Open mike 22/01/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, January 22nd, 2025 - 62 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 …

62 comments on “Open mike 22/01/2025 ”

  1. Ad 1

    Of the protest and resistance movements we can continue to put our shoulder to, environment, sustainability and resistance efforts are fully available …

    https://www.dw.com/en/trump-orders-devastating-us-withdrawal-from-the-paris-climate-agreement/a-71354256

    … despite and because the United States has now withdrawn for the second time from the Paris Climate Agreement.

    We don't have to feel defeated.

  2. joe90 2

    Something we shouldn't forget.

    https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:cuowqu3bimpxo4plxd4pg3eh/post/3lg73hvurls2o?

    Implications of the apparent extinction of B/Yamagata-lineage human influenza viruses

    Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the number of influenza viruses circulating globally fell to historically low numbers. Although influenza A and B/Victoria lineage viruses returned to normal patterns by 2022, B/Yamagata-lineage viruses have not been identified since 2020. The implications of the apparent extinction of this lineage of viruses on vaccine composition, and the risk of their re-introduction into the human population are discussed.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-024-01010-y

  3. Bearded Git 3

    It would be good to see Hipkins attacking Trump with all guns blazing for the things he has done on day one.

    For instance:

    Climate change (drill baby drill and axing EV targets, withdrawing from Paris accord)

    Gender Identity (there are only two genders, male and female)

    Rule of Law (pardoning people with sentences as long as 18 years for insurrection)

    World Health Organisation (withdrawing from this largely on the basis of fake news as to how the WHO handled Covid)

    …and so on. So many issues to choose from.

    Go on Chris show some balls.

    • Trump – like many others, confuses sex and gender. In human beings (like all mammals) sex is bi-modal and immutable. We come in only 2 varieties, female or male. Gender OTOH, is a collection of sexist stereotypes and is anything you say it is because there are no scientific tests for it.

      Trump reaped the rewards of the excesses of the Democrats with regards to people like "Rachael" Levine and Sam Brinsden. The Republicans had Riley Gaines touring the swing States telling the truth about how she and other members of her woman's College swim team were bullied and blackmailed into accepting Wil(lia)am Thomas as one of them. While he was taking prizes and scholarships away from these women, he was quite happily demonstrating that he was a man in their shared changing room every day.

      • David 3.1.1

        Until very recently the vast majority of people in the english speaking world used the terms sex and gender interchangeably. Along with the idea that there are only two sexes/genders. What is new are the pendants who now insist otherwise…

        • lprent 3.1.1.1

          You are making a assertion about a social behaviour. But I suspect that you are merely just very limited religious parrot who has never read any history or looked at languages and what they express about gender.

          Try Britannica for some reading on this. "6 Cultures That Recognize More than Two Genders"

          I am kind of irritated by the unsubstantiated assertions of fact on this topic by unread idiots who are merely displaying cultural bigotries and an inability to research substantiation.

          Do this kind of thing again, and I will similarly arbitrarily start educating you with educational bans in a operant conditioning procedure for bigots.

      • lprent 3.1.2

        In human beings (like all mammals) sex is bi-modal and immutable. We come in only 2 varieties, female or male.

        Misinformation. FFS, if you want to claim science (I am arbitrarily assuming you referred to science in your comment) then it pays to do some reading first. For instance even a basic read will toss up things like this.

        Whether an animal will become a male, a female, or a hermaphrodite is determined very early in development. Scientists have worked for hundreds of years to understand the sex-determination system. For instance, in 335 B.C.E., Aristotle proposed that the heat of the male partner during intercourse determined sex. If the male's heat could overwhelm the female's coldness, then a male child would form. In contrast, if the female's coldness was too strong (or the male's heat too weak), a female child would form. Environmental theories of sex determination, such as Aristotle's, were popular until about 1900, when sex chromosomes were discovered. As it turns out, Aristotle was on to something, at least in the case of some reptiles, in which the temperature of the nest determines the sex of the embryo. For most animals, however, sex is determined chromosomally.

        In mammals

        In placental mammals, the presence of a Y chromosome determines sex. Normally, cells from females contain two X chromosomes, and cells from males contain an X and a Y chromosome. Occasionally, individuals are born with sex chromosome aneuploidies, and the sex of these individuals is always determined by the absence or presence of a Y chromosome. Thus, individuals with 47,XXY and 47,XYY karyotypes are males, while individuals with 45,X and 47,XXX karyotypes are females. Humans are able to tolerate supernumerary numbers of sex chromosomes because of X inactivation and the fact that the human Y chromosome is quite gene-poor.

        Although the role of the Y chromosome in mammalian sex determination has been known since the early twentieth century, it was not until 1959 that scientists were able to identify the region of the Y chromosome that controlled this process (McLaren, 1991). Later, researcher David C. Page analyzed the chromosomes of sex-reversed XX men, rare individuals who look like men but have two X chromosomes instead of one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. Using DNA hybridization with probes corresponding to different regions of the Y chromosome, Page discovered that sex-reversed males carried genes from a 140-kilobase region on the short arm of the Y chromosome (Figure 1). Presumably, this region had been transferred to the X chromosome during a translocation (Page et al., 1985). Subsequent experiments narrowed down this region (McLaren, 1991) and found that one gene, the sex-determining region of the Y, or SRY, was the master regulator of sex determination. The presence of just this region from the Y chromosome is thus sufficient to cause male development (Koopman et al., 1991).

        And so on… The effect of this is that regardless of genetics X/Y and its large numbers of variations of genetic expression, the environment plays a large part in the expression of genital sex, body shapes, and predispositions.

        As one compares the various mechanisms for sex determination among species, it is clear that evolution has produced numerous solutions for generating different sexes. Sexual reproduction has tremendous adaptive value to a species, because it introduces new genetic variability into a population in each new generation. Chromosomes play determinative roles in most species, but even so, environmental factors introduce additional wrinkles into the developmental process.

        Please don't do this again, because I am going to start banning and being absolutely nasty for assertions of false fact on this topic. I'm also going to use arbitrary categorisations of what assertions arguments the lazy use and why they use them.

        • Karolyn_IS 3.1.2.1

          I don't think you fully understand what is being explained in your link.There ARE some variations in sex chromosomes in humans.

          Atypical sex chromosome patterns are those with with differences of sex development (DSDs). The vast majority of people with DSDs develop along a Mullerian (female) or a Wolfian (male) pathway, via a duct in utero. This begins the development of the basis of a male or female reproductive system, which becomes integrated with a male or female anatomy. That sex remains immutable throughout life, regardless of fertility at any time of life.

          The SRY gene is the main sex determining factor, and most usually is found on the short arm of the Y chromosome, as your link refers to. On very rare occasions the SRY gene slips onto an X chromosome so that the person, with XX sex chromosomes, develops along the male (Wolfian) pathway, and is male.

          Those who try to say sex is not binary and immutable, tend to cherry pick from those atypical chromosome patterns and talk about "intersex".

          See also, "In Humans, Sex is Binary and Immutable"

          Many people with DSDs are infertile, but they still have an identifiable male or female anatomy. These are medical conditions, identifiable scientifically and very often require special medical care. They have nothing to do with gender/sex self ID. There are a very infinitesimal amount of people with DSDs who do not have the basis of either an identifiable male or female reproductive system.

          As my link says, there have never been human hermaphrodites.

          • lprent 3.1.2.1.1

            I don't think you fully understand what is being explained in your link.

            I don't think that you bothered to read my comment. Or you are deliberately ignoring my point. I wrote a comment about the statement…

            In human beings (like all mammals) sex is bi-modal and immutable.

            I was specifically referring to the false statement "like all mammals" as well as pointing out the rather large variations in human male/female genetic and tissue presentations.

            What about the non-placental mammals? In particular some of the more interesting Monotremes sex-determination quirks. But surely it is common knowledge even for the most cursory reader of mammalian genetics that they are not exactly simple X/Y combos. I saw a (unlocateable this morning ) paper about some of the weirder monotreme genetic sex/gender expressions. But egg laying isn't the extreme end of it.

            I also pointed out some of the various X/Y combinations for humans to show that even where the Y chromosome was present, people could present as either male or female. That even where it was all XX, that the body conformation could appear to be male.

            // —– FFS sidetrack

            As my link says, there have never been human hermaphrodites.

            What does that have to do with anything? I didn't even refer to hermaphrodites except in the context of other species.

            You appear to be seriously into stupid diversionary tactics. Probably hobbled by a limited ability to think?

            Besides that, even your statement or your link is incorrect. I didn't deep-read most of the link after I realised that it was a primer for political children with low-grade high-school science.

            Consider the various ovotesticular disorder of sexual differentiation issues with tissue mixing . It is really rare, so rare that they can't say definitively that a XX/XY cannot be both fertile – it may have just been observed. At best you can say that there hasn't been a observed and proven case of a single body self-fertilisation. You're talking about rare individuals even in our current enormous population.

            There is literally nothing that actually prevents two sets of tissues in a single body to self-fertilise. If they are producing sperm and have ovaries, it is technically possible for that to happen with IVF techniques or even a simpler techniques.

            It has even been tested see the lit review "Potential autofertility in true hermaphrodites". There is no reason to assume humans are any different to other placental mammals like rabbits or mice.

            Sure these are exceptional events. But if anything is possible in evolutionary terms, then all tat is needed is a reason to make it become probable. And obviously it is quite possible in mammals.

            Then there is the present day. Technically someone who clones themselves (ie does a Dolly the Sheep) is also technically doing a hermaphrodite repeating a fertilisation.

            Then of course there are other potential future pathways.We're getting closer to being able to edit genes even at a chromosomal level. It wouldn't surprise me if the rather crippled Y chromosome gets a genetic facelift over the coming century. The most likely method would be to patch some of the Y chromosome attributes like SRY into a X (after all that is effectively what the Y started out like before kit got pruned down).

            Plus of course you appear to focused on the very recent medical interpretations of the word hermaphrodite. Perhaps you need a basic history lesson as well.

            You may have forgotten the old legal terminology for indeterminate physical gender. Current in many jurisdictions at least up to the time I was born. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#The_term_%22hermaphrodite%22

            Historically, the term "hermaphrodite" was used in law to refer to people whose sex was in doubt. The 12th century Decretum Gratiani states that "Whether an hermaphrodite may witness a testament, depends on which sex prevails" ("Hermafroditus an ad testamentum adhiberi possit, qualitas sexus incalescentis ostendit").[52][53] Similarly, the 17th century English jurist and judge Edward Coke (Lord Coke), wrote in his Institutes of the Lawes of England on laws of succession stating, "Every heire is either a male, a female, or an hermaphrodite, that is both male and female. And an hermaphrodite (which is also called Androgynus) shall be heire, either as male or female, according to that type of sexe which doth prevaile."[54][55]

            During the Victorian era, medical authors attempted to ascertain whether or not humans could be hermaphrodites, adopting a precise biological definition for the term,[56] and making distinctions between "male pseudohermaphrodite", "female pseudohermaphrodite" and especially "true hermaphrodite".[57] These terms, which reflected histology (microscopic appearance) of the gonads, are no longer used.[58][59][60] Until the mid-20th century, "hermaphrodite" was used synonymously with "intersex".[61] Medical terminology shifted in the early 21st century, not only due to concerns about language, but also a shift to understandings based on genetics.[citation needed]

            If you want to do a diversion, please do some research on it. I really can't do all of your work for you…..

            //—

            So back to my point that you so clearly avoided. I wasn't asking about information on sex/gender genetics. I have known about that even before I did a BSc.

            I was rapping a commenter over the knuckles for being imprecise and inaccurate at several levels – especially that the class of mammal species aren't all the same.

            It was clear to me that Visubversa was (probably) talking about the sub group of mammals – the placentals. The other sub-groups of mammals can be quite different. It depends on when their lineages split. For instance Monothemes are significantly different to Placentals and under researched.

            Same as I am wrapping you over the knuckles for being inaccurate and quite simplistic and/or myopic in your understanding of human hermaphrodites.

            I am simply uninterested in imprecise political sloganeering. I am not interested in silly assertions of 'fact', when they are usually imprecise or incorrect – and cause stupid discussions. Making assertions about distinguishing between 'sex' and 'gender' when you clearly don't understand the genetic and tissue variations on the in whole Mammalia class is just annoying and irrelevant to any serious understanding. For instance the SRY in marsupials is different again – it can be on the massive X chromosome.

            If you want to use 'science' around me, then you'd better be be careful because anyone who knows science is aware that it doesn't really have a lot of absolutes. It really depends on your frame of reference.

            //——————–

            I am interested in why you give a damn or are so obsessed on a matter that appears to be largely irrelevant to you socially.

            To me the sex/gender crap spewing out of some groups appears to be as self-righteously obsessive as the SPUC was about abortion or the anti-homosexual opposition was to decriminalising homosex. Just a badly thought through conservative reflex to overcome.

            So I will nitpick any stupidity, inaccuracies, or diversions in the public forum whilst cutting to the core of whatever weird arse fears that people seem to have about people making their own choices about who they are. Fears that seem to be curiously hard for them to express here and which they get really defensive about – as they try to hide them behind 'science'.

            Sex or gender simply isn't that important or even particularly relevant. Like body, afflictions, parents, family and society, genetics is something that gets inflicted upon you. Who you are is what you make yourself and want to be, often despite those prior impediments. I'm not that interested in providing space for a political movement that seems to be to be about removing choices.

            I'm a geek and have been since I was a kid. Geek for me that was a deliberate choice. Religion and military was a deliberate choice. Education was a deliberate choice. Relationships are always a deliberate choice. Being Cismale is a very secondary characteristic even as a kid and increasingly at my age a much less important one.

            I can't see how someone else identifies gender wise has much relevance to do with you or me. So tell me why anyone should be so invested in this that that they want to deny others what church they choose to be in?

            What is the Mrs Grundy urge that forces you to stick your node into other peoples lives with regard to gender?

            • Karolyn_IS 3.1.2.1.1.1

              Some of this, though interesting, is straying away from the original topic. Like you, I do not care how someone else identifies their gender. I don’t care about how people dress, how they want to visually present themselves, what name they choose for themselves, etc.

              My comments under this thread have all been focused on human sex dimorphism, and Trump’s Executive Order on the topic. My interest is in how the arguments, legislation, and social policy, and public information have been developing with the shift from the focus on a small number of transsexuals, to the wider umbrella of transgender and sex/gender self ID.

              I have a strong background in the study and research in development of children from birth to adulthood, including a bit of study of human anatomy, physiology, and neurology. I have also spent many years working with diverse young people, from early years to teenagers. When I first encountered the current arguments for gender self ID in the last decade, the explanation trans lobbyists were making did not make sense in terms of what I know about human development. So, I’ve read quite a bit on the topic since then.

              I am not so informed about mammals but find the topic interesting.

              In the process of reading up on the topic with regards to humans, I became concerned about the impacts of the trans demands for legislation, public policy, etc, on women’s sex-based rights and provisions. We still live in a quite patriarchal world (and becoming more so in Trump’s US). Current trans demands seem to be an over-reach, eg with demands about pronouns & misgendering, and for gender self ID to over-ride sex in law, data gathering, and some sex-based provisions. It’s important with respect to such issues as male violence and sexual against women (regardless of how the individuals identify).

              Most of the time, gender ID and expression doesn’t matter, but there are some contexts when female sex-based rights matter. Human sex is stable throughout life and objectively and scientifically verifiable. Gender ID, as defined by influential transgender organisations like PATHA (NZ) AND WPATH (Internationally), is an internal feeling. To me, that is more in keeping with legislation on religious beliefs, and difficult to codify in law as something replacing sex.

              I also am concerned that Trump’s Executive Order, the main topic of this thread, may be an over-correction. I think people whose secondary sex characteristics have been surgically and/or medically altered should not be discriminated against in key areas of life, eg housing, health, education, employment. Nor should those of us who do not conform to sex-based stereotypes, norms, or expectations, however we identify, be discriminated against, abused, or harassed.

              Visubversa said,

              “In human beings (like all mammals) sex is bi-modal and immutable.”

              In my response I didn’t focus on mammals. I disagree with her use of ‘bimodal’. I’d use the terms ‘binary’ or ‘dimorphic’. Human primary sex characteristics are bi-modal individually.

              As I said before, I think focusing on DSDs (ie most cases of chromosome variations that you mention) actually confuse the issue of sex/gender self ID. In most cases, people with those conditions are basically either male or female. I have read about the 46,XX/46,XY in the past. As in your Wikipedia link, and in some of the links it is disputed that human hermaphroditism or self-fertilisation is possible, as your quote, and the links within it, shows.

              “The term "true hermaphroditism" was considered very misleading by many medical organizations and by many advocacy groups,[6][7][8][9] as hermaphroditism refers to a species that produces both sperm and ova, something that is impossible in humans.[10]

              A person can have tissues of both sexes, while basically being either male or female. But, anyway, these are edge cases, medically verifiable, and not relevant to sex/gender self ID and the issues it raises. I think such conditions should be covered in law quite separately from sex/gender self ID.

              How people identify with respect to sex/gender may not be of importance to you, but I can assure you there are a large number of women who consider it impacts strongly and directly on us and our lives.

              • lprent

                We still live in a quite patriarchal world (and becoming more so in Trump’s US).

                US law because of the way that it is made and fragmented has virtually no cohesion and is decades behind our systems – which is why it is so seldom even referenced in our legal systems. It is essentially irrelevant except to fools embedded with culture wars.

                Look at our legislation and regulations. That is what is the legal basis of law in NZ.

                To me, that is more in keeping with legislation on religious beliefs, and difficult to codify in law as something replacing sex.

                This is essentially the point. If you look at our actual legislation and regulation, we have bugger all about biological sex or gender or religious or political beliefs. Almost all biological sex issues in legislation are to do with unique biological processes like childbirth – they have nothing to do with social.

                Gender, religious, political legislative references are almost entirely about preventing discrimination. That includes everyone.

                We have far more legislation concerned with Maori, and that is because of the screwups about joining two different legal systems – especially about property rights and language.

                Current trans demands seem to be an over-reach, eg with demands about pronouns & misgendering, and for gender self ID to over-ride sex in law, data gathering, and some sex-based provisions. It’s important with respect to such issues as male violence and sexual against women (regardless of how the individuals identify).

                and

                Most of the time, gender ID and expression doesn’t matter, but there are some contexts when female sex-based rights matter.

                So where exactly are these 'contexts' that 'matter' – and before you reply to that please read the rest of this. It will reduce my level of sarcasm if you decide to waffle on something I have already covered.

                Our legislation is designed to be person neutral. It has some exceptions for positions of dependency – most children, elderly, sick and infirm. It doesn't have any for adults. Violence, sexual violence, robbery, theft, fraud, etc etc is handled exactly the same at a legislative level regardless of who the victims or perpetrators are.

                As far as I can see, at a legislative level to get something that is what 'women' are 'demanding' would require draft legislation for the demands to embed new legal rights favouring biological women. But I haven't seen any proposals for legislation

                It isn't Trans that I see demanding rights – it is you and those who agree with you on this.

                Don't say passports, birth certificates, pronouns or honorifics. Personally I have never bothered with any of those. I have no intention of calling someone Doctor, Right Honourable, Mr, Ms, Miss, Mrs, Dame, Sir, Your Honour etc as is currently technically required in legislation and regulation unless I absolutely have to – and then I will do it with grudging and obvious reluctance.

                As far as I am concerned wiping all of those honorifics from legislation and treaties would be a damn good idea. That are pointless and seldom used in real life anyway outside of a few forums.

                Things like toilets or gendered prisons or medical facilities or whatever are purely operational matters for the bodies that control them and are done with organisational regulations.

                In exactly the same way that prisons are distinguished as having maximum security to minimum, the prison service designated male and female prisons. It is done by operational regulation for the convenience of the operators – which is why they aren't in legislation.

                Same for drugs like puberty blockers. Those are handled by regulations in the organisation like the Ministry of Health and the Medical Council.

                The way to get changes to existing policies in organisations like that is to present a case with actual evidence of harm and a regulatory solution to those making decisions.

                I'm not seeing any of that from people like the NZ Womens Party. In fact I don't see any substantive work from them at all. More like populist bullshit waffling.

                In any case, as far as I can see this, this is only of interest to a teeny minority of women. Not my 50yo (female) partner, not any of the women of family or friends who now casually talk about TERFs as some kind of goback conservatives. The sole woman I have have face to face contact with who does and who has expressed some sympathy for the idea is an elderly relative who is nearly 80, and who would really like life to be more like it was when she was young.

                But of course it could just be that they don't know what is being proposed. So where is a draft legislation or intent of what that would look like? Where are the draft policies to debate over? Based on NZ laws and regulations – not archaic US legal practices.

                I have absolutely no idea what kinds of legal privileges that the 'women' you're talking for wish to impose upon everyone else.

                A unconvincing emptiness provides no room to disagree – which I suspect is the reason for the gaping void.

                All that I can say is that I can't see any "trans demands for legislation, public policy, etc" here beyond what is already present for every one else through things like the Bill of Rights Act, and sections of other acts and policies about discrimination.

                How people identify with respect to sex/gender may not be of importance to you, but I can assure you there are a large number of women who consider it impacts strongly and directly on us and our lives.

                So? Sure. But that is not the question. That is an statement. It does zero, nada, and absolutely nothing to advance a case for changing laws preferentially for women. Or for changing laws or policies to discriminate against Trans.

                Why in the hell does require special laws and policies to favour a group at the expense of others. The women (and men) of my family have spent generations getting rid of that shit-arse thinking aimed against women to benefit men. Now you gobacks want to bring it back…

                Do you have any views on the inherent inferiority of people of colour or other religions as well?

                //—–

                As in your Wikipedia link, and in some of the links it is disputed that human hermaphroditism or self-fertilisation is possible, as your quote, and the links within it, shows.

                Again not really the point – it is disputed and not proven by experiment or theory. Nothing apart from unsubstantiated hope shows that it is impossible. In the way that science operates, validated experimental data trumps everything, and theory has to be based on something. If something is possible then it is likely to occur even at low probabilities.

                Auto self-fertilisation in hermaphrodites exists in mammals that are our (relatively) close relatives like rabbits. XX/XY genital tissues have been shown to exist in humans. It is reasonable to conclude that auto self-fertilisation in hermaphrodites is possible in humans. Which is contrary to what you and the author of that unscientific bilge you linked to have asserted.

                This isn't exactly rocket science – it is basic statistics. Humans have a very long time to sexual maturity – say 144 months. Some breeds of domestic rabbits can get there in less than 4 months. Humans usually give birth to single offspring. Rabbits have 3-7 per birth and have a much faster cycle time. The world population of individual rabbits which have lived in any given decade is many orders of magnitude higher compared to the humans. So what is a really small probability in humans of 46,XX/46,XY (estimated at 500 in a population of 8 billion), becomes a very large number in a world rabbit population.

                Plus of course humans generally don't experiment on humans. But they are happy to experiment on increasing the 46,XX/46,XY probability in rabbits.

                • Karolyn_IS

                  I have responded to some of this re legislation and demands from Rainbow organisations for inclusion of rights in for instance, the BDMRR Bill, that has meant trans IDed males can be included in women's services, under another thread today. Plus there's stuff about transgender people, etc wanting to be included in the HRA.

                  Plus the comments from Weka on that thread.

                  Mixed sex facilities are particularly fraught for females. In the UK,

                  "The data, obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the Sunday Times, suggests that unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities."

                  In NZ schools in Christchurch data shows, while both girls and boys experience sexual harassment and some assaults, girls experience far more, and report more rapes and attempted rapes.

                  Also in Christchurch, there are women-only swimming pool sessions in a council pool. A man complained about the exclusion of men being discriminatory. The council said the reasons for having women-only sessions are backed up by research, and it's in keeping with the HRA. Also in keeping with the HRA they claimed transgender women and people who identify as women are welcome. They said,

                  "This included “increased privacy and sense of safety, greater confidence in a women-only environment, spending social time with female friends and family, or because of religious and cultural beliefs.”"

                  A woman from Speak Up for Women complained that trans IDed males were allowed. She said,

                  “no woman or girl should ever have to go into female-only facilities or be forced to use unisex facilities in a thoughtlessly laid out block, wondering what kind of man might be hanging around there this time.”

                  There are always some rogue males, including a few heterosexual trans IDed males who will get a sexual thrill out of breaching female boundaries and privacy, as well as sexually harassing, mostly young women. eg this man who videoed women under the cubicle at an Auckland KMart women's changing room.

                  It's a basic safety and privacy provision to provide female-only women's intimate spaces.

                  We know many progressive or liberal women and men call us names for our position. This is not helped by a mainstream media that mostly prints sympathetic and positive stories about trans ID and gender diverse people, and any of us talking about female sex-based rights and provisions get labelled anti-trans, transphobic, etc. Very little fair representation of our views gets covered in the media.

                  Rainbow organisations are very powerful, well funded (from NZ and overseas) and represented in public services and local and national government services. We tend to be silenced, and no-platformed. We have little funding.

                  Speak Up for Women in their submission last year, to the HRA review, said,

                  "The most recently added prohibited ground for discrimination is sexual orientation.
                  ‘Same sex attracted’ has no meaning if ‘sex’ is not defined as scientific and immutable.

                  The class of people who are most (and were initially) impacted by the advent of gender identity ideology would have to be lesbians. Lesbians bear the brunt of an ideology that promotes ideas which go against the fundamental nature of homosexuality. The discourse has centred around pressuring lesbians to have sex with men who claim womanhood and lesbianism as their own. Pressure justified on the basis that by statement alone a male body can become a female body. Unsurprisingly, this egregious breach of boundaries and decency built a strong resistance from lesbians."

                  Many of us who support the maintenance of female sex-based rights and provisions are lesbian. Yes, there are also lesbians who support the gender identity movement. There are also stories from lesbians locally and overseas of sexual harassment by trans IDed males in Rainbow groups and lesbian spaces, which are not stories the media usually cover.

                  LAVA (Lesbian Action for Visibility in Aotearoa) has a case before the NZ Human Rights Tribunal because they were excluded from a Wellington Pride event. Their event said nothing about transgender or gender diverse people, but was about local lesbian history. They were excluded because they are known to support women's, including lesbian sex-based tights and provisions.

                  The whole gender identity agenda is not NZ-grown, it's an import from the neoliberal US. Similar demands, legislation and actions have been taken in several countries, influenced by the US.

                  In Australia a Melbourne tribunal recently ruled lesbians cannot advertise/promote activities that are female-only and exclude trans IDed males. The whole situation is driving many lesbians back in the closet, where they organise events privately only.

                  That'll do for now.

    • weka 3.2

      largely agree, however this,

      Gender Identity (there are only two genders, male and female)

      should be countered with Gender Identity: there are two biological sexes, and multiple valid ways of social expression of the roles associated with them, including gender non-conformity.

      If he simply messages that there are more than two genders, a number of things will happen. He will feed the culture war that will be intensified by the next election. he will confuse the public even more over what the word gender means, and more former Labour voters will roll their eyes and look elsewhere.

      I don't like Hipkins as leader, but I hope he has the good sense to avoid bringing up this debate. I'm less hopeful about his advisors, who, on past experience, have been dropping the ball on preparation and understanding the ground upon which this debate has been raging, and are most likely partisan to the dropping of two sex science.

      • Karolyn_IS 3.2.1

        Actually, Trump mis-spoke, and maybe doesn't understand his own EOs. This is the Executive Order here:

        It says,

        "Sec. 2. Policy and Definitions. It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality. Under my direction, the Executive Branch will enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality, and the following definitions shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy:"

        Plus it protects women's sex-based rights and provisions, and there's this:

        "(g) “Gender identity” reflects a fully internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from biological reality and sex and existing on an infinite continuum, that does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex."

        This is good.

        However, I have concerns about the context, framing and some of the details in the EO. It includes rescinding relevant parts of Federal agency documents that are not consistent with this EO. Some of the documents address discrimination, harassment, etc in the work place and education. So it depends on what is being rescinded and/or how it's being amended.

        There is a hint of paternalism in the title, plus possibly making trans IDed & other gender non-conforming people a target. Plus, Trump et al are no friends to women. He & the likes of Musk are pretty patriarchal. Soon after Trump took office, the Health Dept website promoting reproductive rights went dark.

        Along with Trump wanting to cancel all DEI, I'm concerned trans IDed & GNC people will have been made a target without being left with any protections against harassment, abuse or discrimination in crucial areas of life eg health, housing, employment, education.

        • weka 3.2.1.1

          thanks Karolyn. I've been avoiding anything to do with him as much as possible (and I expect him mispeaking is intentional)

          It's that strange confluence of women's sex based rights and the fundamentalists wanting to roll back LGB and trans rights. I have zero doubt that this is the agenda of the new administration in the US. They're going after trans people because they're small in number compared to women, but we are on the list too.

          • Karolyn_IS 3.2.1.1.1

            Also, going after trans rights, and superficially supporting sex-based rights HAS resulted in some previously Democrat voters switching from Harris to Trump, or staying at home during the election. It may have been enough to impact on the swing vote.

            Many US people are not happy with the over-reach of the current gender ID movement.

      • lprent 3.2.2

        …there are two biological sexes…

        Nope. See my comment above. You didn't even qualify the species family. For instance have you considered insects, plants, bacteria. At least subversa tried to limit which species group they were talking about. Even then she was wrong, because by inference, she was only talking about placental mammals, because there are a lot wider ranges of sexual expressions amongst the non-placental mammals

        • weka 3.2.2.1

          the context was the US Presidential EO, which is clearly about humans, in large part driven by the attempt to re-establish protecting women (adult human females). I expect people to be able to understand a comment in context of the comment I was replying to and the general current affairs when it is a big event like the US presidential inauguration. I'm always happy to clarify my comments if asked.

          If you selectively quote what I said, reducing it down to "…there are two biological sexes…" without the context, then you can make the argument you just made. But you're not correct about my argument.

          I'm well aware of the variations of sex in nature, having been deep in the debate for many years. However in humans, there are two biological sexes, this is the way that Homo sapiens reproduces. There is no third sex. There are variations in individuals, but those individuals with DSDs are still a variation of female and male, with maybe some tiny numbers of exceptions where this is unclear. But pretty much all humans fit into the sex binary because that's how the species reproduces.

          I can't count the amount of time that has been wasted by people arguing over this stuff when they don't understand the position of the person they are arguing with. It's an incredibly common dynamic, and frustrating (all sides do it).

          Some people use the word sex to mean other things than the biology by which humans reproduce. For some it is the social meaning of sex, and there are people who believes that sex is socially constructed. For others, sex is about chromosomes or how people's bodies grow. All of which is important, and needs discussion. But there is only one way for humans to reproduce, it's relatively well understood, and there are increasingly people who now believe it is not true.

          Much of this debate is convoluted because people won't define what they mean by sex and/or gender, or they're confused about those terms, concepts and meanings. This is why I replied to BG, because the politics are complex in multiple directions, and Hipkins in particular has not been good on this topic (he's been one of the confused ones).

        • adam 3.2.2.2

          I'm over this debate as it's not a debate. People don't listen to the science, nor logical arguments.

          lprent you have put up dozens of well crafted arguments on this site, about this topic, and still the emotions trump facts crowd – keep up their shitty lines.

          I suppose what I'm really saying is can we add to the rules of the site. I'd leave it to you to craft – but can I recommend something like don't bring bullshit cultural wars lies to this site.

          • lprent 3.2.2.2.1

            Personally I just find for this style of debate, I usually just need to spend time releasing the more obnoxious parts of my personality.

            Pedantic, a strong literal interpretation about what people didn’t say, more than a little obnoxious, and strongly inclined to expressing sarcastic and deeply personal opinions on the reason why people are clinging to something that they can’t actually support against informed criticism.

            It is a pain because I have to do way too much research, often have to argue a contrary position regardless of what I actually believe myself. I also use personality based windup techniques that I prefer not to use to twist the arguments of others into look at the downstream consequences rather than their preferred position of mindless indignation. What I call the death camp guard progression.

            Essentially the same things that I apply to certain types of trolling, purveyors of misinformation, and waffle in project management of code. It breaks up ‘everyone knows’ fuckwittery ‘common sense’ positions – that frankly are invariably incorrect.

    • Ad 3.3

      Any foreign affairs leadership from any party would be a great start.

      NZF since they hold the portfolio, or TPM, or Mr Teanau from Greens, or Parker from Labour, or Luxon, Sheesh anyone would be great to hear speaking from a small liberal democracy right now.

      Or are we just going to jump up the small tree of hope while elephants dance?

  4. Ad 4

    A tough and very sobering summary of Luxon's leadership of NZ this morning:

    "New Zealand frozen, listless, and mean"

    https://thekaka.substack.com/p/nz-now-frozen-listless-mean-and-hopeless

  5. ianmac 5

    A very useful analysis of the demise of democracy and the rise of the Corporate class running the USA (and here the ACT party power is doing the same in NZ)

    The Corporate Class takes over America by Dr Neal Curtis on Newsroom. (I think Newsroom carries a strong lead on credible information.)

    https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/01/22/the-corporate-class-takes-over-america/?utm_source=Newsroom&utm_campaign=332f5527e5-Daily_Briefing+22.01.2025&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_71de5c4b35-332f5527e5-95522477&mc_cid=332f5527e5&mc_eid=88a3081e75

  6. Jenny 6

    The genocide in Gaza is not over.

    Owen Jones claims the restart of the genocide in Gaza will also result in a crackdown on the democratic right to protest in the Western countries which support Israel. Possibly including NZ. Already police moved on Kiwis protesting on public property near the ASB tennis tournament where an IDF reservist and genocide apologist was playing.

    As is often the case, imperialist war abroad results in fascism oppression at home.

  7. Muttonbird 7

    Three days in to the job, Thicko seems to be confusing tourism and immigration.

    First priority she says is to drive up tourism numbers (surely a job for the tourism minister) by "ensuring the visa process was fast as possible". But these countries already have NZ visa waiver, so I'm wondering from which other countries' high spending tourists she would like to attract, Venezuela perhaps?

    She probably means opening the immigration tap, so instead of driving up export productivity with incentives and support for local industries, she wants to import wealth directly, so it can trickle down.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/539591/nicola-willis-hints-at-visa-changes-to-grow-economy

    • Mike the Lefty 7.1

      A rebranding exercise necessary because of pitiful previous performance. Good way to distract the sheeple from their failures to rebuild the economy after all the promises have fallen flat.

    • weka 7.2

      tourism relies heavily on people from overseas with working holiday visas. Did she say what the visa changes would be?

      • Muttonbird 7.2.1

        Does it? I'm not sure what the proportion of visitors enter the country with the intention to work but I would have thought regular, sightseeing, visa waiver tourists provide the country with far more net benefit.

        How is more waiters and bar staff first priority? And how does it dramatically increase our productivity when restaurants are closing because of Nicola Willis' austerity? Working holiday visas are for people 18-30 years old, not exactly cashed up big spenders.

        • weka 7.2.1.1

          Working holiday visas are for people 18-30 years old aren't cashed up, they're willing to work for shitty wages and work conditions, and put up with poor housing, because they're on holiday. It's standard in tourism areas for them to be used for seasonal labour in tourism and hospo.

          It's not a good economic plan, because of how it impacts on locals, but it is the tie-in between tourism and visas. National favour low cost labour and don't have to bother with things like increased permanent population and all that entails. Lots of National voters running tourism/hopso businesses, bonus.

  8. tWig 8

    BHN's Pat interviews (from 1.30 min) Northland doctor Gary Payinda, who has been strongly critical of government health policy. A bit of Reti's story from Gary. And exposes tobacco industry slosh between the government and big tobacco.

    Privatised health systems actually result in poorer health outcome. It skims the cream of the top, avoiding complicated, unprofitable patients. Gary is a well-informed voice, covering historical funding, and effect of immigration.

  9. Stephen D 9

    Jonathan Pie,

    From about 2.40 mins on. Could be speaking about NZ, Australia.

    https://youtu.be/R3XO_ee9VeY?si=w99ca520_ybrPf0d

    The left have lost their way.
    Time for our Labour Party to find it.

  10. Craig H 10

    Consumers price index: December 2024 quarter | Stats NZ

    Inflation for the year ending December 2024 is 2.2%, same as for the year ending September 2024. Interestingly, food prices down, rents up, rates up, core inflation at 3% which might make it hard for RBNZ to lower OCR much.

    • Patricia Bremner 10.1

      So Luxon's reckons about rents stabilising or dropping after the tax breaks for landlords is about as good as Willis ferry decisions. A bloody disaster.

      • AB 10.1.1

        If questioned on this, they'll likely claim either or both of:

        • it's just a phasing/timing issue where the rent-reduction effects of the landlord tax cuts haven't kicked in yet (hoping amnesia about the promises they made sets in with the public)
        • that rents would have gone up more without the "downward pressure" from the landlords tax cuts. (an un-disprovable assertion of similar value to calculations about the no. of angels on a pinhead.)

        But – this assumes some mainstream journalist will actually ask that question. And that's not guaranteed.

    • SPC 10.2

      An ACT Minister has said that our MW is higher compared to the median wage than in some other nations.

      She has indicated that throughout the term of this government she will increase the MW by less than that recommended.

      Thus always below the increase in CPI.

      The MW will fall in real terms during this government. And most likely less than rent increases, as has been the case so far.

      The government in opposing industry awards – Fair Pay Agreement, has shown no interest in increasing wages.

      https://archive.li/CfrXm#selection-3947.0-4120.1

      • SPC 10.2.1

        She added it was also the second time that van Velden had proposed a much lower minimum wage recommendation, only to have it overruled by Cabinet – for 2024’s review, she recommended an increase of 1.3%, compared to an MBIE recommendation of 4% – Cabinet eventually opted for 2%.

        The increase decided by cabinet was still less than half the rent icnrease.

        Between the December 2023 and 2024 quarters, annual rent inflation ranged between 4.2% and 4.8%.

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/360555806/inflation-fails-move-thanks-rising-rents

  11. Phillip ure 11

    I am still mildly gobsmacked that this (supposedly) financially literate party/gummint..handed over what everyone would agree is a critical portfolio..to an already proven to be lacking minister…who didn't even have a seat at the cabinet table .(!)

    So for the last 12 months this government has pretty much ignored economic development..?

    And now luxon sez that economic development is a top priority…

    That all goes to show that luxon has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to economic development..

    And their answer..?

    Willis will try to engender another property bubble…using immigration as her primary tool…

  12. Muttonbird 12

    Richard Prebble is throwing his toys out of the cot because of too many submissions against the Regulatory Standard Bill draft. This from a former leader and stalwart of the ACT party which has decided a good way to steer policy is to diminish debate in parliament and increase it in public by swamping voters with the submission process, voters they believed they had an advantage with. Well, it backfired and now ACT are having a whinge.

    https://archive.is/zXdfH

    • Incognito 12.1

      His last sentence gave it all away.

      My suggestion to Seymour is that his bill [Regulatory Standards Bill] is so important it should be called the New Zealand Magna Carta.

      Clearly, the RSB is not an innocuous little attempt at improving boring old regulation in NZ, but a quasi-constitutional power grab [echoing Anne Salmond].

      Anyway, it was a crap article by Prebs.

  13. newsense 13

    ‘Ruthless execution’ in health

    ‘Double down and go even harder, on driving economic growth into New Zealand.’

    Ouch times ahead

    • AB 13.1

      Letting people die slowly on a waiting list is a form of "ruthless execution". The phrase describes their policy quite well.

  14. Mike the Lefty 14

    As I expected The Onion has had a field day with Trump's inauguration extravaganza.

  15. Muttonbird 15

    On the Treaty Principles Bill and the objective:

    The devil is, as is always the case, in the details. Specifically, the bill going to select committee now means that there will be a six-month public consultation process. Moreover, and more importantly, there will also be a six-month ad blitz and propaganda campaign in favour of the bill.The groundwork for this campaign has already been laid. Unfortunately, the rhetorical foundations have been put in place for a simple, effective messaging strategy that plays on entrenched fears and racial biases.

    By playing on many of the same fears that led to National’s election win, this campaign, featuring right-wing lobbying groups Hobson’s Pledge, Groundswell, the Taxpayers’ Union, and others has a good chance of succeeding in winning over public support for the Treaty Principles referendum, with serious social and political consequences.

    The key to any successful political campaign is to craft a message that is simple and resonates with your target audience. Once you hit on an effective message, you repeat it over and over again.

    https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/11/20/lets-not-play-into-seymours-hands-by-talk-of-racist-treaty-bill/

    Here's an example of a well funded RW organisation operating the ad blitz and propaganda campaign. A digital billboard on a wet Ellerslie-Panmure Highway yesterday:

  16. Adrian 16

    Let’s see how that slogan goes down in Panama and Greenland.

  17. joe90 18

    In 1958 western Trackdown snake oil salesman Walter Trump comes to town claiming that only he can prevent the end of the world by building a wall. He also sold special force propelling umbrellas to deflect meteorites.

  18. Psych Nurse 19

    There are 3 genders if you consider secondary sexual development, male female and intersex, but chromosomally 4 or more. Male XY Female XX Turners syndrome X only and Klinefelters XXY. Humans are too complicated to be clasified simply as male or female thankfully.

    • Visubversa 19.1

      Even Differences of Sex Development re-enforce the sex binary. DSD's are sex specific. Turners' syndrome affects only females, and Kleinfelters only affects males. Those that are fertile produce either sperm or eggs. No extra gametes = no extra sexes. These are medical conditions and have nothing to do with "gender identity".

  19. Muttonbird 20

    Layoffs and pay cuts/freezes (presumably) at NZME which includes the racist/fascist 1ZB. I wondered why that cunt Mike Hoskins is slow so get back to work this year. A pay cut for the good of the company would be anathema to him.

    Difficult contract negotiations, anyone?

Leave a Comment