- Date published:
6:00 am, March 6th, 2023 - 139 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Surely making or publishing a statement you know to be false during a state of emergency should be made illegal? You know, say to a $10,000 dollar fine and/or six months imprisonment for publishing each rumour and up to $5,000 for repeating them?
This fellow Tim Baker ought to be before the magistrates to answer for his rumour mongering in a disaster, while if the alt-right publish his rumours – and don’t take subsequent actions to correct the record – they too ought to be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.
Tim and his travellers do far more damage than looters, yet no sanction. The FSU and ACT have a lot to answer for.
Dude your rapidly losing the regard I held for you with your constant support for fucking looters, thief are scum end of, you don't get to pick what laws you support in a decent society.
Are they really "looters"? The crime narrative has largely been a right wing beat-up with racist overtones.
AFAICT it's been people from poor parts of town picking up other people's broken stuff that was left on the side of the road
What else is someone "who runs a mental health charity" lying about indeed?
Imho, unrepentant pedallers of disinformation are beneath contempt – take VFF, please.
That nutbar Tim Baker….apparently runs (ran ?) something called Kiwis for GOOD. (I'm not linking it…)
And in his own words…did a lot of drugs. IMO they must have burned his mind. Cause he sure dont seem rational. At all….
Sadly , there will be those who latch on to him…and fellow disinformation purveyor Liz Gunn et al.
Just footloose soldiers for the Counterspin and VFF leaders.
Sad, and dangerous with it.
Fark….What a loose cannon dick he is ! And yea, re during a state of Emergency….broadcasting these terrible lies : ( . Just a POS.
Ukraine has begun the process of ditching the Soviet railway gauge in favour of the European gauge.
The new railway line connecting Lviv and Warsaw is to be built by the end of 2023. The rails will have a European gauge, thanks to which it will be possible to get directly from the Polish capital to the largest city in western Ukraine. Subsequently, the next sections towards Kiev are to be built, informs the Friday edition of "Rzeczpospolita"
Quite a few signs emerging that the Russian juggernaught is showing stress.
..the one who is following picks up the rifle and shoots…
On a lighter note I was at Hutt Sounds yesty. I bought the ticket on the Blams alone. With them on the bill were Stellar, Misex, Greg Johnson and Hoodoo Gurus.
So good to hear tracks from Luxury Length live for the first time. The lyrics stand up well nowadays. Not bad for 20something North Shore punks. 'Talkback King', 'Call for Help' 'Luxury Length' , 'Marsha', 'No Depression' all got a hearing as well as 'Battleship Grey' and others.
Having the Gurus raise the roof with '1000 Miles Away', 'Whats my Scene?' and 'Like Wow Wipeout' was a great way to finish the evening.
As Grg Johnson said, what a great idea to have an outdoor venue with a roof.
A few wrinkles for the Brewtown team to iron out for next year (limited number of food trucks, that seemed to run out early) but nothing too major.
Yes, I was most impressed at how well it went. Apart from the food trucks, obviously. And interestingly, that they ran out of Panhead Supercharger at one point and had to get a whole load more from the brewery.
Great to see the Hoodoo Gurus again. It was nearly forty years ago I saw them last, when I was a student.
Sounds fantastic. The Blam Blam Blam Story is one of my all time favourite albums. Was a bit of a fan of Greg Johnson for a while. Blasts from the past.
Back on this thread there was a discussion between Sanctuary, Ghostwhowalksnz and I about the flooding in what seemed to be a very recently built suburb in Napier, Te Awa. According to the news extract I have linked to below it was built in 2018. Very recently and we were well aware of climate change etc at that time,
Sanctuary and I were amazed that any consent had been granted to build here based on our knowledge of the area.
In this extract from News Hub a landscape architect also expresses concern. The land is apparently lower than high water and so that in simple geographic terms the land in front of the subdivision is dune.
While I believe intensification could have been used in Napier to avoid housing spreading to unsuitable areas, go my view is that NZ has a way to go in urban design before infill or intensification is attractive to those moving from single units.
In the Wellington suburb I live in any infill is, in a world, ghastly. No attempt has been to blend, excessive amounts of hard surfacing, tiny dwellings with poky rooms.
Subdivisions where a large old derelict house has been removed thus giving a clear site seem to be better, though still with too much hard surfacing and a napalmed approach to saving/incorporating any existing vegetation. Some of these have interesting/quirky referencing to the existing Edwardian built environment.
So why is there a difference?
I can see one possibly
some infill housing may be owner inspired and therefore done on the cheap as far as good design is concerned. Plonking a cookie cutter existing design will be cheaper than paying for someone's brain to be engaged to work on an individual site. All of this could be smoothed out if design guidelines were put in place then the lower cost and higher end will be bound by the minima.
Re vegetation the 3/30/300 rule seems worth adopting.
We already have the ability to refuse Land Use Consent for subdivision where there is significant risk from natural hazards.
I used it when I was working on the North Shore and turned down an application for the subdivision of a site in the Wairau valley where the volume and velocity of the water expected in a flood event would mean that there was no way to have safe egress from the proposed site. Council need to be using this far more often.
"106Consent authority may refuse subdivision consent in certain circumstances
(1) A consent authority may refuse to grant a subdivision consent, or may grant a subdivision consent subject to conditions, if it considers that—
(a) there is a significant risk from natural hazards; or
(c) sufficient provision has not been made for legal and physical access to each allotment to be created by the subdivision.
(1A) For the purpose of subsection (1)(a), an assessment of the risk from natural hazards requires a combined assessment of—
(a) the likelihood of natural hazards occurring (whether individually or in combination); and
(b) the material damage to land in respect of which the consent is sought, other land, or structures that would result from natural hazards; and
(c) any likely subsequent use of the land in respect of which the consent is sought that would accelerate, worsen, or result in material damage of the kind referred to in paragraph (b).
(2) Conditions under subsection (1) must be—
(a) for the purposes of avoiding, remedying, or mitigating the effects referred to in subsection (1); and
(b) of a type that could be imposed under section 108."
I guess a local authority has to have the will to do this. This is big stumbling block in Napier in my view.
Also to be prepared to spend a lot of money, and stand firm in the Environment Court. Declined resource/building consents are routinely appealed – and the process can take years. The only people getting rich from this are the lawyers…
Effectively the landowner has nothing to lose, in continuing to appeal, since the property is worthless if it's not allowed to be built on.
Wortth noting the foreshore area roughly between Browning & Vautier street in Napier is raised up as seawall largely on the rubble of the '31 earthquake. The family whose company constructed the Sunken gardens on the Marine Parade were good friends of my parents (my Dad helped them build the iconic Hawkeye mascot) and I recall them saying they had all sorts of bother digging out the rubble in the late sixties for that. South of Vautier street I think it very much probably is a combination of dune and uplift.
One more thing they have to consider if you want to consent for building in Hawkes Bay is Napier South is a reclaimed swamp, the reclaimation starting in 1908. Everything South of that, i.e Georges Drive – was left a swamp until uplifted by the 1931 quake, and the area only had drainage put in to make it suitable for building through the 1960s and 70s.
That means the whole area would be subject to severe liquification should another 1931 sized earthquake hit.
Sorry Sanctuary I did not mean to be inaccurate labelling it all dune. It is a truly weird place to have a subdivision.
I liked Napier, in the olden days, before money became the only topic of conversation.
The Sunken Gardens/Veronica Bell were always very special places. My mother had gone through the 1931 earthquake (in Wairoa) and she found it very spiritual.
My Dad a real estate agent loathed Napier, called it 'meretricious'
"meretricious souvenirs for the tourist trade"
relating to or characteristic of a prostitute.
Ironically it was the houses along the main sea front road to Hastings that he instanced, mainly because they were part of a ribbon development, traded on their sea views, built on sand etc.
If you are interested in the watery woes of early Napier and/or would like to see when your great great grandparents first appear in the land records, and for a background as to why you should not build subdivisions in Te Awa – this document here is amazing.
Amazing document. Thank you.
Looks like, from a now outsider looking in, is that money talking may be the only conversation going on when it comes to planning for the future. I do not mean, I hasten to say, that there is individual graft but a view that the future is wrapped up in more, more, more people living in single unit dwellings spreading ever outward.
When you say "the whole area" I assume you are only talking about the bit starting at Georges Drive and you don't mean Napier South itself?
Although Napier South is a reclaimed swamp it was mostly built on prior to the 1931 quake and the houses were just fine. I grew up in a house in Nelson Crescent that dated from about 1920.
Napier south means the area very roughly bound by Georges Drive to the parade, McGrath/Wellesley street to Thackeray street and Thackeray to Georges Drive. Prior reclaimation beginning in 1908 it was a marsh that flooded at high tide. Reclaimation of this are was done using what today would be unsuitable material – sand and various debris. There was quite a bit of liquification of this land in the 31 quake, but at the time it was the least of their worries.
Napier due to the fact it is largely built on reclaimed marsh is assessed as very vulnerable to liquification in a really big earthquake.
If you read the attachment to Sanctuary's post you will be able to get even more info about the reclamation of the area you used to live in.
My own view, not sure if is has any scientific validity, is that in times past 'we got away with' reclamations, building platforms on land that was suitable then and have had few problems.
With climate change and the fact that extremes of weather seem to cause old land forms to re-emerge perhaps these areas may not be as strong in the future.
Coupled with the background of being swamp Napier also has has areas raised up by the earthquake & with liquefaction etc.
Were you in Napier when the Daily Telegraph had a picture of a huge ship appearing to sail up the creek near Georges Drive as part of an April Fool's day issue?
Napier planners should be paying close attention to the very early maps (prior to swamp draining and the earthquake – two timelines), photographs and paintings before opening up areas such as Te Awa
Green Party continuing it's inexorable slide into authoritarianism, decrying the "violence" of allowing women to speak; while engaging in hyperbolic rhetoric of its own against an individual:
An Open Letter to Minister of Immigration Michael Wood regarding the planned tour of Aotearoa by Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull
Broken link. I strongly suggest people do the simplest thing which is copy and paste the url in the clear. Rather than trying to use the tags. Added benefit is people can more easily see what the irl is before clicking.
This Posie Parker?
Yeah. Context may make a difference, but logic doesn't, so maybe not.
This video is admittedly a rant that resulted from the 4th or 5th time the police have contacted Kellie Jay Keen for reported hate speech. They refer to something that was said at the Brighton rally that was livestreamed when a police officer stood alongside her for the event.
You can watch the full videos here:
Harassment via police is a familiar occurrence in the UK.
The annihilation you refer to is in regards to getting out of the way, but you will have to watch the preamble for context. (Similar to the use of annihilate in sports.)
Ineteresting. I thought the definition of words was very important to these types.
I am unfamiliar with the use of ‘annihilate’ in sports, however the dictionary definition is:
So Parker was engaged in hyperbole of their own then?
This kind of language seems be being used on purpose regardless of its context.
But but – wanting to put limits on the speech of vicious, potentially genocidal authoritarians is authoritarian. Surely?
"… vicious, potentially genocidal authoritarians"
Who decided that this is accurate? The same cohort who demanded #NoDebate?
Have you seen the Let Women Speak events, and compared the behaviour and speech of those involved to those who turn up to stop women from speaking?
Every event is livestreamed, and remain online.
Someone else has compiled some footage from the NYC Don't Let Women Speak action:
In the same way I don't hold everyone who has a different perspective responsible for what the police consider credible death threats against Kellie Jay Keen, I also don't demand she take responsibility for words said by others.
Why do you?
Do you support this action by the Greens?
Also consider – No matter how temperate or polite the language used by many women, the responses are often violent and sexual in nature.
A collection from 2020 directed towards J K Rowling:
And of course progressive men on TS can also find it difficult to not resort to sexed-based abuse:
Please indicate where I demand[ed] she take responsibility for the words of others. She has said plenty on her own, for example, apparently mis-using the word annihilate when she actually meant 'get out of the way' (according to you, the rest of us only have the common understanding [and dictionary definitions] of words to go by).
What I was pointing out was that the rhetoric and legislation regarding LGBTQ people is becoming more extreme around the world, and I choose to stand with people united against this increasing intolerance rather than those fuelling it.
I was referring to myself with the demand, but see how I was unclear.
"What I was pointing out was that the rhetoric and legislation regarding LGBTQ people is becoming more extreme around the world, and I choose to stand with people united against this increasing intolerance rather than those fuelling it."
I'm not denying this may be the case.
However, I think the fallacies that sex can be changed, gender identity trumps sex, sexual orientation is identity based, medicalisation of minors is healthcare, queer theory is appropriate for being taught in schools to children as fact, and appropriation of women's single-sex spaces and language is progressive are themselves extreme beliefs.
#NoDebate meant that any attempt at discussion was not tolerated in public or political circles.
Creating space for women to speak is a way of counteracting that intolerance.
Unfortunately, as you point out, there are others who are responding with similar violent threats, that have been initiated by those who regard themselves as progressive who refused to engage.
I do not support either of these groups.
Do trans people exist?
People who declare a gender identity not only exist, but should be free from discrimination due to that belief.
Your turn: Is sex – not gender identity – fixed and binary?
"People who declare a gender identity not only exist, but should be free from discrimination due to that belief."
How does that belief square with your support for Parker whose organisation Standing for Women opposes civil rights protections for gender identity, as well as laws and policies that allow transgender people to be legally recognised as their gender?
Doctors and scientists, with much more expertise than you or I, repeatedly have shown that human genetics is complicated, while XX and XY are by far the most common, they are not the only forms of sex expression. Trans and gender-diverse people have always existed, long before there was any understanding of genetics and will continue to do so for as long as we protect them from those like Knowles and their fellow travellors.
Blocking self-id is a form of discrimination because it means a person's identity is dependent on authority to determine.
Those discriminated against is such a way are not ‘free’ to exist. They are tolerated, at best.
Arkie, sex is not on a spectrum. What determines female is the capacity to produce large gametes and male the capactiy to produce small gametes.
Gender Identity =/= sex.
I don't share your belief regarding gender ideology. I also will be unlikely to agree with all that Kellie Jay Keen says. I have my own perspectives.
I believe the only commonality I have with all woman, is the experience of living in a female body.
This excludes men from the category of women – including men with gender identities. This material reality is now reflexively labelled discrimination and bigotry when it is pointed out.
If amenable, it'd be best if we can leave this discussion for another time, given the sad news of the death of Georgina Beyer.
You believe that "Blocking self-id is a form of discrimination because it means a person's identity is dependent on authority to determine."
I believe that legislation that provides official documentation that said you are a member of a category that you are not, has significant impacts on many aspects of life.
Your assessment of discrimination is not one I share.
I'll repeat my request to arkie: If amenable, it'd be best if we can leave this discussion for another time, given the sad news of the death of Georgina Beyer.
I was answering your question about sex being a 'fixed binary'. what I wrote is not my belief, the science shows that sex isn't restricted to a binary, mostly, but not always, and now, with modern genetic testing, we are finding out how broad sex as a category actually is:
But as you admit, you believe otherwise.
Thanks for the link. I have read it (a while ago) and thought it was unconvincing.
IIRC, it also continues the harmful practice of conflating DSD's with gender identities, redirecting focus, funding and political support from those with developmental conditions:
If sex is not binary, what is the third gamete and what role does it play in reproduction?
There were reviews of the 2018 article (and others that were similar) that effectively countered some of the points that supported the title.
My bookmarks are on another computer but here is one that I found with Google that I recall reading at the time:
Unconvincing? What do scientists know anyway, eh?
To your question: if sex is not binary, what is the third gamete and what role does it play in reproduction?
Sex as a category (not the act of reproduction), is not determined solely by chromosomes, babies do not always have their gender determined by genetic testing, the medical staff look at the biological expressions of the presumed chromosomes (primary sex characteristics) and write that on the birth certificate, sometimes those are incorrect or incomplete determinations. From the article:
So sex determination is actually very complicated, not binary and to reduce it to merely the capability to reproduce is to leave the sex of all those without children To Be Determined. We as a society use the shorthand of gender to categorise people, this is determined at a glance by how they look; what they wear, the way they move, how they decorate their face etc. etc. most of the time our determination of others gender is accurate to their own, sometimes it's not, sometimes they only find out their own determination is incomplete late in life:
This woman is a mother, while also being partially a man right? She is excluded from your category of women
Leaving aside sexual intercourse, what do you think biological sex is if it’s not how animals reproduce as a species?
When GCFs say sex is binary, they are talking about how humans reproduce, and the two forms that are needed for that to happen (female/male). There is no third form. There are certainly variations on those two forms, but there is not a third kind of human that is necessary for reproduction of the species. Females produce ova, males produce sperm, both are needed.
Why this matters in sociopolitical contexts is important, but it can’t be discussed until there is an agreement on the biological reality of reproduction.
The minutiae of how science observes the variations in human sexual development is important in specific contexts (eg medical). But something as important as sex shouldn’t be left to science to define. Science informs us of certain aspects of biological sex, but it cannot interpret that into social and political contexts.
"This woman is a mother, while also being partially a man right?"
No. I think you misunderstand the findings.
Women can retain foetal cells years after pregnancy and some maternal cells can exist in a child's body for years after birth.
The presence of these cells from another body do not translate to a 'partial sex'.
It is you that misunderstands. She is what is known as a chimera, an individual in which two separate sets of genetics are expressed in separate tissues of the one person. This is how she was born, with large parts of her body being chromosomally male. You wouldn't be able to have commonality with those parts right? Those tissues that are XY can't experience being a woman right?
From your article:
Both forms involve the presence of another organism, whether it be an absorbed twin in utero or cells transferred from foetus to mother or the other way round.
This may be of interest:
Right, and so the woman in the example I cited is a macrochimera, which doesn't change the question of exclusion; This woman lived all her life as a woman and has had children, she has reproduced using the parts of her anatomy which are chromosomally female, all while completely unaware that other parts of her anatomy are genetically male. She would be excluded from your sex category of woman. This way of categorising sex also excludes those with endocrinal variations as I cited too.
Once again, the condition of microchimaerism involves the presence of cells from another organism.
"She would be excluded from your sex category of woman"
Also, this conflation of gender identity with those with DSD's is harmful. A few with this developmental condition are able to truthfully say they were "assigned a sex at birth" that was not correct. This historical truth has been appropriated by many without a DSD.
arkie, do you require a biological basis for accepting gender identities?
I accept that many with declared gender identities do not have any of these DSD conditions and biological markers or traits don't play any part in gender identities. Why do you conflate the two?
This discussion denying sex being binary and immutable comes from a place of manufacturing science to fit narrative.
And once again you are referring to a different condition than the example I cited; I am talking about chimerism not microchimerism. The woman I am referring to has 'large parts of her body' that are chromosomally male. She doesn't fit into either of your binary sex categories unless an exception is made for her 'male' parts.
Biological sex is determined by anatomy, hormones, cells and chromosomes, not in isolation but by the way they interact. Usually these biological determiners are all in agreement but sometimes they conflict. This is why sex isn't a strict category and we as a society use gender as a shorthand for the types of experiences different people have interacting with one another and the world we have built. We don't compare endocrine tests or chromosome results, and unless we are intimate with the person we don't usually see their complete anatomy, we make assumptions based on appearance and use pronouns to describe the person based on our assumptions. Everyone has a gender identity, most people never have to consider if it matches their biological sex, most people use pronouns that conform to their own understanding of their biological sex and most people are totally fine with those few people for whom there is a mismatch receiving our respect and medical care. Most of the time gender is biologically based and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes societal gender expectations are equitable but most of the time they're not. As a way of unifying people in political struggle and in everyday life gender encompasses more aspects of our existence than mere 'biological sex' which as shown, is more complicated than a simple binary.
Can you copy the relevant paragraph in your linked article? The references I found there are what I've posted. Thanks.
The rest of your comment is an example of the paragraph I posted earlier:
I also notice you don't answer simple questions but I'll try again:
Don't worry. Didn't match the opening story to the named condition in the following section:
The issue is the same. The cells were from the absorbed twin.
A specialist in such instances will be able to say how and why this happens, but it doesn’t negate sex being binary. (In the same way a child born without functioning legs does not mean humans are non-ambulatory.)
There are other examples listed on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chimera
So does that mean parts of her body aren’t her? Or does that mean that the parts of her that are XY are female because she is a mother?
Are you saying therefore we shouldn’t have wheelchair accessible buildings? No accomadations are to made for those who are different? I strongly disagree.
What I have been repeatedly pointing out is that the extent to which the at least four separate systems of determining biological sex interact are complicated and most of us don't ever know how complex our own biological sex is because we never are required to 'prove it'. Our experience of existing feels matched to our external sex characteristics and society views us the same way, most people don't even have to consider these things. Most of the time gender has a basis in biology, sometimes it doesn't. Just because it is infrequent doesn't invalidate it. Things can be true and not completely true at the same time, things are complicated and our thinking shouldn't be simply binary either.
Just noting I jumped this thread to here:
Which "trans" people are you talking about? The people with a bodily dysmorphia? The people with the internalised homophobia, or the people with a paraphilia?
Is there a 'legitimate' way to be a trans person?
People can self id how ever they like. Changing the sex on their birth certificate is another issue entirely. We all know it isn't possible to change your biological sex.
The Standard is without standards letting this nonsense go on for as long as it has.
It's not about Poser Parker, or the children, or women's spaces. It's about attacking our most marginalised group. And much of it is pure vitriol. Every. Fucking. Day.
And now they want to tell us how much they admired Georgina. Puh-lease!
“Fascists always start by declaring themselves the victims of others. Victimhood is essential to the fascist worldview; it’s at its core. And it’s their excuse for destroying other peoples lives.”
I’d like to think that The Standard covers a rather wide range of topics & views. Not everything is to everybody’s liking; it can’t be and it shouldn’t be – TS is not an echo chamber and the site’s kaupapa is robust debate that is inclusive. The latter means that everybody can join in but nobody has to.
Please scroll past comments & topics that make your blood boil and refrain from commenting. Or count to 10 and make a counter-argument without attacking other commenter’s and/or the site at large.
@ DB Brown
"It's about attacking our most marginalised group. And much of it is pure vitriol. Every. Fucking. Day."
No. Disagreement and discussion is not vitriol.
"And now they want to tell us how much they admired Georgina. Puh-lease!"
You can disagree with someone on one issue and still acknowledge their hard work. Georgina Beyer was a longstanding and hardworking politician and Georgina's early death is a sad occasion.
Bollocks Incognito. If it was so inclusive you'd have voices for freedom and other nonsensical stances having their say as well. Many posts with "I won't tolerate climate denial" etc get posted by authors and zero tolerance is what that is. And I agree.
But queer bashing, it's all OK here.
I understand The Standard encourages debate, and you got some stuff about not talking about the standard in the rules like that makes it inviolate – it's not me doing the damage but I've been banned for calling out this shit before.
Let's be clear this is not really a women's issue being raised repeatedly, nor is it concern for children. It's queer bashing, it's vitriolic, it's continuous and it's marginalising. They REFUSE to allow trans people to just be.
Thinly veiled hatred, with the exact same talking points from US as it is from UK as it is from Europe as it is here. The exact same stuff.
Almost like they do have a script. A kneejerk reactionary pack of haters looking for the next bullet point to repeat, or the next instance of an individual behaving badly so they can show us and tell us – SEE, they're no good! A danger! Think of the children!
And it's carried on, and on, and on. There's no end to this 'debate' because one side has no intention of stopping the hate till there’s no trans people, you can see it in the tone they set, over and over.
We have definitely had arguments made here from people who are aligned with VFF, not so many lately, but for quite a long time that was happening here.
Afaik, I’m the only author that bans climate denial, from my own posts. I’m not aware of anyone being banned from OM or DR for posting climate denial, and it’s definitely not a regular thing from other authors.
I’m pointing those out to correct the misperception about TS generally, but also to show just how far off your argument about TS is. Similar inaccuracy applies to your argument about feminists and other gender critical people commenting here.
I just looked up your historic bans. One in 2022, one in 2023.
The 2022 ban was for continuing to insult a commenter after being asked to stop, when arguing about Ukraine,
The 2023 one was for making shit up about an author’s views and then refusing to comply with moderation. This was in a debate about anti-vaxxers etc.
These I’m pointing out because people often have a moan about moderation after the event and misrepresent what happened. All bans get recored in the backend along with the reason and links.
Also pointing out that neither of those were about gender debates, and both were about your behaviour not your politics.
Fuck off Weka you flaky ass. I've no interest in your BS you can drag up all the posts you want and try assassinate my character because you're a bit of a cunt. Like when you denounced your political leanings just to win a point with someone else.
Why don't you all pile on, and ignore the fact this shit is a continued and relentless attack on a minority.
Fucking disgrace is what it is.
[12 month ban, for abusing an author and history of ignoring moderation, and to up the debate culture for election year. You have been warned a number of times, so I can only assume you have the same contempt for your commenting privileges as you do for TS – weka]
So, I guess this was written by a different D. Brown?
GUEST BLOG: Dave Brownz – The Queering of the Census | The Daily Blog
The new misogyny is just as violent, controlling and rapey as the old.
Arkie I have a very strong intolerance of male bodied people being allowed in my change rooms, in women's prisons and refuges. I have a very strong intolerance of male bodied people who identify as women and their allys insist on changing language to accommodate their beliefs i.e pro nouns, people who mensturate. I have a very strong intolerance of children being taught they are born in the wrong body and their sex is assigned at birth (lying about the science to kids is really low). I have a very strong intolerance to kids who go on tic tok and are told it is possible to change you sex, having this facilitated by adults particularly those who prescribed drugs to block their puberty, which they are not licenced to do.
I have a very storng intolerance to the likes of Lia Thomas a male bodied swimmer in the US who was allowed to compete in Women's competitions and change in women's change rooms.
And gee you are picking on one phrase Kelly Jean used? Sure a bad mistake by her.
BTW I accept that a very small minority of people with gender dysphoria as adults might want to live their lives as the opposite sex.
On that note RIP Georgina Beyer
Yes, RIP Georgina. She was one of the "Grande Dames" of the days when – at a time when sex between men was unlawful – gay men internalised their homophobia and "transed away the Gay". Once the laws changed, people like Georgina were no longer "marginalised and oppressed" but accepted for the capable and talented people they are or were.
Very supportive of Anker's views. When was it deemed ok to take rights away from one group so that they could be given to another group. So women's rights to safe spaces are diminished or taken away in the haste to do things right with the trans movement. Women's sports are open to those who have male hormones
Make bodied people with intact male genitalia should not be able to go into female toilets/dressing rooms/rape crisis centres/wards at hospitals.
True trans people, those who have had hormonal treatment and some form of surgical reassignment surgery I think are in a different category.
Thanks, as you can see I found it. (I was speaking of the examples in the paragraph that named the chimaerism further down, while you were on this.)
However, my points still stand and clear questions to you remain unanswered.
As do mine.
Are you saying therefore we shouldn’t have wheelchair accessible buildings? No accommodations are to made for those who are different? Humans are generally ambulatory, sometimes they aren't. Ignoring the exceptions excludes them.
I didn't ever really expect to answer your questions to your satisfaction because you are engaged in binary thinking, demanding an unqualified YES when a more accurate answer is MOSTLY YES or NOT REALLY BUT IN A BROAD SENSE YES or whatever. Everything becomes more complex the more you examine it.
Many people possess the capacity to put themselves in someone else's shoes, if they can but become sufficiently familiar with those shoes.
In some cases the shoes may seem too different/foreign – I would struggle to empathise with Gina Rinehart, despite her philanthropy.
Another reason to choose not to empathise is that it may put our own biases, judgments, and preconceptions (that we are comfortable with) at risk.
Drowsy M Kram.
Your empathy definitions – multiple as they are – are providing nothing towards a conversation about the binary of biological sex.
Feel free to continue attempting to shame as a way of diverting the conversation.
Those with DSDs are already being damaged by the conflation with gender identity. If only those appropriating their development conditions took some time to reflect, perhaps the impact would not be so bad, but that would require… what is the word again….?
You persist in being unable to discuss biological sex on its own.
This is a demonstration of one of the impacts of gender ideology advocacy.
There is little to be gained from continuing.
If you wish to provide a second article, then I'll read but will probably refrain from commenting. I suspect you don't do the courtesy of following links I have provided, as you return to the same remarks time and again, and don't reference them at all. I have other priorities for my time that take precedence over providing sources that are not even skimmed before reply.
"Humans are generally ambulatory, sometimes they aren't. Ignoring the exceptions excludes them."
I did not say to ignore those with DSDs. I also did not say that we should not provide for them.
What I DID say was that the presence of those with DSDs is not evidence of sex not being binary or immutable.
“I didn’t ever really expect to answer your questions to your satisfaction because you are engaged in binary thinking, demanding an unqualified YES when a more accurate answer is MOSTLY YES or NOT REALLY BUT IN A BROAD SENSE YES or whatever. “
To be clear. I’d accept ANY answer, rather than the existing none. And take as long as you like to caveat them. I made the questions open, so answer is up to you.
I have provided just one article citing numerous scientists and doctors who are experts in the field – even if you found it unconvincing – that has shown biological sex is not binary. I have pointed out that most of us go through life without ever having our complete biological sex determined scientifically. I have shown how gender is a more descriptive and practical metric when categorising people. I have expressed my solidarity with those who are experiencing discrimination due to who they are. You have stated your beliefs and opinions, you haven't provided evidence and you have said exceptions to your own categorical definitions should be ignored because of rarity. When we are discussing categorising human beings it is important to consider and include those that might not seem to immediately or neatly fit into the broad categories we devise. We are all unique and distinct while also being remarkably similar at the same time. Life is complicated.
You can say I have provided no answers but that's not completely true, I haven't answered to your satisfaction, or the manner or terms you wanted and as long as we may continue this #nodebate we all know that I am highly unlikely to do so considering the disparity of our positions.
You have provided an article that proports that developmental disorders are an indication of sex not being binary. Rather than they are developmental disorders. The examples given are not of sex being anything other than binary.
Sex remains binary and immutable.
The complicated nature of biology means that sex has an impact of many parts of a human's physiology. The appropriation of DSDs in regards to gender ideology is one of the more despicable aspects in this discussion. It impacts on resources and research for those with these conditions.
The answers I have asked YOU have not been answered, so here they are again. Feel free to avoid again, (again).
A couple of shortish videos:
You have asserted your beliefs, they are in conflict with the vast majority of scientists and doctors and all the evidence that led them to their conclusions.
You have your own definitions and understanding of words and categories that aren't commonplace or fully accurate to the world they seek to describe.
That you do not see how many, many times I have answered your question demonstrates that you are not seeking a dialogue. It shows bad faith to continue to refuse to acknowledge the answers that have been given.
You have asserted your beliefs, they are in conflict with the vast majority of scientists and doctors and all the evidence that led them to their conclusions.
No. It is not the vast majority.
"That you do not see how many, many times I have answered your question demonstrates that you are not seeking a dialogue. It shows bad faith to continue to refuse to acknowledge the answers that have been given."
I get it – saying you've answered IS your answer.
Well, another couple of considerations regarding your one article:
Given that literally all human beings have a gender identity, they are intrinsically biological. However you have a different usage of the words as evident by your answer to being asked if trans people exist. When you say people with gender identities you mean trans people, that's the term the rest of us use.
I am not conflating DSD with trans people, I am pointing out that biological sex in the way biologists and doctors use the term, is determined by anatomy, hormones, cells and chromosomes interacting. Biological sex is not binary. People with DSDs are examples of the variety that exists strictly within biological sex. Biological sex is mutable. Anatomy can be changed, hormones can be changed, cells can change, only chromosomes don't change. To say that chromosomes are all there is to biological sex is to deny biology, and it is also a way to deny the legitimacy of trans peoples existence.
"Given that literally all human beings have a gender identity"
No they don't. They all have one of two sexes. Some declare a gender identity.
"When you say people with gender identities you mean trans people, that's the term the rest of us use."
Yes I'm a heretic. I don't follow your gender ideology so choose to use accurate language to discuss rather than compelled speech.
(NB. You do realise that between these two sentences saying everyone has a gender identity and those with a gender identity are called trans people that you are effectively saying everyone is trans?)
This is nonsense.
And this is where you end up when you believe nonsense:
"This woman is a mother, while also being partially a man right?"
"Sex is a spectrum" is a controversial and novel claim driven by ideology and wishful thinking. It requires a pretty egregious misinterpretation of data and obsessive focus on the exception (the 0.02%) rather than the rule.
We aren't clownfish.
In Humans, Sex is Binary and Immutable by Georgi K. Marinov | NAS
The reality of sex | SpringerLink
Race Is a Spectrum. Sex Is Pretty Damn Binary. – Areo (areomagazine.com)
Assert all you like, it is not in dispute that all people have gender identities, even inanimate things without biology at all can have gender identities, for example fictional characters, dolls, vehicles etc. etc. So the term people with gender identities is meaningless in context, hence why I switched to specifically talking about trans people using the words most people use and because we all know who you meant. All you can say to everything I have presented is that it's nonsense? There's evidently #nodebate to be had with the willfully unconvinced.
That was a question based on your strict chromosomal determination of biological sex. As repeatedly quoted large parts of her body were XY, yet she was a mother, I was asking if you would consider her part man because large parts of her body were chromosomally male.
I chose the term unconvinced as the most neutral one I could think of without disparaging your provided link. I'm leaving it as an indication of respect for your continued engagement although we disagree.
"That was a question based on your strict chromosomal determination of biological sex. As repeatedly quoted large parts of her body were XY, yet she was a mother, I was asking if you would consider her part man because large parts of her body were chromosomally male."
(When did I mention chromosomes?)
No. You said that she was partially male and therefore I wouldn't consider her a woman.
"This woman is a mother, while also being partially a man right? She is excluded from your category of women"
The XY chromosomes were reported in the article as being from an absorbed twin. A separate organism from herself. The presence of these cells did not disrupt her own developmental pathway as a female.
As a mother of three boys, I have also had the presence of male chromosomes in my body. Up to 13lbs in one case. That presence did not make me "partially a man."
Instead of paraphrasing inadequately, I will provide direct quotes from the short video above, that I'll assume you haven't watched:
Emma Hilton & Colin Wright regarding biological sexes – male and female:
Not clownfish you say?..
Do you see the question mark at the end of my sentence? That's a question, of you and your beliefs. You carrying your children is not the same as 'large parts of your body' being permanently chromosomally male. That you consider the parts of her body that are XY are a 'different organism' shows you don't still don't really understand the case. Her body is partially chromosomally male, partially chromosomally female, She therefore straddles your binary categories of biological sex, she's not completely biologically female by your strict definition of 'biological sex' (you said: I believe the only commonality I have with all woman, is the experience of living in a female body. This excludes men from the category of women). There are multiple other ways that a persons 'biological sex' can differ from the seeming binary that also don't disrupt their development either. It is good to see that you now acknowledge that someone can be female while also having XY chromosomes though, some progress!
You will note that I have never claimed that sex is a spectrum or that the act of reproduction requires a 'third sex', I don't equate the act of reproduction with categories of people nor do experts in the field. All I have said is that while 'biological sex' seems to be binary, it is complicated, there are exceptions hence why it is only 'functionally binary'. As I said over and over again; it is MOSTLY binary, but not completely; so asserting that it is, is not correct.
The complexities and intricacies of 'biological sex' demonstrates why we as a society use gender as a more useful and practical way of categorising people. Hand-waving away the diversity of the human existence is not an argument and the insistence on incorrect and unique usage of common terms makes robust and inclusive debate about the legitimacy of a marginalised group of human beings difficult.
Molly, I hope we can agree that Mukherjee's 2016 article "Why Sex Is Mostly Binary but Gender Is a Spectrum" is relevant to your discussion with arkie regarding biological sex.
In that article, Mukherjee writes:
It's perfectly natural that Mukherjee's article would not be viewed favourably by those who believe that gender and/or gender identity are fictions.
I stated (@4:00 am) that I believe empathy has contributed to shaping my views on the LGBT community. The links between empathy, opinions about the rainbow community, and ideas about (fictional, to some) gender and gender identity, may seem tenuous (at best) to you – they are, however, very real (non-fictional) to me.
As a perhaps not entirely irrelevant aside, I view all theist religions as human fictions, but live and let live.
Don't celebrate. The XY chromosomes belonged to another organism, and once again I have not provided a definition of sex based on chromosomes. And the XY chromosomes belonged to another organism.
"The complexities and intricacies of 'biological sex' demonstrates why we as a society use gender as a more useful and practical way of categorising people. "
That's a stretch, and incorrect.
Biological sex categories play significant roles in life and society. As an immutable condition it retains this value.
Here is the important bit you keep missing: Acknowledging sex has significance does not exclude other classifications from existing.
Gender (identity/stereotypes? – unclear what you mean here) can be defined as cultural expectations, personal expression or personality, and can be used in analysis of other aspects of society.
Its fluidity can also be measured and valuable analysis can assist with those aspects.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Using the presence of DSDs as a reason to discard the significance of sex is poor justification.
The analogy that comes to mind is a programming one.
Humans have two sexes – male and female. Those are the only outputs from the input of ova and sperm.
However, like all complex systems (and programs) there are a number of places where the system can be disrupted, resulting in a non-discrete outcome.
The basic input variables can be corrupted (ie. presence of SRY gene on an X-chromosome, inactive SRY gene on Y chromosomes, extra X or Y chromosomes etc).
The conditional switch can fail. But the body will go down either the male or female pathway of development, albeit in DSDs without full expression of the evolutionary pathways.
This does not negate binary sex or the significance of it, just because the very small number of people with the complexities of over 40 DSDs exist.
"I don't equate the act of reproduction with categories of people nor do experts in the field. "
If you think that at any point we were talking about sexual intercourse in this conversation – rather than sexual reproductive pathways – then I am closer to understanding why you hold your current perspective.
If we are talking about the diversity of human experience, then I agree – it does exist.
But this is a discussion regarding the binary and immutability of biological sex.
You continue to conflate declared gender identity with biological DSDs, and now with human experience as a whole.
This is the crux of the matter. I have attempted to keep this conversation to the reality of the binary of biology sex and its immutability.
You have interpreted and approached it as an "inclusive debate about the legitimacy of a marginalised group of human beings…"
Transgender advocates and support organisations themselves do not claim a requirement for DSDs to "legitimise" those who declare a gender identity.
I don't expect someone who declares a gender identity to be "legitimised" with a DSD diagnosis.
Why do you?
Why are you unable to separate a conversation about biological sex and development pathways from gender identity?
@Drowsy M Kram
Thanks for your reply.
"It's perfectly natural that Mukherjee's article would not be viewed favourably by those who believe that gender and/or gender identity are fictions."
There are discussions to be had – both about the definitions of gender – ie whether it relates to gendered stereotypes, gendered impacts (such as gender pay gaps) or gender identity in terms of personal expresssion.
I don't view the article you provided as anything other than irrelevant to a discussion about another category – biological sex.
"I stated (@4:00 am) that I believe empathy has contributed to shaping my views on the LGBT community. The links between empathy, opinions about the rainbow community, and ideas about (fictional, to some) gender and gender identity, may seem tenuous (at best) to you – they are, however, very real (non-fictional) to me."
I will answer – in good faith.
I consider this question to be a thinly disguised version of #BeKind. The implied assumption is that by not accepting FULLY someone's declaration, I am indifferent to the feelings of those who are in the transgender community. Any attempts I make to assure you otherwise, will likely be dismissed and derided, because there is only one approved way to show concern – and that is full capitulation to the idea that declared gender identity takes priority over biological sex. And furthermore, that dismissal of biological sex at both individual and societal level has no impact.
I consider truth to always be a necessary foundation for empathy and kindness. And I will not manipulate or disguise it in any way, because I consider that to be disrespectful on every level. You may see that as a lack of empathy. I can’t do anything about that.
"As a perhaps not entirely irrelevant aside, I view all theist religions as human fictions, but live and let live."
It is fairly irrelevant to a discussion regarding material reality.
Those 'large parts of her body' may have started out as another organism but she is a singular organism with two separate sets of chromosomes. That is the definition of a chimera: a single organism composed of cells with more than one distinct genotype. So the parts of her that are XY are still part of her, and do not and have not prevented her from the experience of living in a female body.
Again you dismiss without evidence societies practical use of gender as the way we categorise people. I have pointed out that our assumptions of biological sex significantly affect our use of gender categories as the two are ALMOST ALWAYS linked, BUT not in all instances. Life is complicated.
You now say: Acknowledging sex has significance does not exclude other classifications from existing. But you previously said in response to being informed that everyone has a gender too: No they don't. They all have one of two sexes. That sure sounds like outright exclusion or at least a delegitimisation of the very concept of other forms of classification. I know you love definitions so here is Gender: the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. See how sex and gender are overlapping and not mutually exclusive as I have repeatedly pointed out?
Your analogy to programming is inapt. Computer systems, like categories and classifications, are human created, not fixed and immutable. Nature is just not as simple or straightforward. The reality of life is that it is complicated.
Throughout this discussion you have continued to insist the 'reality' of your limited understanding of 'biological sex' (despite the evidence and expertise of professionals that have been supplied) and have refused to acknowledge that trans people exist, euphemising them with the meaningless term people with gender identities. It is not hard for a reader to see you are motivated by your desire to exclude people from your rigidly binary categorisation of humans. A binary classification that I have demonstrated (by the existence of the numerous variations between them [DSDs]) is oversimple, incorrect, and it is more practical and accurate to use gender categories in almost all situations (other than a doctors office etc). That this is the reality doesn't mean biological sex is insignificant, it is just largely surplus to the requirements of categorisation we need in general society, and the more useful and used term of gender already encompasses it.
You persist in being unable to discuss biological sex on its own.
This is a demonstration of one of the impacts of gender ideology advocacy.
There is little to be gained from continuing.
If you wish to provide a second article, then I'll read but will probably refrain from commenting. (I suspect you don't do the courtesy of following links I have provided, as you return to the same remarks time and again, and don't reference them at all.)
I have other priorities for my time that take precedence over providing sources that are not even skimmed before reply.
PS: “But you previously said in response to being informed that everyone has a gender too: No they don’t. They all have one of two sexes.”
Addressed this in a comment to Drowsy M Kram above. Using gender as a broad definition conflates a whole range of interpretations.
“There are discussions to be had – both about the definitions of gender – ie whether it relates to gendered stereotypes, gendered impacts (such as gender pay gaps) or gender identity in terms of personal expression.”
Fair enough, but puzzling given much of that (lengthy) article is devoted to an account of research on sex determination in humans.
Best not put it to the test then, although I do reserve the right to challenge concerns about "the neon the glare of the rainbow".
It is your demand that biological sex is 'discussed on its own'. This doesn't describe reality. It is incomplete as a description of the ways of living in a human body, it is more binary thinking. Things are simply more complicated than you think they are, and it's not that difficult to see that.
I knew from the very start of this #nodebate that we would end up here, you remaining committed to your beliefs and your baseless declarations of the 'truth' no matter how the nuances are pointed out to you.
Your steadfast denial of the science without anything other than unevidenced assertions brings to mind a phrase that I remember seeing somewhere else: Facts don't care about your feelings.
@Drowsy M. Kram (and @ arkie)
"Best not to put it to the test then, although I do reserve the right to challenge concerns about "the neon the glare of the rainbow".
You seem to find this phrase particularly attractive. I guess I was right to suspect any expression other than total capitulation would be dismissed and derided.
Let's have a look at what's happening here:
So, yes, I do think that being unable to discuss either the immutable binary of biological sex, or DSDs without reference to transgender identities, is a result of the "neon glare of the rainbow" colouring your perspective.
(@arkie: “Your steadfast denial of the science without anything other than unevidenced assertions brings to mind a phrase that I remember seeing somewhere else: Facts don’t care about your feelings.”
I don’t agree with your sources, and the extrapolations made by you in relation to them. Denial of science is an accusation I’ll accept along with transphobia. Both meaningless, given the context.
“Facts don’t care about your feelings” – on this we agree.)
I presented facts, as determined by expert biologists and doctors and the evidence that led them to their conclusions. You 'disagree'. This is not a fact based assertion, it is a feeling (that you are entitled to mind), but it doesn't stop you from being incorrect.
You are the only one conflating DSDs and transpeople. As I have said numerous times already in this thread; DSDs demonstrate you are wrong about biological sex being strictly binary and you are also incorrect in your use and understanding of the word gender. My point has been that your assertions that people only have biological sex is wrong and deliberately excludes those with a gender that doesn't match with their assumed biological sex, those people being trans people.
On the contrary, I find your phrase (it is your phrase, isn't it?) profoundly distasteful. Do you understand why, or is that expecting a little too much on the empathy front?
But you're right – at one level this is pointless point-scoring. We agree on some matters (e.g. the immutability of human biological/genetic sex, and the provision of single sex spaces for the exclusive use of each sex), and are unlikely to agree about others (e.g. the validity of 'gender identity') – c'est la vie.
You presented an article that interprets DSDs to come to a theoretical conclusion about sex not being binary.
I have also provided links to source, which you have studiously avoided referring to, that contradict your "expert biologists and doctors", which come from "expert biologists".
So, my disagreement is due to the fact I consider my sources to be based in evidence, and yours not.
This is an example of you once again introducing the undefined concept of "gender" to a discussion about DSDs.
This is a derailment. Again. I should have included the word "declared" in the comment you refer to.
So for the record:
1. Everyone has a biological sex, it is either male or female;
2. Some people declare a gender identity, which is an ever growing list;
3. We are mostly all affected by gendered stereotypes but we are not compelled to adhere to them;
4. Analysis of the effects of sex on certain societal aspects retains value, ie. gender pay gap, sex-based violence etc.
Unless you are clear about what interpretation of gender you are referring to, the ongoing engagement will be derailed. ARE you clear about what interpretation of gender you are referring to, because you seem to move from one to another. They are different classifications.
Finally, why are you apparently incapable of discussing biological sex WITHOUT reference to transgender people?
@Drowsy M. Kram
"You seem to find this phrase ["the neon the glare of the rainbow"] particularly attractive. – Molly @1:59 pm
On the contrary, I find your phrase (it is your phrase, isn't it?) profoundly distasteful. Do you understand why, or is that expecting a little too much on the empathy front?"
My advice to you, then, which should be unnecessary, is to stop your repetitive use of a phrase you find distasteful. Also, noted is your repetitive refrain of implied lack of empathy.
If you want to carry on that several months old discussion, then repost. I'm unsure of what your intention is is relinking so many ties on this particular thread.
Yet, you couldn't resist before dismissing it. This is a recognisable technique for those who like making insults but reducing the possibility of receiving them. Understandable, but not really the approach I follow.
"We agree about some things (e.g. the immutability of human biological/genetic sex, and the provision of single sex spaces exclusively for the use of each sex), and are unlikely to agree about others (e.g. the validity of 'gender identity') – c'est la vie."
This discussion – which you entered – was NOT about the either the "provision of single-sex spaces" nor the "validity of gender identity".
It was about sex being binary and immutable.
The rest was a redirect.
(Went to have a look at the comment you keep referring to as not having empathy. On a post about the lack of evidence for medical transitioning for minors, the thread had moved on to a discussion about women speaking up about the dangers of transition being ignored.)
The full comment reads:
“Women raising concerns are definitely being treated differently to men raising the same concerns, even as those concerns are ignored.
I feel as if women’s rights have almost melted away in the neon glare of the rainbow, and that is powered by all the co-opted institutions and governments who are dazzled by the pretty colours.
How this situation is not of concern to everyone is an indication of how tribal some seem to be.”
On reflection, I am still all good with it.
And it is your theory that it is strictly binary, which is unevidenced. The sources you provided are self-published opinion pieces by single authors, not the work of multiple expert biologists and doctors published in a scientific publication like mine is.
I have literally defined numerous terms for you but you disagree with the dictionary and common usage, then complain I am unclear so to recap: Gender the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
Now to the list of your assertions:
I mention trans people because we all know who you are seeking to exclude by your classification of the ways of existing as a human that you deem legitimate. Trans people are being demonised and discriminated against in increasingly extreme ways, by those who refuse to allow for them to simply live their authentic lives. I support them in their struggle and I will not support those who advocate for the removal of their rights, be it Posie Parker, Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh or whoever.
My advice to you, then, which should be unnecessary, is not to use such inflammatory phrases in your comments, but if you’re “still all good with it” then OK – disappointing, but clear.
And apologies for my 'lack of empathy' comment (nothing personal), but imho an empathetic view can reveal multiple facets of gender identity, good and bad – a bit like sex really.
@Drowsy M Kram.
As more and more is revealed about the harmful nature of social, medical and surgical treatment for minors – the post topic – and the failure of many medical authorities to ask for evidence before taking such a disruptive "affirmative health care" approach, people unfamiliar with this topic will be asking:
"How did this happen?"
"Why is there no evidence for the approach we took as a country?"
I asked these questions in a OIA request to the Ministry of Health. They replied that they not ask for clinical evidence, they have used the guidelines of WPATH, and PATHA without independent analysis. Many know these recommendations are written without evidence, despite being adopted by medical organisations around the world.
Our Ministry of Health have taken the stance – like you – that kindness and acceptance takes the priority over data that indicates long-term outcomes are detrimental for both health and well-being.
I understand the desire to be kind and empathetic, but the role of responsibility for ensuring the reduction of harm resulting from such significant medication disruptions to healthy bodies must include that it is supported by robust evidence. It does not currently exist.
Mental health access is one of the primary needs for our country, including for the transgender community, but it is not prioritised. In fact, one practitioner acknowledges its importance, but uses the lack of access as an excuse to provide a sub-standard level of care:
So, yes, on repeated consideration, I continue to stand by my comment.
It was not made lightly or with disdain for any members of the transgender community – particularly those youth that are struggling – but it was directed at those who are failing to do their jobs properly while in positions of authority.
Hence, sex is both binary and immutable.
2. Added because of your use of gender without definition. Irrelevant to the topic at hand.
3. Mixing biological sex with expectations of cultural roles. Also irrelevant.
4. Once again a conflation of the word gender being used to refer to the impacts of inhabiting a biological sex, and biological sex itself. Or could possibly be an attempt to negate any such impact resulting from biological sex. Again irrelevant to a discussion about biological sex but was addressing your past comments.
Sex remains binary and immutable.
I know. This projection is why you cannot participate fully in a discussion centred only on biological sex.
You are looking for discrimination and manufacturing it to meet your expectations.
Another glaring example of this gender identity ‘takeover’ arrived in my inbox today. Maybe these so-called doctors without borders mean well, but they should know better, right? Kia kaha – I know I will.
Sexual reproductive pathways are not biological sex in it's totality. Your categories, that you have defined, are in error. You can keep insisting but it doesn't make it true. It is how you feel. You think it should not be defined by what scientists, doctors and experts in the field have shown to be the complicated reality.
I can sympathise, it's an immense and complicated topic but when you enter into the discussion declaring: I think the fallacies that sex can be changed, gender identity trumps sex, sexual orientation is identity based, medicalisation of minors is healthcare, queer theory is appropriate for being taught in schools to children as fact, and appropriation of women's single-sex spaces and language is progressive you come across as inherently hostile to any of the small gains in acceptance queer, trans and other gender diverse people have received. We know that you are comfortable with that but again your opinions do not trump reality, Many people, just by existing, are evidence of the errors in your reasoning.
@Drowsy M Kram
On a post about unevidenced psychological and medical approaches for treatments for minors, on a thread about how women are ignored, yes – "…powered by all the co-opted institutions and governments who are dazzled by the pretty colours." holds as criticism of those in authority.
I understand it triggers you, but that's something you need to address as an adult.
Another redirect to score an irrelevant point.
I'm done. Mainly because I believe anyone else following this convoluted conversation will be bored to the backteeth by its lack of coherent focus, I know I am.
Was that intended to trigger me? We all have our ‘triggers’, don’t we?
I tend to favour anti-authoritiaran and minority viewpoints, but defending one's corner can be tough.
Transprejudice and authoritarianism seem a good fit.
@Molly (8:35 pm) – sorry you feel that's what I was doing in my reply to arkie – seems to me they have raised some valid issues in this thread.
I believe empathy has contributed to shaping my views on the LGBT community, as have your views (and the views of others) on same, e.g. "the neon the glare of the rainbow" with its dazzling "pretty colours".
The women I'm fortunate enough to be close to "have empathy in spades" – is that your experience too?
It's great we agree biological sex in humans is immutable (and more or less binary), and that single sex spaces should (continue to) be available for the exclusive use of each sex. That we should disagree on some other (gender-related) matters is only natural.
Hi Drowsy M Kram
("I believe empathy has contributed to shaping my views on the LGBT community, as have your views (and the views of others) on same, e.g. "the neon the glare of the rainbow" with its dazzling "pretty colours".
The women I'm fortunate enough to be close to "have empathy in spades" – is that your experience too?"
The empathy question – I believe – is one irrelevant to this discussion on the binary of biological sex. So, although I usually answer such questions, I'll not reply. My answer will provide nothing of substance to the topic at hand.)
Your article is a reference to gender as: "By gender, I am referring to a more complex idea: the psychic, social, and cultural roles that an individual assumes."
My discussion with arkie is regarding biological sex. Noted in your article as: "By sex, I mean the anatomic and physiological aspects of male versus female bodies."
In terms of sex as a binary – the role of the SRY gene and the switch mechanism is mentioned in the short video in the comment above: "Why Sex is Binary."
The majority of the article is about DSDs. Which are Differences of Sex Development that occur as disruptions to the normal development due to a number of factors. They apply the existence of DSD's as a biological proof of transgender identities – even though data collected from transgender individuals do not show a statistical correlation between those with a declared gender identity and those with a DSD diagnosis.
The reference to Dr John Money is sanitised. John Money is a NZ psychologist who created the concept of gender identity, and coined the term. He referred to himself as a "fuckologist", which is not too far from the term many would later use for him.
There are still fellowships under his name. However, if you can bring yourself to read an article from a feminist source, you can find a different perspective on his work, and what provides in terms of the harms he inflicted on others in pursuit of his gender identity research.
DSDs are a developmental condition, that are variations of the sex binary. Historically, some children born with DSD's were "assigned a sex at birth" that did not match their biological sex. Others were surgically altered to match the sex that medical staff assumed.
They are alluded to as scientific evidence of transgender identities even though:
1. There is no evidence that there is a statistical link between DSDs and declared transgender identities;
2. Transgender advocates and support organisations themselves insist that there are no biological markers for their trans status, making such conflation unnecessary.
This use of those with DSDs as a contrived explanation for a gender identity may however, have an unspoken purpose – to deny both the existence and significance of biological sex, and the sex-based provisions thereby made in society.
In terms of the direct harms of conflating DSDs with declared gender identities, the link I provided further up is easy to read, and detailed in its information. The author is someone with a DSD. I'll post again here:
Section 16 of the Immigration Act 2009 leaves the Minister (or anyone with delegated authority which includes Border Officers) with limited discretion to grant visas and entry permission where they think there is, or is likely to be, a threat or risk to public order.
If they don't think that's likely, then it's a moot point, but the outbreaks of violence at some previous speaking engagements suggest that it's at least a possibility to consider.
That public order criteria is written in such a way it could apply to the disruption accompanying royal visits.
It will be interesting to see whether the public order issue will be paramount if organisations here call for any form of "Don't Let Women Speak" actions.
"(iii) is, or is likely to be, a threat or risk to public order; or"
Royal visits are not really covered by the Immigration Act as they are visits by or on behalf of NZ's head of state so are more akin to NZ citizens visiting.
That said, you're right that a foreign head of state or minister (or any other Guest of Government to use the immigration term) is probably not going to be assessed as subject to section 16, and if somehow they were, would be granted a special direction under section 17 (so would be granted a visa and entry permission anyway).
I can't recall the last time someone was refused a visa under section 16 for being a risk to public order, so it seems unlikely here, but it is obviously in the legislation and I can see why the Greens thought it might apply. The most common use of s16 is people being found with illegal drugs at the airport and refused entry (likely to commit a crime punishable by imprisonment – in this case, possession of an illegal drug).
"..and I can see why the Greens thought it might apply."
Any disruption at the Let Women Speak events are coming from those who are participating in "Don't Let Women Speak" actions.
An example from the Bristol event (there are examples for every event varying in violence and harassment):
This is the actual event. KJK acts as MC and does not curate the women – just gives them a platform to talk.
The law doesn't provide for cause of the disorder in the decision-making, just the likelihood of there being disorder, hence why someone not familiar with the practical application of sections 15 and 16 could easily make the mistake of thinking they would apply more broadly than they actually do in practice. In this particular case, there is an example of a counter-protest descending into pepper spray and other localised disorder.
Anyone having to make the decision would probably consider the cause and context, as well as scale of disorder, though – I know I would have. A bit of a local stoush or general protest (even a big one) is not really disorder, where something like the 1981 Springbok tour would be.
Section 15 is not applied absolutely strictly (one automatic ban from NZ visas is people excluded from other countries, but theoretically that includes Israelis and anyone who has visited Israel as they are all excluded from Iran – obviously INZ does not interpret it that literally or strictly) so there is no real reason to think section 16 would be either.
So, do you think the Greens are over-egging the omelette?
Government confirms total U-Turn on transport strategy, following cyclone.
Hold tight for your favourite project or policy to die at the NLTP Final.
I don't have a problem with this as long as they don't reinstate every highway, back country road just because it used to be there before.
Where roads have been totally washed out and this has been happening since the year dot well 1940s/50s then we should be asking ourselves if we need access, what is the best way of doing this?
Ergo looking at my idea of cars on railway wagons using the railway lines instead of reinstating the highway around the Devil's Elbow, Matahorua Gorge bridge and possibly the blown out bridge at Waikare.
Perhaps I should let them know this brainwave, I might win a large prize!
Snap! I had the same concept of roll-on roll-off wagons transporting cars for the Manawatū Gorge, when slips anhiliated the road on the other side of the river. Unfortunately I think the tunnels were too small for freight trucks, though.
New Zealand's own pioneer of transwomen in politics has died:
Rest in Power
This was the quote that really brought the House down in parliament:
"I was quoted once as saying this was the stallion that became a gelding and now she's a mare," said the Carterton Mayor-cum-Labour MP for Wairarapa.
"I suppose I do have to say that I have now found myself to be a member. So I have come full circle, so to speak."
A very hard working Labour person who did a lot of good against a lot of hate for most of her life.
Yes sad about Georgina Beyer
A reminder that gender equality – gender equity preceded gender identity as a concept in our post Judeo-Christian western civilisation world.
Of course the Pacific cultures and Indian of North America had their concepts of the male born female and the two spirit to explain difference from the standard biological sex difference whether body (the xy biological female) or expression.
Oh, I see, you meant that International Women's Day should be included here:
You are consistent at least.
IWD began before 1914.
Capture of women's organisations began circa 2014.
NOW championed gender equality decades ago.
It's even older than that:
I was referring to women working towards social and economic equality but sure, there was that also.
I remember reading the old Broadsheets and Pink Triangles of the 70's (back in the 90's) for a perspective of those time (some funny stories about Coney introducing her son to other feminists and Saphira's exodus from married life to Israel).
Atm, the recent fear among lesbians of being placed under the queer umbrella (becoming invisible) and a wariness of being re-introduced to those with penis's (hiding within marriages) to become more mainstream LGBT+ (plus OK but not that …).
At some point Cara D might do a story about the interface in midnight cafe/club life of night workers and gays – people in drag making it all appear hetero-normative (but gays and trans soon realised they were satellites of each other and not the same).
I don't actually understand the intent of your introductory sentence, but as for the rest:
International Women's Day.
Yet another organisation that believes you can address inequity by wordplay, and "embracing equity".
None of the campaigns on your second link are about the worldwide experience of violence and oppression based on sex, and the many women that are victims of that violence. Or about anything of significant import in raising them out of that situation. So we are really not talking about international women, just some international women.
So hey, let's celebrate women in tech, creatives, businesswomen, men as women and all those other progressive female empowerment sidelines. (Including women in sport, using great catchphrases such as #BreaktheBias without once referring to the negative impact of including men in women's sporting categories.)
We have covered all this before.
Once again a focus on one aspect of gender ID, the risk posed by self ID (because of incel sissy porn misogynists – encouraged by 4 chan and right wing agents btw, aging exhibitionists and sociopaths) and connect it as a subset of the wider issue, male violence towards women.
And yes that criticism of self ID is entirely valid, and there is easy common cause to take up with others on that issue (simply banning people from self ID if they have been known to have abused others is to ignore the chance of an unrecognised risk/background).
And as mentioned in the past, even with the former managed regime for gender change recognition – there was/is no reason why lesbian groups should not have the same protections as religious groups to have their own places, nor for refuges to be given the right to exclude anyone who is deemed as a possible threat or for sports groups to determine safety and fair competition rules etc.
But ideologues do not build partnerships, they frame narratives they expect everyone else to conform to. That is more like theism than human dominion. A sectarian truth.
I get it. International Women's Day provides an opportunity for discussion about anything other than the concerns of international women. Just some international women. And some men.
Sure, during the days of the WSPU (how to react to Labour supporting the franchise to all males and females not just an extension to middle class women) and then in the 1970's and since the emergence of the sectarian prophet (pre 2014) there has been division within women’s movements over how women are represented, by whom and in what way.
That's true, and will continue to be so. I think it applies to any demographic seeking political representation, to be honest.
If only women were a hive mind…