Open mike 23/04/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, April 23rd, 2025 - 64 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 …

64 comments on “Open mike 23/04/2025 ”

  1. Tony Veitch 1
    23 April 2025 at 6:22 am

    Much of what Robert Reich says about the US is applicable to NZ. Stopping a future David Seymour!

    Like getting big money out of politics, progressive taxes etc.

    If he is correct, and the Democrats are adopting these progressive policies, then there may be hope for the USA – and for NZ! >4 mins long.

    Reply
  2. SPC 2
    23 April 2025 at 9:13 am

    Peters indicates he will support ACT in cutting tax funding for public media, part of his attempt to bring the censorship style of Trump here.

    Trump is threatening to ban media (not just exclude from access) and shut off funding to tertiary institutions.

    “The fact is you’re paid for by the tax payer and sooner or later we’re going to cut that water off too because you’re an abuse on the taxpayer, you’re not hearing both sides of the story, you keep on putting the argument of the woke left.”

    The cult of the strong man who punches down is alive and well.

    Something about this coalition brings out the worst in all its members.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360662568/peters-says-new-members-bill-will-be-catching-rest-world

    Reply
  3. joe90 3
    23 April 2025 at 9:53 am

    A slightly belated happy 78th to Iggy Pop. Still doing it!

    Reply
  4. Karolyn_IS 4
    23 April 2025 at 10:16 am

    Youtube video of UK (Labour) Minister for Women statement to the House of Commons, 22.04.25 on the For Women Scotland Supreme Court Ruling.

    Bridget Phillipson (Minister for Women) leads the way forward to protect women's sex-based rights and provisions, while also aiming to protect trans IDed people from discrimination and abuse, and on health care etc.

    Phillipson does not reduce the way forward to be merely about argy bargy about toilets, but indicates the full scope of women's necessary sex-based provisions from women's refuges (where she used to work) through NHS hospital provisions to women's sports.

    Phillipson is critical of the previous Tory govt's neglect of women's sex-based rights, but neither party is free from criticism on that. It was the Tories who introduced their policy for sex self ID (which never became law), and under whose watch the likes of Stonewall UK incorrectly promoted current law to say that it supported males accessing women's provisions. However, the Labour Party fully supported that in the past.

    There is much to be worked out in the detail. But I hope NZ and the likes of Aussie learn from this and start working towards something similar.

    Reply
    • SPC 4.1
      23 April 2025 at 10:35 am

      Maybe something will come from public submissions about HRA changes (as per sex and gender rights (some distinction to clarify).

      Reply
      • Karolyn_IS 4.1.1
        23 April 2025 at 10:49 am

        Hopefully. The Law Commission is likely to take a bit more of a balanced view as they have met with SUFW as well as listening to transgender organisations – hopefully it will be quite balanced and take heed of women's concerns about the need to sex-based provisions.

        It's looking like there is now more public discussion internationally after a decade of the powerful and well-funded trans lobby promoted the whole 'no-debate', de-platforming, censorship suppressing a balanced public discussion and demonising those of us who were critical of the over-reach in their demands.

        I'm no supporter of NZF and Hipkins is probably right that NZF's Jenny Marcroft's Member's Bill is motivated a lot by Peters' populist impulses rather than any concern for women's rights. However, I also think the Bill is one of the very few good initiatives by NZF and it also could help contribute to a more balanced public debate.

        Unfortunately, the NZ Labour and GP leaders just tended to comment dismissively about the Bill without showing any concern for women's rights and provisions. And a lot of the NZ and international media coverage of the Bill is also just following the old trans lobby's MO to smear it as being anti-trans and show now concern for women's rights and provisions.

        Reply
        • SPC 4.1.1.1
          23 April 2025 at 11:01 am

          National and ACT voted for self ID.

          And given NZF is looking to exploit the issue politically, they might not do the legislative work required to work through it all.

          Reply
          • Karolyn_IS 4.1.1.1.1
            23 April 2025 at 11:52 am

            True. Let's see how Jenny Marcroft handles this.

            Reply
          • Karolyn_IS 4.1.1.1.2
            23 April 2025 at 1:51 pm

            Peters said he intends the NZF Bill would replace NZ's sex self ID law. Maybe trying to stir up a reaction in the media & social media? Always aiming for attention.

            Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, speaking from London, said National as a caucus would consider the bill if it was drawn from the ballot.

            However, he said he had already made his views clear that "pregnant people, frankly, are women".

            "Let's have some common sense about it, and let's use some common sense language."Luxon said New Zealanders were more concerned about the government focusing on the economy, law and order, health, and education."

            <

            p style=”margin-left:.75em; margin-right:.75em; text-align:start”>As reported on RNZ's site.

            Reply
            • Karolyn_IS 4.1.1.1.2.1
              23 April 2025 at 2:25 pm

              Don't know what happened to the link. It's here.

              Reply
            • weka 4.1.1.1.2.2
              23 April 2025 at 2:38 pm

              Lots of people thinking this was a shocking interview, I thought it was Peters just being Peters. Current version: populist anti-woker. It's a concern, not a new one, and we need to be prepared for election year and what he will do.

              The threat to RNZ/Dann wasn't ok though and I have feeling he's done that before but maybe not as DPM?

              The Bill itself is quite straightforward.

              https://www.nzfirst.nz/definitions-woman-man-bill

              But I expect that because it is intended to affect all other legislation, it's not so straightforward to implement. From memory there's various legislation that uses gender and sex interchangeably, plus a bunch of legislation that's been updated quietly that might conflict.

              The idea of repealing the BDMRR amendments sounds like he just made it up. I would think that the new Bill won't replace that, they'd have to amend or repeal the previous amendments.

              Reply
      • Tabletennis 4.1.2
        23 April 2025 at 7:21 pm

        @SPC – adding Gender/gender-id, prohibited ground of discrimination under the HRA, with sex, religion, etc, is still a problem as it is does not adhere to biological reality, or any other form of reality.

        Speak Up for Women have made a very sensible and above all a workable proposal to the Law Commission: -page 16-

        "We [SUFW] a new and separate prohibited ground of discrimination ‘variation of sex characteristics"

        "Variation of sex characteristics’ refers to the variation in the external presentation of primary and /or secondary sex characteristics, based on an individual’s sex."

        "This allows for protection from discrimination whether a person is a detransitioner, an individual with innate variations of sex characteristics (DSD), or a trans-identifying individual who has taken material steps to alter their sex characteristics."

        https://www.speakupforwomen.nz/_files/ugd/f0d3e1_f6eb86d50af64eabacdfdde36b4a5fe4.pdf

        Reply
        • SPC 4.1.2.1
          25 April 2025 at 8:44 am

          Reality is a bit fraught as a determination when political creed, religion and sexuality differences are protected human rights.

          The SUFW approach seems a little too materialist – it reminds one of when same sex attracted people had to insist on it not being a choice they made, but an innate born with condition, an identity.

          Gender expression, or non conformity, is more than an attempt to change biological birth sex form.

          Rob Moodie (aka Miss Alice), police union secretary and patron saint of lost in court causes wearing kaftans and dresses to work.

          It's a useful approach, but not enough on its own.

          The Scots have some detransitioning to do after the UK Supreme Court decision.

          https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0kxr4y3mv8o

          Reply
    • James Thrace 4.2
      23 April 2025 at 10:48 am

      My understanding is that the health sector requires sex specific markers to ensure that the delivery of sex-appropriate healthcare is maintained.

      For example, trans-women are still at risk of prostate cancer. If they are notated as female sex, rather than female gender, they risk being overlooked when it comes to prostate screening when they are over 50.

      However, pointed out such factual realities results in an outpouring of hatred and abuse from trans-rights activists, so it’s unlikely to result in any acceptable resolution vis a vis sex vs gender.

      Reply
      • Visubversa 4.2.1
        23 April 2025 at 12:55 pm

        Quite right – any factual reality is met with resistance – even from people who should know better. Like 2 Members of the Scottish Parliament.

        https://www.advocates.org.uk/news-and-responses/news/2025/apr/faculty-protests-msp-s-attack-on-the-judiciary

        "The atmosphere following the ruling in FWS is toxic. Not only do comments such as these – which as they stem from an elected politician and Deputy Convenor many will take seriously – fail to respect the Rule of Law; not only do they constitute an egregious breach of Ms Chapman’s duties to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary (s.1(1)(a) of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008); but they go further than that, and create a risk of danger to the Members of the Court themselves. This behaviour is irresponsible and reprehensible."

        Reply
        • weka 4.2.1.1
          23 April 2025 at 2:40 pm

          we need some lw MPs to break ranks, but I'm not sure that's possible here like it is in the UK who have a much bigger parliament and all MPs are still electorate MPs.

          Reply
        • Tabletennis 4.2.1.2
          23 April 2025 at 3:31 pm

          @ Visubversa:
          Maggie Chapman MSP, Deputy Convenor of the Scottish Parliament's Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

          Ms Chapman decided to take a leaf out of Trumps playbook and attack juries of the supreme court, in regards to the ruling of the Supreme Court, that sex means biological sex.

          totally support this open letter from the faculty of advocates for her to resign, especially in view of her position as Deputy Convenor.
          She has to go.

          Reply
      • Tabletennis 4.2.2
        23 April 2025 at 3:17 pm

        @ JT
        An UK independent research, only published very recently on the negative consequences of collecting self-ID, rather a persons sex on their health care.

        "The review found that across the NHS “gender identity is consistently prioritised over or replaces sex”. She said that records that traditionally represented biological sex were “unreliable and can be altered on request by the patient” and that there had been a “gradual shift away from recording and analysing sex in NHS datasets”.

        "This meant there were “clear clinical risks”, such as patients not being called up for cervical smear tests or prostate exams, or the misinterpretation of lab results. Sullivan said: “This has potentially fatal consequences for trans people.”

        "In one case a paediatrician said that a child had been brought up in the preferred gender of the mother, which was different to their birth-assigned gender. “She [the mother] had gone to the GP and requested a change of gender/NHS number when the baby was a few weeks old and the GP had complied. Children’s social care did not perceive this as a child protection issue,” the doctor reported."

        https://archive.ph/1Ku4Q

        Reply
  5. Muttonbird 5
    23 April 2025 at 10:21 am

    Where to start with this crap:

    Property investment coach Steve Goodey said a number of property investors were struggling.

    "It's a classic oversupply, we added so many houses to the market with the Ardern [government's] incentives, that we have too many homes and renters have so many options.

    The mask slips from property investors, if it were ever in place. Everyone across the spectrum agrees increased housing supply alleviates the worst for low income renters, except for this pocket of malevolent actors.

    The Ardern government supported renters by achieved a lot in the house building space and with residential tenancy legislation but according to evil scum like Steve Goodey, young renting families having options is terrible.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/558829/pain-for-property-investors-as-renting-listing-levels-hit-decade-high

    Reply
    • Bearded Git 5.1
      23 April 2025 at 10:30 am

      I heard that slimy bastard Mutton.

      Never a mention of how good the lower rents are for renters or of the success of Labour in getting house building moving, both public and private, to increase supply.

      For him it is all about rate of return for the top 5%.

      (A problem for National at the next election is that house prices are in the doldrums. The "feel good" they are trying to generate in relation to this is not happening}

      Reply
    • Karolyn_IS 5.2
      23 April 2025 at 10:36 am

      As an older renter, I read that news of more rental options and lowering of rents with some relief. Rents across the board are still too high for many incomes ATM.

      Yes, it's particularly tough for renters with young families.

      Reply
      • Kay 5.2.1
        23 April 2025 at 10:57 am

        Likewise. It's terrifying living with the constant threat of eviction and guaranteed homelessness after the fact.

        Reply
    • SPC 5.3
      23 April 2025 at 10:38 am

      Driving people out of Auckland to Oz is upsetting the important people (landlords) there.

      Reply
    • AB 5.4
      23 April 2025 at 10:59 am

      Yep – he's demanding that the state maintain the economic conditions where one section of the community can systematically loot another for ever. That's the authoritarian Right in a nutshell – preaching ‘freedom’ but in love with State power.

      Reply
  6. joe90 6
    23 April 2025 at 10:34 am

    $479.86 >> $237.97 since mid-December.

    Tesla’s flailing sales figures have put the company closer to the red than it has been in years, according to financial results released Tuesday, threatening one of its biggest advantages over other EV players.

    The electric automaker reported $409 million in net income on $19.3 billion in revenue after delivering almost 337,000 EVs in the first quarter of the year.

    The company’s net income reflects a 71% drop from the same quarter last year. It was the worst quarter for Tesla deliveries in more than two years and came on the heels of the company’s first-ever year-to-year drop in sales. Tesla’s income was buffered by selling $595 million in zero-emissions tax credits, according to its earnings report — without those, it would have posted a loss.

    https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/22/tesla-profits-drop-71-on-weak-sales-and-anti-elon-musk-sentiment/?

    Reply
    • Macro 6.1
      23 April 2025 at 11:01 am

      It's been a major lesson in how to piss off the "woke left" – the primary purchasers of what was a state of the art EV – by the richest prick, currently still destroying assistance to "bottom feeders" in the US. Long may the decline continue, there are now plenty of other options for those who understand the need to move away from fossil fuels. Those who support the actions of the "great man" are the least likely to be wanting to buy an EV least they be identified as woke.

      Reply
    • Macro 6.2
      23 April 2025 at 11:11 am

      A Tesla Cybertruck is displayed at a Tesla dealership on December 20, 2024 in Corte Madera, California.

      Mind you the latest offering is particularly ugly

      Reply
      • AB 6.2.1
        23 April 2025 at 12:05 pm

        I suggest moving Tesla production to Mars – no tarrifs on the red planet and the dust asks no questions and makes no judgments.

        Reply
  7. Muttonbird 7
    23 April 2025 at 2:18 pm

    Frightening from the Police Minister, but I can't say I'm surprised. Should Mark Mitchell take responsibility and resign?

    – A screenshot of an Instagram reel falsely claiming Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s ancestors came from China and were “yellow Vikings”.

    https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/04/22/police-ministers-office-apologises-to-hana-rawhiti-maipi-clarke/

    Reply
    • AB 7.1
      23 April 2025 at 3:28 pm

      What Mitchell's office is doing is not unique or surprising. Settler colonial projects do try to undermine or question the indigeneity of indigenous peoples. There are two main ways of doing this.

      The first is to undermine the fact of indigeneity by claiming that other people were here before them. In the case of NZ, this can be seen in the previously common claims that Moriori were here first, or in nuttier claims about early pre-Maori European settlement as 'evidenced' by the Kaimanawa wall etc. Scott Hamilton is good on this topic.

      The second is to question the value of that prior status. In NZ's case this means suggesting that they weren't here much earlier than us ("we are all immigrants"), or that their culture was violent, inferior, primitive ("stone age") and its disappearance is best for them and represents civilisational progress. Mitchell's little mask drop moment appears to belong in this second category. Don Brash’s praise of Enlightenment Values belongs here too.

      It's very boring to have to repeat these obvious points over and over – so I apologise. Though it might be worth noting that the Israeli state is quite good at this stuff too.

      Reply
      • Scud 7.1.1
        23 April 2025 at 5:38 pm

        Well that's not surprising from Mitchell given he is the grandson to the Former National MP Air Commodore (yes the Muppet demanded everyone call him Air Commodore ….) what's his name and from I've been told he was a racist wanker as well.

        Reply
        • SPC 7.1.1.1
          23 April 2025 at 6:09 pm

          Deputy Chief or Air Component Commander?

          Air is primarily composed of nitrogen (78.08%), oxygen (20.95%), and argon (0.93%). Carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other trace gases also make up the remaining air composition

          Similar then to a Commodore and obey onboard ship in support of a Rear Admiral (private quarters rather than front of ship).

          Reply
        • alwyn 7.1.1.2
          23 April 2025 at 7:03 pm

          There was an (almost certainly apocryphal) story told about Gill.

          the story goes that Muldoon, then PM, sent a Parliamentary messenger to tell Gill Rob wanted to see him. The messenger said something like "Mr Gill, Mr Muldoon would like to talk you in his office at your convenience". The response was "It is Air Commodore Gill".

          The messenger apologised and then said. "Air Commodore Gill. Corporal Muldoon orders that you go to his office immediately".

          As I said. Sadly it was almost certainly just an urban myth. I met Gill once. He struck me as a prat.

          Reply
          • Anne 7.1.1.2.1
            23 April 2025 at 9:03 pm

            Back in the Muldoon days I flew to Wellington to watch one of his budgets. It cured me of budget fever once and for all. Never been so bored. I had been seated in the front row along with the ministers’ wives who were clearly aware of what lay ahead and all bar Thea Muldoon brought their knitting with them. I found the click of their needles more interesting than Muldoon.

            One of his ministers spotted me and, to put it bluntly, proceeded to undress me in his mind. A DOM was my thoughtful response. His name was Air Commodore Gill.

            Reply
      • Muttonbird 7.1.2
        23 April 2025 at 7:57 pm

        Settler colonialism also demands indigenous peoples and developing nations stop doing what they did to get rich. The exploitation of labour, resource, and environment which made the white, western world the richest on the globe by several factors is, according to them, no longer allowed. They are rich because of it but no-one else shall become rich because of it. It is ladder-kicking and it seems to me there is a large and ongoing debt to be paid by the settler colonial west.

        Note Seymour and Van Vampire applaud China, for instance, for apparently digging millions of families out of poverty on the very model of worker and environment exploitation, the same model which Trump now wishes to dismantle.

        These clowns cannot get their story straight.

        Reply
  8. Anne 8
    23 April 2025 at 5:43 pm

    Corin Dann gave Peters a run for his money. Peters didn't like it and called foul. 10/10 to Dann. He's a professional all the way.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/558884/labour-wants-christopher-luxon-to-step-in-over-winston-peters-comments-on-rnz-funding

    Hipkins is right. It was an appalling fit of sulks and petulance from a suppose adult, even though I agree with his definition of a woman.

    Reply
    • Muttonbird 8.1
      23 April 2025 at 7:42 pm

      Hipkins can ask for it but Luxon is never going to enforce anything on Peters or Seymour because he's a gutless middle manager who is always questioning himself for fear of demotion.

      Meanwhile, Peters lashed out under questioning as is his way when he knows his policy is indefensible populist nonsense.

      Reply
      • gsays 8.1.1
        23 April 2025 at 8:06 pm

        "indefensible nonsense".

        So, I'll ask you, what is your definition of a woman?

        Reply
        • Muttonbird 8.1.1.1
          23 April 2025 at 8:10 pm

          Sorry, you're not going to rope me into that claptrap. The very question is to erase a vulnerable minority from society.

          Reply
          • weka 8.1.1.1.1
            23 April 2025 at 10:17 pm

            acknowledging that women are adult human females doesn't make trans women suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke. Not being able to acknowledge that women are adult human females puts whole swathes of women's rights at risk.

            Left wing gender critical feminists argue for resolutions that uphold rights for women and trans people both. TRAs want rights for trans people as a primacy, even at the expense of women. Which is why you can advocate with no apparent irony for the removal of women's rights that exist because women are vulnerable in society.

            Reply
            • weka 8.1.1.1.1.1
              23 April 2025 at 10:37 pm

              Let's make this more clear. This is from a thread that feminist philosopher Jane Clare Jones wrote earlier,

              Many trans rights orgs gave evidence to the Inquiry and provided written submissions. As

              @Womans_Place_UK

              documented in 2018, many of those groups explcitly asked the government to remove the single sex exemptions from the EA2010. This is clear evidence that the TRA claim that there was no conflict between their political movement and women's rights has always been false, and they knew it to be false *because the explicitly lobbied the government to have our right to single sex space removed from the law.*

              https://x.com/janeclarejones/status/1914967539244732420

              That would mean the collapse of the definition of woman as adult human female in law. No more female only rape crisis centres, toilets, hospital wards, women's positions in political parties, women's sports, on and on. Things that women fought hard for.

              The TRA lobby groups didn't win, but they did continue to wage a broad war at the policy level such that for the past decade many people in government, NGOs, business, education etc have erroneously believed that trans women could be considered female in law, despite women pointing out this was not true. Hence the SC ruling last week.

              If you want to lobby for the removal of women as sex class in law, at least have the goddamn courtesy to say it out loud and be honest about it.

              More from JCJ,

              No women's groups were called to give evidence to that inquiry, because at this time, the government and political class did not understand that women were stakeholders in this question.

              This pattern was repeated across civic life in the course of policy capture of our institutions, as we documented regarding the capture of the census authorities. http://thepoliticalerasureofsex.org.

              If you want to talk about erasure, when the NZ government consulted on changing Stats data from sex to gender as the default, they engaged with the rainbow community but not women. No more counting for nothing I guess.

              Reply
              • Karolyn_IS …
                24 April 2025 at 12:34 pm

                And this by JCJ in the thread you linked to, is the bit about activist lawyers in Texas in 1996, laying out all the policies that we've seen the trans lobby promote, often by stealth, to get into law, which would take away women's rights to sex-based rights, services & provisions.

                I was not aware of this when I was supporting transsexuals (as they then were known, in the last decade of 20thC & first decade of 21stC.

                In 1996 they adopted a set of principles called 'The International Bill of Gender Rights.' The fourth point lays out the 'Right of Access to Gendered Space.' The conflict between the trans rights movement and women's right to single sex space was laid down thirty years ago, and with the explicit intention of changing the law in individual nations in order to redefine spaces organised on the basis of biological sex as 'gendered spaces'

                Dentons' international law firm laid out their strategy in a 2019 document, targeting young people including youth politicians (enter Green parties focused on youth?), avoiding excessive media coverage and getting ahead of the coverage to set the agenda, attaching legislation to popular reforms (see sex self ID in the BDMRR Bill, Conversion Practices focus on gay conversion slipping in gender ID conversion along with it), and more.

                A highly developed strategy to slip in all the trans lobby's agenda before there was much public discussion about it. We are only now starting to have the discussion we should have had decades ago.

                Reply
                • weka …
                  24 April 2025 at 2:16 pm

                  thanks for the Dentons link, I haven't looked at that for a long time but have been thinking about it lately and meaning to go find it again.

                  That thread from JCJ was so important, for its summation of the history. What I still don't get is how the left was so fully coopted. The gap in what she is saying is yes, there was substantial effort and lobbying, but why did the left just go 'oh sure'?

                  I mean I get it, I remember when I still wanted to be kind and didn't really understand the full extent of the problem. But I also knew early on about Mitchfest and VRR. I suppose just the general complacency about and antipathy towards women's rights was still core in society, and women had plenty of other things to be getting on with.

                  Reply
          • gsays 8.1.1.1.2
            24 April 2025 at 7:53 am

            Cowardly, but OK then, care to define that "vulnerable minority"?

            I see lots of hand waving and virtue signalling but none of that protects or enshrines any party in law.

            Reply
            • weka 8.1.1.1.2.1
              24 April 2025 at 2:17 pm

              'vulnerable minority' seems to be the talking point du jour. I'm seeing it pop up in a number of places. That there is no corresponding discussion about the vulnerability of women is telling, alongside liberals talking about say all the terrible things happening in the US and making a short list as an exemplar (trans rights, Palestine, gay rights) and how often women’s rights simple aren’t mentioned at all.

              Reply
              • gsays …
                24 April 2025 at 3:05 pm

                Yep, it's all pot shots, vague language and virtue signalling.

                It makes it hard to work towards a consensus, which is what is needed.

                Reply
                • Drowsy M. Kram …
                  24 April 2025 at 3:45 pm

                  yes "Virtue signalling", and calling it out, can put consensus out of reach.

                  Snowflake, cuck, virtue signalling: the new dictionary of slurs feeds division where we need dialogue [27 March 2017]

                  Reply
                  • gsays …
                    25 April 2025 at 7:30 am

                    Well if virtue signalling makes it hard to reach consensus, what do you make of "indefensible populist nonsense" and "dehumanizing" especially when it isn't backed up?
                    More than a faint whiff of misogyny.

                    Reply
                    • SPC …
                      25 April 2025 at 8:04 am

                      Use of the term misogyny to disparage an others opine, can also be a form of virtue signalling.

                      Starmer in his own way explained the issue well.

                      Three years ago, he would not deny woman status to those who those who had a GRC. Now he does.

                      The irony is that those in the UK with that GRC are still allowed to change their birth sex on their birth certificate. What has changed is that their UK Equality Act has been determined to refer to only biological sex, where it refers to women.

                      Populist nonsense may refer to posturing without impact, it is only a members bill (might not make it before the house) and all MP's of the other parties in parliament voted for self ID.

                      Peters also poses as an economic nationalist on free trade, immigration and foreign investment – yet look at the governments he has been part of and what one of them is now doing. And as FM, that is minister for MFAT.

                      A social conservative in lockstep against Green/liberal/the woke for longer than the GOP.

                    • gsays …
                      25 April 2025 at 8:31 am

                      To SPC, now that's a level of debate that can be engaged with rather than the spray and walk away, possibly a remnant of the Denton Protocol.

                      Most of what you say is accurate but far from the whole story.

                      Posturing without impact hardly sums up the position of the status of half the population. The fact that this needs to be defined is a sign to where we have got to because of a lack of engagement so far.

                      As to Peters, yep, complicated contradictory beast. I'm grateful that he is overseeing the ferry process. Doesn't mean everything else he does is ticketty boo.

                      As to misogyny being a form of virtue signaling so be it. Nothing in comparison to the terminology bandied about by the other side of this debate. TERF, transphobe, rape and death threats etc.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      25 April 2025 at 10:37 am

                      Even when objectively accurate, imho descriptors such as "cowardly", "hand waving", "virtue signalling", "pot shots", "vague language", "indefensible populist nonsense", "dehumanizing", "more than a faint whiff of misogyny", "spray and walk away", and "posturing without impact" are all unlikely to promote the consensus we want or need.

                      Seems (to me) that when a culture war flares up, positions/views tend to harden in the short term. It can take decades for society to move on, parliamentary consensus notwithstanding. NZ's (imho) progressive 'anti-smacking' legislation was contentious in its time, and a few parents will still trust in "a smack as part of good parental correction" – some pollies just need to fuel “even stupider culture wars.”

                • weka …
                  24 April 2025 at 3:50 pm

                  I don't have a strong sense of how it will play out in NZ, but I think there are useful things to be learned from the UK. Lots of strategy from grassroots feminist organisations, and willing to work over quite long periods of time.

                  I can't see any consensus happening while women's fundamental rights are being denied. TRAs ran an anti-female campaign and refused rapprochement, so women just got on with the hard work of sorting the mess out with regards to their own interests. The good news about that is that most women will still want the best for society including trans people as well.

                  Looking at NZ, my own view is that we will probably have to go through a similar progression here, where women and allies end up doing a run around the bullshit and go instead to legal and public support for women's rights. Then we can look at social consensus. It's a phenomenal waste of time/energy, and it's terrible for the left to be in this position, but I can't see another path at this point.

                  Reply
                  • gsays …
                    25 April 2025 at 7:46 am

                    I can't help but feel, as times go by, there may be a bit of voter remorse in regards the unanimous vote for self I.D. Caught up in a wave of sympathy for sections of our rainbow community in the face of risk of vilification.

                    As you have pointed out several times in the past, there is plenty of empathy for a section of the community that is navigating the waters of puberty, adolescence, sexuality and identity.

                    That women must make the sacrifices, concessions and face erasure of meaning and class to accommodate them and the various other travellers that fit under the "trans' umbrella is where things go wrong.

                    We see the level of debate here, where there are plenty of accusations but they don't stack up under scrutiny. eg "dehumanizing" "indefensible populist nonsense".

                    Reply
            • Muttonbird 8.1.1.1.2.2
              27 April 2025 at 8:39 pm

              I just throw the question/slogan in the same basket as "White Lives Matter".

              Reply
    • weka 8.2
      23 April 2025 at 7:44 pm

      Peters got really triggered as soon as Dann asked him if the GP was right about his politics, lol

      Reply
      • roblogic 8.2.1
        23 April 2025 at 11:11 pm

        I think it's unfortunate that political pressure groups have weaponised this issue. Peters is an opportunist seeking a wedge issue to cudgel the left.

        It disgusts me that both left wing radicals and the far right have hijacked the debate, and the main outcome so far has been an outbreak of misogyny and fearmongering.

        There are delicate issues here, but 99% of the commentary I've seen on social media has been woeful. Strawmen abound.

        All people deserve to live their best lives, in safety, and without fear and ostracism

        Reply

Leave a Comment