Open mike 17/07/2024

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 17th, 2024 - 157 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 …

157 comments on “Open mike 17/07/2024 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  2. bwaghorn 2
    17 July 2024 at 6:46 am

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards

    penk useing anicdata from a few builders reckons to undo modern insulation standards!

    • PsyclingLeft.Always 2.1
      17 July 2024 at 8:23 am

      And of course, developer/landlords quite keen on spending less money !

      Before the change was introduced, 99 percent of public submissions during consultation supported raising insulation standards.

      When the changes were brought in, H1 had endorsement from the Master and Certified Builders Associations, the Insulation Association, the Institute of Architects, the Wood Processing and Manufacturers' Association, the National Association of Steel-framed Housing, Concrete New Zealand, the Window and Glass Association, BRANZ, the Green Building Council, and the Building Advisory Panel, MBIE told the minister.

      Consultants at BRANZ and Beca had calculated the heating and cooling benefits of the changes.

      As well as reducing heating requirements in new homes by 40 percent, the department estimated the H1 changes reduced the energy needed to heat and cool larger commercial buildings by 23 percent on average.

      However Penk goes with such like…

      Penk's email said builders and developers had complained to him when he visited them in Tauranga and Bay of Plenty.

      He also cited an unnamed "gentleman who does building inspection work on contract…

      Hmmm!

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards

    • PsyclingLeft.Always 2.2
      18 July 2024 at 8:19 am

      Bwaghorn, further to the Penk idiot wanting to as it were , turn back time, on insulation.

      Seems he's (unsurprisingly) going against sense….

      Dismay at plan to revert to less strict insulation standards

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards

      And from the Builders….

      Certified Builders chief executive Malcolm Fleming said the organisation was surprised to hear the government was considering a roll-back of the standards and it did not support such a move, given the changes had made New Zealand's homes more liveable and sustainable.

      Fleming said talking to some of the organisation's 2350 members, it appeared the H1 standard added between $10,000 to $20,000 in costs for a standard home. Costs of $40,000 to $50,000 were more likely on a home that was worth $2 to $3 million, he said.

      "I'd be very interested to know who the minister has been talking to, because he hasn't been talking to the industry, he may have spoken to players within the industry but in terms of trade associations that represent the broader industry, they are not the people who've been providing him the figures that have been quoted.

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home

      Fkn Aye !

  3. Caitlin Spice 3
    17 July 2024 at 7:53 am

    An article from Mountain Tui (whom I know from Reddit) prompted me to rediscover this site. It also prompted me to have a look at what content/articles there are on transgender issues, and I was disappointed to find almost exclusively 'Gender Critical' opinion pieces on transgender issues. Not a single piece by an actual trans person that I could find.
    What's the story here? Wouldn't it give a MUCH more balanced view to have some trans content/writers?

    • James Thrace 3.1
      17 July 2024 at 9:05 am

      Nothing stopping you from writing your own piece and submitting it for publishing.

      • Caitlin Spice 3.1.1
        17 July 2024 at 9:13 am

        Thanks for that, I've read the submission guidelines but I'm loathe to put time into writing a piece when the vast majority of the views that have been platformed in the past are 'Gender Critical' views (which I consider almost entirely anti-trans).

        It doesn't give me much confidence that a trans-positive or pro-trans piece/voice will be published, given the obvious bias for 'Gender Critical' views.
        Given some kind of reassurance it wouldn't just be binned, I'd be happy to write a piece.

        • Visubversa 3.1.1.1
          17 July 2024 at 9:49 am

          Always happy to see an evidence based argument.

          • Caitlin Spice 3.1.1.1.1
            17 July 2024 at 10:11 am

            That's precisely what I was thinking along the lines of – for example, how the bulk of the submissions against the BDMRR Bill were based on the premise that the birth certificate changes would see an immediate use by sexual offenders as a 'loophole' into women's spaces.

            One year on from the gender change process going live, we've seen zero cases of this – i.e. there is no evidence of it happening.

            And unfortunately, no apology to the trans community for this entirely false scaremongering at their expense.

        • lprent 3.1.1.2
          17 July 2024 at 10:14 am

          Not our style as I said below. I have put up guest posts that I strongly disagree with. Created logins for authors that I disagree with.

          Posts are there to provide a focus for robust discussion. You can guarantee that there will disagreements because we limit commenter based on behaviour, not ideology – despite what some of those banned think.

          Posts need to be coherent, opinionated, linked, and distinguish between what is authors opinion and what is evidence to support the opinion.

          It leaves pile of room for making a case. It is unlikely a post will ever convince anyone immediately. Commenters tend to be a hard headed and very sceptical bunch. But if nothing else, criticism hones the arguments.

        • gsays 3.1.1.3
          17 July 2024 at 3:02 pm

          Hi Caitlin, well done 'popping yr head above the parapet'.

          I find myself in the gender critical camp but don't see myself as anti-trans.

          What swing it for me were (probably outliers but they are there none the less) the folk who had gone through puberty as an entire male then identified as a woman and sort to compete against women. There is an American swimmer who's name I don't recall but is a bit of a poster child for this.

          Another aspect was one or two of the TS community describing women's toilets as a women's space and for reasons beyond wanting to 'relieve themselves' found the idea of biological males identifying otherwise wanting access.

          I think, a lot of the heat has gone from the early days and progress has been made in some areas. Some sports now have male, female and open categories.

          What got me offside was the perversion of language. Questioning certain propositions was quickly written off as trans-phobic.

          Then there was the Albert Park episode. Posie Parker, in the MSM, seemed to be universally labelled as anti- trans. To the best of my knowledge she was here to facilitate a Let Woman Speak event. The MSM and too many pollies and talking heads described it as a happy, loving protest.

          I saw the female senior citizen get punched twice in the head by the young man and it was a sickening sight. This from someone who has owned and run a rural pub and stepped into many fights to break them up.

          I reckon give it a go, you may be surprised by the level of discourse.

          • Caitlin Spice 3.1.1.3.1
            17 July 2024 at 6:47 pm

            Gsays, my personal view is that anti-trans people are people who want to remove the rights trans people currently have, and prevent us gaining the rights we still need.

            Do you fall in that camp?

            • Karolyn_IS 3.1.1.3.1.1
              17 July 2024 at 7:49 pm

              It's my understanding that the current widespread and powerful gender ID ideology is anti-women because it is working to remove the hard won rights that women have struggled for over the centuries. As shown by Jane Clare Jones' historical research, that has been the aim of the current iteration of transgenderism via the political erasure of sex.

              https://thepoliticalerasureofsex.org/

              Are you part of that anti-women movement, Caitlin?

              We are now in a context where many rights and provisions for women are under threat, or even being wound back.

              This is done by replacing the legal, statistical and social understanding of sex as a material, scientifically verifiable reality with the subjective notion of subjective, notion of 'gender' or 'gender identity, which is not objectively verifiable. Sex, male or female is set at conception, and unchangeable throughout an individual's life and refers to a body plan that develops around the potential to produce male or female gametes (sperm and ova in humans).

              We have seen this in the move to make gender self ID legal, erroneous use of the biological terms 'male and 'female' to denote self ID in law, official statistics, the census, etc.

              There has been a multi-pronged attack on women’s and girls’ boundaries, rights and provisions, all promoting the over-reach that trans IDed males can access female provisions in intimate care and spaces, health care, sports, and in prisons, in statistics that influence social, economic and political policies and much more.

              Individual issues such as toilets, people being pressured, or even forced to ‘state their pronouns’, mantras like ‘trans women are women’ are part propaganda, and part of a shift that erodes women’s boundaries, provisions, legal rights, and ability to draw on statistics and other evidence that can be used to identify and counter the secondary status of women.

              People who identify as trans or gender diverse should continue to be protected against discrimination and abuse in things like education, work, health care etc. For feminists, its not about all trans IDed people, but males who claim to be women and entitled to be included legally on the same footing as women.

              • Caitlin Spice …
                17 July 2024 at 8:03 pm

                No Karolyn, I’m not part of any anti- women network; I’m not in fact part of any network – I’m an individual who had gender dysphoria and sought treatment for it.

                • Karolyn_IS …
                  17 July 2024 at 8:19 pm

                  Good to hear. Will be interested to see how you tackle the topic.

                  The problem is, that many of us who are not anti-trans people, are called anti-trans because we are strongly against some of the changes to the HRA, which could possibly over-write sex with gender ID. And we are not happy with the sex self ID clause in law.

                  We get called anti-trans for wanting to keep female sports for natal females. The concern is with males who ID as women, and not with trans IDed females – ie females taking testosterone are usually overlooked: too much T for female sports, but they are rarely very competitive, and sometimes at risk physically, in male sports.

                  The current ideology being most strongly pushed under the guise of trans rights, has a strong element of misogyny and homophobia underlying it: eg lesbians and gay men are not same-gender attracted, but same-sex attracted.

                  So for instance, lesbians are prevented from excluding males who ID as lesbians, from our spaces, events, and dating sites. Lesbian group LAVA was excluded from a Wellington Pride event – now taking legal action.

                  Speak Up For Women is called 'anti-trans'.

                  • Caitlin Spice …
                    17 July 2024 at 8:27 pm

                    Karolyn, I suggest you read the proposed HRA Bill carefully, as it does not change the existing provisions for Sex in the HRA.

                    The Bill is, in my opinion very well written.

                    As for groups like SUFW, yes I do believe they are anti-trans; especially when their spokespersons post the private deadnames of trans people, call them mentally ill and scrape doxxing sites like Kiwifarms for information on them.

                    Let’s try one on you: do you think I should use women’s bathrooms and changing rooms?

                    • Karolyn_IS …
                      17 July 2024 at 9:32 pm

                      Which spokesperson for SUFW? I have found the current spokespeople to be pretty good. I haven't seen any private deadnaming or doxing.

                      Tho generally I don't agree with the whole push against 'dead-naming' by transactivists. It seems to be more to create some illusion that the person is not their birth sex and is part of the propaganda that somehow natal sex doesn't exist, only some subjective sense of one's 'gender'.

                      I think anyone who changes their name, unless they are under witness protection, should be available publicly. Anyone else who changes their names for other reasons is usually more open to such scrutiny.

                      Why do some people keep picking on the toilet issues as being central? It has become part of the current version of transactivisms' push to normalise the idea of 'gender identity' as being more significant than natal sex. It is part of the progressive boundary pushing that ultimately is undermining women's rights, boundaries and provisions. If this stands, then they will push further boundaries – that's how they roll.

                      I think female toilets and changing rooms should be female only, but I do think there should be 'gender neutral' ones along side them for those who prefer them.

                      Though I disagree with just about everything NZ First stands for, I think they've got it right on the toilets/changing room issues in schools: ie single sex ones plus gender neutral ones for those who don't want to use single sex ones. It is particularly crucial for young females because harassment, voyeurism and bullying by stronger and bigger males is an issue. So is the need for privacy and dignity, especially for young women learning to manage their periods. It's as much about privacy and dignity, and freedom from sniggers and intimidating behaviour as it is about fears of physical assault.

                      The reasons for that have to do with the way 'transgender' these days has been stretched way beyond the original formulation of transssexual (M-t-F or F-t-M). With the shift to self ID there's some concerns re some of the males these days who are self IDing as women, some who are transvestites (I prefer the older words to the linguistic sleight of hand we get these days). Some have criminal records – the research so far shows that male patterns of criminality, including violent crimes remain for males who ID as transwomen.

                      It's not about any individual trans IDed male, or, indeed about all males, because it is only a small proportion of all males who commit crimes. Nevertheless, the statistics show that most sexual crimes are committed by males against females. Also, there's the issues of male bodies (regardless of how individuals identify) being larger boned, faster and stronger than females. Some, regardless of gender presentation, can be very scary in closed spaces. Many trans IDed males do not pass as much as they might think. It's a basic safe-guarding procedure to keep males and females separate in certain circumstances.

                      And all toilets are not the same – some are in more dangerous settings than others. But, on balance, females should be able to access single sex ones if they prefer them.

                      I am, however, more concerned about issues like intimate care – females should be able to require a female carer or health care professional if they wish – ditto for males re- male carers. And I’m more concerned about trans IDed males in enclosed spaces such as women's prisons.

                    • Caitlin Spice []
                      17 July 2024 at 9:50 pm

                      Karolyn, I note that you didn’t directly answer my question, instead you offered generalisation about groups. Do you think that I, Caitlin Spice, should use women’s bathrooms and changing rooms? Simple question.

                      Whatever your opinions on deadnaming, the fact is that deadnames ARE private in New Zealand and not publicly available, so deliberately posting private information about a trans individual is discriminatory and immoral. I note you didn’t address the other points I raised about mental illness and Kiwifarms either.

                      Tell me, what material consequences has the sex self-ID had in NZ? You said you’re ‘not happy with it’? It’s been one year and one month since they went live, and 31 months since the Bill passed (unanimously, I might add). So what terrible things have come to pass due to that? Have there been any reported incidents? Any crimes committed?

            • gsays 3.1.1.3.1.2
              18 July 2024 at 6:31 am

              I don't think one's orientation, politically, culturally or gender should be a barrier to employment, housing, support etc.

              At the same time the 'rights' of women need to be upheld in other spaces eg rape crisis, intimate health care etc.

              As I'm not anti-trans I would have to say no, I don't fall into that camp.

              I would also add one person's right is another's obligation.

              "and prevent us gaining the rights we still need."

              Can you give a couple of examples of these new rights?

              • Caitlin Spice …
                18 July 2024 at 7:54 am

                Gsays, that's an interesting point of view, definitely on the milder side of what might be called 'Gender Critical'. It doesn't sound like you subscribe to the 'GC' ideology at all, rather just some views adjacent to it.

                I'm curious as to why you don't think I should access women's rape crisis services, even though they accept trans women? Could you explain what is materially different about my vagina being brutally raped as opposed to that of a woman born with a vagina? How does my experience exclude me from being able to effectively access those services, and why? Rape Crisis and Women's Refuge are run by women, for women, and they have made the choice to allow trans women.

                "Can you give a couple of examples of these new rights?"

                Sure.

                Currently transgender people are not protected by the Human Rights Act in the same way that other minorities are, such as sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity and disability. This means we have *less rights* than other New Zealanders and are more vulnerable to discrimination and prejudice.

                Our healthcare is also an ununified shitshow with every DHB offering different services with no real guidelines of care – meaning if you move regions in NZ you can go from good healthcare to poor/nonexistent healthcare.

                I personally think trans people deserve the same protections in the HRA as everyone else, and the same level of healthcare as everyone else. I'd hope you agree on that?

                • gsays …
                  18 July 2024 at 8:30 am

                  Chur.

                  On the rape crisis, I was more thinking of a rape victim being seen by one who identifies as a woman.

                  Clearly there is enough trauma from males in their life, no need to have to navigate thorny issues when vulnerable.

                  I had considered volunteering at our Rape Crisis, but was informed it wasn't a place for me to be at. Being a bloke and all.

                  As to varying health care round the motu, trans folk are no different to those with health issues. Cancer, stroke, diabetes… health really is a post code lottery in Aotearoa.

                  That is a point of unity, neo-liberalism's corporatising of the health system has done none of us any favours.

                  If all our attention is on what divides us, our differences, then we are in trouble.

                  We need to forgive more and seek what we have in common.

                  Another aspect of health care that does disturb me us the seeming rush to non reversible surgical procedures which can occur when zealotry and ideology prevail over "first, do no harm".

                  No problem with all having protection under HRA.

                  • Caitlin Spice …
                    18 July 2024 at 8:37 am

                    Gsays, from what you're saying, it sounds like you're not really aware of how these services work?

                    If you are paired up with a crisis counsellor that isn't working for you, then you can simply ask for another. It can be for ANY reason and you don't have to disclose. I once saw a counsellor that really wasn't for me because she had short hair and was very aggressive and masculine in her mannerisms and we didn't gel at all, because I'm very feminine and couldn't relate to her. She wasn't trans.

                    Combine that with trans women being vanishingly rare, you might get a single trans woman rape crisis counsellor in the whole country, if anyone at all. It's odd how people seem to think there's tons of us trying to gatecrash these services or something? A good percentage of us are afraid to go out in public because of discrimination.

                    "No problem with all having protection under HRA."

                    Then I don't consider you remotely 'Gender Critical' because they universally oppose that inclusion in the HRA. You're all good mate 🙂

                    • Tracy …
                      18 July 2024 at 10:08 am

                      That's an illuminating level of misogyny, not liking a counsellor because she wasn't your idea of "feminine".

                      Had to admit, I laughed out loud at that.

                    • Caitlin Spice …
                      18 July 2024 at 10:41 am

                      Tracy, misogyny is a pretty strong and baseless accusation there, as you don't know my history or the types of interactions I had with this counsellor and most importantly why I was there.

                      I'm glad you got a laugh out of me needing a different type of counsellor due to one not working for me. I think that says a lot about you as a person.

                      I hope the moderators review your comment.

                    • weka []
                      18 July 2024 at 10:59 am

                      I don’t see anything in Tracy’s comment that needs moderator attention.

                      We don’t generally moderate here for beliefs, and there is a lot of disagreement. People are free to express all kinds of opinions. What we are looking for as mods is that people can make an argument for their opinion, distinguish opinion from fact, provide back up for claims of fact, don’t attack people or flame/troll, and generally uphold the robust debate culture here. There is tolerance for rudeness where there are politics being discussed.

                      A lot of the time we rely on the debate to moderate. The preference is to deal with inaccuracies and poor arguments in comments. That’s how the debate culture goes, people are expected to defend what they say and others are free to pull it apart.

                      I would encourage you to read the site Policy,

                      https://thestandard.org.nz/policy/

                      Lprent’s comments yesterday are good to review too.

                    • Caitlin Spice …
                      18 July 2024 at 11:02 am

                      Then I suppose it's equally fine if I express that in my opinion Tracy is a transphobe and extremely bigoted towards transgender women.

                      [lprent: Sure. You also have to explain why on the visible evidence, clearly why that has become your opinion. That is often interesting to the others reading it, including the recipient. Without that then it is simple boring name calling by someone who has run out of anything sensible to say. Moderators will look at it as trying to ignite a flame war. Being cleverly goaded into that position by someone without exciting the attention of a moderator isn’t a defence, it just indicates a a lack of judgement.

                      If I have the time (and a moderator hasn’t dealt with it first) then I would use my 45+ years of dealing with net trolls and will demonstrate why it is a bad idea to go down the path of just tossing labels around with details about why I came to the conclusion that troll-like behaviour is involved, while being as offensive and as personal as possible. I usually get most offenders to apoplexy within a a short sequence of comments. I call that educational.

                      If I don’t have time then I just ban in a way that makes it clear what the offence to robust debate is.

                      Generally, it pays to simply deal with the actual comment that offends you and deal with the points raised and the flaws, then explain why is was clearly written by a [label]. If it is a snide comment, then just point out that it shows a lack of any actual argument by a dimwit who couldn’t follow what you’d said. Or whatever gets your point across…. simple labelling just attracts moderators.

                      Have a read of the policy. It will give you a flavour of what we’re looking for. ]

                    • weka []
                      18 July 2024 at 11:07 am

                      you can indeed express that as an opinion, but you would be expected to give some explanation as to why and some evidence to back that up.

                      you might also want to consider how you say that so that’s a point of discussion rather than flaming.

                      we don’t do a lot of ‘you’re sexist/racist/transphobic’ etc accusations here because we want robust debate not shit fights. Bring the ideas to the table and people will engage. eg I have no idea why you think that about Tracy, but if you talk about the issues rather then the people, things will go better.

                    • lprent []
                      18 July 2024 at 11:49 am

                      see mod note.

                    • Caitlin Spice …
                      18 July 2024 at 11:10 am

                      Ah I see, so her explanation was sufficient as to why she believes I'm a misogynist, even though I clearly pointed out her lack of real evidence. Interesting.

                    • weka []
                      18 July 2024 at 11:13 am

                      it was sufficient for me, because I understood the feminist point. She was referring to something specific you had said, which she named. She didn’t just call you a misogynist.

                      Anyone is free to ask her for an explanation if they don’t get it, or think she is wrong. Just make the arguments against her point. We are here for the politics.

                      you responded saying there was personal context she didn’t understand. That made sense too.

                    • Caitlin Spice …
                      18 July 2024 at 11:19 am

                      Yes, she was wrong. She had no idea the context of the counselling or my mental health or history as a victim and her comment was, at best, inappropriate and ill-informed, in my opinion.

                      But it's common for trans women to be labelled misogynists for no provable reason. Misogyny is defined as "hatred or prejudice against women, typically exhibited by men" – and I absolutely do not hate women, nor am I prejudiced against them. Not one person alive can prove that I do, and I challenge you or anyone else to empirically show that I do.

                  • weka …
                    18 July 2024 at 9:49 am

                    Here's a gender critical feminist critique of the HRA, women’s sex based rights, and gender identity issues, from Jill Ovens,

                    https://womensrightsparty.nz/changes-to-human-rights-act-will-harm-women-and-girls/

                • Karolyn_IS …
                  18 July 2024 at 10:24 am

                  Rape is a traumatic experience for anyone who has had that done to them, whatever their sex. Trans people should have access to appropriate and adequate support and care. However, think that trans IDed males, and other males should have access to support in crisis centres that support their specific needs.

                  I do think that women who seek to attend a rape crisis centre should have the option of a female only centre. This is what women struggled to create and get accepted. For women raped by males, the presence of a male in such a setting, however they identify, and regardless of the medical or surgical treatments they've undergone, can be traumatising.

                  It is an example of the over-reach of the current trans movement. It is unprecedented for a liberation movement to claim the rights and provisions of an oppressed class of people.

                  Differences remain between women's bodies and those of males who have undergone genital modification surgery to create a pseudo vagina. As I said previously sex differences are based in the whole body plan. A male body, over-powering a female body, is a different experience from one over-powered by another male body.

                  Furthermore, the trans umbrella these days includes many gender diverse labels. Males claiming to be gender diverse or non-binary, sometimes also want to be able to access female facilities, without necessarily ever having taken opposite sex hormones or having body modification surgeries. And many males who ID as women, may have had no medical or surgical treatments. This is part of the on-going slippage of the current trans movement that is winding back women's hard won rights and provisions by making the female category and related provisions open to increasing numbers of males.

                  Consequently, it is extremely important to keep the scientifically verifiable distinction between the male and female natal sexes in law and social practices. Natal sex does not change, and is a very stable concept compared with the subjectivity, slipperiness and progressive changes made to gender IDs.

                  • Caitlin Spice …
                    18 July 2024 at 10:42 am

                    "However, think that trans IDed males, and other males should have access to support in crisis centres that support their specific needs."

                    Karolyn, what are my specific needs as a trans woman survivor of sexual assault?

                    • Karolyn_IS …
                      18 July 2024 at 12:24 pm

                      I don't know, that's for males and trans IDed males to work out. In the UK, with a much bigger population, trans IDed males have been entering women's refuges.

                      According to this woman,

                      https://womansplaceuk.org/2021/09/23/womans-place-uk-lucy-masoud-portsmouth/

                      who has worked for women who are rape survivors, they've tried to help trans groups set up their own refuges, providing advice etc. These offers have been rejected. (I'm not keen on some of the strong rhetoric in this post, but, the claims seem to be accurate from what I've seen).

                      As we see across the current trans movement internationally, and as mentioned in the above linked piece, this is in keeping with current transactivism to reject anything less than appropriating women's rights and services. They tend to do this rather than focus on,

                      "the lack of proper health care provisions for trans women and trans men; the lack of mental health services available to them; the high unemployment and homelessness trans people suffer; and the excessive level of eating disorders and self-harm within the trans community. "

                      The male trans ID CEO of a women's refuge in Scotland, told women rape survivors who objected to not being able to access female support, they could,

                      “reframe” their trauma and have “a more positive relationship with it”.

                      https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19509343.outcry-plan-educate-bigoted-rape-survivors-trans-rights/

                    • Caitlin Spice []
                      18 July 2024 at 12:30 pm

                      Karolyn, if you don’t know what trans women’s specific rape crisis needs are, why are you saying that you we need specific places that support those specific needs – needs which you have now stated you don’t have any knowledge of?

                      Absolutely bizarre, Karolyn.

        • Rolling-on-Gravel 3.1.1.4
          17 July 2024 at 10:43 pm

          Caitlin, this exactly is why I rarely contribute to the site nowadays – I am non-binary and I am disabled and I genuinely despise transphobia or its adjacent hatreds, whether from my own side or their side. I bit my tongue so much that it's not even funny. Hate is genuinely horrific to endure and I try to find courage to say what I actually think and it often fails.

          I have only talked about disability stuff or normal political stuff because compared to queer topics and trans/non-binary stuff, disability topics are not as controversial and not as full of hateful responses in that space.

          • gsays 3.1.1.4.1
            18 July 2024 at 7:26 am

            I'm curious ROG, has there been anything hateful in this thread?

            Genuine enquiry so I can get a handle on the issue.

            • Caitlin Spice 3.1.1.4.1.1
              18 July 2024 at 8:01 am

              Karolyn_IS apparently thinks it's OK to post trans people's private information on the internet – not only that, that it be put in some sort of searchable form so that anyone can leer at and scrape their information for transphobic purposes.

              I consider that mildly hateful.

              • Karolyn_IS …
                18 July 2024 at 9:14 am

                Caitlin, you are over-stepping the mark and been inflammatory with such comments, if not being defamatory. You have produced no evidence to show that SUFW have trawled Kiwifarms and dox people using private information.

                Nowhere did I say that I think it's OK to post trans peoples' private information on the internet. Point me to where I've been hateful? You on the other hand seem to think it's OK to smear people with no evidence to support it.

                The bit about leering, etc, seems rather fanciful and compared with anything I’ve written, or the comments by you to which I was responding, is actually bordering on hateful towards someone supporting women’s rights.

                I don’t see trans people as being any different from other people who have changed their names. They also have the same rights to keeping private details about themselves private.

                • Caitlin Spice …
                  18 July 2024 at 9:27 am

                  Karolyn, Katrina Biggs has publicly acknowledged that she posted my deadname, which she found via Kiwifarms. Feel free to ask her yourself, as I believe you follow each other on X/Twitter. I'm also happy to email you the screenshots of her doing exactly that in the SUFW Discussion group on Facebook. I've posted those screenshots on Twitter on multiple occasions in the past, so they are well known to exist.

                  Further up the thread you stated that you felt deadnames should be a matter of public record:

                  "Tho generally I don't agree with the whole push against 'dead-naming' by transactivists. It seems to be more to create some illusion that the person is not their birth sex and is part of the propaganda that somehow natal sex doesn't exist, only some subjective sense of one's 'gender'.

                  I think anyone who changes their name, unless they are under witness protection, should be available publicly. Anyone else who changes their names for other reasons is usually more open to such scrutiny."

                  Feel free to point out what part of that doesn't suggest you want trans people's deadnames up for public scrutiny and searcheability? Also show me where you condemned the doxxing of my deadname, please, as you have not done so. You have the opportunity to do so right now and prove me wrong.

                  • Karolyn_IS …
                    18 July 2024 at 9:50 am

                    I do think that making dead naming should not be treated anything differently than information that any other person who changes their name. The whole use of the term deadnaming points to some specific consideration as distinct from others whose previous name is publicly available.

                    I do have concerns about people's past that was publicly available prior to a name change being kept hidden from association with the new name.

                    Following someone online does not mean I agree with everything they said or did. I disagree with many things KB has written, as I do with many GC women. We have intense debates among us and are by no means a hive mind.

                    As far as I know KB is not a current leader of SUFW. I support the current leaders.

                    Is the SUFW FB group a private one? I wouldn't know as I am have never looked at it.

                    • Caitlin Spice …
                      18 July 2024 at 9:57 am

                      Karolyn, I'm just going to note here that you have been given ample opportunities to condemn the doxxing of my deadname, but you have not.

                      A Family Court Judge ruled that my deadname be removed from my Birth Certificate and sealed from public record. Whether or not you 'agree' with that is irrelevant; it's a factual and lawful event that happened over a decade ago.

                      Do you know why my deadname was removed from my Birth Certificate, Karolyn?

                    • weka []
                      18 July 2024 at 10:04 am

                      Stepping in as a mod here, for everyone.

                      There appears to be some confusion about three things:

                      1. using publicly available deadnames of trans people (eg Ellen Page instead of Elliot Page)
                      2. doxxing people ie taking information not publicly known about a person and posting it on the internet as a way of outing them
                      3. the small number of people who have legally changed their names and their earlier name is hidden for safety reasons.

                      People are free here to disagree politically on all those things and it would be good to keep clear about which of those things is being discussed.

                      Please also bear in mind that on TS we encourage the use of pseudonyms, and I personally take doxxing very seriously (will ban someone here instantly for that).

                    • lprent []
                      18 July 2024 at 11:54 am

                      Yeah, that is about the worst offence, plus making ‘facts’ up. So redolent of Cameron Slater and those morons who thought that was a smart thing to do. It just brought forth a loose coalition of people willing to make sure it stopped dead in the courts.

                    • lprent …
                      18 July 2024 at 12:08 pm

                      I do think that making dead naming should not be treated anything differently than information that any other person who changes their name.

                      I'd disagree for anything except where it is legally relevant. In other words fro such purposes as dealing previous history in court, part of an investigation in a criminal prosecution, or for the purposes of legal identification.

                      I consider that it is exactly the same behaviour as doxxing of online pseudonyms, dirty politics, or online smear campaigns. All of which I find offensive to both debate and good behaviour

                      My standing policy (after banning people doing it from this site) is to highlight it in a post with my very explicit and clear opinions of the moron doing it and their affiliations to groups that enable it, inform everyone in online communities about the malicious arsehole that is doing it, and generally doing exactly the same to the offender as they have been doing to others.

                      If you dig back into my history here and on previous types of forums like BBS'es and usenet you will find that I and others of the same opinion usually succeed in dealing with such sociopaths effectively.

                      I’m pretty sure that some of the members of the SUFW are quite clear about this, and would be reluctant for me and others to start viewing them as another Whaleoil style group of internet outlaws.

                      I would suggest that you review your ‘thinking’.

                    • weka []
                      18 July 2024 at 12:33 pm

                      the place I first noticed a problem was on wikipedia. For some time, deadnames were removed completely from articles about people that had transitioned after the original article was written. Or new articles were written about people who had transitioned at some point and their original names were removed. That completely skews history and people’s ability to understand history over time.

                      Afaik, wikipedia doesn’t do that now, although I still come across the occasional piece about a trans person that makes zero mention of their earlier life history. Where the history isn’t relevant that doesn’t matter, but sometimes it is.

                      Deadnaming and doxxing aren’t inherently the same thing.

                    • Caitlin Spice []
                      18 July 2024 at 12:43 pm

                      Weka, I transitioned in my 20s (I’m now mid 40s) and did nothing at all remarkable with my life prior to transitioning – no accolades, no publishing history, no loans or credit history, not even a parking ticket to my name. I was a complete nobody under my deadname and it serves no valid purpose to disclose it for any reason.
                      It’s essentially useless information, except to transphobes who try to claim that it’s my ‘real name’ and to be transphobic.

                    • weka []
                      18 July 2024 at 12:52 pm

                      Looks like an issue of harrassment to me. Deadnaming was part of the abuse. But it’s not inherently abusive, I gave the example of wikipedia in another comment. This is why I asked people to differentiate between doxxing, deadnaming etc. In this case it looks like they were being harassed over time in a number of ways.

                      Judge Blackie said Grant and the council were subjected to constant accusations of corruption, illegality, and personal impropriety, and there were repeated derogatory references to Grant’s gender, including “dead-naming” her.
                      He said it was particularly concerning that King and Keenan had posted a cartoon depicting Grant being lynched.

                    • Caitlin Spice []
                      18 July 2024 at 1:02 pm

                      Yes, repeatedly and maliciously deadnaming someone is criminal harassment.

                    • Suzanne …
                      18 July 2024 at 12:34 pm

                      yes it's a private fb group (though a different group now than one mentioned). It's a discussion group run by the SUFW team rather than actual membership of SUFW – so everyone in there is GC but not necessarily aligned with SUFW.

                      Thanks for your support

                • Caitlin Spice …
                  18 July 2024 at 9:40 am

                  Here's the screenshot in question, with my deadname redacted.

                  Doxxing

                  • weka …
                    18 July 2024 at 9:59 am

                    can you please post the date of the post by Katrina Biggs?

                    • Caitlin Spice …
                      18 July 2024 at 10:02 am

                      Weka, why do you want that information?

                    • weka []
                      18 July 2024 at 10:05 am

                      Because I want to see if KB was a spokesperson for SUFW at the time, and because generally we require more robust evidence on TS when making claims of fact.

                    • Caitlin Spice …
                      18 July 2024 at 10:08 am

                      Weka. It was prior to her being made spokesperson. She was made a spokesperson despite this awful, discriminatory behaviour being public knowledge.

                      Which is far worse, in my opinion.

                    • weka []
                      18 July 2024 at 10:17 am

                      I agree doxxing is reprehensible (although I’m unclear if that’s what happened here). SUFW certainly have a problematic past.

                      Can you please post the date now, and if you don’t have the date please say so?

                    • Caitlin Spice …
                      18 July 2024 at 10:31 am

                      I feel you're downplaying the severity of this incident and it's impact on me as an trans woman. What Katrina did to me here was a hideous breach of privacy that continues to have devastating repercussions years later.

                      The date of the post from Katrina was [deleted]. It was provided to me on the [deleted].

                      [lprent: potentially identifying dates removed. ]

                    • weka []
                      18 July 2024 at 10:39 am

                      thanks.

                      There’s a long history of shit going down between GCs and TRAs (both sides). I personally don’t want to get into it here.

                      If you were doxxed, I agree that is reprehensible. I count it as one of the worst online behaviours.

                      I’m also sure that there are issues around deadnaming that aren’t well understood by the public generally. The trans allies here could take this as an opportunity to do some education on the issue of deadnaming.

                      As I said in mod note, there’s some confusion about name changes, doxxing, and withholding names for safety reasons and it would be good if everyone could be clear on what they mean when raising the issues.

                    • Suzanne …
                      18 July 2024 at 11:25 am

                      FYI Katrina has not been involved with the SUFW team since December 2022.

                    • weka []
                      18 July 2024 at 11:33 am

                      thanks Suzanne. I’m not aware of other SUFW spokespeople having done that behaviour, so it sounds like it was particular to one person. It’s good to have clarified the original claim.

                    • Karolyn_IS …
                      18 July 2024 at 12:28 pm

                      LPrent @ 12.08pm. Read your comment to me and taking it oon board.

          • Caitlin Spice 3.1.1.4.2
            18 July 2024 at 8:41 am

            That really sucks 🙁

            I've read a few of the 'Gender Critical' articles and the resulting comments on here and I can see why you avoid the topic entirely. While some of it isn't overt hatred, it's definitely bigotry and it's (in my opinion) gross and discriminatory.

            To put it mildly, it's extremely inconvenient being such a political football and there being so much 'debate' around your life when all you're trying to do is get on with life and there's nothing remarkable or even controversial about that life.

            • David 3.1.1.4.2.1
              18 July 2024 at 12:08 pm

              Caitlin, sometimes the best thing to do is to get on with your life and not to tell others what to think, say or believe.

              If one is determined to be nosy and to ask questions of others about their beliefs, views, ideals, what books they read, what movies or shows they watch on Netflix, at least be prepared to accept the answers, without resorting to threats.

              Unfortunately the trans community will not accept any answers that deviate from their worldview, it’s a case of you are either with us, or against us. It’s certainly time the transgender community stopped and had a good look at how they treat people who disagree with them.

              Once any group gets to the point of beating up other women, and defending and justifying it, maybe it’s time to realise that they have lost the plot. I certainly will never stand alongside or support any group that in anyway supports or condones violent acts against a group of women, especially if they are a bunch of old hairy legged staunch penis hating feminist lesbians. Never forget that those women have fought hard to make the world a better place and they deserve respect, even if you disagree with some of what they say. But honestly all I now see is a bunch of men who identify as women, pushing their misogynistic feelings on to women.

              • Caitlin Spice …
                18 July 2024 at 1:09 pm

                David, who am I telling what to say? I'm literally just living my life, mate.

                And I have no interest in your personal beliefs at all. I could honestly not care less about you if you were a stained cardboard box in an alleyway in Barcelona.

                Let me reiterate for you: I just want to live my life and be relatively free from prejudice and discrimination. Part of that means being included in the Human Rights Act, like everyone else.

    • lprent 3.2
      17 July 2024 at 9:51 am

      The posts on this site are written by volunteers who write what they want to (within legal reason as defined by me). So what you see here is whatever an author or guest poster chose to write about based on their own opinions. Mostly the authors disagree with each other except on general directions.

      I’ve never seen a guest post put forward on that topic, and I see all emails directed towards The Standard.

      Personally I’m a technocratic and very reluctant socialist geek, which puts me at odds with about half of the authors who have ever written on the site. However apart from being male with the first name of Lynn, I have virtually no experience of either being female or virtually any other gender issues. I’m a elderly over-educated geek with a retentive memory and mildly sadistic streak honed by 45 years on net forums.

      In fact I vehemently disagree in comments with the posts you are referring to. Mostly by tearing apart the obvious false assertions made – mostly also in comments.

      But I lack the knowledge to write a post with any coherence on the topic. Gender issues are of very limited interest to me and I personally don’t consider them to be of much importance for me to research in depth unless they waste human resources through silly bigotry. I’d rather learn yet another computer language or delve deeper into history.

      But this site is always open to contribution posts. The About states that pretty clearly

      Over time we have had a number of posters join and leave the authoring crew as their circumstances and time commitments allow. If you want to try a post or two as a guest poster then send them to Contribute Post. If they are readable, then they will often get posted. If you are any good, then you might get given a login if enough current moderators don’t disagree.

      This is exactly the process that Mountain Tui followed. Proposed a guest post, sent it to us, after a bit of editing to and fro about videos, spelling, grammar etc, I put it up. Because of how well it was written, afterwards I looked more closely at his substack, I offered a contributor login if he wanted it. Did a bit of assistance on mechanics, and bumped him to author and left him to it.

      You, or someone who can write and opine coherently is welcome to follow the same process. It makes a change from dealing with the daily load of a dozen or so PR companies and spam merchants who litter my email queue each day want to do the same (and are willing to bribe me if I did).

      If someone wants to write a guest post on an issue, then write something that is coherent, argues their opinion and does it with links to something substantive, then I’d put it up. I’ll even donate my time to edit it for obvious issues of spelling and grammar, formatting, and presentation. I’ll probably offer advice on coherence, mostly because it is better that I do it than having the commenters pointing it out.

      I prefer that contributors use pseudonyms unless they are already heavily into public life as it reduces the moderation issues. So figure one out before I ask for it.

      My email and a general standard email is in the Contact. If you know or know of someone who writes for TS, then you can go through them for the same general process.

    • David 3.3
      17 July 2024 at 1:08 pm

      There are more important things than gender issues facing our society. Quite frankly a lot of us don’t want to be questioned as to why we don’t have our pronouns or the pride logo on our email signature, or being asked, do you support trans rights, or do you believe that trans woman are real woman. All the while knowing that if we give the wrong answer, we then become a target for the puritans.

      • Red Blooded One 3.3.1
        17 July 2024 at 1:29 pm

        I suspect, David, that no-one gives a flying fig what you identify as and I suspect BS that you are questioned about the Pride Flag on your email. My apologies if I am wrong. For other people what they identify as is a life affirming situation. I don't believe you, or I, should have any problem with it. Live and let live.

        • roblogic 3.3.1.1
          17 July 2024 at 2:14 pm

          Some of us have been robustly 'encouraged' (coerced) by our employers to pledge allegiance to those things

          • Red Blooded One 3.3.1.1.1
            17 July 2024 at 2:53 pm

            Like signing off with a "Mr" ? Is that a problem, and if a company is trying to jump on the Pink Dollar bandwagon it's not those in the Rainbow Communities issue. I'm not sure what a pledge of allegiance to "those things" entails. I'm sorry if you've been intimidated into being inclusive.

            • roblogic 3.3.1.1.1.1
              17 July 2024 at 4:18 pm

              Some of this stuff wanders into the category of protected beliefs and trying to impose it on a diverse society, no matter how righteous you feel, will backfire. Live and let live, indeed.

          • Caitlin Spice 3.3.1.1.2
            17 July 2024 at 5:48 pm

            My employers over the years have asked me to do many things I don’t particularly like; having extra words in my email signature is on the very low end of that scale for me – don’t get me started on enforced teambuilding etc lol

            • David 3.3.1.1.2.1
              17 July 2024 at 9:23 pm

              One’s employer is quite entitled to request an employee to perform their job. However being blackmailed requested to include personal information on one’s email signature, or to affirm a belief in a political party, or ideology has no place in an employer/employee relationship.

              • Caitlin Spice …
                17 July 2024 at 10:17 pm

                David, a person’s name and title/salutation are also personal information that are usually included in signatures as a standard thing.

                Putting pronouns in a signature doesn’t indicate membership or backing of a political party and I challenge you to show me that it does. Nor does it mean that a person supports any particular ideology, it’s just showing how people should refer to you and it’s especially useful for people with unusual names or gender neutral names. Many ESL people appreciate it as they aren’t familiar with European names.

                • David …
                  18 July 2024 at 11:44 am

                  Caitlin, I do believe that you are being disingenuous. The requirement for employees to add their pronouns to their email signature has to do with gender ideology and is therefore political. The idea that it is for those who have english as a 2nd, or 3rd language is just a smokescreen. You know it, I know it.

                  The issues that you have with your gender identity are yours. It is not not my responsibility to pander to you or your beliefs just to protect your feelings and your worldview.

                  • Caitlin Spice …
                    18 July 2024 at 11:50 am

                    David, you can believe whatever you like about me, but I'm going to point out that you cannot know my thoughts and I'm explaining to you that it's not just useful for gender diverse people; there are a LOT of gender ambiguous names now due to the multicultural nature of society and it's actually extremely useful.

                    I'm sorry, but I just don't see any issue with putting 'he/him' in your signature. Isn't that how people refer to you? Or do you want them to call you something else?

                    Please explain the material impact it has on you as a person having to put 'he/him' in your signature. Is this causing you mental distress?

                    • David …
                      18 July 2024 at 1:04 pm

                      Caitlin, we live in a very free society. Within reason I can live my life in whatever way I choose, my beliefs, thoughts, ideas and feelings are mine. There is no need for me to justify myself, I certainly won’t do so for the likes of you.

                      You are not respecting my NO, that is a very male thing to do. Furthermore you seem intent on pushing your beliefs around the mandatory use of pronouns, under the guise of making life easier for “brown people”, you have no idea how insulting you sound.

                      This may come as a shock to you, most of us have no need for an appropriately behaved middle class white person to guide us through our lives.

                    • Caitlin Spice …
                      18 July 2024 at 1:14 pm

                      David, where have I asked you to 'justify yourself'? This is a conversation and I'm curious about your resistance to putting a couple of words in an email signature – words that you are (as far as I can tell) are happy to be referred to by in conversation: 'he' and 'him'.

                      I'm flattered that you think I'm behaving in a 'male', thanks! But it's not really relevant to this discussion. I'm not pushing you to use pronouns in your signature, I'm asking for specifics on why it's such an issue for you.

                      Let me be clear: I do not care one single whit at all whether or not you have pronouns in your signature. That's between you and your workplace to sort out. I just want to know why you're so sensitive about it, and what material harm it's causing you and why?

                    • gsays []
                      18 July 2024 at 7:53 pm

                      If it helps, to the best of my knowledge, Canada mandated the use of preferred personal pronouns.

                      The use of preferred pronouns, I have no truck with. After all it helps two individuals become one.

                      The mandating, totally different story, as Covid should have demonstrated.

                      Sure, that hasn't occurred in Aotearoa, but if you genuinely have a live and let live attitude (I forget what that is in French) then you can understand David's position in the workplace.

                    • lprent []
                      18 July 2024 at 8:33 pm

                      If it helps, to the best of my knowledge, Canada mandated the use of preferred personal pronouns.

                      Your knowledge is minuscule, and evidently your abilities to search are well below the standard.

                      This took a few minutes to find. Current from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which has a state code on gender pronouns for most populous state in Canada. I believe that is probably what you were referring to.

                      The code and the national law at affects it look exactly the same as how our laws and tribunals would rule. If you are a public servant and responsible for basic services (police in the example case that the site refers to), then you’re going to be in deep shit when you discriminate against someone based on the gender, self-identified or not.

                      Freedom of expression has limits for exactly the same reasons as it does here and under the same circumstances.

                      Please lift your standard so I don’t try to figure out a suitable pronoun to refer to you as..

                      BTW: vaccines weren’t ‘mandated’ in 2020-2. What was mandated was that certain lifesaving locations must not have people with a higher risk of being infected a position to infect large number of other vulnerable people. Good thing too. Kept our death and injury toll well down.

                    • gsays …
                      20 July 2024 at 8:42 am

                      @lprent

                      Clearly we are miles apart in regards these issues.

                      I was looking to widen a tricky conversation, that pretty well had been going along cordially. Surprising given the contentiousness.

                      No need to lower the tone as you did. You may claim robustness, I see bullying. Power imbalance, repeated behaviour and intent.

                      "You can usually identify bullying through the following three characteristics: intent, repetition, and power. A person who bullies intends to cause pain, either through physical harm or hurtful words or behaviour, and does so repeatedly."

                      https://www.unicef.org/parenting/child-care/bullying

                      In Canada, it is possible to go to jail starting with a mis-used pronoun. You would have to ignore a human rights tribunal, then a court order.
                      “If the person refused to comply with the tribunal’s order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.

                      “It could happen,” Brown says. “Is it likely to happen? I don’t think so. But, my opinion on whether or not that’s likely has a lot to do with the particular case that you’re looking at.”

                      “The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.””

                      https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

                      Yr framing of the Covid mandates is a cute piece of revisionist history. Probably sits well with self-employed tech folk who largely work alone.

                      "What was mandated was that certain lifesaving locations must not have people with a higher risk of being infected a position to infect large number of other vulnerable people. "

                      Meanwhile in the real world, I had a job mowing lawns and doing maintenance. This was in an environment that was far from a 'lifesaving location".

                      Being vaccine hesitant, it cost me the job.

                      Akin to the authority around preferred pronouns, it's less the cited reasons they exist, it's the unintended consequences that can come of their introduction that is worrying. Employers having another tool to thin the precariat workforce.

                      But the erosion of workers rights and conditions barely raises a murmur amongst the 'left' nowadays.

                    • weka []
                      20 July 2024 at 9:36 am

                      One of the things that helps in debates where there are strong oppositional politics and tension is for people to explain more in depth and provide evidence when they make the claim. We all forget this at times, myself included. I’m not saying there has to be that on every comment (that would be tedious), but when introducing a new topic or sub topic, it can help to spell it out.

                      In this debate in particular, I am acutely aware of a large information divide. Those of us that have been following or involved for a long time often understand brief comments because we know the context (and might assume it’s common knowledge). But others may have no idea and then the comment sounds fanciful or misleading (speaking generally here, not about your comment).

                      Sometimes we don’t have time for that, but offering a few pointers or using more specific language so people can look things up can help too.

                    • weka []
                      20 July 2024 at 12:32 pm

                      Akin to the authority around preferred pronouns, it’s less the cited reasons they exist, it’s the unintended consequences that can come of their introduction that is worrying. Employers having another tool to thin the precariat workforce.

                      It’s hard to remember the levels of stress from then (remember when we thought covid could be transmitted on groceries?) and how quickly the government got systems up and running. The vaccination mandates were necessary but that doesn’t mean there weren’t problems with implementation as well as coverage. Makes total sense to me that there were outlying edges of the policy where things were done wrongly.

                      But the erosion of workers rights and conditions barely raises a murmur amongst the ‘left’ nowadays.

                      This, although I would say the liberals rather than the left (who continue to do a lot of good work via unions for instance). I also note the increasing tendency within liberal politics to see removing someone’s job/livelihood as legitimate where there is political disagreement. This one worries me a lot. Of course the right will make use of that culture shift, both to further reduce worker rights, but also politically.

                    • lprent …
                      20 July 2024 at 10:26 am

                      Ignoring the whinging at the front. Basically that is simple avoidance behaviour on your part. I can't help it if you are incapable of thinking through reality. But I'll help you out. You clearly have a misapprehension about how laws and codes work

                      My points were that there are not laws that "Canada mandated the use of preferred personal pronouns.". Mandated means that it is a requirement, like not assaulting someone, not thieving and the other things that you find in the criminal and misdemeanour legislation.

                      The pronoun stuff in Canada is in things like codes of conduct, both in the people in public services and in other organisations.

                      It is exactly the same as a hospital prescribing some behaviours required by medical staff or police requiring behaviours by their staff, or companies requiring staff to conform to behaviour in their contracts or collective agreements. That same applies in professional organisations.

                      The Law society prescribes behaviours required by lawyers. Medical boards for various medical sub-professions , real estate for real estate agents, etc etc. Each of these are often backed up by particular laws the enable these organisations to both licence practitioners and require conformance to a code of conduct or a contract or a collective agreement.

                      People are at liberty to not conform, just as they are at liberty to not go into the obligations required. You don't have to take a job. You don't have to join the police, hospital, school, company, etc. But by doing so you have agreed to conform to the requirements and obligation that you accepted.

                      Not conforming to what they had agreed to may suffer the consequences of being judged on their level of conformance and it it breached the code of conduct enough for dismissal/loss of licence/forced relegation of activities. Frequently these judgements will rendered by courts or tribunals.

                      So lets look at the your rather pathetic level of confusion.

                      <blockquote>“If the person refused to comply with the tribunal’s order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.</blockquote>

                      A contempt proceeding from actions taken in or after a judgement by a court or a tribunal is exactly what it stays. It has nothing to do with any non-existent legislation about pronouns or even what is in a code about them.

                      It has to do with requiring respect for the court or tribunal and its processes. That is mandated by justice legislation and is a completely separate process. It is also exactly the same here. Virtually all legislation about courts, tribunals, and even some quangos requires conformance to the rules and processes of those as well. They have various means of enforcement from fines, to referral to another court to rule on the judgement to and including prison.

                      Generally tribunals allow referral and/or appeals of judgements to the other courts that have access to more severe penalties or that can overrule them.

                      Basically the higher courts rule on conformance to legislation both to the referring court or tribunal an as you are pointing out if the loser in a decision fails to met their obligations to respect the court or tribunal. They will put people into prison for contempt of the courts and legislisation.

                      Effectively because an individual is attempting to say that they make the laws and want them to be what they say – not the parliament. They aren't using the approach that is available for change. That of convincing parliament or a tribunal to change the legislation. They are taking the easy route of a child that says "don't want to" rather than that of a responsible adult or doing the work to convince enough people to change the legislation. Courts treat them that way and call it "contempt".

                      The way that I'd describe than is that they are just revolting – in both senses of the word. I'd also call them completely and utterly lazy, clearly incapable of the duties and obligations of being a responsible citizen

                      //————

                      Meanwhile in the real world, I had a job mowing lawns and doing maintenance. This was in an environment that was far from a 'lifesaving location".

                      That is probably just bullshit. Most likely it just means that you were only considering only your own health and not the health of those around you. I'd have to look at your contract or collective to see what specifically you'd agreed to do, and then what the employer said about how you'd failed to live up to it.

                      Were you around people like clients and the other employees? I'd say that you probably were. Mowing often requires instruction and coordination on about what to mow. Most mowers require maintenance and some collusion with people to do it.

                      What did your employment contract or agreement say about taking care of clients and fellow employees? or about your obligations to the organisation?

                      Most employment contracts or collective agreements state pretty explicitly that you are required to not knowingly put those fellow employees or customers at a health risk.

                      Personally I viewed all people around without a mask or un-vaccinated when they could have been as increasing my danger. I have a high level of bad medical outcomes if I catch a severe respiratory/immunity reducing disease. I really don't appreciate others increasing the risk nor the organisation we are both working for enabling that to happen. This is a pretty common attitude.

                      They will also have a clause or two about conforming to all legislation and regulations in your activities for the organisation.

                      And finally they will have a clauses about not bringing the organisation into disrepute or preventing it from conducting their business. Nothing like causing a client or fellow employee to die to bring them into disrepute and legal liability.

                      In the real world, it sounds like you could have been a danger to others or to the organisation that employed you, especially if you'd gotten the covid-19 but unaware of it (ie a carrier).

                      In all likelihood you would have would have violated the contract or agreement that you were employed under.

                    • gsays …
                      20 July 2024 at 4:25 pm

                      Heh, to think ill mannered bloviating is going to "… help you out. ", is arrogance of the highest order.

                      Then, all sorts of long bows to reimagine the impact of the mandates on employment contracts. Easier done by the owners of capital to those workers nearer the bottom of the power structure. The precariat as collateral damage.

                      My point stands, it's less about the reason for any mandate, it's the repercussions that ripple out from them.

                  • lprent …
                    18 July 2024 at 12:36 pm

                    No she isn't. You are just being a bit of an unthinking disingenuous idiot who appears to be incapable of explaining your point. Basically you come off as sounding like a mindless bigot displaying unthinking prejudices.

                    Caitlin is quite correct, I've always used it when it is available on forms – being one of the few males with a first name of 'Lynn' in NZ.

                    I use when I am seeking employment or dealing with something like a government department, bank, or the like. It prevents that first startled response, confusion, and fear of being conned when they finally manage to get me into phone conversation or on a video meeting. Boring as hell for me. But does tend to cloud subsequent discussion as people get over the surprise of redefined expectation. It is a matter of utility.

                    Same reason that I don't use contact signatures on a e-mails because I can't see that having lots of those around helps my general net security. e-mails and the like tend to persist like online info does. All it does over decades is to help social engineers trying to find a way to monetise knowledge or to provide attack vectors for the malicious. Since I'm a programmer who deals with a lot of sensitive info, I don't broadcast avenues to access my details.

                    But then I'm not in sales (at least not for the last 40 odd years) or some profession that relies on getting personal contact details spread.

                    • weka …
                      18 July 2024 at 1:49 pm

                      the issue David is referring to is being required by an employer to put one's gender identity pronouns at the end of an email along with one's name. He's pointing out this is political. What he hasn't quite explained is the repercussions for people that don't want to do that. I don't know how much that is an issue in NZ, but it's been discussed a lot internationally.

                      For someone called David, there really is no need to identify their sex, or gender identity if they have one*, unless they want to. For a man called Lynn, it make sense and I don't think anyone would object to you putting he/him at the end of an email for clarity on that.

                      *Some people don't have a gender identity and they feel uncomfortable with the pressure to take one on.

                    • Caitlin Spice …
                      18 July 2024 at 2:02 pm

                      Weka, with respect, you haven't asked David to prove his claim about his working making him do this.

                      You've just taken his word for it.

                    • weka []
                      18 July 2024 at 4:50 pm

                      I didn’t see David say it was an issue at his work. I saw him talking about the general issue, and I have seen a lot of people reporting this internationally, especially asking for advice on what they can do in their own workplace.

                    • Caitlin Spice []
                      18 July 2024 at 5:02 pm

                      Weka, can you please provide evidence that pronouns in signatures are being enforced internationally?

                      I would hope you would hold yourself to the same standards of evidence that you hold me to. Both you and David are making the claim without proof.

                    • weka []
                      18 July 2024 at 6:15 pm

                      I did’t say that pronouns in signatures are being enforced, I said people feel pressured and coerced. Two Kiwis have mentioned this in this thread. It’s generally not situations where employment law is breached, but that doesn’t mean there are no consequences of saying no. I’ve seen so many people talking about this I consider it common knowledge, but I guess it depends on what circles one moves in.

                      But here is some background reading on the issue where significant work has been done on addressing the issue, including by lawyers clarifying the law while acknowledging the culture. It’s also a common internet search.

                      https://womansplaceuk.org/2021/06/27/share-pronouns-at-work/

                      https://freespeechunion.org/letter-objecting-to-the-home-office-asking-its-staff-to-state-their-pronouns-in-email-signatures/

                      https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5074697-mandatory-pronouns-on-work-email-signature

                    • Caitlin Spice []
                      18 July 2024 at 6:30 pm

                      Weka, the first link contains no evidence; it’s a Gender Critical site offering ‘advice’ on the hypothetical event happening.

                      The second is discussing a *possible* but unconfirmed case. They have not confirmed it’s mandatory.

                      The third link is anonymous gossip on a site renowned for being very transphobic.

                      I don’t consider this adequate evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

                      I also stated in another post that people need to stand by their convictions and stand up for themselves. They are adults.

                    • lprent []
                      18 July 2024 at 7:25 pm

                      The first link has no instances, it just says

                      We are often contacted by people who have been asked to share their pronouns at work meetings, add them to email signatures or use them in titles for online meetings.

                      My response is that would be unsubstantiated hearsay and I would treat it as bullshit. It reminds me of Whaleoil ’causes’. It is a textbook internet meme of ‘state that it happens and offer solutions to a non-existent issue’. It is also followed up with the legal basis for why it is completely unlawful. Which reinforces to me that it is simply a lie looking for traction.

                      It is a classic straw man put up to wind people up.

                      The second link is interesting. It has a segment about a routine rebranding statement. God knows how many times I have read those. Offhand that has to be at least 6 times in the last decade. I have had standalone NZ to regional APAC, a operational group or divisional changes shifts, two shifts of address, and one rename.

                      But the clear purpose of this particular one is stated as “name change”. So the section that is explicit in the template is how the organisational name(s) should be stated. Basically a standard template like that has, by definition, all possible fields for the email signature. It is done that way to remind people of what they could have in their signature. FFS: The keywords are ‘can‘ and ‘edit‘.

                      Can means that it definitely optional. Edit includes deletion of the bits you don’t want to use. In my case that would be Name (already in the email From), (pronouns) because I don’t care, Job title because they are usually largely irrelevant meaningless gooble unless you’re senior management like Engineering Manager, Address/office location because I don’t want to see people, telephone numbers, because I don’t want people calling and it is done via voip anyway, and email because that is next to my name in the header. Whats left? The unit and organisation? I might leave that it because XXXXXXX.com in the domain is kind of meaningless in an global organisation with 8000 staff. If any other details were required, I’d tuck them into the email itself. But they’re most likely to be cellphone for after hours work or a video call invitation. Or my company slack name

                      You’d have to be a paranoid loon to think of that as a command. Which apparently someone in the freespeech union in the UK apparently is because they apparently regard ‘can’ as a implicit command. Then they follow up with a snippet of a email (I’d love see the context from which they snipped it). That does not say what they said it did. The FSU outright lied. It is clearly a request for people who already had e-mail signatures to change them. Not a demand that everyone should do it.

                      This is a obviously a absolutely classic straw man provocation. It is exactly what Cameron Slater used to do on Whaleoil. Grab a few fragments of text, deliberately publish them without context, assert a particular spin on it which was not in the original document, and proceed to manufacture a pile of garbage explaining what people should do to eliminate the non-existent threat.

                      Cameron Slater eventually got pulled into court and then bankrupted after doing exactly the same tactics. Hopefully someone will do that to Toby Young.

                      Ok the only thing that this example convinced me of was that the free speech union UK are fond of lying for effect. I’d class them as a lobby group of outright liars for headlines in the same way that I regard the local Free Speech Union and Taxpayers Union here to be.

                      Third one is straight hearsay with absolutely nothing to indicate that there is any truth in it. The pseudonymous person neither mentions the name of their UK company, nor the name of the ‘huge US corp’. Which would typically be the amongst the first few things I’d mention if I wanted any real action on it.

                      This is straight out of the standard provocateur textbook. Make a straw man then invite comment. Make sure that there is a element of xenophobia by making the ‘villain’ of the fiction as a take over company from another country.

                      I don’t believe any of it.

                      I also note that all three examples are from the UK, to which I only have a limited exposure to. That was when I was in fact working for a huge US corporation and with 2 local relatively recently purchased UK companies there wasn’t a trace of this, and for NZ company that had been taken over a decade earlier.

                      Damn I really do need to write a post explaining this kind of lying strawman behaviour yet again. This isn’t evidence. This is simply time wasting bullshit that is hardly worth writing a comment on or about.

                      I may need to tidy this up and post it.

                    • weka []
                      18 July 2024 at 8:03 pm

                      Women’s Place UK are a long standing grass roots feminist organisation in the UK with a solid history of activism on gender critical feminism and women’s rights. You can see their list of directors here, and look up their work backgrounds and reputations.

                      https://womansplaceuk.org/about/

                      I see no reason for them to lie about this or make things up. I have seen many times people online asking the same kinds of questions in other countries. Rob and Karolyn have both pointed out the pressure that happens in NZ.

                      It’s not an issue of workplaces forcing this and people being fired. It’s about the degree to which workplaces have taken on the ideology, and the expectation then is that people will join in or get on board. The issue then becomes what happens if they don’t or if they object to the politics. I think we can all agree that you don’t have to fire someone to harm their job/promotion/career prospects. There are many many stories from academics who cannot comment with their real life names for fear of their careers.

                      Stonewall UK and other gender ideology orgs have run long, very well funded campaigns into whole swathes of British society, getting workplaces to adopt rainbow inclusions schemes that far exceed what has been useful or reasonable in civil society. Stonewall were part of the scandal where something like the UK government was funding them to be paid by government departments to grade them on whether they were good enough (I’m writing this from memory, but it’s not hard to look up the historical details, it’s probably in the Nolan recordings). The BBC eventually left the diversity scheme because of how it was impacting on perceptions of their impartiality. These are serious issues, not hearsay or Cameron Slater making shit up.

                      It’s very difficult for people to stand up to that in many situations. The UK has had many legal cases on gender critical views. People have lost their jobs, careers, been doxxed, assaulted, threatened with rape, taken in for questioning by police over tweets, and so on.

                      Probably the most important case is the Forstater one, she lost in the original employment tribunal but won on appeal and established that gender critical beliefs are a protected characteristic and so you cannot be discriminated against on that basis in employment. Nevertheless, every week at least I read about new instances in the UK where people are discriminated against for their beliefs and there are multiple ongoing cases globally.

                      Lots of people are unaware of this (because of No Debate), so I can see the temptation to write it all off as strawman or WO-esque. But the major GCF orgs aren’t trollbaiters. They are very experienced feminists and others who have been working on the problems with various political and ideological issues around gender ideology.

                      David made what I considered a rather dismissive but reasonable point. But I would say that pronouns in emails is one of the lesser concerns. Most of the above is well beyond that issue. Yes, there are liars, transphobes/bigots and a fair amount of third party shit stirrers, but that cannot account for everything that is said online on these issues, and now that the press in the UK is giving much better coverage, it’s not too hard to follow for those that look and don’t avert their eyes to MSM they consider conservative.

                      To give an example, when the Jessica Yaniv case was being heard by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal five years ago, almost no MSM covered that at the time. I know this because I was following the tribunal live tweets and looking for MSM coverage each day. The only thing I could find at the time was a right wing Canadian outlet. The case was extensively discussed by gender critical feminists and other gender critical people on twitter, but not much in the mainstream. It was a very important case because it was one of the first that established how illiberal the gender ideology was and how it harmed other groups of people.

                      I’m in town, gotta go drive home, so that’s all for now.

                    • weka []
                      18 July 2024 at 8:09 pm

                      and just to add before I start driving, a huge amount of the politics just hasn’t been done in the public eye. UK MSM hardly covered the issues in the early years and the more liberal media only really got on board relatively recently. There aren’t that many post on TS on this for instance, although there’s been a fair amount of debate in OM etc. But it’s actually quite hard to describe a long and large history when so many people simply don’t know it happened. I often feel like we are starting in the middle of a long conversation that some of us have the history for and some don’t.

                    • Caitlin Spice []
                      18 July 2024 at 8:25 pm

                      A Women’s Place UK:

                      [deleted]

                      [Your comment was caught in the automated SPAM-trap because it contained way too many links.

                      Your comment was deleted because it was quoted text without a source link – it resembles something from Wikipedia. In addition, you omitted a (brief) comment about the relevance of the quoted text, as if it was entirely self-explanatory or as if we can read your mind.

                      Please pay attention to common rules for quoting/citing, thanks – Incognito]

                    • Incognito []
                      18 July 2024 at 9:06 pm

                      Mod note

                    • David []
                      18 July 2024 at 6:50 pm

                      Caitlin, I don’t want to include my pronouns on my signature, because I don’t feel the need to do so for myself. Maybe it’s selfish, but it’s something that I’ve never thought about, it’s never been an issue.
                      The policy of my workplace is that it is completely voluntary to include your pronouns, along with any of the affinity group logos, if you so choose. Otherwise the standard format applies.

                      I along with other colleagues have been asked why we don’t have pronouns added to our signature, along with the added guilt trip “but if you cared…”

                      This is just workplace politics and bullying and will be dealt with.

                      It’s the unpleasantness of it all.

                    • Caitlin Spice []
                      18 July 2024 at 7:05 pm

                      Right, so it’s completely voluntary. If you’re being bullied, report the bullying; the bullying is the issue, not the pronouns.

                    • lprent …
                      18 July 2024 at 3:11 pm

                      I have never seen any employer ever insisting on e-mail signatures.

                      Employers will give guidelines on what they would not like to be in a email or signature under their domain. But it would be lawful and as a guideline. Specificity would be something that is required for the job and has a clear purpose to be so. I often have a requirement to travel offshore in my contracts for instance.

                      But I have never seen an employee contract on personal behaviour in communications like emails that goes beyond saying that communications shouldn't bring the employer into disrepute.

                      That is because things that are in the contract have to be enforceable in the ERA and/or court in the event of a dispute and there are severe repercussions there if the employers ask for conditions that are unlawful. Pretty sure that an employer forcing someone to disclose personal information and therefore potentially using it for ground of dismissal would be unlawful under a number of bits of labour legislation.

                      I also haven’t seen this internationally, and I have worked with a lot of international companies from Europe, North America, and APAC.

                      I think that 'David' is just making shit up (aka lying) for effect and therefore acting like a troll. I suspect that the examples you are talking about are probably just as fictional. It violates quite a lot of fundamental basics of legal principles, and would never be put down in writing.

                    • Caitlin Spice []
                      18 July 2024 at 3:41 pm

                      100% agree with this; I’ve worked in and with some extremely ‘woke’ organisations and I’ve never seen mandatory pronouns in signatures.

                      It’s always optional, even if it is encouraged. I’m sure the Free Speech Union would immediately be all over this if it were true.

                      But if David can provide evidence I’d be happy to eat my words.

                    • Karolyn_IS …
                      18 July 2024 at 3:42 pm

                      I don't know how strongly it's enforced, but there is strong pressure in the NZ Public Service for their workers to include pronouns in email signatures.

                      https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/guidance/pronoun-use-in-email-signatures

                    • Caitlin Spice []
                      18 July 2024 at 3:53 pm

                      Karolyn, in many workplaces there’s also strong pressure to drink alcohol or participate in work ‘team building’ exercises or to participate in after work social activities.

                      Many people have personal or religious convictions about alcohol (such as myself) and we can refuse to partake, as we are adults who are in control of our own decisions. I also just don’t like work social functions for other personal reasons, so I don’t go.

                      I encourage people being ‘encouraged’ to use pronouns in signatures to stand by their convictions, if those convictions are so meaningful to them – just as I do.

                      Be an adult.

                    • lprent []
                      18 July 2024 at 5:07 pm

                      Never been in the public service. Have done a couple of contract jobs for them in several countries over the decades for my employers. Never noticed that public servants were much different in temperament to private industry employees.

                      For NZ, I’d take a bet that it’d be impossible to find an instance where a email signature was ever raised by a employer in a employment dispute or was ever considered for inclusion in one. Or that it was ever explicitly or implicitly made a point of in management to employee discussions as being part of the written or implicit contract.

                      That is because it would have wound up being raised in a dispute. And it would have been quite explicit in any written or verbal judgement that it was not a consideration.

                      I suspect that there may be encouragement to use one in isolated cases. There are always dickhead micro-managers around.

                      Even then it would have been phrased as ‘if and only if you wanted to’. But it is a perfect point in defending a dispute because it wedges the employer into a shit position legally supporting such a manager or supervisor. Experienced or trained managers are acutely aware of that particular mind-control ethos amongst their over zealous supervisory employees. It reflects badly on them and their effectiveness as manager. I’m speaking as someone with MBA and who had had considerable managerial experience before I dropped out of that profession to be a coder.

                      The reason is that eventually anyone doing it will run against some stubborn obnoxious arsehole like me who will throw shit upwards that someone even suggested something was socially mandatory in an employment situation. This is usually about one in eight employees in my experience.

                      Basically I will believe it happens when I see some written judgement with that as a element. Which unsurprisingly no-one has references or linked to.

                      That being said, I have found that there are lot of people who a pretty good at inventing artificial socially based boundaries – that they constrain themselves with. Usually seething and muttering with dumbarse passive aggressive anger about perceived but not actual limits. That is usually a few in every workplace.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      18 July 2024 at 4:16 pm

                      Putting our pronouns in email signatures: Why would we? [19 Feb 2021]
                      As a linguist I’m delighted – there has never been a time when the average New Zealander has been so interested in talking about a grammatical word class. But I’m not surprised, because when people say they want to talk about pronouns, it’s not really about the pronouns, is it?

                      I don't know how strongly it's enforced…

                      https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/guidance/pronoun-use-in-email-signatures

                      Is it usual for "guidance" to be "enforced"? Encouraged (weakly or strongly), sure, but "enforced" (by strong pressure?) – is this likely?

                      Can you force your team to use gender pronouns in their email signatures?
                      In short, no. You can’t make anyone on your team use gender pronouns in their email signatures. Instead, let your team know it isn’t compulsory but explain it can be a positive sign of unity with their friends and colleagues. And that if they want to opt-in, the business can make it simple for them to update their signature.

                      Rarely encounted it at work, and when noticed I thought 'good for you' – never bothered myself, but it's nice to have a choice, imho.

                      https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/students/my-tools/ms365/365-apps/ms365-personal-pronouns.html

                      https://www.hera.org.nz/pronoun-use-in-email-signatures/

                    • roblogic …
                      18 July 2024 at 4:38 pm

                      It might technically be unenforcable, but refusal to comply is likely to be career-limiting. My manager once sent me a personal request to become an "ally" to his community. This feels like recruitment to a quasi-religious ideology.

                      While these stupid rituals are trivial, there's a principle here

                    • lprent …
                      18 July 2024 at 5:40 pm

                      My manager once sent me a personal request to become an "ally" to his community. This feels like recruitment to a quasi-religious ideology.

                      Urggh, I really detest that kind of shite in a workplace. I tend to go extremely military (which is where I first ran across 'requests' like that) if that happens. I ask if their previous 'request' is an 'order' in public, preferably with their superior in earshot, along with my co-workers as witnesses. I do with with a degree of vast puzzlement including asking why it is necessary and how it relates to my tight schedules.

                    • Karolyn_IS …
                      18 July 2024 at 8:38 pm

                      Weka @ 8.03pm. NZ Rainbow Tick has followed UK Stonewall's Stonewall Champions' scheme. Both are lobby groups that charge organisations for the privilege of having a Rainbow Tick by adopting the things the groups are lobbying for.

                      RNZ on whether Rainbow Tick is a superficial Tick Box exercise.

                      A significant number of public and private sector workplaces have Rainbow Tick accreditation, showing the widespread adoption by workplaces of the Rainbow Tick agenda: see the list here. It includes Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission.

                      At this link there is a PDF where the NZ Public Service Commission says they have been Rainbow Tick accredited since 2019. As part of their accreditation the Commission has taken some initiatives, including encouraging the use of pronouns in email signatures, and developing a template that employees can choose to use.

                      Current transactivism is very powerful and influential considering they claim to be extremely marginal. It has done so by largely flying under the public radar for quite a long time before many of us were aware of what was involved.

                    • lprent …
                      18 July 2024 at 9:06 pm

                      Karolyn_IS

                      Down the bottom of that article is the key thing.

                      Lawyer Graeme Edgeler believes Rainbow Tick, much like an SPCA or Heart Foundation Tick, is nothing more than a marketing exercise. "Somebody saw an opportunity to make some money by giving credence to a claim. The companies that are paying money think they will make more money if they're got it than if they don't."

                      He says all employees are protected under the law regardless of whether their workplace has a Rainbow Tick. "Everyone is entitled not to be discriminated in employment and that includes on the basis of gender or sexuality, everyone's entitled to have fair processes at work."

                      Graeme Edgeler is one of my favourite writers. He is spot on about both parts. I ignore all ‘ticks’ because they are meaningless.

                      If I was in the position that some of these people have been put in, then I'd look at collecting evidence and then going the full legal route against the individuals, the manager, HR, and the company that enabled the discrimination. So future generations don't have to deal with these kinds of moronic arseholes.

                      Instead I have deal with fools on the right periodically attempting to assail my ex-employers, hack my servers, and try and fail at private prosecutions. It would be more interesting if there was more of a challenge.

        • Tracy 3.3.1.2
          18 July 2024 at 10:29 pm

          Except that in many cases it's not live and let live is it?

          The belief that people literally change sex has real world consequences that affect women more than men.

          I'm all for vulnerable groups having rights that protect their particular interests, but where those rights intersect/conflict with other's rights, there needs to be discussion and considerable care taken to ensure they're not putting another vulnerable group at risk or disadvantaging them.

          As always, women's rights hold less importance than men's (regardless of their gender).

          The instances where women's sport has been opened up to gender over sex illustrates this perfectly.

          • Caitlin Spice 3.3.1.2.1
            19 July 2024 at 8:52 am

            Tracy, I note that these are the same or similar arguments to those used about the BDMRR Bill.

            It’s now been over a year since Self-ID via BDMRR became available in New Zealand, so can you tell me how many of the ‘Gender Critical’ predictions about the Bill came true?

            Did any of them? Did, for example, malicious males in NZ immediately start using it to ID into toilets and changing rooms to assault women?

            • Tracy 3.3.1.2.1.1
              19 July 2024 at 10:46 am

              Caitlin, why are you bringing up toilets in regards to my comment about sports?

              Possibly the reason my mentioning women's sports reminds you of arguments against the BDMRR bill, is that it is universally accepted that natal men competing against women in women's sport is patently unfair and disadvantageous to women.

              I'm sure there were many women arguing hard for their sex class in this area. There are clear advantages males have physically from birth that are indisputable. Some sporting bodies are happy to overlook those advantages, maybe because women's sports have been regarded as a sideshow to men's.

              • Caitlin Spice …
                19 July 2024 at 10:55 am

                Tracy, you made the statement:

                The belief that people literally change sex has real world consequences that affect women more than men.

                And I asked for clarification on that regarding issues like the BDMRR Bill. That statement doesn't specify sport, it's a general statement.

                If you have nothing to say about BDMRR, that fine. But I'm curious as to your thoughts on that, since so many of your peers, and likely yourself, submitted against the Bill claiming it would have 'real world consequences' when it's had none.

          • weka 3.3.1.2.2
            19 July 2024 at 10:16 am

            When I first saw women starting to talk about the unfairness, safety and dignity issues around trans women in women's sports, the main arguments against women were,

            • TW who have transitioned are akin to women, so there are no safety or fairness issues
            • there are such small numbers of TW, it wasn't really a big deal anyway.
            • TW aren't like other males so there are no safety/dignity issues in the locker room.

            What's happened then is a large amount of deep analysis of the science on anatomy and physiology, which shows that men who have gone through male puberty retain advantages over women in multiple areas and this advantage doesn't disappear if the males take transition hormones.

            We have also seen an upswing in the number of TW in women's sports and taking titles/wins. While I think there are male sports people with gender dysphoria who are genuinely using transition to manage that, it seems likely that there are now some males are transitioning in order to take part in competitions they wouldn't win as a man. It's not a surprise that there are sportspeople willing to take performance enhancing medications.

            The issue of safety and dignity in the locker room comes purely down to whether one believes that TW are never sexual predators or creepy like some other males, and there is now a large body of evidence that shows that TW as a group are similar enough to other men to exclude them from women's spaces where women are vulnerable (or just don't want males).

            In all those situations, women's concerns have been validated. The issue now comes down to whether the fairness for TW will continue to trump women's rights and needs. That women have had to and still have to fight on this demonstrates that our rights are the default to value less. Same as it ever was.

            • weka 3.3.1.2.2.1
              19 July 2024 at 10:19 am

              some useful resources for understanding the issues.

              Emma Hilton tweets a lot about biology and physiology, including on sport

              https://x.com/FondOfBeetles

              Ross Tucker tweets and podcasts about sport,

              https://x.com/scienceofsport?lang=en

              Sex Matters in the UK covers the basics in their position statement, and has blog posts,

              https://sex-matters.org/where-sex-matters/sport/

              https://sex-matters.org/posts/category/sport/

            • Caitlin Spice 3.3.1.2.2.2
              19 July 2024 at 10:26 am

              Weka, are you replying to me? If so, how has the BDMRR Bill and people changing their birth certificates been instrumental in New Zealand to what you are claiming?

              • weka …
                19 July 2024 at 10:29 am

                I replied to Tracy. If you are on a mobile device, you can switch to the desktop version at the bottom of the page and you will get the Replies tab on the right hand side of the page, as well as being able to see who someone has replied to in the thread.

              • Tracy …
                19 July 2024 at 10:48 am

                I would suggest it formalises the inclusion of trans women as women in areas where it might be more appropriate to segregate people by sex.

                • Caitlin Spice …
                  19 July 2024 at 10:57 am

                  Has it done so in New Zealand? If so, are you able to provide proof that this has happened, and that it was a direct result of the BDMRR Bill?

            • Caitlin Spice 3.3.1.2.2.3
              19 July 2024 at 10:30 am

              The issue of safety and dignity in the locker room comes purely down to whether one believes that TW are never sexual predators or creepy like some other males, and there is now a large body of evidence that shows that TW as a group are similar enough to other men to exclude them from women's spaces where women are vulnerable (or just don't want males).

              This is quite a claim, and obviously I'm going to challenge that as a trans woman.

              Please point me to this 'large body of evidence' please. Preferably from neutral and reputable sources, not mumsnet, for example.

              • weka …
                19 July 2024 at 10:44 am

                I'm about to go write a climate post, so not going to do that homework for you, but this is discussed all the time on twitter, and blogs, and by GCF activists/groups. It's not hard to find sports women talking about the safety/dignity issues, as well as more general documentation of violence against women by trans women, and there's even some research now I think on rates (I will have a look for that later if I have time because it's useful for people to see).

                • Caitlin Spice …
                  19 July 2024 at 10:52 am

                  Weka, when you make a claim, is it not good practice to back it up with evidence? And when asked for that evidence, to provide it? Just as I did in this very thread to you?

                  Your refusal to provide this evidence gives your claim no basis for credibility. Without credibility, it's easily dismissed as hearsay.

                  In short, you have not provided proof, so I simply don't believe you.

                  Claiming trans women are a risk to women in women's spaces is an extremely serious allegation, and I think it requires equally serious and thorough evidence. You're demonising an entire demographic of people without proof.

                  • weka …
                    19 July 2024 at 11:00 am

                    I didn't claim trans women are a risk to women, I said that trans women appear to have the same pattern of risk to women as other males i.e. the problem is male pattern violence, not transness.

                    • Caitlin Spice …
                      19 July 2024 at 11:05 am

                      And I'm still asking you to provide evidence of this claim that trans women are the same risk factor as men, and therefore it's a 'safety and dignity risk for me to go for a wee or poo in the lady's loos with other women.

                      Because that's a pretty serious claim to make about my demographic, that my people are a 'safety and dignity' risk to yourself and other women.

                      I note you still haven't provided sources or evidence to back up this serious allegation against a minority.

            • Karolyn_IS 3.3.1.2.2.4
              19 July 2024 at 10:37 am

              Emma Hilton and Tommy Lundberg's article was a 2021 piece of research that showed males retain sports performance advantage, even after T suppression.

              It explains well how sex differences begin developing in utero, continue post birth and are accelerated at puberty.

              Another academic article from 2022.

              "Testosterone secreted before birth, postnatally, and then after puberty is the major factor that drives these physiological sex differences, and as adults, testosterone levels are ten to fifteen times higher in males than females. "

              "Ultimately, the former male physiology of transwoman athletes provides them with a physiological advantage over the cis-female athlete."

              Part of the evidence that male and female body plans are set at conception and cannot be changed in an individual's life.

              And the advantages are greater than that for male or female athletes taking performance enhancing drugs are not as great as the advantages of male bodies in sport compared with female bodies.

              It's also telling that that females who ID as males are not appearing at high levels in male sports – indication of the major sex differences right there. females who ID as trans and participate in female sports, usually stay in female sports, either IDing as non-binary, or as transmen while foregoing taking T.

              Different categories in sport are very important for women, given the struggle that women have had to get women's sports taken seriously at elite levels. At grass-roots levels as well as being the beginning arena for later elite sportswomen, is also important for women's health. And young women tend stop participating in sports because of the social impacts of puberty and male reaction to females.

      • bwaghorn 3.3.2
        17 July 2024 at 4:40 pm

        how often have you been asked?

      • Incognito 3.3.3
        17 July 2024 at 5:10 pm

        What a bunch of strawman arguments and other nonsense!

        People (who make up society) think, talk, write, and communicate about all matters of lesser or more importance to them and the TS Authors and commentariat are no exception to this.

        You nail your colours to the mast re. gender issues, which is your prerogative, and you can simply ignore any Posts on this topic or any other topic that you don’t give a shit about or that causes you to get your knickers in a twist for that matter, unless you want to become known here as a binary bigot.

      • Caitlin spice 3.3.4
        17 July 2024 at 5:44 pm

        I assume you’ve repeatedly raised this issue on the dozen or so other trans related articles on The Standard then?

        If not, why not?

    • Ad 3.4
      17 July 2024 at 1:57 pm

      Do it!

  4. PsyclingLeft.Always 4
    17 July 2024 at 8:56 am

    From the who would have guessed file…

    Trump will protect gun rights despite assassination attempt, adviser says

    the delegates said any changes should focus on funding better mental health support for troubled citizens, a standard Republican position. They blamed mass shootings and other gun violence – including the assassination attempt on Trump – largely on mental illness and weapons falling into the wrong hands.

    "It's all about mental health," said Will Boone, a delegate from Montana. "The right to have a gun is enshrined in the Constitution. Once you start infringing on that, you'll start other rights being taken away."

    Steve Kramer, from Georgia, said it was a "lie" that expanded background checks would help.

    "If you look at most of the killings, someone stole the gun, so background checks wouldn't matter," Kramer said.

    Well…

    Between 1966 and 2019, apart from school shooters who mainly stole their weapons from family members, most people who committed mass shootings had bought their weapons legally, according to data compiled by the National Institute of Justice, a research agency of the Department of Justice.

    The weapon used by Trump's would-be assassin was owned by his father, according to investigators.

    I'm certain there is a terrible list of children (incl at schools : ( killed by guns. This is just one..

    The Republican Party has generally blocked attempts to reform gun laws, even after the massacre of 20 elementary school children in Connecticut in 2012 by a gunman armed with an AR-15 assault-type weapon and two handguns.

    Efforts to pass universal background checks and an assault weapons ban were defeated by Republicans in the US Senate after that school massacre.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/522341/trump-will-protect-gun-rights-despite-assassination-attempt-adviser-says

    I found this …surely an indictment of the USA situation

    Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher. Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, among those 22 nations studied, the U.S. had 82 percent of gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns, with guns being the leading cause of death for children

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides

    IMO Trump gets in…. gun violence will increase massively

  5. SPC 5
    17 July 2024 at 9:04 am

    A German notes the decline of Germany.

    Second worst internet in Europe, little EV take up and few charging stations …

  6. aj 6
    17 July 2024 at 9:53 am

    While the world braces itself for another 10 rounds with Trump, the delusion of Biden in this short clip sums up where the Democrat cult have led America.

    https://x.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1813024831128150356

    In the next slurred sentence, the president pivoted, declaring, "I'm the guy that did more for the Palestinian community than anybody. I'm the guy that opened up all the assets. I'm the guy that made sure the Egyptians opened up the border to let goods through."

    Suddenly, Biden swung back to clumsly Zionist talking points, falsely claiming he saw photos demonstrating that Hamas burned Israeli captives alive in their homes on October 7. Referring to his visit to Israel on October 15, when he infamously bear-hugged Netanyahu, Biden said, "I saw photographs of mothers and daughters being tied in a rope together, kerosene being poured on their head" on October 7. No such photographs exist, and no evidence, photographic, forensic or otherwise, supports such an account

  7. SPC 7
    17 July 2024 at 10:05 am

    Expect things to keep warming.

    2023 was the first year to reach the 1.5 degrees warming level and it is now predicted to be the case for the entire decade – 2020's.

    James Hansen who picked GW back in the 1980's supports a higher climate sensitivity model (2019 seen as outlier)

    And says it will be 2 degrees GW by 2050.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/02/heating-faster-climate-change-greenhouse-james-hansen

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/19/climate-crisis-james-hansen-scientist-warning

  8. lprent 8
    17 July 2024 at 10:32 am

    I should have gotten a haircut yesterday when the weather was better.

    Have a job interview coming up, but I am looking outside and shivering in anticipation. But my beard is getting bushy and the hair is getting traces of the weird genius look….

    Don't want to scare off potential employers, especially with National’s induced recession deepening.

  9. roblogic 9
    17 July 2024 at 2:19 pm

    The Greater Auckland blog (formerly TransportBlog) sets aside its usual dispassionate factual analysis and states openly that Minister Simeon Brown is telling porkies, ignoring experts, and making our public roads more dangerous.

    A brilliant takedown rich in data that directly contradicts Simian's spin.

    https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2024/07/17/a-blanket-of-misinformation/

    The Minister of Transport, Simeon Brown, alongside others in his coalition government, is weaponising language and fudging the facts. He’s mischaracterising a relatively popular, evidence-based policy as unfounded and unpopular “government overreach” – in order to force through his demonstrably unfounded and unpopular government overreach.

    And he’s being helped by parts of the media regurgitating his catchphrases and accepting his framing.

    • weka 10.1
      17 July 2024 at 7:58 pm

      Am about to start reading it, doesn't look too long.

      PDF version here

      https://www.greens.org.nz/green_party_releases_executive_summary_of_independent_investigation

      • weka 10.1.1
        17 July 2024 at 9:15 pm

        IN case anyone is interested, I stopped half way through and went and listened to Tana's maiden speech. Heartbraking to see what has been lost here, all round.

        Also of note is the piece at the end about Tana's relationship with her husband.

        https://ondemand.parliament.nz/parliament-tv-on-demand/?itemId=238069

        https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20240214_20240214_48

        • adam 10.1.1.1
          17 July 2024 at 9:43 pm

          Look if the greens can come out stronger, and learn some shit on the way, then it will be worth it.

          A good rule of thumb for anyone who is not a Tory running for parliament – is be squeaky clean – or at least up front about being an arsehole. Because the Tory press are wankers, and anything they can pick at, they will act like flies on a pile of shit.

        • gsays 10.1.1.2
          18 July 2024 at 7:17 am

          I missed the relationship ending bit.

          Was it in her maiden speech?

      • lprent 10.1.2
        18 July 2024 at 1:26 pm

        Am about to start reading it, doesn't look too long.

        Just read it. Then reread section B "Scope of Investigation and Standard of Proof", C.4 "The Candidate Code of Conduct" and C.5 "Disclosures by Darleen" again.

        Rachel Burt did a good investigation. I think that she is quite correct about the balance of probabilities (the civil level of proof required) and that Darleen Tana hadn't conformed even remotely close to the requirements of code of conduct with respect to her involvement in E-Cycles et al.

        The companies sound like they have been run in a familiar organisational pattern of entrepreneurial chaos (I have worked in those a few times). It doesn't feel like there is a deliberate pattern of employee abuse, just a level of managerial short-term lack of attention to detail that amounts to managerial stupidity. The recurrent complaints to the ERA hearings and legal fees being a clear signal about the systematic issues.

        These should have all be highlighted to conform to the candidate code of conduct, historical or as they were ongoing. There is a reason why these declarations are required of a candidate for any political party. They always become visible at some point.

        I think that the Green party have made the best of a poor and horribly irritating situation.

        • weka 10.1.2.1
          18 July 2024 at 1:31 pm

          that's my sense from reading it too. I'm not sure about the public narrative of Tana being a liar, it's possible that she just forgot a lot of stuff and also was navigating a difficult boundary with her husband. Also the idea that he would have been sharing everything with her doesn't sit right.

          But regardless, there are things she should have been up front about, and she didn't, and that put the Greens in a very difficult situation on top of a lot of other difficult things they've been dealing with.

          I do think the Greens need to review their candidate selection process, and I'd still like to know how the problems with the businesses weren't more widely known in the various Auckland/Waiheke networks.

  11. Binders full of women 11
    17 July 2024 at 7:59 pm

    My guess is she'll hang around as an MP. One of the bike shops has gone under and can't see her being on top of the CV pile.