- Date published:
5:30 pm, March 30th, 2023 - 90 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 …
So given the issues of the lightness of being going across a bridge on foot or bike, how many people can fit on a light rail service and the little people of middle earth underground
images of Simeon Brown and Pee Wee Hermon (spot the difference)
(click on view all its uncanny).
The giant in the National Party caucus who is mentor to SB, Christopher Penk (who now takes a support role, so as to not take away mana from the team leader).
might need to be resized to be less like Sam Whitelock alongside John Key in a locker room.
Simeon should talk to Simon about a transport plan, its time to think big, not talk about what National did in the last term.
all kudos to Eli for making her protest funny and well targeted and managed with grace (quite a feat). I don’t have too much of a problem with things being thrown at politicians so long as no one gets hurt.
Aaaah but people were hurt.
She belongs to the group that also views the bashing of a 70 year old woman wanting to attend an event with PP with apparent unconcern, I have not seen anything expressing concern by Shaneel Lal or Max Tweedie. Let alone Hipkins. As we know the lovely trans people over weighed any concern from Marama when she was approached for comment.
The 70 year old woman has now got a fractured skull.
I actually think Elis is a poser & tipping sauce over someone is all jolly hockey sticks and all that it did lead to quite a few injuries in the group wanting to speak and the cancellation of PP event in Auckland and Wellington. If NZ Police had been there and doing their job they would not have allowed this person so close. Thankfully PP security were able to get her away.
It is also reverberating around the world and many people think it is lawlessness.
Not my words. I just changed the name of the thrower.
But I absolutely echo the sentiment.
Gender critical feminist Mary Harrington pointing out why professional class women have a vested interest in removing sex from law.
Head of Ukrainian security and defence to Russian cities – we're coming.
"Ukrainian swarm" "named after Matias Rust" – dozens of models, thousands of drones. Attack UAVs in service with the Armed Forces of Ukraine with a flight range of more than 3,000 km. 1987, Red Square, Moscow, plane, Rust.
A pitch for the new con votes.
A bit like this book which probes the links between far right hate groups and them backing anti transgender rights.
"Chapman's latest bid for publicity is straight out of the right-wing playbook as examined in Histories of Hate: hammering a cultural issue until you force people to take a side, all the while creating media attention and bringing sympathetic people to your cause. As the book makes clear, our radical-right does not disappear, it only changes target. When the 2019 Christchurch Mosque shootings finally rendered Islamophobia unacceptable in mainstream New Zealand culture, the radical right here pivoted, importing grievance culture from the US and the UK in the form of transphobia."
But as Gen Z are so on the ball regards ‘woke’, sex and gender, and in a few years time the issue will be over and done with, and today’s trans opponents will be viewed like the anti gay marriage and adoption warriors from the past.
“A series of VICE Voices surveys, conducted in 2019, shows many younger people share Preece’s views on gender: 41% of the survey’s respondents (all Gen Z) said they identified as “neutral on the spectrum of masculinity and femininity”. Fifty-five percent also said gender labels don’t help them “define who they truly are”, and 62% “felt strongly that people should be able to use any identity label with which they feel comfortable”.
Attitudes around gender were already changing from Baby Boomers to millennials, but as Gen Z has grown up, they’ve helped facilitate even larger cultural and social shifts in these notions. It’s not that younger people are no longer identifying as cisgender or male or female – rather, they’re less likely to take for granted that gender is binary. These views have helped some young people find their voices, and also opened a dialogue about the complexities of gender identity across generations.”
Young New Zealander of the year:
Congratulations to Shaneel Lal.
Lets hope the Topp twins win New Zealander(s) of the year.
What a huge boost for the rainbow community that would be.
Gender expression has always been broad.
Sex, however, is binary and immutable.
We are confusing children by conflating the two.
Ignore the "PURE EVIL" and just watch the video.
Does this seem leading in any way? A sales pitch for body modification?
Don't ask me, ask the kids at the vanguard of the movement that's already won, after all, they're deciding the future they’ll live in.
Ah, that's the difference.
I expect sense from the responsible adults in the room.
I'll ask one of them.
"Sex, however, is binary and immutable."
Not according to the majority of those Gen Z kids in that poll.
Like I wrote, with those numbers, minus a pied piper for the ages, it's a fight already lost.
Best use all your power while you can 'cause I suspect referendums and votes won't be too kind in your future.
NB: "responsible adults ".
Obviously should have added "rational" as well.
Nothing irrational about knowing the numbers are only going to get better for trans rights and you're just chewing up time 'til the inevitable arrives.
Sex, however, is binary and immutable.
Again, and it’s the real deal clincher – Not according to the majority of those Gen Z kids in that poll.
A decade, more or less, and it’s over, Rover.
"A decade, more or less, and it’s over, Rover."
Regardless of whatever is over – sex will remain binary and immutable.
Until that is understood, those kids are adrift.
This is nothing to do with trans rights.
It's acknowledging reality.
(Unless, of course, trans rights means we deny reality).
So are they going to be able to change so we have more than man/woman?
Or are you as confused as they are with the difference between sex & gender?
If they are as confused as you seem to be it does not give me very great hope.
But I guess changing mammalian biology and beating evolution would be something. Perhaps not progress more like the pictures of the mad professor in a lab with sticky out hair and bubbling chemical beakers.
It's the future so who knows what they'll have when they're calling the shots and making the rules, there could be loads of options but I'm sure there'll be plenty of consultation before they vote on it.
Those young people in the video are free to express themselves in any way they like, but it is is their best interest to know that sex is binary and immutable.
Eg. The women taking testosterone needs to understand that while it may give secondary sex characteristics, in a female body testosterone has different impacts than in a male body. It can affect heart health, act as a strong mood enhancer (euphoria?), induce a change of behaviour – which can include an increase in aggression or violence. It is terotegenic which means that if contraception is not used during hetersexual sex, any fetus from an unplanned pregnancy is exposed to harmful medication. It can atrophy female genitalia to the degree that sexual activity can rupture the vaginal wall. Pain associated with such atrophy can be so severe that surgeries are offered as pain relief, hysterectomies and ooferectomies ensuring the sterislation that testosterone use alone might not have achieved.
The man who had undergone GRS, said that they CHANGED his male sex organ to a female one. This is untrue. He has inverted his penis to create a visual facsimile of a vagina that leads nowhere. As opposed to a functioning part of a reproductive system, he has a wound that he must keep from healing by the use of manual dilation. To stop his body from completing its natural tendency to close the wound, this task must be maintained regularly. The vagina in a woman is self-lubricating and to self-cleaning. This is also not the case with a facsimile. Urinary infections are also commonplace, and can lead to kidney issues and renal conditions. The lack of testosterone on a male body, brings its own impacts on health, increased likelihood of heart attacks, depression, loss of energy and libido.
The young woman referring to her vulva with shame, deploys the use of a packer to simulate the presence of a penis. If she decides and goes through with a phalloplasty, she too will have a non-functioning appendage attached to her body for purely aesthetic reasons. It will come at the cost of stripping layers of fat, skin, muscle and tissue from the forearm usually in order to create a faux penis that cannot get erect by sexual stimulation, but may be raised by mechanical means. If they choose to involve surgery to rearrange their urethra or clitoris, their likelihood of needing revision surgery and/or ongoing healthcare treatment for urinary issues, kidney infections etc rises exponentially.
The "euphoria" reference to double mastectomy surgery when speaking to a child with no wider frame of reference is irresponsible and a sales pitch. Adults know that all surgeries come with risks both probable and unforeseen. A child hears "it's like flying" and says "I want that".
Wouldn't we all?
So, for these earnest young people, acknowledging sex is binary and immutable, which means that it matters in some significant ways in life, would be to their benefit.
This acknowledgement does not prohibit them from behaving or expressing themselves in any way, but it will improve their well-being and health outcomes.
Hardly a representative sample:
It basically looks like a PR company.
This kind of self-selected survey is really not worth the paper it's written on (or the pixels on the screen).
Please poll 2,000 gen z kids and let me know your results.
All 2,000 gen z kids might answer otherwise.
Sex, however, is binary and immutable.
It's not me you need to be convincing.
Since the quality of your quoted research has been called into question over self-selection bias – it is up to you to find something more reliable to replace it.
Or just admit that it's a puff PR piece, not serious research.
The way this pretend arena does debate, I'm now not confident to post anything more than the type of comments I have today, but get the sysop to level the playing field and enable an open exchange and we'll call it game on.
Yep. See that data quality isn't your forte.
We'll just leave it at that.
Rubbish 'survey', rubbish data = rubbish conclusions.
When you've actually got something with some level of robustness, bring it back and I'll be happy to discuss.
Fair fight or not at all. It's an lesson futility otherwise.
Sure thing. Put up some quality data and I'm happy to debate.
The *only* thing I've called you on is that a self-selected 'survey' is valueless as anything other than an opinion piece.
You can't use the 'data' to describe trends or shifting opinions in any meaningful way.
Whoosh went the underlying site issue as to why debate on this topic has been so perverted and corrupt to become no more than a self serving, meaningless back slappy hit out.
I'll commit when balance returns and impartiality is again a trusted, best practice rule, but do know I really, really want you and the other handful of posters to wait for me.
Someone let me know when lprent transitions and gets some balls.
Yes self selection is a criticism of some of the political polls. These limitations would apply to all polling done in this way.
Even gen Z are not hive mind.
Having quite a bit to do with them, I'd say especially Gen Z are not a hive mind.
It's the Gen Zs on tiktok that are pushing back against gender ideology.
Well I've been immersed in critiquing the trans stuff and if you read some SM you would think they all believed the trans stuff …..yet the ones I know range from yawn, not interested, to I don't like it, to some of their speakers or aims are good/bad to, Ok if they have to do this I won't stop them.
The article seemed to talk about gender not sex.
There is a difference you know.
Damn Dutchies and their body-positivity.
A children’s television programme to promote body positivity, and which features naked adults answering kids’ questions, has become controversial before it has even aired, with politicians joining in the fray. The programme is based on the Danish Ultra smider tøjet (Ultra strips down) which is now in its second season. The show, called Gewoon Bloot (simply naked) in the Netherlands, consists of a number of adults of all shapes and sizes answering questions from children aged 10 to12 on subjects like being ashamed of certain body parts or shaving versus waxing. Social media have shown reactions from ‘disgusting to ‘educational’ and politicians too have been vocal.
The Netherlands are at present getting critiqued on the "healthcare" promoted on this programme. The lack of evidence is becoming more and more of a concern.
I got this message trying to replay to your post
A potentially unsafe operation has been detected in your request to this site
Your access to this service has been limited. (HTTP response code 403)
If you think you have been blocked in error, contact the owner of this site for assistance.
Block Technical Data
Wordfence is a security plugin installed on over 4 million WordPress sites. The owner of this site is using Wordfence to manage access to their site.
You can also read the documentation to learn about Wordfence's blocking tools, or visit wordfence.com to learn more about Wordfence.
Click here to learn more: Documentation
Generated by Wordfence at Thu, 30 Mar 2023 9:26:23 GMT.
Your computer's time: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 09:26:22 GMT.
As there are two posts above yours with links in them it is helpful to identify which one you are talking about.
I think you have had problems before and perhaps have a look at your virus checker or the parental guidance feature, if you have one. You may have them set too high.
Clearly a reply to the post 6.1 (8.34pm) by Al1en.
Well even more with links to chose from.
Still helpful to be more specific. And what do all the mentions about censored mean? Is it a quiz?
Test – line by line
Sure, they will have no problem filling out a census form.
1a Birth Sex M/F
1b Identify in accord with or transgender Y/N
So the part of my post that was censored is now clear.
2a Gender ID (sounds like some want gender neutral as an option)
2b Gender Expression – this appears to the probelm area as to my original post
I wrote some might use appears as …. (cisgender)….. despite gender neutral feels
3b current status (relationship type)
I would also expect more in the non binary than now, but there are issues about self ID and women's safety unresolved).
The word cisgender in the middle of that line was the culprit. Certainly does not seem like a parental setting …
It's like the climate and ecology crises don't exist.
Let's hope they vote and act then.
I'm gone for a bit to give the site a chance to clean up it's act and see if it's worth saving and becoming a decent place worthy of a purposeful return, but did want to say those are informative links, and thanks for posting them.
From a link in your piece, which adds data to fuel how much generational growth gen z are undertaking, we find some more good numbers.
"Gen Zers are more likely than Millennials to say they know someone who prefers that others use gender-neutral pronouns to refer to them: 35% say this is the case, compared with a quarter of Millennials. Among each older generation, the share saying this drops: 16% of Gen Xers, 12% of Boomers and just 7% of Silents say this.
The youngest generation is also the most likely to say forms or online profiles that ask about a person’s gender should include options other than “man” or “woman.” Roughly six-in-ten Gen Zers (59%) hold this view, compared with half of Millennials and four-in-ten or fewer Gen Xers, Boomers and Silents.
These findings seem to speak more to exposure than to viewpoint, as roughly equal shares of Gen Zers and Millennials say society should be more accepting of people who don’t identify as either a man or a woman."
And this is the same generation reporting massive rises in mental health issues?
Life is short.
But long enough to understand that most of what you believed when you were 20 was bunk,
I can’t remember what I believed, if anything, when I was 20.
I’m extremely grateful [not the right word!] that I’m well past 20.
The next generations can sort out their shit on top of the shitheap that we created and left for them. As generations did before us. It keeps piling on and we keep telling them what is best for them (I won’t link to a very very recent comment here). The patronising arrogance is breathtaking and shocking in its absence of self-awareness and self-reflection.
Personally I look back and wish I had been told what was best for me in a more timely and assertive manner.
I was told, countless times. Sometimes I listened, sometimes I didn’t. We live & learn best through experience, not through self-help podcasts or Sunday morning sermons. Devloping critical thinking skills helps a lot but is not sufficient. Good observational skills help too. And knowing who you are …
Well what I am seeing is a generation where nobody has had the courage to say "no" to them.
I have no problem respecting the human rights and dignity of anyone, regardless of their physical characteristics. But what we saw at Albert Park this weekend was just a shameless lack of boundaries and character. Some people here want to blame men for this. From my point of view that so called pro-trans mob were neither women nor men – rather dangerous children in adult bodies.
This isn't progress – it is degeneracy. But you know – let the wonderful little darlings have their own way – right?
Nobody is allowed to say “No” to anybody. We all have to accept everybody’s behaviour & actions (morals or lack thereof), appearance, personal identity, personal views & beliefs (even they are in conflict with facts), personal choices (ethics or lack thereof), et cetera. This is the neoliberal dogma of our times. There’s no authority that’s accepted and acceptable – each makes up their own set of rules and to Hell with everyone else. Authorities that used to deserve our individual and collective respect are now fair game, including, and especially Government. Welcome to our newfound personal freedom and the Liberation of the Individual.
I wonder where I might find the oldest authentic example of young people whining about how terrible the world is? Because I think I just found the youngest.
You must be referring to yourself. Never mind, people interested in intelligent debate are a dying breed and will be taken over by Chatbots soon.
National Māori Housing Conference
And how is Labour enacting this perspective?
So expect stuff all help from NACT.
"As the first trans person to win any award at the annual ceremony since it was first held in 2010, Lal was celebrated on Thursday for their work in getting the harmful therapy – which attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity – banned in Aotearoa."
Dunno that Lal deserved it. He is not a transgender person; just a lost soul. Rainbow Labour circa 2004 has been pushing for the ban on conversion therapy. Lal was just another brick in the (stone)wall before it was banned. Utterly undeserved.
" Lal was celebrated on Thursday for their work in getting the harmful therapy – which attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity – banned in Aotearoa"
On the assumptive notion that fundamentalist Christian gay conversion therapy was rife in NZ, Shaneel Lal promoted and advocated for a bill that diminished the likelihood of high-quality exploratory therapy, and criminalised those who might query an individual's declaration.
The gay-conversion narrative was a Trojan horse Lal et al. had to build (assisted with Funding on Air) in order to equate harmful sexual orientation conversion practices with any form – however insignificant, gentle or appropriate -of querying someone's gender identity.
Those most likely to do this – parents – have effectively been legislated into silence.
Therapists – while excluded in legislation – will either universally affirm or most likely not choose clients where their exploratory therapy may lead to accusations of conversion.
This HRC support service was set up obstensibly to deal with the many victims, but acts as a further reminder that unless you affirm immediately, there is a fast-track framework to deal with your heresy.
My first email was from a friend overseas who is absolutely agog and very concerned that NZ is celebrating a person who is anti women's rights.
The twitter feed leapt into action saying
'The young NZer of 2023 had been awarded to anti free speech advocate Shaneel Lal.'
We seem to have moved into a parallel universe away from rational thinkers and i don't like it. I fear for my rights as a woman.
There comes a realisation that the existing systems that could be expected to allow concerns and impacts to be discussed and considered without bias – are not available. Furthermore, they actively work to suppress speech and demonise speakers.
Once you reach that point, you realise how embedded the suppression is, and understand why engagement with by the usual democratic methods were unable to stop the behemoth.
It's not only a concern for this issue, but for any not approved by those not valuing free speech in a democratic society.
Young New Zealander of the year:
Congratulations to Shaneel Lal.
Lets hope the Topp twins win New Zealander(s) of the year.
What a huge boost for the rainbow community if they took out both.
Sorry duplicate. Having a few problems with computer.
I am amazed that you seem to have no reservations about this person even after seeing how they hustled their mates to Albert park to disrupt the PP event. One result was that women who were there were unable to continue and now one is receiving treatment for a fractured skull after being bashed.
Actually I am amazed that 'poor'* young person has not be able to indulge in a little self reflection as a result of what happened at Albert Park.
I actually don't think I have seem anything so crass as to give young NZer of the year to someone who caused such havoc & went along with such hate at Albert Park. I guess it is for for his work prior to this. In other spheres it is not unknown for there to be a rethink by judges when the candidate does not live up to the nomination between the time of being nominated and the presentation of the award.
Don't know who is up against the Topp Twins but from a personal admiration point of view for all they have done for women and song, TV I have admiration. I am also admiring of the stance they took when they both had breast cancer. Their up beat updates would have been encouraging for many others. They have some good competition though…..
I am also very pleased that Sir Mark Dunajtschik has one an award. He has donated money for buildings all around Wellington and he and his partner financed the Wellington Children’s Hospital. And he is an allround great character.
I really dislike this whole fawning over the rainbow community. Would you be waxing lyrical if a woman won young NZer or NZer of the year.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't 'fawn' over anybody. Never have and never would. I think you need to reflect a bit on your attitude Shanreagh.
I think it is pretty clear to understand. The ability of a community to self reflect is an indication of our maturity as a nation. I have been pro trans rights until they started to want to infringe on my rights as a woman. I will probably continue to be pro trans except in those areas such as safe spaces etc.
I feel that the trans community did themselves no favours by the display on Saturday and since we have had barrage of uncritical admiration while many overseas commentators are agog at what happened & NZ's inability to reflect and condemn where necessary. Violence is no way to get ahead.
I had thought that Shaneel Lal may have been a person capable of self reflection either by disqualifying himself or mentioning his sorrow at what had happened and desire to work together to make sure it did not happen again. That would be fantastic leadership.
The fawning I was mentioning is from people who have swallowed the happy & hard done by transworld myth and now want to give away women's sex based rights as well. I did not say you were part of this.
So my self reflection is as above:
Who, I wonder, ought to define "trans rights"?
I'm guessing women ought to be the decision-makers around the rights of women, yes?
Men, it follows, ought to define men's rights.
Minority groups of all stripes?
It gets tricky, fast!
The problem, Robert, is that it is male voices who are amplifying the rhetoric against females from speaking out. When it comes to KJKM, the majority of talking heads were men. It was men saying she shouldnt talk. It is men who are making the oft baseless claims that she is advocating for violence against transgender women. Who are transgender women? Men.
the voices of actual females are being silenced and diminished, not to mention demonised.
if you’re a TRAsh, then really you should just sit to the sidelines and let the queers sort this one out. Unless you would put your hand on your heart and say that if you are a heterosexual male, you would sleep with a man who identifies as a woman (and has a penis) as that is what Men are saying lesbians should do.
Who or what defines any rights?
In the absence of an authority that we can all agree to subject to – it’s gone or on its way out – the only way is collectively and by mutual agreement. Fracturing into separate groups, down to the single individual, each with their own set of rules & rights is a sure recipe for dictatorship. That’s why social cohesion and strong communities are vital. That’s the reason why any action, deliberate or accidental, that endangers social cohesion must be resisted & rejected in the strongest possible ways.
Very well put Incognito. I especially like this part.
This is naive thinking Robert.
You are framing it as if there has been a problem in identifying trans rights. There has not been.
Where the problem seems to be is that in considering issues we have not allowed ourselves to think of the rights of others. I find it concerning that despite all the writing here on the TS that you are asking these questions.
We elect people to parliament to advocate on the issues that affect us all as people. These people gather themselves into parties.
There are some issues that are, or should be universal, (to give us a hand the UN has made declarations). In NZ we also have overarching legislation such as the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights act, Health & Disability Act
Then there are the rights to give sentient beings such as freedom from cruelty
Are you saying the Trans community did not have an input in the No Debate campaign around self ID?
"I have been pro trans rights until they started to want to infringe on my rights as a woman. I will probably continue to be pro trans except in those areas such as safe spaces etc."
Shanreagh – No one reading your comments over the past three days on TS would believe that you are pro Trans rights.
And yet I am.
And frankly to suggest otherwise means that you have lapsed into the binary thinking of:
trans rights good, women's rights bad.
Have you been following the issue on TS over the last three years?
I regret you have not been able to see the nuance. In my writing I have been at pains to disregard the tosh as I see it and to focus on the reality.
I was thinking it was a worthy cause like the homosexual law reform when even my elderly parents were saying all people should be able to live their lives in happy & fulfilled way as long as they did not infringe on the rights of others to live theirs similarly.
There is a quote attributed to Queen Victoria about sexual choice that goes along the lines of 'they can do anything they want as long as it doesn't frighten the horses'.
My paraphrasing of this is that they can have any rights they want as long as the giving of these rights does not affect my sex based rights as a women.
That I call out the rubbish that has been spouted in the the No Debate issue and about the so called peaceful protest on 25/3 does not mean I do not support human/civil rights for the trans community.
Women's rights and the rights of children ie safeguarding are the rights that affect me most. It is not a big ask to ensure that these are protected is it?
Did you think that women's rights and the safeguarding of rights is not important?
PS the violence and use of the thugs veto at anti womens rights protest on 25/3 is something we as people should be very concerned with.
I apologise. I thought you directed that comment to me.
I also said to Molly a couple of days ago… something to the effect that when you get down to the nitty gritty of this subject we probably agree about far more then we disagree. I firmly believe that is true.
Now I may be a little biased, because I have a close relative who is a member of the rainbow community. Indeed she is also gender critical and has been since birth. However she was professionally identified as female and she identifies herself as such so no problem there. Suffice to say she's a cracker of a young woman and we are proud of her. She is highly regarded by everyone who knows her including her police colleagues.
So, in the light of the above I get angry when labels are attached to individuals whose only crime is they have a slightly different gender orientation.
"Now I may be a little biased, because I have a close relative who is a member of the rainbow community. Indeed she is also gender critical and has been since birth. However she was professionally identified as female and she identifies herself as such so no problem there. Suffice to say she's a cracker of a young woman and we are proud of her. She is highly regarded by everyone who knows her including her police colleagues.
So, in the light of the above I get angry when labels are attached to individuals whose only crime is they have a slightly different gender orientation."
I'm sorry to tell you this Anne, but these two paragraphs show a complete misunderstanding of the issues being discussed.
You are against an interpretation that exists in your head, which is not an accurate reflection of the concerns that have been raised on TS many times.
That may be your interpretation Molly but all I was doing was admitting (if that is the right word) that there is a family member whose condition may not be directly associated with the "issues being discussed", but there are relatable circumstances – and how that might affect my conclusions.
I'm starting to feel like The Al1en @ 18.104.22.168 when he says:
It'd be an improvement to the quality of discourse, if people took time to read before contributing.
You have been informed before about how lesbians like your niece have also been detrimentally affected, yet you show no signs of having read those responses.
But rhat's just my perspective.
You carry on reiterating but not refining your contribution, and you will likely continue to get repetitious answers. Just a cause and effect, rather than directed personal criticism.
Hi Molly. You (and others) may find this op piece interesting. It is written by trans woman Jessica Triff and addresses the more toxic side of trans activism.
Trans rights? Yes. Toxic, in-your-face activism? No | CBC News
Thanks. Good read from a transsexual author.
Many acknowledge that transsexuals that were mostly accommodated have also been adversely affected.
My focus at present it to ensure single-sex provisions are protected before discussing some accommodations again.
I also note that some women would have self-excluded or negatively affected by that previous accommodation.
What does this mean? Are you going to do some comments now yo can see the links?