- Date published:
6:31 am, March 20th, 2023 - 259 comments
Categories: feminism, gay rights, gender, gender critical feminism, misogny, Nicola Sturgeon, pasifika, sexism, sport - Tags: feminism, Gender Recognition, nick kelly, nicola sturgeon, trans rights, Woke
Originally published on Nick Kelly’s blog In late January, just days after the Government in Westminster blocked Scotland’s Gender Recognition Bill, the UK media widely reported the story of Isla Bryson the Trans woman being sent to a women’s prison in Scotland. Bryson was convicted of raping two women when she identified as a man.
Quickly, Bryson became the dominant narrative surrounding the Gender Recognition debate.
The sexual violence committed by this individual was horrendous. Further, it is understandable that many were concerned that she was sent to a women’s prison given this violence.
Isla Bryson does not represent the entire Trans community. This statement is not controversial and should be self-evident. Yet the reporting and debate surrounding this case and the broader issue of gender recognition in the UK illustrate that this is not well understood. Or, certain people in power, with willing allies in the media, are happy to frame the story in this way for their own political interest.
This is not just a story about Scottish devolution. Whilst this controversy will have contributed to Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation as First Minister, this is not the key issue. This is not just about an ongoing culture war in western society, specifically gender and so-called identity politics, though this is clearly part of the story. This is about something far more critical.
This debate is about every teenager, anywhere in the world, questioning their gender and sexual identity. This is about the person who after years of suffering, at some point in their lives decides they wish to identify as having a gender identity different to that of their birth.
This debate is about the awful statistics published in a Stonewall report in 2017 showing that:
● 92% of trans young people have thought about taking their own life; ● 84% of trans young people have self-harmed; and ● 45% of trans young people have tried to take their own life.Stonewall School Report 2017
Recent moves to allow the trans community more rights and recognition have been met with opposition. Some of it is nothing more than prejudice and fear. But there is also an important debate to be had about gender and feminism, a debate which to date has been polarising and gets easily dismissed as a ‘culture war’.
TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) is a term used to describe Germaine Greer, J K Rowling or other feminists who are critical of self-ID and other policies which allow people born as males to identify as women. Some of the comments made by these individuals and other TERF feminists have lacked compassion towards the trans community and understandably caused outrage. Some of the responses to these TERF’s has at times also been harsh.
We live in a world where people are socially conditioned to live and act in certain ways due to the gender of their birth. There are biological differences between men and women, yet society places considerable expectations on the role one must play in life based on this. For example, the idea historically that women were homemakers or were more suited to nurturing. Men my contrast are expected to show strength, not show emotions and be the “breadwinner” for the family.
Historically, and still today other societies have viewed gender differently to western society. For example, matriarchal societies continue to exist in parts of the world. In Samoa, the Fa’afafine non-binary or third gender has traditionally been part of their culture.
In our society, we have for centuries lived as a patriarchal, male-dominated culture. It is only just over a century ago that women were given the vote. Within the last half-century that same-sex relationships were decriminalised, and same-sex marriages were legally recognised. While there has been social change, we cannot pretend that old conservative attitudes towards gender and sexuality do not still dominate much of society. It should be no surprise that attempts to change gender recognition laws will be met with resistance.
We also need to understand where some of this opposition comes from. Whilst for many, opposition to trans rights is from a place or fear or lack of understanding. But there are also many who fear what many happen if someone born as a male, can identify as a women, and enter women-only safe spaces.
Figures from Rape Crisis show that one in four women have experienced rape or sexual assault in their life. Women are disproportionately more likely to be victims of domestic violence and homicide. The vast majority of these crimes are committed by men towards women. It is in this context that some fear men being able to identify as women, and why the Isla Bryson case, resulting in such a strong public backlash.
Of course, many of the horrendous statistics on rape and assault of women are as bad and often worse for the trans community. Where are the safe spaces for the trans community? Why should only someone who is a women by birth have access to things like women’s toilets?
The argument goes that the experience of someone born a women is not the same as that of someone who is trans. Except, not all people born women, or men, have the same experience living as that gender. The problem is, our society still has quite a rigid gender binary structure. Over the last century, this has been challenged and moved to an extent but is still largely intact.
It is easy to dismiss this discussion and debate as liberal wokism. For conservatives, both big C and small c, this all feels like a distraction about a small minority. The tendency is to either ignore the debate or use it to divide political opponents, as recently occurred in Scotland.
From a human rights perspective, we should be aiming to build a society where people are not forced to live within strict gender identities, determined by their sex at birth. Should someone wish to change their gender, they should be supported and made to feel safe and loved.
At the same time we cannot ignore voices who fear unintended consequences of reforms. Trans women competing in women sport or men identifying as women potentially committing crimes against women. These issues are not straight forward. The root of the problem is that our structures remain still very binary in terms of gender, and changing this is not easy. Creating safe spaces for people who are non-binary would certainly help, be it in sport or creating safe spaces.
At present, this debate continues to polarise and quickly inflame, with little really improving. For the 14 year old current questioning their gender identity, this debate must add to their stress and confusion considerably. It is for them, and anyone else struggling with their gender identity, that we must now try to move this debate onto human rights.
Or, certain people in power, with willing allies in the media, are happy to frame the story in this way for their own political interest.
It is to be expected that people will have political positions or interests, and that they will choose to express them. You want to think long and hard before assuming the right to suppress them.
The no-debate approach taken on gender issues is not constructive in terms of building the broad public assent required to embed the changes activists desire. In my own community, the approaches in schools are viewed with alarm, and thought to be grooming.
The Stonewall Report reads like a tabloid, not a study. It is difficult to find any trace of the methodology, and the natural conclusion is that it is a puff piece, not an objective study. Claims of bullying and suicidal ideation lack the context of the ambient level of bullying and suicidal ideation in the studied population.
And, have mercy on your poor readers, break up that wall of text, please.
Converted to Block Editor to fix the bloody awful paragraphs. Made it hard to read.
But back on topic, my general position on this particular debate (as a dedicated geek) is that I can't see any particular problem in people following their inclinations provided it doesn't harm others. And others should not be able to unreasonably harm them by denying it. That is a boundary at which the law operates.
This applies to Mormans on my doorstep doing missionary work, hackers playing with code, and random callers misusing my phone to telemarket. I have legal and actionable strategies to deal with these when required.
But I find arguments about gender issues just weird. The system of law that I grew up with placed an inordinate amount of emphasis on making sure that a binary genetic gender logic applied. And all kinds of daft ideas that we inherited from the past.
That pretty obviously didn't reflect any kind of actual reality and was a unrealistic emphasis that I neither shared nor had any support for. It also supported a semi-slavery emphasis for women, with the last visages of being legally property of male parents and partners.
Those have now mostly dissipated outside of some cultural residues like the treatment of police about domestic violence. Sure we still have some remaining separation of schooling – but that is now pretty much a choice offered to parents. One that is steadily diminishing. My old secondary school Mt Albert Grammar has long since gone coed and the sky did not fall in. Contrary to opinions that were made to my mother when she became the first women elected to their parents board.
Prisons as places of confinement and public toilets are about the last places that are routinely separated by gender. The former have real problems as places that generally unsafe regardless of gender.
The latter seems to be more a matter of preference rather than a matter of law. The general legal requirement is that people should be able to feel safe in public and work spaces including toilets rather than a gendered prescription. Most of the legal requirements about toilets through legislation and regulation are to do with preventing disease – rightfully so.
I can't see any particular point, nor any well-argued reasons to revert the laws back towards a fixed gender, any more than I can see a point of reverting the laws back to the 18th and 19th century legal rules about treating women as some kind of chattel.
I can see a point in figuring out how to make confinement or private areas like prisons or toilets safer for everyone.
Get rid of the dumb arse ideas of the part that prisons are penitentiaries that cure the bad – because they have no history of doing that. Or that prisons separate criminals from the world. They just as clearly act as training to do more and better crime. It is really hard to justify. Or that they act as a deterrent against crimes – well they are pretty obviously a failure at that as well.
Meanwhile arguing about gender for toilets, changing rooms, and the like just seems to get in the way of figuring out to make those places safer for everyone that uses them.
As a geek, I can't see much difference in these arguments than I do in the eternal debates about balance between having a accessible and useful internet and one that is safe. In fact I see exactly the same arguments being deployed on both sides there.
As far as I am concerned, the world has moved on. Figure out how to make it work more safely rather than arguing about how to return to the past.
Well I don't really have a horse in the race, but some parents of my acquaintance are scared and furious.
Anyone who calls 'no debate' means to act autocratically without my assent, and, oddly enough, they won't obtain it that way.
Real suicides weren't enough to break through the wall of willful stupidity that protects corruption in our fisheries sector – I don't see why hypothetical gender diverse children are given more weight than my late friends.
100% Stuart Munro
Imho, gender is a spectrum, whereas (genetic) sex (female/male) is immutable and the provision of female- and male-only spaces should continue on that basis.
Maybe because they're children? Scratch that – they're 'hypothetical'.
Who would choose to be a parent to these "hypothetical gender diverse children"?
My expectations for the group I called hypothetical, is some data substantiating their existence. Perhaps something like this study. It would be more robust if it worked back from or at least captured coroners' reports, self-reporting being less than robust.
But I haven’t forgotten Labour’s determination to deny or evade their role in the suicide of young NZ fisherman. Not trendy enough I guess.
"Something like this study" was an interesting read – more in the same vein:
Suicidal ideation denial had tragic consequences for young NZ fishermen.
We have a fixed SEX. This is important for women as it is the basis for the way we are treated in society. For us – sex matters – in life and in law. We have spent 100 years or so working for sex based rights and protections for women and girls. We are not giving them up now. Women's rights are human rights too.
My points exactly. This topic has been covered many times before and the message that
seems to be hard for some to accept.
Rather than going over the same ground we might get some idea of what the objections are to the statement from Visubversa that I have bolded above.
Speaking on behalf of most of the women I know the concept of giving the trans community rights and defending them against ill treatment goes without saying.
Why though does this though have to come at the expense of womens' rights to safe spaces?
It should not be an either or argument.
I am afraid I am coming to view the strident voices for giving males, in whatever guise they want to name themselves, the rights to access womens safe spaces as the latest and most convoluted example of anti women sentiment or misogyny.
As a man, I am almost proud (in a screwed up way) that we have managed to get away with mansplaining to women what a woman is. And not only do we get little or no pushback, we actually get that mansplanation into law in multiple countries.
Shows exactly where the real power still resides.
nothing tells me more how fragile women's rights are than how many left wing men have sided with trans rights activists against women. It's now written in big bold black and white letters across progressive politics that men will support feminism so long as it's feminism that men agree with.
Imagine if left wing men took that position about Māori politics. I'm not talking about disagreement here, I'm talking about fundamental ideological positioning.
It’s shaken my faith in the left TBH.
That Guy, it has completely shaken my faith in the left (including Labour and the Greens) too.
I was a paid up, hard working member of the Labour Party.
I feel utterly betrayed by them and many of my friends on the left.
I would dearly love to leave this debate and get on with my own life. But never, ever in my whole life, which includes quite a bit of activism, have I been shut down, cancelled (this happened in a professional group I am a member of) and villified.
There are people in the Greens who get it, but my impression is that they are basically terrified of speaking out because they know what will come next. They saw what happened to Jill Abigail here. They saw what happened to Linda Gale in Vic, who had a very thoughtful and reasonable piece on this issue presented as "transphobic" and members of the party threatened to "burn the party to the ground" if she was not removed from her democratically elected party position. And she was.
we should be incredibly concerned about the levels of dishonesty in those cancellings too, as well as the inability to actually debate.
It's playing out in real time as genderists in NZ are basically saying that Kellie Jay Keen and the women who speak at her events are Nazis and making arguments for that are evidence free or misusing evidence.
Yes, one of the saddest and most disappointing things I have ever seen is people in Green T-shirts waving Green Flags and expressing the view that when a marginalised group has something to say about their rights, the appropriate Green response is to vilify them, tell them they don't matter, and basically tell them to STFU.
Just sad and so disappointing and insulting to the 80% of Green members who are awesome people.
Actually what you, I, my mother and a host of other people by our actions and attitudes have achieved is entirely a removal of obstructions to the same legal rights by gender. This has been expressed in law by a removal of legal discrimination for pretty much everyone based on gender, race, age
It isn't that women have gained special rights specific to women. The only rights that appear to be specific to women left in law are some regarding pregnancy and child birth.
Yes – much the same as the rights everyone else has. The same legal rights that a any women who hasn't become pregnant has as well.
Perhaps rather than just sprouting meaningless (to me) slogans, you could have a look at our laws and point to me any laws and rights that are specific to women and specific to gender? Even regulations that are specific to women.
Then we can have a discussion. Because you aren't going to find them.
I am bloody appalled at the people of the left on this site who want to institute a discrimination against others. But who can't even manage to articulate a clear coherent and systematic reason for doing so. Instead I just keep seeing a chant of silly and meaningless slogans.
The more you do it, the more that I just read latter day bigotry with about as much sense as the ones I heard in my youth about womens roles in society.
Afaik, women still have the right to single sex spaces in NZ. This means an exemption from human rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sex. This right also applies to men of course, but the implications of losing it are different for women.
The right to single sex spaces was certainly there before self-ID. It's less clear now but Internal Affairs (I think, I'd have to look for the statement) did say at one point in the self ID debate that the right to single sex spaces still exists. It's unclear whether that means female only or whether it means that males can self ID into female spaces. I took it as female only because of the context at the time, but this is what the fight is about. Women losing single sex spaces and culture by attrition and societal change without actually asking us.
What that means is that if someone wants to provide single sex spaces they're not breaking the law. But the push to gender neutrality and/or self ID means that fewer people and organisations are willing to do so. In some case that is out of fear of being accused of being a transphobe or bigot.
Women weren't asked if we wanted to retain single sex spaces or not. Most women in NZ aren't aware of the issues or the implications, because the debate was never put out there.
Meanwhile, in NZ, the HRC has said that lesbians means anyone who self IDs as a lesbian, and in Australia lesbians are being told they are breaking human rights laws if they hold female only events. In real life, lesbians are being pressured to include males in their dating pool. They get banned from lesbian dating apps for saying female only. This is akin to conversion therapy. If it sound fantastic, it's because No Debate has meant that most if this doesn't get reported well in the MSM nor talked about civilly in LW spaces.
In the UK there are many examples now of the impacts on women. Women in prisons who have been raped by trans identifying males. Women's toilets being converted to what are in effect mixed sex toilets (but branded gender neutral), but men's toilets being retained, because it's cheaper. An increase in men filming women in changing rooms because males now have better access. The list goes on and on. All of it was predicted by women and ignored by a large chunk of the left.
What will happen in NZ I don't know. We're different in significant ways than the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, or the non-English speaking countries where all this has been an issue for longer. But I expect a similar pattern as women generally become aware that gender ideology means sharing women's spaces with any man who says he is a woman, women will start to push back.
The implication there is that biological sex is still a recognised thing in NZ. However we know that government considers gender identity more important than sex (eg with Stats NZ, and the census).
Wrong. That is simply a completely unsubstantiated myth that some people seem to want to use to create rules that have never existed. Making up myths apparently simply to discriminate to me is the hallmark of bigotry.
How much clearer could the DIA make it.
Notice my italics. That is the historical legal basis for single sex spaces and activities as far back as I am aware of legally in NZ. Organisations and individuals can make rules about the usage of properties that they control or own.
When was the last time anyone produced a birth certificate to go and have a pee. Has that ever happened in NZ? If so, then show me the legislation that enabled it! Because it simply isn't and has never been in the legal system.
It is in organisational rules like council bylaws about properties that they control.
There are laws about defecation in public, in waterways, and polluting land and waterways. Health and safety laws mostly.
There are building and workplace regulations about the toilets and what they must have in them, how many should be in different types of buildings and how close they can be to food-prep areas. These are all about hygiene and disease.
There are probably regulations by councils, sporting bodies, and even ACC about requirements for sporting fields. More health and safety laws.
What there aren't and never have been is legislation enshrining rights to have gender specific spaces.
To ask for it or to assume that it should be in law means that those wanting it should get off their lazy arses and explain why it should be in our legal system.
Why should there be discrimination distorting legislation to overturn property rights and to favour a specific group in society?
What isn't working and why? With some actual statistical evidence about material harm.
Why can't the existing legal structure and just 'customer' demand get property operators to change their rules?
So far the proponents of this historic future change are doing a piss-poor job about doing that. All I hear are idiotic myths about the past and frigging slogans.
You haven't said how it is wrong. The term sex is used throughout NZ legislation and DIA made a point of saying using the term sex in the bit I quoted presumably because so many women were raising the issue with them during the self ID legislation process.
Here's the legislation that provides for the right to single sex spaces, services and goods.
That's the legislation that says a women's refuge can provide services and spaces to females only. It doesn't say they have to, it's saying they can (which is what I said in my comment).
When women talk about the right to women's spaces this is what they are referring to. We have the right in society to single sex spaces. If those exemptions didn't exist, we could no longer have single sex spaces in society.
I think you maybe arguing that society has no legal obligation to provide single sex spaces. Which I would agree with, although I think there are legal challenges happening in the UK on this so I suspect it's a grey area (eg single sex wards in NHS hospitals). However it's also true that women have had a reasonable expectation of access to for example single sex toilets, and now that they are being removed there's a fight about it.
It's nothing to do with birth certificates at the toilet door so I don't know what your point is there.
Examples from the legislation,
Not in law. What there is (as far as I can tell) is a right for property providers to provide separate spaces at their discretion. They also have the right to specify what people can use them.
Legally this is the same right that allows male only clubs, single-sex schools, gender segregated prisons, sports with gender segregated sports, and the converse to those. The only legal limitation is a set of largely civil and some criminal law about discrimination or safety that causes provable material harm.
It is the same ‘right’ that allows us to make rules about how we operate this site. It is a property right…. Grr…
The right is not that of women as a group or even individuals. It is a property right of the property owners and operators. The right is to be able to take a case to court to argue about proving material hard or safety from the property decisions.
What you and the group claiming these rights appear to be after is a legal right in legislation that favours a group.
But you also appear to be claiming it on a historical basis as you just did with absolutely no apparent basis.
As I say – show me the legislation or even the regulation. Sure councils have bylaws about the usage of their properties. But that is about the same as as a regulation in the prison service about how they gender separate their property. It isn't in the legislation it is an internal matter about a owner making rules about property that they control.
Virtually all of that is online these days and most of it (certainly all of the legislation) is available back to the early 20th century.
I am sure that you can find highly gender specific legislation back before I was born and even afterwards. But as the laws have been reviewed from the 1960s, it has steadily been replaced and always towards less legal discrimination based on gender, race, age etc.
"Afaik, women still have the right to single sex spaces in NZ. "
Despite contradictory advice from Ministries in policies and guidelines this remains true:
Human Rights Act (1993) Section 43.1
For the hard of thinking, single-sex provisions are based on sex not gender identity.
Provisions for women based on sex – are being dismantled under the assumption that the provisions were based on gender expression, or stereotypes rather than the possession of a female body.
"Perhaps rather than just sprouting meaningless (to me) slogans, you could have a look at our laws and point to me any laws and rights that are specific to women and specific to gender? Even regulations that are specific to women."
As below, the Human Rights Act (1993) allows for this provision based on sex.
Ministry polices, guidelines and rainbow organisations advisories ignore this provision, and have promoted the idea that such single-sex provision is discriminatory because it excludes people who do not belong to the category to which it caters – those of the female sex. Women and girls.
Exclusion by category is not automatically discrimination.
ie. Master athlete category – Only those over 35 years,
Primary school students – Limited to the under 13s,
Pension entitlement – limited by age – not how old you feel.
I think many who enter this discussion fail to understand the difference between specific provision and discrimination.
Science has shown for decades now that we do NOT have a fixed sex. There are many, many shades of sexuality and gender. It is honestly a complex thing.
Most people are sufficiently apparently male or female that with clothes they don't have to think much about it, but for a surprisingly large fraction of the population sexuality and gender are problematic.
These things are not binary positions. They are a spectrum. The number of intersex people with ambiguous genitalia exceeds the number of people with red hair. Many people who look male or female are not fully so. And there are many, many different ways sexuality can diverge from the "normal", especially since we are flooding our environment with endocrine disrupters.
There are cases of testosterone insensitivity in people who grow as normal-looking women, even getting pregnant, then finding out they are genetically male, but due to testosterone insensitivity they matured as women. There are many variations in sensitivity to many different hormones… and on top of that there are all the chromosomal variations that complicate matters further, such as XXY.
Beyond the obviously physical variation we have mental variation. We are finally beginning to accord lesbian, gay, and bisexual people full rights (it's about bloody time!). We have centuries that some males are more feminine in their self-image than male, and some females are more masculine in their self-image than male. Often they were assumed to be homosexual, but in reality this isn't a predictor of who they are attracted to.
The only way someone can believe that sex or gender is fixed and invariant is by deliberately not learning the science. The information is all out there. We have the greatest knowledge resource ever and it's right at our fingertips. There is no longer any excuse for ignorance.
As for people saying, "Women's rights are human rights!" Yes, no question.
What is bizarre is when that's used as a way to block the rights of another group of vulnerable people. Gay rights are human rights. Trans rights are human rights. Intersex rights are human rights.
We ALL deserve human rights.
When gender critical people say there are only two sexes, they're not talking about sex characteristics, they're talking about how the human species reproduces. There are two forms of humans, one produces ova and bears young, the other produces sperm and doesn't bear young. Within that there are variations, but there is no third form.
We understand this from science, but we knew this before science as well. It's how babies are made.
When Visubversa says sex is fixed, she means that humans can't change the form they are born as. We are either the ova or the sperm producers (irrespective of our current capacity to produce gametes we still have that form). TW can’t get pregnant, and TM can’t impregnate a woman, no matter the form of their transition.
Intersex people, or those with DSDs, are normal variations of that. They're not a third sed.
Trans people have a gender identity. That's different from biological sex, and it's also different from intersex. It's about how one feels about one's sex.
The reason that gc feminists in particular make a big deal about there being two sexes is because women are oppressed on the basis of sex, not gender identity. We have long histories of the reproductive labour of women being exploited, and women being controlled because they are the half of humanity that has babies.
This basic reality is obviously an inconvenient truth.
You have quoted what i have said but have not actually read my reasons for saying that.
My reason is that by giving rights to trans people no-one should should take rights away from another group.
Trans people can have rights
women can have rights
My question is that the ability of women to have safe spaces seems to have been abrogated in the giving of rights to trans people.
All the feminists I know have no problem with recognising trans rights just so long as it does not come at the expense of long hard fought for women's rights.
Hopefully this much more nuanced approach is understood by you.
Happy to explain further but the issue is so simple I am curious as to why there is a problem with the comprehension of this.
Respectfully, this one has been figured out and has been for thousands of years. Across multiple societies, for millennia, there have always been women-only spaces, and the rationale has always been the same: to exclude predatory males. Because female rapists are extraordinarily rare.
Self-ID enables any predatory male to enter female-only spaces. Sexual predators will do exactly what the name says. Open a loophole and they will (and have) walk through it and assault women and girls. One assault should have been enough to nix the whole idea. Instead, people pointing out the problem have been vilified.
this. Which leaves the issue of making male toilets safe for most trans women. Men might like to work on that one.
I'm tempted to say that the TW that were already passing before the madness of the last decade can probably just keep using women's toilets. But unfortunately it's not that straightforward now, as many women have now seen too many tweets of male, autogynephiliac trans identified people skiting about wanking in women's toilets or even women's refuges. Including photos.
I don't know how to solve the problem for TW now, but I definitely think progressives stopping with the No Debate bullshit and letting us all talk through how to sort it out is necessary.
Absolutely, people like Carmen and Georgina have been using the women's toilets for decades without any problems. As I have said here before, they were not there for their sexual gratification.
The problem is that with self ID any man – literally any man – no diagnosis, no hormones, no surgery, can state that they identify as a woman and then demand entry to any woman's space or service.
In Australia, lesbians were told that they could not have any advertised meeting for lesbians without being required to admit any man who uttered the magical incantation. Lesbians are back underground as we were in the 1970's when we sublet odd bits of space from friendly hospitality providers and ran clubs that advertised mainly by word of mouth.
The main motivation here is men's demands for the removal of women's boundaries for their own sexual purposes.
That is just silly. I haven't looked at the Aussie law, but I suspect that whoever told them that was running a con – probably based on a threat of legal action. Probably directed to the owner or operator of the venue. This is a very common tactic (as you'll be aware).
Usually the best way to deal with it is figure out a way to force it to go to actual legal action and to be raise funds for that to happen. Then push it through if you can to the high court (and ideally bankruptcy for the litigant).
If this was a case at a legal level, could you link me to an article of judgement about it. It'd have some pretty nasty implications for BORA freedom of association rights here.
Found a recent declination for exemption from discrimination law, details in decision:
I know of two court/tribunal cases, will have to look through my bookmarks to get references.
The case has been going on for a while, is reasonably well known in GC circles, has been discussed on TS. I haven't read the rulings themselves (Molly has linked to the July one above).
There have also been identical spaces across history and many societies that were not gendered and didn't apparently have those same issues.
It isn't even that hard to find them in places like the UK when you look through its history and archaeology. Women only or men only public spaces were quite rare there in Roman times and for most of the early middle ages for instance. Most of those that were were associated with the monastery movement.
That isn't an argument. That is just some person trying to make a myth based on a pretty apparent lack of understanding of historical facts.
The question really should be is why the public spaces in the present day perceived to be unsafe, what is fiction at a fact level inflating what appear to be isolated incidents into salacious and possibly malicious fear mongering, and what could be done about them to prevent repetitions. But I don't hear ANY OF THAT from those concerned. I just hear statements worthy of a lynch mob for a any \minority.
I see people apparently wanting to embed discrimination back into our legal system on the basis solely of stupid slogans.
Prove me wrong – make an actual argument for something that makes it worth distorting our laws rather than relying on false histories and dumbarse slogans. Prove that you aren't just a reflexive moron like Mike Hosking
You appear to be trying to disprove my statement that "there have always been women-only spaces" by stating that there have also always been mixed-sex spaces. So? That's not a rebuttal. That's just trying to disprove one true thing by stating another true thing.
There has never been any society anywhere where people are oblivious to the biological sex of the people around them. Never. So I don't agree.
No, this really shouldn't be the question. The question should be: whose perception matters, and who has the right to make decisions about single-sex spaces? And the answer is: Women (Adult Human Females), and women alone.
Because whether or not men agree with their perception, women do perceive single-sex spaces as a valuable (if imperfect) protection against a pattern of male-on-female violence that has occurred across human history and in all societies. And based on that perception, women are entitled to say "No" when asked to give up their single sex spaces. Since when did "No means No" become a complicated and contested idea?
I'm really not sure what I've done to earn this level of vitriol from the owner of this site. And the thought of agreeing with Mike Hosking is ridiculous, unless he's saying "grass is green and water is wet" .
Nope that is saying that there is an alternate that you simply ignored in your argument. It doesn't disprove what you are said. It simply pointed out that it wasn't an absolute rule. That cuts into the implied argument that you are using which was
So perhaps you'd care to explain why that isn't always the case. Perhaps mixed gender places like mixed bathing did not automatically lead to predatory males presumably raping fellow bathers.
I don't own this site. I operate it. It runs on my servers and I keep it running – read the about.
If I am commenting then it is in a comment and people can deal with that as they may. However I am a fierce debater who loves picking holes in fallacious arguments and absolutely likes tearing false facts to peices.
If I'm talking as a moderator it is like this.
[lprent: says something about a violation or possible violations of site policy ]
If I want to deal with you as an operator (rather than commenter or moderator) of the site – that is a completely different story. Then I extrude my geek nature.
If I thought you were a danger to the site or my servers.You'll may find that you can neither read nor write to the site. I could have a word with whomever provides your access to the net. Or I could decide that you were a danger to society and invoke legal systems.
If you want keep on making up silly lies, false assertions to avoid dealing with issues raised by other commenters to get out of having to make an argument, then at least make sure they are correct.
I didn't say that you agreed with Mike Hosking. What I said was about your style of engagement with facts and making an argument generally.
Basically you are being a silly and lousy debater who cut a section of a comment who in your reply. See my coloured italics for the section you cut out.
I will start treating you with respect when you learn to use actual facts. When you strive to make an argument without inventing your own flawed justifications. Don't lie by selective commenting that completely rewrites what I said like that one.
Until then I will treat you as I would Mike Hosking is also a person who also uses these kind of arsehole tactics. It has nothing to do with what you think – it has to do with your behaviour. As you demonstrated in your reply.
I don’t resile from anything I’ve said in this discussion. I don’t accept your demands to provide arguments that fit your specifications. I’ve said what I said, so did you, and people will make their own minds up about who has a better argument. And based on replies they have already.
What societies are not SEXED? Please stop conflating sex and gender. Gender is whatever you say it is.
Yes it is hard to get points across when we are confronted with the conflation of sex & gender.
Sure. But it is the same thing when you’d looking at legal issues
We don't have laws based on XX and XY genetics. We also don't have laws based on XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), XYY (Jacobs syndrome). We don't have it for having extra chromosome like Down syndrome We also don't have it for a multitude of other genetic differences like race, hair colour, and a multitude of other genetic variations like relative intelligence levels.
I'd point out that this almost certainly includes genetic predispositions about gender identity. It certainly includes numerous genetic causes of infertility.
So rather than 'gender', perhaps you'd like to explain why any genetics should have an impact on legislation?
Feel free to justify why genetic gender should be a special case – without calling all of those other genetic differences into legal play as well.
After all eugenics programs were such a nice and wholesome feature of 19th and 20th century laws. And I 'm having problems seeing how that adds to your arguments for special legal handling of just one genetic issue in law.
Roughly translate this comment as I suspect that proponents of SEXED simply don't think through the genetic arguments implications on laws.
Being flexible in thinking means being able to advance the argument for the other side as well as you can advance the argument for what you believe in.
Harken back to your inner debater when you were given topics to argue.
If that does not work how about an appeal to empathy, the walk a mile in my shoes arguments
When I go to women's changing rooms with my little gt nieces and find intact males there, or
I've been raped by a man so I need counselling, is a man really the best person & the only choice I have?? or
I'm in prison ….I share a cell with a transwoman with full gear, or
I want to try on clothes, they have a huge women's changing room in the corner of which is a man masturbating
And of course don't forget the lesbians.
The young ones who are being convinced that their only road to happiness is to become a boy because the most uncool thing on the planet these days is a lesbian.
The ones who are looking for company and maybe a relationship and find that the clubs and bars have closed because they had to admit men. And who find that the so called "lesbian dating sites" are full of "transbians" and you are not allowed to say "females only".
The ones who are being pressured into accepting men who say they are women as sexual partners, and told that they are transphobic if they refuse.
The older ones who have worked for what they thought was "Gay Liberation and Women's Rights" for decades and who find that everything they worked for has been removed or cancelled and that the very words "same sex attraction" are now called a "transphobic dog whistle".
Sorry Visubversa……I meant to match all the ideas I had earlier.
Your points are so true for young lesbians and I am just about at crying stage for older lesbians who are not now covered by same sex attraction.
I don't have the appetite to search for the reports but you are correct about older lesbians who had previously been on same sex 'dating' sites expecting to meet other woman who were same sex attracted.
A transbian often with intact genitalia expects to meet lesbians ie females. Without getting too explicit these two people expect, want & do different things.
I mean would a lesbian be turned on by a poster or thought saying 'Suck my girl dick'. I know the shock value etc These slogans on posters were seen every time Katherine Stock ventured out.
Shanreagh – Look I understand all of that.
I can sympathise. But not to the extent of wanting to bring a new discriminatory law into place in our legal system without a damn good reason and with a hell of a good substantiated argument.
WE have spent the last century or two weeding laws like that out of the legislation.
What I am asking is why this undefined set of new privilege should be enshrined in legislation. That is a shit-big step and almost certainly opens a whole can of legal issues down the track.
If it is so enshrined – then what else on a gender (or genetic) basis should be enshrined in legislation as well. Slavery perhaps? The legal superiority of the genetically enhanced? The academically intelligent?
Are there other ways to handle whatever (largely unsubstantiated) widespread behaviours are the issue? How much of a problem is there really relative to something like (umm) domestic abuse? Intra-family rape?
I keep banging on about actually making an argument. These are what if pushing (taking it to extremes for the sake of argument)
There appears to be actual appetite for doing the legwork to make the case for a legal innovation for whatever you're asking for from proponents.
BTW: could proponents please bloody desist from trying to claim that it (whatever it is) was in the law and has somehow been removed. Certainly in NZ law I don't think that is possible to say with a straight face.
I am getting this?
You are happy to bring in new discriminatory law to aid transwomen, or anyone who says they are, but not for bio women? What are the 'damn good reason and with a hell of a good substantiated argument' for the bringing in of laws in favour of transwomen? Is this some sort of guy thing.
At first glance it seems awfully like the old fashioned misogyny or sexism that many of us have had to put up with since the year dot.
You cannot see the contradiction here?
FFS: What new law? Please provide a link to the bill and the section of the bill that you have an issue with.
I keep an eye on legislation and bills. I’m not aware of any that do this.
The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill would be the nearest – and all that does it allow changes to birth certificates.
Then tell me clearly how that affects whatever you're talking about.
Like when was the last time you were asked for a birth certificate going to a toilet? Are they required to detirmine which prison you’re in?
Personally I haven’t seen my birth certificate in a couple of decades. Until now – I just dug it out.
Gee Lprent this discussion about the flow on effects of the BDMRR bill/Act have been on here for several years. Many of us made submissions etc at the time. It is exactly this bill now act that allows open slather.
Just because it may be law does not mean the concerns of women have been 'magicked' away. I remain concerned, both from a physical but mainly from the point of view of an older Women's Rights 'stager' concerned at the erosion of women's rights.
As it has been the subject of such huge debate both here and other places I am feeling less and less like explaining it chapter and verse yet again. if you have been following the concerns, you will know. I am not going to get into semantics or history for you so you can use this to throw disdain on women's concerns.
Rest assured though that women remain concerned, we meet, we invite other well known people to address us.
If you look at our concerns from the point of view of Women's concerns you will get a better idea of where we are coming from. As Weka said
‘But self ID as a social change has definitely changed things for women. This is why KJK is so controversial, she says that TW aren’t women. It shouldn’t be radical to say that.’
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here Lynn. The Romans were fairly patriarchal in regards to women's freedoms and rights, and they brought those values to Britain.
On the matter of public toilets, women's toilets came into being in the late 1800s so that women could take part in public life (they couldn't use public toilets that were for men for obvious reasons).
The term for the restriction is the urinary leash. It's also the term used now by trans people.
Most of the public bath houses excavated from Roman times (like those in Bath or Pompeii or Rome) were not sexually segregated. Many of those were clearly family bath houses. The distinctive difference between those and what were clearly bathhouses for private brothels is pretty dramatic was in the size and the contents of the frescoes.
Most were used by romans on a daily basis.
I simply picked this as one obvious historical example to refute The_guy's assertion.
But you didn’t refute it, because mixed-sex spaces and single-sex spaces can and did exist at the same time in the same society.
As I said (I say patiently). I wasn't interested in refuting your statement I was interested in pointing out that there are societies with differences to your confident assertion.
There have also frequently been non-segregated public spaces. I find it rather hard to imagine that predatory males are really that much of a problem when Romans of all genders mixed naked in pools – often on a daily basis.
Many weren't weren't exactly small umm… Note the scale on the floor plan
This public bathing system persisted not only during the western Roman republic and empire, but also during the long life of the of the Eastern Roman empire (ie the Byzantine empire). Since the combination of those regimes lasted for about 1700 years, it rather puts history of the mostly unbathed post-western empire barbarians of places like the UK in the shade as an example.
European barbarians (as the Byzantine Romans viewed them) only managed to get back to public toilets and regular bathing in the late 18th and 19th century.
Just as a matter of point, if that was what you were referring to, the private brothel bathhouses weren't usually single sex either. Nor were they frequented exclusively by male customers. At least by what is in the frescoes and the accounts of historians and writers of the time.
But of course the historians and writers of the period are kind of suspect. They were usually what we would probably describe as propagandists and often paid for ridiculous flattery.
What appears to have been somewhat rare in the areas with roman citizens during the republic or empire were single sex bathhouses.
Your extensive knowledge of Roman baths is noted. But your argument seems to be “because mixed sex spaces exist, sexual predators will never attempt to access single-sex spaces with malicious intent”
Or maybe that’s not what you are saying? To be honest it’s hard to follow your argument.
100% Stuart Munro
Your human right to a belief in a "gender identity" lives in the same box as your human right to a belief in an "immortal soul".
What you will not find in that box is a right to demand that others not only share your belief, but also constantly affirm your chosen identity, and accommodate that identity at the expense of their own safety and wellbeing, and the safety and wellbeing of others.
Apart from using the non word 'woke-ism' (see the posts in this thread from Macro, Visubversa and Shanreagh)
What marks the impact of this thread down the topic from the many that have been on TS is that yet again no-one is listening to what women are saying.
Not one person has answered the fundamental question.
Why do womens rights to go about their lives quietly including those parts
have to give way, yet again, to the rights of men.
Visubversa has summed it up well
Human rights for any group should not come by smashing the rights of others. That is not how civilisation works.
Rather than being wise about human rights and pondering…'on the one hand this or that' could someone answer the fundamental question women have been asking please.
How can we give rights to the trans community that do not trample on the rights of women.
Having answered this question clearly and honestly we then come to the query OK now how do we move forward accommodating and recognising both points of view? We might have to make adjustments but surely this follows the answer to the question above
I would prefer that this question (above) was answered.
I am the only one who finds the arguments in the leading post unenlightening? Surely after all this time, after all the wise words etc we should have moved on to recognise and listen to and understand that women and their arguments cannot just be batted away with the same old same old arguments that have been arrayed from the start?
It it getting to the stage where I say
batter yourself against a brick wall
when reading these arguments……so unchanging, so lacking in recognition.
Whenever I hear the slogan ‘trans women are women’ I think of Nick Cave’s song ‘God is in the House’. There’s the same sense of repeating a mantra with increasing desperation to ward off the fear of what will happen if they’ve got it all wrong.
So, let’s look at what would happen if an inner sense of wanting to be a member of another sex had not translated into corresponding changes to our laws?
Firstly, we’d not be facing the disruption to our ability to collect accurate population data. The Orwelian consequences of changing sex on birth certificates means we now have no way of knowing ourselves as a society. Our lawmakers and social policy analysts need a factual break down of population statistics not distorted figures based on individual’s quasi-mystical sense of being other than what they are.
We would stop being dehumanised as women. We are not ‘cervix or vagina-havers, birthing bodies or menstruaters’. Women who have been raped do not want to face the excruciating scenario of referring to their attackers as ‘she’ or worse – receiving rape counselling from a male-presenting trans person.
Gay women would not be being pressured into having to agree to relationships with trans-women despite their clear preference for same-sex attraction.
Women would regain their agency in sporting competitions. Women and girls would reclaim their right to single sex areas. Male bodied adults could no longer self-identify themselves into women’s private spaces.
Medical professionals could get back to the business of treating the underlying reasons for teenage depression and gender dysphoria instead of pushing hormone blockers and radical surgery onto vulnerable young people.
Most importantly though, society could refocus on solving the universal issues of climate change, poverty and mental illness.
Exactly. I am so tired of extremely contested philosophical / religions positions being presented as objective facts about the world.
I'm really sorry, but this article just puts forward a bunch of waffle and bad statistics. It feels like an article from 2018, because all of the arguments put forward here have been addressed so many times.
AND PLEASE. Please. Please. I am genuinely begging here: Please educate yourself about the responsible way to discuss and refer to suicide. Decades of suicide research tells you do not do the thing that people of your ilk do repeatedly.
Do not constantly present suicide as a normalised and expected outcome. Don't. Just stop. Because decades of suicide research tells us that if you constantly present suicide as a normalised and expected outcome, you will create more of the thing you are trying to prevent. Stop it. It's dangerous and irresponsible.
And that's before I get started on the statistics you quote. Please give us the original source of those statistics, not Stonewall. I would not uncritically accept stats on carbon emissions from BP. It's a basic tenet of life: don't uncritically accept data from interested parties. And given the repeated and rampant abuse of data that I see in this space, it's reasonable to ask for original sources. So give us the original source of those stats, please, because Stonewall does not
completely agree about the suicide issue. It's inaccurate, dangerous, and trains GNC kids to think of themselves as fragile and/or damaged.
The post I think is actually not bad by left wing bloke standards. I see a willingness to learn and balance trans and women's rights that is often missing from left wing male positions. There are some problems with the post and I agree that the lack of good referencing is one of them because so much of what happens in the gender/sex wars is people repeating stuff that has no basis in reality.
Let me simplify things for you.
And when you accept the right, the absolute, undebatable right, of women to say "No", to set boundaries, then the whole thing falls apart. Women are allowed to center themselves, most certainly when it comes to the definition of "woman".
So that's it: the current iteration of Trans Rights is not compatible with the rights of women. Which is a shame, because we do need a sustainable model of trans rights.
So, please. Go back to the drawing board. Acknowledge the rampant data abuse, the lack of objectivity, and most importantly acknowledge the real and ongoing harm being done to kids. With the best of intentions, "pray the gay away" has been replaced with "trans the gay away" and LGB kids are suffering.
Once you've done that, please come back and present a model of trans rights that can actually work and does not trample on the rights of women and the bodies and minds of LGB youth.
that's one of the best concise descriptions I've seen of the issue. Thanks.
Ok so please listen to women. But also do not quote Stonewall who represents the other marginalized group(s) we are talking about. Not all trans people are men to women btw.
On the issue of suicide, I take the point about presenting it in this way. However, it is clear that the trans community is disproportionately represented in facing mental health crises.
My attempt was to present the issue in a balanced way. This is a debate where we need much more discussion and willingness to listen and learn.
the problem with the Stonewall quote is that it's based on very poor research.
One of the consequences of No Debate (that no-one should critique trans rights politics, promoted by Stonewall and taken up by large parts of the left) is that there isn't enough good research being done. People are afraid to speak, and putting in a neutral research funding request probably puts people's careers at risk.
Your post was earnest and far from the worst I’ve seen. It’s just that it recycles talking points that have been repeatedly demolished by women. Which comes back to the whole “listen to women” thing, which it seems we agree on. So that’s progress.
Yes Nick and sorry. Your post is/was an attempt but women listening, looking and participating in this for the last 'zillion, million years' feel we should be further forward with recognition of our arguments and accommodating trans people.
Nothing good comes from asking already marginalised group to add to their feeling of being unsafe out in the community. The heavy lifting seems to be put on women's shoulders.
I think this is because no-one looking at the issue has ever answered the queries:
Are you able to look at the query from this angle please?
How can we give rights to the trans community that do not trample on the rights of women.
I am unsure what rights trans people don't have that they want.
I am interested to hear.
there's an obvious conflict of rights over toilet provision.
What are the rights that trans gender people seek then re toilets?
I am hearing it as the right to use the public toilet of their gender, not there sex.
I think That guy on this thread puts it well when he says No means no.
But like disabled people had to lobby for disabled toilets, then let them lobby. for their own toilets.
it's not hard to understand that a trans women who lives in a place where they are at risk from transphobic men in men's toilets has difficulty finding somewhere to pee and poo. Women can hardly argue for single sex spaces on the grounds of dignity if they deny this to TW. I'm not saying TW should use women's toilets, I'm saying this is an area where there are clearly trans rights issues.
Yes, I agree, trans people should do the mahi to get society to provide appropriate services, and not at the expense of women.
Disabled toilets are designed for the benefit of people with disabilities, who use wheelchairs or have other complex needs.
Your demand suggests transgenderism is a disability. It is not.
here's another example then. Women created refuges and rape crisis centres. Trans people can do the same, create their own refuges and rape crisis centres. Hell, women would help them do it.
Instead, there are TW taking women's hard work and safe spaces and telling women to either fuck off or learn how to manage their trauma better and deal with their rape PTSD alongside males in the same space.
There are places in the UK now where there are no longer any female only rape crisis centres. Stop and think about that for a minute.
Since 1990 trans people have been legally allowed to use the bathroom that matches their gender at schools and workplaces. The applicable laws are: New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990, ss 5, 19, Human Rights Act 1993 s 57, and Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.
Sorry, I'm not going to read three whole Acts to try and parse your evidence.
By gender do you mean gender identity?
We know that there have been societal changes since the 90s. Without asking women. Which is why there is now a war. Had we been asked we would have helped design solutions that work for women and trans women.
It's not evidence, it's the laws in question, the 'conflict of rights' has been legally 'solved' for 30+ years.
By gender I mean gender. I thought sex and gender shouldn't be conflated?
Are you now advocating for the removal of these rights from transpeople?
2. ok, you can't explain what gender is.
3. not sure. Mostly I want an open, transparent and fair debate that allows women to become informed of the issues and to speak freely. I trust that in NZ we would work towards finding resolutions that work for women and trans people.
Will all hell break loose on 15 July 2023? Maybe, but this law change is a far cry from the "any man can identify as a woman at any time" rhetoric.
War – what (and who) is it good for?
Times change – too fast for some, not fast enough for others.
Gender identity self ID is a sociopolitical change as well as happening in legislation (BDMRR). The law makes some things easier for trans people (good), but it also empowers the sociopolitical changes. What's changed is that now any man can say they are a woman at any time and they are to be treated as such. That's social. And it puts women at risk in a number of ways as well as removing rights.
The war I referred to is much bigger than the BDMRR. But the BDMRR plays its part. I've written about it here. https://thestandard.org.nz/the-problems-for-women-with-sex-self-id-in-law-and-society/
One of the things that's happened in the UK is that it's taken a huge amount of time, energy and money from women to push back via court cases, tribunals, submissions, grass roots meetings, etc. Women have lost their jobs, careers, family and social connections, they get targeted by police at home, arrested for nonsense reasons while they're also getting targeted online with some of the most sustained and worst misogynistic sexualised violence I have seen.
So I'd rather not be patronised about the war thanks and have it minimised in the way you just did.
Some of what doesn't happen in NZ is because of women elsewhere standing up and doing hard work on these issues. But it's absolutely fucked that women have to be so on the back foot over this.
But is it true? Will they "be treated as such"? Responses to what anyone says and does (where and when) are social too.
I regret that you found my questions about what/who this "war" is good for, and the likely consequences of NZ's new law, patronising. My concern is for two teenage relatives (assigned female at birth and not (as far as I know) activists at this time) who could conceivably be casualties of an escalating war of words. Still, sticks and stones…
And, if Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull is indeed an anti-transgender rights activist, then I can only hope that she isn't also agin my niblings.
I hope they won’t be treated as such. TW are TW. Have a listen to this TW, esp the second vid where they talk about being a TW, different from a woman, and proud of who they are. This I can get behind. It’s respectful of themselves and of women.
But self ID as a social change has definitely changed things for women. This is why KJK is so controversial, she says that TW aren’t women. It shouldn’t be radical to say that.
tbh, I don’t easily parse all your links and formatting and often don’t read them, just read the stuff at the start. In this case I didn’t know what you were meaning. I was explaining why there is a war and you replied with a bunch of links and questioning what a war is good for. None of us want the war, we’re in it because there’s no current way out.
However, when you say something like this,
it’s easier for me to understand why you are saying something. Yes, young women are casualties in this war. Some of them end up with lifelong disabilities from unnecessary medical and surgical interventions.
The wikipedia on KJK is appallingly bad. There are plenty of ways to understand her politics (whether you agree with them or not), but that’s not one of them.
@Drowsy M Kram
"My concern is for two teenage relatives (assigned female at birth and not (as far as I know) activists at this time) who could conceivably be casualties of an escalating war of words. Still, sticks and stones…"
I understand your protective stance for your teenage relatives who – unless they have some very rare form of DSD – had their sex observed at birth.
Young women – regardless of whether they have a gender identity or not – are growing up in a very sexualised environment.
Access to hard core porn is available to anyone with internet and the click of a button. Societal expectations of healthy sexuality are a far cry from what previous generations were exposed to.
Many women – not all – will be able to relate to a discomfort with their changing bodies through puberty, the mixture of embarrassment and the associated external litany of unwanted sexual comments from men and boys.
Most of my peers went through an extended period of baggy clothing and extra layers while adjusting.
The environment is vastly different now, but there is a new improved way of covering up and avoiding the unwanted sexual attention from men.
If you get a chance – do read Abigail Shrier's book:
Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters
She goes over many factors that MAY explain the exponential increase in teenage girls and young women opting out of womanhood. (But they remain in women's bodies)
As a non-conforming ex-teenager that was uncomfortable during puberty, I can empathise with your young relatives. Presented in the right way, by the right people, the idea may have appealed enough to me to choose a similar solution.
But from all that I have read about the lack of evidence for benefit from transitioning, and the familiar accounts from female de-transitioners, my concern is that the solution they have been offered is a poisoned chalice.
I hold only empathy for them.
My disdain is reserved solely for the supposedly responsible adults in the institutions and governments that push for the social and medical transition of young people while ignoring the mounting evidence of harm.
If being against this kind of unevidenced medical treatment of minors is “anti-trans” – so be it.
KJK in that respect is “anti-trans” and so am I.
(I left the “treated as such” discussion, because it has been covered multiple times on this post. Maintenance of single-sex provisions is not discriminatory.)
Appreciate the advice weka and Molly (+ Sabine.) As previously indicated, my ham-fisted 'discuss and dissuade' efforts with the older nibling were unsuccessful (spectacularly so) – they could read me like a book. So I'm cut off/out – probably for the best.
Get occasional updates from their mother – they're both still in school and (appear to be) doing well.
I became persona non grata due partly to being unable to get my head around the fact that my older nibling had a fundamental objection to being a "young woman". Once I would have been absolutely certain that they were in denial – now I'm not so sure. It's been an eye-opening personal experience.
Maybe they're simply pawns in this “war” – maybe they're something more. I can only hope they're happy.
@Drowsy M Kram
"Get occasional updates from their mother – they're both still in school and (appear to be) doing well."
Bugger. Sorry to hear that. Still recommend the book though, a lot of good information there for and about transitioning young women.
A couple of other links that may help with insights:
Helena Lacroix: Detransitioner – Substack
The ROGD Teenager: A Profile
By Any Other Name
And not directly relevant, but food for thought:
A review: The Rise of Victimhood Culture
References you have given:
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990:
Sections 5 and 19:
Note: 19 (2)
I don't know what you are referencing in regards to the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.
This confusion regarding legislation was one of the main reasons that many wanted clarification whether there would be impact on sex-based provisions before any legislation was passed. That request was ignored.
I think what you are ignoring is the provision – also within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – for the retention of provisions of single-sex spaces. Categorically not considered discrimination.
Thanks Molly for deciphering that bit of legislation.
So my reading of it Molly is that Arlie’s assertion is quite disingenuous
Stonewall has turned its back on the same sex attracted people it was founded by and for. These days, Nancy Kelley called lesbians "sexual racists" for not being interested in "girldick". It is solely a "trans rights" organisation with its last fig leaf of pretense fluttering in the breeze.
The trans community do have high rates of mental health disorders. At the Tavistock Clinic that was recently closed down due to safety concerns including the affirmation only approach, showed that these kids had high rates of autism, trauma and other mental health problems that were all being ignored. Social and medical transition were being fast tracked and these kids now have irreversible damage. Someone posted a link below about a trans m to w who speaks about this process and the damaging consequences for them
you have nailed it. Thank you
My thanks, also.
Having done ten seconds of googling, I have some notes about that "45%" statistic. It was derived from a self-selected online survey of 27 people. The author of the study has been contacted (sourced in the link at the end of this post).
Further examples of extremely dubious statistics and interpretations:
and in case anyone thinks this kind of bullshit is an anomaly by Stonewall, it's not. Their reputation should be in tatters by now, so the question is why it's not. That's a question for lw genderist allies. The rest of us already know.
It's at least partly because it takes 5 seconds for a journalist to find a statistic but at least half an hour to check it (and that's assuming that the journalist is statistically literate). So bullshit propagates across the web a lot faster than reality, and before you know it there are obviously dodgy statistics being taken as facts.
Thanks again That guy. You have saved me the trouble of providing links to debunk a lot of what the trans activists say.
First of all Nick, I am grateful for your article as I think you do attempt balance.
Some points I would like to make.
1. Sex is binary. Its not on a continuim. Every single person on this site is alive because of a female ova and a male sperm. Judith Butler, the American philosopher who wrote Gender Trouble, claims sex is a social construct. This is patently untrue.
2. Gender is a word that has been used to mean many different things from French verbs to stereotypical sex roles. I don't believe, nor is there any evidence that such a thing as a gender identity exists. However people are entitled to this belief, much like they are entitled to believe in God.
3. Kids should be free to evolve as the individuals they are. I think there is a lot of nature involved ( I grew up with a sister who was a tomboy who in her 20s came out as lesbian while I loved dolls and frilly dresses).
4. Women are vulnerable, because we are smaller and have less muscle mass than men and are more vulnerable to be raped. We fought hard for our own spaces and our own competitions. The double rapist who was put in the Scottish prison was one of a number of sex offenders who self id and ended up in Scotish women's prison. Research shows biological males who identify as women have a similar criminal profile as men, although they have higher incidence of sexual offending.
5. Speak Up for Women is a group of mostly leftie feminists who had geniune issues with gender ID. Contrary to the smear campaign against them, they merely wanted for the current situation re changing of the sex on your birth certificate to stay the same, i.e. a family court process. The vilification of these women and the attempt to shut them down has been extremely damaging. A feminist group who wanted to hold public meetings in libaries to discuss a piece of legislation that impacted women had their meetings cancelled. They had to go to the High Court to allow them to hold their meetings.
6. The School Curriculum, which from age 5 teaches kids they can be born in the wrong body and that there are (approx) 30 genders is planting ideas that you can change your sex into the mind of very young kids. Gender dysphoria is a very serious mental health problem. The NZ media is not publishing what is happening overseas regarding what is being found with the experiemental drugs and surgery on theses kids. Men who geniunely want to live as women are entitled to do so, but it is a decision that should be made and supported in adulthood.
7. The suicide rates of trans kids have been vastly overrated by Stonewall (more accurate figures come from Tavistock and I can supply a link if requested).
I have to say the worse thing for me personally about this whole debate has been the cancellation and the vilification of women such as myself, who I believe are making reasonable points. I thank the Standard for being one of the few places where gender critical women can be heard
Excellent, excellent points Anker.
Nick are you able to take Ankers first two points nd then answer at question based on my view below (italics and bold)
How can we give rights to the trans community that do not trample on the rights of women?
Above in one of my posts you can see the things that many women are concerned about. There are others as well in this excellent topic including basing anything on unreliable statistics etc.
Thank you That-Guy and Shanreagh: well said.
Why is it so difficult for some men to understand that women have fought for years to live in a society with a level of bounderies for dignity, respect and feeling comfortable to go out, work and use public facilities.
Why does Nick Kelly think women need to step aside to have men, claiming to feel like a women can take places in sport and walk away with the price money (BMX NZ).
And this: live press conference about 'medically transitioning children!
I read Nick as saying that sport should set up non-binary sports rather than TW competing against women, but it is ambiguously written.
I am actually not sure what is being said or agreed with but for the avoidance of doubt transwomen should not be able to complete in events with bio women except where the are no issues of advantage by the TW because of male sex hormones/genes. I guess games involving brains as opposed to brawn are fine – bridge, darts? snooker? or billiards? (don't know about these or if they have divided sports. )
So no Lia Thomas's in women's races.
I have a suspicion that Nick may not understand autogynephilia. That is the reason why "gender neutral sports" and "gender neutral bathrooms" will not solve the problem. Autogynephiliac men will walk past a gender neutral bathroom to use the women's room – because that is what gets them off. They are sexually aroused by the thought of being women and are on a constant search for "validation" of their being women by being in women's spaces. competing in women's events, doing "traditional" women's things. They have menstruation fetishes, pregnancy fetishes, lactation fetishes etc. All these require intrusion into women's spaces. That is the object of the exercise. The fact that most of them are sexually attracted to women makes it even more dangerous.
So, you can witter on about making safe spaces for trans people all you like. The truth is that is not actually what they want. They want our safe spaces and nothing else will satisfy them.
I was punching the air when he said "This will be the medical scandal of the decade" because that's literally and exactly what I've been saying for years, in exactly those words.
I agree yet again that guy. It will be the medical scandal of the decade. You only have to watch the video clips of the detransitioners to realize how much this ideology and Gender affirming care has and will continue to ruin young peoples lives.
And now this. If anyone is under any illusions that the trans movement is a progressive one please wake up!
#Don'tLetWomenSpeak is apparently a topic on which many agree:
Note what's happened to Moira Deeming across the Tasman:
Sydney Morning Herald in 2021 sums up Deeming's campaign platform for a city council position, and has a surprisingly rational discussion about womens' toilets and transgender access. Deeming is now a Victorian Liberal MP, but that party of wokeness (not) is just now planning to expel her for her participation at Posy Parker's Melbourne rally.
Apparently Deeming 'chose to celebrate' the presence of neo-nazi protesters at Posy's rally in social media, rather than distance herself. Too hot for even the Oz ilLiberals to handle.
He's not saying she chose to celebrate the presence of neo Nazis, he's saying that she didn't disown them and afterwards was celebrating (presumably the event, on the post even KJK youtube).
Women speaking after the event:
Still enough to get kicked out of the Victorian Parliament. She is some sort of replacement for another ilLiberal MP who was himself kicked out for dismissing abortion for rape victims. So she hasn't even been voted in yet. Poor her, dropping off the Oz political gravy train.
Read elsewhere in the article. The Liberals' leader, Pesutto, 'said it took his team about 20 minutes to investigate the organisers’ links to extremist groups, so he “can’t be satisfied” Deeming didn’t know about their associations.'
If it took them 20 mins, maybe you could valuably spend that time looking up PP?
Do you even know what the links are? Why don't you name three and we'll examine them.
One of the things that KJK does is refuse to engage with guilt by association. So if a man at LWS asks for a photo of with her, and later it turns out he's a proud boy, she doesn't comment on that.
If you want to say she's a Nazi sympathiser, or is an extremist, please make the actual argument.
I have problems with a fair amount of what she does, but I can actually explain what those problems are rather than just relying on secondhand smearing.
Linked here to source, which you appear not to have seen.
And now PP's visa entry to NZ is under review:
Honestly, Posy Parker is not a nice persona, with a few REALLY not so nice opinions.
should we ban people with not nice personas and not nice opinions from entering the country?
Oh, did I say that?
hard to know, that's why I asked. You comment came right after you linked to Immigration reviewing her visa.
I am a gay socialist and a long-time member of ALRANZ, the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand. I support radical feminist initiatives against rape and incest, and I also support transgender equality.
This puts me at odds with gender critical feminists, with whom I have several difficulties. One is their apparent obliviousness to intersectionality, and the reality that institutional racism and colonialism blights and destroys the lives of whakawahine, fa'afafine and faikaleite. At times, it seems as if gender critical feminism deliberately ignores the lived experiences, oppression and injury that they undergo. Some younger lesbians, Maori and Pasifika feminists that I've spoken to argue that resurrecting the anti-transgender trope is a way to reassert power and differentiate themselves from younger lesbians, their needs and their different political formation as well as the reality of contemporary political debates around institutional racism and colonialism.
The other is the question of the somewhat fraught alliances gender critical feminists seem to be willing to make with those on the political right. Why do some of them seem to feel that they have to associate with conservative Christian opponents of transgender rights when the latter have repeatedly attacked the work of radical feminist opponents of rape culture and child sexual abuse, when the Christian Right has failed to take decisive steps against perpetrators of rape, incest and pedophilia within their own ranks and when the US Christian Right is engaged in a fascistic crusade to deny even ten year old rape and incest survivors access to reproductive freedom?
At Posie Parker's Melbourne rally, the far right engaged in violence against trans rights protestors and their left allies. Some of them saw fit to engage in fascist salutes. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with denying her access to this country. As for 'left' opponents of transgender rights, their rhetoric reminds me of the Stalinist and leninist cod Freudian homophobia that prevailed until the sixties and the rise of the New Left. It didn't impress me then and when it comes to transphobia today, it still doesn't impress me. Such rhetoric is associated with an archaic premodern, prescientific framework that dates back to Thomas Aquinas, Augustine and Aristotle and its 'natural law' dogma. It has no place in progressive political debate.
Funnily enough, there are increasing numbers of women sick of blokes lecturing us about intersectionality. I think intersectionality matters for TW too, I just see this as an issue for trans people, and men, to sort out instead of making it women's problem.
At times, it seems as if progressive men deliberately ignores the lived experiences, oppression and injury that women undergo. Seriously, how can you argue solidarity politics while ignoring what many women are saying?
What is the anti-transgender trope? This is classic gender ideology debate. Make accusatory assertions but don't explain (thanks No Debate).
Which gender critical feminists? Kellie Jay Keen isn't a GCF. There are definitely feminists in the US who work with the conservative right and it's a problem that GCFs outside the US have been addressing for a long time. Why feminists might work with fundamentalists is an important question related to No Debate and the use by the left of ostracisation and cancel culture against women. This also explains the rise of Posie Parker/KJK.
What's the connection between PP/KJK and the Nazis? Afaik the group that marched don't support PP and were there to target the trans rights activists.
KJK should be making a public statement against the Nazis. She doesn't for reasons I partially can understand but disagree with. NZ actual GCFs have been speaking about this in the past day. Have you been listening to them?
KJK is a populist conservative women's rights campaigner. She regularly attacks the left and gender critical feminists. You appear to be confused about what the positions and politics are in this fight.
Speaking of homophobia, gender identity ideology now pushes the idea that genital or sex bodied preference is transphobic. Lesbians and gay men are now expected to have sex with people of the opposite sex. That has no place in progressive political debate or sane society.
KJK, stage name Posy Parker, is a provocateur who is virulently anti trans. She hangs out with the Proud Boys, and also expresses racist ideas. In 2018 she said that "women who call themselves men should be sterilised". I accessed the quote, and her links to her racist friends via the Greens official request to bar PP's entry to NZ.
Not exactly joined up thinking there.
The Men In Black have published a statement to why they were there, and it was NOT in order to Let Women Speak:
(You'll have to visit the link to read the full statement which includes plenty of images and tweets, but I've chosen some of the references to Let Women Speak below)
Tweet from the same organisation on the day here:
The Australian Jewish Association has also issued a statement on Facebook:
Plenty of videos available, none of which support your assumption.
Let me ask gender critical feminists about the nature of some of their tactical and strategic alliances with the likes of Family First. Bob McCoskrie believes that abortion access should be prohibited in this country after six weeks. He refuses to support White Ribbon initiatives against violence against women. The anti-abortion movement wants to impose parental interference barriers to prevent access to reproductive rights for adolescents, and is silent about the prevalence of rape and incest in young women's lives. During the eighties and nineties, the Christian Right repeatedly attacked statistics and forensic work from radical feminists that exposed the true and hideous provenance of child sexual abuse, in both the United Kingdom and Aotearoa/New Zealand.
It's not only Family First, though. Remember Graham Capill? Yes, him- the former Christian Heritage Party leader who was jailed for six years after serial rape of three young women. And one of the organisations opposed to US transgender rights is the Alliance Defending Freedom. One of its lawyers, Lisa Biron, trafficked her own daughter to two Canadian pedophiles and is now serving a prison sentence for it.
If one sups with the devil, then be sure to carry a long spoon. Better yet, perhaps a three metre barge pole would be more appropriate.
"Let me ask gender critical feminists about the nature of some of their tactical and strategic alliances with the likes of Family First. "
You can ask and some may reply in good faith.
Personally, I don't understand why women have to explain to others the behaviour and perspectives of men.
A range of people across the world have come to the conclusion that biological sex matters and that caution is required when medicalising children. Does that mean that they automatically share other beliefs?
The other concern that I have from this quarter is the absence of firm evidence that trans women are a real and present danger to cis womens welfare and security in changing rooms, public lavatories and elsewhere. During debate on Canada's federal transgender rights legislation, a Liberal Party Senator asked for factual information about real and substantive cases of sexual assault. There was none, from any jurisdiction that has outlawed discrimination against trans people on the basis of accomodation, employment and service provision.
This all sounds hauntingly familiar. It reminds me of moral panics against other vulnerable groups, similarly based on media exaggeration and amplification from conservative opinion formers which then snowballs into legislative restrictions and sanctions against already oppressed groups. In the past, these have included lesbians and gay men, sex workers and adolescents. Can you blame us for mistrusting the gender-critical movement based on those perceptions?
and yet women have been collating this evidence for years. Please stop and think about why you might not be aware of that.
Self ID means that any man can identify as a woman at any time and should be treated as such. For many women it doesn't matter if that male is transsexual, trans, or a man lying, the risk of violence from males exists. I've not seen any evidence that demonstrates that TW don't have male pattern violence, nor even any credible theory on that. The onus is on society to demonstrate there is no risk before removing women's rights, not the other way around.
I will link to examples as I find them, but there is already one provided in the post, are you ignoring that?
I have looked at everything that has been published or linked to from here. Speaking as someone who deals with data all of the time, it really isn't statistically significant. For a starter there is no baseline.
You may be correct. But the evidence is limited there as well. Like this…
A better comparison would be relative to the propensity against males as a whole, and relative to other statistical populations like some sub-groups of women prone to violence.
However any analysis of that kind would probably point to to making sure that men should never be part of families because of the risk of violence.
Instead all I see are singleton instances scattered across the whole world. Like this.
Which was in Scotland. I can't even recall a serious documented singleton similar incident here recently. It would be presumably some kind of assault, or indecent behaviour that hopefully should wind up in court. Perhaps you should start documenting those because they'd be a hell of a lot more convincing to locals than something that happened in Scotland where we have no sway.
And that is the crux. You cannot prove that any legal rights for women have been removed. That appears to simply be just bullshit. There is legislation or regulation that has been removed – point to it.
What you appear to be asking for is some kind of new legal right. BTW: to me it is bloody hard to figure out what is being asked for. Perhaps you'd like to make a stab as what 'rights' you're after or wanting to get 'recreated'. In the latter case could you please link to where it disappeared?
What you appear to upset about is other people trying to change conventions in their favour. Certainly not laws or rights.
Rights are the kinds of thing that you find in the Bill Of Rights Act or in court decisions balancing multiple asserted rights against societies laws. Laws are in our legislation or court precedents.
Mostly as far as I can see what you're looking at changing are actually based on rules, bylaws, and policies made by operators and owners of properties for their convenience and consumers.
Local councils, sporting bodies, schools, prison authorities, and a multitude of other organisations and individuals making decisions about how to manage their property and facilities.
So what should be targeted is how to get them to change their policies. For that you'd also require evidence of a actual verifiable problem here and in their facilities. That is because others can and probably will lobby them as well.
They will require evidence. That is because eventually they will be aware that someone has to set a legal precedent in court. In the absence of verifiable evidence of systematic material harm, the case will come down to actual rights – like those in BORA or the remaining common law. Most of which are about removing discrimination based on what someone could possibly do rather than what they actually do.
That is a stiff legal barrier to reach because all of our legal system is about dealing with what people actually do, or verifiable safety issues. The latter are things like letting kids, drunks or the blind drive cars. Letting untrained practitioners perform medical services.
Mostly we have some carefully (usually) considered legislation also based on extensive evidence to support those. Where we don't, (think of the ill-considered Three Strikes legislation) it doesn't tend to survive as legislation for as law for too long.
Trans identified males harming women thread (this includes TW as well as men pretending to be trans). I will preface this by saying that I don't believe that all TW are predatory. In the same way that I don't believe all men are predatory. But we restrict men's access to women because some men are predatory and women cannot tell ahead of time which are and which aren't. It's the same with TIMs.
Isla Bryson, mentioned in the post, self IDed into women's prison after raping two women and self IDing as woman while on remand.
Women in prison are often rape survivors with PTSD. Being housed with men is unfair, being housed with rapists is torture.
Please educate yourself on male prisoners self IDing in women's prisons. Women have been working long and hard on this issue esp in the UK and US.
Plenty of evidence out there. But don't rely on the MSM to publish it. For example – the NZ Herald referred to Toko Shane (Ashley) Winter as a woman and showered him with female pronouns all through his trial, conviction and sentencing for the sadistic torture and murder of a young woman. Fortunately – he is now in Paremoremo prison where he belongs.
However "Pandora Electra" is in Springhill women's prison despite his conviction for a violent knife assault against his former female partner and two other people and his "Prision Onset Gender Dysphoria."
"This Never Happens" keeps the records. So does "Trans Crimes UK" and a host of others.
Gather evidence to show a systematic problem. Concentrate on what actually happens rather than fears of why might happen. Target the policies of the facilities or institutions with evidence about what has happened.
Nice. Perhaps some links? So others can look at the sites. But build a case for change rather than some of the bull I keep reading on this topic.
So have they done violence since they entered Springhill? Because that is the action you and others appear to be trying to prevent.
How many other genetic women have been incarcerated in our women's prisons for a violent assaults. Have any of those done violence inside women's prisons. That sounds like a comparable statistical population.
Plus of course actual local evidence weighs a damn sight heavier for changing facility rules and court decisions than the highlighted overseas cases.
afaik the pattern of violence in TW matches men rather than women. I've linked elsewhere in this thread to a submission made during some UK govt hearings (PDF).
The trans identified males that we are hearing about are those who have committed violent crimes. Afaik, most women are in prison for non-violent crimes (in the UK they put women in prison for not paying their TV licence fee ffs). There's also a difference between physical and sexual violence.
One of the important differences based in sex is that women can get pregnant. This separates out female on female crime from male on female crime for obvious reasons.
"Gather evidence to show a systematic problem."
All very well and good, but was that done before changing single-sex provisions that had been based on statistical safeguarding evidence?
Where has someone gathered evidence to show a systematic problem for men with gender identities using men's facilities?
"Concentrate on what actually happens rather than fears of why might happen."
What has actually happened to men with gender-identities – or have we been told to fear what may happen?
If such evidence had been collated, how would it hold up in comparison to the benefits for women of single-sex provisions?
"Target the policies of the facilities or institutions with evidence about what has happened."
I find this particular line of reasoning quite abhorrent (especially following no collating of evidence of harm to men before assuming woman's boundaries could be broken on their say so, or not even acknowledging that women's benefits in single-sex provisions should be considered and given weight).
The request for women to collate the evidence of harm to women now that the boundaries have been broken without thought or evidence – puts the harm and abuse of women below that of the demands of men.
How many incidents will warrant a change of view?
"The other concern that I have from this quarter is the absence of firm evidence that trans women are a real and present danger to cis womens welfare and security in changing rooms, public lavatories and elsewhere. "
Are you also concerned about the absence of firm evidence that men are a real and present danger to transwomen's welfare and security in changing rooms, public lavatories and elsewhere?
Because the evidence for both exists, and when compared it is predominantly in favour of the maintenance of single-SEX provisions.
Also, women can just say “No” perhaps for reasons of privacy and dignity, but also because it should be accepted without argument.
Provision for categories – which often exclude those who are not in the category – is not automatically discrimination.
Those with transgender identities retain the access to the provisions made for their sex category – thus – they are neither excluded or discriminated against.
Absolutely. No justification or explanation should even be required. Since when did "no means no" become a contestable point on the left?
100% That guy.
That is what shocks me about the left now. Women being told they need to just bunch up and roll over to accommodate men.
We don't have to justify not wanting men in our spaces. No means no.
"No means no", as far as I am aware is part of a campaign fighting rape and educating men about rape. How and when did it become used by GCFs against transgender people needing to use bathrooms?
Is the assumption all transgenders rape?
no, the assumption is that trans women and trans identified males rape at the same rate as men until proven otherwise.
The point no means no became used in debate about toilets is probably where TIMS started masturbating in women's toilets and posting it on SM.
Who is TIMS? I can't keep up.
It pretty bad when an anti-transgender movement highjacks a rape awareness campaign message for their own ends.
It dilutes the original message and associates it with intolerance.
sorry, trans identified males. I use it now to refer to males who call themselves women because there are more than just traditional transexual women under this umbrella. Some of those men are lying. eg I'd call Isla Bryson a TIM to differentiate him from someone like Georgina Beyer.
It's not anti-trams movements, it's feminists. FFS. Actual feminists and women, which you would know if you started paying attention. Women are allowed to say no to a range of things, it's not just limited to rape.
A differentation between transwomen such as GB and the self ID TIM's (use small s) is useful.
I think so. I didn't use the term for a long time because it seems to be mean to TW, but at some point we have to be able to use language effectively to describe important issues.
Part of my anger today is having to roll out all those examples of sexually offending TIMs, because some lw dude is blind to the evidence and whose ideology blocks him from going and seeing for himself. But I'm acutely aware of what it must be like for TW to see debates like this and I know that the far right and bigots are using the same material to hate on TW.
True. And the irony of this issue is that as part of the transgender rights vs standing up for women feminists conflict includes transgender activists turning on (some) TW and calling them TERFS (and in one case a NAZI) for becoming transsexual and not being PC in the cause.
From 1 hr 25 min compares her experience to that experienced within feminism in the 1970's by Jo Freeman.
Actually, I am not aware of Gender critical women using no means no.
That guy used it on this thread today and I thought it was good.
Women have a right to say no to men in their spaces. End of story. Many men, particularly left wing men seem to think they don't
'No means No' is a programme educating EVERYONE about what consent looks like, not just men regarding women. As a woman, there were a couple of times I questioned myself, was my behaviour sexual harassment, or if a man who said yes to sex initially wasn't so happy continuing? (Apologies for caps shouting, some formatting buttons don't work for me.)
Weka, the problem with your argument is that you assume that all feminists support gender critical politics. They don't. Certainly the feminists that I have worked alongside within ALRANZ for the last forty years don't. And because of the fraught and ill-advised alliances with the Christian Right that some gender critical feminists have entered, there is a gulf between the feminist reproductive rights movement and gender critical feminists as a result.
I am concerned about the failure to address intersectionality in your argument as well. So a homeless, shivering fa'afafine or whakawahine teenage street sex worker is somehow a tangible threat to a pakeha/palagi middle-class radical feminist professional in sports medicine? How, exactly?
Finally, Weka, you display breath-taking naivetie. The far right contingent were there because they are also anti-transgender. They deploy convergent rhetoric to gender critical feminists and yet they consist of rabidly anti-feminist men who are frightened of assertive women who don't kowtow to them. Posie Parker has attacked Black Lives Matter activists herself. And I would suggest that you need to read some more about Parker supporter Liberal MP Moira Demming. She's a conservative Christian who has attacked the Safe Schools LGBTQI+ protection programme, supports anti-LGBTQI+ conversion therapy, wants to ban abortion even when it comes to rape survivors (who should 'turn to god' instead and backs the anti-vaccination lobby. So she supports womens rights, does she? Could have fooled me.
“Also anti transgender”
no Craig gender critical women are not anti transgender.
we are against an ideology that says sex is on a spectrum and is a social construct. and that there are dozens of genders and require us to change our language ie to remove the word women and use pro nouns.
if you have worked in ALRaNZ surely you can’t believe sec is a social construct.
Good words Anker.
Also sex is a biology & I doubt that Alranz believes sex (male/female) is a social construct. How do people get pregnant? As you said Anker, ova and sperm carried either by a male or a female that are joined.
Gender is a social construct. . Gender we can call ourselves anything we want as it is a continuum.
No, I don't. Please don't tell me what I think. This matters for the debate, but as an Author here I take a hard line on not making stuff up about authors' arguments or beliefs. Feel free to ask me about anything I say if you need clarification.
Besides, it's incredibly patronising to tell a feminist that she is unaware of what different feminists think. I'll also point out that many women are afraid of speaking up on this issue because they would risk their jobs, careers, and social life. So there are organisations with strong genderist positions where we know that there are women with those organisations who disagree but aren't free to say so (eg Labour and GP).
Wut? No the homeless male would be potentially a threat to the homeless female. Obviously the person you have in mind needs help. See if you can imagine helping them without sacrificing women.
I consider KJK to be transphobic in the classic sense. She's clever about hiding it, but she's a social conservative. But the women speaking at LWS are often lw, progressive feminists and politicised lesbians. What's the common ground between them and the neo Nazis in Melbourne?
citation needed. Because I'm seeing them distance themselves from both KJK and feminists (again, KJK is not feminist and not GCF).
Conservative women have their own ideas about women's rights. What you seem to be missing about LWS is that it's there for women. Not only the women you agree with or approve of. I disagree with a fair amount of what KJK says as well as some of the women speaking. But I absolutely support their right to stand in a public space and say what they want to say. The stuff I disagree with I will disagree with and argue back against.
In the same way that Māori politics transcends traditional L/R politics, so does women's politics. If you want to argue against women having their own politics, (which you seem to be doing), then have at it. But you can't do that and claim any moral ground around progressiveness or intersectionality.
Weka, the problem with your argument that trans women somehow represent a threat to cis women in particular settings appears to be based primarily on moral panic rhetoric and tactics. If that is the case and there is widespread abuse of such facilities, why is it that it does not appear in statistical settings rather than anecdotal media accounts? Do you really think cis male rapists and abusers of female children need to go to the extent of gender masquerade to attack women? No, they don't. That is because sadly, rape culture is pervasive within patriarchal societies. It is cis het men that are the real threat in this context, not gender variant individuals or groups.
I'm not sure you're actually here for answers, because you keep making statements about "lack of evidence" for subjects where there is lots of evidence that is rather easy to find. One example (ten second google):
Fundamentally you seem to be suffering from a common problem: you haven't listened to women.
Still waiting for an answer to Weka's question:
Which women? There are numerous feminists and lesbians who oppose gender critical ideology, rhetoric and moral panic tactics. The pro-choice movement doesn't support anti-trans politics, for instance.
Gender critical women obviously.
Tg linked to a UK site written by women. Did you read it?
Here's NZ left wing GCFs (actual ones) on LWS.
"The pro-choice movement doesn't support anti-trans politics, for instance."
1. Any movement is not a hive mind. The only declarative statement you can make about the "pro-choice" movement is that they are "pro-choice".
2. What is "anti-trans politics" to you?
Added to which, as a gay man, I really don't like the rhetorical approach of sexualising existential threats. In our context, it has resulted in the legitimation of homophobic violence, assault and homicide due to mythology about pedophilia, when pedophilia is a predatory paraphilia and predicated on children regardless of gender. I repeat, it isn't trans women you have to worry about. Violence against women is perpetrated by cis heterosexual men and they don't need subterfuge like gender masquerade to attack women. Have you considered that demonising trans women conveniently lets the real perpetrators of misogynist violence off the hook?
“I really don’t like the rhetorical approach of sexualising existential threats”
I have to understand what you mean by this, before I address whether the rest of your paragraph supports it.
What do you mean here?
To explain that in more detail- it basically means arguing that groups or individuals you don't like somehow represent a tangible sexual threat to you based on nothing more substantial than folk mythology or anecdote.
I think the idea that men are a tangible sexual threat to women is based on a bit more than "folk mythology or anecdote". And that statement is extremely patronising and dismisses the lived experience of women. Some men are sexual predators. Can you explain to me how to tell the difference between a sexual predator who is exploiting a loophole and a real transwomen?
Because nobody else seems to be able to do it.
Thanks for explaining, although it's not a well constructed lead.
It's a very flimsy and frankly – convoluted – assumption to make, let alone assign to women who say "No" to men – regardless of identity" – in provisions made for women based on their sex.
Would you include trans women who have been raped and sexually assaulted in men's prisons in that context, because some gender critical feminists seem to ignore the very real risks posed by gender inappropriate incarceration to those women?
I would expect the male prison estate to keep them safe – like any other vulnerable male prisoners. (eg. Very young adult offenders, men with mobility issues, men who are effeminate, men who have FASD, men with mental incapacity, etc, other men who have been sexually abused who do not have gender identities, men with high medical needs)
I would support any provision of a unit within the male prison estate similar to this one:
I abhor the arrogant acknowledgement of the reality of the biological sex factor in this particular instance, being used as an excuse to put men in the female prison estate. That includes men with declared gender identities.
The responsibility for their care belongs in the male prison estate.
Not in the known safety factor of women prisoners.
Really, how condescending and really also 'how dare you'.
You come here mansplaining what females should think with the barely covered thought 'if they had a brain' . Our thoughts are not anecdotes, our thoughts are folk mythology. Our we not able to keep ourselves safe?
You have all the moves as they say but none of the compassion.
Have you considered that nobody here is doing that? Have you listened to the argument? I'll put it simply:
Sexual predators sexually predate. There is no way to tell the difference between a sexual predator who is exploiting a loophole and a real transwomen. Until there is, women have the right to maintain protections that they have fought for for centuries, preferably without having men mansplain to them that the things they think are important aren't actually important.
As I've pointed out above, sadly, the fact of the matter is that it's cis het guys who are the real and substantive threat to women's health and safety and they don't have to enter spaces like women's changing rooms or toilets to do so. Rape culture exists. It is prevalent and trans women aren't the real threat. Again, where is the tangible, substantive statistical hard data to prove that they are?
"Again, where is the tangible, substantive statistical hard data to prove that they are?"
Any statistic regarding violence based on sex – INCLUDES men who have a self-declared identity. (In the same way it includes men in wheelchairs, men with mobility issues, men with mental incapacities). Because SEX and GENDER IDENTITY even if they deliberately use the same words – are different categories.
That_guy has kindly provided one reference for you, but plenty of substantive hard data based on sex is available if you choose to look.
Once again, Mr DoAsISayNotAsIDo:
Can you link to "substantive hard data" that men are a real and present danger to transwomen's welfare and security in changing rooms, public lavatories and elsewhere – so that we can do a comparator on sexual assault risk?
You seem to be completely unaware of other reasons for sex-based provisions like privacy, dignity, risk of voyeurism and exhibitionism and the issue of consent, so we will stick to this one topic for now.
I agree, predatory men don't have to enter spaces like women's changing rooms or toilets to do so, but just because they don't have to doesn't mean they won't. Like I said: predators predate, and they will exploit loopholes. And they have, repeatedly, as many women on this site have pointed out to you, repeatedly. I suggest you start listening to the experiences and thoughts of women.
1. All over this site in multiple links
2. Why are women constantly being asked for ever-increasing levels of hard data.. which they then provide.. but nobody is asking for hard data on the extraordinary claim that men can turn into women?
Craig, who the hell do you think you are telling women who they should have in their public spaces including toilets and change rooms.
Sick of providing you with well reasoned arguements.
Yes, I have. I think that men in general are much more of a threat simply because of the numbers. But I've yet to see any evidence that TW and TIMs are not also a threat. What makes you think they are not?
There is the matter of statistical evidence. Don't you think that if trans women were engaged in assault against cis women on a major scale, that would be reflected in law enforcement, mental health and other statistical measurement of offenders? What do those statistics tell us? That cis/het men are the overwhelming majority of perpetrators. Therefore, it is they who should be held accountable, face justice and incarceration for their actions and be educated to no longer harm women. Otherwise, it's just rhetoric and moral panic territory.
Reasons why we don't know definitively:
Can you point to substantive examples of tangible professional practice where this is indeed the case?
where which is the case?
Here's some well documented Evidence and Data on Trans Women’s Offending Rates
transcrimeuk.com also tries to record these incorrectly coded male crimes.
here's a KJK video from 2020 that motivates her project.
"As a gay man?" Craig – I bet you are as interested in "mangina" as I am in "ladydick".
You are supporting an ideology that denies the reality of same sex attraction. We are homosexual Craig, not "homogenderal". And yet our Human Rights Commission and others defines us out of existence in the name of Gender Ideology.
And violence against women is mostly perpetrated by MEN. Men who say they are women are still men and there is plenty of evidence as quoted above that they retain male patterns of violence. There are plenty of heterosexual men these days who say they are women – most of the autogynepiliacs for a start.
There's also the use of alt-right rhetoric like "woke", "mainstream media" and other terms that I am concerned about. For the record, I have a long record of standing in solidarity with feminist activism when it comes to rape, child sexual, lesbian parenting rights, economic inequality and reproductive rights. If woke means undertaking critical analysis and providing evidence-based proof that discrimination and oppression exist on manifold fronts, too damned right I'm 'woke!' And frankly, I wouldn't be caught dead near pond scum bottom feeder outlets like the Pratform or Reality Challenged Radio.
That said, I have spotted some locla gender critical feminist activists distancing themselves from Posie Parker over the last few hours. Good on them. The fact of the matter is, Parker hangs around with far rightists. She damages the credibility of your argument and cause.
Here's another one from the UK where KJK is from. Note the date.
Around here I try not to use the word woke and I try not to read it. We had a discussion on TS yesterday about woke and so we wake up first thing to find a paper 'Gender recognition: woke-ism or human rights'…aaaagh
Craig Young we all have blind spots. It takes courage to own them, allow for them and learn about them.
Your blind spot is how women think, what they are about. Your words sound sexist and condescending. I have fairly well developed sexist sensing antennae, I've had 50 or so years of practice at ferreting out this stuff.
Why can you not accept that many women feel worried or concerned about this, mull it over and then see if there is a middle ground. We have already had the No Debate issue and so something like this is not going to work.
So just for the sake of the discussion, what if the women here were correct in fearing men, any man, in formerly safe women spaces. What would we do to reassure them, what protections would we put in place?
Are you able to turn the tables on yourself and see it from this angle?
"Alt right rhetoric like woke, mainstream media that I am concerned about"
Really? Mainstream media is commonly use by people on the left as well as the right.
"If woke means undertaking critical analysis". There appears to be many definitions of woke and so I have stopped using the term because the debate focuses on the word.
The things that bother me most about modern day discourse is the smearing of the messenger (e.g transphobes, racists) rather than concentrating on the arguement and the cancellation of people.
Posie Parker was running a let women speak event, because many of us have been smeared and cancelled. The men who turned up in black and gave the sieg hail have nothing to do with that. Mana Wahine Korero speaking on Racheal Smalley's radio show this morning completely distanced let women speak from this group of men.
Hey GC people, can you please drop any links in reply to this comment that show TW or TIMs harming women. I want to show Craig what we've all been looking at for all this time but that he seems to be unaware of.
and again, this doesn't mean TW are predators. It means that TW have potentially similar rates of male pattern violence against women as other men, and it means that predatory. men will in fact pretend to be women to gain access to women.
In this link are many examples violence, often sexualised violence, being directed at women online by TW.
Evidence and Data on Trans Women’s Offending Rates
A trans woman who groomed and had sex with a 14-year-old girl, making her pregnant, has been jailed.
Transgender prisoner who sexually assaulted inmates jailed for life
Barbie Kardashian. Not for the faint of heart this one.
Recent incident in UK high school that should be an expected outcome when dealing with teenagers, when single-sex spaces are relinquished:
Worth looking at the article so see the injury sustained.
Males accessing women's single-sex spaces for prurient reasons, will give you thousands of hits when using an internet search. Exhibitionism, voyeurism are often monetised.
I'm going to link to an account I reported on Twitter because the profile tweet was of the person masturbating in the communal sink area of a girl's public toilet facility while young girls were present. It was removed, but I can't recall receiving a notification from Twitter re my complaint. I couldn't look at many of the posts but the person has a linktree account with other platforms if you wish to see male-patterned behaviour retained by a man with a trans identity.
This is not a one-off.
There's multiple considerations in this video, including the womenface, and identification of womanhood as "small brain" etc.
Skirt-Go-Spinny had this version of What is a Woman long before Matt Walsh:
What about trans women who are survivors of rape and sexual assault? It's ironic that we're talking about this in the aftermath of Georgina Beyer's death. Georgina herself was a rape survivor, she participated in Take Back the Night marches in Wellington and always supported the work of organisations like Rape Crisis and the HELP Foundation. She's not the only trans women who have endured and survived that. Sadly, during the Prostitution Reform Act debate in Parliament, she referred to trans women in her profession that didn't.
what about them? Because in my politics trans women should have specialist rape and sexual abuse survivor support services. Why the fuck are you here arguing against women when you should be out there arguing for better services for TW.
Any thought for trans men who've been raped?
Or teens girls who are committing to life long medical dependency and disability because they've been raped and can't stand being in a female body and people like you are telling them to cut off their breasts and they will feel better. Oh, you haven't heard of detransitioners either, or you consider them a statistical anomaly like the women that have been raped in prison by TIMs.
Well no one who is gender critical endorses the rape of anyone (and btw a man who identifies as a women was convicted of raping a man in Dunedin. Will try and find the link.)
I am sorry for anyone who is raped, but as That guy said "no means no" re women defending their spaces.
Its not up to women to roll over and allow males into their spaces. It is not just rape women fear in a change room. Women in a state of undress don't want biological males around, however they identify.
And a question for you……should a man naked with his penis out be allowed to be in a change room around women and girls?
Georgina Beyer was not a 'transwomen', but a transsexuel. The big difference that they go through all the steps to appear more like a women, but never forget they are born male and will always be male. -Transsexual voices matter (UK ) – object to the trans-movement inclusion of them as ‘transgenders’.
Nor have I, in the years I'm following this, seen a transsexual being reported on sexual abuse of women or children.
Which can't be said of adult man who THINK of themselves as women, but know they are not, which makes it such an exciting fantasie, sexually that is. And a lot of women don't want to be part of their game – that is so frustrating, isn't it.
GB felt she was a girl from the age of 5, their only path was via being a transvestite then transsexual because society would not recognise them as transgender women. The gender ID movement fought for that right.
Sure the Transsexual voices matter (UK) and the LGB groups have formed separately from LGBQT+ because of issues with the gender ID movement.
That sounds like a definition of them as the acceptable ghetto transsexuals who never claim womens ID and know their place (so 1950's).
Most of the more recent transsexuals identify as transgender women, confusing them with self ID exhibitionists or auto gyno philiacs is a slur.
And given that I've raised the question of Georgina, perhaps gender critical feminists might want to explain the overwhelmingly white nature of their movement. I repeat, in what way does a shivering, frightened homeless whakawahine/fa'afafine teenage street sex worker present any sort of threat to a middle-class pakeha gender critical sports medicine professional or athlete? And the point here is that many gender critical feminists appear to try to be making excuses for Posie Parker (while, granted, some are not-and again, good on them) despite the events that occurred in Melbourne this weekend. Those anti-transgender neofascist men are not allies of feminism and no friends to lesbian communities of whatever political provenance.
Of course they do not pose a threat – however the arguement that says that because they exist – no trans identified person does pose a threat is a crock – and dishonest at the best.
And those Pakeha middle aged women you sneer at probably spent (as I did) a lot of our younger years raising the funds for women's refuges and rape crisis centres. They did not spring up like mushrooms after rain – women founded them, financed them, and worked in them. And may still do.
It's a massive inferential jump to argue that just because of some cases, an entire category of people should be subjected to potentially harmful discrimination on that basis. Especially when there are alternative explanations available.
It is a massive dishonesty to present one example and say because of this any and every man who claims a female identity is beyond reproach. Safeguarding is safeguarding – there are no sacred classes.
"…an entire category of people should be subjected to potentially harmful discrimination on that basis…"
Single-sex provisions are based on the category of sex. The provision is for members of a sex category, so excludes ALL people not within that category be they male or female.
"…potentially harmful discrimination.."
Not discrimination according to the provisions of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 S 43 (1) .
Potentially harmful according to whom?
Georgina Beyer, herself, apparently was concerned about the current approach to dialogue regarding policy and legislative changes.
Unfortunately, second-hand so it cannot be confirmed, but does indicate there may be a problem:
The whole tribute is worth the read.
Many women have repeatedly pointed out that the current activism would impact on the current unforced empathy and acceptance given to transsexuals. They are another group who have had their category co-opted.
There is little else shared between Georgina Beyer and Alex Drummond of Stonewall other than their biological sex:
Many gender critical women are against prostitution and would lobby for the Nordic model to be adopted in NZ.
"The overwhelming white nature of their movement". Craig tune into Racheal Smalley on today FM I think talking to a representative of Mana Wahine Korero. Aside from this what evidence do you have that gender critical women are predominantly middeclass white women? Why should race be relevant to this issue
Those are indeed serious cases and as perpetrators of violence against other women, they need to be held accountable for their crimes. However, the question is do other cis women also brutalise and sexually assault other women? Given that Aotearoa/New Zealand's rape legislation is gender neutral, yes, that must indeed be the case. Perhaps it is the case that female perpetrators have specific aspects of their psychological and biographical histories that represent dangers to other women, regardless of gender identity?
Earlier, I mentioned US Christian Right ADF lawyer Lisa Biron, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Biron
You know who else argues that 'women do it too' when we're talking about MVAWG? Mens' Rights Activists. Whose the Nazi now?
Rape law in NZ is only gender neutral is so far as to take account of gender identity. It's still a crime by someone with a penis.
However the law is written, it doesn't turn women into rapists.
Yes, a small number of women sexually assault other women. That's an important issue, but it’s a different issue from MVAWG, so I'm not sure why you bring it up other than your apparently pathological need to somehow make out that TW are pure and detract from the evidence we've been presenting that TW have similar rates of sexual offending as other men.
Yes, but as you've acknowledged, some cis women do rape other women. It happens. Is it a separate issue, or are there common biographical and psychological markers that could be utilised to prevent cis and trans women perpetrators from vicitimising other women? How do you know that isn't the case?
Note, I am not arguing that trans women are pure or without blame in regard to this. Clearly, some are not. Neither are some cis women. However, many are. And trans women can be and are victims of sexual assault and abuse as well. That's why Georgina Beyer gladly supported the work of feminist anti-rape activists.
No, women can't rape under NZ law. They can commit sexual assault, but rape is a crime by someone with a penis. Technically a trans man could be convicted of rape if they had a surgically constructed penis, but you're talking about cis women so no.
You're basically now arguing that women and TW are both sexually predatory despite the evidence presented to you about the male pattern violence of TW and TIMs. This is exactly the argument made by MRAs. It's bullshit and illiberal.
It's really easy to argue for the wellbeing of TW without throwing women under the bus like this. But here you are doing the opposite.
I doubt that you intended this, but in the context of this conversation you basically just said that once women have been raped, the TW should be held to account. Zero comment about preventing the raping of women, but instead some bizarre theory that women are sexual predators too.
We've heard it all before. Women prisoners are the collateral damage, oops, sorry, another women raped.
Wow, that's somewhat insensitive to women who have experienced female same-sex rape, isn't it? How do you know that doesn't happen? Cis women are perpetrators too. Shouldn't vulnerable trans or cis women be protected from them? Do they share characteristics with trans women perpetrators? It's a legitimate question.
FFS, women cannot rape other women. I've linked you to the legislation already. They can sexually assault them, but rape is a crime by someone with a penis. Almost always a man, sometimes a TIM).
It's not a legitimate question just because it's something floating around in your misogynistic brain.
TW have their own experiences, stop trying to make out they are the same as women's and start helping TW to live their lives as themselves. And as a man, take some goddamn responsibility for male violence against women and stop running MRA lines to feminists in a progressive space.
"women are perpetrators too."
Yes. No-one I know has denied that here.
However, sexual violence statistics based on SEX show the likelihood of such assault from a women is about 1/20th in comparison to a man.
Craig it is time for you to stop your what about ism, they do it too etc, etc.
Many many women don't want biological men in their spaces no matter how they identify. That also includes women on the left who are pro choice, christian women, women who are Pakeha, Maori and other ethnicities. Women who vote Labour, Greens, Act National etc, etc.
You have an absolute cheek trying to dictate who should be in women's spaces
Weka, gender dysphoria is a legitimate medical condition that can be remedied through hormonal and surgical treatment. It is legitimate because it is corroborated through cumulative medical and scientific research related to the appropriateness of the diagnosis. And frankly, I think you also need to realise that lesbians and gay men have been antagonised by the grandstanding that gender critical feminists undertook against the Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill, given that lesbians and gay men have died or faced serious injury due to self-harm and suicide due to denial of the mainstream medical and scientific consensus around sexual orientation. And gender identity.
Yes GD is a legitimate medical condition. I haven't said otherwise. I've pointed out that some young women transition because they're sexual abuse survivors or have other trauma and then later regret the transition. Some women transition because they're lesbian in a homophobic society and they can't stand it, so don't talk to me about conversion practices until you can be honest about the whole thing.
How many detrans women have you listened to?
Craig Young I think you need to get out and about with women a bit more so you know how we think and what our concerns are.
I would never dream of saying what the concerns of gay men are with such forcefulness yet you seem to think that it is OK for you, as a man, to let us know the concerns of women…without the slightest bit of a tentativeness or 'how can I learn from these concerns displayed.
This is what many women are up against and to be honest it frightens many of us.
Just a tip people don't need to do anything.
Just for the exercise are you able to put yourself in our shoes and advance our argument for us. It may open some pathways to see where we are coming from.
Craig, there are a number of bodily dysmorphia conditions. However there is only one of them that now demands to be treated with off brand chemical castration and/or sterilising surgery (most of which is subject to very high complication rates). It is a software problem – not a hardware problem, as the growing number of detransitioners are demonstrating.
The UK, Sweden and Australia are rethinking such treatment for children and young people.
what is know about children with gender Dysphoria is that around 80% of then desist and many come out as gay.
Someone mentioned Jill Abigail above. I'm afraid the fact that she cited a fundamentalist Christian 'detransitioner', Walt Heyer antagonised a lot of lesbians and gay men who oppose conversion therapy precisely because of that. Or don't the lives of lesbians and gay men lost to anti-LGBTQI+ conversion therapy matter to you, Weka? Oh that's right, I'm 'pathological', aren't I? Interesting use of medicalised homophobic rhetoric, that.
Yes, I would call incessantly arguing that women can rape and that women sexually assault other women like men do, in an attempt to somehow not talk about male violence in TW, pathological.
Please link to where Abigail talks about Wal Heyer so we can see what you are talking about.
" Someone mentioned Jill Abigail above. I'm afraid the fact that she cited a fundamentalist Christian 'detransitioner', Walt Heyer antagonised a lot of lesbians and gay men who oppose conversion therapy precisely because of that."
Quoting someone in context, is justification for removal from an organisation?
Can you link to this heinous crime?
Nothing comes up in a Google Search so I'm assuming it was a video or something in person.
I mentioned Jill Abigail. Glad to see you are against the travesty that is conversion therapy based on sexual orientation. It’s vile and wrong.
But unfortunately, when you replace “pray the gay away” with “trans the gay away”, you are still doing the same thing: telling LGB kids that there is something wrong with them. Some of them are genuinely trans, with genuine GD, and may genuinely benefit from transitioning as adults. But a substantial proportion are just LGB kids.
The “pray away the gay” kids ended up with horrific psychological scars. Awful. But what’s happening now is worse, you can’t reverse mastectomies or sterility.
Mark my words: this will be the #1 medical scandal of the decade.
Well Jill may have used a fundmentalist christian detransitioner as an example. I think the point would have been that the person transitioned and then changed her mind, with enormous life altering consequences that can't be reversed.
Jills job wasn't to put in a submission that wouldn't antagonise others.
Thank you for sharing this and bringing much needed balance to the debate as the issue is not black and white. Those that live on the fringes of society occupy the gray spaces that few people ever experience.
There is little balance to this discussion.
(As you can see, someone is mentioning Roman baths at great length when talking about the single-sex provisions in modern NZ.)
"Those that live on the fringes of society occupy the gray spaces that few people ever experience."
Poetic, but does this actually mean anything?
That you need to ask suggests you have never occupied these spaces and I personally found the article well balanced.
That's not joined up thinking Trey.
A vague but poetic comment remains vague.
Trey is talking about the experience of the disenfranchised unseen by many. Disenfranchisement can be in many forms.
The form of disenfranchisement Trey speaks of is transgender people feeling threatened, vulnerable, and unwanted because they lack access to things others take for granted, safe spaces and facilities.
Another form of disenfranchisement is the lived experience of a much larger group, long term renters and renting families in New Zealand who also feel threatened, vulnerable and unwanted because they lack access to things others take for granted, something as basic as housing security.
People occupying conservative privileged positions often assume they are conscious of others' experience and pretend compassion, but as always with them, protecting private gain always outweighs social consideration.
I'm assuming Trey can speak for themselves, but thank you.
"The form of disenfranchisement Trey speaks of is transgender people feeling threatened, vulnerable, and unwanted because they lack access to things others take for granted, safe spaces and facilities."
A couple of questions for you, who has replaced vagueness with generalities:
1. Are feelings always justified?
2. How do they lack access to things others take for granted?
3. What is your definition of "safe spaces and facilities"?
That's 3 questions.
Yes, it is three questions. Should have changed when I split the second into two. Thanks for the correction.
So, let's check if there are three answers.
1. No. Not an answer. The actual answer can only be No.
2. An attempt at an answer, strangely to Q 1. Nothing to do with lack of access, only to do with FEELING comfortable about existing access. So another non-answer.
3. Not at all. How can "safe spaces and facilities" be provided if they are not defined?
So, despite the extra opportunity to answer – we end up with 0 for 3.
Thanks for trying.
I feel like LGB youth are being thrown under the bus, because it's 2023 and they are being told (in large numbers, through a variety of sources) that there is something wrong with them that needs fixing.
I feel horrified by this.
I feel like women have lost control of the definition of the word "women", without consent, with a range of negative consequences in life and law.
I feel horrified by this.
Are my feelings justified?
If they aren't justified, aren't you showing “a lack of compassion?” (your words).
It depends is you are marginalised. Are you marginalised?
It depends on whether LGB youth and women are marginalised. Because I'm allowed to have feelings about rights that aren't mine and that aren't about me. I thought this was what "compassion" meant. Am I wrong?
Or am I not allowed to have feelings about the rights of LGB youth and women?
If I am allowed to have feelings, are they automatically justified, or not?
If they are not, by your own words, you're showing a lack of compassion.
If they are, then my feelings are justified.
I notice you have erased the T from LGBT. Why is that?
there are LGBTQI+ organisations and movements and there are LGB organisations and movements. People choose which they want based on their needs and desires. Do you have a problem with people organising around sexual orientation?
I noticed you're not answering any of my questions. Why is that?
For the record, I excluded the “T”, not “erased”. I acknowledge the existence and rights of trans people, and believe that GD does exist and that transition is sometimes the right thing to do.
I just think the LGB and the T are different categories, that’s all. And I also only included LGB because it’s only LGB kids who are being told things that are damaging.
Telling a T kid that transition might be a good idea in the future, as an adult? Fine by me.
Well, it looks like an erasing at worst and at best an othering by dividing out young trans people and setting them aside. These ideas can only be more damaging for them.
Why would it "look like that" when I've given an explanation why it's not like that. Which I will patiently give again:
I excluded (not erased) the T from the LGB because there is no problem telling a T kid that transition might be a valid choice (as an adult). So the T kids are not being told incorrect things.
But the basic problem that nobody has solved is this: it's not that transition helps nobody. It's that nobody can tell reliably who it's going to help and who it's going to hurt before chopping away.
Now, I've patiently engaged with you and answered your questions in good faith. Isn't it time for you to do the same? So I'll repeat:
Am I allowed to have feelings about the rights of LGB youth and women?
If I am allowed to have feelings, are they automatically justified, or not?
How odd. Yesterday you insisted any attempt to change the definition of a group must come from within that group, yet here you are ejecting trans youth from their own community.
edit, will have a look. FYI putting That_guy into the search engine yield zero results.
Do you understand the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation? Do you believe that trans people shouldn’t have their own identity, organisations and movements as well as LGB people, or is it just LGB people?
No I'm not. That's a bizarre interpretation. I'm simply saying that they have some shared needs and priorities but some different needs and priorities, otherwise there would be no need for separate letters in the LGBTQIA+ .
Your lack of compassion and concern for the rights, bodies and minds of LGB youth has been noted. Your inability to listen to the concerns of women (a marginalised group) has also been noted. Are you sure you're a progressive?
And you still haven't answered any of my questions.
This was the comment @4 where That_guy asked:
Yet he has redefined a marginalised group by excluding trans youth (the T) from the LGBT community.
I notice in your link here LGB Alliance Australia do the same thing by dint of theta organisations name, so perhaps it's a wider issue of some homosexual groups excluding transgender people.
Another thing That-guy did @4 which I though was alarming is to appropriate the anti-sexual violence slogan, "no means no" to use in the argument against transgender people using the bathroom of their gender. To me it promotes the idea all transgender people are a threat.
thanks for the link. Next time please supply that at the time of commenting.
If you want to run an argument about another commenter’s views, please make the argument rather than just repeating the assertion. There have been multiple responses to your LGB without the T assertion for you to engage with.
Yes, there are whole movements and organisations around LGB without the T, or L without the T, or get the L out. There are solid reasons for that related to the cotton ceiling and the need to have spaces, organising and politics for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people based on sexual orientation.
Here’s a recent example. If you have a problem with this, then please explain your thinking.
I suggest you educate yourself about the amount of violence including sexual violence that is directed against women by either trans identified males, TRAs, or trans allies. There’s a lot. Non means no is absolutely an appropriate thing for women to be saying. It doesn’t mean all trans people are a threat, any more than saying no means no to men means all men are a threat. This is really sex politics 101.
No. I have not. As I have explained. Twice.
And yet I and many others on this thread have repeatedly said that this is not the case.
So far in this discussion, you've repeatedly, deliberately and maliciously misconstrued what I said in a lame attempt to win an argument you're losing. While I've patiently attempted to engage.
Call me paranoid, but I'm starting to think you're not here for a good-faith discussion. I have feelings about the rights and bodies and minds of LBG youth, of trans youth, of women. Different strokes for different folks. And, so, I'm not responding further. I'll let some of your friends (with cool hair) explain something to you:
Can't stop the feeling!
They were talking about the post. Which despite some problems I do agree is more balanced than what we often see from left wing men here.
I think the quote means a few things. One meaning I took from it is that GNC people are overly represented in those spaces on the fringe that aren't so well known and carry difficulty not often appreciated by the centre of society. But I would like to have heard what Trey means.
I look at the different groups protesting in Melbourne. It is pretty clear which side are my people.
I have a close relative who spent the second half of her life as a woman, married to a man. Any rules that would have denied her access to a toilet or other women's spaces would seem to be very wrong.
I find it very hard to understand why people who are otherwise compassionate are very dismissive of trans rights. In my experience trans people are amongst the most vulnerable, and most abused-against people in society.
I know it is not all cut and dried. There are (isolated) cases of people who abuse any freedoms. However I fail to see how discriminatory laws provide any real protection.
Transsexual males were accommodated in many women's single-sex spaces because of compassion and empathy. (But note: that inclusion would still have resulted in exclusion of women who for whatever reason could not, or would not use the same facility that had a male present. So there was already a cost to women.)
Single-sex provisions are not discriminatory. They exist because considerations around privacy, dignity and safeguarding determined that the separation by sex, provided the best outcome for all.
Male transsexuals only make up 5-13%, of men who declare themselves women.
Self-ID will probably reduce that number even more, as it is females who are the greater demographic.
"Any rules that would have denied her access to a toilet or other women's spaces would seem to be very wrong."
I consider it wrong to call men women because I think accurate language matters. Particularly when that sexed category needs specific political advocacy, and precise language in medicine and statistics.
I use the term social contract to emphasise that there are no rules or gatekeeping at many single-sex provisions. There is just a recognition of the social contract. Those who choose to use a single-sex provision allocated to the opposite sex, are prioritising themselves over all members of that sex. It is fundamentally disrespectful of the sex that they claim with their gender identity. Whether it is male or female.
"I find it very hard to understand why people who are otherwise compassionate are very dismissive of trans rights."
What rights are you referring to here?
"In my experience trans people are amongst the most vulnerable, and most abused-against people in society."
Actually it's often children. Our appalling violence statistics give that weight. Your experience is not supported by data or evidence. They are fragile personalities, and often have co-morbidities. Surveys often register misgendering and wrong pronouns as acts of violence. Some even have entries such as someone looked at me too long. These co-morbidities should be explored and given specific support. We also fail transgender people if we fail to do so, and instead provide them with "gender affirming healthcare" instead.
"However I fail to see how discriminatory laws provide any real protection."
Once again – single-sex provision is not discriminatory.
men who have raped women and are convicted can identify as women in order to be housed in women's prisons with women where they can rape and intimidate again. Some of those are TW, some are men. Women prisoners are often survivors of rape and sexual abuse with PTSD. Housing them with men is a kind of torture. Women prisoners are having to organise contraception.
This is already happening.
When you frame this as 'isolated' cases, it comes across as saying that a 'few' women being raped is just the price to pay. But it's not just a few women being affected.
The solution to the prison situation is to house vulnerable men and TW in specialist units. There is no need to place TW in women's prisons. So why are men arguing for women to pay the price instead of changing how prisons are managed? That's not a rhetorical question, I actually want to know.
I am in agreement with lprent – Prisons are unsafe places. You can't make women's prisons safe by excluding a group of people (some of whom might be violent). Putting trans women in a men's prison is also putting them at risk.
Putting all self-identified non-cis people together in a group and calling them unsafe is not significantly different from racial profiling.
This statement can only be made by someone who ignores statistical evidence based on sex.
"Putting trans women in a men's prison is also putting them at risk."
Are you concerned about all vulnerable male prisoners like the ones I defined above: (eg. Very young adult offenders, men with mobility issues, men who are effeminate, men who have FASD, men with mental incapacity, etc, other men who have been sexually abused who do not have gender identities, men with high medical needs).
Because they should ALL be kept safe in the male prison estate.
"Putting all self-identified non-cis people together in a group and calling them unsafe is not significantly different from racial profiling."
Note: You've excluded (as is often the case) women from this group.
UN rules charter recognises the value of sex-segregation in prisons.
The Mandela Rules also recognises the humane benefit of segregation:
Also, note that women with gender identities are accommodated in women's estate, not shifted anywhere else. Why is this? Could it be due to the biological sex differences in violence, and that other women prisoners are never going to hold the same risk?
Why are you not advocating for specialised units – such as this?
"You can't make women's prisons safe by excluding a group of people (some of whom might be violent)"
Some of whom might violent and sex offenders Barry.
The solution is simple. Open a separate wing in a mens prison for trans prisoners. Lord knows there is a collection of them now.
"I look at the different groups protesting in Melbourne. It is pretty clear which side are my people."
At the same time:
I'm young (22), Maori and wahine takatapui and I disagree with white 'gender critical' feminism's viewpoints about whakawahine and tangata ira tane. There's a lot of bad faith going on when it comes to the fact that Maori and Pasifika feminists have very different views about gender and sexuality boundaries compared to pakeha. I've seen Maori wahine MPs often attacked for those views, such as former Labour MP Louisa Wall. Whakawahine means like a woman and whakawahine are brought up by whanau like the women they are to all intents and purposes. Some wahine takatapui 'kuia' tell me their opinion is that these white lesbians and 'radical' feminists who ignore the question of Maori and Pasifika genders, gender identities, colonialism and institutional racism in this context are resentful of the power they lost over other lesbian and feminist lives when intersectionality became a feminist concern after the early 1980s.
And now we come to the issue of Posie Parker. I've been told that some gender critical feminists in Aotearoa are now expressing concerns about this woman. The fact is, Parker has a track record of associating with white supremacists and other such individuals. She did an interview with Jean-Francois Gariepy, a Quebec white supremacist and opponent of indigenous Canadian rights and then tried to backpeddle:
Then there's the harassment of Mridul Wadhwa, the trans woman who heads up Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. It actually forced that rape crisis centre into lockdown due to harassment and intimidation from GCFs. Is this 'standing for women?" How?!:
She also associated with a far right fundamentalist Christian group, Soldiers of Christ:
In the United States, she held a meeting with the Centre for Bioethics and Culture, a conservative Christian anti-abortion, anti-lesbian/gay group:
And then there's what happened in Melbourne last weekend:
The 'gender critical' Womens Place has refused to have anything further to do with her, commendably, due to these questions about ethnicity, racism and religion in North America, Europe and Australia. As Standard readers can see from the above, concerns about Parker's affiliations are legitimate.
There's a lot of bad faith going on when it comes to the fact that Maori and Pasifika feminists have very different views about gender and sexuality boundaries compared to pakeha.
Rita you might be interested to listen to Di Landy and Mana Wahine Korero, a gender critical group of Maori women.
The predominantly older pakeha/palagi 'radical' feminists who seem to overwhelmingly dominate the 'gender critical' lobby often attack trans-inclusive feminists, as can be seen above- even targeting a Rape Crisis Centre in Scotland, as well as tane takatapui, coalitionist intersectional gay men, the Labour Party, the Greens and prison abolitionist groups like People Against Prisons Aotearoa in Tamaki Makarau/Auckland.
Moreover, when people ask serious questions about the origins of their perspectives, their answer seems to be reference to media articles and their own websites. That isn't satisfactory. When you argue about stuff like this, you need to produce more meaningful evidence than that. Parker and GCFs seem willing to throw a lot of feminists and women under the bus:
They're anti-coalitional and anti-intersectional so they don't see that younger lesbians who experience school bullying and harrassment have more in common with young trans women and gay men who have similar experiences than with older, privileged professional pakeha/palagi lesbians.
They ignore the fact that yes, lesbians do engage in domestic violence too and yes, sometimes cis women do use digital rape to attack other women, a form of same-sex female rape . And that's every bit as traumatic as other forms of penetrative rape. What is wrong with protecting vulnerable female prisoners from same-sex cis female digital rapist perpetrators? Oh that's right, they're cis women and I guess you 'have' to represent whakawahine as the 'real' threat here.
Thanks for your contribution. This seems to be an assertion that GC feminists think there is something wrong with protecting vulnerable female prisoners. Are you able to provide any evidence for this extraordinary claim?
Please note that protecting vulnerable female prisoners from male sexual predators who lie about their gender identity does not preclude protecting vulnerable female prisoners from other forms of abuse or violence.
I agree. It's also worth pointing out that rape by males can result in pregnancy. Sexual assault by women can't.
There's nothing wrong with talking about the different ways in which humans can harm each other, and what the needs of the survivors are. In fact, talk about difference is a good way to make sure that survivors get what they need rather than a one size/gender fits all approach
I'm also genuinely interested in what you think about the views of Mana Wāhine Korero:
Additionally, since it seems like you aren't really interested in the views of "older pakeha/palagi 'radical' feminists"… which is your right… perhaps you could comment on the views of a wahine rangatahi?
Perhaps you aren’t aware that one of the most high-profile GC feminists (Kathleen Stock) explicitly called for more intersectionality in her book “Material Girls”?
It’s a good read, and I’m reliably informed that the words on the page are very unlikely to leap out of the page and turn you into a Nazi. No guarantees though!