Guest post: Whisper to a scream

Written By: - Date published: 6:10 am, October 13th, 2021 - 196 comments
Categories: gender, gender critical feminism - Tags: , , ,

This Guest Post by Standardista Molly explores different beliefs about femaleness and transness, and how we talk about those.

What can you do when what you say is not what is being heard?

This is a question I have been asking recently while watching (and participating) in discussions regarding both the Conversion Therapy Bill and the BMDRR Bill.

After watching the faces of the select committee hearing for Rex Landry’s submission on the BDMRR Bill, and the disdain shown to some submitters by the select committee members, I wondered how this is to be solved. Although, the method of delivery, and staccato points being made obviously were made to emphasise, the stunned manner in which it was received was obvious. And yet, she was not saying anything inaccurate. Stridency responded to with disdain.

Commentators online that I have previously interacted with and learnt so much from in the past, seem to be not comprehending what is being said, even though I, and many others are taking time to reiterate and clarify what we mean.

Some have voiced objections to language dismissive to the transgender community – unaware that those phrases have come from the transgender community itself.

I believe this confusion around accurate language is an obstacle to robust debate.

I recently came across this 2015 article online from Slate that I think is worth consideration in terms of making sense of what is happening on The Standard and other online spaces, in this instance, where often what is being said is not what is being heard: Helen Highwater: The Trans Women Who Say That Trans Women Aren’t Women

Last month, a 42-year-old English accountant who goes by the pseudonym Helen Highwater wrote a blog post disputing the idea that trans women are women. Helen is trans herself; in the last few years, she says, she has taken all the steps the U.K.’s National Health Service requires before it authorizes gender reassignment surgery, which she plans to have in 2016. Yet she has come to reject the idea that she is truly female or that she ever will be. Though “trans women are women” has become a trans rights rallying cry, Highwater writes, it primes trans women for failure, disappointment, and cognitive dissonance. She calls it a “vicious lie.”

“It’s a lie that sets us up to be triggered every time we are called he, or ‘guys’ or somebody dares to suggest that we have male biology,” she writes. “Even a cursory glance from a stranger can cut to our very core. The very foundations of our self-worth are fragile.”

From the perspective of the contemporary trans rights movement, this is close to blasphemy. Most progressives now take it for granted that gender is a matter of identity, not biology, and that refusing to recognize a person’s gender identity is an outrageous offense. Highwater herself long believed that: “I came from a point—and I think most of us do—of really, really low self-worth and deep shame about who and what we are,” she tells me. “And when people started telling me that trans women are women, you’ve always been a woman, you have a woman’s brain in a man’s body and all this kind of stuff—it’s a lifeline. It’s something you can hold on to. It really helps you to come to terms with things and move beyond that shame.”

I fully understand and sympathise with that emotive reaction to certain looks or words and the triggering of deep underlying issues of self-hate and extreme body dysphoria. But is it healthier to address those triggers and bring about self-acceptance and love so that distress is reduced or removed, or to demand a societal change of language and continue to seek validation from external sources?

So, what is heard when women commentators on this site make statements like:

“Transwomen are not women”?

There is a very long (somewhat repetitive) video interview with Stephanie Davies-Arai. (I don’t know anything about the interviewer, but Davies-Arai was involved in the Keira Bell case against Tavistock).

Starts 1hr 31m

… and all of this denial of, as soon as you say, that a boy is a girl, you have redefined all the other girls in the class. You have said that a girl is not a member of the female sex. Your most fundamental person, rooted in the body reality, has been taken away from you and suddenly you are looking at this boy – with a penis – and he’s a girl. So what is it that makes him a girl when he hasn’t got that other stuff that you’ve got? And therefore, if that makes him a girl, what makes me a girl? Well, I must have some of that stuff as well.

So, he almost becomes the ‘real’ girl, because he’s got some magical, indefinable, invisible quality that makes him a girl. What is it? And, so … if you redefine one person, you redefine every other human being around them. If you redefine one category, you automatically redefine the other. So these girls now must aspire to be a girl on his terms, he’s got the secret.

She goes on further to say, that further trauma is inflicted when puberty hits, as the transgirl then follows the masculine path of development. The disconnect between the reinforced belief of being a girl, is confronted with the reality of body development.

Social transition, practiced in this way, will most likely lead onto medical intervention, because instead of the trusted adults in this child’s life telling them they are wonderful just as they are, a boy who enjoys the company of girls, who enjoys his own choices in fashion, interests and exercise, they tell a comfortable lie, without regard for the impact on trust, the future of that child, or the redefinition of those protected categories of women, female and girl.

That bastion of medical publishers, the Lancet, have deliberately put out an issue of their publication recently with the single quote on the September cover:

Now, in terms of medicine, women have known this and tried to raise this issue for years. Within a couple of years of this failure of being recognised by the medical establishment, women are now erased from the discussion, dismantled into – not even people – but bodies with vaginas.

Unfortunately, I can’t remember the source from another article I read, written by a transwoman, who found relief when discussing her life with another gender critical feminist. The question was asked – ‘Why do you want to erase your lived experience as a transwoman, by adopting the term woman, when my experience as a woman and yours as a transwoman are different and distinct from one another?’.

Her relief came, not from the question, but from the validation of the value of her personal experience as a transwoman. It needed no other validation but the truth.

When the expectation is given for me personally to say that “Transwomen are women”, I resist it for the following reasons:

  • You have asked me to redefine what I understand to be the universally understood and protected category of biological sex, and I think that’s a lie, what’s more, I can see a myriad number of follow-on issues coming from that initial lie.
  • You are asking me to join in participation in a lie before I can engage, and my Aspergers background and experience in taking great care with language makes this a complete reversal of what I understand to be honest debate.
  • Lastly, but of no little importance to me, is that you ask me also to lie to transwomen, and treat them as if the fact they are natal men is a failing, not just a reality. Their biological reality is just that, and both that and their personal expression should both be celebrated and valued, not hidden behind a comforting inaccurate phrase that erases truth.

I consider lying to be one of the most dismissive ways of treating people, and spend much of my time trying to improve my language and speech, so that I am practiced at truth-telling.

In this instance, I can understand why you want me to adopt these seemingly “innocuous” phrases. My understanding of your intent to avoid unnecessary distress in this way is clear.

But can you hear me? Do you understand why I think this is problem, and I am unable to adhere to your request?

So, where to from here?

Just an initial question:

What do you hear when someone says “Transwomen are not women?”

196 comments on “Guest post: Whisper to a scream ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny how to get there 1
    13 October 2021 at 7:37 am

    Trans women are people. That is the truth that we should all hear.
    As worthy of respect and validation and love as any other human being.

    • Molly 1.1
      13 October 2021 at 7:44 am

      Thanks, Jenny.

      So, I take it that you hear "Transwomen are not people."? Because that is not what is being said.

      Agree with your sentiments, and your second sentence, but wish to point out that the reverse of that was also not said.

      There is a lot of extrapolation from a four word sentence, that has no link to those words.

  2. Chris T 2
    13 October 2021 at 7:45 am

    Tend to avoid commenting on this topic now.

    It basically tends to be me pointing out "gender" and "biological sex" are two completely different things, which they are.

    And ending with me being called a male TERF and no resolution to the discussion.

    I have absolutely zero issue with treating trans women as women, as that is how they feel and I tend not to want to offend people.

    With the small proviso, that I am not going to use stupid made up pronouns like "Xi" and "Xir" etc. If I am forced to at any stage I will say my chosen pronoun is "Antidisestablishmentarianistic Hippopotamus" and not using this for me is deeply offensive and micro aggressive, causing me to run to my safe space.

    • weka 2.1
      13 October 2021 at 10:52 am

      Hard to see how anyone would consider you a radical feminist. People calling you a male terf are either stupid or being manipulative.

      • felix 2.1.1
        14 October 2021 at 3:22 pm

        "Terf" has been completely divorced from its original meaning. I believe it's now just the equivalent of" "witch". They're calling him a male witch.

  3. Visubversa 3
    13 October 2021 at 7:48 am

    I hear the truth. No human being changes sex. "Woman" and "Man" are not courtesy terms, totally unhinged from biology. I also hear that 99% of the time it is women who are being dehumanised. The same time as The Lancet was talking about "bodies with vaginas" , the same publication was describing prostate cancer and talking about men. Not "bodies with penises".

    • Chris T 3.1
      13 October 2021 at 7:56 am

      I tend to now days just think of female and male as biological sex, and women and man these days are a bit of a meaningless gender thing.

      Saves the hassle.

      • Molly 3.1.1
        13 October 2021 at 8:28 am

        Might save the hassle, but adds to the confusion –

        If you use women and man as gender identity, and male and female as biological sex, we can craft a sentence such as: Men who are female.

        To others that don't share your definitions, this may mean:

        – transmen who are biologically female,

        – natal men who identify as female or

        – a nonsensical sentence.

        Not having a common standardised language is a problem in discussion, and the post is about that problem.

        (And although, it may be less hassle to you to do so, do you understand that many women object to having their category of women co-opted to include men?)

        • Chris T 3.1.1.1
          13 October 2021 at 9:13 am

          Sorry. I cocked up what I meant

          To me it is basically

          Woman – Female

          Trans woman – Some ,meaningless gender thing, but be nice and treat them like a woman, as it isn't that much of an effort

          Man – Male

          Trans man – Some ,meaningless gender thing, but be nice and treat them like a man , as it isn't that much of an effort

          With Male and Female being biological sex Male and Female

          Edit – But I concede it is a bit confusing

          • Molly 3.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2021 at 9:47 am

            Thanks, Chris T.

            Am I allowed to say I'm still confused after your clarification?

            The post is about the confusion around language.

            I agree with your sentiments about treating people within the transgender community with respect and care – that is equitable with that extended to those without.

          • weka 3.1.1.1.2
            13 October 2021 at 10:51 am

            How I resolve that:

            Women, trans women, NB females. Men, trans men, NB males.

            Pretty sure that most people know what I mean when I use those terms in context. Some people get confused, some people object politically, but these seem the easiest way to keep communicating clearly.

            I'm in favour of third gender (trans and NB people can identify how they want and need to without impacting on people who relate primarily to biology)

            I agree there's a social politeness aspect that is useful to be aware of too.

      • mikesh 3.1.2
        13 October 2021 at 11:19 am

        'Gender' is a term used by grammarians to classify nouns. There seem to be three genders – masculine, feminine and neuter. In more recent times, however, the term seems to have been purloined by the untutored to denote biological types. I'm not sure why, since I've never considered 'sex' to be a four letter word.

        Is there a 'neuter' biological type?

        • SPC 3.1.2.1
          13 October 2021 at 11:30 am

          Gender, the gentrification of the working class noun.

          noun GRAMMAR
          a word (other than a pronoun) used to identify any of a class of people, places, or things (common noun), or to name a particular one of these (proper noun).

    • Nic the NZer 3.2
      13 October 2021 at 8:04 am

      The Lancet terminology is phrased to include the transpeople who still have characteristics of their sex. So some transwomen may develop prostate issues.

      Avoiding the words man and woman is surely clumsy, but it does skirt some of the debate toxicity around gender.

      • Molly 3.2.1
        13 October 2021 at 8:33 am

        "So some transwomen may develop prostate issues."

        The Lancet refers to those who may develop prostate issues as 'men' – not 'bodies with prostates' as Visubversa points out.

        The impact on the use of the word "men" in discussions and publications, as opposed to "women" is unequal for some unknown reason.

        "Avoiding the words man and woman is surely clumsy, but it does skirt some of the debate toxicity around gender."

        The post was intended to figure out what causes the toxicity, and perhaps address and solve it.

      • Sabine 3.2.2
        13 October 2021 at 8:37 am

        And yet, many many Transmen do not consider themselves bodies with vaginas, specifically if they went trough and got themselves a phallioplasty.

        Because they don't consider themselves a 'body with a vagina'. They consider themselves men with penises.

        Vaginas are on the bodies many female animals, but can be also be Transwomen, Transmen and Non Males. Never mind, Transwomen will not ever need a pap smear, as the ending of the vagina canal aka the 'cervix' is made out of penile tissue, so if they do get cancer there, it would be a penile cancer that would not be detected if a doctor were to poke around to take a pap smear.

        The Lancet with this headline managed to take bodies with vaginas back to the 15 century where Men debated if bodies with vaginas were actually human.

        I would also like to point out the Story of Kiri Allen, who by her own words admitted her issues with her nether regions, leaving her to not go to have a pap smear for a long time, and thus when she finally went she got diagnosed with a cancer well developped. Now she was lucky, she is in this country one person of high pecking order, was given hospital treatment / chemo without delays and did manage not to die of a preventable disease.

        I doubt she would have read that Lancet study and would have thus felt more inclined to go get a pap smear.

        Not everyone who has a vagina is a women. But yeah, some are a Body with a neo vagina.

      • Visubversa 3.2.3
        13 October 2021 at 8:41 am

        Why should we be required to change accepted language – based on biological reality on behalf of an ideology? There is no more empirical evidence for the possession of an innate gender identity which supersedes biological reality than there is for the possession of an immortal soul. We separated Church and State some time ago because of the abuses resulting from the imposition of peoples' beliefs on others. Gender ideology has become a cult – it exhibits typical cult behavior, particularly in the treatment of unbelievers or apostates.

        • Nic the NZer 3.2.3.1
          13 October 2021 at 10:59 am

          I don't think your significantly being coerced in your language by what the Lancet chooses to do with its. As Weka suggests they seem to have adopted a context and terminology depending on how they want to present, and some of the implications carry over from the adopted context.

          • Molly 3.2.3.1.1
            13 October 2021 at 11:18 am

            As a patient, going through medical protocols and procedures as a series of body parts is not only disconcerting but provides little comfort – and non-optimal outcomes.

            The provocative nature of the cover, can be explained away by convoluted and fairly agile semantics, but is experienced negatively by women who have been failed by the medical establishment in repetitive ways since it began.

        • Gypsy 3.2.3.2
          13 October 2021 at 4:41 pm

          Well said. Trans ideology is an attempt to enforce delusion via language. It's why we now (allegedly) have women who develop prostate problems.

      • weka 3.2.4
        13 October 2021 at 8:45 am

        afaik, the issue the Lancet was referring to was the history of research on women, not on trans men. Trans men should have their own body of medical research, as use of hormones in particular seems to be high, and this will change what happens in the female bodies of trans men. Proper medical research for women would most likely improve things a lot for trans men as well.

        The Lancet were being provocative. They were also being dicks about it, the headline was utterly unnecessary. Imagine if they did a headline for an article on trans women, titled bodies with penises. There'd be massive outrage.

        The sexism (how they talk about women compared to how they talk about men) has been pointed out.

        Women want to retain women's language. It might be expedient for some to remove women's language, but it's still hugely problematic. Health messaging for instance needs to be in language that reaches the people intended for. Removing women's language is exclusionary.

        • Nic the NZer 3.2.4.1
          13 October 2021 at 11:19 am

          In that context the Lancet may have thought it cleaver to place the reader on the outside of the issue. Maybe including trans women is the way natal womens medical issues are ignored these days, though I agree this layer of complexity seems unnecessary when discussing a history of not elevating medications impacts on natal woman.

  4. KJT 4
    13 October 2021 at 8:32 am

    I don't have a "dog in this fight".. And I haven't "walked in those shoes" or thought about it enough, to comment.

    Listening to people, many of whom I respect, tying themselves into knots, talking past each other, and name calling, from different sides of the discussion, hasn't helped clear it up for me.

    But thanks to yourself and Weka for enabling discussion.

    • Molly 4.1
      13 October 2021 at 8:40 am

      Thanks, KJT. It may be a futile exercise, but the issue of language being used and heard in two different ways is not helping.

      I do think everyone has a "dog in this fight" – but it shouldn't necessarily be a 'fight'.

      "Walking in your own shoes" is good enough for me if you wish to comment, because it provides someone else's perspective. After reading the discussions here and online, I wondered "What am I missing?". I found some clarity from reading GCF views, and reports from ex Stonewall members, but deliberately sought out commentators from the transgender community, and gained further insight from their words.

      This post is not really about the transgender issue, but about the use and misuse of language that prohibits discussion on the topic.

  5. Descendant Of Smith 5
    13 October 2021 at 8:36 am

    Slightly off the main topic but related to a comment you made in this post.

    • You are asking me to join in participation in a lie before I can engage, and my Aspergers background and experience in taking great care with language makes this a complete reversal of what I understand to be honest debate.

    I completely emphathise with the Aspergers and truth telling as do several of my Aspergic friends. Someone asked me once why I'm so honest when asked things even if it is not seemingly palatable at times.

    I said for me being untruthful sets up a conflict in my brain that if I lied I would become mentally unwell. I choose not to do that. The labelling of it as socially inept or awkward frustrates me. I try and use language carefully to try not to upset people but if you ask me how I am I'll tell you, if you ask me to say you aren't home when you are I won't do it, and so on.

    Some managers love this cause it builds trust and integrity, some absolutely hate it and do their best to get rid of you. They just can't handle it.

    That notion of asking me to participate in a lie is so nicely put. I appreciate the way that has been worded. I find that useful. Thanks.

    It is an interesting world indeed. Diversity is cool.

    • Molly 5.1
      13 October 2021 at 8:45 am

      Diversity is cool indeed – spent most of my life thinking it was normal wink.

      The other aspect of that "truth telling" for me is that I cannot remain silent when someone says something objectionable or untrue, and my silence may be taken for agreement. I'm the one who creates awkward moments by saying, "That's not true."

      Of course, at my ancient age, I choose those challenges with thought. You don't find me disagreeing on someone's compliment for a great haircut.

  6. Ghostwhowalksnz 6
    13 October 2021 at 8:43 am

    When the idea of a 'biological sex' determined at birth is outdated, and never really existed. Why is it suddenly re-invented.?

    This is why the comments about the eye-rolls and strained faces by Mps at the committee hearing, some would dispute this claim’ she was not saying anything inaccurate’
    Its a worry when what is merely opinion is believed to be some categorical truth . Its not.

    Sex characteristics are chromosomal, hormonal, and/or physical anatomical traits which go through an undifferentiated stage in utero. For some people, their sex characteristics are more diverse than stereotypical definitions for male and female bodies.

    https://starship.org.nz/guidelines/differences-of-sex-development-atawhai-taihemahema/

    Most families, prior to the birth of their baby, will not have considered that there are many variations of sex characteristics….

    It is inappropriate and inaccurate to make comments that imply sex (male/female) and gender (boy/girl) are binary concepts which cannot be changed

    • weka 6.1
      13 October 2021 at 8:48 am

      it's not reinvented. Most people still understand what biological sex is. Given the Lancet issue was in the post, and was about medical research on women (bio females), I would have assumed the need to retain knowledge about biology would have been self evident. Unless we want medical research to continue to be based on men's male bodies. See, it's sexist af.

      If you are referring to intersex people, the numbers are very small, and they too deserve a whole body of research specific to their biology.

      • weka 6.1.1
        13 October 2021 at 8:49 am

        I will also note that your link and quote is about social aspects of being human.

        • Ghostwhowalksnz 6.1.1.1
          13 October 2021 at 9:27 am

          Its a clinical setting at the Childrens hospital

          I wouldnt consider this to be a 'social aspect"

          'Sex characteristics are chromosomal, hormonal, and/or physical anatomical traits which go through an undifferentiated stage in utero. For some people, their sex characteristics are more diverse than stereotypical definitions for male and female bodies'

          I dont have a medical knowledge, it seems they are clear that sex characteristics are derived from chromosomes, hormones AND the anatomical traits.

          There are of course some new parents who feel safety from stereotypical definitions of male and female. I dont see that need for in other circumstances outside the newborn environment , especially when we are all adults. Legislation which allows a birth assigned gender to be changed is well overdue

          • SPC 6.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2021 at 9:32 am

            Is not the legislation to enable the change of the birth sex – gender is not assigned at birth after all.

            To enable change from birth as male to birth as female, or birth as female to birth as male?

          • Visubversa 6.1.1.1.2
            13 October 2021 at 9:38 am

            Nobody is assigned anything at birth – except possibly a gender stereotype along with that pink or blue ribbon. Sex is determined at conception and is detected – these days by scans etc, and recorded at birth with a 99.98% accuracy. Better than most lab tests. There are people with differences of sex development – used to be known as intersex, but these are medical conditions and are variations on either male or female. They are not a third sex and they do not change sex. Unfortunately, these medical conditions – which fall into known syndromes, have been weaponised and exploited by gender ideologists desperate to find a physiological basis for their psychological conditions.

            It is actually important for a lot of reasons to have at least 1 official document which accurately records the sex of a person. Assumed gender identity is already able to be put on passports, drivers' licenses etc.

          • weka 6.1.1.1.3
            13 October 2021 at 10:57 am

            You are talking about people with differences of sexual development. Nearly all of those people are still biologically male or female. That's biology.

            How hospitals choose to talk about patients is cultural, and political (what I called the social aspect). Of course in talking with patients with DSDs, staff should be sensitive and aware of the implications of what language they use, especially considering the appalling history of medicine in relation to intersex people and how this impacts on the culture of current care.

            I'd hope that the children's hospital wasn't ignoring biological sex ie biology rather than social aspects, because that's dangerous.

            • Ghostwhowalksnz 6.1.1.1.3.1
              15 October 2021 at 6:05 pm

              Completely wrong . The medical experts on this at the Childrens hospital state categorically and its what every one should rely on.

              inaccurate to make comments that imply sex (male/female) and gender (boy/girl) are binary concepts which cannot be changed

              • weka …
                15 October 2021 at 6:18 pm

                yeah, but pretty sure they're talking about secondary sex characteristics there and in that context it makes sense. They won't be suggesting that women's physiology can be changed to such an extent that we don't need to take account of female bodies when doing medical research. eg outside of intersex medicine, research on how labour starts can only be done on people with female bodies.

                Looks to me like you're the one that wants to do the reinventing. Suddenly there is a third sex that helps the species reproduce. We all know this is not possible.

                • Nic the NZer …
                  15 October 2021 at 6:38 pm

                  roblogic at 16.2 posted a well written thesis on this point. As is fairly obvious in practice a binary is an idealization of how things are categorized in the real world, and this doesn't undermine the existence of or philosophical or linguistic usefulness of such categories (they still convey meaning).

                  This will become obvious when considering day and night which are a binary categorization of the time of day. Yet both there is no specific light level (even out of doors) when you have a sharp distinction between day and night. Yet somehow humans (even young children) can still deal with the concept of day and night just fine.

                  Basically the arguments put across as a thesis backing 'smashing the binary' fail at the most rudimentary philosophical level.

    • Molly 6.2
      13 October 2021 at 8:53 am

      Thanks, Ghostwhowalks.

      So, can you actually write down what you hear? Because I have asked a question regarding a four word sentence, and your response has me confused. Although, I suspect you are calling it inappropriate and inaccurate.

      I note that the phrase – "biological essentialists" – is being used in discussions. I am struck by how that phrase has the cadence and rhythm of "religious fundamentalists" and it is used in the same dismissive way.

      I disagree with your premise that sex is not binary, but that is not the intent of the post.

      I think your definitions as above:

      sex (male/female) and gender (boy/girl)

      add to the confusion, implying sex is forever, but gender is pre-pubescent.

      This fluidity of language, is the problem I am trying to address and discuss solutions for.

      • Ghostwhowalksnz 6.2.1
        15 October 2021 at 6:08 pm

        Sorry not engaging with you anymore on this. I will follow the advice of those who say further conversations with people who convinced of something that is against the science are a waste of time

        Take it up with experts at Starship Hospital.

        • Molly 6.2.1.1
          15 October 2021 at 9:36 pm

          …and yet here I was trying to talk to you…

          Another that can't just say “I made a mistake”:

          I think your definitions as above:

          sex (male/female) and gender (boy/girl)

          add to the confusion, implying sex is forever, but gender is pre-pubescent.

          When you get to that level of discourse, come on back.

  7. Tiger Mountain 7
    13 October 2021 at 8:47 am

    From a class left view no group of humans (and I personally include sentient beings aka animals) should be subject to oppression, brutality or exploitation–by capital, the state or other people’s unenlightened attitudes. “An injury to one is an injury to all” is the point of unity in this debate.

    It always takes a struggle to achieve some level of freedom for any oppressed group. And that is what is happening now for trans people, as happened in NZ during the 80s for homosexual law reform and on into the 00s for Civil Unions etc. Gender identity is big, it is real and being debated in public and a Select Committee. Get up to speed or be left behind.

    The pointy end activists say “Trans women are women” and you better agree or else! Historically, social movement radicals adopt this tactic to get cut through, but “Trans women are Trans women–respect us and accord us full rights” might likely get wider support.

    Times are moving on one way or another for people that just want to be comfortable with themselves and live their lives. Back in the 70s as a long haired male the number of times I got comments from short back ’n sides good ol’ kiwi blokes–“Whadararyaa!” “girl or boy”, “poofter” and so on, so I can understand on a small level what societal pressure to conform to whatever the prevailing orthodoxy is can be like. I am lucky perhaps in not running with herd, and not taking crap from anyone. I had a number of trans friends in Auck in the old days and nowadays few care if you have dreads, a shaven head or something in between.

    I hope the trans debate gets sorted, as it has really disturbed me seeing some of the staunchest allies I have ever worked with–politicised lesbians–getting abuse from trans activists.

    • Molly 7.1
      13 October 2021 at 9:31 am

      "I hope the trans debate gets sorted, as it has really disturbed me seeing some of the staunchest allies I have ever worked with–politicised lesbians–getting abuse from trans activists."

      I do, too. I do wish to make clear to others reading, that I don't believe that many of those trans-activists engaged in such actions, are representative of the transgender community.

      However, there are many aware of such actions who choose not to critique or denounce them, and to me, that indicates a level of support or even approval.

      I also don't think this extreme behaviour is at all beneficial to the trans-community as a whole.

  8. Ad 8
    13 October 2021 at 8:52 am

    There is already a proposal in the Supplementary Order Paper that sex markers other than male and female will be made through regulations following consultation.

    The world did not fall down when the term "civil union" was legislated to cover for gay people. After a while "civil union" and "marriage" became legally interchangeable, and nothing of note happened.

    Taxonomic innovation regularly occurs in this country.

    • Sabine 8.1
      13 October 2021 at 8:58 am

      Some Person followed on up on this in England, and called NHS for their file.

      Their sex marker was blank, their gender was W.

      So, what is that person?

      • Ad 8.1.1
        13 October 2021 at 9:01 am

        According to our proposed legislation, they are who they wish to identify as.

        • Molly 8.1.1.1
          13 October 2021 at 9:12 am

          That is why it would be a solution to include a gender identity marker of some form for those who wish to use it.

          Because the conflation that you make of sex and identity is one regularly made, and which causes conversations to go offrail.

          For all of us, including those within the transgender comunity, biological sex has impacts on such things as:

          Medical research, protocols, drug regimes and health outcomes,

          Statistics relating to longevity, pay expectations, personal safety, crime statistics and domestic violence,

          Body recovery identification methods.

          • Ad 8.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2021 at 9:31 am

            As per below, the proposed legislation allows precisely for this.

            • Molly 8.1.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2021 at 9:55 am

              That distinction is not made clear. Neither by the legislation or in response to questions to the MPs promoting it.

              How do you see the retention of biological sex being addressed for such issues as above in the legislation?

              (eg. Given that the "gender pay gap" data now being collected relates to self-identified gender rather than biological sex, there are real world impacts occurring).

              • Ad …
                13 October 2021 at 10:10 am

                You won't get that degree of specificity until the regulations are promulgated. There were similar debates when the Maori seats came out about self-identification of Maori on the electoral roll to be able to vote for a Maori seat MP.

                • Molly …
                  13 October 2021 at 10:38 am

                  People in this discussion are not only conflating sex and gender identity, they also conflate other aspects of the discussion.

                  This Bill is being equated to the Civil Union Bill, now the Māori seat legislation without any detail about how the comparisons are valid.

                  Don't appropriate the past struggles of other human rights campaigns as the whole justification for ignoring impacts on others for this particular legislation. People are pointing out concrete examples of difficulties with this legislation, that should inform changes so that negative impacts are minimised or removed, and future amendments avoided.

                  • Ad …
                    13 October 2021 at 10:46 am

                    Appropriation is of course what you are upset about. It is at the centre of your post. Your reaction shows the fear based within essentialist arguments.

                    Invoking other human rights struggles which operationalise naming and identity shows very simply how uncontroversial they have proved, after having gone through parallel flux about naming and necessity which was stabilised through legislation.

                    You fall pretty easily for such traps when you forget that this is essentially human rights issue that the HRC has reported on at length and regularly.

                    • Molly …
                      13 October 2021 at 10:56 am

                      Ad.

                      You are providing nothing in terms of HOW the comparisons are valid.

                      If you want to contribute meaningfully, this discussion is about what you believe.

                      I also note your oblique references to biology, which I address above:

                      “I note that the phrase – “biological essentialists” – is being used in discussions. I am struck by how that phrase has the cadence and rhythm of “religious fundamentalists” and it is used in the same dismissive way.”

                      Biological sex is a factual reality, regardless of what it is called. And the issues that are conferred on either sex, due to that reality, remain.

                    • Ad …
                      13 October 2021 at 11:41 am

                      We have run out of string space.

                      So I will have to just finish this string with extra points for you.

                      Trans-inclusive practices do not threaten the concepts of "male", "female". "lesbian" or "gay". For a few reasons.

                      There are indeed biological characteristics to most females and males, but not all. Those characteristics are not an insufficient but necessary condition to be a stable basis for any essentialist argument about the name 'female'. If we were to ''eradicate" "male" or "female" as terms we would have to reinvent something close to them. They will remain durable whether one signs themselves X or Intersex or indeed Female. None of that is threatened by this proposed legislative change.

                      I certainly agree with Sabine that medical professionals need to rely upon an agreed methodology which captures pre-existing biological facts. This indeed is important for avoiding medical misadventure. But this only describes how, for very legitimate reasons, sex is understood and assigned within medicine. Medicinal treatment of how one names oneself will continue to evolve, like most medicinal practices have. That's not a showstopper either for the existence of the name 'female' or for this legislation at all. Indeed our everyday usages of "male" and "female" are already more capacious than that.

                      The name "female" or "male", despite all theorists who view such ground of naming as irreducably ideological, have been remarkably durable through all kinds of language humans which have generated. That last 60,000 years of naming arrangement may not overcome patriarchy, but it certainly provides the stability to allow people to self-name their identity if they so choose. Trans-inclusive language usages, policies, and naming conventions have not threatened this durability of these terms over the course of the evolution of the languages of our species.

                      The most important reveal from the defence of the name "female" is a kind of paranoid structuralism. Not 'paranoid' in the clinical sense, but paranoid simply to the defence of the name 'female' to the exclusion of all else. What is being defended is the right to the privileges and psychic damage of being female as if it is unique. By presupposing the singular centrality of female as a name only for those who are first conferred it, one closes off from analysis many powers also underway in the world – some of which are specific to trans people. Again, no threat.

                      Those who feel challenged by the loss of monopoly over the name 'female' stand in line with all other groups who in time have had the stability of their name and all its attendant weight taken from them. But then, all monopolists feel that. It passes.

                    • Molly …
                      13 October 2021 at 11:52 am

                      Using the existing of intersex people, do conflate sex and gender identity as both fluid is lazy. Ignoring the fact that women, as a biological sex is a protected category for a reason, and assuming that reason no longer exists, is also lazy and untrue.

                      Reducing the issue down to taxonomy and nominal changes is a bizarre approach, to this issue.

                      You can take my name, Ad, if you insist.

                      But calling yourself Molly will not make you the mother of my four children, someone who has been in a relationship for 35 years with my partner, or lived my life.

                      You, Ad, have your own experiences that you retain – and hopefully, value.

                      Your insistence that "women" who retain the biological sex definition of that category are monopolists is not only dismissive, but risible.

                      I would not appropriate the term of transwoman for myself, for the same reason, that I ask the term "women" not be appropriated.

                      It is not mine to take, or give away. It is not yours either.

                    • Ad …
                      13 October 2021 at 12:04 pm

                      There are plenty of people with both your name and mine, and that doesn't threaten anything let alone me.

                      You've set the post up to defend the term "woman" as a category of state identification. So you get an argument about naming

                      The monopolistic power of the right to confer a name is revealed when one challenges the names of countries, ethnicities, professions, and more. When the right to confer the identity is challenged, the dominion of that power is revealed.

                      You would not have written the post if you did not feel such a threat.

                      Instead, it is possible and it is desirable for gender as conceived in trans-affirming terms as identity diversity to exist side-by-side in the law of identity. In reality, that is all that is being asked of our politicians in this law. Which indeed is
                      no existential threat to anything at all. Let alone you or your name in any form.

                    • SPC …
                      13 October 2021 at 12:25 pm

                      Ad, being unable to deny access to women's spaces to those with a penis does indeed pose a potential existential threat to their safety.

                      There is a reason why Louisa Wall stood with the transgender in the matter of being safe in police cells, but what happens when a person who has committed crimes of sexual violence against women has to be sent to women's prisons – because that is how they identify?

                    • Molly …
                      13 October 2021 at 12:54 pm

                      There are plenty of people with both your name and mine, and that doesn't threaten anything let alone me.

                      You've set the post up to defend the term "woman" as a category of state identification. So you get an argument about naming

                      Actually the post was about the different understandings of language – which includes the recent definition of some of the term – 'women', that creates obstacles for open discussion.

                      You would not have written the post if you did not feel such a threat.

                      Instead, it is possible and it is desirable for gender as conceived in trans-affirming terms as identity diversity to exist side-by-side in the law of identity. In reality, that is all that is being asked of our politicians in this law. Which indeed is
                      no existential threat to anything at all. Let alone you or your name in any form.

                      I don't understand what you consider my feeling of a threat to be. Given your propensity for knowing what is going on in someone's head – over time and space – enlighten me.

                      I am not threatened by the appropriation of the word woman to mean something else entirely. I disagree with it.

                      Women do not hold a position of privilege in most – if not all – societies around the world. This is an experience understood by all women.

                      Your flawed comparison to civil union rights, and Maaori seats, did not reassign homosexuals and gays to heterosexual nomenclatures, or Maaori to Pakeha tribes, they legislated the rights of those groups to be the same as the privileged class. (Which by the way, still doesn't deal with the real world implications and lived experiences.)

                      Women are not the privileged biological sex in terms of societal rewards, considerations etc.

                      Gender identity is also unequivocally not a threat to me, or anyone.

                      Legislation that conflates the two separate issues, is not only badly written, but ignores that there are two separate issues.

                      1. One that relates to privilege/non-privilege that directly is a consequence of biological sex.

                      2. One that relates to discrimination that society inflicts on those that do conform to societal expectations of gender expression.

                      You don't address the second by drafting and supporting legislation that impacts on the first.

                    • Molly …
                      13 October 2021 at 1:16 pm

                      Edit:

                      2. One that relates to discrimination that society inflicts on those that do NOT conform to societal expectations of gender expression.

                    • Anker …
                      17 October 2021 at 11:13 am

                      I haven't been on The Standard for a few days, so only just saw this post.

                      For me the issue is there is a relatively new ideology, gender ideology. It has swept the Western world at great pace. I first became aware of it when I heard of people being required to go along with the contestable statements trans women are real women and being labelled trans phobic if they didn't. I was puzzled and slightly perturbed by this. No other political movement had ever required me to automatically adopt their belief, else risk a nasty attack.

                      I read more about it. Much, much more and I was extremely disquietend by what I read. I tried posting things on this site and felt shocked that other commenters would not understand why preserving female spaces such as public change rooms. I was told by some it wouldn't happen that trans would go into women's spaces. I posted about Wi Spa and to my shock a male with his dick out in a famle space was deflected and later denied, although it turned out to be true.

                      This week a father of a girl who was sodomized in a school toilet by a boy wearing a dress, saw him arrested as he got angry at a board meeting, the board having silenced the incident. They sent this person to another school where he sexually assaulted another girl.

                      Where is the safe guarding for women and girls?

                      I have read extensively about puberty blockers in children. and how cross sex hormones and surgery cause irreversible damage. And how there are a growing number of de-transitioners 24,000 on one site alone was quoted. And I have read about attempts to make the affirmation model,the only approch to anyone questioning their gender. I am horrified that young people are being given these experiemental drugs. I have read about the poster child for trans in America, Jazz Jennings,who had to keep having surgeries after her penis was removed and how there wasn't enough tissue from her penis due to blockers.

                      I have read about these surgeries and felt sick about the risks involved and the on-going health conseqences.

                      I have listened to imminant clinicians taling about Trans being an umbrella term. That teenage girls wanting to transistion has all the hall marks of social contagion. How there is a small group of transwomen who do want to get into women's spaces. (this was from a psychiatrist who worked at Broodmoor with sex offenders).

                      I have watched the submissions to the various Bills and been disgusted by the contempt our paid respresentatives are displaying to many of the submitters who oppose the Bill.

                      There is a lot more I could write. I appreaciate your efforts Molly to try and get people to listen to each other. You've written a great article.

                      I really believe that people who want to be kind and do the right thing have been completely captured by Trans ideoloy. Someone described it as cult like and I agree. It is shocking that our MP's are amongst this group. People have appeared to have lost their ability to think critically and are justifying pretty silly stuff through the mantras of their ideology.

        • Sabine 8.1.1.2
          13 October 2021 at 9:58 am

          this person in question made it clear that they never identified a gender, they filled the sex marker. Yet when asked for her file, the sex marker was empty and hte gender marker was filled.

          In a medical setting that can lead to a great many issues, as have been outline in several article in the last couple of month. Aka, Transmen dying of cervical cancer because on hteir own they did not go for an anual papsmear and because of their 'identity' did not get an invite (some countries send letters to all female patients once a year) to get one. Also a transman lost a child, as at the hospital they considered him an 'overweight' man, rather then a pregnant female.

          Again, it needs to be understood, that our brains and our bodies are tow different things.
          And our 'sexed' bodies don't give a fudge about our self manufactured ideas of whom/what we are.

          https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/ian-duncan-deputy-speaker-house-lords-interview-brother-died-ovarian-cancer-1125221

          https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/transgender-pregnancy-loss

          There is a need to be precise when it comes to health and live. If we are not, we die fairly easily us humans. A bit like our blood types, its all blood right? So why do we bother with keeping record of the blood type?

    • Molly 8.2
      13 October 2021 at 9:04 am

      Still not sure what you are hearing from that four word sentence, Ad.

      The intent of the post was not about the issue itself, but how the language used in getting in the way of meaningful discussion.

      (That being said, I see the comparison between the civil union rights being used a lot, as a dismissive regarding the impact on other rights (particularly women).

      But the civil union bill did not require married couples to give up their space in any form. The Bill as it is written, ineffectively discussed and promoted, does not address the concerns of women regarding the impact on their protected single sex spaces.)

      • Ad 8.2.1
        13 October 2021 at 9:08 am

        My comment precisely addressed language used, and in particular, naming.

        In time there will be commonly accepted naming conventions that will assist future discussions. That there is a current flux in naming conventions doesn't provide an existential threat.

        • Molly 8.2.1.1
          13 October 2021 at 9:16 am

          There is a complete re-definition of the category of "women" going on with this current flux of naming conventions though, Ad.

          An erasure, or removal of existence, if you like.

          Language flux is the issue that is being discussed. It is hard to know how meaningful discussions can be had, if this flux is accepted as unavoidable.

          • Ad 8.2.1.1.1
            13 October 2021 at 9:27 am

            The first relevant part of the SOP for the Births Deaths and Marriages Bill doesn't mention the word "man" or "woman". Section 22a: Eligibility to Apply is the relevant part.

            What is being sought in the regulation is instead of greater and greater essentialist attachment to one naming convention, is rather that instead the naming conventions are able to be opened up:

            Section 22b is more specific that an application must specify "male, female, or any other sex or gender specified in regulations for the purposes of this paragraph as the person's nominated sex", which invites more names for self identification than there currently are.

            Whole treaties have been signed by assigning one's name as X.

            No one is being erased.

            • Molly 8.2.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2021 at 9:39 am

              "Section 22b is more specific that an application must specify "male, female, or any other sex or gender specified in regulations for the purposes of this paragraph as the person's nominated sex", which invites more names for self identification than there currently are."

              Which once again, conflates the separate categories of biological sex and gender identity and enshrines it in legislation. This conflation was acknowledged by one of the MP's – Deborah Russell? – but no clarification was given. Apparently the cost of inclusion of gender identity as a separate field was considered unnecessary, if you are able to conflate the two.

              "Whole treaties have been signed by assigning one's name as X."

              The Waitangi Tribunal might put context on that statement.

              "No one is being erased."

              If the definition of women is used to also include men, the word remains but the category has now been changed.

              All those who used to belong to that category of "women" now have no word to describe their shared biological reality.

              • Ad …
                13 October 2021 at 10:03 am

                That simply points to the inherently damaging power of all naming, which is easily admitted. But that's a Judith Butler point about gender being performative through repeated speech acts, rather than named through ‘essential’ sets of characteristics. That there is power in naming gender and that it alters discursive possibility is easy agreed.

                But there is no evidence that the definition of "woman" needs to be so stable that only that state which is applied to you at birth can use that term as your name.

                Glad you picked up on my Treaty of Waitangi reference. The Chief knew who they were, and simultaneously signified non-translatability, representation, and their naming.

                • Molly …
                  13 October 2021 at 10:43 am

                  My view of Judith Butler is different from yours. She also conflates the categories of gender and sex.

                  But there is no evidence that the definition of "woman" needs to be so stable that only that state which is applied to you at birth can use that term as your name.

                  What?

                  Glad you picked up on my Treaty of Waitangi reference. The Chief knew who they were, and simultaneously signified non-translatability, representation, and their naming.

                  And the different understandings of language, for those who both supported it – and did not – remains a point of contention today. And the harm caused to Maaori, who understood the Treaty to confer equality and protection, is visible in today's generations.

                  • Ad …
                    13 October 2021 at 11:05 am

                    Now you are confusing naming with causality. That's not useful with this legislation. The Chief choosing to name themselves X did not cause current relations between Maori and the Crown. What that chief did was assert authority over the way they were to be named and their representative power to be expressed.

                    That's about as close an analogy to the BDM amendments and the insufficient need for full translatability when assigning one's own name and still having it recognised by the state.

                    • Molly …
                      13 October 2021 at 11:13 am

                      You are arrogant to assume what the chief's thought processes were at the time. The X in any case, referred to themselves, and not someone else. They did not sign the treaty with someone else's tribes marking, or authority.

                      Your comparison fails.

                    • Ad …
                      13 October 2021 at 11:54 am

                      There is indeed an arrogance in self-naming, which is its power. The X written by the chief identified themselves and their people as a naming. Through that mark of naming the (nascent) state and all those present poured common assent into a mandate. No one had the right to stop the chief naming themselves even if it had been fully translatable.

                      All that was contained within that mark was understood as both representation and assent. That is the nature of that naming assignment. From the point of view of the nascent state, of himself, and his people, that was sufficient. Even with radical non-translatability of meaning, we should similarly allow those who wish to, to assign their own mark.

                      The same applies here to this legislative change. One applies to make one's own mark whether it is fully translatable by anyone else. They should be given the human right as free to do so.

                    • Molly …
                      13 October 2021 at 12:11 pm

                      Your arrogance was in assuming you know what the chiefs thoughts were when they signed. You are either deliberately misunderstanding, or I wasn't clear enough – No one truly knows what is in the minds of others.

                      I can understand the Blah, blah, blah approach of Greta Thunberg when I read your comments which rely on various interpretations of naming and self-identification as sacrosanct abstractions that don't have real world impacts. And to be honest, really clumsily and inadequately assigned to the signing of Te Tiriti.

                      I disagree with your view that these abstractions when adopted into legislation, have no real world impacts. If you choose to actually read some of the concerns and consider them without bias, you may get to that point yourself.

  9. Sabine 9
    13 October 2021 at 8:56 am

    The one question and the only one for me is simply

    Why do women need to loose rights so that Transwomen can have them?

    An english Labour Man David Lammy is upset with women, he calls them dinosours who are hording rights. What rights are we hording that others don't have?

    And to the blokes that say 'It does not affect me', Yes. it does. If you have any body with a natural vagina in your family, a spouse – the birthing body of your offspring, the non male offspring, the non male great offspring, your birthing parent, your great birthing parent, all are impacted by the decisions that are being made. And that in the end will impact you.

    And for the Vagina'ed bodies of the Labour and Green Party, there is only one word that fits them, and it is Contempt.

    They are contempt personified. Utter and complete contempt of the citizens of this country, contempt for the worries and fears of those that actually made submissions.

    Unlikable, unrelatable, unelectable. If we still have the right to vote in the future.

    • SPC 9.1
      13 October 2021 at 9:18 am

      How is anyone contempt personified? This is an inaccurate use of language.

      Claiming that a group is unelectable, when current polls show them with enough support to be elected, is illogical.

      If we still have the right to vote in the future.

      What chance does a current government have to deny people their right to vote?

      Why do women need to loose rights so that Transwomen can have them?

      A good question, you should have stopped there.

      • Sabine 9.1.1
        13 October 2021 at 10:00 am

        I watched the submissions, just for the information sake,

        And thse ladies is what is generally referred to as 'contempt' contemptous' personified contempt.
        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contempt

        Definition of contempt

        1a: the act of despising : the state of mind of one who despises : DISDAINglared at him in contempt

        b: lack of respect or reverence for something acting with contempt for public safety

        2: the state of being despised

        3: willful disobedience to or open disrespect of a court, judge, or legislative bodycontempt of court

        And i totally stand by my comment, no matter your contempt of it. 🙂

        • SPC 9.1.1.1
          13 October 2021 at 10:18 am

          C+ – you should have referenced the definition of the word personify, as to verbify a noun.

          Verbing, or what grammarians refer to as denominalization, is the act of converting a noun into a verb. If you can't find an existing verb to describe what you're doing, just verbify the nearest noun! The purpose of verbing is to make what we say immediate and to-the-point.

          I could add the attempt to change the noun (male sex or female sex) with (divergent) gender ID (as they would want to appear and act in the society) is a form of personification.

      • weka 9.1.2
        13 October 2021 at 11:02 am

        How is anyone contempt personified? This is an inaccurate use of language.

        It's a metaphor. Did you not understand what Sabine meant, or are you seeking a pedantic argument for some reason?

        • SPC 9.1.2.1
          13 October 2021 at 11:21 am

          Sure it is, but classifying all those people "with vaginas" in those two parties in such a way was uncalled for.

          And of course, this debate is about accurate use of language, so the debate can be improved – not diminished by vitriol.

          And it seems you missed the on point issue of the noun into verb metaphor personification. The child is born male or female – that child can then choose to personify (gender ID) otherwise at a later time, based on how that individual chooses to live their life.

          The medical reason for accurate information (noun) records is obvious, but so is the well-being of the individual living their life identity, so this is a matter that requires goodwill and people working with common purpose, not reducing into tribes pouting their truth at each other.

          • Molly 9.1.2.1.1
            13 October 2021 at 11:27 am

            Your insistence on correcting Sabine's language is representative of the issues that arise from different language uses.

            Although, I am reasonably sure that you are grammatically correct. I can perfectly understand what Sabine is saying without that need for standard English use.

            There is content in her comment that you are either ignoring, or not addressing. And I believe it is the content that is important in both sides of any discussion.

            Understanding that in written discussions, frustration and misunderstandings result in sentences that read impolitely, requires extra leeway rather than policing as long as the conversation continues with content.

            • SPC 9.1.2.1.1.1
              13 October 2021 at 11:35 am

              There is content in her comment that you are either ignoring, or not addressing.

              I actually addressed all of the post she made. Whereas she only replied to one part of mine.

              • Molly …
                13 October 2021 at 11:43 am

                An english Labour Man David Lammy is upset with women, he calls them dinosours who are hording rights. What rights are we hording that others don't have?

                And to the blokes that say 'It does not affect me', Yes. it does. If you have any body with a natural vagina in your family, a spouse – the birthing body of your offspring, the non male offspring, the non male great offspring, your birthing parent, your great birthing parent, all are impacted by the decisions that are being made. And that in the end will impact you.

                This is the content that I refer to.

                I understand that it may not be the part that is of importance to you – or Sabine – but for me it raises important points.

                As mentioned, the post was about the issue of language and how we resolve it. Ad mentioned acceptance of 'flux', which I think is problematic. For me policing of grammar, if intent is clear, adds another layer to work through before we can have open and honest discussion.

                But if it is important to you, how do you think it can be resolved?

                • SPC …
                  13 October 2021 at 11:50 am

                  And I would have thought was supporting argument for her question

                  Why do women need to loose rights so that Transwomen can have them?

                  To which I agreed

                  A good question, you should have stopped there.

                  And of course the accurate use of language leads on to the context of the of birthing body as a noun/female human, and the personifying as the verb – thus leads onto the child born (male or female human) and how that individual person body later identifies and lives their life.

                  Ad believes in the cyclical view of history, each generation is a born one, that identity is only in flux later in that individual lifetime -as they choose to identify/personify.

                  • Molly …
                    13 October 2021 at 11:55 am

                    Thanks, SPC.

                    It's just from your comments, I don't get a clear view of what you think, only what you think about Sabine's comments.

          • weka 9.1.2.1.2
            13 October 2021 at 11:53 am

            Sure it is, but classifying all those people "with vaginas" in those two parties in such a way was uncalled for.

            How so? I don't feel that way about the GP, but it seems an honestly held belief by an increasing number of women. The party has shut down debate within the party, calling that contempt for voters or members isn't beyond the pale. Specifying the women in the party has a particular political point.

            In case it's not obvious, Sabine calling women people with vaginas etc, is very pointed satire. It's also sardonic. These are normal in political debates.

            I don't really understand your own metaphor tbh, but Sabine isn't arguing for trans people to be treated like shit, so I'm unclear on what the metaphor was doing in this subthread.

            so this is a matter that requires goodwill and people working with common purpose, not reducing into tribes pouting their truth at each other.

            I agree with this generally, and have argued similar in the past. Problem is women have their backs against the wall on this one, and they're furious. To create goodwill at this point requires substantial acknowledging the validity of women's politics and rights. The other problem is that gender identity activists still hold a No Debate position as well as one that seeks to remove women's rights. The fight isn't with trans people.

            • SPC 9.1.2.1.2.1
              13 October 2021 at 8:07 pm

              I made this comment

              Sure it is, but classifying all those people "with vaginas" in those two parties in such a way was uncalled for.

              in reference to the labelling of these people as contempt personified.

          • Gabby 9.1.2.1.3
            14 October 2021 at 11:13 am

            I guess you've selfidentified as a very clever clogs, so I suppose that's what you are.

    • Shanreagh 9.2
      13 October 2021 at 10:41 am

      The one question and the only one for me is simply

      Why do women need to lo(o)se rights so that Transwomen can have them?

      For me as an activist for womens' rights from way back this is the key. I see that many of the points we have gained are in danger, eg how are equal pay investigations going to get on with potentially higher paid transwomen joining the bio female workforce?

      • weka 9.2.1
        13 October 2021 at 11:05 am

        Yes. And what happens when a person who was raised, socialised and lived as a male gets a woman's position on a committee or similar? Are they able to represent women?

        It's the disembodiment that is a big issue here. Women's experience of the world, and their politics, are very much about embodiment.

        Trans women and men should have their own representation, they have unique experiences, different from women and men.

        • Joanne perkins 9.2.1.1
          13 October 2021 at 1:34 pm

          As a Transwoman I would like to just mention a couple of things here, first I don't know any transwomen who want woman to lose their rights at all, tho maybe there are some radicals who do, certainly not in my experience. Secondly, in response to Shanregh's question re pay equity, my role is usually undertaken in my company by women, there is 1 of 6 who is a man, and our wages reflect, in my view the general idea that women's work is worth less, that is I am paid the same as the other women doing my job in different parts of the country, not only that, there is no recognition that Wellington is the most expensive city in the country to live in. thirdly, yes my experience is different to that of a natal woman, generally we transwomen have faced vastly more loss and prejudice for large parts of our lives than natal women have and this has, I have no doubt, a role to play in how we prefer to be personified by others. take from that what you will, but i will not apologise to anyone for who I am or how I wish to be addressed. Just yesterday I was in a retail setting and the person behind the counter decide to call me sir, I was in a good place to I just let it go as ignorance, I don't always do that. Thing is, there was no need to refer to me in a gendered way at all but there you are, little niggles all the time and yes sometimes even those who say they respect Trans people and wish no harm to them us phrases that belie their expressed intention.

          • weka 9.2.1.1.1
            13 October 2021 at 2:53 pm

            One thing I'd love to see is research and then lobbying to look at women and trans women's experiences of things like pay equity. It's not surprising to me that TW get paid less than men. There's a lot of potential for parallel politics and working together.

            Stonewall, the largest and very well funded trans lobby group in the UK, has been lobbying to have the single sex exemptions removed from legislation. This would mean that women would have no single sex spaces. This is one example of gender identity activists trying to remove women's rights. No idea how many trans people support that, my beef is with the ideology and GI movement.

            I also see trans women holding women's positions on committees as a removal of rights. I'd much rather see trans positions set up alongside.

            • Joanne Perkins 9.2.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2021 at 7:18 pm

              The problem of course is the numbers, Trans women are a very small, almost infinitesimal part of the workforce and apart from a few invested academics I doubt there's much enthusiasm for a research project.

              I don't agree with the Stonewalll approach, or with doing away with single sex spaces, but then I've always been invited to enter, perhaps because women sense that there's no threat in me. The fact is I perceive myself as a woman born trans, if that makes sense, and I have never gone into women's spaces without being invited, of course that might be down to my essential fear of offending, who knows.

              I disagree with your last sentence, although I do understand why you hold that view. As I see it, as long as there is no seat for trans folk the only choice we have, if we are to be involved, is to be so as women, and I don't believe that necessarily cancels women's rights, though again I can understand the point of view.

              I do wonder if that feeling of cancelling of rights is rooted in the same kind of fear that I have felt for the last 20 or years, of being invisible to people who you want to see you, I know both that fear and the reality, yet here I stand.

          • Molly 9.2.1.1.2
            13 October 2021 at 3:30 pm

            Thanks, Joanne. I appreciate your thoughts. Like weka, I believe an alliance would be beneficial to all, though an alliance created with grievance comparisons would be doomed to fail.

            Your relation of your experience in a shop, is similar to that expressed by Helen Highwater above. As a non-conforming female, this has happened to me throughout my life. All that occurs to me is – they have got it wrong, given my appearance it is understandable.

            "… and yes sometimes even those who say they respect Trans people and wish no harm to them us phrases that belie their expressed intention."

            Sometimes people have different beliefs about language, that is important to them, such as not accepting the adoption of the word women to encompass transwomen. While discomforting, it is not an expression of harm, even if it is perceived as such. If I misunderstood what you said here, I apologise.

            Transwomen who have argued for the distinction, and the retention of single sex spaces – have come under the same barrage of criticism and de-platforming as feminists and others, so it is not solely a personal experience, it has societal impact.

            The "gender pay gap" related to the differences in biological sex pay rates, and the gendered work expectations imposed by society. Rather than incorporating transgender workers into self-id groups, I would think having their own category in data collection would be of value, not only in retaining sex based bias, but adding further insight into transgender discrimination.

  10. Lucy 10
    13 October 2021 at 9:13 am

    This is all a matter of definition – if a person wishes to redefine themselves who am I to say they are not as they want to be. I don't mind how trans people define themselves as I don't feel that their definition changes me. If they wish to use my hard won facilities then I am happy to share as I know they are unsafe in male spaces. A pinch of empathy goes a long way, if as an Aspergers person you have difficulty lying don't but find a way that allows you and the other person to move forward as people, without hurting. Why is gender more important than humanity? If their definition of themselves diminishes you then maybe the problem is how you or society defines you. If a person dyes their hair do you need to say they are brunette even if they are now blonde? If a person does body modifications is this lying? If a person puts on fake tan are they lying about their skin colour? We accept that people change over their lives – if they are lucky they get to be what they need/want to be, so maybe if you think of trans as a change it is not a lie it is a restatement of a person.

    • SPC 10.1
      13 October 2021 at 9:26 am

      Sure, not safe in male spaces. Which is why I sided with concerns for the transgender in police cells as to the event in Auckland a few years back. But for the same reason, also heed the concerns of women about their safety as to those with penises in their spaces.

    • Molly 10.2
      13 October 2021 at 9:26 am

      Lucy, thanks.

      I kept the original question short, and it seems that people make a lot of assumptions from four words.

      I am all for self-defined identity. I was a non-conforming female, and my second son wore his hair mid-back length until the age of 20 – which caused some strangers (usually men) much distress.

      Don't assume my Asperger's defines my compassion. I have had a lifetime of learning that what is said is not what is meant, and watching body language like a hawk. You become very careful to be clear without causing harm.

      People – within and without the transgender community – have the right to define themselves and live their lives as long as they don't impact negatively on others.

      To me, the redefinition of the word 'women' has a negative impact on the protected class of women, so it should not be appropriated in such a way.

      If a person next door wished to identify themselves as my partner's partner, I would also have a problem. Hopefully that view would be shared by my partner…

      However, while there is no limit to how people should express themselves in terms of their own lives, there are legislative and real world impacts that should not be disregarded under the guise of support.

      Back to the initial question, is that response really what you understood from that four word sentence??

    • Visubversa 10.3
      13 October 2021 at 9:49 am

      Lucy – I do not share your rush to admit male bodied people to female spaces. Women fought for every one of those spaces and the need for them has not gone away. What makes you think that male bodied people will not exploit the "rights" given to them to access women's spaces for bad purposes? Do you think that uttering the magic words "I identify as" removes any criminality? We see now the lengths that predatory men will go to in order to gain access to vulnerable women and children.We already have men's crimes being recorded as crimes committed by women. Ashley Winter was referred to with female pronouns by the New Zealand press all the way through his trial, conviction and sentencing for the torture and killing of a young woman. Should Ashley Winter be in a woman's prison simply because he says he is a woman?

  11. miravox 11
    13 October 2021 at 9:53 am

    So, what is heard when women commentators on this site make statements like:

    “Transwomen are not women”?

    I hear my stepdaughter talking to me about her transition in her late teens after being immersed in toxic language around the break-up of her parents’ marriage from when she was a child. How she came to hate men and her masculinity as she went through adolescence. How she wanted to be a woman, because they’re so nice and have a better communication – like bringing cakes to work for morning tea. How as an adult transwoman she learned that transition was not the answer, but she has come to live with the person she is, a transwoman. And that’s a good thing. She is a wonderful person.

    I hear my niece talking about her young son who is beautiful, arty, feminine. She loves football and lives as a girl. Intense bullying at school can do that to a child. But the solution to childhood trauma, because she didn’t fit the gender norms, now must come to a resolution. Does she begin her road to transition, or go through male puberty and all that this entails in her social world?

    I wish our society was not so adamant about what gender is – that there would be room for this beautiful, sensitive child in a man’s world. That she was allowed to shop in the pink aisle (that pink and blue aisles didn’t exist!). If she transitions, she’ll be a different kind of transwoman to my stepdaughter, but still I wish gender diversity really was that – that she could live with the biology she was born with, and still be the person she is. I wish we had space for that.

    I wish our world didn’t expect people of a particular gender to like particular things, look a particular way, behave in a way that we’ve normalised for that gender.

    And I wish transgender woman can just be who they are, without feeling the intense need to insist on what being a woman is and taking a seat in all female places.

    And is wish their gender identifier was not ‘trans’ – a label that literally says to be the person they want to be they must deny the person they are.

    I wish we didn't have pronouns at all.

    And I wonder why we don’t seem to have these hassles with the gender identity of transgender men.

    • Molly 11.1
      13 October 2021 at 9:58 am

      Thanks, Miravox.

      Your response deserves to be a post in itself.

      • miravox 11.1.1
        13 October 2021 at 11:36 am

        Thanks Molly, it's weka's hard work over the last few months and the framework of your post here that has enabled me to put some chaotic thoughts together.

        • weka 11.1.1.1
          13 October 2021 at 12:14 pm

          appreciate the acknowledgement, and agree your comment was really good.

          It does take time to sort through all the aspects of this debate. I'm still developing my own thoughts and beliefs and like you, it's been reading people (mostly but not always, women) that's helped me makes sense of it all. Listening to trans women, and detrans women has helped a lot too. Sex, gender, and living in a patriarchal society that harms men as well as women, is really complex.

        • Molly 11.1.1.2
          13 October 2021 at 12:22 pm

          (Just an aside, regarding your niece's child, if you missed the link a few days ago.

          Two gender surgeons perspectives on how current protocols impact on fertility, sexual enjoyment and the successful outcomes of future gender reassignment surgery. Such a myriad of considerations to make, and with no guaranteed outcomes, but information that may be of use.)

          • miravox 11.1.1.2.1
            13 October 2021 at 8:21 pm

            Thanks for this. Such a huge decision, in many ways irrevocable (even if just buying some time with blockers) for the child and the family.

    • Tracey 11.2
      13 October 2021 at 10:55 am

      Well said Miravox.

      It is not progressive to swap one set of harmful stereotypes to hide in another set. That is as Binary as it gets.

      As a young lesbian in the 80’s I have no doubt I would have questioned if I were really male based on today. Puberty plus not fitting in, being judged, bullied is a toxic mix, who wouldn’t want an ‘easy’ way out. I am a woman, I wear trousers, I wear dresses. I was bewildered and confused, not in the wrong body.

      Where are the demands for men to behave better toward young men/boys who don’t fit the stereotypes? Almost nowhere. On this site when Admin were ever asked by female Authors to moderate bad male behaviour, these progressive left wing men said ‘it’s fine, what ms the problem’

      • weka 11.2.1
        13 October 2021 at 12:26 pm

        thanks for naming that big elephant in the living room at the end there, lol. Hard now to see the same progressive left wing men side against feminists, but I guess not wholly surprising. Mostly I feel naive and sad.

        I wouldn't have been interested in medical transition, but as a tomboy I'm sure by the time I hit my teens I would have been totally into the Tumblr and Tiktok trans/NB communities, in a Rik from the Young Ones kind of way. Right on. Absolutely blows my mind that social contagion is so easily dismissed, or even just normal teen socialisation. So glad I'm not a teen now.

      • miravox 11.2.2
        13 October 2021 at 8:32 pm

        It seems there's little room for nuance anymore – in all sorts of ways. But the most damaging is the expectations of what 'normal' for children is. Expectations around children's expression are somehow more rigid than I remember – not just in terms of gender expression, and everything is labelled so it can be managed or erased – 'with love'.

        And yes, too few men, who know better, call out behaviour of other men. They're more likely to explain away bad behaviour by their peers, rather than ask them to change.

    • left for dead 11.3
      13 October 2021 at 12:33 pm

      Great post miravox, and thanks Molly,weka and all the other women here, I support you all.

  12. Tracey 12
    13 October 2021 at 10:46 am

    The clause that allows men to be legally regarded as women by mere self identification – CHANGES the definition of woman. Anyone wanting to argue the law supports the notion that men can be legal women can point to BDMRR Act and say to a Court – see? The law also says woman includes man

    it is not about hating transwomen but they are transwomen not women. It is about balancing competing vulnerabilities and to suggest that women/girls are NOT vulnerable is to ignore all the evidence before our eyes from unequal pay to dominating low paid jobs to sexual abuse victims to victims of DV

    if you are a proponent on women’s rights, of the working class then you cannot support this clause which changes the definition of women, which is its point.

    women are not the danger to transwomen, men are, but we are having the burdens of their vulnerability foisted on us. Even the chance of making us more vulnerable ought to concern every left wing person- seemingly the opposite is true.

    Nowhere is it demanded that boys/men change a single thing to make transwomen safer.

    • Molly 12.1
      13 October 2021 at 10:52 am

      Welcome to the conversation, Tracey. I miss reading your comments and posts.

      I agree with your sentiments, and submitted as much to the committee.

      I wrote the post to discuss how hard it it to talk about the issue, when everyone has different understandings of what words mean. (And apparently, about how a simple four word sentence, can trigger off a raft of responses.)

      The nonchalant assumption that the re-definition of the word "women", to include men doesn't have a negative impact is hard to understand for me.

      • Tracey 12.1.1
        13 October 2021 at 10:59 am

        Thanks Molly

        I am tired of saying I accept transwomen, and being treated as a liar. I am tired of providing evidence against administration of puberty blockers etc to young people with ‘bigot’. I am tired of explaining why my rights are in danger and therefore I and other girls/women are running the risk of harm and being told it’s transwomen dying of suicide as tho one set of suffering means it’s ok to ignore another. No third way. And to be told by so many men, with no skin in the game, with no requirement to change a single behaviour, that they know what a woman really is more than me. Tiring and frightening

        • Molly 12.1.1.1
          13 October 2021 at 11:10 am

          I am tired of saying I accept transwomen, and being treated as a liar.

          I have noted that any expression of support for the transgender community is ignored as well.

          No third way. And to be told by so many men, with no skin in the game, with no requirement to change a single behaviour, that they know what a woman really is more than me. Tiring and frightening

          It is a revelation to find out that many men understand the experience of women enough to determine there is so little value in it. I share the fatigue and anxiety of your last sentence.

    • Nic the NZer 12.2
      13 October 2021 at 7:41 pm

      I don't think this particular change does alter the legal category of woman. This can't be an implication of this bill as the prior legislation allows somebody to alter their birth certificate by following through with a more involved process. If the category of women is being occupied by some men that was already occuring.

      If gender in law is a notion of how somebody is perceived by others, then official recognition seems to require some official vetting process however. Self id has clear problems with it as a framework if these markers being self identified are to have any real significance. Having said that its the unofficial interpretations such as making all your female changing rooms effectively unisex which are most obviously a problem and there is nothing in this bill which justifies doing that anyway.

      • Molly 12.2.1
        14 October 2021 at 2:30 am

        If I had been aware that the previous change allowed change to the birth sex, rather than added a gender identity, then I would have had the same concern. The justification for allowing this, was that only a very small percentage of the population would utilise this process. There remained a safeguarding and gatekeeping process that took two years to show commitment to change and medical assessment.

        That process will now be replaced with a statutory declaration, sans safeguarding and gatekeeping. Gender identity is now so fluid that no changes in presentation is required – just I say, therefore I am

        So, the previous justification for allowing a change of sex rather than including a gender identity is lost. The conflation of gender and sex has already been set in legislation, and instead of correcting that misjudgement, this legislation compounds it.

        • Nic the NZer 12.2.1.1
          14 October 2021 at 1:54 pm

          I don't think there are both gender and/or sex categories on a birth certificate so in terms of recognising a change of gender differently to a change of sex I dont see any difference there.

          As I understand most of the issues with this legislation are relating to the introduction of self id.

          • Molly 12.2.1.1.1
            14 October 2021 at 2:22 pm

            The reason given for not including a gender identity field during the initial change to the BDMRR bill was that the number of people using the process was so small that a new field would not be required – hence the choice to use the Sex field. The existing gatekeeping and safeguarding processes in place meant that number would likely remain small, having little impact on data collection, research etc.

            The current proposal has the following:

            1. Will allow for Birth Sex to be changed instead of adding a Gender Identity field, so that the conflation of sex and gender remains.

            2. Removes the gatekeeping and safeguarding process (which was created not as a obstacle but as a means of ensuring transgender people had some contact with support systems and medical professionals on their journey) which eliminates both a safeguarding of people and process from harm.

            3. Allows a form of self-id that does not require surgical, medical, and/or presentational changes in order to change sex on the birth certificate.

            (Now in terms of gender self id, I don't have a problem with this. I do however have concerns regarding the misuse of this process by people not within the transgender community because the gatekeeping process has been entirely eliminated.)

            4. Allows for multiple changes as gender identity changes. (Again, concerns limited to the same as No. 3)

            5. The addressing of concerns raised by women as to the legal impacts on the provision of women's and girls safe spaces. As written there is none, and MPs tasked with answering this question have provided none. I think this is a failure on the parts of those promoting this bill. I suspect the answer is because there is no provision in the bill for that impact.

            6. There may not be a large increase in numbers seeking to change birth sex, but the changes proposed increase the likelihood of that happening.

            A solution that provides both the transgender community with official recognition, without any concerns regarding the impact on existing women's rights, would be to create that gender identity field, or a specific gender identity certificate that is affordable, accessible, and links you into suitable support systems.

            I don't know why this is not being pursued.

  13. Brigid 13
    13 October 2021 at 11:29 am

    “Transwomen are not women” is a statement of fact. If it were false it could be replaced with

    “Women are not women”

    I wonder how transwomen identify themselves in a nudist colony.

    Is it that transwomen eschew their maleness primarily and see the only alternative is femaleness therefore declare themselves female.

    How does someone who isn't something become the thing that they wish to be but aren't.

    • Molly 13.1
      13 October 2021 at 11:32 am

      Thanks, Brigid.

      I was waiting to see if a comment would come that expressed that simple view.

      I also see it as purely a statement of fact, rather than a judgement or a positional mantra.

      • Joanne perkins 13.1.1
        13 October 2021 at 2:24 pm

        You may well see it as a statement of fact, indeed it is a fact, but it is also a judgement and if you don't see that it may help to explain why your ongoing protestations of support for us transwomen is not seen as such

        • Molly 13.1.1.1
          13 October 2021 at 5:44 pm

          I disagree with you there, Joanne.

          While I can accept that you perceive it to be a judgement as well, you are incorrect in assigning that intention to me.

          If you require me to abandon my definition of women to prevent your inaccurate perception, then you are not demonstrating the understanding or respect that you demand.

          When someone clarifies that is a simple statement of fact, and accompanies it with a sincere affirmation of support for transgender – and you continue to see judgement – you are saying that the person is a liar because of your perception.

          That is a difficult issue to resolve.

        • roblogic 13.1.1.2
          13 October 2021 at 5:49 pm

          One can support individuals on their life journey, whilst not sharing their religious beliefs.

        • Brigid 13.1.1.3
          13 October 2021 at 6:18 pm

          It is not a judgement I make. It is a fact as you also have stated.

          If you have decided it is a judgement, and have stated it as a fact are you also using it as a judgement? If not why not?

          I'm not overly keen on what I say being interpreted as something it is not.

    • SPC 13.2
      13 October 2021 at 11:37 am

      I presume you are making the presumption that the transwoman is not post op?

      • Brigid 13.2.1
        13 October 2021 at 11:41 am

        Not necessarily. A naked female viewed from behind has a different form from a naked male also viewed from behind.

      • Visubversa 13.2.2
        13 October 2021 at 12:00 pm

        These days the vast majority of trans people do not have any sort of what is euphemistically referred to as "bottom surgery". It is expensive, and frequently unsucessfull, with a very high rate of complications. The odds are vastly in the favour of the person still having the genitalia which with they were born.

  14. Jenny how to get there 14
    13 October 2021 at 12:24 pm

    ….I consider lying to be one of the most dismissive ways of treating people, and spend much of my time trying to improve my language and speech, so that I am practiced at truth-telling.

    In this instance, I can understand why you want me to adopt these seemingly “innocuous” phrases. My understanding of your intent to avoid unnecessary distress in this way is clear.But can you hear me? Do you understand why I think this is problem, and I am unable to adhere to your request?

    How can we communicate with each other except with truth?

    Dan Hill sang;

    "I'd rather hurt you honestly. Than mislead you with a lie…"

    We can try and spare people's feelings by lieing to them, but at the risk communication breaking down.

    The Right epitomised by Donald Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway, stated, "You have facts we have alternative facts," goes someway to explain the decoherence between groups of people, in this case, between Trump supporters and everyone not a Trump supporter.
    Once you begin to accept 'alternative facts' dialogue becomes impossible with anyone not in your 'tribe'.

    The question was asked – ‘Why do you want to erase your lived experience as a transwoman, by adopting the term woman, when my experience as a woman and yours as a transwoman are different and distinct from one another?’.

    Her relief came, not from the question, but from the validation of the value of her personal experience as a transwoman. It needed no other validation but the truth……

    Their biological reality is just that, and both that and their personal expression should both be celebrated and valued, not hidden behind a comforting inaccurate phrase that erases truth…..

    Hear, hear.

    Difference is a good thing and must be celebrated and protected.

    Outside of basic verifiable facts, everyone's subjective experience is different.

    In life there are some lessons that have to learnt the hard way, by going through them. Often these lessons are painful and upsetting. In my life, possibly, if we knew about them beforehand I would have avoided them. But they were things that I could not have learnt from books, or have been taught about by others. They were things personal to my own individual experience that could not be learnt any other way than by going through them.
    Because these are things personal only to me, for the same reason they are things that cannot be taught to others. But they are the things that have made we what I am..
    The point is, every single person is unique. And uniquely valuable.

    When we become acceptable of all the things that make us what we are, maybe then we will have understanding and dialogue between us.

    Pepper

    Marky got with Sharon
    And Sharon got Cherese
    She was sharing Sharon's outlook
    On the topic of disease……

    [Chorus]

    I don't mind the sun sometimes
    The images it shows
    I can taste you on my lips
    And smell you in my clothes
    Cinnamon and cigarettes
    And softly spoken lies
    We never know just how we look
    Through other people' eyes

    We never know just how we look
    Through other people's eyes

    • Molly 14.1
      13 October 2021 at 12:32 pm

      Thanks, Jenny. I read your comment with the soundtrack of your lyrics running alongside in my head.

      Outside of basic verifiable facts, everyone's subjective experience is different.

      In life there are some lessons that have to learnt the hard way, by going through them. Often these lessons are painful and upsetting. In my life, possibly, if we knew about them beforehand I would have avoided them. But they were things that I could not have learnt from books, or have been taught about by others. They were things personal to my own individual experience that could not be learnt any other way than by going through them.
      Because these are things personal only to me, for the same reason they are things that cannot be taught to others. But they are the things that have made we what I am..
      The point is, every single person is unique. And uniquely valuable.

      When we become acceptable of all the things that make us what we are, maybe then we will have understanding and dialogue between us.

      Agree, wholeheartedly.

      Still unsure about your response to the question. But am clear, that like me, you support and validate everyone's right to self-expression.

  15. roblogic 15
    13 October 2021 at 12:26 pm

    The transgender rights movement is a peculiar artefact of the Zoomer/ TikTok/ Insta generation; very online, privileged adolescents exploring identities as they enter adulthood. It's a perfectly normal life stage that is especially difficult for girls. Instagram etc are vectors for toxic shaming, bullying, groupthink, and platforming the most narcissistic and outspoken young "stars" who are basically grooming children and lying to them. Glamourising "transition" as a way to get likes, social acceptance, and an "easy fix" for body image problems.

    While extending sympathy and kindness to individuals experiencing dysphoria or other self-image problems, there is much to criticise about the false promises of self-realisation via cosmetic surgery. And the behaviour of the transgender rights movement raises numerous red flags.

    Women writing about women's experience, and using the word "woman" in its usual definition, are being subjected to threats, harassment, and public denunciations for their heresy and disobedience to the trans mantras embraced by weak, conflict-avoiding bureaucrats who find it easier to silence women than to stand up for what's right.

    • Molly 15.1
      13 October 2021 at 12:37 pm

      I understand that some researchers are attempting to get data on some of the topics you raise. The whistleblower from the Facebook ethics department, showed that their own research on the social media influence on young people, was known to be negative and detrimental to their mental health. I hope this is given more attention.

      I was trying to raise the points about the obstacles that arise from different uses for language, getting in the way of open discussion. Your point about the neo-use of the word 'woman', is one of the more common ways for discussions to go off track.

      • roblogic 15.1.1
        13 October 2021 at 1:03 pm

        Your point about the neo-use of the word 'woman', is one of the more common ways for discussions to go off track.

        It's important to keep pointing out the consequences for women and girls, and the safeguarding of children, is of primary concern. Transgender rights should not steamroll everyone else's

        • Molly 15.1.1.1
          13 October 2021 at 1:09 pm

          Yes, I'm concerned that the approach in upholding transgender rights, may do more harm to that community, then one that openly acknowledges and protects the impact on women's rights.

          I also believe, that it is not a wish of all within the transgender community or their allies – to have a negative impact on anyone else.

          Meeting the need to support diversity in gender identity and expression, should be a goal for us all. As is protecting the existing rights of women and girls.

          I'm disappointed that so many are framing these issues as a competition rather than a respectful alliance.

          • Visubversa 15.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2021 at 1:54 pm

            Part of the problem is that there is more than one type of person who identifies s transgender. The ones we have known in the past have tended to be the ones with a bodily dysphoria – in this case an unhappiness with their sexed bodies. They are still around – but their voices have been drowned out by those of the louder and more recent comers to the party. These are the ones with the paraphilia. They are men who are sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as women. They fetishise every part of what they see as womanliness from clothing to lactation. That is why they are determined to leave no space for women that does not centre them. https://quillette.com/2019/11/06/what-is-autogynephilia-an-interview-with-dr-ray-blanchard/

            • Molly 15.1.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2021 at 2:07 pm

              I do understand about auto-gynephilia and its particular expressions.

              Strangely, however, I consider that gender identity is separate again from sexuality, although auto-gynephilia seems to be an occurrence of both a non-conformist approach to identity AND an intense expression of sexual self-love. I did read a brief summation of a self-named Auto-Gynephile who collated the stores of hundreds of such instances, Anne Lawrence. Her Wikipedia page is here. I find it informative to try and find both GCF women's and GCF/or not transgender voices on topics, as they all have a unique perspective that offers insights.

              I am surprised at the number of people who dismiss auto-gynephilia as a mythology, when as a society we should be aiming for a goal of acceptance as long as it doesn't create harm.

  16. Tiger Mountain 16
    13 October 2021 at 1:59 pm

    Ad’s comments above amply demonstrate the brain melting effect on some of post modernist philosophy–whereby anything can mean anything!

    The point of unity in this debate is surely that any demonstrably oppressed group such as trans people, deserve the support of other citizens to improve their status and conditions of life. Political struggle is rarely going to be easy, but it is generally worth it in the long run.

    • Molly 16.1
      13 October 2021 at 2:15 pm

      The point of unity in this debate is surely that any demonstrably oppressed group such as trans people, deserve the support of other citizens to improve their status and conditions of life.

      Agree. This statement should be a universal starting point to any discussion.

    • roblogic 16.2
      13 October 2021 at 2:26 pm

      Dr. Jane Clare Jones is an effective antidote to Judith Butler -esque postmodern waffle. One hopes that the arc of history bends towards justice. But that's not a given, especially if injustice is the status quo, people in power will not give up their privileges without a fight.

    • weka 16.3
      13 October 2021 at 2:39 pm

      The point of unity in this debate is surely that any demonstrably oppressed group such as trans people, deserve the support of other citizens to improve their status and conditions of life.

      Would you mind explaining why you specify trans people and not women as well? I'm asking because this is a feature of the debate (trans rights but leaving out women's rights) and I don't really understand why.

      And yes, trans people and women deserve the support of other citizens to improve their status and conditions of life.

      • Shanreagh 16.3.1
        13 October 2021 at 3:23 pm

        Good point Weka, That struck me immediately in TM’s post…standing up for Trans but not for women. Why?

        No-one really has mentioned why this has to be an us or them to put it bluntly. I don't want an us or them.

        A head in the sand approach though about what could happen when there are no controls over how the birth certificate change is made ie no verification that a person is living as a woman and nothing mentioned in the RIS (Regulatory Impact Statement) about the very worst that could happen and how to mitigate that. Incidentally that RIS would be one of the worst I have ever seen in my PS career. 'One over lightly' does not do it justice.

        The one question and the only one for me is simply

        Why do women need to lo(o)se rights so that Transwomen can have them?

      • Tiger Mountain 16.3.2
        13 October 2021 at 3:36 pm

        Trans only was used because that seemed the focus of Molly’s post, no intention to exclude other groups or women.

        In several of my posts on TS I have made it quite clear that while I support trans rights, I am not into the cutting edge of that movement that effectively says “Trans women are women–accept and do not question that or else…” as a strategic demand. How not to win friends and unite people.

        I know a number of staunch lesbian women, some of whom are personal friends, who have been, or feel maligned, by certain trans activists and they of all people with a long track record of social activism do not deserve that.

    • roblogic 16.4
      13 October 2021 at 3:34 pm

      Ad's comments about taxonomy are worth considering. At the margins categories do become fuzzy. That doesn't negate their usefulness for clear thinking. No scientific model is a perfect description of reality; books and academic papers are but a poor reflection of what is. Our perceptions and cognition are similarly imperfect. More on this at SlateStarCodex

      But these philosophical questions do not exist in a vacuum — they have real world implications when people embrace one way of thinking with religious fervour, to the exclusion of others. It's especially galling to see it proliferate in universities, supposed bastions of free thinking and critical discourse.

      • Tiger Mountain 16.4.1
        13 October 2021 at 3:45 pm

        Heh, each to their own. My mother is a Stoic, and I am a materialist, Marxist in world view and leaning to Existentialism in personal matters.

  17. chris T 17
    13 October 2021 at 2:55 pm

    A lot of people should be included TBF

    Kids, the elderly, the disabled, people of colour in certain countries, dudes with ginger hair.

    • roblogic 17.1
      13 October 2021 at 3:13 pm

      Keep chopping people up into smaller and smaller groups until you end up with the atomised individual (literally, not divisible into smaller units). The good side of individualism is the recognition of universal human rights, women's suffrage, workers' rights. But now we are seeing the dark side of individualism play out. Weaponised narcissism, self-indulgence, capitalist tyranny. And now, science denial in the midst of a deadly global pandemic.

      The natural state of human beings is to live in a community. Socialism FTW

      • weka 17.1.1
        13 October 2021 at 3:25 pm

        I see it more as being co-opted by neoliberalism. I think identity politics would look very different in a society run collectively.

        I'm also interested in the idea (but not wholly convinced) that there is class based oppression (sex, ethnicity, socioeconomics) where people are controlled and exploited for their labour on the basis of the class they belong too, and discrimination (all the other groups of people who don't fit into the class analysis.

  18. lprent 18
    13 October 2021 at 3:22 pm

    Personally I tend to just take people as they come.

    I do use short hand labels. Mostly I tend to divide people into a ranges between (arsehole to interesting) or (illiterate and geek). Both seem to have something close to standard distributions.

    Gender for me simply isn't that high a distinguishing a factor to me. It mostly tends to colour my preference about who I will tolerate living with – because I identify as a hetro male.

    But I have also spent large parts of my life living on my own, often with weeks or months without really interacting with other people in person. I'm always astonished at people who can't live with themselves. Or need in-person human interactions. I do a lot of my interactions remotely or online, and I have had those for nearly 40 years now.

    But gender biological or otherwise is way way less part of my identity and my life than being an ancient geek. To me it simply is an accident of biology that happened when I wasn't aware, much like my height, my ethnicity, my eye colour, my core intelligence level or the various physical disabilities that have been increasing as I get older. None of those I can claim that I chose to be.

    And in my view that is pretty much the same for everyone else. Sure adults are making choices when they go for gender reassignment. But to me that appears to be less of a choice than another trick of biology.

    As such, I'm more concerned about people not being able to be (as weka put it in a limited span) …

    And yes, trans people and women deserve the support of other citizens to improve their status and conditions of life.

    Plus everyone else who has discrimination preventing them being all that they can be because of accidents of biology.

    I mostly focus on the idiots who get in the way of that. As such there are more interesting things for me as a serious geek to focus on than a spat about biological gender.

    For instance all of those potential geeks who never realise their potential because they keep getting slung into prison or have horribly conventional families. devil

    • weka 18.1
      13 October 2021 at 3:36 pm

      this is a pretty good example of why a lot of men are largely unconcerned or not understanding why this is such a big issue for women. Men by and large are freer to identify how they want, and/or are way less affected personally by the sex/gender issue. There's identifying as male and hetero, and then there's the material fact of being male and hetero that one cannot identify out of.

      Women as a class are oppressed on the basis of sex not identity. If women could identify out of being paid less, sexual assault, the glass ceiling, male violence against women and girls, on and on, we surely would. Good old fashioned institutional sexism requires an analysis of biology to be combated.

      Lesbians are catching it both ways. As women, and as homosexuals. They are literally being told that if they don't want to sleep with trans women (penis intact) they are transphobic. There are people advocating that lesbians can learn how to like dick. I've not seen anything even comparable for het males, but am curious if they will be ok when it's their turn to sleep with males or be ostracised as bigots (this of course won't happen, because gender identity ideology is sexist and understands that men are a far harder target than women).

      • weka 18.1.1
        13 October 2021 at 3:37 pm

        and because I'm sure that all sounds like hyperbole or unreal to many, I'll drop some links.

        https://twitter.com/LabelFreeBrands/status/1448073925431382017

          • weka 18.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2021 at 3:42 pm

            that's social pressure conversion therapy for those not quite getting it.

            • weka 18.1.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2021 at 4:01 pm

              feminist analysis of the above tiktoks. The difference between men and lesbians saying no to being told to sleep with trans women or other males.

              https://twitter.com/HannahBerrelli/status/1447623085587410951

              • Molly …
                13 October 2021 at 4:28 pm

                That post, which was excellent BTW, took me onto current discussions regarding Kathleen Stock and the University of Sussex.

                I understand the Vice Chancellor who stated his support of Prof Stock and academic freedoms, is no longer in his position. I don't know why.

                Suzanne Moore who no longer writes for the Guardian after a similar action on her writing, has a good update on the situation.

                People who say there is no deplatforming, or imbalance in this discussion are refusing to see. I would also like them to point out instances where GCF have contacted employers in order to have TRA's dismissed for holding a different view.

          • Molly 18.1.1.1.2
            13 October 2021 at 4:16 pm

            This too, is really disturbing.

            "Conversion therapy" not legislated against in the current legislation proposal, and socially sanctioned. The harm of social media is amplified when the vulnerable or unprotected venture onto it for answers.

            • weka 18.1.1.1.2.1
              13 October 2021 at 4:24 pm

              really disturbing. I do have some hope that social media will eventually be the place that keeps some kind of check on that, but lots of damage done in the meantime.

              I watched that woman and wondered how we managed to raise such a self centred, massively overdeveloped sense of entitlement, generation. Not that most are like that, but it's the impact of the influencers and the closed cultures on youth sm.

          • Molly 18.1.1.2.1
            13 October 2021 at 4:02 pm

            I read the article with some dismay. The whole issue of informed consent seems to have been discarded.

            Alongside the 'rough sex' defence for predominantly male defendants in female deaths, does it appear to anyone else that we are hurtling backwards in terms of healthy sexual relationships?

            • weka 18.1.1.2.1.1
              13 October 2021 at 4:26 pm

              I think we are losing a lot of liberal ground, but it's cloaked in liberal rhetoric. The starting point for that HK situation was why was a man in a lesbian group to start with. Time to front up GI liberals and present your case.

              • Visubversa …
                13 October 2021 at 5:24 pm

                There are men in most on-line lesbian dating sites. In fact on many of them if you try and specify that you actually want a female person – you get chucked off the site. "The Cotton Ceiling" has some good examples of the pressure many lesbians face to accept male bodied people as female. Penises are not a female sex organ.

      • roblogic 18.1.2
        13 October 2021 at 4:23 pm

        The current Trans activist movement, looks awfully like an aggressive men's rights movement. Guys don't care if trans man wants to hang out in their space, as where is the threat?

        Different story for women who experience continual harassment, sexual objectification, boundary violation, and the threat of violence at the hands of males.

        • Molly 18.1.2.1
          13 October 2021 at 4:59 pm

          Having lurked around both cultures looking for answers, I agree there are some parallels there.

  19. Molly 19
    13 October 2021 at 3:45 pm

    Lprent – I'm sure there are as many diverse definitions of 'arseholes' as there are arseholes under the sun. That question would have been a more humorous one in terms of responses, I suspect.

    I can see how a universal acceptance of people personally, can influence whether or not you believe there is an issue with the differing degrees of constraint society imposes. You strike me as someone who wouldn't recognise a societal imposition on yourself, if it painted itself red and presented itself on your doorstep naked and wrapped in Gladwrap. (Fried Green Tomatoes reference, not a common activity in my life).

    Most feminists would celebrate legislative change that aimed to remove any kind of societal discrimination from the rights of a person to live life as they see fit.

    The discussion around this issue relates to how the current legislation has not been drafted to accommodate and allow for existing protections for women and girls.

    In that respect, many people, women and men, think a discussion that would improve the legislation, while still preventing discrimination is worth having. I think it is important.

    I understand that many feel otherwise. Usually they comment on here with such words as “I don’t know much about it, but here is two hundred words on why you are wrong.” Of course, I am paraphrasing.

  20. Molly 20
    13 October 2021 at 4:58 pm

    Heading AFK for a while now.

    Just wanted to thank those of you who commented who sought to clarify language, and aid discussion for taking the time to do so. And the measured thoughts of everyone here who has commented so far.

    For the eighties kids amongst us, the title of the post may have some resonance, but I chose it after reading this explanation of the song meaning, which I looked up after hearing it and thinking WTF does this song mean?

    My Interpretation

    I agree that the lyrics are wrong here and elsewhere:
    We are MATURE children

    also, in many places it says "Changes forever" when it's "Take us forever", like here.

    Now here's my interpretation, and I have to say one tiny line has really had a HUGE impact on my life: "Whisper to a scream"

    To me, this song is about the difficulties of discussing, debating, and in the end arguing. It's such a necessary part of doing anything together in a group. But in both personal relationships and in politics, it so often degrades into everyone screaming at the top of their lungs, and never getting anywhere. We choose the loudest words, the words that most hurt, over the words that would really make a difference in getting us somewhere.

    If I were to write this song, the parallel I'd try isn't with birds, but with fighting dogs. When I was a kid, I had a pitbull, really a sweet thing, but would get in a lot of scraps with other dogs… As a kid, I would sometimes have to pull them apart, and it was there that this song really started resonating with me: I found that the more I yelled at my dog to stop fighting, the more excited he got. So I had to learn to jump in the middle of the violence, and start soothing him. Soft words, petting, anything to calm him down and "change the subject" – a whisper to a scream.

    And this is what I see over and over again with people: the worst thing you can do when you disagree is to yell at them, but it's the hardest thing to do, to learn to pull back and speak in a whisper rather than adding fuel to the fire. "Take us forever" has a double meaning to me: it seems like it takes forever to get a point across when you decide to slow down and cool off. And, it will take forever for all of us mature children to learn how to whisper to a scream."

    Alek Bunny on April 30, 2018

  21. chris T 21
    13 October 2021 at 8:11 pm

    Do people claiming trans womens rights should trump females hard earned rights actually think trans women should be in let into female refuge centers where there will be females who have been raped by some male stranger or faced constant domestic abuse by their male partner, and the last thing they need is a a person with penis walking around them?

    Or that males should be housed with females in prisons, just by uttering the words. "I am a trans woman"

    It to me is incredibly dim. I am all for aticking up for new groups modern rights, but not if it screws another group (females) who fought hard to gain the ones the others are trying to destroy again.

    Because this sort of shit happens.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life

    "Transgender prisoner who sexually assaulted inmates jailed for life

    Karen White, 52, admitted sexually assaulting women in female prison and raping two other women outside jail………

    ……

    A “predatory and controlling” rapist has been jailed for life after she attacked vulnerable women in female prisons.

    Karen White, 52, who was described as being a danger to women and children, admitted sexually assaulting women in a female prison and raping another two women outside jail…………

    …….

    The 52-year-old, who is currently transitioning, was sentenced yesterday for two counts of rape, two sexual assaults and one offence of wounding.

    White has previous convictions for indecent assault, indecent exposure and gross indecency involving children, animal cruelty and dishonesty.

    The Ministry of Justice has apologised for moving her to the women’s prison, saying that her previous offending history had not been taken into account."

    • Molly 21.1
      14 October 2021 at 10:06 am

      Thanks Chris T for posting.

      When you take time to delve into this topic, it is a tapestry of many threads, historical and current forms and achievements of activism, public discourse and political influence and strategy.

      If you do, seek out the diverse voices. If you want some suggestions, just ask.

      I will offer up this link of Prof. Kathleen Stock, author of Material Girls. The recent release of her book has resulted in a targeted campaign of harassment and calls for her dismissal.

      https://twitter.com/BelfastBeatnik/status/1448024974804017155

  22. Drowsy M. Kram 22
    13 October 2021 at 9:06 pm

    What do you hear when someone says “Transwomen are not women?”

    A judgement, that men who feel ill at ease with their (biological) sex are not 'right'. They should harden up and create their own (third gender?) space – women's space is taken.

    What do you hear when someone says "Transmen are not men"?

    Wishing all people well on their diverse journeys toward feeling comfortable in their own 'skin' – imho fortune favours those with no need to travel far, if at all.

    STELLAR PRITCHARD | HERE WE ARE [18 Nov. 2020]
    Moe: For me motherhood means like it's, it's creating, so it's like kinda help, helping create worlds, for, say, Stellar, creating a world of safety, where she's able to live her authentic self and be unapologetic and, um, having support from us, as well as myself, to guide her through this thing called trans-queer life.

    Stellar: All of us weren't necessarily born into womanhood. We had to fight to get accepted, we have to fight to get understood. And we have to find who we are especially, and we have to find ourselves through our communities, and we have to find ourselves through… events, the best and the hardest events of our lives. Yeah, and I feel like all of us have to fight for the womanhood that we have, because there's so many people that will try and doubt our womanhood, and there's so many people that won't understand our womanhood. I may have been treated like that, but I'm not going to fall – yeah.

    Sir Robert Chiltern: You prefer to be natural?
    Mrs Cheveley: Sometimes. But it is such a very difficult pose to keep up.

    • Molly 22.1
      14 October 2021 at 2:39 am

      The judgement comes from you. As someone who says that statement, I know that there is no judgement intended.

      I cannot see another way of simply saying that there is a distinct class of the biological sex of women, and transwomen are not members of that group.

      Do you have a suggestion on how to accomplish that?

      • Drowsy M. Kram 22.1.1
        14 October 2021 at 8:34 am

        The judgement comes from you.

        If that's your judgement then I respect your opinion. You say "I know that there is no judgement intended.", and I accept that, but the tendency to judge is part of human nature – maybe I'm not the only one making judgements, intentional or otherwise.

        Do you have a suggestion on how to accomplish that?

        No. I think that the current furore about "women with penises", and "men with vaginas", will diminish over time as some NZers come to realise that the magnitude of the ‘threat’ the trans minority poses was misjudged. I could be wrong – it's just a hope.

        • Molly 22.1.1.1
          14 October 2021 at 9:01 am

          Well, that failure to suggest an alternative leaves people like me in an untenable position doesn't it?

          If we say what we mean, the judgement is assumed. So, I guess the impetus is on us to think about another word to describe women as a biological sex, because that one is now all-inclusive to include both sexes.

          You imply that women who object to this descriptor being used to accommodate men, are inherently making judgements – not about biological sex – but gender identity. It doesn’t matter if we clarify that is not the case.

          There are a lot of assumptions and barriers to truth being expressed that seem to be intentionally erected to avoid listening – and thinking.

          I disagree with your assumptions. And also wish to note your references in your last sentence come from the trans activist community, not from me. If you find delight in repeating them, go ahead. I will not join you.

          • Drowsy M. Kram 22.1.1.1.1
            14 October 2021 at 9:16 am

            Well, that failure to suggest an alternative leaves people like me in an untenable position doesn't it?

            That's upsetting – it was not my intention to leave people like you (or indeed any people) in an untenable position, nor do I believe I have the power to do so.

            The speculation about what delights me is perturbingly personal. Wishing you well.

            • Molly 22.1.1.1.1.1
              14 October 2021 at 9:37 am

              You are upset for automatically inferring judgement in a statement of fact, despite clarification – and being offered an opportunity to give an alternative, which you could not do – and then having to face the reality that your approach leaves women like me nowhere to go?

              OK… Perhaps stop being upset, and think about what would be a non-judgmental statement in this regard, and put it forward. The opportunity remains. If language is unable to be used accurately in any discussion, there is a problem. You have identified one (that I disagree with), in that within four simple words there is an inherent judgement. Then with that opinion, you can determine a solution. Mine is that the statement is just that. Come up with something else and we'll discuss.

              Well as to the delight, if I misjudged you, then I apologise. But this is not the first exchange where you have introduced those phrases, as if they have anything to do with me. As I don't use them myself, I have a couple of options available to understand why you keep repeating them:

              1. You somehow think I use them – despite no evidence,

              2. You like taking the opportunity to repeat them even though they have no relevance to the discussion.

              I considered you more diligent than to belong to 1. so I assumed 2.

              I stand corrected, but not apologetic. The implications of 1. is that you are not actually being sincere in this discussion.

              • Drowsy M. Kram …
                14 October 2021 at 10:23 am

                But this is not the first exchange where you have introduced those phrases, as if they have anything to do with me.

                My sincere apologies if you or anyone else received the impression that I was attributing those quoted phrases to you, or linking them to you in any way. I genuinely did not consider that possibly.

                They are phrases that I have come across in posts on this topic in The Standard and elsewhere – I do not recall introducing them previously.

                Our discussion seems to have (somehow) become very personal, which was not my intent. I accept that some will consider my views on matters trans misguided, but they are sincere.

                I think that the current furore about attempts to adapt NZ legislation to accommodate the trans minority will diminish over time as some NZers come to realise that the magnitude of the ‘threat’ the trans minority poses was misjudged. I could be wrong – it’s just a hope.

                • Molly …
                  14 October 2021 at 10:30 am

                  Thanks for taking the time and effort to clarify. It is genuinely appreciated.

                  My follow up question then is: Why did you introduce those phrases to this particular conversation? I can't determine the relevance of them to the discussion, and it would be interesting to understand why you considered them to be so.

                  (BTW, I don't consider the conversation to be personal. Just confused, because we are trying to figure out a way to hear each other without assumptions. If we don't name those assumptions, it is harder to clear them up.)

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    14 October 2021 at 12:45 pm

                    Why did you introduce those phrases to this particular conversation?

                    Don't know the origins of "those phrases", shemale and the like. I assume (possibly incorrectly) that they were/are used predominantly by people who view trans people as somewhat ‘freakish’. Could understand trans activists embracing such phrases, in the same way that some gay rights activists attempted to convert the pejorative 'queer' and other (former) slurs, but don't know if there is any evidence for this.

                    I used "those phrases" (@22.1.1) as unnecessarily provocative examples of how acrimonious the current divisive furore over the BMDRR Bill and, more recently, the Conversion Therapy Bill has become.

                    We're all wired differently – some it seems feel a deep, even desperate longing to belong, while others appear to be true hermits, happy or at least content to be alone.

                    Some trans people appear to feel a deep longing to belong to a group that is incongruent with their biology; that they might be prepared to resort to surgery to (try to) belong suggests to me that this need, whatever its origin, is genuine to the point of desperation. As a bit of a hermit, I can only imagine what it must feel like for those towards the other end of the spectrum to be told 'You don't belong here.' Maybe that's why a hermit lifestyle appealed to me in the first place.

                    Comparing trans kids’ healthcare to conversion therapy makes a mockery of LGBT struggles
                    The idea that I, or trans kids growing up today, would just ‘grow out of it’ and become gay or lesbian is a ridiculous claim, and is not reflected by the majority who have been supported as themselves from an early age and are adults now.

                    Figuring out your gender is a very different process to figuring out who you’re attracted to. I feel that those who confuse the two are usually people who have always been comfortable with their gender, and don’t understand the pure joy of finally being able to break free from the limitations placed on you, and express it in a way that makes you feel good about yourself.

                    It’s easy to make assumptions and claims about something you haven’t experienced yourself.

                    Four years on, past critics are silent on whether fears around transgender human rights bill were founded [23 June 2021]
                    Then, furor erupted around the bill, with media attention centring on University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson’s concerns of free speech and being compelled to employ certain words and gender-neutral terms.

                    Legislation adding protection for transgender and gener-diverse people to the Human Rights Act was met with controversy and fear when it was in the House, but four years on, these concerns have remained unfounded, say MPs and experts.

                    • Molly …
                      14 October 2021 at 12:57 pm

                      "I used "those phrases" (@22.1.1) as unnecessarily provocative examples of how heated and acrimonious the current divisive furore over the BMDRR Bill and, more recently, the Conversion Therapy Bill has become."

                      I thank you again for your reply.

                      But your explanation, such as it is, seems to be a divisive way of engaging in dialogue, when someone is trying to discuss things with you in good faith.

                      I have not used any of the dismissive terms used by trans activists in talking with you, because this was a one-on-one conversation.

                      And your links – and I can post many more – are not an excuse to abrogate your responsibility for respectful and sincere discussion if you choose to engage.

                      Are you happy with making that choice to use "unneccessarily provocative examples" in this thread?

                      You introduced a third voice, that didn't belong to me, and you said didn't belong to you, for what purpose?

                      Was it to delegate me to a particular type of person in your head, one that didn't deserve a good faith discussion? I'm not sure what your intention is here still.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    14 October 2021 at 1:53 pm

                    I stated (@12:45 pm) that my use of "those phrases" was unnecessarily provocative – I attempted a rewrite omitting those phrases @10:23 am.

                    But your explanation, such as it is, seems to be a divisive way of engaging in dialogue, when someone is trying to discuss things with you in good faith.

                    My explanation, "such as it is", is my explanation. Your implication that (parts of) my comments are not respectful, not sincere, and not in good faith suggests to me that further 'discussion' would be unhelpful.

                    I truly appreciate your invitation to answer this initial question:

                    What do you hear when someone says “Transwomen are not women?”

                    and regret that you found my answer and subsequent comments to be unsatisfactory/disrespectful/insincere and not in good faith. Kia kaha.

                    • Molly …
                      14 October 2021 at 2:05 pm

                      You can assume judgment where none is intended, but prepare to be challenged on that assumption.

                      You can use deliberate provocative phrases, but prepare to be challenged on that choice.

                      You can provide an explanation – or not – but prepare to be given an answer on how well that explanation goes.

                      You are talking to a person, here, with their own views and engaging in good faith, and you are speaking as if into a void.

                      My explanation, "such as it is", is my explanation. Your characterisation of (parts of) my comments as not respectful, not sincere, and not in good faith suggests to me that further 'discussion' would not be helpful.

                      You entered comments into this thread that you took no ownership for. Even worse, you provided links to someone else's words, as if that is evidence of relevance. If you do not understand that this is not an approach that results in honest debate or discussion, then you should excuse yourself.

                      (But I suspect you already have.)

        • Gabby 22.1.1.2
          14 October 2021 at 11:30 am

          I think we'll come to our senses and find a better way to include people unhappy with their bodies.

  23. Stuart Munro 23
    13 October 2021 at 9:35 pm

    I have generally stayed out of discussions of this issue, not being one of either most-affected group, and having worn my share of ire from issue driven folk in the past.

    I have some sympathy for trans folk – not that I necessarily agree with their reasoning, but that, where possible we should act to reduce suffering – and I'm sure that some are suffering.

    I submitted against the bill however – it seemed to lack that essential property of good legislation, the primum non nocere in respect of other vulnerable communities. Better not to rob Pauline to pay Petra, so to speak. If it can be reworked to avoid the conflicts, it may be worthy of support.

  24. weka 24
    14 October 2021 at 9:59 am

    I'm thinking this might be another "what do you hear when…" question.

    https://twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1448383214922440706

    • weka 24.1
      14 October 2021 at 10:00 am

      The BBC investigation into Stonewall that that quote is from isn't available outside of the UK yet, but should be at some point (they're trying to free it up).

    • Sabine 24.2
      15 October 2021 at 5:23 pm

      Well of course not, in surrogacy there is no women, as the womb is for hire, there is only a gestational body with a vagina.

      Essentially if us women don't watch out we end up like the female Ferengi.

      • weka 24.2.1
        15 October 2021 at 6:23 pm

        not to worry, according to the neoliberals and transhumanists, womb implants in men will make us redundant free us from our labours! Happy days.

        • Sabine 24.2.1.1
          15 October 2021 at 8:46 pm

          also already done, here

          https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6483038/

          the orville – about a girl.

          Basically the story is simple, the planet the parents of the girl child is so horrible – they are weapon makers – that they 'trans' all the female children into boys so as to be more able to live on their planet.

          In this story these guys are on the Orville (Star trek universe) have a child that is born female and want to travel their home planet to have surgery done to have the child turned into a boy. And people on the orville learned that this is done to all girls born on this particular planet. This was actually not a bad episode. From 2017.

          And this is where we are going when we are looking at numbers of girls identifying as trans. Can't argue with the girls actually, if testosterone injections and a flat chest make them pass as blokes and thus get them jobs in IT / Stem for example, with better pay and non of the sexism, why would you not.

  25. Puckish Rogue 25
    14 October 2021 at 11:47 am

    I take a lot of my views from Blaire White: https://www.youtube.com/c/BlaireWhiteX

    So to me the question of 'What do you hear when someone says “Transwomen are not women?” is quite simple in that I agree, transwomen are not women but deserve and entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

    The main issue I have with this type of question/debate is that it seems to me that once again women (xx chromosome, cis gender, whatever) come off second best, women lose.

    Trans women have irrefutable physical advantages over women yet its considered good they compete with each other even in combat sports

    This is the only video you need when it comes to trans women fighting women: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPOskQsMwJQ

    Now because of where I work I tend to take more notice of prison issues and, trigger warning, its not good:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg

    https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate

    Has this happened in NZ? I don't know, I know its happened the other way (male rapes trans) but I have no doubt it will happen at some point but once again women lose out to trans women

    I know people won't want to read anything by The Daily Wire but this is why women don't want trans women in changing rooms and toilets:

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/loudoun-county-schools-tried-to-conceal-sexual-assault-against-daughter-in-bathroom-father-says

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/loudoun-county-update-sheriff-confirms-daily-wire-reporting-lcps-responds

    I won't post what the boy allegedly did and what hes been charged with, its in the first link if you want to know, but its as bad as you can imagine

    • Molly 25.1
      14 October 2021 at 12:47 pm

      Harsh read PR. I couldn't access on the Daily Wire, so ended up on the Washington Examiner.

      • Puckish Rogue 25.1.1
        14 October 2021 at 12:52 pm

        Its not pleasant reading and hopefully its a wake up call.

        Interesting to note how little traction this case has in MSM circles.

        Now I don't want anyone to think I'm anti-trans, I am not but I also think that women shouldn't have to give up their spaces either.

        • Molly 25.1.1.1
          14 October 2021 at 1:04 pm

          Unfortunately, the declaration about not being anti-trans still seems to be a requirement when talking about women's rights.

          Although, that will be ignored quite often, or assumed to be a lie.

          We have conflated two issues:

          1. Transgender rights – that give people the ability to express themselves in any way they want, (as long as it harms no-one else) and making sure any person in this group is free from discrimination.

          2. Maintaining the protection of women and girls to have their own single-sex spaces, rights and services.

          Both goals can be achieved.

          The conflation of the two, as if they are in conflict is the problem, which is not helped by proposed legislation, and MP answers to how the changes include the protection of No. 2.

          • Puckish Rogue 25.1.1.1.1
            14 October 2021 at 1:09 pm

            Unfortunately alot of it is money. More money for toilets and changing rooms in mall, shops, council facilities and schools

            New wings in prisons.

            New leagues for Trans athletes (or instead of male/female have xx/xy competitions)

            A big cost involved for all

            However what interests me is why, over the last 5-10 years, there seems to be a massive increase in the amount of people wanting gender reassignment surgery

            • Molly 25.1.1.1.1.1
              14 October 2021 at 1:18 pm

              There are researchers looking for funding into these aspects of the issue. But not all who identify as transgender look for gender reassignment surgery.

              It is a fairly large proportion of transwomen that retain their biological bodies, for whatever reason. I'm sure the difference in health systems and access plays a big part. Though there are some that are comfortable with their male bodies, who nevertheless identify as women.

              I believe we are not necessarily unaware – but perhaps not fully aware – of the depth of influence of current technological use, including social media. Particularly in regards to young people, as indicated by the recent revelations regarding Facebook's internal research.

              There was already research numbers available about the rise in self-harm and suicide linked to young people (particularly girls) that correlated to high social media use. Alongside that, there is a noticeable increase in the number of young girls identifying as transgender. Whether that is linked, needs to be researched.

              Like any complex issue, I'm sure there is a multiple number of factors that converge to multiply the effect.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.