Open mike 21/04/2025

Written By: - Date published: 9:41 am, April 21st, 2025 - 55 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 …

55 comments on “Open mike 21/04/2025 ”

  1. Visubversa 1
    21 April 2025 at 10:59 am

    Nothing says this that this is a "Men's Wants" movement louder than this. The howls of male rage at being told "NO" have been in full display since the UK Supreme Court decision earlier in the week.

    May be an image of 6 people, crowd and text

    Reply
    • Nic the NZer 1.1
      21 April 2025 at 1:50 pm

      Bad luck to that mysoginist. The implication of hangman is the player gets hung for failing to guess correctly isn't it?

      Reply
  2. tWig 2
    21 April 2025 at 12:18 pm

    Didn't look that way to me, based on ITV's report of Saturday's protests across the UK.

    ‘Avery Greatorex, co-chair of Pride in Labour, told the PA news agency: “All across the country there are really scared trans people, and this ruling almost gives transphobic organisations permission to go even further, because they’ve got a legal precedent to do so.

    “There isn’t really much of a choice but to keep acting and to keep protesting, so it is very possible that this does not stop until the community has the protections it needs.” ‘

    Reply
    • weka 2.1
      21 April 2025 at 12:30 pm

      sure, there's usually a rationale for making threats to women to kill or rape them.

      The thing that stands out is the lack of condemnation of those signs (plural) from liberals and Labour MPs. It's been the same in NZ, and pretty much everywhere. It's not like condemnation would even be agreement with GC positions, but the absence of it is a clear message to women: it's ok to hate women who disagree with you.

      Which is frankly weird. It wouldn't be tolerated in any other situation.

      Reply
    • weka 2.2
      21 April 2025 at 12:37 pm

      All across the country there are really scared trans people, and this ruling almost gives transphobic organisations permission to go even further, because they’ve got a legal precedent to do so.

      I do think there is good reason for people to stop and consider what trans rights are and how they might be protected. Not because women want to remove them, but because those organisations spent years taking inaccurate and prejudicial advice from the likes of Stonewall, and now they're confused about how to actually do their job.

      The EHRC will issue guidance, as will lawyers. The block is that the TWAW crowd aren't so much concerned with trans people having teh same rights as everyone else, as they are with forcing society to abandon sex realism. The judgement goes into a lot of detail about why this is a bad idea, including pointing out that if TWAW there's no such thing as lesbians (my paraphrasing).

      If trans activists want societal acceptance, they can no longer do it at the expense of women. The other option is to work with society just like the rest of us have, to make changes in law and policy.

      For instance, if you want to remove protections for women on the basis of sex from HR laws, go for. Make the case, explain to the public clearly why this is a good idea, and do due process on bringing everyone along. This is of course what Stonewall UK tried to do, without the bits about clear explanations and due process and bringing everyone along. Which is exactly why the UK is in the situation it is in this week, and why support for trans activism is on the decline.

      Reply
      • weka 2.2.1
        21 April 2025 at 12:40 pm

        and the UK SC made a clear and early point that trans people are still protected under the EA on the basis of gender reassignment.

        Reply
      • tWig 2.2.2
        21 April 2025 at 3:28 pm

        The UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is to set the 'guidelines', has political appointments at its head. After the last appointments by the tory government, seven of EHRC most senior staff in 2023 resigned in protest at the covert anti-trans agenda, way before this Supreme Court hearing.

        '[In 2023], VICE World News also first exposed concerns that the EHRC seemed to be working against transgender people’s rights. Leaked messages showed that the watchdog’s leaders had been having meetings with openly gender-critical leaders of controversial groups; staff told us that they were quitting because of “transphobic” management decisions; and we uncovered guidance supporting trans young people which was dropped by EHRC bosses. '

        According to an unnamed staffer, “There has been no effort made to look for evidence on any actual real-life issues in relation to the policy of rights between (cis) women and trans people. And it just seems to be a case of going full-steam ahead without considering any evidence, and I think the commission is inflaming a culture war.”

        Reply
        • weka 2.2.2.1
          21 April 2025 at 4:58 pm

          Not sure what’s your point is. Obviously TRAs will be against someone who wants to protect women’s rights even in the EHRC. And?

          If the unnamed staffer doesn’t understand women’s rights and how they are impacted on by gender identity ideology then they probably shouldn’t be working at the EHRC should they.

          Meanwhile, the Supreme Court did in fact understand the impacts on women’s rights and have just written a very long and detailed and clear ruling on that. Have you read the sections on the impacts on lesbians? What did you think of that?

          Reply
    • Muttonbird 2.3
      21 April 2025 at 1:09 pm

      It means that trans women cannot use single-sex female toilets, changing rooms or compete in women's sports, according to the head of Britain's equalities watchdog.

      Remarkable, and dehumanising.

      Avery Greatorex, co-chair of Pride in Labour, told the PA news agency, “Not a single trans person or trans organisation was represented in that case, and so we weren’t given an opportunity to have a seat at the table, which is obviously a very concerning thing for our community when decisions are being made without us.

      As it ever was. The well funded and powerful have access to and use the law to ignore and marginalise vulnerable minorities.

      Reply
      • weka 2.3.1
        21 April 2025 at 1:12 pm

        thing I'm curious about is the compassion for trans women, but not women.

        Reply
        • Grey Area 2.3.1.1
          21 April 2025 at 1:40 pm

          Exactly. Leads me to wonder if misogyny only applies to biological women, not trans women?

          Reply
          • weka 2.3.1.1.1
            21 April 2025 at 1:50 pm

            I think it's a range of dynamics. Some men are happy now that they can marginalise or outright hate women, GI gives them the excuse. With other people, it's that society is so used to women budging up and being support animals for everyone else that we are taken for granted. For some, it's that they've not had to think it through. And I do think the whole Karen/hating on white women thing is part of it, women should get in our place now.

            Meanwhile, in the TRA and TA protests,

            In the last 48 hrs trans activists have..

            Issued death threats to women

            Defaced numerous statues, incl Suffragettes

            Held placards wishing death on JK Rowling and ‘TERFS’

            Threatened to piss & shit everywhere

            Threatened to break the law over single sex spaces

            If this was a group of right wing activists, it would be headlines, it would be the rise of the ‘far right’

            Because it’s the trans mob, near silence.

            VERY TELLING

            https://x.com/EssexPR/status/1914007480759460163

            That's from a conservative media commentator, no idea on his politics generally other than that he works for GB News. This alone will mean that some people will just write off his point, because the point itself cannot be borne. But women can see the writing off as further confirmation that it's ok to hate women you disagree with. If that wasn't the underlying ethos, there would be coherent responses to the actual point (apart from the fact that it's hard to make a political argument for literally shitting on women and threatening to kill them).

            Reply
      • Karolyn_IS 2.3.2
        21 April 2025 at 1:50 pm

        Actually, the trans lobby is far more powerful and well-funded than the women's sex-based rights campaigners. Stonewall UK, for instance, has a big budget and has been getting funding from the likes of US Aid, as became clear when Trump ordered US Aid to be stopped.

        In the UK and NZ trans organisations like Gender Minorities Aotearoa get funds from the International Transfund, which in turn is funded by the likes of billionaire Jon Stryker's Arcus Foundation. In the UK and NZ such trans organisations also get public funding.

        For Women Scot that brought the case all the way up to the UK Supreme Court was/is funded by individual crowd funding contributions. The trans lobby in Scotland and the UK generally has had support from major political parties, including the SNP and front benchers in the current UK Labour cabinet.

        A lot of the mainstream media in the UK and NZ, has been continually giving positive, and often over-glossy, coverage to the trans lobby, while women's sex-based rights campaigners either get ignored, marginalised or demonised by the mainstream media.

        Most usually Supreme Court cases in the UK get interventions from organsations not individuals. 2 Trans individuals applied to intervene in this case and were rejected, presumably because they had nothing to say that wasn't already before the court. No trans organisations, including Stonewall, applied to intervene in this case. Amnesty International, which has long been a strong supporter of the trans lobby, did intervene ie got to have their say to the court.

        The international trans lobby has been, and is, way more powerful than women and women's groups who have been standing up for women's sex-based rights and provisions.

        Reply
        • weka 2.3.2.1
          21 April 2025 at 1:54 pm

          good summary, this is my understanding too. I would add that JKR donated to FWS, but I think it's true that mostly they fund raised.

          Reply
          • Karolyn_IS 2.3.2.1.1
            21 April 2025 at 2:03 pm

            Probably JKR was one of the individual contributeors. She says she donated 70,000 GBP to FWS, which I understand was a third, or less than a third of the money contributed. However, one millionaire, does not have the same wealth and power of US-billionaire backed organisations.

            Reply
        • tWig 2.3.2.2
          21 April 2025 at 3:36 pm

          Invert your last statement to read : The international anti-trans and the relatively small GC 'feminist' lobby (Rowling funded the UK Supreme Court appeal with £250k, while Musk spent $US250mi in anti-trans messaging in the US elections; more than 1,000 anri-trans articles in the UK media in the last year) has been, and is, way more powerful than trans groups and non-GC feminist women's groups who have been standing up for hard-won trans-based rights and provisions.

          THAT is far closer to the truth.

          Reply
          • Visubversa 2.3.2.2.1
            21 April 2025 at 4:06 pm

            That which is provided without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Biology is not bigotry.

            Reply
            • tWig 2.3.2.2.1.1
              21 April 2025 at 5:06 pm

              Perhaps then you can provide actual evidence of eg trans women being a danger in womens' toilets, VV?

              All the evidence says otherwise.

              Reply
              • weka …
                21 April 2025 at 5:28 pm

                The case for women spaces rests, not only on safety, but privacy and dignity. For instance, some religions don’t allow women to undress in front of men. Women who have been raped, have obvious needs to not be counselled by males, or be in support groups with males. Lesbians likewise have an obvious need for dating apps that don’t include males. The examples are endless and they uphold the very good reasons for why we have exemptions in human rights law is based on women’s needs for privacy and dignity and safety.

                On the safety issue, there are two things. One is that there is no evidence that trans-women have significantly less male pattern violence as a group than other males. Two, since self ID, it’s impossible to know which men are trans-women, and which aren’t. If you still think that trans-women are fully transitioned medically and surgically, you really are missing a major part of the picture. Most trans-women don’t have surgery there are increasing numbers of trans-women who make little attempt to pass. And of course, there are men now who will say that they are women because it suits their agenda. That’s a safeguarding issue.

                Reply
                • tWig …
                  22 April 2025 at 3:26 pm

                  So, no actual evidence, huh, except feeling that one doesn't ‘feel safe’ around trans women. Perhaps one feels similarly unsafe when Māori women use the toilets alongside you. Then that feeling is OK too. Your assertion that trans women show the same pattern of violence as non-trans men? Any evidence for that?

                  Reply
                  • weka …
                    22 April 2025 at 6:02 pm

                    it's not that there is no evidence or ground to the concerns, it's that I'm reluctant to use my own time making up for the shortfall in your knowledge, which as far as I can tell arises from willful ignorance. You rely on pro-TRA media who have an intentional policy of No Debate, so you miss the evidence.

                    Are you suggesting that Māori women have male pattern violence and women should be have similar concerns as they do with men? Would Māori women be afraid of themselves? That doesn't make sense.

                    Reply
                    • Karolyn_IS …
                      22 April 2025 at 8:06 pm

                      I'd add these points to what Weka has said:

                      Males, however they identify, whatever surgeries they've had and hormones taken, remain stronger than women. With males in enclosed & intimate spaces that can be very intimidating and in some contexts, scary for women.

                      As a woman a bit under 5 ft 2", being in enclosed spaces with males can be pretty intimidating and sometimes scary, even though I've always tended to be a bit stronger than the average women. I'm no match against males.

                      Women will tend to avoid such spaces if they're not seen to be safe.

                      With self ID any man can declare himself a woman, non-binary, or gender fluid without any surgery, opposite sex hormones, or cross dressing. Trans lobbyists expect all those males to be able to access women's spaces, no questions asked.

                      Once women's spaces are opened to any males, they cease to be women's spaces.

                      The UK law is also not just about safety, but about women's privacy and dignity; privacy and dignity are sufficient conditions for a space to be deemed women only.

                      And basically, the UK law & SC judgement recognises that any system that allows any males who ID as women to enter women's spaces, then the law protecting women's rights and provisions becomes unworkable.

                      It should be the same everywhere, including in NZ.

                      Feminists have long been saying there should be women-only provisions, plus mixed sex provisions when needed by trans IDed people.

                      eg women's sports and an open category rather than a men's category. trans IDed males reject that, and some have said it would invalidate them as 'women'. That does seem to be an underlying reason why some trans IDed males want access to women's spaces – to have their subjective feelings about themselves validated by others.

                  • weka …
                    22 April 2025 at 6:19 pm

                    Re male pattern violence, the starting point isn't evidence that TW are safer than other rmales, but rather from a safeguarding pov, the starting point is looking for evidence that disproves they don't have male pattern violence. The reason for this is because the risk to women is a risk, and there is no good reason to assume that TW are somehow less violent than other males. Unless you have a good reason for that assumption, it looks to me like a cultural myth, that somehow because they are GNC they are less violent.

                    I will also point out that because of the assumption, and No Debate, and the massive amount of social coercion, we don't have a huge amount of research on this. Kind of an own gaol for TRAs.

                    This is a submission from three feminist academics to the UK Parliament's Women and Equalities Committee in 2020. (UK Figures)

                    MOJ stats show 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as penetration with a penis).

                    Here is the number compared with figures for sex offending rates in men and women over the same period.

                    Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners):

                    76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%

                    125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%

                    13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%

                    https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

                    Reply
                    • weka …
                      22 April 2025 at 6:30 pm

                      I can think of reasons for the TW % to be so high. One is that men are now self-IDing as TW, and so that stats are skewed (again, own goal from the selfID promoting crowd). I don't think this would account for the difference between woman and TW rates, and probably not even men and TW rates. But it's probably going to be an increasing issue going forward.

                      Another reason is social issues in teh same way that Māori are overrepresented in crime stats because of colonisation, there are probably similar issues for TW and the kinds of lives they end up leading. But again, I don't think it would account for the large difference.

                      It's also possible that rates are high because of the AGP cohort of TW. I'm speculating here, but it's possible there is a connection between the paraphilia and male violence. Again, research would have helped if it hadn't been suppressed.

                      Women frequently see aggressive reactions from TW online when some TW are told no or are confronted with rejection or arguments they can't handle. It used to take the form of sexualised violence online, until British women MPs took twitter to task and twitter changed its moderation.

                      https://terfisaslur.com/

                      But even in the past week we can see it. The protests in the UK defacing a public suffragette statue is an intentional attack on GC women (who use the suffrage colours) and thus misogynistic. The whole pissing in public thing is very obviously male patterned.

                      At those protest there were the usual placards calling for women to be hung or burnt as witches. This is very common, it's happened in NZ too. I've written about this before,

                      https://thestandard.org.nz/new-misogyny-same-as-the-old-misogyny/

                      "Suck my dick you transphobic cunts" is definitely something women associate with men. You can take the word transphobic out, and it's a rapey threat that women have heard forever from men.

                    • weka …
                      22 April 2025 at 6:36 pm

                      I posted this the other day, but it's worth repeating. What he is describing from observation is what women have been seeing for years. It's clearly male pattern violence, and women don't have to open their spaces to TW on the off chance these one's will somehow stay away. That's ricidulous.

                      In the last 48 hrs trans activists have..

                      Issued death threats to women

                      Defaced numerous statues, incl Suffragettes

                      Held placards wishing death on JK Rowling and ‘TERFS’

                      Threatened to piss & shit everywhere Threatened to break the law over single sex spaces

                      If this was a group of right wing activists, it would be headlines, it would be the rise of the ‘far right’

                      Because it’s the trans mob, near silence.

                      VERY TELLING

                      https://x.com/EssexPR/status/1914007480759460163

                  • Sabine …
                    23 April 2025 at 7:58 am

                    Maori women are women=human females

                    do better

                    be kind

                    don't be a racist twat.

                    Reply
              • Visubversa …
                21 April 2025 at 5:33 pm

                Eh? Since when has truth and biological reality ben "un-human"? People are welcome to live "a different way" but that does not mean that they can assume rights and protections that are not theirs.

                The UK Supreme Court made it clear that trans identified people who are going through the process of gaining, or who have gained a Gender Recognition Certificate are protected by that process under the law.

                Why are you shilling for an ideology that demands that men's crimes are recorded as women's crimes, that men be admitted to any and every women's service, sport, shelter, rape crisis centre, changing room etc? Just by opening their mouth and uttering the magical incantation "I identify as"?

                Reply
              • Karolyn_IS …
                21 April 2025 at 5:52 pm

                The bathroom studies linked to tend to focus on trans IDed people's self reporting. There's not a lot of research mentioned there of responses of females to trans IDed males in their restrooms or other spaces.

                That link shows some legitimate concerns by trans lobby groups with respect to the Trump govt rules & EOs. What is happening these days is a correction to the over-reach by trans lobbyists that have ignored the concerns of a large number of women and many men. They tend to show a lot of contempt for women's rights and provisions and just assume women's rights and provisions should be there for self IDed males to take.

                There needs to be more focus on how to protect trans IDed males, without infringing on women's rights and needs.

                The Trump regime is going for an over-correction, whereas the UK laws as they stand are sensible. They contain protections against discrimination and harassment for trans IDed people, plus recognise the importance of biological sex and same-sex provisions for women's privacy, dignity and safety.

                In schools, many young women will avoid going to toilets where there are males, which tends to be unhealthy. There are plenty of egs of males with access to female toilets in schools, planting cameras, period shaming etc. It's not just about safety, but female privacy, especially that of young women learning to manage menstruation.

                It also depends on the specific arrangements of the toilets in question.

                Unfortunately single sex provisions tend to get narrowed to issues of toilets by the trans lobby, rather than the whole range of same-sex provisions.

                Women are more at danger of sexual assaults in unisex changing rooms, than single sex ones.

                The link you give focuses only on the danger of trans IDed males in men's prisons. Statistics show that a high proportion of trans IDed inmates in prisons are sex- and violent crime offenders. Having them all in women's prisons would overwhelm the women in numbers, given there are far fewer women in prison. Also, there are reports in US & UK prisons of women being assaulted and harassed in prisons by trans IDed males.

                It's not for female inmates to provide a shield for trans IDed inmates where the women are then put at risk.

                Violent and sexual crimes are largely committed by males. Allowing any male who self IDs into women's intimate spaces puts women at risk given they are no more or less likely to assault, harass or invade women's privacy and dignity than other males.

                Whatever the risks to trans IDed males in men's spaces, that is not a problem for women to resolve by giving up their safety, dignity and privacy. It's a male problem.

                Reply
          • weka 2.3.2.2.2
            21 April 2025 at 5:02 pm

            Where does the $250,000 figure come from?

            This article confirms what Karolyn said that it was a $70,000 donation.

            https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/18/jk-rowling-harry-potter-gender-critical-campaigner

            Reply
            • weka 2.3.2.2.2.1
              21 April 2025 at 5:03 pm

              GBP, which is around $90,000 USD

              Reply
              • Muttonbird …
                21 April 2025 at 5:42 pm

                GB£70000 = NZ$155000. Not an insignificant donation to a court case.

                Reply
                • weka …
                  21 April 2025 at 6:10 pm

                  it's very generous and I'm sure she could afford it. Twig's figures seem out by quite a long way.

                  But it's still not a large amount compared to what orgs like Stonewall have access to. Stonewall's income last year was 7,000,000 GBP

                  The GCF movement doesn't have the kind of funds that twig is implying.

                  Reply
                  • Muttonbird …
                    21 April 2025 at 6:31 pm

                    I had a look at Stonewall (the charity) for the first time in any depth. I was surprised to find it's a longstanding advocacy group concerned with LGBT rights since 1989.

                    Named after the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City, Stonewall was formed in 1989 by political activists and others campaigning against Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, including Ian McKellen, Lisa Power, and Michael Cashman. Stonewall diversified into policy development after Labour came to power in 1997, a period which saw successful campaigns to: repeal Section 28, end the ban on LGBT people in the armed forces, equalise the age of consent, extend adoption and IVF rights to same-sex couples, and introduce civil partnerships.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_(charity)

                    It's only recently in their attempts to protect and advocate for inclusion and diversity for all in the LGBT community they have come under sustained attack from GC entities, and are now largely painted by them as transgender activists only.

                    I erased all the links in the Wikipedia article because too many links causes issues, but I left Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 because it was a piece of legislation which the current NZ government is mirroring right now:

                    Section 28 refers to a part of the Local Government Act 1988, which stated that local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”. It is sometimes referred to as Clause 28, or as Section 2A in reference to the relevant Scottish legislation.

                    The legislation came into effect during Margaret Thatcher’s premiership on 24 May 1988. It caused many organisations, such as LGBT student support groups to either close, limit their activities or to self-censor. In addition, Section 28 had a widespread impact on schools across the United Kingdom. This was due to uncertainty around what constituted the “promotion” of homosexuality, leading many teachers to avoid discussing the topic in any educational context.

                    History repeats.

                    Reply
        • Muttonbird 2.3.2.3
          21 April 2025 at 5:40 pm

          Given you have provided no links in your comment @ 2.3.2, I'm on fairly solid ground doing the same:

          The three parties in our coalition government all received far more funding from a large, wealthy, conservative subscriber base than opposition parties and possibly with the exception of ACT have rolled out significant anti-gender policy and rhetoric:

          Casey Costello is writing to public agencies to remove gender acknowledging speech and terms.

          And Erica Stanford is presiding over the removal of gender acknowledgement from the school sex-ed curriculum.

          This is actually how big money sets policy, by funding and encouraging individuals within political parties who have sometimes highly conservative and discriminatory views.

          Reply
          • weka 2.3.2.3.1
            21 April 2025 at 6:13 pm

            right. So in NZ we have relatively well funded TRA lobbies, even more well funded RW lobbies and political parties, and left wing/centrist GC groups with moderate funding, and GCFs with fuck all funding.

            Reply
            • Tabletennis 2.3.2.3.1.1
              21 April 2025 at 8:20 pm

              "On the Well funded TRA lobbies":

              "Little has altered. In fact further investigation reveals that the rainbow industrial complex is going nowhere thanks to the existence of an organisation called The Rainbow Wellbeing Legacy Fund (RWLF). The Fund was founded in 2019 through a $1million endowment from the government in recognition of the men convicted for consensual homosexual sex pre-1986."

              Public money kept on pouring in such that it has a $4+ million dollar capital base:

              "In 2023 up to $400,000 in grants was distributed to the rainbow community. All the gender crime organisations were rewarded. That year InsideOUT and Rainbow Youth received $80,000. Others like PATHA (the Professional Association of Transgender Health Aotearoa), Gender Minorities Aotearoa, Outline and the Human Rights Commission also benefited from the fund. As did a group called Utu-Ā-Matimati: Five Finger Discount Zine, described as “a nationwide, decolonial, artist-infused magazine by and for tangata takatāpui, embodying takatāpuitanga within Māoritanga.” They got $50,000."

              https://yvonnevandongen.substack.com/p/the-great-rainbow-heist?r=24091f&triedRedirect=true

              Reply
              • Karolyn_IS …
                21 April 2025 at 8:56 pm

                Yes. And you can see how the likes of Gender Minorities Aotearoa gets funding from not just the Rainbow Wellbeing Legacy Fund, but a load of other places including Tindall Foundation, Absolutely Postively Wellington, Rule Foundation, JR McKenzie Trust and more. Scroll down to the bottom of the page.

                A lot of these well funded organisations also influence policy by having a place at the top tables. PATHA has designed the Health NZ Guidelines on puberty blockers, for instance. They had key roles in the last Labour-led govt eg Shaneel Lal advising on education policy.

                It is the Labour and Green parties in NZ that strongly promote the trans lobbyists demands. National and ACT tend to support the laws they promote, while it is just NZ First that has opposition to some of the trans lobby agenda.

                Reply
              • Muttonbird …
                21 April 2025 at 9:00 pm

                What's a gender crime organisation? This seems like an alarming escalation in rhetoric.

                Reply
          • Tabletennis 2.3.2.3.2
            21 April 2025 at 8:48 pm

            "And Erica Stanford is presiding over the removal of gender acknowledgement from the school sex-ed curriculum."

            Gender is still mentioned not gender idiology or identity:
            the draft has been rewritten , such that children going to school to learn facts about life, not some idiology-

            "there is no longer any mention of Gender identity,
            includes good coverage of sexuality, relationships and consent subject. The reality of the sex binary is reinforced in factual language, "

            Reply
      • Karolyn_IS 2.3.3
        21 April 2025 at 3:26 pm

        How is it dehumanising to acknowledge and inscribe in law that human beings come in 2 immutable sexes? That goes to the heart of what it is to be human.

        This sort of thing is dehumanising women, and it happens way more to women than men as a result of the influence of the trans lobby:

        Cancer Society of NZ on prostate cancer:

        There are 4,000 prostate cancer cases every year, and it is the most common cancer for men in Aotearoa New Zealand.

        Cancer Society of NZ on cervical cancer:

        Cervical cancer is one of the easiest cancers to prevent – as long as the cell changes that cause it are detected early.

        Having routine cervical screening is one of the most important things you can do to prevent or find cervical cancer early.

        People who are aged 25 to 69 years of age and have a cervix (including transgender or non-binary people) and have ever been sexually active should have regular HPV screening, the new test for cervical screening. It looks for the human papillomavirus (HPV), which causes cell changes that may lead to cervical cancer.

        Calling women people with cervixes (when only females have cervixes), and people with prostates, "men" has been all too common in recent years.

        Only males have prostates. When 'gender reassignment surgery' is done on males, the prostate is retained as it is necessary to the health of males. They are not given a uterus or a cervix nor an actual vaginal canal.

        Reply
        • Psych Nurse 2.3.3.1
          21 April 2025 at 4:00 pm

          HPV also causes bowel and oral/throat cancer, the vector being males with prostates. Who is the greater risk to females now?.

          Reply
        • Muttonbird 2.3.3.2
          21 April 2025 at 5:15 pm

          I'd say the heart of being what is human is more than biology alone. It's the way we create, adapt and challenge ourselves and our environment emotionally, spiritually, and physically. That's what separates us from other animals.

          Inscribing in law there are two immutable sexes seems very un-human to me. And it's clearly not true because there is a significant minority who decide to live a different way. That cannot and should not be denied. The GC movement speaks from both sides of their mouths when their words claim transgender people should be free from discrimination, but their actions certainly discriminate.

          I’m not a health professional but I agree there are a few inconsistencies in the Cancer Society pages but the word "women" is mentioned in the cervical cancer link. The language sometimes is a bit clumsy around these matters but I see it as organisations trying to be as dispassionately inclusive and clear as possible, in as few words as possible.

          Reply
      • TeWhareWhero 2.3.4
        21 April 2025 at 7:47 pm

        Re the question of interveners – trans groups had the same opportunity to combine to present written submissions as those supporting the case. As I understand it, two high profile trans individuals (one a former judge) applied to intervene but the applications were denied on technical grounds, eg the judge was no longer resident in the UK. Amnesty International- a well funded and powerful organisation – did intervene with a pro-trans submission.

        Reply
        • Tabletennis 2.3.4.1
          22 April 2025 at 5:05 pm

          “As I understand it, two high profile trans individuals (one a former judge) applied to intervene but the applications were denied."

          Akua Reindorf KC, who is a commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission: comments on the spread of disinformation on this court case.

          "Another claim being made is that the Supreme Court excluded trans voices, because it refused an application to intervene made by two trans individuals. But the Supreme Court does not hear evidence about lived experience; it considers legal arguments. A proposed intervener must show that they can make a distinctive contribution to the legal argument and assist the court with issues that go wider than their personal interest. Thus an individual is never likely to get permission, and it is advisable instead for applications to be made by representative organisations, such as charities or advocacy groups. "

          https://archive.ph/9pyRp

          Reply
  3. Drowsy M. Kram 3
    21 April 2025 at 12:32 pm

    Buy, Consume, Obey! A Cartoon Gallery to Lampoon the Overgrown Consumerist Economy [31 Oct 2024] – "Easter Sale Eggs-travaganza" (don’t miss out!)

    Many people are sold on the idea that more 'stuff' is better, orange safety cones excepted. But almost all of spaceship Earth's passengers are paying a high price for consumerism.

    Government 'wilfully blind' on climate change, specialists say [21 April 2025]
    Kiwi climate specialists said they were “stumped” and “exasperated” about what was needed for the Government – a signatory to the Paris Agreement – to “take the experts seriously”.
    …
    According to the Climate Change Commission, Aotearoa could feasibly achieve 66% reductions without shrinking the economy, with cleaner farming, electricity and transport.

    “If we don’t do it, it will really damage our economy, damage our international reputation, people will stop buying our stuff, and we’ll be pariahs internationally,” Renwick said.
    …
    “That’s the bit that just doesn’t seem to get through, and I really don’t understand why.”

    What I’ve learned after 40 years as the Observer’s science editor
    [13 April 2025]
    Almost as amazing as the knowledge we have gained in the past four decades is the fact that some people continue to deny the damage we are doing to our world

    Strong opposition from some Gore councillors to climate change report
    [21 April 2025]
    “Climate was always changing, and I think agriculture has been sort of nailed as the dirty, dirty deed,” he [Gore district councillor John Gardyne] said.

    Reply
  4. Muttonbird 4
    21 April 2025 at 12:35 pm

    One political extremist claims another political extremist is not a political extremist.

    Crump fluffs Grenon. 'Not us, guv. Our previous views have nothing to do with our future views, we promise'.

    When (ZB Plus) launched in September, Crump exhorted listeners and readers to “join the revolution”.

    ZB Plus was clearly aimed at a market then inhabited by The Platform and Reality Check radio, online talk stations from the right on political and community issues.

    The Platform has a rich-list family as its backer, and Reality Check disappeared off air for a time when its funding ran out, although it has sought donations to keep alive and appears to be intermittently broadcasting.

    ZB Plus was different in that it wanted its audience to pay for Crump and a bevy of commentators’ worldviews, interspersed with news stories from the parent station. Touted commentators included former Act MP Muriel Newman, former National minister Katherine Rich, NZME’s head of business Fran O’Sullivan and former businessman and now podcaster Bruce Cotterill.

    https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/06/26/zb-plus-is-minus-new-content-and-subscriptions/

    (Grenon) was also the company director of The Centrist until August 2023. The news website said its purpose was to present “under-served perspectives”, and challenge mainstream media.

    The Centrist is now owned by fellow Canadian Tameem Barakat. Barakat has featured on right-wing New Zealand social media influencer and conservative activist Chantelle Baker’s Instagram page in 2023, asking members of the public about “the state of New Zealand’s media”.

    The Centrist reported it had been supporting Baker with her legal challenges against NZ media.

    It supported Baker’s defamation complaint against NZ Herald and Kate Hannah of The Disinformation Project, who was quoted in NZ Herald reporting about Baker.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/360601099/who-james-grenon-billionaire-who-spent-9m-stake-nzme

    Reply
  5. tWig 5
    21 April 2025 at 5:15 pm

    Just watched this short report on Thiel's Palantir: The new Deep State. Palentir is involved in "kill-chain"ai targetting by the IDF in Gaza, and wants to "become the operating system of the US government", their own quote. It provides targetting info to ICE, too.

    It is also keen on selling ai decision tools to US health insurance companies and banks. All the better to make you a second class- or ex- citizen.

    Reply
  7. Muttonbird 7
    21 April 2025 at 8:49 pm

    Farrar watch:

    David is becoming increasingly desperate. Presumably as a response to media interest in Hamish Campbell's Two by Two Church, he's reposted a paywalled article from his mate, bucolic conspiratorial lawyer, Liam Hehir, attacking the Labour Party for also apparently being a secretive cult.

    His first piece of evidence is none other than (I assume) Tito Philip Field, it was only 20 years ago after all. Also featuring was Matt McCarten's intern camp (again assume), and the Labour Youth Summer camp – what card carrying nut job could forget that?

    I'm surprised Darren Hughes didn't make their top 5!

    Reply
  8. tWig 8
    21 April 2025 at 9:16 pm

    Pope Francis has died. A reforming pope who stood against companies and nations continuing ecocide, via fossil fuel use, and against wars; who stood up for refugees and the poor and social justice; and who, at last, acknowledged the Catholic hierachy's role in enabling priests who were molesters and sexual abusers of the vulnerable to act with impunity for decades.

    I hope the world doesn’t get a Benedict-style reactionary in his place.

    Reply

Leave a Comment