Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 am, April 19th, 2023 - 126 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
Rupert Murdoch and his filth pump media channel Fox News whimped out at the last possible moment in the Dominion Voting Systems case…
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/fox-dominion-settlement
It would have been so informative to have seen Rupert, Hannity, Carlson and the rest in the dock. As the linked article alludes to, there was certainly some interesting inside info on Fox revealed in discovery.
Annoying!
Sure hope the Smartmatic case doesn't fold.
If the testimony Rupert gave is useable elsewhere it could go beyond the dominion settlement.
Crikeys lawyers would be looking to leverage it as he effectively admitted they knew it was BS but didn't want to disappoint their viewing base with the truth.
Fresh legs.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/18/fox-dominion-settle-us-defamation-lawsuit
Nice. Mr Trump’s “we wuz robbed” line caused so much real life disruption including Jan 6 2021, that it cannot be allowed to go down the memory hole.
Hopefully Smartmatic owners aren't as ethically challenged as the private equity owners of Dominion.
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1648429103744421888
Anyone who complains about the Green internal antics, just respond "Gaurav Sharma".
Kerekere as a Sharma? 👀
That would be great. The big problems occur if she is a Starmer in my opinion. At 8% the Greens can't afford to lose about half their vote share over a factional dispute.
any kind of significant internal problems being made public during the election campaign will most likely harm the Green vote, because the MSM would go hard against them, and because people want competency and it's a relatively easy switch from G to L.
The Greens always suffer when it comes to public perception. Many people would probably quite easily agree and subscribe to the Greens’ values, principles, and ideology but balk at the idea of voting for and/or the Greens’ candidates. To me, it often sounds like people hating France because there are too many French living there [no offence to France or the French] – it is illogical and irrational. So, it is a perception problem, i.e., a people problem of people having a problem with people. ACT figured this out a long time ago but the NZ Greens are still in their political nappies when it comes to political PR & management – I hope they don’t spit the dummy and start crying in public.
what do you think that ACT came up with? Better PR?
I've never understood why the GP PR and comms has had such holes in it (not being a comms person myself). But part of it is that the Green kaupapa isn't well understood. Current example is them doing an internal investigation into the EK messages and people mocking them for that. But it was clear to me that a) there was more going on than just EK calling CW a cry baby, and b) how MPs, exec, staff, GP members treat each other is a core principle, you can't function in a group with the kinds of processes that the GP uses if you have people being mean to each other or nasty behind their backs.
All parties in NZ can learn a thing or two from ACT with respect to PR and political management. Possibly the only exception is Winston Peters. ACT runs a tight ship and keep its nose clean, in case you haven’t noticed.
Yes, but I'm asking what they actually do in that regard. Specifically.
Consistent well-prepared PR, no internal party conflicts spilling into the open (good Party management), articulate likeable Leader with high public profile, mature Policy platform, keeping powder dry for battles to come (good political management), good rapport with Media, and so on and so forth. Do you follow NZ politics at all??
Fuck off Incognito. I don't know what your problem is atm, but I was interested in your thinking and thought that I might learn something (which I did).
Making naïve statements, IMO, and asking naïve questions, IMO, which I’ve tried to answer anyway to a degree, begs the question what your game is here with others and me. You say you want to foster robust debate. The irony that’s the same dream as I have. So, why are you and I clashing mostly over one singular topic here? Is it because I have fundamental objections to your cause? No, I don’t. Is it because I have picked one side over another? No, I haven’t. Is it because I have ‘a problem’? No, I don’t. You can fill me in, if you wish, in the front- or back-end, I really don’t care anymore where.
seriously, I wanted to know what you saw about ACT that was different from the GP. Maybe I am naive, if by that you mean not knowledgeable. It's not a game. I ask people questions because I want to know what they think. No-one is obliged to answer, and there is nothing wrong with asking.
It wasn't about the gender/sex wars, or robust debate on TS. I am in fact interested in how comms works in political parties as I don't know that much about it.
I know next-to-nothing except the little I gleaned from reading the news and TS, mainly. This Election Year is going to be a learning moment for me.
Perhaps naivity is in the eye of the beholder, which is why I twice added “IMO”.
But maybe the Greens suffer from public perception because of who they are and what they say.
E.g a polticial party who puts on the social media that they are off to fight some Nazis, when there were no Nazis associated with the Let Women Speak event.
The Minister of Violence Prevention at a protest where there was violence and intimidation towards women who didn't condemn the violence and then blamed Cis white males for causing all the violence.
I think this is what Marama and other members of the Greens really think. So citizens hear that and draw their own conclusions.
Acts MPs performance has to date been faultless (although if anyone wants to correct me on this, please do).
I am looking for grown ups to run the country, not people who engage is name calling their own ("cry baby") and apparently have a big split in the party
QED
Have a nice day.
What big split in the party? This is pretty tame stuff by general NZ political party standards. EK looks like a liability, but that's not unusual either (hence the Sharma reference).
RE the "split" I did say apparently.
Some people have said that Elizabeth and Riccardo are one faction and they have their supporters in the party and those supporters were who EKs "crybaby" text was meant for.
I guess some evidence that supports this was EK s text. At the very least it seems like EK has some level of contempt for CS.
The National Party bonfire of regulations is back and burning bright again promising us that brighter slightly scorched future.
The farmers don’t just want more labour, they want more cheaper labour with fewer rights & protections than others have.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131805911/national-promises-to-double-rse-worker-cap-ban-foreign-investment-in-farmtoforestry-conversions
Jeez, what about animal exploitation–“winter grazing” in mud–and cleaning up the waterways, talk about priorities.
And moving from industrial dairy to more plant based?
Ban palm kernel now.
https://www.greens.org.nz/ban_import_of_palm_oil_by_products
Party vote Green.
Leaky homes, national standards, wadeable waterways, asset sales, ecan, chch rebuild etc
People just need a reminder of the blighted future the last 2 nat govts delivered with special mention of rortney and shonkys supershity clusterfk.
Nah, voters know which side their croissant is buttered. This will be a cookie-cutter bread & butter election. So, watch out for populist propaganda by demagogues and snake-oil men (and women).
National's bonfire regulations policies were responsible for the leaky houses of the nineties costing many homeowners hundreds of thousands of dollars.
National acts first and thinks later.
If it moves deregulate it, if it doesn't sell it off.
I’m really starting to think that most in National really don’t care, one way or another.
Politics is or should be a contest of ideas and trying to make a difference, e.g., even something as lofty as leaving the World in a better place. At present, it is anything but like that and rather the opposite. Even so-called ‘progressives’ lose sight & track of the big(ger) picture and let themselves dragged into rabbit holes bogged down by trivial topics and sideshows.
The bigger problem is that many people have stopped caring or they are caring too much (!) about singular issues that they consider existential to them and mostly them-only. You can see the polarisation kernel right there. All this plays into the hands of the usual ‘suspects’ but as soon as one tries to call this and/or name it for what it is all Hell breaks loose and words & meanings get twisted swiftly to win arguments and control the narrative.
The external narrative is crucial because it influences our internal narratives and stories we tell ourselves about the World, others, and ourselves. In other words, control the narrative and control the minds, so to speak.
Personally, the key is detachment, which is hard on a good day, but next to impossible when you’re treading water whilst caught in the middle of fierce shit-storms.
Can you prove rse workers get less money than a comparable kiwi worker, ??
By Law the base rates are supposed to be the same as for Kiwis. You know this, don’t you?
USA too has problems with children learning to read.
Do an increasing number of parents expect schools alone to fully develop literacy and numeracy skill for their children, and don't realise that it's important to support these skills from a very young age at home as well? how important it is to read to them, and help them read, and to bring numeracy into everyday conversation?
Many working parents are time short and screen time unconsciously becomes an embedded part of parenting, which almost always won't involve improving literacy or numeracy skills.
If there is one thing I've learnt as a parent and grandparent, it's that learning these skills has to be a partnership between schools and parents.
When I was teaching Infants to read I used context then chose a word for closer study including the phonics connections. The bottom line was the enjoyment of reading whereas the previous phonic system tended to kill a love of reading. For some it was reading the words but not understanding what the text meant. Sad.
Most kids learn to read easily but it is true that a small minority do need special specific teaching. Lets not throw out the gains and skills of the good readers for the sake of those who need special help.
Joe Bennett on impersonating Joe Bennett.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/131798336/some-good-news-about-intelligence-artificial-and-otherwise
I have to confess that I actually quite liked the AI’s writing, but I would say that, wouldn’t I?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/arts/300855664/photographer-reveals-prizewinning-image-was-aigenerated-turns-down-award
I did not particularly like that award-winning photo though, which looked fake & false, but I would say that, wouldn’t I?
On the AI photo…. the hands were strange, and mothers put an arm around not on when they are related and close
It was a soulless depiction. It lacked humanity for me before I read the text, I thought "you must be kidding, the winner??"
Oh that explains the stiff depiction.!!
My wife's sister is over from Australia. She is a teacher over there.
She was saying that they have a very program proposed by National in that there are similar requirements for minium hours per day to be spent on maths and english.
Also, parents get regular feedback on how children are progressing according to expected standards.
I have clearly not explained myself very well.
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
from here https://thestandard.org.nz/3508173-2/#comment-1946229
you have a pattern of making suggestions to authors and mods eg that we email you, or that it would be better if criticisms were taken offline, or that we have to provide facts/instances. All of that is requiring mods to do more work, instead of you listening to what we are saying and asking for clarification if needed.
👍
Without prejudice, I link to this Opinion piece (by a male theology doctorate student at University of Auckland):
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/131801818/whats-up-with-the-obsession-over-other-peoples-gender-identity
To set the tone and disclose the intention, I strongly believe that the last paragraph should have been the first one:
"To set the tone and disclose the intention, I strongly believe that the last paragraph should have been the first one:
I agree.
If this was the first (and last) paragraph, I wouldn't have wasted time reading such waffle from someone with a superficial understanding of what concerns have been raised.
Not by hysterical fearful people, but by people with a clear understanding of impacts who retain the capacity to say "No", to those who insist they are the arbitrators of kindness, and that everything else is just people saying silly stuff.
The main thing Mr Hoban has right is that this belongs in the realms of theology. We don't require others to share our beliefs in various varieties of immortal souls so why should we be required to share beliefs based on the possession of a gendered soul?
He is certainly familiar with earlier versions of homophobic and misogynistic cults so I am surprised he does not see this one for what it is. But you don't get published for saying that.
Second to last paragraph almost got there…
The charismatic leader doesn't apply though, although the rest does.
There is an Irish women that wrote well about the religious angle in the UK. I'll see if I can remember her name, and find some of her writings.
Found her – Colette Colfer:
https://www.broadsheet.ie/2022/04/26/colette-colfer-a-new-religion/
Your irony is off the scale!
Molly means that Hoban's description of the cult is a good fit for gender identity ideology, apart from the charismatic leader bit.
One size fits many.
I don't know what that means sorry.
It means that if the shoe fits it applies equally to other ideological groupings.
Re the 'cult' and/or 'religion' of gender and gender identity 'ideology':
Imagine 'problematic' self-IDing transgender people didn't exist, then ask:
Would gender critical folk still be critical of gender and/or gender identity 'ideology'? If so, then why?
Would anti-gender folk still look askance at females and males whose behaviours, roles and freedoms/rights didn't align with and partition strictly according to traditional (binary) sex-based divisions? If so, then why?
do you mean
Gender critical feminists would be, because they already were before gender identity ideology started impacting on our rights. Are you familiar with feminist critiques of gender? The reason is because gender is how the patriarchy controls women. Note that the whole pink for girls and blue for boys is a feature of both the patriarchy and gender ideology (which is another reasons why the latter is considered regressive nonsense).
What? GCFs are completely ok with gender non-conformity, many of them are gender non conforming.
You seem confused about what the GC objections to gender identity ideology are. Right wing religious objections to transness aren't usually gender critical, because RW religious people usually want to uphold traditional gender roles. GC people fall into two broad camps. Those that object to the impact on women's and children's rights (GCFs and allies), and those that object to queering of culture (people who think that sex is real and matters and that transing kids is abuse). I'm generalising (it's more complex than that), because too many people are referencing the religious right and thinking that's what GC is.
Thanks weka for your questions/options. Noting that my 'problematic' was in inverted commas (trans people being problematic to some people only), I meant (effectively) '2.', since all trans people self-ID, just like everyone else (to some degree, no?) – or perhaps you could answer a good faith question prompted by your good faith questions: Can trans people exist without (personal) self-identification?
See the paragraph (anti-gender folk looking askance at adopting behaviours/roles out of kilter with traditional sex-based assignments) after my second question. My answer to my second question would be 'No', because (as you rightly observe), patriarchal anti-gender folk want to control more than just the ability transgender people to self-ID.
I asked two questions, the first relating to the perspectives of gender critical folk, and the second relating to the perspectives of anti-gender folk. You began your response to my second question (about anti-gender folk) with a reference to GC feminists – wouldn't that response be better suited to my question about GC perspectives?
You seem to believe that I'm confused, and not for the first time. I can only assure you that I don't feel confused, and hope that you will accept my personal assurance in this regard. I would also like to assure you that many comments on TS relating to these 'problematic' issues serve to clarify my personal thoughts on gender, gender-critical, gender ideology, and gender ideology-critical PoVs.
I'm also confused, but I think it may be because your idea of gender critical is not related to a gender critical perspective, but because you think gender critical is only related to criticism of gender ideology, and not a separate stand-alone perspective.
With that in mind, are you able to just ask your two questions simply without reference to any links?
(Because they seem to diffuse rather than focus your queries)
ok, but who here would find trans people 'problematic'? I don't know why you would need to write it that way if what you meant was trans people generally.
Let me try something.
You said,
which could be rewritten as,
to which I would still say, yes feminists have a critique of gender that is outside the sex/gender wars. But also, if trans people didn't exist there would be no critique of gender identity ideology because GII wouldn't exist.
I'm not sure that all people do self-ID btw. But where you ask,
I would say it depends what you mean by trans people. If you mean gender non-conforming people, then yes, they exist irrespective of self-ID. If you mean people with gender dysphoria, then again, yes although I suspect that gender dysphoria is a consequence of living in a society that punishes GNC, so I'm not convinced dysphoria is inherent in humans.
honestly, I can't follow all your quotes. I just ignore them and read your own words. Trying to go back now and figure out what you mean is impossible. Also, one of your quote/links is basically gender ideology, so I'm not going to accept it as a reference at face value.
Here are the two questions
Which I would rewrite as,
If I were answering them, my GCF would inform both questions.
You use the term anti-gender when referring to religious conservatives (If I have understood). That's one thing that is causing confusion. The anti-gender people are the feminists. The religious conservatives are pro-gender/pro-gender roles, and anti-trans or anti-GNC.
@weka – another good question. Please accept an assurance that I would be amazed indeed if anyone "here would find trans people 'problematic'". I didn't, however, intend my hypothetical ("Imagine…") to be limited to Standardistas, but can see how you might have taken it that way.
"Trans people" is shorthand for 'transgender people', meaning (to me) people "whose gender identity or gender expression does not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth." I would like to rewrite my question as: Are there trans people who don't (self-)identify as trans? That question is relevant to your comment:
On reflection, that's certainly possible. I know hardly any trans people personally, so would be interested in evidence that there are adult trans people who do not self-identify as trans – perhaps because they are either unaware, or in denial ("in a society that punishes GNC") about that aspect of their identity, just as some homosexuals and members of other minorities (continue to) deny various aspects of their identity, and rarely to the good of themselves or others, imo.
I'm a stale male, and yet aspects of my identity continue to be revealed to me – some good, some not so good, and some (fortunately and/or unfortunately) subject to change. I would guess that most, if not all people who know they are trans and are not in denial would (self-)identify as trans, but that's just an assumption.
So some feminists are anti-gender (hopefully not too many?) and some feminists are anti-gender stereotypes, and some feminists are gender critical, and some feminists are pro-gender, and some feminists are pro-trans, and some feminists might be trans activists (possibly not to many).
It seems that your definition of “pro-gender/pro-gender roles” is in close alignment with Wikipedia’s definition of anti-gender! So many factions; so much friction.
Molly, anyone can opine on what they think I think, but on this occasion, 'no cigar'. I accept that GC perspectives can be broader than simple criticism of gender ideology, assuming that's what you meant – all we have (in this forum) is our words.
Regarding your request, it is regratable that the links make my queries appear more diffuse to you, but, if it's all the same to you, I will retain the right to include links that I consider relevant to my comments, as they help to focus my mind.
If my queries appear too diffuse, then maybe just scroll on by. I know I do.
Many of us are aware of the "This may include religious concepts, beliefs, and practices that can easily turn dark and threatening when followed through to the extreme."
A mild example from today:
https://twitter.com/JohnJamesNI/status/1648285053271650304?s=20
Good points Molly & Visubversa.
I enjoyed the links to Colette Colfer and more critiques on the 'gendered soul'
To be kind to this author I am assuming that the article he submitted was a much better version than what has appeared in Stuff. It may have been cut down and had a great deal of persuasive theological material removed. As it is is skeletal and disjointed.
I was intrigued that the article was grasping at straws and, to me, did not seem particularly well based on theological scholarship. It was not knowledgeable on some items on which he has based a case eg Nazis/neo nazis.
It is lightweight in comparison with some of the informative links that we were treated to during the earlier discussion on Womens issues etc.
It also missed the elephant in the room, ie what the visit of KJM was all about. That is women's issues and the female response, based in antiquity, to having a concern about unknown people, particularly men in areas that they should not be.
Straws
The missing elements……the concerns of women. I have always believed that the Christian church in relation to its views and treatment of women can be a force for good or a force to be used against women. Some churches allow women to minister and to give Holy Communion. Others do not while others maintain an intrusive concern about the sexuality of women.
But having missed the point of what KJM is all about the author has missed an opportunity to actually bring some theology into it.
What is the theology around grossly trying to change those that God has made in his own image?
Genesis 1:26-28 announces that human beings are made in the image of God:
New International Version
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
People who seem to be either man or woman
Adam and Eve are the Bible's first man and first woman.
According to the Bible (Genesis 2:7), this is how humanity began: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." God then called the man Adam, and later created Eve from Adam's rib.
or do we drop all this Old Testament stuff and look at the often kinder, calmer New Testament?
Matthew 7:12. "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." The Good News: This is literally "the golden rule" of the Bible. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
This did not seem to have been honoured by the protestors.
So bearing mind that the arguments made by women are about women's safe spaces is there guidance in the scriptures? I have not been able to find any links but there are any number about modesty. and the expectation that modesty will be maintained by a woman.
This is a good precis on some of the issues about opinions….not all from the NT.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/12-strategies-accepting-one-another-opinions-differ/
This one I think is important not only from a theological point of view. It is apt here as the author has not done as is suggested. Rom. 14:5
The author has not correctly interpreted the reasons for KJM's visit or the concerns of the women who sought to see and share ideas with her. So it does not meet this criteria. 'If we’re going to have an opinion, make sure it’s an informed and sound opinion'.
Instead he seems to be labelling KJM and the people who wanted to see & listen to her as a cult? While people who wish to deny their children a childhood by transitioning them body and mind instead of safe guarding them (another concern of KJM's) are not mentioned. Why is this?
I would have liked possibly** to see a theology based view on transgenderism or fundamentally changing the image of the God body we have been given, and the events of 25/3 from a women's perspective. This article by Russell Hoban is not it.
** but then the Bible/psalms/prayers can be brought to bear & give an opinion on so many ideas, 'all things to all men etc' that perhaps something wishy washy as we have been presented with is all we can expect.
*Churching of women – now regarded as a celebration of childbirth and welcome back to the church.
For some reason the linking * in the Straws presumably because it was at the start of a sentence has been transformed into a dot. I will resist making some pun about transforming, transubstantiation etc.
Exactly so Shanreagh. There is definitely scope for such an argument from the biblical text and some pretty substantial currents in philosophy.
Despite modern claims that God's pronouns are He/Him, in the original OT languages (Hebrew/Aramaic) YHWH is not gendered (AFAIK). And there are passages like this in the NT
As for philosophical arguments, the gender movement has really obvious parallels to Gnosticism, which has a long history as a heresy that's been associated with Christianity since the year dot. It's an esoteric collection of "hidden" beliefs only available to "enlightened" souls, the most common of which is that the body is crude material prone to sin and decay, but our true essence is beings of light and spirit. It's an easy mistake to make and many Christians hold some variation of this belief about human nature.
(Other Bible scholars will tell you that Gnostic dualism is deeply contradictory to the Hebrew understanding of human nature, which is embodied (physicalism), embracing life and celebrating its joys, and when we die we "fall asleep", we don't float off to Heaven. But we look forward to a day of resurrection when the final trumpet sounds)
Just found out there is a follow up to this Broadsheet article.
It was submitted and accepted for publication in The Irish Times, but was pulled without explanation:
https://twitter.com/ColetteColfer/status/1607384828638539776?s=20
Some people are not allowed to bring their own understandings and views to ‘the debate’, that much is clear. Tightly controlled views and expressions of opinion don’t belong on a blog site that aims at robust debate that is inclusive.
Your response was textbook and reminiscent of Bomber over at TDB. I’m actually surprised that you decided to be triggered and read ‘such waffle’, but this was perhaps the small step needed to climb on your high horse for knocking down another person’s opinion with which you don’t agree. I note that you haven’t addressed one single thing in the Opinion piece, only denigrating it.
Your last sentence was a real doozy – did you have assistance from ChatGPT-4, by any chance? \sarc
how has anyone not been allowed to bring their own understandings and views to the debate? You made a comment, others have responded. Does the fact that Molly was blunt and critical mean you can't bring your own understandings forward? How so?
She did address things in the piece. She said that it presented superficial concerns of the issues for GC people (that's being kind imo, I think the piece is very skewed by both ideology and ignorance to the point of missing what the whole thing is about).
She also pointed out that the concerns have been raised by people who know what they are talking about. Characterising them as fearful and hysterical really was getting off to a bad start.
The ideas about purity and such are interesting, but it's hard from a GCF position to respond to them seriously when women have been written out of the debate. in the piece itself. I mean, I could write a whole piece about western purity and the relegation of female to dirty and male as pure and how this has impacted on women for 500 years, but it's still having to be on the defensive because of the framing that piece used.
Nope, it was a typically defensive comment with some generic ‘criticism’ and the default dismissal with a few disparaging remarks. Nothing new there.
Re. the purity stuff, this was clearly to provide context to “the crew who line up to sail with them” and understand why and where those are coming from and associated with (and interested in) the GC stuff.
Snap Weka. Out of my long piece I removed a long link to the history of churching of women after childbirth tracing the need to bring them into the church because of uncleanliness (10th Century) to now celebrating safe & happy childbirth etc. The purity argument as advancef d by Hoban was not very convincing.
Hey Incognito
The highlighted paragraph in your comment was a conclusion reached with no supporting evidence in the article. The use of hysterical and fearful, by the author indicate a certain bias and predetermined outcome, arrived at through meandering through visits to other disconnected ideas.
Hence: waffle. You might consider it a more nutritious food for thought. Our dietary needs on this may differ.
For something I consider palatable, I posted another article on the same topic and with the same religious framework in my response to visubversa:
.https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-19-04-2023/#comment-1946277
(Read it, scroll on, critique or ridicule it as you wish. Forcefeeding is not an intention.)
"Your last sentence was a real doozy – did you have assistance from ChatGPT-4, by any chance? \sarc"
No. It was a example of personal humour.
To be clear, women who raise issues of concern should not be assumed to be hysterical, fearful, speakers of silly stuff or some form of artificial intelligence.
(In regards to the latter, we are the real deal…nothing artificial at all.)
Anybody who raises any issue of concern in good faith and with genuine interest in robust debate that is inclusive and open-minded ought to expect a response without prejudice but not necessarily a warm welcoming hug. I can’t see it.
I am aware you are unable to see good faith on this issue.
For me, that seems obvious from your exchanges here.
However, many will continue to voice their concerns, and perhaps one day you will understand what they are, and see how consistently people offered them in good faith and prepared for the robust debate you seek.
At present, I see such good faith comments receiving derision, redirection and dismissal. Very little understanding of what is being said, little to no links to robust evidence, and/or deferrals often to lightweight opinion pieces.
For instance:
More and more evidence is accumulating about the harm of the social and medical transition of minors, that we provide here in NZ under the protocol of "affirming healthcare"?
This approach has no clinical evidence base, and are significant (and often permanent) interventions.
Do you have concerns about this situation at all?
This is an unevidenced assertion but let's assume you're correct, what alternative treatment protocol does the gender critical movement think should be used in the treatment of trans youth?
Well for a start you have made a presumption that the youth are trans. Molly stated 'minors.'
Jordan Peterson. whose views I have had many a long tussle with in times past has a very clear and thoughtful interview with a woman who has detransitioned. His professional knowledge about best practice in this issue is clear.
He said about 25 hours of counselling over 6 months should be the minimum for those showing the twin 'illnesses' of
gender dysphoria and psychiatric illness notably depression.
These two often go hand in hand and if the maxim of 'first do no harm' is to be followed then counselling for depression should be commenced.
I read figures that if the 'first do no harm' proponents treat children without surgery or puberty blockers that about 2/3 when grown are same sex attracted.
It was a deliberate decision not to put too much into a comment that was an invitation.
There is a lot of information regarding the lack of clinical evidence for the affirming healthcare model.
I have OIA'd the Ministry of Health for their evidence base, who said they follow the guidelines of PATHA and WPATH.
PATHA is based on WPATH, so that organisation is a good starting point. AAP is another, and so is the Endocrine Society.
Many countries – follow the guidance of these three organisations.
WPATH – World Professional Association Transgender Health
WPATH is advocacy based in their guidelines – not evidenced based. Many of their contributors are not medical or research professionals. Eg. Susie Green – Former CEO of Mermaids.
Current WPATH – Standards of Care 8 released last year
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644
The state of Alabama (like many countries) is reviewing the care for minors and as part of court injunction when they passed a Bill that ceased affirmative care, testimony was given from the three organisations listed above. When they were asked for evidence, they refused:
A subpoena has been issued, so it'll be worthwhile to see what is produced:
http://files.eqcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/219-D-Response-to-Motion-to-Quash-Subpoenas.pdf
AAP – American Academy of Pediatrics
The state of Florida has also had to subpoena AAP to get their evidence for their recommendations.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/27/american-academy-pediatrics-florida-lawsuit-transgender-children/
Membership are unable to raise the issue despite attempts to do so:
https://archive.ph/ivI08#selection-353.0-357.697
The Endocrine Society:
Guidelines can be found here:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558?login=false
Recent BMJ article:
https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382
As you can see, these are just some of the concerns held about the three main authors of affirmative healthcare.
If you wanted to talk about specific treatments or the adoption of the Dutch Protocol I can provide some links about those if I have them.
"What alternative treatment protocol does the gender critical movement think should be used in the treatment of trans youth?"
I would think it'd be the same as anyone else. High-quality, evidenced based care that avoids the risk of iatrogenic harm for those receiving it. Do you honestly think that gender critical people do not want the best care for others, particularly minors?
What level and quality of evidence would you like to see for the "gender affirming healthcare" model, given its significant disruption to psychological states, the endocrine system, and possible surgical disruptions to sexual health, reproduction, and urinary functions?
So the thing is, you're not correct, we have the evidence, gender affirming healthcare is the best care model:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202201/the-evidence-trans-youth-gender-affirming-medical-care
tldr:
So, if we do in fact 'want the best care for others' then we wouldn't be trying to get involved in or try to prevent the provision of that care to others right?
https://segm.org/NICE_gender_medicine_systematic_review_finds_poor_quality_evidence
Arkie, I would put far more store on the finding of NICE, The National Institute for Clinical Excellence. They review studies, exclued many because case numbers are too low or theirs no control group or they are retrospective. The studies quoted mostly fall into these categories.
FFS these drugs, puberty blockers, are not licenced to treat gender. dysphoria. You do realize that these are the drugs that Alan Turing was put on to chemically castrate him because he was gay?
Arkie and others on this site, if you geniuely want to know a therapeutic approach that helps these kids, please read the link below. Unless you are a therapist, I suggest you skip the first eight pages, because it is pretty technical.
On page 9 begins a case study of a therapist working with a teenager, Peter, who identifies as a women. Its a very moving account of how this boy is helped by a very skilled therapist who has his best interests at heart.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/SexualOrientation/IESOGI/Other/Rebekah_Murphy_TowardsaGenderExploratoryModelslowingthingsdownopeningthingsupandexploringidentitydevelopment.pdf
Jack Turban is a well-known purveyor of low quality, but strong conclusive data that is often picked up by unquestioning media.
Here are a couple of the critiques published after his article.
You'll have to read them if you want to assess if that criticism is justified. I think it is. You can decide for yourself.
Leor Sapir: The Distortions in Jack Turban’s Psychology Today Article on ‘Gender Affirming Care’
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-distortions-in-jack-turbans-psychology
Post rest in different comment…
Jesse Singal: Researchers Found Puberty Blockers And Hormones Didn’t Improve Trans Kids’ Mental Health At Their Clinic. Then They Published A Study Claiming The Opposite. (Updated)
Critique of Study16 – Tordoff et al
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/researchers-found-puberty-blockers
Follow-up to previous article:
.https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-19-04-2023/#comment-1946342
Jesse Singal: The University of Washington Is Putting Trans Kids At Risk By Distorting Suicide Research
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/the-university-of-washington-is-putting
"So, if we do in fact 'want the best care for others' then we wouldn't be trying to get involved in or try to prevent the provision of that care to others right?"
I am someone who has supported someone through many years of unresolved pain and surgeries because of iatrogenic harm and had someone close die of it. My trust in medical systems therefore has a higher degree of skepticism than perhaps someone that has not seen how despite all the safeguards in place, sometimes treatments or protocols are adopted that are harmful.
Do you not have any concern that the three major medical associations that provide the guidelines for affirmation only healthcare, not only failed to provide the clinical evidence when asked, but resorted to lawyers to avoid having to do so at all?
Do you not have any concern regarding the failure of the AAP to listen to members and review the guidelines that were adopted without examination?
Given the significant health impacts of a poorly functioning endocrine system, are you not concerned that The Endocrine Society's own grading of the evidence for their guidelines is "low" or "very low"?
I don't understand how this lack of evidence is not ringing alarm bells for those who claim to have the health and well-being of minors at the forefront.
The alternative you asked about could be that while high-quality evidence is gathered, to increase and improve the access to mental health services, and investigation and treatment of any co-morbidities.
This approach, called watchful waiting, often gave children and minors time to be treated for co-morbidities and often resolve their gender dysphoria by the time they reached their early twenties. Many of these children discovered they were same-sex attracted.
(However, the data from those previous studies references a significantly different demographic from the high number of adolescent girls presenting today, so it's unlikely to be of use in terms of comparison.)
One of the clinicians who conducted watchful waiting for many years at a Canadian clinic, was Dr Kenneth Zucker. He was an author of previous WPATH SoC and a long established clinician.
This is what happened to him when the medical protocols changed:
https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-researcher-fired.html
The changes that take place medically and surgically are significant interventions, not merely aesthetic, and also impair or completely disrupt major functioning systems in the body.
The evidence for such risky procedures or medications should be overwhelming and robust clinical evidence. Not the "low" or "very low" bar that seems to be the case.
@Molly
Two can play that game; Leor Sapir is a less well-known conservative political scientist involved in anti-transgender political action, Jesse Singal is a journalist, their critiques are noted as is their relevant 'expertise'.
You said there is no evidence, this is your opinion on the ‘quality’ of the evidence not a statement of fact; there is evidence, it is a small but growing list, due to the fact that gender affirming care is relatively new as is the wider acceptance of trans individuals.
Ultimately what healthcare people receive is really their and their providers business alone, I trust medical professionals and the individuals themselves to achieve the best results possible for themselves as patients.
@arkie
Sorry, I just noticed I replied on the wrong comment.
My reply to you is here:
.https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-19-04-2023/#comment-1946349
when you link to a TS comment or post, can you please put a full stop (or any character) immediately before the URL? There is a bug that makes internal links embed weirdly without that (and stops people from reading the comment). Mods are having to manually fix each comment with an internal link, so it would be appreciated if commenters could prevent the problem, thanks.
@Anker
Thanks for that paper regarding the Gender Exploratory Model.
It was an interesting read, and similar to what many of the detransitioners relate in terms of missed exploration into sexuality, and other co-morbidities.
Have bookmarked.
@weka
Yes. Will do.
"So, if we do in fact 'want the best care for others' then we wouldn't be trying to get involved in or try to prevent the provision of that care to others right?"
I'll ignore the assumption that care for others must be shown by supporting demands for unevidenced medical interventions, and answer this as matter of factly as I can:
The Karolinska Institute in Sweden has just published a short article on the dilemma of providing the best care, after their systematic review of clinical literature did not support the promoted "affirmative healthcare" model.
They have created a checklist model to ensure the collection of good clinical data.
https://news.ki.se/systematic-review-on-outcomes-of-hormonal-treatment-in-youths-with-gender-dysphoria
(A plethora of links about the Swedish clinical review can be found on this Standard post – and comments – from last year:
.https://thestandard.org.nz/why-sweden-is-changing-its-gender-transition-policy-for-children-and-young-people/
This links to the review itself, the appendices show the review selections:
https://www.sbu.se/342 )
Found a bookmark that provides another author – Jennifer Block – and an article published in BMJ in February 2023, that consolidates the information I had regarding WPATH, AAP and the Endocrine Society.
It may be an easier read – more cohesive and informative:
https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382
Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement
@arkie
Yes. I know Leor Sapir has critics just as Jack Turban does.
So I read ALL I can of Jack Turban and Leor Sapir, and Jesse Singal and Tordoff et al etc, and I try to determine whether what is being said is justified.
Did you consider that the points made in the articles are completely unjustified?
Arkie are you able to please let me know what the objections are to helping a child with gender dysphoria and the often accompanying mental health problems, with the concepts behind 'first do no harm' and watchful waiting?
Weka set out some of the issues that often sit alongside gender dysphoria
ie ‘ (mental health/depression, sexual abuse, autism, being lesbian in a homophobic environment, being a girl in a misogynistic environment etc)’.
What are the reasons why these concepts plus intensive counselling would not help a child?
Why is there the rush to treat with horrible chemicals or equally horrible surgery on sexual organs? From what I have read it is not easy for a reversal to take place that returns a body to what it was before.
It all just seems so cruel and unnecessary to rob a child of their childhood, granted pre puberty/puberty are often hard times but shouldn't the focus be to come through this challenging time, with help aplenty and then see if the landscape is the same in 5 years?
I know children's views change over 3, 5 10 years. I mean as a 4 year old I told my father I was planning to always carry a gun in my purse, but this never lasted, I was given a small broken cap gun that I was told would be useful.
I was a tomboy, strong and tall for my age …..It would just horrify me to think that my parents might be complicit in something that could have very sad effects. Why would parents not be attracted to the concept of watchful waiting plus counselling?
It just seems that children are not the best judge of what the best is for them and that's one of the reasons that they are looked after while young in societies and why parenting is so important to guide, discuss etc.
I did link to an interview by Jordan Petersen with Chloe who has detransitioned. She seemed to be saying she had no concept of what growing up might entail, what the chemicals might do and felt she was too young to consent.
Molly,
You might find this rabbit hole interesting:
https://vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id=14355
In some respects I see Vitamin D as a proxy for something that lies in plain sight, yet overlooked almost all of the time – that many modern chronic mal-adaptions of our biology have a root cause in the fact of us now living for several generations almost exclusively indoors.
The relative paucity of UV-B and Near-IR exposure, the lack of thermal challenge to our bodies, reduced exercise and increased exposure to airborne pathogens are all unwelcome consequences of our modern lifestyle. Yes it is more comfortable inside, but it may well come with a cost we are only just beginning to count.
Dammit, RedLogix.
I already have a veritable Watership Down of rabbitholes to keep track of…., however, that link is interesting – so, thank you.
I agree our evolutionary adaption processes may have been left behind in the wake of our technological advances that have resulted in our mostly sedentary and indoor modern lives.
When I was looking into various impairments to learning and children's behaviour a (long) while ago, one of the aspects of many of those with autism was a restricted diet. Autistic children often limited their food intake to those they found acceptable. There were a couple of studies on the digestive system of autistic children that found that either their diet was too restrictive, or their ability to metabolise nutrients was different, or the system of metabolism itself was impaired.
So they were often nutritionally deficient.
Anyway, I'll go off and explore the link further.
A lot of interesting avenues to travel along in that warren of studies.
I think Molly means affirmation only approaches (maybe she can clarify). Affirmation only means prioritising affirmation of the new gender above all else, including sometimes ignoring issues that sit alongside gender dysphoria (mental health/depression, sexual abuse, autism, being lesbian in a homophobic environment, being a girl in a misogynistic environment etc).
The key in that is that the usual support and treatments are replaced by affirmation, instead of the usual supports and treatments being the default and then if needed looking at transition.
If you would like to understand this better, including which kids do well from affirmation and which don't, I highly recommend following #detrans on twitter. There are many first hand accounts of people who transitioned in their teens via the affirmation only model and later realised it was mistake. They talk about the treatment they weren't offered that they needed.
Here is another interview from Dr Jordan Peterson with Dr Miriam Grossman who is concerned at the pressures put on parents when a child feels they want to transition.
In answer to your question Arkie, Gender Exploratory Therapy. I will try and find a link.
You see, you and I are talking about rather different issues, or topics rather, which you still don’t seem to realise. Why not? Although you came close when you mentioned the robust debate I seek.
Do you like to be called ignorant, ridiculed, or dismissed? Yet this is what a few others and you are doing, sometimes in a subtle way, sometimes rather blunt bordering on rude & condescending. As you have done again in this reply – it is a good example of the typical passive-aggressive replies.
People treat others the way they treat them. I could go on, but it doesn’t seem to make any difference because my comments will meet a wall of rejection and deflection.
Why do others and you always revert back to the same groove in these threads?
Please don’t try and pull me into your narrative and divert away to your issue of interest. It only confirms that you are conflating the two issues and only want to talk about yours.
After reading your comment, all I can see is yet another long admonishment, and nothing offered to discuss.
If you feel ignorant, ridiculous and/or dismissed – it it up to you to determine whether you are. You might be one of the first two, and/or the dismissal might be real. I haven't seen many accusations of ignorance or ridiculous being offered, though I have seen repeated avoidance of addressing points made multiple times by various people, and make the assumption that has to be deliberate. Could be wrong.
Anyway, did you have anything you wanted to discuss? Or is that not the purpose here?
Good points Molly.
Berating adults and avoidance of the issues is not the way to foster debate and interest in topics.
Of late the personal anti factor against us on these issues seems to be hyped up as well. I am to refrain from raising concerns by email so I will leave just one thought/concern. Meant carefully and caringly. And in the spirit of as my dad would say 'we've given up shooting people for expressiing a view/thought/care'. So here goes…..
A boss, my next door neighbour and my Dad showed uncharacteristic grumpiness, impatience and less of an ability to see the point of another in the weeks before they had serious heart failure. Illness and particularly heart related illness can have grumpiness as a precursor. My dad said he could feel being impatient, hated it but said it seemed to be what it was.
I have friends in nursing, so I know your anecdote holds truth.
My thoughts on this impasse are fairly straightforward – when you start looking into the impacts past the #BeKind exhortations, then you often really want to have discussions around the issues you find concerning.
If you have decided to #BeKind or have friends or family that you love that you feel need to be protected, ANY discussion around gender ideology is to be suppressed and avoided.
As that suppression takes place in various ways, the discussion seekers – try various ways to open dialogue.
The discussion suppressors – increase their efforts as well.
It depends on how much energy exists in the individuals in either of those groups on whether full, open discussion takes place at any one time.
Thank you Molly.
Yes aside from a possible ill health manifestation then another reason for avoidance is the family situation.
Perhaps it was the 1970/80s 'assertiveness training' I had as a woman but one point was that if you do not want to discuss a topic or have boundaries within a topic then the responsibility to set your boundaries & to communicate them lies with you yourself.
For women it was to give them power to own a decision.
I see nothing wrong with making personal uncomfortableness being owned by oneself and not foisted on unsuspecting others who don't have the boundaries and just want to discuss things.
At work I saw a few instances where this worked very well and that people making comments would either not say them out out respect, or frame them by saying 'I know people may be offended by this reference, it is relevant……'
Wholesale grumpiness and pushing back without a reason as we seem to be experiencing puts whatever uneasiness on us instead of the actual person who is uneasy. Hence we face a 'walking on egg shells' approach not knowing when or why we are going to offend.
I am being very careful but the idea of a response of the kind I have been getting has a chilling effect. I am trying to limit my time on TS as a result.
For instance it was only when I saw that you and Visubversa had commented on the article that I decided to comment. Up until then I felt diffidence in coming forward to comment.
I will get onto Twitter.
@Shanreagh.
That's interesting.
I just figure that on this platform we're adults who choose to engage in robust debate – or not.
I prefer to exchange with those who along with disagreement offer insights or information, but do enjoy reading the back and forth of those skilled at other forms of contributions.
My mood and thoughts were pretty dark for 3 or 4 weeks after getting Covid.
Probably a general effect of cardiovascular stress
I was not talking about or referring to myself, but thank you for your concern.
Yes, you are wrong – alleged ignorance has been weaponised in debate as the definitive put down of others, sometimes accompanied by sage advice of listening to those who know best here. [no sarc tag]
As expected, I hit the wall of rejection and deflection – my purpose & intention bounced right off you, again.
Still, I see some change & improvement in the discourse here over the last couple of days, so perhaps all this effort has been worth it after all – I sincerely hope so and would like to move back into the background.
What/who is this in response to please……you don't quote the posters you are replying to or use @.
is it this?
Incognito…
19 April 2023 at 11:57 pm
When a thread gets so long that the comments no longer have numbers these tips are helpful.
For instance this seems not to have a context in either Molly’s or my comments in response to your points, at least I cannot see where we have raised it?
‘Yes, you are wrong – alleged ignorance has been weaponised in debate as the definitive put down of others,”
Response was to this: https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-19-04-2023/#comment-1946392.
I'm guessing that Hoban is unfamiliar with how the word hysteria has been used against women historically. This makes sense given he seems almost wholly ignorant of the conflict between women's sex based rights and gender ideology.
However ignorance is no excuse for dismissal of politics that keep women safe. All that is required is listening to women and putting some effort into understanding GC politics. Pity we don’t have an event where he could hear what women have to say 🤔 Or he could just go and ask the myriad of GC women to explain it to him.
I’m guessing the h-word was deliberate.
The theology student was not preaching to the converted nor did he want to convert any over to his ideological position. He offered his opinion for consideration and discussion, not instant dismissal.
Drawing parallels and providing a different context and PoV are not welcome, obviously, and diminished at the first suggestion of incomplete understanding and/or adherence to a certain group-think.
If he wanted it to be considered he probably shouldn't have written women out then 🤷♀️
As I said, I would have found the purity angle interesting if the whole piece hadn't been problematic from the start. This isn't about group think, it's about women being really sick of the misrepresentation of the issues in the context of No Debate. Writing women out of the issues in that context is always going to get push back. I'm not sure it's possible to talk about the purity frame if women are not part of the analysis.
This is the issue that others and I have been talking about here for some time and some have for years (with disappointing outcomes that still linger & fester).
I have no idea whether you truly accuse the theology student of ‘writing out women’ in his Opinion piece, but it would be misunderstanding (and mischaracterisation) of the place & role of Opinion pieces in MSM. My take is that the author wished to be considered by anybody who was willing to consider his opinion.
If you want to define & control the rules of your debate, you may want to consider a dedicated (daily?) Post with stricter rules than provided on TS by the standard Policy. The current way ain’t fit for your purpose, IMO, because it leaves too little wriggle room for diverging views & opinions.
What is the issue? You haven't actually said. I'm pretty sure you are not saying that the issue is "I'm not sure it's possible to talk about the purity frame if women are not part of the analysis.", so what is it? Spell it out.
Then just ask.
I'm sure he does. But his framing eliminates women from the issue, when it's women that are at the centre of it. This is common in two ways in the gender/sex wars. It's done deliberately by TRAs, who try and frame the war as being far right against queers. It's also done by people who are relatively ignorant of the issues and how they impact on women.
There is nothing on the piece that includes women's concerns about our sex based rights. He references someone saying that single sex toilet concerns are based in distorted puritanical beliefs about bodies and sex, and makes. no mention whatsoever that we have single sex toilets for women because women fought to have them so they could take part of society.
The only other reference to women is where he asks why Nazis are attracted to the LWS, as if women haven't been explaining this for the past month. Nazis might have ideas about purity, but that's nothing to do with women.
If he wanted his frameworks to be understood (and like I said, the purity angle is interesting), then there needs to be some connection to how the politics are in the real world.
I'm not the one that has the problem with the debate here. You put up a short comment, and link to a problematic piece, and not a lot of explanation, but included a quote using the term hysteria. Women have responded with their thoughts and now you are complaining about them not responding the way you wanted them to. Sounds like you are the one that doesn't like how debate goes here. And that's fine, sometimes it doesn't go the way we want. But I'm not trying to control the rules here, I'm making my arguments exactly how we've always done it.
Make your own argument Incognito. Explain why you think the purity and theology angles are important, and relate to things that we've been discussing here on TS.
Why do you think that knowing that the word has been used over the centuries and notably by the so-called fathers of modern psychiatry to 'explain' many concerns of women?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480686/
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history-quackery/history-hysteria
'Throughout history hysteria has been a sex-selective disorder, affecting only those of us with a uterus'.
and
'In essence, Freud believed that women experienced hysteria because they were unable to reconcile the loss of their (metaphoric) penis. With this in mind, Freud described hysteria as ‘characteristically feminine’, and recommended basically what every other man treating hysteria had through the years- get married and have sex'.
Why would anyone positing a way through by seeking rapproachment write such an article that includes incorrect facts and smears.
Even if it is for the good, speaking from a position of ignorance does little to enthuse others. It is as if speaking to him and others like him, we might 'see the sense' and 'oh sorry, we got it wrong about women's safe spaces.'
He is just in the vernacular, 'slagging off'. He differs from many of those in the crowd of 2000 wanting to crush the women wanting to talk about womens issues on 25/3 by being published.
The more I have reflected overnight the more I feel that how did this commentator get so far through this life without being aware of womens issues from the vote in NZ, UK suffragettes, to the abortion debates of the 1970s, through to the concern about systemic sexism in the 80s,90s etc. How has he been so blind that these events of current affairs or recent history have zoomed over him?
* Still a common approach by some medical people
Stuff and nonsense. It’s a bad faith clickbait piece crafted to drive engagement not to shed light on the substantial issues in the debate. You can tell the author is dishonest when he starts off with a straw man, making a list of assorted fringe groups, but no mention of one particular group: Women. Nor does he show any awareness of serious academics like Emma Hilton, Kathleen Stock, Jane Clare Jones, Colin Wright, Holly Lawford-Smith and many others who critically examine every aspect of the new gender movement.
But since his background appears to be in theology, let me make my own theological observations. Sex is an objective biological reality. Humans are inseperable from their bodies – we are not brains in a jar. Human psychology is a complex phenoimeon and equally culture and religion have an insight into a spiritual world. This may be labelled as the collective unconscious, the shadow self, the id, ego, soul or whatever.
A fundamental error made by the gender movement is that the soul is separate from the body – this arises from too much time online and loo little time “touching grass”. Another is that we have to believe people are who they say they are. This is an open door for abuse. Another concering aspect of human nature that the gender movement denies is that their own side is capable of error or malevolent motives. They are all too willing to accuse others of awful crimes but prefer an airbrished version of reality for their own side.
It’s next to impossible to debate people who are in such basic denial of reality. The gender movement is akin to a new religion in that way. Its most obnoxious advocates are not interested in discussion or consideration of others point of view. There is a dangerous trend of escalating violence and cancellation of academics and feminists. And the NZ media is all singing from the same song sheet. Not everyone critical of the government is a conspiracy theory cooker. Framing legitimate dissent as fascism is a failure of journalism that does not serve to inform the public, only stirs up mobs.
like, wtf.
https://twitter.com/riley_gaines_/status/1644206766165737472?s=61&t=4nyjBVbo16PbRZPJZdlgag
https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1644279982443601921?s=61&t=4nyjBVbo16PbRZPJZdlgag
Thanks Roblogic.
Just extraordinary to me that the womens rights activists get accused of hysteria and violence without any evidence.I don't see lesbians or feminists picketing trans jamborees with placards saying kill a trans, or yelling and screaming and shutting down trans speakers, or holding them hostage , or pelting them with food items.
We have become so divorced from nature and disembodied that now we imagine we can change sex by sheer belief.(The magical thinking required by those transwomen who swear they are having their period is a trifle scary.How did we get so insane?
Thanks again for your post
It's an issue that touches a few family members and friends directly. Kids with autism and other undiagnosed issues are being transed and choosing to avoid the difficulties associated with female puberty. I can't imagine how crazy it is for young women these days, all the most toxic stereotypes are on blast via TikTok. It's a generation experiencing unprecedented levels of mental illness. Social media is uniquely isolating and kids share a bizarro superficial fantasy world that is purely about image and groovy beliefs.
And on that note a 20 year old male will appear in court tomorrow charged with assaulting a 70 year old women who was part of the Let Women Speak Event
Well, there goes another wishful-thinking urban myth.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131801260/number-of-investment-properties-selling-plummets-up-to-83
No sell-off because they just raise the rent.
An unintended consequence, what a surprise!
They can only do this once every 12 months, and it is pseudo-uncapped.
I'm crediting or blaming the brightline rule
https://www.ird.govt.nz/property/buying-and-selling-residential-property/the-brightline-property-rule
John Key was a ‘shuffler’, Judith Collins a ‘crusher’, and Chris Luxon is a ‘hustler’. Another day, another breeze of hot halitosis air from the National Leader. He’s flapping, he’s floundering, he’s flatulating, so what’s got the poor man to do to get a lift in the polls, a rocket?
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/get-ready-for-the-luxon-hustle
The National Party tactic is that they don’t need to present answers or solutions, just a perception of having them ready when the time comes and knowing what they’re doing when it matters, i.e., fake it until you make it. It will be an absolute shambles, of course, but it will have been 6 years and the voters have plenty to moan about. Falling house prices, rising CoL, and major wedge issues will seal the deal. I’d better start reading up on the ACT policies.
Yep, the upcoming six months of tough times will make it hard for Labour at election time.
Wedge issues won't help either.
Misinformation by mainstream media such as Stuff's opinion on our massive trade deficit ignores the cause and is basically National Party propaganda the cost of Oil imports isn't mentioned once in what is effectively a free election advertising for National. The Cost of Oil imports is up by $1.2 billion dollars per month over last year which no doubt is up on previous years. We need to reduce oil use.Stuff says we need to stop red tape in farming ie pollution enviromental degradation,Safety,Labour exploitation{slavery}.Stuff need to be called out on their fact free articles!
Yesterday you told me
"Oh dear, you never seem to get my jokes. If you’d read my comment properly you’d have realised that nothing made sense what I wrote.".
Now I understand what you mean. I have carefully read this comment, studied what you said yesterday about how to recognize your humourous remarks and it is quite obvious that you mean this as a joke. It fits your description perfectly. All is now clear.
Halitosis is no joke!
Labour's Nash lobbying and the National/Act faux outrage.
It may have been discussed here previously.
The conservative parties in the world are totally beholden to their lobbyists. Big business, farming etc. I would venture to suggest that the current opposition caucuses spend most of their non-parliamentary time being conferenced, wined, dined or entertained by one or more of their donor sectors. And they formulate policy to match the everyday conversations and lobbying they have. Even when they venture to the sporting clubs (golf/rugby/bridge etc) you can bet what conversations they will be having.