Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 am, June 6th, 2023 - 108 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
I guess TVNZ was too busy leading with crime stories basically every day for the last two weeks to do any actual journalism, but I would have thought questions to the government on if it has any exposure to this humdinger of a scandal involving Price Waterhouse-Coopers in Australia would have been of interest.
Basicallt, PWC worked on tax law changes for the government then passed on the details of those changes to it's corporate clients so they could get their new tax avoidance measures in place ahead of the law changes.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/05/pwc-australia-names-former-partners-it-says-misused-confidential-information-in-tax-scandal
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/pwcs-future-in-australia-under-threat-as-crisis-grows/ZGMBIS6CW5BMVJ77M2OVT4E4UM/
The Listener 3-9 June touches on the same issue. Tom Seymour and Peter Collins from PwC were named in the tax avoidance tricks. Part of an article about getting rid of consultants and investing in skilled public servants.
Meanwhile a beneficiary gets headlines for a few hundred dollars overpayments.
The rights and wellbeing of renters are supported by the Green party:
Listen to the interview with Corin Dann: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018893147/greens-say-it-s-time-for-renters-to-tell-it-like-it-is
Submit your story here: https://www.greens.org.nz/greens_launch_rental_stories_campaign
The healthy homes standards became law on 1 July 2019.
So what is the actual aim of this new Green campaign?
Many landlords are failing to meet those standards:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/07/renters-stuck-in-draughty-mouldy-homes-as-landlord-compliance-with-healthy-homes-standards-lags-advocates.html
The Government is not monitoring or enforcing the law:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/03/government-not-collecting-data-on-healthy-homes-standards-compliance.html
So they are seeking more enforcement of compliance? Such as a WOF for rentals?
This will seemingly add further costs to landlords, thus tenants.
Do the Greens have something in mind to overcome this?
Yea. The supermarket duopolists are never going to do it willingly. They could give a rats arse about people (despite their bullshit "feelgood" advertising)
Good on Consumer…fighting for NZ consumers.
The 2023 version of Dirty Politics is in progress:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/transport-minister-michael-woods-wife-julie-fairey-has-a-separate-interest-in-auckland-airport/RXHISVIZQBG2ZAAMXFEWORVTGA/
So Michael Woods had a little over 1000 Airport shares in a trust fund. He took them out as a teenager – must have been 30 plus years ago. So somebody has been digging around inside his personal financial affairs. Is that legal?
Somebody talked me into taking out 500 shares (not Airport) when I was a teenager. I forgot for years they even existed. Some National luminaries, at least in days gone by, cooked their books on a regular basis but that was okay. Minor infringements usually committed unwittingly by Labour luminaries are a different story?
When have National EVER contested an election without resorting to lies and dirty tricks?
Answer: not in my lifetime at least.
What National lies? Does Minster Woods own the shares – yes or no? How is this a National issue?
So Minister Woods bought the shares as a teenager and they’re held in a Trust. What teenager has a trust?
He thought he sold them? Until he didn’t.
Now we are hearing his wife has an interest in the shares (per Anne’s link above). Assuming she will recuse herself from the Auckland Council vote on said share sale later this week.
This story has quite some way to go I suspect.
Wood has owned a completely trivial number of shares for a long time. If as Minister he was able to do something that increased the value of those shares, he stands to gain by a few hundred dollars at best. And in reality, the value of airport shares is more likely to increase if Brownie is able to sell the Council's holding – something that Wood probably opposes, and his partner Ms Fairey, does oppose.
This looks like an inconsequential and inadvertent technical breach of the rules by Wood. He should correct the record and move on.
As usual with the political right, their accusations are a form of projection. They accuse others of doing exactly the sort of dodgy things they would do given the same opportunity, or are in fact are already doing in private.
Go it. The rules around declaring financial interests, particularly when they relate to a Minister with direct portfolio responsibilities, are just there for funsies. Glad to have that sorted.
Then John Key's political career should have been over before he ever became PM. See Joe90's link below (of course I assume you do remember, and the political reporters remember, but these tedious games of fake outrage must be played).
But I don't think Key's omission was enough to make him resign, any more than Wood's is today. If that's the ethical bar, then half the National cabinet should have been hounded out of office. For example …
Today's words to Google: "Murray McCully" and "Saudi sheep".
Ever heard the words "Family Trust"? Many couples have their house etc in a Family Trust. My parents did.
See also David Seymour … which is why he has been careful not to start throwing stones on this matter.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/act-leader-david-seymours-embarrassment-cant-afford-to-buy-guy-has-an-interest-in-three-properties/H6PC3IOARTNTLTIKGBZP3NN34I/
As usual Luxon is showing poor judgement in attacking Wood, because if he really wants Wood's error to be the new resignation standard, he's going to have a very nervous caucus. Reap what you sow …
No, he won’t resign or be sacked. We’ve already hit the bottom of the Cabinet talent barrel with Tenitti.
[Please correct your e-mail address in your next comment, thanks. You might also want to tone down the increasing troll-level of your comments – Incognito]
Mod note
The Rimmer effect…
But did anyone ever ask?
In an interview with One News last night, Mr Key faltered when asked about the shares, initially saying his family owned 25,000-50,000 shares, then shifting to "sometimes 50,000, sometimes 100,000" then finally "yeah, sorry, it was 100,000 in total".
Asked why he had only ever admitted to the 30,000 shares owned by the family trust, Mr Key said: "No one's ever asked me the number I owned."
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/key-caught-out-over-rail-shares/6USXEACH6DEXR3FAI4V2SD5RQE/
Yep, the Natzo underwear sniffers and wheelie bin snoopers are officially back Anne!
Ex PM Mr Key’s largish holding of rail shares, as several posters have reminded us above, was fine back in the day–nothing to see here for the media that used to give JK hot towels and back rubs. But I guess with the Supercity Airport shares up for flogging off to the nearest venture capitalist or pension investment fund, this has some further importance for certain people.
Agee 100% Anne
It's all about optics, everyone knows Key and the Tory's have shares in everything and will exploit every loophole, this kind of thing is expected of national.
Labour and the Greens, are held to a different standard, not just by media but by voters and their own members.
$13000 is a lot of money for most people in NZ, who can barely rub two dollars together, for many voters $13 k is not insignificant and hearing the minister responsible has undeclared conflicts looks grubby and it is inappropriate.
Im glad Hipkins acted swiftly and removed Wood while the issue is sorted turning it into a non issue.
$13 is a shit load of money to the people labour need to vote for it.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/491423/transport-minister-michael-wood-stood-down-after-airport-shares-controversy
Wood was born in 1980. If anything, the Nats should be in absolute awe of his prudent investment that has grown in value over more than two decades and that shows long-term vision and patience, none of which you’d expect to find in a Nat MP.
The guy cannot hold his story – He was going to sell them in 2020 then he didn't, for some reason."There were about six times that there had been discussions between Wood and the Cabinet office about divesting his shares, Hipkins said. That was since the end of 2020 when those six instances occurred." SIX !!!! Now he acts.
He received dividends and declares the income under his tax returns & financial reports mailed under his name would that not prompt a reminder who owns them ??
again it its the ever shifting story as more details are reported- that is what is sinking him IMO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/prime-minister-chris-hipkins-to-face-further-questions-over-michael-woods-auckland-airport-shares-controversy/FOHZP2TOBNDRRI7NHTRKRUPEGU/
He thought they were in a trust then we find out he owns them outright. When he prepares his tax return the dividends would have been declared under his tax return.
The last Financial Year in which those shares paid dividend was 2019.
https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz/investors/shares-and-bonds
In other words, there was nothing to declare on his Tax Return.
Please stop making up shit, thanks.
There were dividends to declare pre 2019 no stop trying to deflect, My comment is not limited to the last few years and does hold up, I am not making anything up, perhaps some need to take a breath before firing off false accusation at others ?? If you need an English lesson "He received dividends and declares the income under his tax returns" my comments were plural, so that then covers any period, including pre 2019 !!!! When I note he was the Senior Whip and Deputy Leader of the House- A senior within the 1st Jacinda Adern govt.
And now we are told he thought he sold them "Wood said he did not disclose them as he thought they had been sold." And what about the SIX times he was asked about divesting from the shares ???
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/491423/transport-minister-michael-wood-stood-down-after-airport-shares-controversy
Of course, you were making up shit.
You wrote this:
And you blabbered something about declaring income from dividends on his Tax Returns when there hasn’t been anything paid since FY-2019.
Yet now you claim:
Do your comments go back all the way to 1998? Just asking, so that you can make up your mind what BS comment you can come up with this time, singular or plural, it doesn’t make a difference.
If you would have taken time and notice that the 2022 comment was within quote marks and there was a link ?? So I was NOT making it up, I was quoting the NZ Herald. So perhaps you need to STOP making things up ??? And how about an apology for claiming that I was making things up !!!
Your 1st comment made no reference about 2022, it related to dividends which I responded. Now it is something else, you are all over the place.
"Wood said he did not disclose them as he thought they had been sold."
"Having indicated back in 2020 that he was intending to dispose of them, he should have done that."
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/491423/transport-minister-michael-wood-stood-down-after-airport-shares-controversy
Oh dear, we have a live one here!!!!!!!!!
Firstly, there is no “2022 comment”.
Secondly, you wrote:
This was not within quote marks, not quoted from the NZ Herald, and indeed the NZH does not refer to dividends and Tax Returns as far as I can tell. In other words, they were your words and you made them up.
It was BS and thus you made up shit, about declaring or not declaring non-existing dividends on Tax Returns, since the end of 2020.
The only one who’s all over the place and doesn’t even realise it is you.
"must have been 30 plus years ago".
Well no actually. They listed on 28 July 1998 when he was 18.
It is pretty hard to forget owning shares. They keep sending you stuff, including the dividend statements that would tell him exactly who owned them and how many he owned.
Associated Press reports law against trans affirming care in Florida also applies to ongoing treatments for trans adults
The covert agenda of the US right becomes clearer.
The "religious right" just can't stand the competition. They are scared that one day people might work out that there is exactly the same empirical evidence for the possession of a "gendered soul" that there is for an "immortal soul".
Brilliant Visubversa!
They can always tell /s
https://twitter.com/KarbonSays/status/1659966632926801920
That's a foreseeable additional harm to women, from the threat of men using single-sex spaces.
It is not a reasonable argument for the abandonment of single-sex provisions.
How do you propose to enforce 'single-sex provisions' in bathrooms that do not result in this 'additional' harm to women?
Clarity. Stop the linguistic gymnastics that pretend that single-sex provisions are not related to sex. Clear boundaries make transgressions easier to identity and address because they are uncommon. Thereby, reducing the challenge to non-confirming people of both sexes.
Single-sex spaces are neither femininity nor masculinity testing stations.
They will however demonstrate the cognitive capacity, and/or decision making level of those that knowingly break those single-sex boundaries by prioritising personal feelings.
BTW, still not an argument for the elimination of single-sex provisions. Just a diversion.
Trans people exist. Would you have transmen in women's bathrooms too? Wouldn't they also have cops called on them, seeing that they look, for all intents and purposes, to be men? Anti-trans people already have difficulty determining 'sex' and differentiating between that and gender norms, as the above example proves.
It's interesting that you prefer to prioritise your personal feelings.
"Trans people exist."
Where have I implied otherwise?
"Would you have transmen in women's bathrooms too?"
Given that they are women, Yes. But depending on their degree of transition and presentation, they should be aware that they will be challenged more often – primarily because of the lack of clarity I spoke of before that has been interpreted by many men as permission to break single-sex boundaries. It is a natural consequence of both those aspects.
"Wouldn't they also have cops called on them, seeing that they look, for all intents and purposes, to be men?"
Unlikely. Calling the police is not a response of many women and girls to men invading their spaces. They usually just get out as fast as possible, and/or report to the service provider.
"Anti-trans people already have difficulty determining 'sex' and differentiating between that and gender norms, as the above example proves."
This sentence doesn't make sense.
"It's interesting that you prefer to prioritise your personal feelings."
I understand there are differences between biological sexes in terms of practical needs, privacy, dignity, and safety. These realities are identifiable, and in cases of assault – recorded in statistical data.
Safeguarding risk assessments that resulted in single-sex provisions as significantly reducing (not eliminating) risk of harm, did not rely on my personal feelings – but robust statistical evidence.
It is the same robust statistical evidence that has to be provided in support of boundary breaking – and then weighted against – the issues of safety, privacy, dignity and consent, before considering whether single-sex boundaries can reasonably be broken.
Look to Chesterton's Fence – for where to start when you seek to dismantle existing boundaries:
https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/
Anti-trans people called the police on a cisgender woman because they thought she was trans. They failed to determine her sex and assumed it based on their own interpretations of gender norms. If these anti-trans people were always capable of determining sex as is claimed, then they wouldn't have called police to eject a woman from the women's bathroom would they?
Absent a chromosome test and/or genital inspections we rely on gender and the societal expectations of such, to determine which 'single-sex' space someone should occupy. This can go wrong, as above, and in your preferred scenario would be much more common and confusing with male-presenting people in the women's bathroom and vice versa.
Please supply this 'robust' evidence.
arkie, you are focusing on one incident and extrapolating that as if it is indicative of a persuasive argument. It is not. It is a waste of my time to point this out to you repeatedly so I will not.
"Absent a chromosome test and/or genital inspections we rely on gender and the societal expectations of such, to determine which 'single-sex' space someone should occupy. "
This conflation of DSD's with gender identities is common, and along with conflation of sex with gender identities, is just poor logic.
"Please supply this 'robust' evidence."
I am surprised you are unaware.
However, a link for you. Please note the proviso, it is becoming increasingly hard to find up-to-date figures that distinguish by sex, due to the capture of statistical departments (including our own) who interchange sex and gender identity without regard to accuracy:
https://supportingsurvivors.humboldt.edu/statistics#:~:text=An%20estimated%2091%25%20of%20victims,identify%20in%20these%20gender%20boxes.
Did you honestly require a statistical reference for this?
Looking forward to reading yours.
If transmen are to use women's bathrooms surely that makes it easier for male predators to enter those spaces without 'pretending to be a woman' to gain that access?
90% of women survivors were victimised by someone known to them, 23% of women were assaulted by a partner or ex-partner, 24% were assaulted a family member, 44% were assaulted by "another known person". Just 9% were assaulted by strangers.
I was specifically asking for the 'robust' evidence that transwomen are a risk to women in bathrooms. This isn't actually possible because they are not.
@arkie
I provided the statistics on my contribution which is based on "sex". I do not conflate sex with gender identity, and the single-sex provisions relate to sexed differences.
"I was specifically asking for the 'robust' evidence that transwomen are a risk to women in bathrooms. This isn't actually possible because they are not."
I don't need to provide it. Alongside many other males, they are included in the statistics I have given you. Along with males who are eight years old, blind teenaged boys, men with mobility issues, men and boys with cancer, men with mental incapacity – they are included.
Because you wish to extract men with gender identities from these statistics, so that they can be treated independently of their sex, you need to find the data that supports that treatment. Then any advantages to that cohort must be considered and weighted against the impact on women and girls.
Until you provide the 'robust' evidence that they are significantly different to other males, then you cannot make the second claim. In fact, you cannot make the second claim unless you provide evidence that NO harm will be enacted on women at ANY time, in ANY place by men with gender identities.
"This isn't actually possible because they are not."
You are the one making this extraordinary claim.
I wait for your extraordinary evidence to support it.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z
Interestingly cismen are the most concerned about transwomen's access to women's bathrooms
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-016-9181-6
@arkie
Paywalled, so I can't read methodology.
Also, a couple of points:
That statement is negated by the existence of one such incident. I'll choose this one from many I am aware of.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/oklahoma-transgender-student-charged-assaulting-female-high-school-classmates-bathroom
For example, I could make the same claim about male gardeners. eg. There exists no evidence to show that male gardeners are of harm to women and girls.
It is both poor reasoning and evidence.
The only comprehensive evidence we have is that based on sex.
As for the second social media analysis. I'm not really that interested in the ratio of that kind of limited analysis, which is all it offers. Counting the uninformed reckons of people on the internet is good for polling, but not for considered reasoning.
As usual I never expected you to argue in good faith. I have provided the 'extraordinary' evidence you required that your concerns are unfounded ie Not Empirically Grounded. You choose to ignore it so that you can continue your monomania. Enjoy.
@arkie
I always engage in good faith, and with honesty.
"I have provided the 'extraordinary' evidence you required that your concerns are unfounded ie Not Empirically Grounded. You choose to ignore it so that you can continue your monomania. "
I do not agree about the quality of your evidence – and said why.
Instead of providing the missing methodology or responding to points raised, you seem to fall into personal insults while running away.
That's OK. Catch you another time.
Trans women are men :: all men rape :: transwomen using womens's toilets rape.
Molly, this is how your argument develops.
@tWiggle
"Trans women are men :: all men rape :: transwomen using womens's toilets rape.
Molly, this is how your argument develops."
No. It does not.
(Despite how much you may want it to – in order to justify your inability to provide a good argument for your perspective.)
If you want to link to where I have said this – go ahead.
I'll wait.
An article relating the second point made in this comment:
.https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-06-06-2023/#comment-1952846
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2023/06/06/my-mother-is-courageous-but-faced-with-a-man-in-her-change-room-at-ottawas-nepean-sportsplex-she-went-silent/
Also meant to mention, that the impact on women's and girls on males entering their single-sex provisions is significantly different than the impact on men and boys of females doing the same.
Because of the sexed differences listed above.
In terms of safety and statistics, a women entering a male single-sex provision raises the safety of the male users – and reduces her own. A male entering a women's single-sex space, statistically reduces the likelihood of harm to themselves, while significantly raising the risk for the female users.
Because of the sexed differences listed above.
I think Molly is prioritizing her own personal feelings and also biological reality.
Public toilets and change rooms have long been separated based on sex.
That trans people have a problem and with that, I have some sympathy for. But I am afraid there is no way I will accept as the solution that male bodied people who identify as women be allowed into womens change rooms. Nope, nada never……..And the good people of Invercargill are fighting this very issue right now.
Megyn Kelly who was initally a cheer leader for Trans rights says it very well here.
Why can't you accept no for an answer Arkie?
Hey, Anker.
"I think Molly is prioritizing her own personal feelings and also biological reality."
Thanks for that. I agree with the second, but not with the first.
I approach this from a place of logic, and my feelings remain personal and strong, but are not put forward as an argument about the non-emotive aspects of single-sex provisions. And I don’t often talk about the comfort of such provisions, so my feelings are not often part of my reasoning.
The insistence on removing or ignoring single-sex boundaries doesn't make sense to me, which is why I'm happy to engage in discussions regarding it. With the right questions, someone may be able to come up with an explanation that does make sense, and be able to address the concerns raised with solutions – rather than a demand for capitulation.
Till then…
Trans women having been using womens's spaces for decades. In the UK, it's been legal since 2010. No sex or harrassment crimes reported in the UK by trans women in womens' spaces in the 12 years since.
In the US, in 2015, the first 'preventative' legislation to ban trans women was introduced, in Louisiana, I think. 10 US states had had trans inclusive legislation for up to a decade. There were no reports from police, rape crisis organisations, etc from those 10 trans inclusive states of sexual attacks by trans women in those spaces. The legislator introducing the bill, which was passed, had no evidence of harm, he just wanted to 'prevent' trans women.
Talking about 'men in dresses who bring penises into bathrooms', is wanting to 'prevent' NZ trans women from going about their lives, as they have been doing, without proof.
the best solution I have heard was in a recent twitter Space where transsexual people were talking about the need to go where you fit in. So a TM who has done the full works is probably going to be better off in a male toilet. A TW who has socially transitioned but still looks male, is better off in a male toilet too.
In a place like NZ we still have some choices which way this goes. But that won't last forever and the more that cross dressing and NB males push the boundaries on this, the more public backlash there will be. Most people don't care that much if fully transition TW use women's toilets where they just want to go and not cause a hassle. It's the AGPs and activists who are making a song and a dance and worse (cue references to AGPs masturbating in women's toilets and posting that online). No-one will put up with that shit because it's hugely disrespectful and it breaches social norms. (by no-one, I mean the general public).
I don't know what is going on in that video because there is no context or evidence for what it is. I can't tell if the person being thrown out is male or female, when it happened, where it happened, what prompted the scene in the first place. It's a piece of gotcha SM clickbait.
Beyond the toilet issue, it basically comes down to whether people support women's sex based rights or not. Women aren't going to back down from this, because our rights matter. How that plays out is as much on liberals as anyone else.
"the best solution I have heard was in a recent twitter Space where transsexual people were talking about the need to go where you fit in. So a TM who has done the full works is probably going to be better off in a male toilet."
The very real concern I have for this as a solution, is the added impetus it gives to young people – and others but particularly the young – to approach transition as means to get access to single-sex spaces, rather than significant interventions to be approached with caution, maturity and full understanding of impacts.
As the number of detransitioners continues to grow – particularly among the young – this concern about the added pressure on young people to pass as the opposite sex becomes stronger.
For that reason, I don't think it is a good solution in the current climate.
(It also performs the usual conflation of gender identity and sex, which at the moment, I have little patience for.)
I don't think girls transition to gain access to men's spaces (in fact some get a shock once they do access at what that means for them). Many are transitioning to try and escape being female. Those girls are always welcome in women's spaces. But if they have fully transitioned (Buck Angel level transition), then it may work better for them to use male toilets.
AGPs on the other hand, do seem to transition to access spaces. In NZ I think the number of passing AGPs is relatively small, so I'm less concerned about this.
I'm not following you there. Can you please explain in a different way?
Basically I'm saying that TIFs should go to whatever toilet works. Same with transsexual TIMs. AGPs are a different matter and the sooner the public gets to knowing what AGP is the better (preferably without the whole groomer/pervert rhetoric)
Watching the stories from those who have transitioned, there often seems to be a number of milestones that they follow.
For females, it is puberty blockers, testosterone injections, breast removal etc. and the testing of the success of these interventions is reliant on their ability to pass as the opposite sex.
As some who later on detransition relate, that validation of being able to use a male facility or not be challenged when doing so, is already a big incentive to go on testosterone, have surgery etc. These are significant medical interventions.
If single-sex policies are rewritten to accommodate such passing – that compulsion that looks for external validation, is further supported by public policy which has an impact on decision making.
It also ignores aspects that do not have anything to do with safety. Biological differences in practical needs, dignity, privacy safety and consent.
These considerations apply to men as well. The safety factor, perhaps the one most significantly different to women.
AGP or autogynephilia is a pseudoscientific, disease-based theory that if applied to cis women would result is 93% of them being diagnosed as autogynephilic: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918360903005212
TIF and TIM are not the accepted terms, they are trans man and trans woman respectively. To do otherwise is to deliberately misgender:
https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/44438/pronouncing-tim-and-tif
@arkie
AGP is vehemently protested because it confirms a sexual aspect and motivation to some men with gender identities. Some men, however, acknowledge their AGP openly:
http://www.annelawrence.com/autogynephilia_&_MtF_typology.html
It's worthwhile to research Ray Blanchard, and listen to interviews or lectures he gives. He is quite sympathetic to the patients he draws his perspective from, and worked as a clinician for many years. From a purely personal point of view, I find some of his off-hand comments to be revealing of a disparaging view of women. But that doesn't negate his experience or observations.
There is a good analysis of Charles Moser's paper here:
https://www.rodfleming.com/mischievous-charles-moser/
Anne Lawrence PhD – mentioned above – also has critiqued Charles Moser's work in an article that was published in The Journal of Sex Research in 2009:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490903230061
As for the rest, compelled speech is abhorrent. Regardless of political position, everyone should be against such compulsions.
Correctly sexing someone remains an accurate use of language. Not adhering to demands to redefine man and woman is not harmful – it is just not compliance to excessive demands.
AGP is short for autogynephile and is transphobic hate speech.
@tWiggle
"AGP is short for autogynephile and is transphobic hate speech."
Right so this is a problem. You dismiss this but are perfectly accepting of the equivalent if it supports your ideological position.
It's deeply ironic to me that the calls for everyone to 'Listen To Women' necessarily involves not listening to trans people.
Please give me at least two examples where I have done this.
I spend a large amount of my online time fact checking. For instance, this morning someone posted a snip of a KJK video. KJK is good for taking out of context because of her hyperbole, she makes good inflammatory clickbait. I went and found the original video, set the start time for the relevant bit and posted it in several places on twitter where I knew people were reacting to the snip. This is my kaupapa. So if you want to suggest I routinely don't do this when it happens to be something I agree with, I'd like some evidence so I know what you are talking about.
What are you on about? I literally just referenced a group of transsexuals in the point I was making. It's the GI side that thinks listening to women and trans people is somehow incompatible, hence No Debate.
and, any time you see me using low quality, out of context material to support an argument, please pull me up on it. Joe90 has done this once or twice, I’m not perfect.
It's not just you, the use of overseas social media sources in this issue is frequent by the regular commenters. A quick sampling of your posts:
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-11-04-2023/#comment-1945102
https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-20-04-2023/#comment-1946658
https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-20-04-2023/#comment-1946663
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-15-05-2023/#comment-1949922
and this one I did specifically call you out:
https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-29-03-2023/#comment-1942509
It's a waste of my time trying to pull you all up on this issue, it's never-ending, especially seeing that many will not change their minds no matter the evidence or lack thereof… Nope, nada never.
I didn’t object to the use of overseas social media sources. I objected to a random video that had no context.
If we look at your first example, it’s a link to a quote by Ani O’Brien, where she posts a photo of a stick on a pole saying “hate trans people? kill yourself”. She says it’s been posted in Wellington, and gives her analysis and opinion about it.
What exactly is wrong with that? There is context, explanation of the issues, a clear image. Is your objection to Ani? The quality of information in the tweet? What?
You seem to be objecting to me posting negative things about gender identity ideology. But you miss the point. Your video would have been an excellent conversation starter if we knew more about it.
I’m not dissing the content, I’m saying it’s poor quality material for a decent debate (and tbh I was surprised you posted it because you are usually better than that).
Yes you did, and we had a conversation about it. Again, what is the problem specifically? Rereading it now, it appears you didn’t realise that there are people actively saying there is a trans holocaust and that feminists are part of the cause. That’s the context of Nutmeg’s tweets. She was pointing out that the comparison between what happens to trans people and the Holocaust is nauseating. It’s the kind of stupid, propaganda hyberbole that KJK uses on the other side.
What’s really happening is that trans people are one of the groups most at risk of rising fascism. That’s different to them being murdered in large numbers by the state. I believe The Disinformation Project that there is a rise in rhetoric from the far right online that is aimed at trans people and wanting them killed or eliminated. This is serious enough without calling it a holocaust or genocide. It seems to me there is a general conflation between genocide rhetoric and murder rates of trans people (the latter being majorly misrepresented in scale and cause. It’s not feminists murdering trans people, it’s usually domestic violence, or in places like South America it’s associated with the sex trade. All wrong and all needing attention but not via bullshit ideologically driven rhetoric).
The Holocaust analogy is, in fact, particularly valid. The virulent anti trans (and now anti rainbow) propaganda, some of which finds its way to The Standard, follows closely the 'degenerate' labelling by nazis of homosexuals and the jewish and romany peoples. Which certainly is well on the path to genocide x. Making trans women out to be predators and groomers without solid evidence is othering and dehumanisation.
As I posted here today, all trans people in Florida have lost their right to healthcare affirming their trans identity, not just minors. It affects around 90,000 people. That was quick. Foment enough fear and hate and you'll see how quickly nasty/nazi shit can happen without pushback.
The United Nations Genocide Convention:
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Genocide can be any of the above acts, not just mass killing.
You posted this after the SUFW event in Naarm/Melbourne that was attended by neo-nazis. It's specifically about those in attendance being called nazis and 'nutmegs' discomfort with the term and it's an attempt to call those protesting the event holocaust-deniers. It still disgusts me that this was posted.
thanks, that’s substance we can get our teeth into.
Which of those four categories of people do you feel trans people fit into?
Which of those acts apply to trans people, and which groups of people are intent on destroying them?
It wasn’t a SUFW event, that’s a NZ group. It was a Let Women Speak event. Two weeks before I made my comment. I can’t see how BabyBeginner’s tweet is specifically about Melbourne. Her tweet appears to be in response to ongoing issues with conflating trans issues with genocide rhetoric and blaming women for that. That was happening before Melbourne.
As I said at the time, ‘denier’ isn’t a word I would have used. But there is no doubt that there are lots of people misrepresenting what is happening to trans people eg talking about a high trans murder rate is common, but it’s just not true.
If you don't see it then I can't ever convince you. You are prepared to take a charitable interpretation of those echoing GCF talking points but dismiss and tone police those who disagree with the framing and terminology around this topic. I provide scientific papers that are 'countered' by opinion pieces. And the pile-ons! Look around you, look at what you have made. The sheer number of regular voices that have left or forgone commenting at all because of disagreements over this issue. It's sad, and tiring.
See what? If you think there is a trans genocide happening, then step up and do the mahi to convince people. I’ve already told you that I think trans people are at risk in places like the US, this is bloody obvious. I also don’t agree that what is happening to trans people fits the definition of genocide. You do, but you won’t make the argument, so 🤷♀️ You know how things go here, people explain their thinking, but you won’t on this issue. Why is that?
I don’t dismiss and tone police, I make strong arguments against other people’s position. This isn’t a liberal hand holding space. People argue robustly on all topics. You already know this.
And yes, I don’t really rate the argument that I shouldn’t use the term TIM, when it’s not actually an argument but rather someone telling me how to speak and think.
This is always a problem here, it’s just part of the work. We make the arguments over time, and some people have better evidence for their views than others. It’s not possible to moderate that any more than we do, but you can always bring this to the attention of moderators.
Pile ons? There is definitely an imbalance in the sense that there are more gender critical people here than there are people that support gender identity ideology. But how is this different than all the times women are outnumbered here?
I left the site for 15 months because two male authors trashed the women’s project that a group of women had been working on for a long time. Nothing to do with the sex/gender wars. I can easily count 5 feminist authors that have left here over similar issues, and more women commenters. Again, nothing to do with the sex/gender wars. People come and go, for all sorts of reasons, and some of that is unfair. There are people I miss too.
It’s hard work commenting here. It always has been for those of us that are serious about the politics.
Weka. GC feminism is an ideology too. And at odds with trans inclusionary feminism.
To correct you weka: only 'some' women 'are not going to back down from this'. Count me and many, many other women out of this anti trans crusade.
The ‘count me out’ women include the 30-40% of 'real' women in the 2000-4000 people opposing Posie Parker in Auckland. There were more 'real' women than trans women on the organising committee for the Wellington anti-Parker rally. There were 'real' women who directly opposed Posie Parker's message, like Senator Lidia Thorpe, manhandled in Canberra; and the women who was grabbed around the throat by security and removed from the microphone when she began to speak in opposition at Parker's Melbourne rally.
of course #notallwomen.
In the context of my comment it was clear I was talking about women who value women's sex based rights, I didn't need to qualify that by 'some'.
I'm not on an anti-trans crusade, so I assume you really have no clue what is going on here.
Weka, I think/know that some want to frame the concern about access to women's safe spaces as being anti-trans when it is nothing of the sort. I am resolutely pro women and my stance comes from this perspective.
As far as trans argument it is live and let live, though I do have concerns about child safe guarding, making decsions while too young to make them and the irrevocable nature of some of the decisions but my overriding concern is that women remain able to access safe spaces. To determine what constitutes a safe space for women obviously means that we ask and are guided by what women say, not men.
I also realise that even though the argument is pro women rather than anti trans and this is not a nuanced view ie it is a clear, palin ad simple one, it seems difficult for some to understand. Why is this I wonder?
What would happen if we actually put this view to the forefront?
Would we get better decison making re safe spaces for women and trans people?
To answer my own question I believe if we looked at it from the point of view of maintaining safe spaces for women, access to sport for women while asking ourselves what we can do to make safe spaces for transwomen then we would have been much further forward.
The reason we are not and there is suspicion and vitriol, is that we were presented with the need to deny biology, our own eyes and agree to the 'Emperor has no clothes' mantra of transwomen are (real) women. Pushback was inevitable.
Two reasons why this comment by Arkie 6 June 2023 at 1:25 pm is probably not worth the time to parse it
a) the use of the word 'cis', most beloved of the trans community, (who also probably believe it is possible for males to become lesbians), and
b) the use of the word 'Karen' most beloved by no-one as many recognise it is sexist and probably age-ist.
Other than that it probably provided some exercise for someone's fingers on the keyboard and I guess that is a plus.
also this,
Which is basically a dude in a tweet saying women don't get to have their own perception of the world.
Yes Weka, some of these quotes/opinions are bare faced misogyny/sexism. Having been around for a while, years-wise and fought a few battles for womens lib back in the day, and having had a mother and grandmother whose 'spidy' sense could pick a sexist at a 1000 paces I can pick the dudes wanting to deny women.
Strangely or not they seem to be the same and hold the same sexist views as their predecessors. Though they are able to dress it up as mysterious and new as it relates to poor hard done by men (though disguised)
I realise that perhaps my words are tough. Where and how did we get to have these unseeing, uncritical people who think biological sex can be changed and who inflict court/tribunal cases on people for such felonies as pronouns, dead-naming.
I am glad that some jurisdictions are pulling back on the child transitions. Why would we let a child or their parents make a decision that can mean an inability to father/bear a child or, fundamentally, to have a sexual relationship that involves orgasm. Who are these cruel people and who gives them the right to do this to others?
Gosh, resorting to hairsplitting about terminology. To paraphrase you Shanreagh:
'I don't agree with arkie's vocab, it doesn't fit with my GC ideology – therefore none of arkie's points are worth considering'
Cis woman and cis man are terms that trans inclusionary feminists, rainbow supporters, and many men are quite comfortable using to describe themselves in context, eg, when talking about trans issues.
'Karen' is a meme. Here is what is considered to be a classic 'Karen ' example, a young woman who uses her white woman privilege to falsely accuse a black man of assault after he asks her to put her dog on a leash in a designated bird nesting area.
No I was not looking looking at it from a GC point of view but from a student of the English language and linguistics.
Of course groups have their own 'in' words and sayings and this serves as an inclusionary purpose. The words used in Govt circles, economics are shorthand and inclusionary or exclusionary depending on which side the group you stand.
One of the hallmarks of this trans movement is the erasure of language about those who are the targets. So women and women's spaces are the targets for males wanting to access females safe spaces. So we don't have breast feeding but chest feeding…..
We have males trying to gate-crash lesbian groups, we have males asking the authorities to censure lesbian groups under rights legislation. These men do not seem to grasp that lesbians care not for the male body, even when it has been tweaked and 'chemicalised'. They are what is called same sex attracted and that same sex is women ie those who are and remain women.
So we find also that words describing 1-5% of the community need to influence words describing 51%. So instead of the wider word being reserved for the majority we now find that the wider word 'women' has to have an unneeded, additional and uneuphonious (if that is a word – I mean hard on the ear) word added and this is 'cis'. Surely there are bio women and trans women or women and trans women.
We have the OTT use of the word 'genocide', this truly horrifies me that people in this movement truly believe that what they have essentially brought/wrought on themselves (ie there is a choice about taking drugs or embarking on surgery) is in any way the same as a state/Nazi sanctioned abuse wrought on others such as travellers, Jews, intellectually impaired etc etc. who had no means ie choice to avoid the stigma.
My distaste for the Karen slur surely needs no explaining. It is ageist and sexist.
My takeaway from the wider trans movement has been the intense dislike/hatred of women, it seems to be an intensely misogynistic movement, as befits a 'boys own/man's own' adventure.
I do feel that there are those with gender disphoria and the phrase 'watch-ful waiting' is surely a good one here…..care for the soul/psychiatric help until children reach past puberty and have the mind/experience and tools of life on which to base decisions on whether to take action that may be irrevocable.
Do you think this result may have been foreseeable (and is justified) by the legal actions of WPATH, the AAP and the Endocrine Society who not only failed to provide the clinical evidence requested by Florida to support their proscribed methods of care, but joined together to attempt to legally avoid having to do so?
https://t.co/Q7CxTO4AX5
Edit: Link to court document appealing the subpoeana for data – “JOINT MOTION OF NONPARTIES AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, WORLD PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR TRANSGENDER HEALTH, AND ENDOCRINE SOCIETY TO QUASH RULE 45 SUBPOENAS “
For further information, this was discussed back in April.
It may be of interest to note that the organisations that we refer to here in NZ for treatment protocols are the same three. (WPATH via PATHA).
.https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-19-04-2023/#comment-1946321
I have a suspicion that the main difference is that in the past, the vast majority of trans identified people were same sex attracted.
These days it is not so easy. I have been in the same Ladies Toilet facility with Georgina Beyer a couple of times at Labour Party Conferences. We were both there for the same reasons, use the facilities, flush, wash our hands and depart. We were not there to snap "bathroom selfies" with a bunch of schoolgirls, to achieve our "gender euphoria" or to steal used sanitary products for menstrual fetishes.
Nobody then was demanding a right for male bodied people to use changing rooms or locker rooms where women get undressed, or to use the women's section of a Spa. The person in the Wi Spa incident – although vigorously defended by Trans Rights Activists, got dropped like a hot brick when it turned out he was a registered sex offender with past convictions for displaying himself in women's spaces.
Remember – with self ID – any man can say he is trans.
The accommodations made in the past for transsexuals – was legislatively enacted, and required legal recognition based on GRS.
As you mention that distinction no longer is in place with current interpretations of the law, and the introduction of Self-ID.
However, I would like to point out that there would have been women that self-excluded – for whatever reasons – when they became aware they were expected to share single-sex provisions with a male. We will never know how many did this.
It is also worthwhile to consider that consent of all women was assumed – when this provision was passed into law. And consent – above all – is not transferable when it comes to adults.
Our admiration for individuals such as Georgina Beyer, should not overcome basic safeguarding principles that apply to all. It is an uncomfortable position but a necessary one, because good safeguarding practice is not based on emotion.
Oh gosh, Visubversa, maybe the US Wi Spa was not a trans issue, because the person involved was a predator who happened also to be trans.
One reason it was taken up by the trans community at first was because a perfectly innocent trans woman was incorrectly identified as the predator, after which she was mobbed online from all over the world.
There are around 100, 000 trans women in California. Are there 100, 000 trans predators in California?
"…One reason it was taken up by the trans community at first was because a perfectly innocent trans woman was incorrectly identified as the predator,"
Not aligned with my recollection, where the woman raising concerns was hounded off social media, and vilified in mainstream press:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/28/anti-trans-video-los-angeles-protest-wi-spa
Can you link to your revisionist alternate?
Oh yea…and deny climate change..and dairy NZ contributions to
On that. I see ex Fed Farm spokes mouth Andrew Hoggard has nailed his dairy shit brown colours to acts mast
We must beat Nact. NZ and its Future will be fucked else.
Holy Cow I hope we don't lose Michael Wood
People whorry about how many billboards all that billionaire dosh buys National and ACT. What they should be worried about is how many nasty little right wing shits with comms skills it buys to spend endless days digging for dirt that can be then laundered through the Herald.
In the Key era, NZH trawled for stories off Whaleoil, rather than twitter accounts of NACT operatives.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/transport-minister-michael-wood-stood-down-by-chris-hipkins-over-auckland-airport-shares-fiasco.html
This could have been avoided if Wood had off-loaded those shares stat.
Wood will now be the keenest person in NZ wanting to sell his AIA shares, followed at the heels by Wayne Brown, of course.
If I were Wood, I would donate the money to a charity and do a mea culpa.
Yes, after he has off-loaded them he may be able to return to his previous position:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/491423/transport-minister-michael-wood-stood-down-after-airport-shares-controversy
More than anything, potential MPs really should be over their investments and potential conflicts before being elected. As you say, could all be easily avoided.
" I would donate the money to a charity and do a mea culpa."
My bet is, that is what he will do.
As a minister who has one of the heaviest workloads, it is unsurprising he never got around to it. He put his portfolios before a handful of shares he bought nearly 40 years ago!
It reminds me of the petty-fogging, officious senior public servants I encountered who were more concerned about somebody arriving to work a few minutes late (usually for good reason) than they were on the person's excellent out-put during working hours.
Well we did not lose Key, so why should Michael be pinged?
Chris, don’t dance to the Rights dirt digging.
Michael, donate the shares to Women’s Refuge, and apologise to the Prime Minister and House.
So this is how we descend into slavery
Thanks Adam. I knew of the US legislation, but it's good to have the consequences laid out. Some women in the US are already in prison because they were judged to have manslaughtered their fetuses when they miscarried, if they used drugs like meth.
Happy to put women in prison, not keen to support anti-addiction services.
Friggin annoyed at Chris Hipkins knee jerking to the trifling issue of old shares. Michael Wood should have been spoken to, and his reasons for forgetting to follow up his initial action to sell shares listened to. And then just let him do just that. Sell them. Probably the same reason John key reasoned that he didn’t remember. But then maybe not. Key out and out lied to his tame media and they accepted it Just like that. Super annoyed. Michael Wood is one of the best that Labour has. He stays! However, I am betting that Chris Lux isn’t going to be keys favourite person for a while.
I'm annoyed with Hipkins too. I don't mind Wood being temporarily stood down but I do get impatient with this "deer in the headlights" acceptance of opposition framing. He has to counter-attack. Control the narrative. Challenge Luxon with language like this …
"I warn the leader of the National party that to play holier-than-thou is a game no politician should play, unless he is surrounded by saints. And he knows he is not."
"If Mr Luxon believes that making a mistake is a sacking offence, then Mr Luxon should have sacked Mr Luxon by now. He has blamed his own staff for everything from his own social media to candidate selection to campaign tactics. Apparently Mr Luxon is responsible for nothing."
"If Mr Luxon has already forgotten his own MPs' sins perhaps he would like a list … [provide long list of MPs …]
And so on, and so on. Who is writing Hipkins' lines? They are weak. FFS, fight back.
For example, does anyone remember this "mistake"? Of course not, because Labour never talk about it but if the roles were reversed National would be all over it. And the media would follow …
https://twitter.com/henrycooke/status/1524219315951906817
Well he is management , so he's practiced at shitting on inferior subordinates
Bang on observer.
I get sick of this pussy-footing around. Michael did nothing much wrong. It seems he requested a stockbroker sell the shares then forgot about them…until he later discovered the stockbroker didn't sell the shares.
If I recall correctly my 'teenage' shares tanked not long after I bought em and never recovered. Dunno what happened to them but never ventured onto the stock-market again. Life is too short to be f****d about a handful of shares.
Onya Michael Wood.
Perhaps Hipkins knows more than we do about this matter.
Ignoring the six discussions he had with the Cabinet Office – the seventh time was going to be the charm right?
Don't sell Auckland Airport shares!
Nek minutes…