to Joy" to "In the Hall of the Mountain King"……

            • weka 5.5.2.1.1.1
              24 June 2023 at 1:46 pm

              if you found anker's point flummoxing and uncontexted, maybe you could have asked for an explanation. Because everyone else who commented knew what she was referring to.

              And, it's a political issue and will become more so in NZ over time. It also has the potential to become an issue in this election. We should be prepared for that.

          • Anne 5.5.2.1.2
            24 June 2023 at 6:15 pm

            "Everybody isn't fed up with it,…"

            Correct. Wondered who it would be who latched on to that comment.

            What is also correct… a majority of people have had more than enough of the subject. Especially since some of the claims made are blatant untruths.

            How about a permanent dedicated post so the rest of us can discuss other topics without the fear something is taken out of context and we end up having this one rammed down our throats yet again.

            • weka 5.5.2.1.2.1
              24 June 2023 at 11:38 pm

              a majority of people have had more than enough of the subject.

              You just made that up too.

              It's not worth the time and effort to do dedicated posts given that there's not a huge amount of gender/sex debate most of the time.

              How about a permanent dedicated post so the rest of us can discuss other topics without the fear something is taken out of context and we end up having this one rammed down our throats yet again.

              And yet it had nothing to do with you until you decided to join in the conversation 🤷‍♀️

              • Shanreagh …
                25 June 2023 at 9:11 am

                Good points Weka. Why should there be a moratorium or separate sets of posts on Women's issues any more than there should be the same on the war in Ukraine?

                I value both as they are both issues of moment and have the possibility that you might learn something every time they are discussed.

                Oh yes and this is a political blog, as you say, and both womens issues and Russia/Ukraine are both political issues.

                • Incognito …
                  25 June 2023 at 4:18 pm

                  You put forward a strawman because it’s a false equivalence.

                  One is [being used as] a political wedge issue here in NZ, quite successfully, and the other one is not.

                  I trust you can work out which one is which.

                  • Shanreagh …
                    26 June 2023 at 9:43 am

                    Really?

                    I think there are at least two views if not more on this issue. Belittling the concern held by many won't make us or the issue go away.

                    'False equivalence' and 'strawman' are noted pejoratives/discussion derailers.

                    I'm taking them as this rather than any attempt to answer or discuss the idea that some political issues are more worthy of discussion than others that you & others seem to be advancing.

                    Horses for courses and issues for, and of, the times. I can state that social issues such as women's rights here in NZ will or could be election issues. I cannot see that the Russia/Ukraine war of itself will become an election issue here unless some party introduces conscription or allows huge exports of materiel to the protagonists.

                    Either way both the issues are of concern/interest. The cause of womens rights is worthy of time on OM just as the war in Ukraine is.

                    • Incognito …
                      27 June 2023 at 6:41 pm

                      A false equivalence is a logical fallacy but not necessarily deliberate & intentional.

                      A strawman is also a fallacy and often but not always intentional.

                      Regardless, in (robust) debate such fallacies can (and should!) be called out, even when accidental.

                      I'm taking them as this rather than any attempt to answer or discuss the idea that some political issues are more worthy of discussion than others that you & others seem to be advancing.

                      No idea what you’re trying to say here and I reject the accusatory tone.

                      You and I agree about which one of the two is a wedge issue here in NZ.

                      Either way both the issues are of concern/interest.

                      Agreed, but not necessarily by the same people.

                      The cause of womens rights is worthy of time on OM just as the war in Ukraine is.

                      Agreed. Of course, they are two entirely different issues/topics.

              • Anne …
                25 June 2023 at 10:24 am

                @ weka
                It had everything to do with me. Just because many of us didn't contribute at the level of some doesn't mean we weren't reading the comments.

                In fact I recall contributing at the beginning of the debate. I agreed with those who were concerned about the possibility of allowing anyone other than biological women entering women's spaces. I still do [vehemently] agree with them.

                Then emotional hysteria set in and before long anyone who dared to question the veracity of some of the claims being made were being demonised. Btw, that does not include you who, by and large, seemed to maintain a sensible approach.

                In the end I walked as did others. Unfortunately TS lost a few good commenters during that time so I suggest the protagonists have a good think about the aggressive manner they chose to follow, and the damage it did to the site at the time.

    • Incognito 5.6
      24 June 2023 at 11:59 am

      What is a hamburger?

      JFK would have answered this unequivocally if he had visited Hamburg instead of Berlin in 1963 cheeky

      • Anker 5.6.1
        24 June 2023 at 12:14 pm

        I suspect Incognito you are trying to wind some of us up, but it won't work.

        • Incognito 5.6.1.1
          24 June 2023 at 12:26 pm

          I’m using humour to stimulate or provoke thinking – if this winds up some here then they should ask themselves why the shoe fits.

          A simple sentence or statement can convey an awful lot, as evidenced by JFK’s speech. Similarly, a simple question sometimes is anything but simple, notwithstanding the gotcha questions fired at will at politicians. It depends on how one receives & perceives the question as to how one responds (or not).

          You have made up your mind, closed it off, and threw away the key and poured meters of concrete on it to seal it forever, as you’ve done with so many politicians.

          Let me know what grates you in my comment and I’ll make a mental note of it.

          • Shanreagh 5.6.1.1.1
            26 June 2023 at 10:02 am

            A simple sentence or statement can convey an awful lot, as evidenced by JFK’s speech.

            Of course it had a double meaning, the one conveyed on paper and the other conveyed by his pronounciation, he was not a a German speaker.

            Reading the speech the phrase is evocative, forward thinking, illustrative of his intellect & rightly remembered but his pronunication did make for a momentary snigger.

            Clumsy analogies about hamburgers, doughnuts etc fall into the latter snigger category.

            Kennedy's was inadvertent.

            Are we to seriously consider Mac1's analogy which is used to illustrate how terrible it was that a PM was caught out on an issue of moment? I don't think so especially as it was deliberately advanced.

            PM Hipkins (and his advisers too) were just caught in an error of judgement on the issue…..

            • Incognito 5.6.1.1.1.1
              27 June 2023 at 6:16 pm

              Nope, the second meaning was not [in] his pronunciation [sp.].

              Mac1 has already explained himself but some just don’t seem to want to let [it] go …

      • Dennis Frank 5.6.2
        24 June 2023 at 12:14 pm

        Good one, Incog! Ich bin ein hamburger would've had more impact than the line that did go down in history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner laugh

        • Incognito 5.6.2.1
          24 June 2023 at 12:30 pm

          No, not really. It could only have made this profound political impact in Berlin and no other place in world. It was the perfect time & place.

          • Dennis Frank 5.6.2.1.1
            24 June 2023 at 12:44 pm

            Yeah, that resonance was indeed how you describe it – I recall hearing it on the radio news at the time – but there's a double meaning…

            The effect of the leader of the free world describing himself as a hamburger would have generated more discussion & comment in western countries – particularly the USA where it already was the most popular food.

            • Incognito 5.6.2.1.1.1
              24 June 2023 at 1:21 pm

              Nope, it would have turned it into lame joke and received ridicule & mockery from the Marx Brothers. That said, Sabine is still laughing about it, in a sardonic or satirical manner.

              • Dennis Frank …
                24 June 2023 at 1:46 pm

                Seems to me the sharing of humour is normal in culture & folks seize upon any such unintended opportunities with considerable enthusiasm. I'm puzzled that you don't see this…

                • Incognito …
                  24 June 2023 at 2:13 pm

                  There’s a place for humour in political debate, obviously, even beyond being a rhetorical tool. However, if you seriously believe that JFK’s speech would have been more impactful in Hamburg than in Berlin because of the popularity of a food in the US and its associated level of humour then you have obviously no understanding of the context of the geo-political history. Now that should puzzle you!

                  • Dennis Frank …
                    24 June 2023 at 2:46 pm

                    No, I don't seriously believe that – seems very likely to me that the humour would have been widely shared – even across the geopolitical divides. The Marx brothers would have done their riff on that, and JFK would have gone down in history as a world leader with a sense of humour. smiley

                    • Incognito …
                      24 June 2023 at 3:00 pm

                      So, you don’t seriously believe that but you think that’s the case!?

                      Have you ever heard of the Hamburg Wall?

        • Sabine 5.6.2.2
          24 June 2023 at 1:07 pm

          Yep, germans still laugh about that. A berliner – a krapfen elsewhere in germany, or in english a donut.

          • Shanreagh 5.6.2.2.1
            26 June 2023 at 10:23 am

            Yes indeed. It was used as an example in one of my German classes in Dresden in 2008 by a tutor talking about care with German when you have a strong 'home' accent. You need to put in work to overcome the tongue/lips etc positions that you normally slide to when speaking heavily accented English and learning German.

            Some US accents are so strong that you would swear they were speaking English when speaking German. But often you cannot understand either.

            Our tutor was East German trained so Russian was her second language and not English. We had to go into English* often to talk to him, and then translate his difficulties. as best we could. We found his US accent difficult as English speakers.

            I often wondered how the Lutheran pastor from the Mid West US got on in his year long exchange to a church outside Liepzig. His German would have been better at the I am sure. smiley His English pronunciation would have improved also I think.

            • which was not encouraged usually and the tutor being Russian trained, with no English we knew we had to shape up.
            • Shanreagh 5.6.2.2.1.1
              26 June 2023 at 10:51 am

              My German is not great and my partner is often trying to encourage crisper pronunciation and sometimes my ear just cannot pick up the nuance/variation. Doesn't help having hearing aids some times!

              Also the people in most countries love it if a new comer speaks in their language and would have respected Kennedy's spoken attempt and especially as it conveyed the sense of kinfolk to people his country had been at war with not so many years before.

            • Sabine 5.6.2.2.1.2
              26 June 2023 at 11:07 am

              Most Germans learned english from germans with bad german accents while speaking english. And that is quite funny too.

              What was funny was that the President of the United States declared himself to be a 'Berliner' aka a Donut. And do so earnestly. But i guess he could not have said i am a West Berliner, as that would point out the fact that Berlin was a divided City, or I am a German as that would point out the fact that the wall went through quite a bit of Germany and was going to be one until 1989 when the East Germans dismantled the wall with their Monday night demonstrations. Never mind all the dead people that died in the niemandsland while trying to escape. It was the cold war after all.

              He was trying to put a good face to a bad situation and coined one of the funniest terms ever, and also showed that polititans are always trying to put a good face on some really bad shit. That speech needed better writers if anything. I assume once he was told of the translation of Berliner to Donut he would himself have had a chuckle.

              We watched that speech in school, and collectively we bursted out laughing. It was a lost in translation moment where the us american did not factor in 'german humor'. Maybe its gallows humor?

              Also the times….One, Two, Three by Billy Wilder is a good movie that shows a bit the time at that time and some nice images of Berlin before that wall went up. Filmed 1961. If anyone is interested in Berlin before the wall went up thanks to Walter Ulbrecht. .

              https://archive.org/details/one.-two.-three.-1961.720p.-billy-wilder-film-james-cagney-howard-st.-john-pamel

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall

              • Shanreagh …
                26 June 2023 at 11:23 am

                I think probably his advisers may not have warned him about the care needed in pronunciation or encouraged another phrase. Or run this part of the speech past a native German speaker.

                Though as you say what other phrase?

                Looking back it was amazing that the class in Dresden got what our tutor was referencing. It was left to the older students to reference it/speak to the tutor as many of the younger ones did not know about this.

                • Sabine …
                  26 June 2023 at 11:40 am

                  No really it has nothing to do with his pronounciation. It is the fact that a Berliner is a sweet pastry filled with jam. In the same sense as we don't say i am a Hamburger or a Frankfurter. We would say i am from Berlin, or from Hamburg, or from Frankfurt.

                  It is a funny and totally endearing 'lost in translation' moment. And it needs to be pointed out that the 'Berliner' has a very distinct sense of humor and a very distinct dialect that can only rudely be called 'german', but then the northern german would say the same about my bavarian dialect.

                  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Berliner_Schnauze

                  Kennedy spoke Hochdeutsch – high german.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hochdeutsch#:~:text=Hochdeutsch%20is%20a%20German%20word,Hochdeutsch%20or%20Austrian%20High%20German.
                  He declared himself unwittingly to be a sweet pastry filled with jam. We understood what he was trying to say, but it still is funny today.

                  • Shanreagh …
                    26 June 2023 at 11:51 am

                    Yes that is what I understand but saying 'I come from Berlin' does not have the same ring. Sorry I was wrong about saying pronunciation…figure of speech. Similar to the warning about not saying I am hot.

                    He was saying he was a sweet pastry……and that got the message across as well as he was trying to enunciate his feelings in German. People do remember it

                    Similar to the conversations here in some parts of NZ, particularly in relation to areas of Maori migration to the cities.

                    Where are you from (Northern HB)

                    gets a different response from

                    Where do you live (Wellington)

                    This can puzzle some people.

                    • Shanreagh …
                      26 June 2023 at 12:21 pm

                      Sorry for being so confused Sabine.

                    • Sabine …
                      26 June 2023 at 12:29 pm

                      That is what i meant above, he was trying to appeal emotionally to the people from Berlin, to the cold war thinking and he succeeded, and said something that is still quite funny today.

                      I say us germans have no sense of humor that we are aware of, but when we find something funny it is often the non germans who don't understand why.

                      Regional differences can be literally a few kms away. And i awalys assume that is the same the world over. We are not so different after all, us humans.

    • Anker 5.7
      24 June 2023 at 12:03 pm

      mac 1. some consciousness raising for you. Not compulsory of course, unlike it is with our friends from the 2SLGBTQIA + and growing group,

      Up to you. Not interested in trying to change peoples minds anymore, certainly not on this site. Posie Parkers visit has woken middle NZ up and they are not happy about self id and gender ideology being taught to 5 year olds.

      https://thecritic.co.uk/we-know-what-a-man-is/

      • SPC 5.7.1
        24 June 2023 at 12:28 pm

        Posie Parker, birth name Kellie-Jay Keen (husband surname Minshall) formed her SFW group with the purpose of opposing all transgender women being able to access woman's spaces/women's identity and also to oppose transition by youth (under 18).

        Yes concern about self-ID is more common.

        Social study classes in schools when change is occurring in the lives of the families of students (first sole parents/divorce and onto homosexual parents and now gender) is fraught with difficulty – a step beyond earlier debates around religious education in the state sector.

        • Sabine 5.7.1.1
          24 June 2023 at 12:55 pm

          Because self ID is all males. And every Transwoman is a male.

          Posie started her activism when males declared themselves women. When they took down a a billboard she paid for with the defintion of the word woman on it because it upset males. When the police came to visit in regards to the hate crime of 'defining the word' woman. All these instances she was told to shut up and do as the males tell her to do. I guess she has yet to understand that in the eyes of the left the only good woman is the one that does as she is told too………

          Thing is, and i say this as someone who had TQ+ on the payroll well before this shitshow started, most of us were quite alright to have T in our spaces, on the grounds of their 'gender expression'. Woman understood and tolerated these males in our spaces as at the time they went to rigorous counseling etc, some went on to surgery others not, and literally all tried to pass and behaved decently. We used to call these people Transsexuals. Georgina Beyer was one of them. Someone who not only made the effort to appear as a woman but who also respected the places that she used. At least that was my impression.

          Then Self ID came up. Now you have entire males, who do nothing to pass or fit in demanding access to ALL spaces, to compete against females in sports / scholarships/awards pushing females aside, colonising the word woman and the idea of womanhood, to the point where lesbians are considered non males loving non males and males can be lesbians too, where lesbians are demanded to consider penises as female sexual organs, gay men are to consider male pussy as valid, where heterosexual males are to consider female dick or inverted dick as female sexual organs, and where females are shamed for wanting to divorce the husbands who no longer want to be men, and we are pushing irreversible surgery and hormone injections as gender affirming care on children who have no idea what really is being done to them.

          We have rapists being locked up in cells with females, females in prison now having to decide if they abort the child or give it up for adoption that was fucked into their bodies by rapists / murderers/ violent males who self identified into prisons with whom these females are forced to share a cell. We now have people agitating for the removal of children from parents who may not wish their child undergoes irreversible surgeries. We now have people doxing and threatening peoples livelyhood for simply stating that children should be left alone, and that no males can never be women or as they now state be female. We have mixed sex mental health care wards, mixed sex hospital wards, mixed sex toilets and changing room. All to the detriment of the human females of all ages.

          And now the dear predominantly straight adult males get all upset cause the rest of the world does not want to affirm their inate fetishic porn driven ideas of 'womanhood'. So sad, to bad, can't give a fuck.

          Human females are they even human? Or are they just a lesser version of chemically and surgically castrated males?

          And we have a dumb and cowardly PM who has no guts and thus will never now glory.

          • SPC 5.7.1.1.1
            24 June 2023 at 1:12 pm

            The propensity to blame the PM for everything is why JA is no longer in politics.

            Everyone in parliament voted for the self-ID, none of the parties in parliament proposes any change.

            And more woman than men support gender ID recognition, however I suspect that among women the support for self-ID is declining (and so that might no longer be the case). When it gets to a majority of both sexes, it becomes a cause one of those parties will adopt.

            • Sabine 5.7.1.1.1.1
              24 June 2023 at 1:24 pm

              Well it takes strong people to make PMs. If they can't take the heat then they should resign, and they did. Well done, and now off to write a book for gazillions of dollars, cause life is better rich.

              And btw, no one knows if that PM is/was a woman, but they are a birther, a body with a vagina (lancet), a menstruator, and a future menopauser. Ditto for the 50% of so called 'woman' in parliament. On the grounds of what shall we consider them women? After all men and non binaries also menstruate, menopause, and can birth offspring. Maybe they are all hamburgers.

              And still our current PM – a penis and prostate haver to be fair – was cowardly that day, life on telly, for everyone to see. OH my, that question was not pre-asked, and i don't have a pre-formulated answer, oh my what to do, is there a place i can run too and hide from such hard hitting unexpected questions.

            • weka 5.7.1.1.1.2
              24 June 2023 at 1:44 pm

              Everyone in parliament voted for the self-ID, none of the parties in parliament proposes any change.

              It would be career suicide for any progressive NZ MP to come out as gender critical. National or ACT may make moves on this and this may force the centre left to reconsider if the public become aware and it impacts on elections.

              And more woman than men support gender ID recognition, however I suspect that among women the support for self-ID is declining (and so that might no longer be the case).

              What are you basing that one?

              When it gets to a majority of both sexes, it becomes a cause one of those parties will adopt.

              If you are talking about NZ, we've never had an open political debate about self-ID. There's no good way to know what people here think about it because of that. Some people are still in the 'let's be kind to trans people' phase and haven't thought through the implications.

              In the UK, first the Tories, then Labour and the SNP were forced to change their direction and start listening to what GC people were saying. That happened largely thanks to feminists who did a lot of work over a long period of time to organise, present papers, take court cases, and pressure the MSM. Also the detrans people and whistleblowers.

              Once people understand the issues, many positions change.

            • Anker 5.7.1.1.1.3
              24 June 2023 at 4:00 pm

              https://www.speakupforwomen.nz/post/majority-of-new-zealanders-do-not-support-sex-self-id

              SPC this is what NZders think of Self I.d. Only 30% of Labour voters support it. Only 20% of the public support it.

              I can't talk for why politicians voted for it, but I suspect they all knew it is political suicide to challenge trans rights activist. You get cancelled, can lose your job and career prospects. Many links I can provide from overseas, but google Alison Bailey, Maya Forsetter, a musican from the pop band Take That has just been cancelled from a festival in the UK for liking gender critical posts on twitter. Its a nasty little authoritarian ideology

          • Anker 5.7.1.1.2
            24 June 2023 at 3:53 pm

            Aren't we now to be known as hamburgers Sabine? lol

      • Mac1 5.7.2
        24 June 2023 at 1:15 pm

        Anker, some explanation.

        I was critiquing your assertion about Hipkins. "oh and course his failure to be able to answer what a woman is. He looked a complete idiot over that"

        My point was that it was a gotcha question, way out of the normal playing field, and therefore flummoxing.

        My humour was that many things could have been going on in his mind having been asked an unusual question for a press conference.

        I used the hamburger example because I certainly did not want to go near what possibilities could have arisen had the example referred to the subject of the original question!

        So, as has been said, was I referring to women as hamburgers- no, emphatically not. Never would. I wrote in another recent comment about how people read between the lines if something has not been fully explained.

        That has happened here. When topics are raw for some people, assumptions are easily made that were not intended.

        I was not talking about 'women'. I was talking about how we criticise people when we don't actually see what is going on for them. Hence, 'what is a hamburger'? Everybody knows what a hamburger is, so why am I being asked what is a hamburger?

        So, I am not going to say people were wrong in taking me up wrongly in what I wrote. That is one of the downsides of humour- being misunderstood or not found to be funny. Mine used exaggeration to make a point.

        Another mistake was to not fully explain myself.

        But that would have led to another mistake which I am making now- never try to explain humour…….

        • Sabine 5.7.2.1
          24 June 2023 at 1:47 pm

          here is a video of the PM not being able to answer that question

          This comes after the submission for the self id bill the year before, the many discussion about 'what is a woman', here in NZ and globally.

          This person looked like a deer in the headlights, no independent thought in their head, oh my gosh i have to ask a question that was not submitted for approval before hand and for which my advisors and million dollar PR staff gave me no lecture on should that question ever arise. And I give to them that they did not expect that question form the usual suspects who would never ask something that was not approved by the handers and the million dollar PR team before hand. He just did not count on Plunkett to not be part of the approved and neutered toothless press corps.

          And again, they could have answered to the laughs of all " Your mother is one".

          But then i would guess that they were counselled by their million dollar PR team that the word “mother” is transphobic, as is the word “woman” if you apply it to the human female.

          Good grief.

          • Anker 5.7.2.1.1
            24 June 2023 at 4:11 pm

            "this person looked like a deer in the headlights" Sabine at 5.7.2.1

            Don't you mean this hamburger looked like a deer in the highlights………lol

            • Shanreagh 5.7.2.1.1.1
              25 June 2023 at 9:23 am

              Would a deer eat a hamburger if it came across it on the road before being 'in headlights'?

              Sorry Mac1 the analogy didn't work and no the question was not a gotcha. It showed a PM out of touch personally and perhaps overly reliant on minders. As Anker says:

              The point of the question that was asked the PM "what is a woman" is to see who politicians are prepared to throw under the bus. Are they going to reply an adult human female and risk the wrath of the gender extremists or are they going to throw women under the bus. Consistent with policies like self ID Hipkins threw women under the bus.

              And those of us who had been following The Platform, that was the the only place diverting from the 'Trans thuggery good and totally justified line and PP is a devil'. I can't say i was waiting with bated breath but the out of touch-ness displayed by the PM was astounding.

              I say 'out of touchness' rather than 'capture' though there is a fine line. That he did not feel the need to update himself, sans minders, on this issue was very telling for me.

        • weka 5.7.2.2
          24 June 2023 at 2:02 pm

          My point was that it was a gotcha question, way out of the normal playing field, and therefore flummoxing.

          My humour was that many things could have been going on in his mind having been asked an unusual question for a press conference.

          The only reason it was an unusual question is because Hipkins and his team haven't been paying attention. This has been a huge issue in the UK, including for UK Labour and the SNP. That Hipkins and his research team are unaware of this is strange, and it's fair to comment on this.

          I agree that Plunkett was asking a gotcha question, because that's SP's modus operandi. But the question itself is not a gotcha, it's a serious political issue that NZ is only starting to grapple with.

          • weka 5.7.2.2.1
            24 June 2023 at 2:05 pm

            if you want to understand some of the political context, here's Nicola Sturgeon before she resigned and before the SNP polling tanked, being asked the question in a non-gotcha way by a journalist who was trying to make sense of what she was saying. It's in relation to a rapist, who self-IDs as a TW, being housed in a women's prison.

            https://youtu.be/YYmKZwvpPOk

            (includes an interview with the journalist).

            I've commented about this before https://thestandard.org.nz/sturgeon-like-ardern-a-casualty-of-online-abuse/#comment-1936115

          • Mac1 5.7.2.2.2
            24 June 2023 at 2:34 pm

            Was Sean's question, as showed on Sabine's video, put into a context of the political concerns.

            Something like-"Prime Minister, there has been a huge debate and issues raised overseas in the UK with the Labour party and the SNP over what a woman is, the issue of transgenderism and how people should be treated at school and in the workplace who are facing dealing with such issues in their own lives, what is your and the Labour Party's view here as to 'what is a woman".

            Hipkins confessed that the question was out of left field. So it was.

            He was asked that question with the preamble. "Given that drama going on in Britain, what etc".

            That is my reference to contexting.

            A similar 'gotcha' tactic is used in parliamentary questions. The primary question along the lines of 'does the PM stand by his statements' is then followed by wide-ranging and disconnected questions which have been asked in such a way as to give no indication of where the supplementaries would lead so that the PM could not prepare for all possibilities.

            I can just see a PM's adviser saying to the PM as he prepares for Questions in the House, "Oh, and just in case you're asked what a woman is here's what you could say…….."

            Similarly, would he be prepared to comment on what a hamburger is. "Prime Minister, with regards to Mr Luxon's recent featuring as a McDonald's counter salesman, what is a hamburger?"

            Sean, whoever he was, in my opinion as a reporter trivialised the issue by asking such a question and in such a way.

            In your reply to me above you did instance a way in which a question could be made in a way which sought enlightenment.

            • weka 5.7.2.2.2.1
              24 June 2023 at 2:57 pm

              Was Sean's question, as showed on Sabine's video, put into a context of the political concerns.

              I've just rewatched and he does give the question some context. The date in the YT is a week or so after Keir Starmer changed UK Labour's position on self ID and opened the door to women's sex based rights. So it *was pertinent.

              We'd already had KKJ bring Let Women Speak to Auckland and seen an incredibly bizarre political protest and MSM coverage unfold.

              Maybe Hipkins's team has been telling him that KJK is Nazi adjacent and that the protestors were all Good Liberals and anyone who talks about women's sex based rights is a bigot. In which case, more fool them.

              I can just see a PM's adviser saying to the PM as he prepares for Questions in the House, "Oh, and just in case you're asked what a woman is here's what you could say…….."

              This is exactly what his team should have been prepping him for. The question was always going to come up at some point, it was just a matter of when.

              • ianmac …
                24 June 2023 at 4:06 pm

                Weka. What is your answer to the question?

                What is a woman?

                • weka …
                  24 June 2023 at 5:33 pm

                  at this point in time, I would answer that women are adult, human females.

                  Female is one of two biological sexes in humans, where sex is how the species reproduces itself. Females have bodies designed to produce ova and gestate other humans, males have bodies designed to produce sperm, irrespective of how functional those bodies are.

                  The word woman should be reserved to refer to adult human females, because we need a less clinical word than female, because this is how it is already used by most humans, and because women still face huge barriers by dint of living in a patriarch society designed around men. If we lose our language and concepts, especially to talk about ourselves, our politics and our place in society, it will become much more difficult to retain what rights we do have or to uphold women's culture in a positive way.

            • Anker 5.7.2.2.2.2
              24 June 2023 at 4:15 pm

              Often if you give a big lead in when you ask a question, the actual question gets lost.

              Hipkins failure to answer it adquately shows one of two things. Either he is captured by gender ideology, which most of the Labour caucus seem to be or he is scared witless by the extremist trans lobby.

        • Anker 5.7.2.3
          24 June 2023 at 4:06 pm

          All good Mac1. Yes the question was from left field, although perhaps Hipkins advisors should have read the international room and realised what idiots they made themselves looks by endorsing ideas such as a woman can have a penis (e.g Kerr Starmer) and Nicola Sturgeon looking like a blittering idoit when confronted about the man, a rapist, who is masquerading as a woman, housed in a women's prison.

          You see the thing for me about all this, is if you can't discern what we all know about biological reality i.e. that the very, very very vast majority of us are born male or female (even intersex people) then are you really fit to run a country?

    • SPC 5.8
      24 June 2023 at 12:17 pm

      A PM has to be mindful of the human rights of citizens.

      As yet there is no gender category in the HRA – all gender rights come under the category "sex". Which is why the op outs for sex are indicative of where the law is moving on gender in law, but are not complete.

      • weka 5.8.1
        24 June 2023 at 12:25 pm

        They're not 'op outs', they're limited exceptions to discrimination law because despite the law being written in a way that largely ignores women's reality, there is some acknowledgement that women exist and have sex based needs.

        The exclusions aren't indicative of where the law is moving on gender identity, it was written before gender identity was a thing (1990 and amendments in 2001)

        https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/whole.html#DLM304467

        But NZ law in general appears to be a mess with regards to gender, because the word has been used in the past to mean sex and now also gets used to mean gender identity.

        • SPC 5.8.1.1
          24 June 2023 at 12:34 pm

          It's constantly amended. But as to any impacting on gender, that only applies to sex.

          • weka 5.8.1.1.1
            24 June 2023 at 12:37 pm

            what is constantly amended? Please give some examples.

            But as to any impacting on gender, that only applies to sex.

            What does that even mean? Any law impacting on gender identity only applies to sex? You are not making sense.

            • SPC 5.8.1.1.1.1
              24 June 2023 at 12:59 pm

              Your link shows all the amendments to the original act.

              An example then – allowing a sport to discriminate as per sex can cover being single sex or to exclude transgender women because of fair competition or safety.

              • Molly …
                24 June 2023 at 5:58 pm

                Transgender people have never been excluded from sports participation or competition.

                Like everyone else they can play in the appropriate: sex; weight; age categories.

                That's equality.

                That's non-discriminatory.

                That's inclusive.

                That's also fair.

                • Anker …
                  25 June 2023 at 10:38 am

                  Bang on Molly

                • SPC …
                  25 June 2023 at 11:18 am

                  Is allowing transgender men, women using male hormones, appropriate for women's sport?

                  • Molly …
                    25 June 2023 at 11:23 am

                    SPC, do you have any experience or knowledge of competitive female athletes?

                    Women athletes often make difficult decisions regarding their fertility and their competitive windows.

                    ALL athletes face decisions regarding medical treatments and drug use and how they impact on their competitive eligibility and performance.

                    Steroid use – is an individual choice – but comes at a cost of making someone ineligible for competition.

                    The impact of men in women's sports categories, is different for that of women in men's categories – because of the differences inherent in sex.

                    “Is allowing transgender men, women using male hormones, appropriate for women’s sport?”

                    The question you are asking can be answered by yourself by using clear language:
                    “Is allowing any woman (with or without declared gender identity), using male hormones, appropriate for women’s sport?”

                    The answer for competitive or club sport is No.

                    Social sport options remain.

      • weka 5.8.2
        24 June 2023 at 12:29 pm

        A PM has to be mindful of the human rights of citizens.

        But not apparently women. New misogyny same as the old misogyny.

        As I pointed out in the earlier thread, there is nothing in law that I am aware of that would stop the NZ PM from saying that women are adult human females, that trans women also exist, and that both groups of people have rights and needs in society that often overlooked or blocked and we should be attending to those.

        I'm also not aware of any NZ law that says trans women are female or trans women are women. If you know of such please quote the exact passage and provide a link.

        Which means that Hipkins spoke his personal understanding informed by gender identity ideology and with apparently a great ignorance about how many women see the issue and definitions.

        • SPC 5.8.2.1
          24 June 2023 at 12:53 pm

          Would you rather have 1 or 2?

          1.a definition of women as either biological sex (cisgender to others) adult females or adult transgender females

          2.exclusion of transgender women from the adult female category because they were not born female.

          I'm also not aware of any NZ law that says trans women are female or trans women are women.

          Nor any that says they are not. It's that lacking in detail.

          Until there is some work on the matter – such as a separate gender category in the HRA to provide differentiation … (might include non binary etc).

          • weka 5.8.2.1.1
            24 June 2023 at 12:56 pm

            trans women aren't female, they are male even after transition/body modification. Female/male are words that describe biology not gender identity.

            • SPC 5.8.2.1.1.1
              24 June 2023 at 1:02 pm

              So you chose two. Which places you in the K-J Keen camp.

              Male and female are used by many to describe both sex and gender.

              • weka …
                24 June 2023 at 1:04 pm

                I don't know what you mean by choose. We have words in English that have meaning. If you want to change those words to mean something else, you would need to a) provide a case for that and b) provide alternate words because we still need to be able to talk about biological sex in humans and other animals.

                • weka …
                  24 June 2023 at 1:11 pm

                  btw, I have a very high confidence that were NZ citizens asked about this in an informed way that the majority, probably the greater majority, would say that TWATW, not TWAW.

                  My confidence is based on paying attention to what has happened internationally when societies push past No Debate. For instance in the UK, yougov polls show that many people support trans rights generally but draw the line at TW in women's toilets.

                  The reason we have had so much policy creep on this in many places is because No Debate was intentional as it was understood by gender identity activists that openly talking about the issues would mean their goals would be harder to achieve.

                  This has caused so many problems, not least is that we are headed for an almighty conservative backlash that will harm a lot of people. And that is on the neoliberal left who played the game so that outside of the UK it's largely conservatives have been able to determine the narrative.

                  • SPC …
                    24 June 2023 at 1:19 pm

                    TWATW, not TWAW.

                    W biological female and TW gender female.

                    • weka …
                      24 June 2023 at 1:34 pm

                      that's a nonsense in syntax and in meaning. Please use whole sentences so your points can be understood.

                      Trans women are trans women, means that trans women exist but are male.

                      Trans women are women, is a piece of propaganda from gender identity activists designed to change language and culture so that trans women are considered literally women. There's no public consensus on this and it will absolutely bite progressive gains in the arse if we don't stop and sort this out now and allow that women and TW are two different groups of people.

                      There is no harm in that that I can see other than for some TW, their need for validation as women is so great that it tries to override common sense, the needs of women and the needs of society generally. Where that validation is based in severe gender dysphoria, TW should absolutely be given support to deal with that, but no way should society be rearranged so completely around the needs of people struggling with mental illness.

                      For the TW that are AGPs, yeah, nah get fucked. No way will there be any accommodation for males with a sexual fetish based in imagining themselves as a woman be accepted or centred in law to the detriment of women. GIAs have already lost that fight, it's just a matter of bloody it gets and how much collateral damage there is as society corrects itself.

                    • Sabine …
                      24 June 2023 at 1:40 pm

                      There is no female gender. Female is the sex that denotes the humans that carry large immobile gametes, male is the sex that denotes the humans that carry small mobile gametes. No matter if they use these gametes to produce offspring. This is how we categorize humans.

                      All mammals are either male or female, and even the few variations there of are either male or female. Turner syndrome for example only affects human females.

                      Males wanting to live the sex stereotypes of the female, i.e. long hair, dresses, hijab, lipstick, heels do not make a female, they just make a male dressing differently. Males surgically getting body modifications that provide them with the secondary sex characteristics of the female are still male. The same applies to females who have surgery to appear male, they are and will be only ever female. Males that dress as females and want relationships with females are not lesbians, they are heterosexual males. And males that have relationship with trans identified males are not heterosexual they are homosexual.

                      And in order to specify which female mammal we speak of we call the human one woman, the horse one mare, the bovine one heifer (yet to birth a calf) or cow (one that calfed) and the female whale is also called cow.

                      And just to clarify who birthed all of humanity since the first child was born, it was the human female, or maybe it was hamburgers. Who knows, its hard to define.

                    • SPC …
                      24 June 2023 at 1:55 pm

                      @weka 1.34pm

                      Thanks for clarifying that you see transgender women as male – sabine called this choosing option 2.

                      Your regular use of the term TWATW not TWAW did not convey that meaning at all.

                      And that you see

                      the need to be validated as women as women is so great that it tries to override common sense, the needs of women and the needs of society generally. Where that validation is based in severe gender dysphoria, TW should absolutely be given support to deal with that, but no way should society be rearranged so completely around the needs of people struggling with mental illness

                    • weka []
                      24 June 2023 at 2:12 pm

                      Thanks for clarifying that you see transgender women as male – sabine called this choosing option 2.

                      I don’t see TW as male. Some look like women 🤷‍♀️. It’s a scientific and biological fact that TW are biologically male even with significant body modification. In other words, my perception doesn’t change material reality.

                      TWAW and TWATW are sociopolitical memes designed to convey ideas about social and material reality. TWATW acknowledges that TW are different from other males.

                    • SPC …
                      24 June 2023 at 2:05 pm

                      @sabine 1.40pm

                      The same applies to females who have surgery to appear male, they are and will be only ever female. Males that dress as females and want relationships with females are not lesbians, they are heterosexual males. And males that have relationship with trans identified males are not heterosexual they are homosexual.

                      The amount of androgen in the womb during pregnancy can impact on psycho-sexual development.

                      This has been classified as a disorder of sexual development – because it has been seen as a factor is homosexuality (if not a determinant) and gender dysphoria and body dysmorphia. An irony in that people seek more or less of it when choosing a transgender identity.

                      In contrast to gender differences in activities and interests, associations between prenatal exposure to androgens and development of gender identity or sexual orientation are unclear

                      Sex development can be divided into two distinct processes: sex determination, in which the bipotential gonads form either testes or ovaries, and sex differentiation, in which the fully formed testes or ovaries secrete local and hormonal factors to drive differentiation of internal and external genitals, as well as extragonadal tissues such as the brain. DSDs can arise from a number of genetic lesions, which manifest as a spectrum of gonadal (gonadal dysgenesis to ovotestis) and genital (mild hypospadias or clitoromegaly to ambiguous genitalia) phenotypes. The physical attributes and medical implications associated with DSDs confront families of affected newborns with decisions, such as gender of rearing or genital surgery, and additional concerns, such as uncertainty over the child's psychosexual development and personal wishes later in life. In this Review, we discuss the underlying genetics of human sex determination and focus on emerging data, genetic classification of DSDs and other considerations that surround gender development and identity in individuals with DSDs.

                      https://www.nature.com/articles/nrendo.2014.130

                    • weka []
                      24 June 2023 at 2:08 pm

                      differences in sexual development and gender identity are two separate dynamics, the first is biology, the second is social. Why are you conflating the two? And why are you using this reply to a comment pointing out that humans cannot change sex?

                    • Sabine …
                      24 June 2023 at 2:11 pm

                      SPC, i do not talk for Weka. I just choose an option that works for me. Weka does and chooses as she likes too.

                      And fwiw, Transwoman are Transwoman, and i would go even further, Trans identified males are Trans identified males. They are never woman/female. But as i stated above, i worked / hired trans identified males and queer people in the past, and politely called them she/her and transwoman. Because in the end no one wants to be hurtful on purpose. But as with many women who in the past allowed for that i have reached the point of no thank you. Not going to continue with that.

                      So males are males no matter who they identify, dress, or the body modifications they get on the tax payers dime.

                    • Sabine …
                      24 June 2023 at 2:27 pm

                      SPC…

                      24 June 2023 at 2:05 pm

                      I frankly i don't care, you can find what ever study, medical excuse blablablahbla to hide this behind, the fact is that the vast majority of males currently self identifying as 'woman' are transvestites, males with fetishes, males with a penchant for sissy porn, and so on. They do not have any physical or mental issues other then their own desires.

                      And the issue is SELF ID, cause that is ALL male. As i said above, women were quite 'welcoming' to Transexuals in the past. And that welcome has now worn thin to the extend of no longer being there.

                      Maybe someone should have told the professional trans rights activits, the doctors/uni clinics that make money on human experimentation and the de-sexing and neutering of males and females alike (the young ones, the old ones generally keep their sexual organs for pleasure), the academics in gender studies, the pusher of lupron/hrt and pain medication for surgeries gone wrong, the politians that get oodles of cash from the pharmaceutical companies that make money on de-sexing children, that ones to tell 50% of the population that they no longer exist as their own category, that when you colonise womans language, womans history, womans rights, womans achievements and womans future and when you come for their children – our future, that those that you want to appropriate are not longer welcoming you.

                      Again, woman are not domesticated support animals for males with mental issues and unusual sexual proclivities. We are humans, we are not male, and we do and want our own things.

                      I said this in 2021

                      https://thestandard.org.nz/new-misogyny-same-as-the-old-misogyny/#comment-1824827

                    • SPC …
                      24 June 2023 at 2:43 pm

                      @Sabine 2.27pm

                      And the issue is SELF ID

                      Sure self-ID is problematic. Transition management was a society safeguard.

                    • weka []
                      24 June 2023 at 2:57 pm

                      Transition management was a society safeguard.

                      What does that mean?

                    • Sabine …
                      24 June 2023 at 3:40 pm

                      Transition management was a society safeguard.

                      It was both, a society safeguard and a personal safeguard- in so far as society understood at the time this dysphoria was rare, and medically dangerous, thus protecting innoncents from being de-sexed and those that got the surgeries done were mentally and emotionally suited to the implications of that surgery and also would get the best surgery possible (and i really hope for that). And so as long as it was that Society went along because it was sensible. We should never de-sex a human without excellent reason.

                      Now it is a free for all, change your idendity as many times as you like for a tiny wee fee – hassle free cause that would be transphobic, no changes to your bodily expression are needed (mostly if you have a penis and want to keep it), or are almost mandated (top surgery females), pretends to that children 18 month + can express their 'gender', non verbal children can paint their 'gender', orders women/females to forgo:

                      their entire human history as women

                      their sex based language

                      their physical attributes – for example female tattoo vs male tattoo

                      tribal privileges/responsibilities

                      stories/ heroines/deities – are they not rather non binary, cause so trans masc you know and can women really fight and be good at it?

                      spaces – we have violent males in female prison cells and we care not one iota about the well being of these females and that of the children they birth, children conceived of rape as they never consented to a male inmate bunking with them either aborted or adopted/fostered out.

                      sports/recreation – just don't look at that penis in the public mixed shower – what are you a perv?

                      dignity/respect – Her penis, you bigot

                      motherhood/womanhood – birther, birthing person, birthing people, pregnant people, pregnant person, menstruator, menopauser, bleeder

                      children – desexed by 11 thanks to Lupron at 9.

                      And now we are also starting to demand this of men and that will add a new dimension – see the agitation coming out of conservative USA.

                      We have arrived at the moment where the 'transchildren' of the past are young adults and you see them more and more about and out. All of them with their own medical issues, their mental issues, and their struggles. We demand by stealth acceptance of these people, that we date them, have sex with them cause they are like the rest of us and you don't want to be transphobic with your silly sexual requirements, and if you want children you can hire a uterus for a fee because we are Ferengi. And in that toxic mix we throw all the males that are just cruisers, chasers, bashers and other wise unpleasant and we unleash them on the woman to deal with.

                      But hey, its just hamburgers, so who cares? Would you like that rare, medium or well done?

                      And we should have never thrown overboard the restrained we had on this. And we will do a lot more harm before we bring these restrains back, if we will ever do that.

                      In the meantime womens rights have been set back to the dark ages. With added flavor that we no longer have the right to associate, congregate, and agitate politically or just socially with out the presence of trans identified males , as they are now women. By stealth, by law, by hate crime, by social pressure, by cancellation, males now define what women/females are.

                    • Incognito []
                      24 June 2023 at 4:40 pm

                      But hey, its just hamburgers, so who cares? Would you like that rare, medium or well done?

                      You’re like a dog with a bone [of discontent]. It serves your narrative but, in my opinion, it does a disservice to debate and I don’t think that you’re really interested in genuine debate.

                    • Molly …
                      25 June 2023 at 11:18 am

                      @Incognito

                      At first pass, I can count 41 salient and clear points that Sabine has made in her comment.

                      "You’re like a dog with a bone [of discontent]. It serves your narrative but, in my opinion, it does a disservice to debate and I don’t think that you’re really interested in genuine debate."

                      I'll ignore the fact we've moved on from being hamburgers to dogs…discontented ones at that…and just point out that providing over forty discussion points in one comment should encourage debate.

                      (Unless of course, the whole is discounted as being something associated with a discontented (female?) dog, and thus summarily dismissed.)

                      I can see there's a wealth of debate points in Sabine's comment.

                      Anyone can pick one, and start a discussion. It's not going to be me, because I agree with each one of them.

                    • Incognito []
                      25 June 2023 at 4:41 pm

                      @ Molly 25 June 2023 at 11:18 am:

                      Since you’re not speaking on behalf of Sabine and since you have already firmly made up your mind, again, I won’t put up a critical analysis of her comment. Suffice to say that her comment was harmful to ‘the debate’, IMO. That you agree with each of the ‘41 salient and clear points’, allegedly, comes as no surprise at all.

                      Once this charade ceases and we can have a genuine debate between open-minded mature people without the passive-aggressive attitudes and other micro-aggressions aimed at other commenters who disagree I might put some real effort & time into this too. Until then I have better things to do then wasting my time on this farce that others and you seem to hold as the standard of debate of GC/GI issues.

                      And before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion, this is an important issue that worries me much, not the least because it has become a poisoned chalice and an effective political wedge issue here in NZ and on TS.

                    • Molly …
                      25 June 2023 at 5:05 pm

                      @Incognito

                      "Since you’re not speaking on behalf of Sabine and since you have already firmly made up your mind, again, I won’t put up a critical analysis of her comment. "

                      I'm genuinely sorry to have interrupted your intention to "put up a critical analysis of her comment."

                      Like you, I prefer discussion.

                      Therefore I apologise for misinterpreting this comment as dismissal: " It serves your narrative but, in my opinion, it does a disservice to debate and I don’t think that you’re really interested in genuine debate."

                      If you can bring yourself to ignore my previous comment, I – along wit others, I suspect – will welcome your "critical analysis " as a starting point for "genuine debate".

                    • Incognito []
                      25 June 2023 at 5:29 pm

                      @ Molly 25 June 2023 at 5:05 pm:

                      You don’t seem to read comments very well; there is/was no interruption because there never was an attempt nor will there be for some time, it appears …

                      Similarly, my comment to Sabine (and others) served as an observation with the implicit explanation that any further commenting would be an exercise in futility. Your subsequent responses come under the category of QED aka a waste of time and adding nothing to a fruitful convo.

                      If you had bothered to offer up one or more of the ‘41 salient and clear points’ that you’d counted ‘At first pass’ then somebody else might have engaged with you into a discussion of sorts. Alas!

                      Lastly, did you forget the sarcasm tag at the end of your last sentence? I sincerely doubt that some others and you would welcome any critical analysis of Sabine’s comment given that you, at least, “agree with each one of them [the 41 salient and clear points]”. For example, you could list all 41 here, with your own analysis & commentary, but you won’t, will you? In any case, an unsuspecting commenter could be sucked into “each of them [rabbit holes]” and I suspect this is merely a cunning trap to stifle genuine debate and, IMO, thus it would not show good faith. If one is genuinely interested in debating a narrative then one must focus on the narrative.

                      Sabine or you could always prove me wrong …

                    • Molly …
                      25 June 2023 at 5:41 pm

                      @Incognito.

                      Ah… No matter.

                  • Shanreagh …
                    25 June 2023 at 6:59 pm

                    @sabine 3.40pm

                    Firstly this post is an example where the reply functions seems to have gone west……

                    Thanks Sabine for these views. I agree with them.

                    I am particularly in agreement with your view here, which summarises all I have been concerned about this movement since it came about.

                    In the meantime womens rights have been set back to the dark ages. With added flavor that we no longer have the right to associate, congregate, and agitate politically or just socially with out the presence of trans identified males , as they are now women. By stealth, by law, by hate crime, by social pressure, by cancellation, males now define what women/females are.

                    My view is that the support for males in womens spaces is the latest manifestation of misogyny, in all its hatefulness.

                    I have seen males shy away from speaking against this ie in support of women, I can only think it is in solidarity with males. I have seen males saying women have 'asked for this' and males will not ally with them as they pushed them aside when seeking equal rights. (I think this last example was on here….)

                    Like Weka I can see a bit of swing back against the trans steamroller. Women sports people such as Riley Gaines are being heard. I am not sure how anyone would believe that womens sports including born males could be construed as fair.

                    I can see that Sabine's view are strongly put but they are not new views. They have been discussed in various forms on TS for quite some time. Whther they have been accepted by other than the usual female group remains to be seen. One would hope that a cause that has exercised, and continues to exercise, the hearts and minds of women from the left, but not only from there, will strike a chord with men from the left.

                    On the world front we do see support from right wing, conservative, christian women and from some RW men.

                    In NZ, I am at about the same level of belief in the support of the males for women's spaces/views as I was prior to KJK visiting. (I don't think males generally support women in safe spaces……mainly I suspect because males can 'whip it' out for both acts. They think perhaps we are exaggerating)

                    Women suffer from the 'hidden' view particularly in sexual response, because it is not obvious. This has led over the years to us being labelled as witches and the like.

                    I do appreciate that her visit, the ghastly assault and the cancellation of Wellington's visit has opened the eyes of many who were not aware of the issues before. So that is a good thing.

                    The fumbling on the part of the Govt – the 'she must not come here' from the likes of Michael Wood (this surprised me actually) and of course PM Hipkins brilliant blooper at the hands of Sean Plunket raised the issues further.

                    We have seen sporadic publicity since about the concern of women that males are coming into their spaces from Invercargill or Queenstown? Of course this is likely to escalate now that Self ID NZ style is upon us from 15/6. Whether our legislation/policy is able to protect women remains to be seen.

                    In my view the trans world foisted on women is the latest version of misogyny.

                    • Michael P …
                      27 June 2023 at 9:14 pm

                      For what it's worth and as a man I agree with most of what you say but I really feel that you're possibly incorrect when you state the following//

                      " (I don't think males generally support women in safe spaces…"

                      Ask pretty much any (normal) man if he is ok for a guy with a penis who is presenting as a woman or self declaring as a woman to be in the same toilets or changing rooms or anywhere near his daughter for example and the overwhelming response will be vehemently no way and will usually include some sort of suggested violence in his response

                      I have asked pretty much all my male friends and acquaintances and although some are disbelieving that this is even a thing (the whole gender self ID thing…yes some of them don't follow these sorts of things) the majority are absolutely positive that women and girls (and for them that means the normal as used throughout modern history understanding of what a woman is) should have their own safe spaces such as toilets, rape crisis centers, etc and further any safe woman only spaces they choose to have.

                      The vast majority of men from what I can tell are more than happy for women to have and believe women should have women only spaces and groups, etc, They are also 100% on the same page when they say that they don't want in any way at all to enter these spaces nor want any men to enter these spaces.

                      It seems that many are struggling to accept that men are really competing in women's sports, etc so i've had to show examples and have to say some of the reactions when they realise this is a thing have actually been pretty funny. (But attitudes get pretty serious pretty quickly when the mention of men being able to legally enter into women's and girls only spaces is brought up)

                      Anyway a very long way of saying I think that the vast majority of men absolutely support women only spaces. It may not seem that way possibly from my generation because men going into women's spaces has always just been an absolute no so understandable that many exhibit disbelief when told it could become legal.

              • Molly …
                25 June 2023 at 8:47 am

                SPC, I am not someone who uses male and female to describe anything other than sex.

                As you are someone that does, can you provide a coherent description of the "female gender identity" you want recognised in legislation?

                Note: This category definition should include everyone that needs to be included and exclude everyone that should be excluded.

                • SPC …
                  25 June 2023 at 9:05 am

                  My opinion is irrelevant.

                  The government allows gender identity, but has no category of protection from discrimination for gender identity in the HRA – until it does then sex and gender will be conflated.

                  Presumably by biological woman and transgender women being seen as of the female sex (as per the Act).

                  If that is the case, then a HRA exemptions list from sex discrimination could specify the right of women's groups – such as lesbians to exclude transgender women (just as religious groups have opt outs). And refuge centres the right to exclude, as management sees fit, on the grounds of safety.

                  • Molly …
                    25 June 2023 at 9:33 am

                    "My opinion is irrelevant."

                    Not here, and not to me – so will you answer?

                    "As you are someone that does, can you provide a coherent description of the "female gender identity" you want recognised in legislation?

                    Note: This category definition should include everyone that needs to be included and exclude everyone that should be excluded."

                    • SPC …
                      25 June 2023 at 10:45 am

                      I'm not a fan of self-ID, the former managed process was safer for society. And created few problems, even if it did not satisfy some on ideological grounds. It was a passable compromise.

                      It can still cause problems – grifters in American college sport and those seeking to impose an unwelcome presence in women's places – spas and lesbian gathering places. So required some legislative measures to enable biological sex only zones and fair competition rules.

                      I am not an expert in managed process decision-making, so I'll not go there.

                      I am not sure anyone has gone back on self-ID after granting it, but any women's movement has to consider its options – the ideological cause and then whether there is any compromise to be made to realise an improvement.

                      One is to campaign for an referendum on self-ID (y/n) to end it.

                      Another is to add gender to the HRA, distinct from sex. As to this approach, what the UK does in clarifying law after the 2010 Equality ACT confused the matter (GRC) might be a guide.

                    • Molly …
                      25 June 2023 at 11:08 am

                      Still doesn't address your fundamental acceptance of the notion that a man via means of a declared gender identity – can be considered to belong to the sex category of women in terms of provisions etc.

                      Weka and Sabine took care and time to answer YOUR query above:

                      .https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-23-06-2023/#comment-1956115

                      … despite not being in charge of legislative change.

                      It'd be great to see you return the courtesy.

                      (Mainly because the legislative change occurred without clarity around the definition of gender identity, and the protection of the sex category. And public discussion – was discouraged – and often conflated the two. So, I'd like to understand how you distinguish between YOUR as yet unspecified category of "female gender identity" and the female sex category.)

                    • SPC …
                      25 June 2023 at 11:49 am

                      Still doesn't address your fundamental acceptance of the notion that a man via means of a declared gender identity – can be considered to belong to the sex category of women in terms of provisions etc.

                      I said I was not a fan of self-ID and preferred managed transition (as per transgender ID being recognised).

                      And I also said that. while there was no separate gender category in the HRA, then transgender people were conflated with the sex category. Thus there would need to be clarity around opt outs to account for this while this remained the case.

                      As to who qualified for transgender status, that is a matter for those in oversight of that process.

                      You say gender identity is not real and want someone to provide definition of who qualified for it – for those not supporting self-ID that is not a matter of a definition of who is, but how (the process).

                      That said our census form did ask people to in their own way to indicate if they identified with the same gender as their sex. Or rejected the concept of gender.

                      (some would indicate they did not identity as same gender as birth sex and specify how – but this is not the same as a formal self-ID or indicate any managed process has occurred).

                      They were also asked to indicate their religion, or indicate they did not believe in it.

                    • Molly …
                      25 June 2023 at 11:56 am

                      @SPC, it seems that you are avoiding answering the question.

                      Others have been courteous enough to answer personally to you.

                      Why do you deflect?

                      Do you think you can just attempt it? You can take all the time you need, I've simplified for context and encouragement:

                      What is YOUR understanding of a coherent description of the "female gender identity" ?

                      Note: This category definition should include everyone that needs to be included and exclude everyone that should be excluded.

                    • SPC …
                      25 June 2023 at 12:30 pm

                      Perhaps you might clarify whether you mean gender identity itself, or transgender identity where gender is different to birth sex (as by managed transition process as determined by oversight of that) – I've given my answer on the latter.

                    • Molly …
                      25 June 2023 at 1:25 pm

                      @SPC

                      Because I believe that lack of clarity in language plays a significant part of disrupting discussion, I will give to you my definitions – and/or understanding of the use of the word gender:

                      1. Gender as a genteel substitute for sex. I don't use it myself, but it could be recognised in context historically, not so much recently. I use the word sex.
                      2. Gendered stereotypes – I only use the two words together to be clear I'm referring to expectations of behaviour, interests, presentations for individuals in relation to their sex. Also refers to limitations of interest and achievement in reference to the same.
                      3. Gendered disparities – Once again, I'll use "gender/ed" alongside the disparity to be clear: Gender Pay Gap. In this case it also relates to sex, but the recognisable phrase is Gender Pay Gap so it would be confusing to say "Sex Pay Gap", which sounds like a prostitution union slogan. Sex Based Violence statistics works well though, so I would personally use that over Gender Based Violence now, once again to ensure clarity.
                      4. Gender Identity – I use the words “gender identity” to refer to someone's self declaration. But as yet, have not seen a coherent definition of the phrase. I sometimes use "declared gender identity" to emphasise that point.

                      "Perhaps you might clarify whether you mean gender identity itself, or transgender identity where gender is different to birth sex (as by managed transition process as determined by oversight of that) – I've given my answer on the latter."

                      This response indicates the incoherence. I have not claimed a gender identity myself.

                      Gender ideology claims that everyone has a gender identity. Those whose gender identity does not align with their sex is transgender. So, the definition of such a gender identity is necessary for this categorisation to occur.

                      What is "managed transition"?

                      Once again, a lack of clarity. Are you referring to transsexuals who have undergone full GRS? Surely they too, will retain the gender identity you persist in not defining? Surgery of the body, is separate to the "gender identity" that is declared.

                      Now, your turn – …

                      "What is YOUR understanding of a coherent description of the "female gender identity" ?

                      Note: This category definition should include everyone that needs to be included and exclude everyone that should be excluded."

              • Anker …
                25 June 2023 at 10:40 am

                SPC that's right because there are only two sexes.

          • Sabine 5.8.2.1.2
            24 June 2023 at 1:03 pm

            2.

            Every trans'woman' is a male. Thus a sub category of male. They can never be woman/female.

            Ditto for the other way round. Trans'men' are female. A subcategory of females. Never a man/male.

            Woman – human females are not domesticated support animals for males who can only get it up and going by pretending to be a woman. We are not males free of charge affirmation therapy.

            Non binary is an idiocy, and cis is a term coined by a german pedophile that was created to marginalize normal people.

            • Anker 5.8.2.1.2.1
              24 June 2023 at 4:58 pm

              Yes Iam donewith using gender ideology language.

              Final straw for me was when a Diversity and Inclusion Officer at John Hopkins university put up a post describing lesbians as non men. And this Dand I officer is a man who pretends to be a woman and indeed a lesbian.

              Time to tell the truth. You can't change your sex. And maybe its not kind to go along with the pretence you can. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind

              • Shanreagh …
                26 June 2023 at 12:44 pm

                Time to tell the truth. You can't change your sex. And maybe its not kind to go along with the pretence you can. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind

                I have felt this all along and will continue to assert that transwomen are men. If it enable tthe argument to be seen more clearly about male bodies in women's safe spaces, sports, prisons then I am all for this clarity of language. Snowy (from ‘snow job’) , euphemistic language does not have a place where/when women’s rights are concerned.

                It is a matter of good manners though, whether when one works or socialises with a trans person you adopt and use what they wish to be known as.

          • Shanreagh 5.8.2.1.3
            26 June 2023 at 12:32 pm

            Nothing that has to use the dreadful made up cis word would be my pick…..

            So 2) for me.

            It is inherently unfair for women to have to compete aginst males in male bodies in women's sports no matter how these men style themselves.

            I just am left in bewilderment at the lack of sensitivity by those saying 'I call myself a women even though I am male born, entire and I will race in women's categories..so there'.

            The lack of empathy & self reflection is astounding to me unless I view it as an updated act of misogyny when it fits in perfectly. Misogynists of old often lacked empathy and self reflection too, as wel know.

            • Michael P 5.8.2.1.3.1
              27 June 2023 at 8:28 pm

              It's certainly not ego, as I can't see the majority of men thinking about winning in a women's sporting competition and feeling good about it, let alone proud or ego boosted.

              So yes I reckon as you've stated Shanreagh. I could possibly add another reason in some cases where professional sport is involved and that would be simple greed. Some people (in this example I'll say men) are so single mindedly obsessed with making money that they will go to any lengths and suffer no shame or guilt to get as much of it as possible.

              So let's say an average male cyclist with no shame see that women's prizemoney in sport is getting a lot more than it used to be and decides to go and get as bigger chunk of that as he can, knowing it will be more than he'll ever make in the men's category.

              If there are some men (and women nowadays) who are more than happy to turn and look away as their deliberate actions ruin peoples lives (legally and illegally) or who have no problem with actions such as avoiding taxes even though paying their legal share would change nothing in terms of their wealth and so on (insert whatever dodgy action resulting in gain for the individual regardless of wider consequences you can think of here) then self Id'ing as a women and putting up with a bit of shit is a walk in the park if shitloads of tax free cash in the bank is the outcome.

              The thing is that regardless of reasons that men do this, I believe we can only blame these individuals to a certain extent. At least there is usually a reason underneath why a man decides to compete against women (not saying at all that it is a good or valid reason). But they couldn't do what they are doing without the enablers, those who make the rules or pander to peoples outlandish requests or go along with BS. There reasons i think have to be a bit more nefarious or underhand. (Unless they really are that thick, which i don't believe for a second)

              Who is worse, a man who decides to compete in women's competition for whatever reason, or the person(s) who decide that is ok and within the rules or worse still, change the rules to allow it?

              and 100% on the cis word. I don't even know really what it means. I did sort of have a plan that should anybody calls me cis i would simply ignore them completely and switch off. (rather than get annoyed or angry which i think would be the initial reaction). Of course that's not what I did when it happened to me. A friend during a conversation referred to me and a mate as "cis men' When she finished her sentence the conversation proceeded something like…

              me: "you mean normal."

              her: (no words, just raised eyebrows and a look that said "what?")

              me: "by cis, you mean normal,,"

              her: "umm…."

              me: "cool, so if you just say normal instead of cis in the future then everyone knows what you're on about yea..?"

              her: (silence, sort of confused look)

              me: "Shit heavy rain out there tonight aye!"

              We're still friends..yay

    • Michael P 5.9
      27 June 2023 at 6:49 pm

      FFS.

      Really?

      How about I just be truthful and say "A hamburger is something you eat and is made up of a meat pattie, plus something along the lines of some lettuce, onions and sauce added and the lot placed between 2 bread buns"

      Maybe you could add "Sometimes you can add different ingredients. For example, you could add a fried egg into the mix. A small minority might try and suggest that this is still a hamburger, just a hamburger with an egg. However, as the vast majority of people will tell you, this is not true. This is in fact an eggburger. Hamburgers don't have eggs."

      Why is this question so difficult for some people? For politicians, the truth always works best. Voters appreciate the truth.

      A woman doesn't need to "identify as a woman" she is a woman.

      Just like I'm a man. I don't identify as a man and I've never in my entire adult life thought to myself "I identify as a man". I'm just a man.

      Someone can identify themselves and / or make themselves look like what they believe a woman looks like and the majority of people will try to be respectful of their choice to do that and treat them with dignity and kindness, etc,etc, However, identifying as or feeling like or presenting as a woman doesn't make someone a woman. A tiny vocal minority of people may want to change the definition of the word woman but thankfully the vast majority of people know what a woman is and isn't and at the end of the day will tolerate only so much BS.

      I could even see this ending up with the majority deciding to start using the terms biological woman and biological man instead of woman and man. "Trans women are biological women" is even more of a stretch. If that did happen (possible not probable) it will mean genuine "trans" people will feel worse than ever in regards to their lack of inclusion.

      The gender ideology nonsense (because it is nonsense) doesn't help trans people either. When young attention seekers decide they are now cats and unicorns and so on, with the supposed adults in the room going along with it then the majority of people simply look at it and think what a load of rubbish which can then inadvertently start to encompass those with genuine psychiatric problems such as gender dysphoria into that load of rubbish category.

      Bit of a rant, sorry everyone. But Mac1, in case you are still confused,…Just as hamburgers don't have eggs, women don't have cocks…

  6. Anker 6
    24 June 2023 at 12:18 pm

    This is from the link above in the Critic

    "Female people being told they must set aside their own interests – so petty, so trivial! – to prioritise the needs of male people – so fundamental, so human! A male person’s very legitimacy depending on being able to take things from female people! Female inner lives getting in the way of males feeling valid! And yes, the funniest thing of all is how passionately certain men make this case – not for themselves, you understand, but for vulnerable trans women. It’s nothing to do with their rights. It’s pure altruism that prompts them to tell female athletes to STFU and know their place."

    • Incognito 6.1
      24 June 2023 at 12:38 pm

      This is from the link above in the Critic

      Then why did you not use the Reply button??

      Now we have to scroll up to find a comment (from who?) that contains that link (raw or embedded?).

      To top it off, this comment is nothing more than a copypasta.

      • weka 6.1.1
        24 June 2023 at 12:44 pm

        I don't know about anker, but it's quite difficult on a phone to manage a conversation and use the reply button.

        A reasonable work around would be to relink to the source and/or link to the comment, and/or name the number or time the comment is at. Again, this seems difficult for some people on some devices.

        • Incognito 6.1.1.1
          24 June 2023 at 1:03 pm

          Others seem to manage just fine.

          Do we have to put up with lazy commenters who clearly put little effort in their comments?

          FWIW, I never use a phone for TS because I would struggle; I use a more convenient device or simply don’t bother wasting my own and other people’s time here.

          • weka 6.1.1.1.1
            24 June 2023 at 1:50 pm

            Others seem to manage just fine.

            Actually quite a few people don't use replies, this is common now.

            On my phone I cannot reply from the Desktop view, I can only do a new comment. If I switch to Mobile I can reply but it's hard to follow long threads and impossible to see who has replied to me because there is no Replies tab.

            I quite often switch between the two, but it is work and time and I understand why people don't do that. It's not laziness.

            FWIW, I never use a phone for TS because I would struggle; I use a more convenient device or simply don’t bother wasting my own and other people’s time here.

            That's a choice for you, but we have a fair number of people that access TS via a mobile device and who in my view are most welcome. The issue is a technical one, and it's at the top of my wish list for Lprent to resolve.

            • weka 6.1.1.1.1.1
              24 June 2023 at 1:51 pm

              quoting without linking on the other hand does strike me as laziness because it's quite easy to just copy and paste a link when someone already has the page open. That one I don't get.

            • Incognito 6.1.1.1.1.2
              24 June 2023 at 2:23 pm

              The technical issue is a little annoying. However, combined with lazy commenting it becomes a waste of time. Some commenters are just fucking lazy and a mere copypasta is fucking disrespectful. You may wish to overlook this but I’m no longer prepared to tolerate this kind of behaviour, which is very similar to not linking and not using quote marks when required.

              • weka …
                24 June 2023 at 2:35 pm

                I think if the technical issue was resolved it would both enable better commenting, and make moderating/curating the remaining problems easier.

                Some commenters are just fucking lazy and a mere copypasta is fucking disrespectful

                But sometimes it works, and that's the problem. How to moderate/curate around that when it varies. It's not like it was a copypasta out of the blue, it was related to previous comments and quotes/links.

                • weka …
                  24 June 2023 at 2:36 pm

                  (I'm fairly sure I can find examples of where I've put a copypasta in a comment on its own and referenced back to an earlier comment).

                  • Incognito …
                    24 June 2023 at 3:04 pm

                    But sometimes it works, and that's the problem. [my italics]

                    Can you please explain what you mean with the first part? Then I think I’ll be able to parse the second part. And then I may be able to respond to it.

                    […] and referenced back to an earlier comment).

                    Indeed, this is the ‘reasonable work around’ that you mentioned @ 6.1.1. See what I did here? I simply added “@ 6.1.1.” and anybody can easily find this, if they wish. It’s not ideal, but indeed it works. Some do and some don’t.

                    I’m not referring to single isolated cases but to patterns of behaviour by some commenters. I hope a few educational Mod notes, at the expense of moderator time, will sort this out. If not then …

                    PS I’m not arguing with you; I do hope that others read this exchange and take heed wink

                    • weka …
                      24 June 2023 at 3:25 pm

                      It's a fruitful discussion to have in the front end I think 👍

                      Indeed, this is the ‘reasonable work around’ that you mentioned @ 6.1.1. See what I did here? I simply added “@ 6.1.1.” and anybody can easily find this, if they wish. It’s not ideal, but indeed it works. Some do and some don’t.

                      I agree. So it's the combination of not linking back, not referencing directly back, copypasta etc. Any single one of those would be less of an issue.

                      I agree also about the patterns. It seems like people often don't pay attention to the lighter touch moderation.

                      But sometimes it works, and that's the problem. [my italics]

                      sometimes someone might do a simply copypasta and it works in the sense it makes sense and contributes to the discussion.

                      In this case, I didn't have so much of an issue because I'd read the article this morning and think it's a good reference point for the current debate. But it really would help enormously if people would use some simple protocols when commenting and it's hard work trying to get that across, why it helps debate, why it matters. Obviously some people don't see it that way.

                    • weka …
                      24 June 2023 at 3:26 pm

                      as we know, social media is training people to talk in disjointed chunks, sometimes quite small chunks. I'm good with us being a bastion of the more engaged conversation that highly values communication.

        • Sabine 6.1.1.2
          24 June 2023 at 1:12 pm

          Even on desktop i have had to delete replies on occasion that show as new posts. Not sure why that is, does not happen often though.

          • Anker 6.1.1.2.1
            24 June 2023 at 5:00 pm

            i have that problem too Sabine

            • weka 6.1.1.2.1.1
              24 June 2023 at 5:36 pm

              what device are you commenting on when you can't use a Reply button? eg https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-23-06-2023/#comment-1956091

              • Sabine …
                24 June 2023 at 10:10 pm

                I use the reply button, but it does not post as a reply but as a proper comment. Generally i delete these comments and repost as a reply.

              • Anker …
                25 June 2023 at 10:45 am

                I am sorry Weka can't remember what device I made that comment on.

                I am pretty sure I press the reply button unless I am starting a new comment, becuase obviously if you are responding to someone's comment you want them to know you have responded to them.

                I have a lot of trouble posting comments on my I pad but apple mac is straightforward.

                It is helpful to know others have similar problems on TS with the reply button.

            • Shanreagh 6.1.1.2.1.2
              25 June 2023 at 9:37 am

              Me too.

              On desk top I scroll down and read the comments and then find one that has no reply button.

              So what to do?

              Sometimes I scroll back up and hit reply in the original post trusting /hoping it will link itself to the reply below. Other times, to avoid a strange location I do the @6.1.1.2.1 and sometimes, though not often, I do a new reply with @6.1.1.2.1.

              I have always thought it was a quirk in the system, that the reply capacity runs out and not anything 'rude' or bad mannered.

              Phone users, I understand have a different set of problems.

          • Molly 6.1.1.2.2
            25 June 2023 at 8:50 am

            Me too.

            But replying on Android mobile now, which I couldn't do consistently before LPrent's recent work.

    • Shanreagh 6.2
      26 June 2023 at 12:36 pm

      "Female people being told they must set aside their own interests – so petty, so trivial! – to prioritise the needs of male people – so fundamental, so human! A male person’s very legitimacy depending on being able to take things from female people! Female inner lives getting in the way of males feeling valid! And yes, the funniest thing of all is how passionately certain men make this case – not for themselves, you understand, but for vulnerable trans women. It’s nothing to do with their rights. It’s pure altruism that prompts them to tell female athletes to STFU and know their place."

      to which using the good old NZ vernacular is an appropriate response is 'yeah right' to this part of the summary particulaly

      'It’s pure altruism that prompts them to tell female athletes to STFU and know their place."

    • Michael P 6.3
      27 June 2023 at 7:22 pm

      I wish they would say "a tiny minority of male people" rather than just "male people' which although obviously not deliberate reads a little bit as though it's all males, which it definitely isn't as I would bet everything I own (which admittedly isn't a hell of a lot…but still..) that the vast majority of males either have no clue about any of this and if told will think that you're having them on or if not that, then people have gone nuts, or they can see what's going on and are totally against it (coz we've all got mums and many of us have wives, sisters, daughters, girlfriends, female friends etc. so it affects us as well just not as closely or as potentially harmfully as for women and girls)

      Sadly, but understandably there are probably a large number of men who will keep their heads down and not get involved at all having learnt through experience to stay away from anything and not comment on anything that affects women. If the current generations of young men are constantly getting a message that paints them as the problem and toxic masculinity and shut up and let others speak then why would we be suprised that many disengage? (kind of wandering into a whole different topic sorry)

      And I'm not whining and moaning for myself, as I'm old enough now to firstly not really care too much about what others think of me and to know that it's always best to speak the truth and in doing so your intentions are always good even if some people may find the truth hurtful. But I genuinely feel for the young men of today who are in really deep waters. Anyone who simply thinks about things for a bit can see how confusing things have become for young men of today due to many factors. if things don't change a bit then society in a couple of decades time is (In my opinion) going to be very different and not in a good way.

      I think that's about 3 rants today… maybe I'm not busy enough at work… (sigh…)

  7. Anker 7
    29 June 2023 at 9:16 pm

    Thanks Michael P