Open mike 11/02/2024

24 comments on “Open mike 11/02/2024 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. SPC 1

   11 February 2024 at 8:19 am

   For the edification of those with an uncommon gift for pandering to libertarian misunderstandings about law.

   In 1987 someone noted that the Treaty provided for a shared form of governance, iwi chieftainship on their lands and a Crown managed settlement. However when the settlers determined that the premier and not governor would act with Crown power, the Treaty was betrayed and iwi lost their chieftainship over their lands.

   Unable to undo the loss of lands (apart from some token compensation), government had to note that co-governance over iwi land, water and sea taonga was all that was left, if the Treaty was not to become a nullity.

   The case of Mike Smith is not however one made in this orbit, it is one made as to the global environment and responsible action by corporations. It does not even connect to the nations Paris Accord obligations.

   Yet a libertarian forecasts some parliamentary alacrity in response to a case proceeding in the courts. Is it because the corporations need government protection? No, as the case will not succeed. So it is going to be cited as a pretext to protect corporations from litigation – that is, limit legal protection of the common good.

   And it will be part of a much wider agenda to reduce restraint in corporate activity, and to place constraints on the Waitangi Tribunal, remove references to the Treaty in legislation, and possibly to criminalise protest as has happened over the Tasman.

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350173571/we-need-better-judges-writes-damien-grant
   • Robert Guyton 1.1

     11 February 2024 at 9:12 am

     National-under-Key tested the waters with criminalising protest by setting an exclusion-zone-for-protest around oil exploration vessels.
2. Visubversa 2

   11 February 2024 at 9:47 am

   This is what a lot of us were trying to say when the so called "Gay Conversion" Bill went through Parliament.

   “Yet when we wade beyond the messy definitional quagmires, we find that the phrase “conversion therapy” is only coherent when applied to sexual orientation rather than gender identity. The consequence of this semantic ambiguity means that most people do not understand that in order to oppose gay conversion therapy, one must be opposed to a ban on “trans conversion therapy”.

   https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/the-new-gay-conversion-therapy?utm_source=cross-post&publication_id=825968&post_id=141553041&utm_campaign=945289&isFreemail=true&r=87dih&utm_medium=email
   • SPC 2.1

     11 February 2024 at 9:21 pm

     The thing is the diversity in male and female, is in part nature and in part nurture (including adaption or coping by the individual). The difference in psycho-sexual development is not entirely singular or linear – thus then ….

     For one thing, it is patently obvious that not all of those seen as of the effeminate boys or masculine girls spectrum (for many it is just acting where they have talent artistic boy or athletic girl or where a parent is mentoring) will be homosexual.

     In fact most homosexuals will not be identifiable as children, not by others, nor even by themselves.

     Argue your position, but your narrative needs a lot of cleaning up to be useful.
     • weka 2.1.1

       11 February 2024 at 11:37 pm

       hmm, what do you think visubversa was saying?

       It's not the GC lefties that have a problem with gender non-conformity. We're the ones arguing that it's ok to be gender non-conforming and that one doesn't have to have invasive surgery or life long drugs.
       • SPC 2.1.1.1

         11 February 2024 at 11:49 pm

         Being non gender conforming as a child is not synonymous with being homosexual. Most adult homosexuals are gender conforming.
         • weka 2.1.1.1.1

           12 February 2024 at 12:03 am

           yes, but what does that have to do with visubversa's comment?
           • SPC 2.1.1.1.1.1

             12 February 2024 at 12:54 am

             This is what a lot of us were trying to say

             Because of the conflation of "gender transition" with gay conversion therapy.

             One can have questions about the gender transitioning of children and teens without relating that to sex and sexuality attraction.
             • Tabletennis …

               12 February 2024 at 5:05 pm

               "One can have questions about the gender transitioning of children and teens without relating that to sex and sexuality attraction."

               SPC- its not GC people who are conflating conversion therapy, with sexual orientation.
               Since the vast majority of children/adolescents receiving ‘’affirmation therapy’/’gender transition’ ); in gender clinics are autistic or lesbians, or both.

               How is it not conversation therapy, pretending that your the opposite gender (‘affirmation therapy’/’gender transition’), trying to hide born female and same sex-attracted, based on your sexual orientation.

               Where as before in conversation therapy: being gay and pretend that your are not because you’ve been ‘healed’ with shock 'therapy' from your same-sex sexual orientation.

               
               Puberty blockers? Gay Teens aren't sick!
3. Tabletennis 3

   11 February 2024 at 12:54 pm

   Visubversa – too late for NZ – the anti conversion bill- promoted with full gusto by ActionStation Aotearoa,
   But in the end all the political parties supported the bill which supports (with medical intervention if desired):

   • assisting an individual who is undergoing, or considering undergoing, a gender transition;
   • assisting an individual to express their gender identity;

   Better know as 'affirmation therapy'.
   As a young women with masculine traits or feminine boy, changing your gender to fit in…must be an attractive proposal.
   IOW children who are likely to grow up gay are being “fixed” by medical practitioners to better conform with stereotypical heterosexual paradigms.
   Transing the gay child away and NZ did exactly that.
   • Visubversa 3.1

     11 February 2024 at 4:21 pm

     Every time you say "gender" I just see "restrictive sexist stereotypes" We spent decades trying to break those down so that people who did not wish to so constrain themselves, could do it without social stigma. People can dress and present as they feel comfortable without having to poison themselves with "off brand" drugs used for chemical castration, or mutilate healthy bodies with surgical procedures with high complication rates.

     Also without requiring the rest of us to go along with the homophobic belief systems involved in "gender identity".
   • SPC 3.2

     11 February 2024 at 9:33 pm

     The question, should anyone need to change their "gender" to fit in? Just be gender queer/non binary/fluid/bi whatever.

     Let's look at the old way of the transsexual era

     The old way, birth sex and those who wished to identify with another gender different to their birth sex went through a managed process – a health issue. Their dysmorphia being dysphoria.

     Of course since 1980 the DSM of Mental Disorders (industry managing approved public behaviour) went apologetic for past homophobia – well sort of.

     To put in simpler terms, a person with gender dysphoria is not mentally ill; they are dissatisfied with the gender assigned at their birth. A person with body dysmorphia has a disorder in which they perceive their body or face as “ugly,” “fat,” or otherwise unattractive despite medical or personal reassurances.

     https://www.montenido.com/transgender-anorexia-dysphoria-vs-dysmorphia/
     • weka 3.2.1

       11 February 2024 at 11:41 pm

       The question, should anyone need to change their "gender" to fit in? Just be gender queer/non binary/fluid/bi whatever.

       Except there are pressures in society to not be gender non conforming. Conservatives want binary gender roles that match sex. Liberal genderists want gender roles, for those to transcend and replace sex, and people to be able to choose which ones they want (gender or sex).

       It's the gender critical feminists that are saying fuck gender roles, let people be who they are. But that requires societal and system change.
       • SPC 3.2.1.1

         11 February 2024 at 11:57 pm

         Many people have no problem with people not gender conforming, not just gender critical feminists … .

         Society is allowing, not requiring, people to identify (or be as they choose without any identification non binary/gender fluid etc), as they will.

         The specific issue is really one of continuance of sex based identity and rights – as per women's safety, group gathering (including fair competition in sports etc).
         • weka 3.2.1.1.1

           12 February 2024 at 12:10 am

           Society is allowing, not requiring, people to identify (or be as they choose without any identification non binary/gender fluid etc), as they will.

           There are significant pressures on young GNC women especially lesbians to transition to TM.

           Where have all the lesbian bars and other spaces gone?

           Why are there men (TRAs and MRAs) abusing GC women online? Why is it a thing to call GC women ugly or saying that trans women are better women than women?

           Your own comment rendered a large number of GNC people invsible. "gender queer/non binary/fluid/bi whatever" is rainbow, gender identity ideology language. It doesn't cover lots of people who are simply not in the middle of the gender role bell curve.

           So no, society isn't simply allowing. If it were, women wouldn't be losing their sex based rights and children wouldn't be on a path of social and medical transition.

           The value of the GCF political analysis here is that we are pointing out that GII is a regressive ideology that wants to uphold gender roles. It's not a position of allowing everyone to be how they are. Many of the old sexisms have simple transferred. Men can be sexist legitimately if they are queer.
           • SPC 3.2.1.1.1.1

             12 February 2024 at 12:42 am

             Your own comment rendered a large number of GNC people invsible. "gender queer/non binary/fluid/bi whatever" is rainbow, gender identity ideology language. It doesn't cover lots of people who are simply not in the middle of the gender role bell curve.

             From someone who has an opinion on the lack of status of transgender women as women, that is an interesting observation.

             So no, society isn't simply allowing.

             The purity of the GCF as the only true arbiter is coming through a bit, which takes one back to the day of the joke about the most marginalised should lead feminist groups – not someone white and heterosexual, but someone of CRT and queer theory. And here we are in 2024.

             The value of the GCF political analysis here is that we are pointing out that GII is a regressive ideology that wants to uphold gender roles

             GCF as the only true feminists, yet most historic feminist organisations have not come to this conclusion. But I get that GCF have formed new ones, and GC LGB have left historic organisations as well over the issue – taking a sex based first line.

             I get Gender Inequality Index for GII, how are you using it here?

             There are significant pressures on young GNC women especially lesbians to transition to TM.

             I doubt the modern society catering to "GI" would impact much on an adult lesbian, more a social media impact on younger ones (or parents) and then a risk of system reinforcement (depending on the the organisational culture around them).

             Where have all the lesbian bars and other spaces gone?

             All gay bars are in decline, greater public place acceptance? It is the right to have lesbian places – online or otherwise that remains the issue.
             • weka …

               12 February 2024 at 12:58 am

               From someone who has an opinion on the lack of status of transgender women as women, that is an interesting observation.

               I don't know what your implication is there, care to explain?

               The purity of the GCF as the only true arbiter is coming through a bit…

               I don't know where you get that from. You certainly aren't getting it from me. I pointed out the differences between three political positions (conservative, GII, GCF) because it's useful to understand those political and how each related to gender roles and stereoptypes. It's not about purity, I was challenging your idea that GII is allowing people to be whatever they want.

               GCT as the only true feminists…

               Again, I don't know where you are getting this idea from, it's not coming from me.

               yet most historic feminist organisations have not come to this conclusion.

               So? GCF arose because liberal feminism adopted gender identity ideology, and then GII and No Debate made it incredibly hard for mainstream feminist organisations to be gender critical.

               But I get that GCF have formed new ones, and GC LGB have left historic organisations as well over the issue – taking a sex based first line.

               Yes, although it's sex matters and societally enforced gender roles suck.

               I get Gender Inequality Index for GII, how are you using it here?

               Gender identity ideology. I use it rather than TRA because I think the issue is the ideology not transness/gender non conformity.

               I doubt the modern society catering to "GI" would impact much on an adult lesbian, more a social media impact on younger ones (or parents) and then a risk of system reinforcement (depending on the the organisational culture around them).

               That's ironic, I think I'll let Visubversa respond to that one.

               "Where have all the lesbian bars and other spaces gone?"

               All gay bars are in decline, greater public place acceptance?

               Do you know what happens to lesbians when they stand up in society and say they want their own spaces without trans identified males? They get call bigots and nazis and genderists try to get them cancelled (personally, organisationally including things like funding and venues). So no, it's not greater public acceptance.

               And gay men get treated differently than lesbians, because we live in a sexist society and GII is reinforcing that.

               You said in an earlier comment,

               The specific issue is really one of continuance of sex based identity and rights – as per women's safety, group gathering (including fair competition in sports etc).

               This is true, but it's not the whole truth. The reason women's sex based rights are at risk is because of good old fashioned sexism and misogyny, and because liberal feminists took the position that women could escape that by sex denial.

               But all of that is underpinned by the systems we use to run society being based in sex/gender stereotypes. This is why GCFs (and previously feminists generally) focus on sex roles. They are fundamentally bad for women.
             • Tabletennis …

               12 February 2024 at 11:04 am

               SPC – Can you explain to me ‘non-binary’?
               Why is it that if a young women declares a ‘non-binary’ status they will go for the removing of their heathy breasts.

               What part of medical training provided you with the knowledge that a ‘non-binary’ has no breast?

               Are yo also aware that in Victoria, Au lesbian are not allowed to have their own public gatherings ?

               “LGB Alliance Australia writes to express our support for the application by the Lesbian
               Action Group for a temporary five-year exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act: ‘For a lesbians born female only event to celebrate International Lesbian Day’ at the Victorian Pride Centre.”
               https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/lgb_alliance_0.pdf
4. joe90 4

   11 February 2024 at 3:24 pm

   When you appease murderous thugs.

   //

   Russia could attack a Nato country in as little as three years, according to Denmark’s defence minister, in the latest and starkest warning from a western official about Moscow’s appetite for confrontation beyond its war in Ukraine. Troels Lund Poulsen joined colleagues from Sweden, the UK, Romania, Germany and others in sounding the alarm about Russia’s increased defence spending potential leading to direct confrontation with Nato, which would test the alliance’s collective defence pledge known as Article 5. “It cannot be ruled out that within a three- to five-year period, Russia will test Article 5 and Nato’s solidarity. That was not Nato’s assessment in 2023. This is new information that is coming to the fore now,” Poulsen told Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper.

   https://archive.li/4V5n9 (ft)
5. Rolling-on-Gravel 5

   11 February 2024 at 6:26 pm

   A truly alarming interview of Louise Upston on welfare.
   • Tony Veitch 5.1

     11 February 2024 at 7:56 pm

     All I can say is GHU [God Help Us]

     When confronted by 2 pieces of evidence, she completely ignored them!

     Her clear intention is to put the boot into beneficiaries – at the same time as her government is giving tax breaks to landlords!

     Immoral!
   • SPC 5.2

     11 February 2024 at 9:08 pm

     Paula and Muriel were published in the Herald to prepare the NACT way.
6. Muttonbird 6

   11 February 2024 at 11:18 pm

   If this situation was replicated anywhere other than Israel it would be regime change time.

   But it’s Israel.

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/508908/israel-gaza-war-warnings-mount-as-israel-plans-rafah-offensive

   From the river to the sea…
   • SPC 6.1

     11 February 2024 at 11:38 pm

     So how are the USA’s known plans for regime change going – China expired (1949-till on the UNSC).

     North Korea (1950-), Cuba (1961-), Iran (1953 tick, 1979-), Indonesia (1960’s) Iraq (1990-2003 tick), Afghanistan (2001 tick but did a Vietnam style walk away)

     and Russia (2022- invasion of Ukraine) – no, maybe …

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS