Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
5:30 pm, March 29th, 2023 - 125 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
From the Human Rights Commission:
https://tikatangata.org.nz/news/52-organisations-sign-open-letter-demanding-action-on-ethnic-gender-and-disability-pay-gaps
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/486967/open-letter-calls-for-pay-gap-transparency-legislation
Pay transparency is one of the ways we as workers can build solidarity. Letting fellow workers know what we're getting paid makes it harder for an employer to have unjustified pay discrepancies. Many people would be surprised by the existence of these in their own workplaces, but without pay transparency they will never know about them. We look out for each other.
Sign the petition here: https://our.actionstation.org.nz/petitions/level-the-playing-field-and-pass-a-law-requiring-all-employers-to-be-transparent-about-pay-gaps
Yes the lack of pay transparency is something that always irked me. There is no possible justification for it other than giving management a tool to manipulate people with.
Nordic countries have pay transparency. I wonder whether this is due to their shared culture that it works and what would be needed to make it as comfortable for people here to accept:
https://www.ft.com/content/2a9274be-72aa-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9
Footage has been uploaded of the full incident that resulted in a women's black eye:
https://twitter.com/SimonRAnderson1/status/1640924419957874691?s=20
Going for inflammatory, huh!
Nice!
Avoiding evidence, huh?
Expected!
"She says she was in shock when she made a statement to a right-wing videographer shortly that white cis men are the main perpetrators of family violence, and she stands by her position that it is men rather than trans people who are the biggest threat to men."
https://waateanews.com/2023/03/29/bike-assailant-has-date-with-destiny/
What?
You aren't discussing the same topic, Robert.
(Remember the earlier comment on your reading comprehension?)
There's lots of evidence. I'm looking at all I can find.
This elderly woman, who has been described on TS by some as violently charging the assaulter:
https://twitter.com/Sorelle_Arduino/status/1639988067900481536?s=20
And here an elderly man cops it.
Perhaps the trans protestors thought they had found some fair-dinkum WWII Nazis to punch.
That elderly man is Ross Campbell and he's barking.
https://twitter.com/AusSkeptic/status/1640961166410407937
Maybe so. But no reason for him to get that sort of treatment though.
Starts in on a woman and becomes the victim … not part of the narrative ….
Honestly, to me it looked like he realised that security was having problems and moved forward to help out – that may be why he faced outwards once he reached the woman in the high-vis vest.
No one can be sure what his intention was.
This may be worth following for clarity.
Corina was one of the organisers of the #LetWomenSpeak event in Auckland, and Trinity Ice is the person in the video:
https://twitter.com/AuntyHeihei/status/1641200611650838529?s=20
For gods sake Joe 90. Listen to yourself. You are condoning violence
cause he's "barking"
So it's open season on the numptie Joe?
Your sense of justice is underwhelming
In the video you showed she was the aggressor to start with but i have been one of the first to say she deserves action when she lays charges, so you can fuck off with your smearing. The facts will hopefully come out and if she is an innocent party she deserves the full weight of the law behind her.
"…so you can fuck off with your smearing." ?
Linked to the beginning of the thread because you were not the only one with that perspective.
All I have done is given you more information. If that helps you come to a different and/or more settled perspective on what has happened, then just say so.
The footage has only been put up this afternoon, so was not available AFAIK beforehand.
How can you, with any sincerity, keep engaging on this subject and not acknowledge the sickening violence visited on this woman?
A senior citizen.
You are diminishing your mana.
No violence is acceptable. Full stop.
The woman was assaulted by a man, not the rainbow community – claiming otherwise is a slur on LGBQT people and is a form of hate speech.
“Simon Anderson”‘ (probably not his real name) is a prejudiced bigot.
But the LGBQT protesters celebrated the violence! I haven't heard one of them condmen it. They just had a big happy party afterwards.
Charging Coster with conspiratorial links with the Trans Community is insanity at its craziest. God help us if tripe like this is accepted as the norm.
Can't we even have Daily Review reserved for discussion of important issues without 'the gang' moving in to dominate the discourse.
I referenced the video in regards to the woman. Here it is without the tweet:
https://youtu.be/DLhhEdGkB8s
I haven't been following the police response.
But the video photographer has also posted his 360 degree video during the breakthrough the barriers, which shows there were no police present, if that is of interest to you. You can find it on his other videos.
This video is far clearer of the situation than the one you postered earlier with dramatic music effects. This does show protesters moving in on the lady so I hope they are held to account, as i have said from the beginning.
Yes. It does show the information we were both lacking beforehand. It has taken the cameraman this long to process and upload.
I linked to your comment because it was the beginning of the thread, not because I thought you would hold that position after seeing the footage, and you were not the only one who held that up as a possibility, even I conceded it could be true.
(I didn’t like the added music on the original clip either, but I’m not the source – only posting to it because it was the only version I could find.)
Then why did you not post the video only to begin with.
Because I am on an old laptop, which is giving me grief at present. But I did include the specific:
"Footage has been uploaded of the full incident that resulted in a women's black eye:"
Besides I didn’t think it was inflammatory to say the police weren’t present – because they weren’t.
Fair enough. I wasn't speaking about the lack of police presence but rather the suggestion there was a police conspiracy.
Why the police were not front and centre from the start has yet to be determined. I suspect it was because they knew they would have been damned if they did and damned if they didn't so they kept their distance and waited to see what happened. Which, with the benefit of hindsight, was not the best thing to do.
I'm pretty certain in Posie Parkers own streaming when she arrived she walked passed some Police in the park. In hindsight not enough but I think there were some there.
AFAIK, Kellie Jay Keen has no criticism for the police, who stayed with her from the moment she left Albert Park till when she boarded the flight out.
My partner and daughter, who were at the event saw the police on the periphery, but not at the event itself. They walked though after the barricade came down, but they didn’t see them intervening. They saw a group again as they were leaving, but they were not intervening at all. A couple were looking at their phones with no concern about the event.
There has been some commentary over on Sean Plunket's Platform from various women – a couple of whom were involved in organising – about the communications with police, and the failure to intervene despite request. But it is a long show to get through – about three hours with all the parts. I think it is at the end of Part 2, where Katrina Biggs says she has a recording of the police saying that they didn't want to get involved in bad optics.
The videographer – Simon Anderson, who posted the video above, has also posted another video that you can move 360, to see how there was no police presence during that time.
"My partner and daughter, who were at the event saw the police on the periphery, but not at the event itself."
Sorry, to be clear. Not at the event itself before the barricades were taken down.
KJK post yesterday:
https://twitter.com/ThePosieParker/status/1640975849389268993?s=20
I don’t know why this is marked as sensitive. It’s a hot cross bun.
I admire anyones passion for a subject but this one has overtaken the site for a year. I suspect a few of us are ready to bail.
Quite a few already seem to have RBO.
Me too – The Standard has been my go to blog for several years – I'm an avid reader/follower and sometime commenter. I think I will bail out for a while too. I'm a white CIS (bordering on elderly) female with definitely feminist left wing views and have been dismayed by some of the rhetoric espoused by some commenters. Kelly-Jay Keen certainly does not speak for me, along with 'Let Women Speak', nor 'Voices for Freedom'.
[from a pale, stale, cis male]
And from another.
It used to be such fun!
Now it’s the stroppery 🙂
Anne – I can recall many times when you have related stories from your own experience of untoward things happening in the Public Service.
Given that:
then it is within the bounds of reason to suspect or speculate that something untoward has happened. We had better hope that nothing like this has happened, because if someone blows a whistle on this it could well bring this PM down.
Your opening salvo Redlogix;
I did get to the bottom of it but am not at liberty to say anything. Suffice to say the PS as such proved not to be the guilty party. A complex situation that I had the misfortune to have found myself embroiled in through circumstances outside my control.
I think you are correct to be a little alarmed on this. I have generally stayed out of the gender politics of all this furore, but you have to admit there have been some intriguing things falling out from it.
As I suggested – the dots are all there – if someone manages to join them together credibly the shit really will hit the fan. It's rarely the crime, but the cover-up that gets you.
It turns out for instance, that Nash's three year old emails to some donors in his electorate did not involve any opportunity for personal gain, but were a breach of Cabinet confidentiality. He had to go, but this was careless more than corrupt and scarcely the crime of the century.
However it seems the PM's office has been sitting on the knowledge of these emails for at least two years – and this may well turn out to matter a great deal more.
The thing is RL there is so much going on these days which are alarming to the point of deadliness and really need the undivided attention of our leaders both in NZ and elsewhere.
I recognise gender issues are important to some people but compared to the rapidly increasing effects of CC and the level of chaos that is gradually overtaking the world (and behind most of it is CC) this is a peripheral issue that is being used, imho, to add to the chaos that already exists.
Of course there are faults on both sides. No-one is saying there isn't. But the level of maniacal (if I may use such an emotionally charged word because I can't think of another one 🙁 ) accusations being thrown around with abandon is getting beyond the pail.
Hang on a mo while I check whether its pail or pale. 😎
Edit: Oops. I’m wrong. Its “pale”.
Yup – I can largely agree with this. Still it is the nature of this site that some topics will absorb a disproportionate amount of bandwidth – Julian Assange springs to mind – for far longer than seems reasonable.
We will get past this eventually.
I forgot the Assange case. You're right. That turned into one hell of a bun-fight. It became an utter bore iirc.
The problem though, Anne, is for some worried about climate change, poverty, the housing crisis, the health services, water quality, education and the cost of living, the current politicians are equally ineffective at addressing these issues.
The impact of gender ideology may seem to you to be purely of women's rights – but the lack of clinical evidence for harsh and medical treatment of our minors is appalling to me. It surpasses the "unfortunate experiment" scandal, and the more recent mesh implants that took over a decade before it was even looked at.
This is not about passing judgment on those that choose to present and live in any particular way, it is about the failure of government policies to consider the wider impacts, and possible negative harms of changing sex markers on documents and systems instead of adding gender identity ones.
Could not agree more. Shocking lack of accountability and measures put into place to stop them from happening.
This is the thing. We have all been talking past each other and in actual fact we likely agree on more than we disagree on. I accept I'm as much to blame as anyone else.
My biggest issue is that my reasonably well tuned antennae tells me PP is not as genuine as she makes herself out to be. We are going to have to agree to disagree on that one.
I don't care about agreeing on Kellie Jay Keen.
People are failing to acknowledge that NZ women's voices were silenced on the weekend.
Melbourne's #LetWomenSpeak event had seventeen women expressing their concerns and or experiences in public, despite the presence of several protest groups – including NeoNazis.
All it took to silence women in NZ, was one group – the 'peaceful' rainbow community and allies. Many NZ women were denied the opportunity to speak, and others to listen. The threat was real, injuries were sustained and NZ media and commentators celebrated.
(It appears the elderly woman punched in the face has a fractured skull.)
https://twitter.com/MKorero/status/1641045431168946176?t=FqIdfAdBUErIS1cYDxnbrg&s=19
Heh, re. the Daily Review suggestion, it could be AA – Anne Approved.
This deserves a whole post of its own.
https://twitter.com/minhealthnz/status/1640082868004179969
It does. I hope there is some movement on looking for the supporting clinical evidence, as is implied further down the thread.
There seems to be an acknowledgment of other findings, with mention of Sweden and the UK.
All that has been requested is the best level of care for those with gender identities.
A possible breakthrough.
That’s most interesting!
https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/information-releases/responses-official-information-act-requests/information-regarding-puberty-blockers
https://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/healthy-living/transgender-new-zealanders [updated 2 days ago]
scroll back to Weka at 5 Incognito. Ministry of Health says much of Marc's article is false. Wheres Kate Hannah and the Disinformation when you need her?
Sort of inevitable as the UK took notice of the Swedish evidence and after the closure of Tavistock etc. Awareness of risk thus more care …
I think the lack of funding to appropriate counselling and mental health provision needs to be seriously rectified. (NB: I am not implying that all transgender people are mentally ill, but this demographic has a lot of co-morbidities and would materially benefit from such investment.)
With a centralised health system, we are also in a good position for good data collection, monitoring and both long and short term follow up of any delivered healthcare treatments.
I'd also like to see specialised care data and programmes for medical detransitioners. At present they seem to be both unrecognised and ill served by the medical profession.
It appears any further money on this could be redirected to needed services without harm:
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2303/S00117/hrc-struggles-for-conversion-therapy-complaints.htm
For those following the reversal in many countries and jurisdictions of the "affirming healthcare" model for minors due to clinical literature reviews, the current situation in Alabama might be worth keeping an eye on.
A district judge has issued a subpoena to WPATH for documentation:
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/boe-marshall-ruling-usdc-ala.pdf
yeesh, legalise. Is that saying no, the court won't take WPATH's word for it? (whatever it is).
IIRC, Alabama is doing a clinical literature review for the practice of "affirming health care". As part of this, they asked WPATH to provide documented evidence of their published guidelines.
WPATH refused, and the next step was going to court to issue a subpoena – which has now been done.
So, I'm assuming once these documents have been released – if no other impediment obstructs that – many others will be interested in viewing that evidence.
Some background:
https://www.alreporter.com/2023/01/03/in-case-over-transgender-health-care-ban-medical-groups-seek-to-quash-state-subpoenas/
https://1819news.com/news/item/federal-judge-rules-in-favor-of-alabama-in-its-continued-fight-to-ban-transgender-medecine-and-surgeries-on-minors
Similarities with Tavistock, although in that case they both refused to release files and it turns out they hadn't been keeping adequate records.
this really is very excellent though, and great timing with MoH reviewing its own information which apparently uncritically accepted WPATH as a source.
Yes, fingers crossed that all this information comes together at the right time, if the Ministry of Health is doing a robust review behind the scenes.
If even a small part of you wishes we could all have better conversations here, you might well get something from this:
You might not want to know that he's got a few videos up from universities about gender ideology, but he touches on a lot of topics and demonstrates some methods:
https://www.youtube.com/@drpeterboghossian/playlists
I listened. I wish he'd been given more time to expand his ideas.
Peter Boghossian just posted his delayed interview with Kellie-Jay Keen Minshull:
https://youtu.be/Q5YqYbYf1cw
Thanks – will listen.
Have it on in the background ATM.
"that's just romance for you"
Thread on implications should Netanyahu and co succeed with their judicial fuckery.
https://twitter.com/CarrieALee1/status/1640899702404132867
I must have woken up at the wrong side of a wormhole because Sean ‘Ungrateful Hua’ Plunket appears now more revered on TS than Marama Davidson.
Not a place I want to be where the only media platform that was given to those women that wanted to speak was with Sean Plunket. Yet here we are.
Can you link to an approved left-wing platform that offered the same?
I wasn’t talking about his platform (all in lower case) but about Plunket vs. Davidson. I wonder how you feel about our revered SYSOP …
"I wonder how you feel about our revered SYSOP …"
Why would you ask that? Is that deflection?
In your case, it would be. In this (my) case, it is logical continuation, or extrapolation, as you’d call it, of the same argument about one platform provider being revered for providing a platform.
Yes. I think this is for two reasons; one is that The Platform is one of very few media sources who takes no govt funding. This gives them scope to say things many others are not touching.
The other is that while the right wing bias is plain and obvious, Plunkett is willing to have the conversation with pretty much anyone who will pick up the phone. For instance today he had Bradbury on as a guest, and while they are clearly far apart politically it was nonetheless an interesting, lively and respectful conversation.
For decades the left believed that the media was deadset against them, providing a constant and troubling political headwind. Frequently it felt like our voice was ignored, suppressed or silenced and as a result a decade ago TS held 'freedom of speech' as a core and vital value.
Well that started to shift around 2014 as I recall it – and the free speech baton has definitely passed over to the right. It would be instructive to reflect why.
When freedom of speech is the expression of personal freedom and choice, it is an expression and extension of neoliberalism. As such, it is the be-all-end-all.
When freedom of speech is the medium/vehicle to break down class structures in/of a class society, it is an expression and extension of socialism. As such, it is a means-to-an-end.
TS still holds freedom of speech (without scare quotes) at its core and vital value – I wouldn’t be here otherwise. It charges nothing, it costs very little to run (so Lynn keeps telling us), and runs 100% on unpaid volunteers.
Not all speech is equal. Some is noise, hot air, or cacophony – click-bait, sensational headlines, and shock-jocks vying for viewers or listeners to keep the advertisers and shareholders happy. Some may sometimes even come close to intelligent debate.
Well I am glad you think so. From my perspective I could easily list a handful of topics that I no longer feel safe to talk about here.
I think we crossed over this Rubicon when we decided to start banning climate change deniers – I can't blame anyone for this, I fully supported it myself at the time; everyone was over dealing with their more idiotic arguments. But it was a habit easier started than stopped.
Probably because that's when the US Fox News began to portray the MSM as biased against the GOP. Q and the birther movement had arrived. The right wing here just follow their cultural imperialist lead.
Fox News as champions of free speech against the liberal Obama era “MSM” approved regime.
I listened to Plunket many, many times, in an effort to pin down his techniques and drivers.
NO to that man.
It is however worth listening to the women he is platforming currently. The reason we have to listen on SP's show is because No Debate has meant left leaning (and in NZ, also centrist) media won't usually cover gender critical women's views. That's why we still don't know what the NZ women were going to say at the event. Unless we listen to The Platform, or SM.
Not for the faint hearted. I made myself look.
https://twitter.com/babybeginner/status/1640395964820209676
This is pretty egregious, to accuse others of Holocaust denial. Other than the percieved 'misattribution' of Nazism to those opposed to trans rights what evidence is there to make such a claim? Are you not aware of the Nazi book burnings, destruction of the Institute of Sex Research?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the whole hyperbole, lets reinvent the meaning of words thing. All sides are doing. So I wouldn't use the word denial myself, I'd probably call it thoughtlessness or dissociation.
her point stands though. Calling terfs nazis minimises what Nazis are and were, and waters down a bunch of concepts and meanings. That's the point of her thread, to remind people what they're referencing.
Btw, I was aware of the book burnings. In 2023, it's the gender identity activists are that are burning books, cancelling people, and running No Debate.
Evidence of gender identity activists burning books please.
The point doesn't stand because her point is to accuse her opponents of holocaust denial.
When neo-nazis show up to support your rally it's evidence that they share parts of your ideology. The Nazi's didn't stop with the book burning, they didn’t just ‘cancel people’ or ‘run No Debate’, they persecuted all forms of homosexuality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbians_in_Nazi_Germany
quick google search link https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11906395/Now-trans-activists-burn-Harry-Potter-books-JK-Rowling-ridicules-Australian-campaigner-video.html
There are others, it's a thing. The religious fundamentalists burn HP too. By your argument above, this means that TRAs and religious fundamentalists are in league together.
Now where did I say anti-trans and neo-nazi's are in league? I pointed out that the Neo-Nazis in Melbourne were there to support the rally, they were not asked to, they were not invited, they are not 'in league with each other' but they share an anti-trans agenda. Religious fundamentalists burned Harry Potter books because they thought it 'encouraged witchcraft', the singular TRA in the Daily Mail article you posted isn't even linked to directly and explains themself here:
https://twitter.com/tesshall/status/1639890013453438978
Once again I want express my disgust that accusations of Holocaust denial are being leveraged against people opposed to groups that have support from Neo-nazis and religious fundamentalists. It's ahistoric and unacceptable.
" I pointed out that the Neo-Nazis in Melbourne were there to support the rally,…"
Except their own published statement contradicts you:
https://xyz.net.au/2023/03/australia-says-no-to-groomers/
There is no reference at all to the #LetWomenSpeak event.
The article goes further on to say this about KJK and it is not complimentary:
I posted this article which contains the Telegram link to statement, but you have to sign up to read it. If someone does have a Telegram account which shows it has been reported wrongly here, I'd appreciate a correction.
This is disingenuous in the extreme. I'm saddened that this is where this 'debate' has led us.
What is 'acting as a vanguard' if it is not to support the protest?
From the white supremascist website you linked to:
While the Neo-Nazis might not agree with KJK entirely, they support her anti-trans positions. They say it themselves.
"What is 'acting as a vanguard' if it is not to support the protest?"
They say who they are protecting in their statement: "our children and our people".
Your fallacy of association is further exposed by viewing the livestream taken by someone else of the surroundings of the #LetWomenSpeak event, which shows absolutely no contact or interaction between the two groups (there were several different groups there on the day):
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=229529329488872
https://twitter.com/i/status/1640480708794920960
@arkie
That's not evidence. It's some guy's reckons in a car, without back up corroboration. Also, he doesn't reference the #LetWomenSpeak event specifically.
There were several groups there including a Christian Conservative group that protests on a weekly basis.
Could this reference be to them?
Contrast and compare with the #LetWomenSpeak livestream:
https://twitter.com/EdgeWatching/status/1637296808622985216?s=20
BTW, I also want to point out the the women should be held responsible for their statements, and what they say at the event.
They are not – however, responsible for excusing a pissing contest between boys in the background.
An open public event is open to the public.
None so blind as those who will not see.
I will again object to the original accusations of Holocaust denial, as well as the deflection and obfuscation displayed in this thread.
I ask; is this the kaupapa of robust debate that we want to see on this site?
@arkie
"None so blind as those who will not see."
Ya-huh.
https://youtu.be/PivWY9wn5ps?t=67
so they say, or to appropriate it. Neo Nazis turning out to support women's rights? I don't think so.
that's right, they weren't invited
yep.
nope. LWS and GC women are there to talk about women's sex based rights and child safeguarding. If you think there is an anti-trans message that the nazis share, please show us exactly what you are referring to. I don't think either of us believe the Nazis are interested in women's rights.
There have been multiple book HP book burnings, by TRAs and fundies. I'm pointing out that the link between them is as ridiculous as the link between Nazis and GC women.
No, they are there to spread their message and 'protect' the protest as they stated.
Here is an anti-trans message that the nazis share:
child safeguarding and paedophilic agenda being forced upon our children and our people.
The conflation of transpeople with sexual predators is the shared ideology.
Have some dignity, arkie.
You could just admit you were wrong.
The fact remains that in a open public space, there is no restriction to who turns up – whether they are supporters, neutral or protecting.
The women at that event are accountable for what they say, not for the reckons of blokes in the vicinity.
Pleease provide a link for that quote. If it's not a quote, then please provide some evidence for the claim. I'd like to see what the Nazis mean, because the sentence doesn't make sense. Who is forcing child safeguarding in this Nazi world view?
Child safeguarding is what we do in society currently. It's being eroded in places. Genderists block a conversation about that, not by crying "not all trans people" but by stating that trans people cannot be predatory on children (or women). Stop and think that one through and how it might be a problem for safeguarding.
The link is provided by Molly at 1:32pm above. It is a quote from leader of the NSN, Thomas Sowell on the reasons his group of neo-nazis were attending the LWS Rally.
What evidence backs up this claim?
Where has anyone claimed:
Evidence please.
From your previous comment,
The second part of that is in Molly’s link, the words ‘child safeguarding’ aren’t.
How is child safeguarding anti-trans?
I’ll post about child safeguarding being eroded later when I have more time.
The claim that TRAs say trans people cannot be predatory happens in two ways. One is directly, when they say that trans women don’t do sexual violence. There’s also the idea that trans women don’t have the same patterns of sexual violence that other men do. But more commonly it’s when women raise issues of safety in single sex spaces and they are told that it’s cis men that put women at risk not TW.
I will find examples of these when I have time too, the latter is common it shouldn’t be too hard.
You, at 1:52pm, said:
The neo-nazis said:
'Safeguarding/protecting children' from trans people is the common ideology. It's not based on fact, trans people are not inherently a threat to children, children can be 'safeguarded' without opposing trans rights. There is no evidence that transwomen have the 'same patterns of sexual violence' as men, the one study that is claimed to show that does not make that finding as the lead author has pointed out many times.
With what evidence do you dispute this statement: it’s cis men that put women at risk not [transwomen].
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131632938/fact-checking-marama-davidsons-white-cis-men-claims-and-followup-statement
thank-you. I appreciate you spelling that out because now I have a better understanding of what you are saying. (I wish people would do this sooner not later, not just you, it’s been happening a lot).
I’ll break it down a bit.
Both sides are weaponising this, but I will note your silence on terf = Nazi and how many women have been told they are Nazis or Nazi sympathisers (another historical reference) for saying things like sex is dimorphic, or you can't change sex literally, or women have a right to single sex spaces. Things that most people believe, but many are now afraid to say outloud.
Even now you are twisting language yourself saying that GCFs are supported by Nazis.
So your objection to ahistorical comparisons is noted but it looks like yet another one side's spin.
Fucking hell.
I think Arkie you would be better to avoid knee jerk reactions. I am a woman who was thinking deeply about going to see PP to hear she and other women talk about their issues of concern. My gt fear was the violence that I was likely to met from transactivists. Being the same age as the woman who is now suffering a fractured skull this concern seems to be to have been justified.
I had no fear of neo Nazis as I knew that they had not been asked nor welcomed by PP (and I naively thought NZPolice would have been there to keep them away should they have turned up)
Since being on SM I have been called a Nazi.
Those opposed to women maintaining safe spaces and safeguarding the rights of children to be children have routinely called opponents to their messages, Nazis. I would never dream of calling anyone a Nazi.
Many of these are young people who are deliberately mutilating their own bodies, their own sexual reproductive organs in pursuit of what I call an identitarian cult.
I had one Uncle killed on Crete and at one stage my grandmother had one of her seven sons at home during WW2. Six were overseas fighting Nazis while the remaining one had been killed in WW1 at aged 16 fighting against the predecessors of the Nazis. There will be many other families whose grandfathers/mothers & greats fought against Nazis. I think it would be clear we would not support Nazis.
I do not feel that we should tolerate the wholesale calling of others Nazis as it is wrong.
The Nazis were a very specific part of our world history and nobody, but nobody should minimise them nor the impact they had on the free world.
I regret that you seem to be thinking that somehow it is Ok for people to call women's rights activists Nazis, neo Nazis, Nazis adjacent and now are we Holocaust deniers?
I understand the Jewish Council had said that they did not lobby against PP coming and felt that all who attended the rally should unite against Nazis/neo Nazis should they appear. I am not sure if they did or did not appear. I wonder if having called women’s rights supporters Nazis would the Rainbow crowd have even recognised the Nazis that did turn up.
https://www.todayfm.co.nz/home/national/2023/03/nz-jewish-council-hopeful-counterprotesters-at-posie-parker-event-can-unite-against-neonazis.html
It is perplexing as you seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the slur that women's rights activists are Nazis.
.
Nowhere have I claimed that 'women's rights activists’ are nazis.
The nazis that showed up to support them are nazis.
I agree with the Jewish Council that all should unite against nazis.
In Melbourne, all did not unite against the nazis: https://twitter.com/amy_sargeant_/status/1640480708794920960
I objected to the OP's accusation of Holocaust denial directed at those who opposed the nazis that showed up at the LWS rally.
You’ve said that a couple of times I think and I’m glad you are reiterating it. Because women’s rights activists (no quotes needed) are being called nazis by people arguing very similar positions as you. So you saying you’re not is a good thing and makes debate more possible, thanks.
The saying goes – Those who let Nazis drink at their bar, run a Nazi bar.
I'll make just one observation.
That on both sides there is the risk of cancel culture – but in the Cold War style, this side or that, it's first about getting control of their own "tribe".
KJK talks of annihilation of those women who are not on her side (while she does not clarify what she means – it sounds a bit like the 1970's schisms – division on division within feminism).
And the attacks on transsexual/transcum" by TRA's – they too have been called TERF'S and Nazis for (notably it is those born male doing it) for identifying as women in their physical form as much as they can.
I think you are right on both counts there.
That’s just absolutely shocking even when for decades we’ve seen these images. Fresh horror every time. I abhor the knee jerk reaction of slurs, it immediately denigrates the user in my eyes. Says more about them than the person they are using it against.
This elderly chap is nonplussed about the whole debate on TS.
If women wish to hold a meeting to express their hopes and their concerns they do have that right. If the speakers wanted to use the meeting to destroy a different group then they should expect to be reacted upon.
I am off to read simpler topics like National Act bad. Labour Greens good.
Do you think that is what Let Women Speak intends or does? If you do think that, why do you think that? If you don't think that, then why repeat it?
Huh? If I set up a meeting to express my views about say Save the Whitebait, and instead stigmatise salmon fishers, who I say are very cruel to salmon should I be surprised if the salmoners object loudly to those accusations?
Have you watched any of the LWS livestreams?
Here's a better analogy. I want to save the whitebait, and as part of that I point out the problems that dairy farmers are causing. Would that be fair? And if I had been doing this for years and had been called a cunt by Fed Farmers, and told to suck on the dairy farmers dick, what would you think of me standing up in public and calling Fed Farmers arseholes and liars?
It helps to know that the anger being thrown by GC women is often at TRAs, not trans people. Not always true, and KJK is a problem in this regard, but GCFs are clearly arguing about women's rights and targeting gender ideology and its activists.
We can test this btw, with a thought experiment. What would happen if GCFs ran an event called Women Will Speak, in a public space like in front of parliament, they get permits etc, and they intend to speak about women's single sex spaces, child safeguarding, women's culture and so on. Do you think they would be allowed, or do you think the TRAs would try and shut them down too?
OK Weka. I really can't argue. (Partly because I don't know what GCFs are or TRAs. Looked them up but no help.) There is a lot of anger being spent but the issues are far beyond me. I just think women have the right to express their fears/concerns but the women that I ask say, "What are you talking about?"
At a recent"Opera in the Park" the interval sent many of the 30,000 people heading to the toilet block. Of course the women had fewer cubicles and queued. Solution. Women entered the mens' toilets used the empty cubicles without a murmur from anyone. As an 80+ person I must just think too simply.
I yield.
Here's a link to the seventeen women who got to speak in Melbourne, divided by speaker – each with their own precis, duration and timestamp:
https://twitter.com/EdgeWatching/status/1637296808622985216?s=20
Thanks for the link Molly. I will not respond but I did listen.
no worries ianmac.
Your Opera in the Park story has two women's rights issues. One is that habitually we provide less toilets for women than are needed (women take longer in toilets than men, so we need more of them to serve the same number of people in a specific period of time).
The other is that males in women's spaces are a safety issue. Those issues don't generally exist with females in men's spaces.
I read somewhere that toilet block designers are quite fair in that they allocate the same area for men and women. But of course you can get more in the spaces for urinals than you can in the same size areas with cubicles. Now that is an issue that women could advocate for change.
women do advocate for that to change. They advocate for keeping women's toilets single sex for safety reasons as well. The two issues are intertwined, because in places like the UK, the push to have NB toilets means that women's toilets get converted and men's toilets get left alone. We end up with mixed sex toilets and men's toilets. That's institutional sexism just like the issue of how many women's toilets don't get built.