Open Mike 28/11/2018

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, November 28th, 2018 - 408 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 …

408 comments on “Open Mike 28/11/2018 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ed 1
    28 November 2018 at 6:20 am

    Rachel Stewart has written a thought provoking article in the Herald today.
    It is about TERFs, a subject I knew nothing about before today. Her piece has given me an insight into recent events surrounding the Pride Parade.
    I have much respect for Rachel Stewart.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12166957

    • Antoine 1.1
      28 November 2018 at 6:23 am

      And do you agree with her comments on TERFs (so called)?

      • Ed 1.1.1
        28 November 2018 at 6:27 am

        To be honest, Antoine, I do not know enough about the subject to come to a conclusion. As I said, this is the first time I’ve heard the term.
        However, Rachel makes some strong arguments and I’ve always found her to be a voice of reason and independence. Nevertheless I would like to hear the counterpoint before rushing to judgement.
        What is your view on this, if you have one?

    • solkta 1.2
      28 November 2018 at 7:54 am

      Lucky you didn’t boycott the Herald.

    • gsays 1.3
      28 November 2018 at 8:22 am

      Thought provoking, certainly.

      A word of warning, what follows is a fossil trying to articulate something new and foreign, there is no intent to ostracise, judge or demean anyone.

      There seems to be an age division in this issue.
      Older feminists struggling to come to terms with modern norms.
      Ironically much the same confusion and hostility that surrounded Germaine Greer back in the day.

      It appears that identity politics, especially around gender fluidity, becomes the primary way of seeing oneself.
      As opposed to how one links to a whanau, e.g. when young as an offspring or sibling, then as parents age, as provider or caregiver.
      Others through their vocation, or ability in a craft, trade or profession.
      Also culture or creed as as a primary identifier, Maori, Catholic etc.

      Controversial bit: the challenge is to see what we have in common, what binds us. Even the tories….😉

      • solkta 1.3.1
        28 November 2018 at 8:38 am

        It appears that identity politics, especially around gender fluidity, becomes the primary way of seeing oneself.

        Gender is the most prominent social relation, more so than ‘race’ and class. People are forced into one of two boxes literally from birth. Gender is not so much how people see themselves but rather how other people see them. It is something done to an individual by the majority. If we didn’t have a gendered society to begin with then there would be no issue.

        • gsays 1.3.1.1
          28 November 2018 at 9:43 am

          ” If we didn’t have a gendered society to begin with then there would be no issue.”
          my hunch is that we would create an issue around something else.

          if i am asked “what is the truth of my nature?”, gender doesn’t enter my mind.
          my response is influenced by whomever is asking the question.
          i suppose gender doesn’t arise as i am (as i found out reading this a.m.) cisgender.

          • solkta 1.3.1.1.1
            28 November 2018 at 9:56 am

            my hunch is that we would create an issue around something else.

            I think that statement is offensive in the manner of how it would seem to trivialise the issue. This is something that causes people life long mental health issues and death from suicide.

            • gsays 1.3.1.1.1.1
              28 November 2018 at 10:08 am

              my meaning was that in an alternate reality where society wasn’t organised along gender lines, but was by, say, race or class, then the same issues would arise.

              more a statement about society, not a dig at individuals.

      • greywarshark 1.3.2
        28 November 2018 at 3:47 pm

        I think gsays that some are watching this identity creep get in the way of being able to have normal societal relations. The demands go on from people who have gained fairness and freedom legally, but before they have time to enjoy not being belittled and punished they want to turn society over again.

        I wish they would get on and enjoy being Gay and stop trying to put themselves in the driving seat again. There are other people who need consideration out there but it is a recurring argument about who is Jane and who is Tarzan, and are they really the same person in different clothes and why can’t they have the freedom to decide every day who they want to be. And so it goes.

    • Chris T 1.4
      28 November 2018 at 9:05 am

      Didn’t know anything about TERFs till not long ago either.

      Seems to be a feminists fighting amongst themselves thing.

      I do wonder why everything these days has to be lumped into a group, no matter what level of intensity each member may feel about any given topic, or how much they may disagree with the others in the so called grouping on certain aspects of the topic, and given an acronym

      Confuses the hell out of me

      • Antoine 1.4.1
        28 November 2018 at 9:35 am

        You talk about it as if it was complicated and mysterious. It’s not, it’s a straightforward and earthy debate about whether trans women should be considered as women by feminism

        A.

        • Chris T 1.4.1.1
          28 November 2018 at 9:45 am

          The point is it isn’t straight forward

          Some of them will hate the very thought of trans women, and think it is mental illness

          Others don’t care, but don’t want them being included in the feminist battle

          Others support trans women in all things, but just don’t want them in safe spaces

          Others support trans women in every thing except they don’t want them competing in womens sport as they have an advantage.

          Now while the TERF thing seems to have started with the first two (which even those I think shouldn’t be called a group as they are not alike), it seems to have become like it always does now days that anyone of all those opinions is a TERF and the same type of person as the idiot first example.

          It is a similar situation you have in the US at the moment where suddenly all republicans are apparently racist nazis when only a very very small proportion are.

          Or all democrats are suddenly rampant, radical SJWs when they aren’t

        • Gabby 1.4.1.2
          28 November 2018 at 10:10 am

          Can they be Santa? That’s what really matters.

          • Psych nurse 1.4.1.2.1
            28 November 2018 at 10:52 am

            A man transitioning to be a woman can be Santa, conversly a woman transitioning to be a man can also be santa, to save all argument then, only trans people can be Santa.

            • greywarshark 1.4.1.2.1.1
              28 November 2018 at 3:50 pm

              Oh thanks Psych Nurse you have made it all so clear.

              • In Vino …
                28 November 2018 at 6:38 pm

                Yeah, but can they also be Father Christmas – a synonym for Santa?
                Personally, I find ‘Santa’ a very dodgy name. In Spanish, it is Feminine, and the masculine is Santo, or am I wrong?

                • Incognito …
                  28 November 2018 at 9:35 pm

                  You’re right but wrong; it appears to be derived from an old Dutch word rather than the Spanish one you mentioned.

        • Bewilderd 1.4.1.3
          28 November 2018 at 10:11 am

          My view is that Trans women are not females , there are two biological genders, male and female which is a scientific fact There are some men who think they are a women and some women who think they are men. Which is a mental condition not a physical or biological condition Humsnd as a whole hsve multiple and varied sexual presences this does not change your gender ,likewise a man who thinks he is a biological women is no more a women than a man who thinks he is a cat Likewise removing a few body parts does not change that fact, no more cutting off your leg changes your gender You can’t reassign your genders as you are not assigned a gender in the first place, you are what you are. Saying that live and let live, if you want to change your name from Bruce to Belinda, adopt feminine lifestyle so you should with out discrimination but you don’t have the right to ask people to deny biological science in regard to accepting gender reassignment or new pronouns as a fact

          • Antoine 1.4.1.3.1
            28 November 2018 at 10:58 am

            However there are genetically intersex people and it would be nice to be able to offer them proper support

    • McFlock 1.5
      28 November 2018 at 1:55 pm

      I respect her a great deal, but on the trans issue she’s outright wrong.

      “Basic human biology” isn’t all that basic when you’re looking at a population of 4 or 5 million, even at the chromosomal level.

      Then there’s the ‘what if a guy just fills in a form to be able to enter the womens’ changing rooms’ scenario – as if the only thing keeping women safe is a declaration of gender. And as if unisex bathrooms have never existed. And as if violence in womens’ prisons doesn’t exist.

      And the arguments against are entirely dismissive of the massive ostracism, alientation, assault, and suicide rates of transgender people.

      “TERF” is only derogatory because it’s an accurate description of the position.

      • gsays 1.5.1
        28 November 2018 at 2:40 pm

        “Then there’s the ‘what if a guy just fills in a form to be able to enter the womens’ changing rooms’ scenario –”
        That reeks of misandry.

        • DJ Ward 1.5.1.1
          29 November 2018 at 2:01 pm

          There’s examples of males getting kicked out of baby changing rooms. Now that’s…….

    • shadrach 1.6
      28 November 2018 at 11:15 pm

      Rachel’s piece is bang on the money. Thank’s for the link Ed.

      And if anyone thinks the wierdo’s (as in people looking to exploit poorly written law) won’t drive a truck through the bathroom issue, then think again.
      https://www.krem.com/article/news/local/northwest/seattle-man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/293-45412534

      • McFlock 1.6.1
        29 November 2018 at 12:45 am

        Except that person didn’t identify as transgender. They just turned up and said the law had changed. First thing that would be tested in court is whether they are genuinely transgender.

        And even if they did officially become transgender to be a perv, there are still laws on objectionable behaviour. And the pool can still kick people out for staring, regardless of gender.

        • shadrach 1.6.1.1
          29 November 2018 at 9:41 am

          Oh that’s really reassuring for the girls in the changing room. “The court will sort this out dearies. Eventually”.

          • McFlock 1.6.1.1.1
            29 November 2018 at 1:23 pm

            Exactly the same as before the law change if a man walks into the womens’ locker room.

            Those stick figures on the doors aren’t magical sigils of protection.

            • DJ Ward 1.6.1.1.1.1
              29 November 2018 at 2:07 pm

              What if I decide I’m something else and there is no stick figure for me.

              There was a not to old space sci fi movie where both males and females were in a communal shower, or the Japanese or Scandinavians who add children to that picture. They have no irrational fears about the majicaly irrational sex crime of being looked at.

              • shadrach …
                29 November 2018 at 4:15 pm

                There is some really weird stuff going on, DJ. Look up Rachel V. McKinnon. Call yourself a man and win a a cycling world champ gold medal.

            • shadrach 1.6.1.1.1.2
              29 November 2018 at 4:12 pm

              Ah, but when we start allowing men, who claim to be women, into changing rooms bearing the female stick figure, we potentially endanger young women. But never mind, the courts will sort it, eh?

              • McFlock …
                29 November 2018 at 4:14 pm

                Because the stick figure is a force field that vapourises penises?

                What’s stopping a predator dressing up in drag today?

                • shadrach …
                  29 November 2018 at 4:16 pm

                  “Because the stick figure is a force field that vapourises penises?”
                  You seem to making light of sexual predators. Not good form.

                  “What’s stopping a predator dressing up in drag today?”
                  Nothing. But that doesn’t mean we encourage it! But the courts, eh, McFlock. They’ll deal with it.

                  • McFlock …
                    29 November 2018 at 4:40 pm

                    I’m being sarcastic about your fucking bullshit.

                    If a man really wants to plan ahead to commit a sexual assault, do you really think a sign on a door will stop him? Seriously? It’s a powerless social convention that does nothing to keep people safe.

                    edit: case in point

                    • shadrach …
                      29 November 2018 at 4:50 pm

                      “I’m being sarcastic about your fucking bullshit. ”
                      Keep it to yourself, it is in very bad taste.

                      “If a man really wants to plan ahead to commit a sexual assault, do you really think a sign on a door will stop him?”
                      You mean like will a law that bans smacking stop child abuse? The answer is no. But going out of our way to permit biological males to legally enter women’s changing rooms is not only engaging in delusion, it is dangerous.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 November 2018 at 5:08 pm

                      Oh, take your bigotry and fuck off.

                      Pretending to be transgender in order to go into the womens’ is exactly the same as pretending to be female in order to do the same thing. The sooner bigots like you get arthritis from all your pearl-clutching, the better.

                    • shadrach …
                      29 November 2018 at 5:18 pm

                      “Pretending to be transgender….”
                      Now when did I suggest anyone would ‘pretend’ to be transgender? You said yourself (about the example I cited) “Except that person didn’t identify as transgender. ” But people may well use poorly conceived law to pretend to be all sorts of things. Perhaps you will identify as a Court?

                      Being opposed to the idea of people who are biologically male entering female toilets is not bigotry (although you do try to hide behind labels). And neither is the current concerns being expressed by many feminists about transgender ideology. Which takes us all the way back to Rachel Stewart. Here, read and learn. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/05/trans-rights-should-not-come-at-the-cost-of-womens-fragile-gains

                    • McFlock …
                      29 November 2018 at 6:22 pm

                      Yeah, you’re a bigot.

                      And if a pervert is pretending, then it’s not really their gender identity, so the law doesn’t even apply to them.

                    • shadrach …
                      29 November 2018 at 7:22 pm

                      You really do struggle with definitions. A bigot is someone who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. That fits you rather well.

                      “And if a pervert is pretending, then it’s not really their gender identity, so the law doesn’t even apply to them.”
                      Oh the ignorance. The law ENABLES them. Get educated McFlock. Seriously.

                      BTW…this article responds to Julia Serano’s trans-activist pseudo-science.
                      https://medium.com/@LogicalMarcus/is-julia-serano-right-that-transwomen-are-female-a989dca9d026

                    • McFlock …
                      29 November 2018 at 7:41 pm

                      The law does not enable anyone to pretend to be transgender or a different gender. They can already do that.

                    • shadrach …
                      29 November 2018 at 9:26 pm

                      “The law does not enable anyone to pretend to be transgender or a different gender. They can already do that.”
                      Do you understand the difference between a biological male pretending to be female, and that same male exercising that ‘belief’ by entering a female changing room?
                      Or a biological male pretending to be female, and committing a crime and being incarcerated in a female prison?

                    • McFlock …
                      29 November 2018 at 9:39 pm

                      Do you understand that gender is more than just the biological features you assume someone has?

                      Edit: and you obviously don’t understand the words you use: if someone is “pretending”, there is no “belief” to exercise.

                    • shadrach …
                      29 November 2018 at 11:37 pm

                      You’ve evaded the point of my question. Never mind.

                      “Do you understand that gender is more than just the biological features you assume someone has?”
                      Well, that depends how you define gender. But that really is irrelevant to the points Rachel Stewart is making.

                      “you obviously don’t understand the words …
                      Yes, I do. But here, I’ll simplify it for you. Clearly you don’t understand the difference between someone who merely ‘pretends’ or ‘believes’ they are something, and someone who acts that out.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 November 2018 at 12:11 am

                      How one defines gender is the essence of the bigotry transgender people face. A trangender woman isn’t a “biological male pretending to be female”. And the binary model of gender is the equivalent of primary school teachers telling kids that humans have five senses.

                      Also, someone who pretends they are something does not believe they are that thing. Even method actors know they are acting.

                    • shadrach …
                      30 November 2018 at 12:12 am

                      Back to Rachel Stewart’s excellent article, and the points she makes around transactivism. There is another piece at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/09/sexual-assaults-in-womens-prison-reignite-debate-over-transgender-inmates-karen-white that includes this:

                      “Pilgrim Tucker, who has led legal action over proposed changes to the Labour party’s policy on the formal inclusion of self-identifying trans women on all-women shortlists, said women campaigning about self-identification had long warned of the risk it posed. “Almost half of trans women prisoners are sex offenders,” she said. “We urgently need to start prioritising the safeguarding of women and girls over the feelings of male-bodied people.””

                    • shadrach …
                      30 November 2018 at 12:19 am

                      You’re still avoiding answering! You’re won’t address the acting out thing will you? But then I shouldn’t be surprised. When you wrote “The law does not enable anyone to pretend to be transgender or a different gender” you clearly didn’t understand we were talking about the law enabling a certain behaviour, not whether someone pretends or believes they are something.

                      “How one defines gender is the essence of the bigotry transgender people face. ”
                      So if I define gender in a way you disagree with, I’m a bigot? What does that make you if you disagree with my definition? That’s right…a bigot.

                      But you really are missing the point, which is Rachels excellent article highlighting some of the problems with transactivism.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 November 2018 at 12:31 am

                      Your question is nonsensical – if they are pretending, then there are no beliefs to “act out” (whatever that means).

                      As for prisons, keeping inmates safe from other inmates is a primary responsibility of prison management, regardless of the gender of the prisoners. Would you double-bunk a transgender woman in a male prison? If you can’t guarantee other female inmates’ safety from her in a female prison, how will you ensure her safety in a male prison? Maybe that’s a wider issue than some bigots’ binary attitudes to other minority groups.

                      If prisons became more safe for all inmates because bigotry like yours meant prisons actually kept inmates safe from other inmates, that might actually be a good thing.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 November 2018 at 12:39 am

                      So if I define gender in a way you disagree with, I’m a bigot? What does that make you if you disagree with my definition? That’s right…a bigot.

                      No, dickhead.

                      If you define it to exclude thousands of people even from performing a basic bodily function in a stall by themselves simply because you think their junk doesn’t match a silhouette on the door, you’re a bigot.

                    • shadrach …
                      30 November 2018 at 9:57 am

                      “Your question is nonsensical – if they are pretending, then there are no beliefs to “act out” “
                      I specifically said ‘pretends’ or ‘believes’. Your avoiding answering, but then the reason is obvious. You misunderstaood the difference between the law enabling a certain behaviour, and the law allowing someone to pretend or believe they are something.

                      “As for prisons, keeping inmates safe from other inmates is a primary responsibility of prison management, regardless of the gender of the prisoners.”
                      And preventing biological males from being in female prisons is a really good start.

                      “No, dickhead. If you define it to exclude thousands of people even from performing a basic bodily function in a stall by themselves simply because you think their junk doesn’t match a silhouette on the door, you’re a bigot.”
                      Exclude? Who’s excluding? Biological males can perform a basic bodily function in a stall by themselves in male toilets. Which is kind of logical, right? We already exclude non-trans biological men from female changing rooms. Because we recognise that women don’t want biological males in their space. Obviously you think that’s bigotry.

                      I just think you have no idea what you’re talking about.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 November 2018 at 12:23 pm

                      Biological males can perform a basic bodily function in a stall by themselves in male toilets.

                      So according to you transwoman penises are dangerous in bathrooms, but straight man penises are not.

                    • shadrach …
                      30 November 2018 at 3:27 pm

                      “So according to you transwoman penises are dangerous in bathrooms, but straight man penises are not.”

                      Oh you really need to learn to read.

                      “We already exclude non-trans biological men from female changing rooms. Because we recognise that women don’t want biological males in their space. ”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28-11-2018/#comment-1556177

                      And you STILL haven’t answered my question!

                    • McFlock …
                      30 November 2018 at 3:50 pm

                      Your question is nonsensical.

                      The law does not enable people to “pretend”.
                      As for “believe”, that is neither here nor there. You said yourself that people have different definitions of gender. If gender is subjective, then believing it makes it true, and no law is needed for transgender or gender fluid people. If they believe they are female, they are, because gender is apparently subjective.

                      So they can’t be “acting out” a “belief”. they are simply behaving as they are.

                      And if cis women are in danger from a trans woman using a bathroom, why is the trans woman not in danger using a bathroom with cis men?

                    • shadrach …
                      30 November 2018 at 4:18 pm

                      “Your question is nonsensical.”
                      My question flows directly from your own comments. Which is why I put it thus:
                      “Clearly you don’t understand the difference between someone who merely ‘pretends’ or ‘believes’ they are something, and someone who acts that out.”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28-11-2018/#comment-1556075

                      “The law does not enable people to “pretend”.”
                      This is the bit you simply can’t grasp – see above. What the law enables is not the pretending, it is the acting out their pretending, their beliefs, their delusions.

                      “If gender is subjective…”
                      Biology is not subjective. You can pretend to identify as a carrot for all I care. That doesn’t make you one.

                      “And if cis women are in danger from a trans woman using a bathroom, why is the trans woman not in danger using a bathroom with cis men?”
                      You really don’t get this do you? When a biological male walks into a woman’s changing room, how do you distinguish between whether they are a trans person or not? Perhaps you’d be happy to just ‘believe’ them lol.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 November 2018 at 4:28 pm

                      As you seem not to be able to comprehend, the law enables them to act out their pretending, their beliefs, their delusions.

                      shit like that is why I called you a bigot, you bigot.

                      “If gender is subjective…”
                      Biology is not subjective. You can pretend to identify as a carrot for all I care. That doesn’t make you one.

                      Human biology is frequently less binary than you suggest.
                      “

                      And if cis women are in danger from a trans woman using a bathroom, why is the trans woman not in danger using a bathroom with cis men?”
                      You really don’t get this do you? When a biological male walks into a woman’s changing room, how do you distinguish between whether they are a trans person or not? Perhaps you’d be happy to just ‘believe’ them lol.

                      1: how many public toilets do you walk into naked?
                      2: even if we pretended that the bigots’ only objection was to penises in the womens’ rather than post-op trans women as well, do you really think that make-up, breast implants, and so on would blend right in with all the drunk manly men in a bar? How fucking stupid are you?

                    • shadrach …
                      30 November 2018 at 7:07 pm

                      “shit like that is why I called you a bigot, you bigot.”
                      I make a comment about straight men pretending to be trans in order to enter women’s only areas and you cry ‘bigot!’. Learn to read!

                      “Human biology is frequently less binary than you suggest.”
                      Oh I doubt you really understand that. But it’s also irrelevant. I didn’t say biology was binary, I said it was not subjective. Learn to read!

                      “1: how many public toilets do you walk into naked?”
                      Ah, none. And the biological male who frequents women’s toilets for nefarious purposes doesn’t either.

                      “2: even if we pretended that the bigots’ only objection was to penises in the women’s’ rather than post-op trans women as well, do you really think that make-up, breast implants, and so on would blend right in with all the drunk manly men in a bar?”
                      My objection is to a law that enables a biological male to enter into a woman’s only space. Learn to read. Seriously.

                      And you still are avoiding responding to my questions.
                      You said: “And if cis women are in danger from a trans woman using a bathroom, why is the trans woman not in danger using a bathroom with cis men?”
                      I replied: “When a biological male walks into a woman’s changing room, how do you distinguish between whether they are a trans person or not?”
                      That you have now avoided answering two direct questions shows just how out of your depth you are.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 November 2018 at 7:24 pm

                      If a straight man is pretending, he’s not acting out a belief and he’s not delusional. And he can just as easily pretend to be a cis woman. Because looking at someone who is clothed often can give misleading indications as to their gender even when they aren’t trans or trying to mislead. E.g. women who are mistakenly called “sir”, or the guy who inspired the song “dude looks like a lady”.

                      Unless you intimately examine someone’s biology, you might have no idea whether they are what you would call a “biological male”, or might even draw the wrong conclusion. Even after that examination you might have no clear idea.

                      And what makes trans women so safe in the mens room?

                    • shadrach …
                      1 December 2018 at 11:13 am

                      You still don’t get it do you? (Which I guess is why you’re avoiding answering the questions). This is about a law that enables a biological male, who is not trans, to enter a women’s space ‘pretending’ to be female for nefarious purposes. We ‘might’ have no idea whether they are biologically male (and I don’t define that btw). We ‘might’ have no idea whether they are unicorns. But we don’t seem to have had too many problems for the past few thousand years. Which is perhaps why biological males should use the mens room, and biological females the womens room.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 December 2018 at 6:59 pm

                      This is about a law that enables a biological male, who is not trans, to enter a women’s space ‘pretending’ to be female for nefarious purposes.

                      Luckily no such law exists or has ever existed.

                      There are laws begining to emerge that allow transexual people to use the facilities most suitable for them. That you confuse this for any guy legally “‘pretending’ to be female for nefarious purposes” is simply down to the fact that you are a bigot.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 8:29 am

                      “There are laws begining to emerge that allow transexual people to use the facilities most suitable for them.”
                      Most suitable for them? What does that even mean? It means enabling biological males to use female facilities.

                      “That you confuse this for any guy legally “‘pretending’ to be female for nefarious purposes” is simply down to the fact that you are a bigot.”
                      No, it’s that I see the results.

                      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/09/sexual-assaults-in-womens-prison-reignite-debate-over-transgender-inmates-karen-white
                      https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/male-rapist-who-identifies-as-female-transfers-to-womens-jail-assaults-fema

                      But keep hurling the labels. It shows you’ve lost the debate.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 December 2018 at 10:14 am

                      Because transgender prisoners are safe in male prisons?

                      See the bit about maybe prisons should protect inmates from other inmates.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 12:43 pm

                      Still avoiding actually answering the questions.

                      “Because transgender prisoners are safe in male prisons?”

                      “See the bit about maybe prisons should protect inmates from other inmates.”

                      Admit it, you have no idea. You can’t even see the contradiction in those two comments.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 December 2018 at 12:46 pm

                      There is no contradiction. You are stating that transgender women shouldn’t be in a female prison because they might abuse other inmates. But putting them in a male prison opens them to abuse from other inmates.

                      Surely the obvious answer is to have more resources for prisons to stop inmates abusing each other, regardless of gender?

                      It might be a good idea.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 2:01 pm

                      “There is no contradiction.”
                      Of course there is. On one hand you’re arguing that transgender prisoners won’t be safe in a male prison. On the other you argue that concerns over male prisoners entering female prisons can be dismissed because “prisons should protect inmates from other inmates.”

                      “You are stating that transgender women shouldn’t be in a female prison because they might abuse other inmates.”
                      Actually, I have never said that. Stop misquoting me.

                      “But putting them in a male prison opens them to abuse from other inmates.”
                      And passing a law that enables people to serve in a prison based on self-identification opens women in female prisons up to abuse.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 December 2018 at 2:10 pm

                      On one hand you’re arguing that transgender prisoners won’t be safe in a male prison. On the other you argue that concerns over male prisoners entering female prisons can be dismissed because “prisons should protect inmates from other inmates.”

                      Nope. I’m talking about transgender prisoners in female prisons, not male prisonsers in female prisons.
                      But the wider points aren’t contradictory because the issue in prisons isn’t genders, the problem to address is inmate safety from other inmates. Regardless of gender.

                      “You are stating that transgender women shouldn’t be in a female prison because they might abuse other inmates.”
                      Actually, I have never said that. Stop misquoting me.

                      So what’s your problem with transgender women in womens’ prisons, then?

                      “But putting them in a male prison opens them to abuse from other inmates.”
                      And passing a law that enables people to serve in a prison based on self-identification opens women in female prisons up to abuse.

                      So let them choose their prison and make prisons safer.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 2:29 pm

                      “I’m talking about transgender prisoners in female prisons, not male prisonsers in female prisons.”
                      That is not what you said. Here is your comment:
                      “Because transgender prisoners are safe in male prisons?”
                      And…
                      “See the bit about maybe prisons should protect inmates from other inmates.”
                      The first line was about trans-women in male prisons.
                      You used the line that trans women will not be safe in a male prison to argue that they should be allowed into a female prison. But then in the same breath you argue that prisons should ‘protect inmates’. The two lines directly contradict each other.

                      “But the wider points aren’t contradictory because the issue in prisons isn’t genders, the problem to address is inmate safety from other inmates.”
                      Yes, they are contradictory.

                      “So what’s your problem with transgender women in womens’ prisons, then?”
                      Certainly not because I believe they’ll abuse other inmates.

                      “So let them choose their prison and make prisons safer.”
                      So let a biological male choose to be housed in a female prison? No thanks.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 December 2018 at 2:33 pm

                      “So what’s your problem with transgender women in womens’ prisons, then?”
                      Certainly not because I believe they’ll abuse other inmates.

                      What is your problem with it, then?

                      “So let them choose their prison and make prisons safer.”
                      So let a biological male choose to be housed in a female prison? No thanks.

                      Transgender women aren’t “biological males”, you fucking bigot.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 3:21 pm

                      ” What is your problem with it, then?”
                      Because by allowing people who ‘identify’ as female but are not biologically female to enter female spaces is not keeping women safe.

                      “Transgender women aren’t “biological males”, you fucking bigot.”
                      “It seems clear that woman-only spaces such as changing rooms, hostels, and prisons should be organised according to sex category, not self-assigned gender. Transwomen are biologically male. Studies show that most retain male genitalia. Many have a sexual orientation towards females. If we think there are good reasons to retain same-sex spaces generally, in terms of protecting females from a small number of malfeasant males, these reasons don’t cease to operate when males self-identify as women. Either we keep same-sex spaces, or the result is effectively mixed-sex spaces, to the detriment of females.”
                      and…
                      “Transwomen are not biologically female.”
                      https://theconversation.com/why-self-identification-should-not-legally-make-you-a-woman-103372. Have a read. You might learn something.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 3:23 pm

                      “A fourth objection argues that transwomen are more oppressed than females (after all, we’re told, many females have “cis privilege” – in other words they are not trans). For instance: transwomen face violence in men’s changing rooms and prisons, so should be admitted into women’s ones, even if this disadvantages females there. Transwomen face discrimination at work too, so should be admitted onto women-only quotas and shortlists. Actually, though, scant data reliably confirms such comparisons. For instance, crime figures, both in the UK and US, suggest that transpeople are no more at risk of homicide or violent attack than the average person, and may in fact face a lower risk.”

                      https://theconversation.com/why-self-identification-should-not-legally-make-you-a-woman-103372

                    • solkta …
                      3 December 2018 at 3:34 pm

                      @shadrach

                      You should be embarrassed to link to such a disingenuous site.

                      The link for the claim:

                      For instance, crime figures, both in the UK and US, suggest that transpeople are no more at risk of homicide or violent attack than the average person, and may in fact face a lower risk.”

                      only asks the question: How often are transgender people murdered?

                      A more pertinent question would be: How often do they get the shit kicked out of them?

                    • McFlock …
                      3 December 2018 at 3:39 pm

                      Because by allowing people who ‘identify’ as female but are not biologically female to enter female spaces is not keeping women safe.

                      But if if you are not worried that transgender women will abuse female inmates, what is the safety problem?

                      scant data reliably confirms

                      [headdesk] yeah, with lines like that they can fuck off, too.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 3:47 pm

                      “A more pertinent question would be: How often do they get the shit kicked out of them?”

                      That would qualify as a ‘violent attack’ would it not? For which trans people “may in fact face a lower risk”.

                      Also, the link is not to a ‘site’, it is to an article written by Kathleen Stock. Just because it doesn’t fit your worldview, does not make it “disingenuous”.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 3:52 pm

                      “But if if you are not worried that transgender women will abuse female inmates, what is the safety problem?”
                      The ‘safety’ problem arises by allowing people to ‘self identify’, which then leads to non-trans men identifying as women and…well do i have to spell it out?

                      “scant data reliably confirms”
                      Reliably confirms. That data is what we have.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 December 2018 at 4:00 pm

                      The ‘safety’ problem arises by allowing people to ‘self identify’, which then leads to non-trans men identifying as women and…well do i have to spell it out?

                      Yeah, you really do.

                      Because if a man “pretends” to identify as a trans woman, that’s a question of fact that can go through the courts when he (because he’s a he) requests the transfer. And if the prisoner really is a trans woman, then obviously you have no safety concern.

                      “scant data reliably confirms”
                      Reliably confirms. That data is what we have.

                      Scant data can’t reliably confirm a damned thing. Apparently unless, of course, it supports your bigotry.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 4:06 pm

                      “Because if a man “pretends” to identify as a trans woman, that’s a question of fact that can go through the courts when he (because he’s a he) requests the transfer.”
                      Oh the courts. Yes you tried that one before and it failed then.

                      “Scant data can’t reliably confirm a damned thing.”
                      I’ve just realised you misunderstood the author. The author is saying that there is ‘scant data’ that confirms any bias against trans people in the numbers. Not scant data confirming no bias.

                      And I see you are studiously avoiding my post in response to you comment that “Transgender women aren’t “biological males””.
                      Here’s a couple of others for your further education, both in response to a previously referenced article by Julie Serano.
                      https://medium.com/@LogicalMarcus/is-julia-serano-right-that-transwomen-are-female-a989dca9d026
                      https://medium.com/@JonahMix/julia-serranos-arguments-for-gender-identity-are-unconvincing-incoherent-and-insulting-8fef8340cb4

                    • solkta …
                      3 December 2018 at 4:11 pm

                      @shadrach

                      Hey fuckknuckle, read my post before replying. It only links to some stats on murder.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 4:21 pm

                      “…read my post before replying.”
                      I did. They don’t claim that one link supports what you want it to. The link supports the murder claim, and they never claimed otherwise.

                      BTW the link includes this:

                      “Based on this estimate, the transgender murder rate is in fact significantly lower than for the average person (for the purposes of this analysis we will assume that murder rates across England and Wales are representative of the UK as a whole).”

                      Which is a very different picture than is often presented.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 December 2018 at 4:26 pm

                      “Because if a man “pretends” to identify as a trans woman, that’s a question of fact that can go through the courts when he (because he’s a he) requests the transfer.”
                      Oh the courts. Yes you tried that one before and it failed then.

                      Lol. Nice distraction attempt.
                      Fact is that yeah, if there’s any question about whether someone is genuinely transgender, it will have to be assessed somehow before the transfer and prisoners like to take things through the courts.

                      But either way, it still doesn’t address the fact that if prisons had enough resources you could hold a male rapist in a womens’ prison and keep them all safe. Just as you’d keep men safe from double-bunking with sexual abusers.

                      “Scant data can’t reliably confirm a damned thing.”
                      I’ve just realised you misunderstood the author. The author is saying that there is ‘scant data’ that confirms any bias against trans people in the numbers. Not scant data confirming no bias.

                      Actually, fair call on that. The authors decided to ignore the countries where murder rates were higher and call “murder rates” (from an equally dodgy site – how did they confirm gender identity, for example?) “crime figures” (implying a wider range of crimes than just murder), and thereby found scant data confirming bias. My mistake.

                      And whether transgender women are or can be “biological males” isn’t something I’m going to debate with you. Your position by default makes you a bigot. I’m not saying this to silence you, because nothing will ever shut up a bigot like yourself. You can wank on about it with someone else – I’m not going to engage with you on that.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 December 2018 at 4:37 pm

                      Oh, and going down the rabbit hole of those links, their denominator for transgender was based on “gender nonconforming to some degree”. The widest possible interpretation, just to keep the rates down.

                      Yeah, fuck off.

                    • solkta …
                      3 December 2018 at 4:39 pm

                      The link supports the murder claim, and they never claimed otherwise.

                      They do so.

                      For instance, crime figures, both in the UK and US, suggest that transpeople are no more at risk of homicide or violent attack than the average person, and may in fact face a lower risk.”

                      “crime figures” is clickable but only leads to murder figures.

                      I will leave you to MF as you just waste pixels.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 4:42 pm

                      “… if there’s any question about whether someone is genuinely transgender, it will have to be assessed somehow before the transfer and prisoners like to take things through the courts.”
                      Which will consume more time and more money.

                      “And whether transgender women are or can be “biological males” isn’t something I’m going to debate with you. Your position by default makes you a bigot.”
                      My ‘position’? You mean it is bigoted to claim that a biological male, who identifies as a female, is not a biological female? You’ve really lost it this time, McFlock.

                      The articles I linked to were not written by religious fundamentalists, they were written by a Professor of Philosophy whose main “research focus at the moment is philosophical questions about sex, gender, and sexual orientation…”, and an author who describes himself as a “Radical environmentalist, anti-humanist, pro-feminist.” I can quote many more. But your mind is closed.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 4:44 pm

                      ““crime figures” is clickable but only leads to murder figures.”

                      Yes because they include murder in the category of ‘crime figures’. Seriously, isn’t this stuff obvious to you?

                      BTW – are you surprised by the murder stats?

                    • McFlock …
                      3 December 2018 at 4:51 pm

                      “… if there’s any question about whether someone is genuinely transgender, it will have to be assessed somehow before the transfer and prisoners like to take things through the courts.”
                      Which will consume more time and more money.

                      Isn’t safety worth it?

                      “And whether transgender women are or can be “biological males” isn’t something I’m going to debate with you. Your position by default makes you a bigot.”
                      My ‘position’? You mean it is bigoted to claim that a biological male, who identifies as a female, is not a biological female? You’ve really lost it this time, McFlock.

                      It’s bigoted to insist that everyone else must conform to your idea of what constitutes a “biological” sex, yes.

                      The articles I linked to were not written by religious fundamentalists, they were written by a Professor of Philosophy whose main “research focus at the moment is philosophical questions about sex, gender, and sexual orientation…”, and an author who describes himself as a “Radical environmentalist, anti-humanist, pro-feminist.” I can quote many more.

                      And you can stick your appeals to authority up your biological fundament.

                      But your mind is closed.

                      To bigotry, as much as I can, yes. Not perfectly, but obvious shit like yours is easily avoidable.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 December 2018 at 4:53 pm

                      BTW – are you surprised by the murder stats?

                      Given the fact that the arbitrarily wide denominator could make the TG murder rates a couple of orders of magnitude too high, not really, no. That sort of dodgy assessment is part of the systematic bigotry transgender people face.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 4:57 pm

                      “Isn’t safety worth it?”
                      You haven’t provided any evidence it is even necessary.

                      “It’s bigoted to insist that everyone else must conform to your idea of what constitutes a “biological” sex, yes.”
                      It’s not ‘my’ idea of what constitutes biological sex. And as you refuse to engage on the subject, you’re hardly in a position to take any moral high ground!

                      “And you can stick your appeals to authority up your biological fundament.”
                      Yes I thought you might not be happy with ideas you disagree with. Now that’s bigotry.

                      “To bigotry…”
                      No, to anything that disturbs the ill-informed little bubble you live in.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 December 2018 at 5:04 pm

                      oh so now safety might not be an issue at all, again.
                      To hell with gender-fluid, you’re safety-fluid.

                      great move, bigot.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 5:09 pm

                      “oh so now safety might not be an issue at all, again.”
                      Safety for whom? Certainly safety appears to be an issue for women when biological males share their prisons. The reality is prisons can be violent, dangerous places. If you think you can make them safe for everyone, then make them safe. And keep biological sexes together.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 December 2018 at 5:11 pm

                      “oh so now safety might not be an issue at all, again.”
                      Safety for whom? Certainly safety appears to be an issue for women when a biological males share their prisons.

                      Well if your “biological male” tries to get a transfer and gets denied because he isn’t transgender, he can take it to the court and your problem is solved.

                    • shadrach …
                      3 December 2018 at 6:46 pm

                      “Well if your “biological male” tries to get a transfer and gets denied because he isn’t transgender, he can take it to the court and your problem is solved.”
                      Won’t be necessary if he isn’t in a female prison in the first place.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 December 2018 at 7:22 pm

                      Won’t be necessary if he isn’t in a female prison in the first place.

                      But would you let a transgender woman transfer to a womens’ prison?

                    • shadrach …
                      4 December 2018 at 9:17 am

                      “But would you let a transgender woman transfer to a womens’ prison?”
                      No. A trans woman is not biologically female.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 December 2018 at 2:14 pm

                      Even after the surgery?

                    • shadrach …
                      4 December 2018 at 4:04 pm

                      “Even after the surgery?”

                      What surgery?

                      The removal of the testicles and penis?
                      The removal of the prostate gland?
                      The deployment of tissue from the penis to construct a vagina and clitoris?
                      The construction of a Labia – the “lips” surrounding the vagina – from scrotal skin?
                      The shortening of the urethra?
                      Facial feminization surgery to change the appearance of their lips, eyes, nose, or Adam’s apple?
                      (https://www.issm.info/sexual-health-qa/what-is-gender-reassignment-surgery/)

                      On a related note:
                      http://willamettecollegian.com/main/sex-binary-is-based-in-biological-and-scientific-fact/
                      “Sex is biological. According to the World Health Organization, “the X and Y chromosomes determine a person’s sex. Most women are 46XX and most men are 46XY. Research suggests, however, that in a few births per thousand some individuals will be born with a single sex chromosome (45X or 45Y) (sex monosomies) and some with three or more sex chromosomes (47XXX, 47XYY or 47XXY, etc.) (sex polysomies).” For comparison, according to the CDC, about four out of every 10,000 babies born in the United States is born with a limb deformity, or about 0.04 percent of the population. One is more likely to be born with a limb deformity than an intersex condition in the United States. ”
                      Within the male/female paradigm there is a ‘spectrum’, but based on that material, perhaps we should be advocating for separate prisons for people with limb deformity.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 December 2018 at 5:40 pm

                      A bit of a gallop to avoid a pretty clear question.

                      Any normal person who was pretty sure their answer wasn’t going to be bigoted would just declare the criteria upon which they would allow a prisoner to be transferred from a mens’ prison to a womens’ prison.

                      You want to have another go?

                    • shadrach …
                      4 December 2018 at 6:31 pm

                      “A bit of a gallop to avoid a pretty clear question.”
                      No, the answer was very clear. You asked about ‘the’ surgery. There is no single surgery for a biological male transitioning to be a trans woman. There are multiple surgeries, and many other medical interventions beside (drugs specifically). None of these make a biological man into a biological woman.

                      “Any normal person who was pretty sure their answer wasn’t going to be bigoted would just declare the criteria upon which they would allow a prisoner to be transferred from a mens’ prison to a womens’ prison.”
                      I did. Here https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28-11-2018/#comment-1558135.

                      I couldn’t have made it clearer.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 December 2018 at 7:52 pm

                      What was unclear was just how much of a bigot you are.

                      So you regard someone with a vagina, no prostate, no penis, and no testicals to be “biologically male”. And that all transwomen are just biological males pretending to be women.

                    • shadrach …
                      4 December 2018 at 10:00 pm

                      “So you regard someone with a vagina, no prostate, no penis, and no testicals to be “biologically male”.”
                      I don’t ‘regard’ them as anything. Biology determines they are not women. BTW, if biology was simply about body parts (even more so body parts that are surgical constructs), you would have to explain why a trans-woman doesn’t have a cervix (read this for a sideline of how ludicrous this can get https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5341098/men-who-identify-as-women-are-invited-for-cervical-smear-without-a-cervix/), ovaries, a uterus…..

                      “And that all transwomen are just biological males pretending to be women.”
                      That’s not my position at all. In fact one of my posts above references a piece that addresses the reality of biologically ‘intersex’ people, and the range that exists within each biological sex. You have neither the reading capacity nor the intelligence to understand. Which is why you resort to labels instead of actually debating the issues.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 December 2018 at 12:40 am

                      So just to be clear, under what circumstances could you imagine a self-identified trans woman being a prisoner in a male prison and being transferred to a female prison?

                    • shadrach …
                      5 December 2018 at 10:29 am

                      “So just to be clear, under what circumstances could you imagine a self-identified trans woman being a prisoner in a male prison and being transferred to a female prison?”
                      None. A self identified trans-woman is not a biological female, either before or after any attempt to construct an alternative reality.

                      BTW…have a look at these pictures of ‘Karen’ White. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6265187/Transgender-prisoner-sexually-assaulted-inmates-female-prison.html.

                      The first picture was apparently taken while ‘he’ was in a women’s prison. And this is what you are advocating?

                    • McFlock …
                      5 December 2018 at 1:12 pm

                      So just to be clear, a transexual prisoner with surgically-acquired breasts and vagina should be double-bunked in a male prison because she is a “biological male”, according to your worldview?

                    • shadrach …
                      5 December 2018 at 2:00 pm

                      “So just to be clear, a transexual prisoner with surgically-acquired breasts and vagina should be double-bunked in a male prison because she is a “biological male”, according to your worldview?”
                      1. It isn’t my worldview. It is simple biology.
                      2. A person with “surgically-acquired breasts and vagina” is not biologically a female.
                      3. If you can find anywhere in my comments where I have asserted what you have stated then I’ll buy you a lollipop.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 December 2018 at 2:10 pm

                      If you insist that trans women are male prisoners, then they will go to male prisons and be treated as male prisoners – including double-bunking.

                      Stick your lollipop up your bigoted arse.

                    • Antoine …
                      5 December 2018 at 2:17 pm

                      The discussion is a bit light on facts.

                      There are already a bunch of trans women in male prisons in NZ. See e.g. https://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/88680844/doublebunking-arrangements-for-trans-prisoners-are-under-review. At present they are not double bunked. They can apply for ‘voluntary segregation’ if they are concerned about their safety.

                      Alternatively, in some cases, they have changed their gender on their birth certificate and gone to a womens’ prison.

                      In short, the current situation is not entirely unsatisfactory, and is being actively managed.

                      A.

                    • shadrach …
                      5 December 2018 at 2:26 pm

                      I would also put it to you that you are calling on an ever decreasing population size to justify your position.

                      The proportion of trans women in the prison population is tiny. From https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42221629

                      “In April 2017, 17 of Scotland’s 7,436 prisoners were transgender, according to the Scottish Prison Service.”

                      “In England and Wales, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) now conducts an annual count of prisoners. Between March and April 2017, it counted 125 transgender inmates in England and Wales, in a prison population of 85,513”.

                      And from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42221629 (written by a trans activist)

                      “Only 12% of trans women have had a vaginoplasty according to large-scale data from the United States and between 12% and 34% have no interest in ever undergoing that surgery.”

                      So (recognising this is a bit rough) the trans population of Scotland, England and Wales is 142/92,949 or 0.15% of the total prison population. Applying the 12% to that figure, we get 0.018% of the total prison population who fall within the parameters your question. That’s 16 people.

                      Further, of those prisoners, up to 41% are sex offenders. And yes I know trans-activists dispute that claim, so here’s the response https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/.

                      BTW, you’re

                    • shadrach …
                      5 December 2018 at 2:28 pm

                      ‘including double-bunking.”

                      Well Antoine just blew that claim apart.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 December 2018 at 2:28 pm

                      Prisons were just a foil for Shadrach to put off admitting that their worry wasn’t really about a “poorly written law” but was actually more about their opposition to any law along those lines (however well crafted it might be).

                      btw, the double bunking thing was about treating transgender prisoners as male prisoners. Saying they’re a special category who won’t be forced to double-bunk is not treating them as male prissoners.

                    • shadrach …
                      5 December 2018 at 3:33 pm

                      “Prisons were just a foil for Shadrach…”
                      Oh so rather than actually debate the issue, you talk around me like a child. Pathetic.

                      “…to put off admitting that their worry wasn’t really about a “poorly written law” but was actually more about their opposition to any law along those lines (however well crafted it might be).”
                      I’m not putting anything off. This isn’t just about poorly written law, it is about whether we should have any law that allows a biological male to inhabit a female prison.

                      “btw, the double bunking thing was about treating transgender prisoners as male prisoners. Saying they’re a special category who won’t be forced to double-bunk is not treating them as male prissoners.”
                      No, the double bunking thing was you trying to use extreme examples to justify your argument. You were found out. As you have been all the way through.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 December 2018 at 3:53 pm

                      So when the issue is whether such a law should exist at all, you start by worrying about how clearly one example has been written?

                      That seems completely reasonable, and not at all like a bigot who was trying to avoid clearly identifying themselves as a bigot. /sarc

                      If you wanted to be clear, all you need have said was “Transgender women at any stage of the process are still men, and should all be kept out of women’s spaces.”

                      And I would have just said that you’re a bigot. End of exchange. but you went through all of this effort just to look like Shadrach the Cowardly Bigot – too bigoted to live and let live, but doesn’t want to explicitly state the opinions they have.

                    • shadrach …
                      5 December 2018 at 10:00 pm

                      “So when the issue is whether such a law should exist at all, you start by worrying about how clearly one example has been written?”
                      No. I’ve been clear; there is bad law, and then there is badly written law.

                      “That seems completely reasonable, and not at all like a bigot who was trying to avoid clearly identifying themselves as a bigot.”
                      I’m not a bigot. I absolutely respect the right of people to hold a differing opinion to mine. It seems your only argument is a label.

                      “If you wanted to be clear, all you need have said was “Transgender women at any stage of the process are still men, and should all be kept out of women’s spaces.””
                      Well goodness me you still can’t read.

                      “…too bigoted to live and let live, but doesn’t want to explicitly state the opinions they have.”
                      Oh I’m happy to live and let live. But putting biological males in female prisons? Nah.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 December 2018 at 10:52 pm

                      Copy that, “biological males” with vaginas shouldn’t be in womens’ prisons. Seems a bit inconsistent to me, but whatevs.

                      I guess the Apartheid laws were expertly crafted, then, because I’ve never seen anyone against those start with a critcism of their semantic loopholes.

                    • shadrach …
                      6 December 2018 at 12:36 pm

                      ““biological males” with vaginas shouldn’t be in womens’ prisons. Seems a bit inconsistent to me, but whatevs.”
                      Not at all. Having a vagina isn’t any greater argument than not having a cervix.

                      “I guess the Apartheid laws were expertly crafted, then, because I’ve never seen anyone against those start with a critcism of their semantic loopholes.”
                      Oh please, are you really that desperate? Comparing apartheid with an argument that says men should not be allowed into a women’s prison?

                    • Antoine …
                      6 December 2018 at 12:39 pm

                      > If you wanted to be clear, all you need have said was “Transgender women at any stage of the process are still men, and should all be kept out of women’s spaces.”

                      That would be my view. If there is a women’s space where men are not permitted, then trans women should also not be permitted.

                      I realise there may not be 100% agreement on this (although I suspect it is the view of the majority).

                      A.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 December 2018 at 12:52 pm

                      If gender is purely biological, then surely the matching bits determine whether the gender has changed.

                      BTW, shadrach the cowardly bigot, I wasn’t comparing your opinion with apartheid (although that would be an interesting discussion, given the commonality of arbitrarily determined criteria based on “biological” imaginings), I just found it interesting that nobody opposed to apartheid started by criticising their logical flow or the font in which they wre published. Yet you started by saying “And if anyone thinks the wierdo’s (as in people looking to exploit poorly written law) won’t drive a truck through the bathroom issue, then think again” when apparently your main concern is about the very existence of the law.

                    • shadrach …
                      6 December 2018 at 3:12 pm

                      “If gender is purely biological, then surely the matching bits determine whether the gender has changed.”
                      Biological sex is not simply a function of ‘matching bits’. If they were, we could rule out a trans-women being biologically female on the basis of not have certain ‘matching bits’.

                      “I wasn’t comparing your opinion with apartheid…”
                      Well as the rest of your spiel demonstrates, you were actually.

                      “arbitrarily determined criteria based on “biological” imaginings)”
                      As opposed to self determined “imaginings”?

                      “I just found it interesting that nobody opposed to apartheid started by criticising their logical flow or the font in which they wre published.”
                      Well the issues are very different. But i welcome your lame attempts to paint the as in any way common.

                      “Yet you started by saying “And if anyone thinks the wierdo’s (as in people looking to exploit poorly written law) won’t drive a truck through the bathroom issue, then think again” when apparently your main concern is about the very existence of the law.”
                      Yes, as I have said, there is both bad law and badly written law. Apartheid was bad law. Was it badly written? Don’t know. We’ve moved on from that now.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 December 2018 at 3:17 pm

                      Your opposition to ti-friendly legislation was initially that it had loopholes for weirdos.

                      Apparently that was merely an appetiser before you had your own little bigot-reveal party. Congratulations, you’re a bigot.

                      Lead with your main position next time. That way nobody needs to waste time arguing legislative semantics about a law you don’t believe should exist in any form.

                    • shadrach …
                      6 December 2018 at 6:57 pm

                      “Your opposition to ti-friendly legislation was initially that it had loopholes for weirdos.”
                      Initial? If you mean https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28-11-2018/#comment-1555609, then you will note the word “and”. I was responding to Ed posting Rachel’s opinion piece. And I quickly raised the issue of Rachel McKinnon (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28-11-2018/#comment-1555948). My subsequent comments have been in response to your silly view that people should be able to indulge their delusions whatever the outcome.

                      “Apparently that was merely an appetiser before you had your own little bigot-reveal party. Congratulations, you’re a bigot.”
                      No. I have a different opinion to you. My opinions happen to relate to a logical view of life. Yours don’t, but I tolerate your intolerance.

                      “Lead with your main position next time.”
                      I did. In response to Ed’s original post. You have a reading problem. Get over yourself.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 December 2018 at 7:57 pm

                      whatever, bigot. It’s not logically consistent to call people with vaginas and no male sex organs “biological males”.

                    • shadrach …
                      7 December 2018 at 3:33 pm

                      “It’s not logically consistent to call people with vaginas and no male sex organs “biological males”.”

                      They are not biologically female. Repeat for clarity. They are not biologically female. Just because they have a vagina does not make them biologically female. Any more than a woman who straps on a penis is suddenly biologically male.

                    • McFlock …
                      7 December 2018 at 4:54 pm

                      What if they have an organ-donated uterus that can produce a child? Would you regard them as “biologically female” then?

                    • shadrach …
                      7 December 2018 at 5:11 pm

                      “What if they have an organ-donated uterus that can produce a child? Would you regard them as “biologically female” then?”
                      It’s not what I regard. It is the reality of biology.

                      BTW, you might need to read this https://www.myvmc.com/anatomy/female-reproductive-system-female-urogenital-system/.

                    • McFlock …
                      7 December 2018 at 5:35 pm

                      And yet I don’t see any sort of vagina or uterus in the same website’s description of “male”. No mention of intersex people, chromosomal variations beyond XX/XY, and so on.

                      Thousands of NZers don’t actually conform to your “reality of biology”.

                      But you argue they should be forced into your binary belief system.

                      Which makes you a bigot.

                    • shadrach …
                      8 December 2018 at 8:43 pm

                      “And yet I don’t see any sort of vagina or uterus in the same website’s description of “male”.“\”
                      No, you won’t. Biological males don’t generally have a vagina or a uterus. Unless of course they have had them surgically added. To a male body.

                      “No mention of intersex people, chromosomal variations beyond XX/XY, and so on”
                      I have mentioned them. And one of my references (http://willamettecollegian.com/main/sex-binary-is-based-in-biological-and-scientific-fact/) specifically addresses the proportion of the population that is intersex.

                      “Thousands of NZers don’t actually conform to your “reality of biology”.”
                      About 0.018%, based on US data, are intersex. Way less than the number born with limb a deformity. At a population of 4,794,000, that’s about 863 people. Not thousands. Exaggeration is often used in this debate by people pushing a trans activist agenda.

                      “But you argue they should be forced into your binary belief system.”
                      No. I argue biological men should not be allowed into a prison for women. You really do have a reading problem.

                      “Which makes you a bigot.”
                      No, it means I have a different opinion to you. Expressing it without being called names is part of intelligent discourse. Oh wait…

                    • McFlock …
                      9 December 2018 at 12:05 am

                      No, the weblink you appealed to in order to describe female biology made no mention of the more complex examples of human sexual organs. Hence it seems that you have at best a beginners’ understanding of the wonderful diversity that is humanity.

                      BTW, I don’t call you a bigot because we have different opinions. I welcome different opinions on a wide variety of topics. I have different opinions with people at work, for example. But they are not bigots.

                      As the good book says, everybody poops in some manner or another. If they can’t do so safely then they have less access to those facilities. Using the toilets you dictate might place them in real danger. Your “opinion” effectively ostracises a minority of people from all public spaces from schools to cinemas to pubs. That is what makes you a fucking bigot.

                    • shadrach …
                      9 December 2018 at 9:16 pm

                      “No, the weblink you appealed to in order to describe female biology made no mention of the more complex examples of human sexual organs.”
                      Well despite your seeming obsession with sex organs, nor have you. You haven’t actually made much of a case at all. You refused to engage on the biology, perhaps because you, like Zoe Tur, don’t want to face reality. BTW if you think artificial appendages changes someone’s biological sex, you really are deluded.

                      “BTW, I don’t call you a bigot because we have different opinions.”
                      Yes, you do.

                      “As the good book says, everybody poops in some manner or another. If they can’t do so safely then they have less access to those facilities. Using the toilets you dictate might place them in real danger.”
                      Or, it may place other people in real danger. Trans people are a tiny minority of the population. I really haven’t heard a compelling argument to change the conditions experienced by 50% of the population for such a small %.

                      “Your “opinion” effectively ostracises a minority of people from all public spaces from schools to cinemas to pubs.”
                      It is not my opinion. It is simple biology.

                      “That is what makes you a fucking bigot.”
                      No, I am not intolerant to anyone I disagree with. I just don’t think letting biological males into female spaces is a good idea. But keep labelling people who disagree with you. It’s a real sign of a loser.

                    • McFlock …
                      9 December 2018 at 10:42 pm

                      Rather than “simple biology”, maybe you should consider a more advanced course that better reflects reality.

                      Or, it may place other people in real danger. Trans people are a tiny minority of the population. I really haven’t heard a compelling argument to change the conditions experienced by 50% of the population for such a small %.

                      If it’s such a small percentage, then the “danger” they represent is equally small, no? If you can spend your entire lifetime without being in a public bathroom at the same time as a trans person, but they most definitely have to use a public bathroom, then the danger is disproportionately weighted. I believe the tory term for it is “tyranny of the majority”.

                      Although your bias in the risk you find acceptable for others is plain bigotry.

                    • shadrach …
                      10 December 2018 at 1:19 pm

                      “Rather than “simple biology”, maybe you should consider a more advanced course that better reflects reality.”
                      I understand reality. The reality that approximately 99.982% of the population are not trans.

                      “Trans people are a tiny minority of the population.”
                      But you claimed “Thousands of NZers don’t actually conform to your “reality of biology”. https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28-11-2018/#comment-1559476. You just have no idea.

                      “If it’s such a small percentage, then the “danger” they represent is equally small, no?”
                      According to some date, as many as 41% of that ‘small %’ are sex offenders (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28-11-2018/#comment-1558698). And I give you this person https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6265187/Transgender-prisoner-sexually-assaulted-inmates-female-prison.html for the next time you harbour such delusions.

                      “I believe the tory term for it is “tyranny of the majority”.”
                      Yet another weak argument when you have nothing else. So I’ll call you on it. When Karen White was put into a women’s prison, and proceeded to sexually assault two women prisoners, we have tyranny of the minority.

                      And that’s where we started…the concerns expressed by an increasing number of women are valid. You, on the other hand, live in a lala land.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 December 2018 at 1:38 pm

                      I understand reality. The reality that approximately 99.982% of the population are not trans.

                      “Trans people are a tiny minority of the population.”
                      But you claimed “Thousands of NZers don’t actually conform to your “reality of biology”. https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28-11-2018/#comment-1559476. You just have no idea.

                      Say 2 million NZ adults. 0.18% of that is 3600. 3,000 is three thousands. You have lots of ideas, none of them good.

                      “If it’s such a small percentage, then the “danger” they represent is equally small, no?”
                      According to some date, as many as 41% of that ‘small %’ are sex offenders (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28-11-2018/#comment-1558698). And I give you this person https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6265187/Transgender-prisoner-sexually-assaulted-inmates-female-prison.html for the next time you harbour such delusions.

                      So there’s a <50% chance a sex offender gets put in a womens' prison, but a 100% chance a trans woman in a male prison will be sharing space with sex offenders.

                      “I believe the tory term for it is “tyranny of the majority”.”
                      Yet another weak argument when you have nothing else. So I’ll call you on it. When Karen White was put into a women’s prison, and proceeded to sexually assault two women prisoners, we have tyranny of the minority.

                      And every prisoner who represents a threat to other prisoners should be in segregation. Because there’s violence in womens’ prisons, too. But they should be in segregation because they are the threat, not because they are threatened by male prisoners, many of whom are guaranteed to be sex offenders.

                    • shadrach …
                      11 December 2018 at 10:34 am

                      “Say 2 million NZ adults. 0.18% of that is 3600. 3,000 is three thousands. You have lots of ideas, none of them good.”
                      Really? I even did the maths for you here https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28-11-2018/#comment-1559867 and you STILL got it wrong.
                      “This means that 0.018 percent of the United States population could be considered intersex.”
                      http://willamettecollegian.com/main/sex-binary-is-based-in-biological-and-scientific-fact/
                      It isn’t 0.18%. It is 0.018%! That’s 360. Not thousands. There is a long list of things you’ve got wrong.

                      “So there’s a <50% chance a sex offender gets put in a womens' prison, but a 100% chance a trans woman in a male prison will be sharing space with sex offenders.”
                      They may be the mathematical odds. I’m not too fussed on betting on ‘Karen’ White being let loose amongst the women.

                      “And every prisoner who represents a threat to other prisoners should be in segregation.”
                      And are they? No. You see that’s the difference. I live in the real world. You, on the other hand, live in lala land.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 December 2018 at 12:45 pm

                      Again, you choose a source that has the most narrow possible definition of “intersex” (even if we restricted “non-binary” to that), i.e. chromosomal anomalies. In reality, you’re an order of magnitude off for people who are born outside of your binary delusion.

                      And even if it were “hundreds” rather than “thousands”, how does that change a fucking thing? You’re still a bigot pretending such people don’t exist just so you can enforce arbitrary stick figures on doors.

                      They may be the mathematical odds. I’m not too fussed on betting on ‘Karen’ White being let loose amongst the women.

                      Those are the odds. And I’m sure she’d be in segregation now, anyway. Like other prisoners who abuse their fellow inmates.

                      “And every prisoner who represents a threat to other prisoners should be in segregation.”
                      And are they? No. You see that’s the difference. I live in the real world. You, on the other hand, live in lala land.

                      You think prisoners should not be imprisoned in the prison that best matches their gender, even though some currently are. I think prisoners who are a danger to other prisoners should be in segregation, even though some currently aren’t.

                      Your habit of confusing the “shoulds” you want with “reality” is part of what makes you a fucking bigot.

                    • shadrach …
                      11 December 2018 at 2:36 pm

                      “Again, you choose a source that has the most narrow possible definition of “intersex” (even if we restricted “non-binary” to that), i.e. chromosomal anomalies. In reality, you’re an order of magnitude off for people who are born outside of your binary delusion.”
                      So, you got the maths wrong, misread the post, and that’s the best you have? You haven’t addressed the small proportion of trans women who elect operative transformation (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28-11-2018/#comment-1558698), or the tiny proportion of trans women in prisons. In fact you really haven’t made much of an argument at all.

                      “And even if it were “hundreds” rather than “thousands”, how does that change a fucking thing?”
                      It was YOU who made the ‘thousands’ claim. It is a typical ploy – exaggerate to make a point. It’s a form of dishonesty. You do understand that?

                      “Those are the odds. And I’m sure she’d be in segregation now, anyway. Like other prisoners who abuse their fellow inmates.”
                      I’m sure that’s cold comfort for his victims.

                      “You think prisoners should not be imprisoned in the prison that best matches their gender…”
                      I think prisoners should not be housed in prisons that do not correspond to their biology. Whatever appendages they have added or removed.

                      “I think prisoners who are a danger to other prisoners should be in segregation…”
                      But they aren’t always, are they? How do like the look of Karen White to share a cell with a woman you care about?

                    • McFlock …
                      11 December 2018 at 2:54 pm

                      “And even if it were “hundreds” rather than “thousands”, how does that change a fucking thing?”
                      It was YOU who made the ‘thousands’ claim. It is a typical ploy – exaggerate to make a point. It’s a form of dishonesty. You do understand that?

                      Or you and your bigot allies minimise the definition to somehow excuse your bigotry. So even going by your number, how does that change anything? You’re still expecting a tiny percentage to accept 100% hardship or risk in order to justify your false “binary” paradigm.

                      “Those are the odds. And I’m sure she’d be in segregation now, anyway. Like other prisoners who abuse their fellow inmates.”
                      I’m sure that’s cold comfort for his victims.

                      Your lack of concern for transwomen assaulted in male prisons is noted.

                      “You think prisoners should not be imprisoned in the prison that best matches their gender…”
                      I think prisoners should not be housed in prisons that do not correspond to their biology. Whatever appendages they have added or removed.

                      And yet adding or removing appendages changes that biology. While your binary categorisation is immutable.

                      “I think prisoners who are a danger to other prisoners should be in segregation…”
                      But they aren’t always, are they? How do like the look of Karen White to share a cell with a woman you care about?

                      And I wouldn’t like a guy I care about to share a cell with a sex predator, either.

                      The concern you have for the safety of a very narrow range of prisoners (prisoners who meet your definition of “female”) shows just how much it’s a convenient veil for your bigotry. If you truly cared about the safety of all prisoners, you’d have to address segregation of dangerous inmates. If you cared about all women, you’d include XX women with ambiguous external genitals and raised as men, as well as trans women.

                      But no, you have only two boxes: assigned at birth, unable to change, and (even by your restricted count) failing to reflect hundreds of New Zealand people.

                      But you have to ignore those people to preserve your bigotry.

                    • shadrach …
                      11 December 2018 at 4:32 pm

                      “Or you and your bigot allies minimise the definition to somehow excuse your bigotry.”
                      You mean by providing a meaningful definition? When you refuse to even engage on the subject of biology?

                      “So even going by your number, how does that change anything? You’re still expecting a tiny percentage to accept 100% hardship or risk in order to justify your false “binary” paradigm.”
                      Hardship or risk? Based on what, your exaggerated claims? No, what I expect is that biological males don’t use female facilities.

                      “Your lack of concern for transwomen assaulted in male prisons is noted.”
                      Really? Because I have empathy for women assaulted by an alleged trans woman I don’t have empathy for trans people?

                      “And yet adding or removing appendages changes that biology.”
                      No, it really doesn’t. If you made any effort to address your knowledge gap you would understand that.

                      “The concern you have for the safety of a very narrow range of prisoners (prisoners who meet your definition of “female”) shows just how much it’s a convenient veil for your bigotry.”
                      Female? You take great pains to avoid using the word ‘biological’, yet that is the term I’m using. You see I understand the biology. You don’t. You’re like Zoe Tur, calling everyone else a bigot but unable to grasp the basic facts.

                      “If you truly cared about the safety of all prisoners, you’d have to address segregation of dangerous inmates.”
                      No. You only raise that because you have no argument. The segregation of dangerous inmates can be addressed as an entirely separate conversation, because it effects all inmates. Not just 0.018%.

                      “But no, you have only two boxes: assigned at birth, unable to change, and (even by your restricted count) failing to reflect hundreds of New Zealand people.”
                      You really must believe that. It’s sad you never learned to read for comprehension.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 December 2018 at 5:28 pm

                      You mean by providing a meaningful definition?

                      If it doesn’t cover 100% of people, it might have meaning but that meaning is bigotry.

                      No, what I expect is that biological males don’t use female facilities.

                      And yet those terms are insufficient in the real world. So either they are more flexible than you want, or additional terms are required. And if additional terms are required, then until those people are catered for your definitions are excluding those people from public places and public life. Bigotry.

                      Because I have empathy for women assaulted by an alleged trans woman I don’t have empathy for trans people?

                      No. Because you have yet to display any empathy for trans people in the same situation as the women you are apparently concerned for, you’re a bigot.

                      You take great pains to avoid using the word ‘biological’, yet that is the term I’m using.

                      Apparently you restrict that to chromosomal normality. Because you don’t get just how close our various organs are in form and origin.

                      Not just 0.018%.

                      Might as well write them off then, eh. Such a small number, so you don’t count them when you think of people.

                      You really must believe that. It’s sad you never learned to read for comprehension.

                      It’s funny that you don’t realise just how transparent you are.

                    • shadrach …
                      12 December 2018 at 2:46 pm

                      “If it doesn’t cover 100% of people, it might have meaning but that meaning is bigotry.”
                      No, that meaning is precise. And covers 99.98% of the population.

                      “And yet those terms are insufficient in the real world.”
                      They cover 99.98% of the population. That’s very ‘sufficient’.

                      “Because you have yet to display any empathy for trans people in the same situation as the women you are apparently concerned for, you’re a bigot.”
                      I have empathy for all, including the 99.98%

                      “Apparently you restrict that to chromosomal normality.”
                      I restrict it to what is commonly understood. I don’t make stuff up or delude myself into thinking Karen White is a biological female. Or that any person who is biologically male (and maybe even has a penis!) is a woman just because they think they are.

                      How’s the maths going? No acknowledgement you screwed up?

                    • McFlock …
                      12 December 2018 at 4:03 pm

                      I have empathy for all, including the 99.98%

                      But not the 0.02%. You don’t give a damn about them. You don’t care about them. And then there’s the others who disagree with you about what they are (as if you’re a better authority on the matter than they are), anyone can do anything to them and you don’t give a shit. You don’t even count them as human.

                      “Apparently you restrict that to chromosomal normality.”
                      I restrict it to what is commonly understood.

                      Even if you were in agreement with what is “commonly understood”, that just means you’d have been a fan of the withcraft trials, too. What is “commonly understood” might not take into account a minority of real people. Policies that cover 100% of the population need to maximise the good for 100% of the population. Not 99%, 99.98%, or 99.999%. They need to consider the needs and harm to 100% of people. You can minimise the numbers you ostracise and endanger with your dodgy taxonomy all you want, ostracising even one person simply because they don’t conform to your binary obsession makes you a fucking bigot.

                    • shadrach …
                      12 December 2018 at 6:06 pm

                      “But not the 0.02%.”
                      It’s possible to have empathy for the .018% without pretending they are something they aren’t.

                      “And then there’s the others who disagree with you about what they are…”
                      So? There are many who agree with me. It’s my view. You struggle to understand the concept of someone with a different opinion to you. It’s quite sad.

                      “Even if you were in agreement with what is “commonly understood”, that just means you’d have been a fan of the witchcraft trials, too.”
                      Oh first it was apartheid and now it’s witchcraft! I’ll wait for the Godwin moment – I’m sure that comes next.

                      “Policies that cover 100% of the population need to maximise the good for 100% of the population. Not 99%, 99.98%, or 99.999%.”
                      I doubt there are very many policies ever conceived that are good for 100% of the people. You really are delusional.

                      How are the math lessons?

                    • McFlock …
                      12 December 2018 at 7:48 pm

                      “But not the 0.02%.”
                      It’s possible to have empathy for the .018% without pretending they are something they aren’t.

                      And yet you excluded them.

                      It’s my view. You struggle to understand the concept of someone with a different opinion to you. It’s quite sad.

                      I understand mere differences in opinion. I just refuse to tolerate bigots like you anymore.

                      “Policies that cover 100% of the population need to maximise the good for 100% of the population. Not 99%, 99.98%, or 99.999%.”
                      I doubt there are very many policies ever conceived that are good for 100% of the people.

                      Now feel free to address what I actually wrote: “maximise the good for 100% of the population” does not equal “are good for 100% of the people”. But it does mean that the policy incorporates the significant harm it does to a small minority in making that calculation. You just want to pretend they don’t exist so you don’t have to consider the consequences of your bigoted “opinions”. You coward.

                    • shadrach …
                      12 December 2018 at 10:08 pm

                      “And yet you excluded them.”
                      No. I simply don’t agree with biological males using facilities reserved for biological females.

                      “I understand mere differences in opinion. I just refuse to tolerate bigots like you anymore.”
                      A bigot is someone who does not tolerate people who hold different views to them. You are, by definition, a bigot.

                      “Now feel free to address what I actually wrote: “maximise the good for 100% of the population” does not equal “are good for 100% of the people”.
                      If a policy maximises the good for all of the population (100%), then surely it is good for 100% of the population?

                      “But it does mean that the policy incorporates the significant harm it does to a small minority in making that calculation.”
                      You haven’t demonstrated any harm, let alone ‘significant’ harm. All you have done is pontificate about ‘thousands’ (which are really hundreds) of people who (despite most retaining male genitalia, and as many as 41% being sex offenders), YOU want put into a jail with biological females. You’re wacky.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 December 2018 at 11:43 pm

                      When you need to rely on the tolerance of intolerance paradox to stop someone calling you a bigot, you’re probably a bigot.

                      I reckon everything else has already been covered, so in the absence of new arguments from yourself I’ll stick with my assessment that you’re just a cowardly bigot.

                    • shadrach …
                      13 December 2018 at 11:02 am

                      “When you need to rely on the tolerance of intolerance paradox to stop someone calling you a bigot, you’re probably a bigot.”
                      Bigotry is not intolerance of an opinion, it is intolerance of the people who hold those opinions. I am very tolerant of you, even though your opinion on this matter is barking mad. But when you said “I just refuse to tolerate bigots like you anymore”, then you demonstrated without doubt you are a bigot.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2018 at 12:31 pm

                      You just don’t tolerate people who do not conform to your narrow idea of “biology”.

                      Hell, you don’t even empathise with the tiny percentage whose existence you magnamimously accept.

                      Hence you are a bigot.

                      Popper it up all you want, you’re just another cowardly bigot. Own it.

                    • shadrach …
                      13 December 2018 at 2:07 pm

                      “You just don’t tolerate people who do not conform to your narrow idea of “biology”.”
                      1. It isn’t ‘my’ idea.
                      2. Yes, I do tolerate them. But tolerating someone doesn’t mean the same thing as agreeing with every thing they may want. (In fact you haven’t even demonstrated all trans women DO want what you think they want! You are just arrogantly assuming all trans women want what you assert.)

                      You simply have nothing other than name calling.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2018 at 2:19 pm

                      Your shallow understanding of human biology isn’t unique to you, but it is yours.

                      And no, you don’t tolerate transexual people. You insist they conform to your binary fixation, even though they cannot. No accommodation will be made for them to exist without conforming to exactly to your binary ideal. For example, you insist on calling trans women “biological men” and keeping them in male prisons. Where’s the tolerance there?

                    • shadrach …
                      13 December 2018 at 2:20 pm

                      This article @ https://medium.com/@ES_4P/biological-sex-as-a-social-construct-b2583c222737 will educate you McFlock. I’m happy to cite it for you even though I may not agree with everything in it. It will help you understand just how flaky your views on this are.

                      “So clearly biological sex exists. Some activists (and social scientists in the above disciplines) reject the distinction of biological sex because it “alienates” or “marginalizes” the intersex community. However, the terminology of “male” and “female” is used to represent the bimodal distribution of biological sex. It’s a useful term. To reject it simply because it “marginalizes” is ludicrous. Here’s why: Humans are also biologically categorized as binocular animals. We typically have two eyes. Doesn’t that “marginalize” humans born with Cyclopia, a birth defect which produces one eye? Humans are also considered bipedal. That term necessarily “marginalizes” humans born with one leg. So on and so forth.”

                      “The question that arises is why — despite such compelling evidence of the impact and importance of biological sex — do some social scientists continue to reject its importance (or even existence!)? That is to say, why is the existence of biological sex a non-issue in the hard sciences but conspicuously under scrutiny elsewhere in academia?At least in part, the rejection of biological sex seems to stem from disciplines which either reject objective science outright or suffer from systemic replication problems. The latter group is made up of fields like social psychology where “findings were less than half as likely to replicate as findings in cognitive psychology”. The former group primarily consists of fields like women’s studies, gender studies, ethnic studies, and trans studies. In every case it’s likely that a belief in the so called “blank slate” theory is motivating the researchers within the social sciences. This theory denies that evolution affected the development of the human mind. Which is a rather incredible belief when you really think about it. “

                    • shadrach …
                      13 December 2018 at 2:25 pm

                      “Your shallow understanding of human biology isn’t unique to you, but it is yours.”
                      Read my latest post. For someone who won’t even engage on the biology, it’s a bit rich calling mainstream opinion ‘shallow’.

                      Here’s more:
                      “And indeed the evidence is rather overwhelming. A quick review of the literature shows that in the hard sciences (e.g. biology, neuroscience) as well as cognitive science the question isn’t whether biological sex exists, but rather the how much biological sex influences our behavior.”

                      and

                      “You insist they conform to your binary fixation, even though they cannot.”
                      I insist nothing of the sort. They are entitled to fit into whatever description they wish. But that doesn’t mean they should force the remaining 99.9% of the population to accept biological men (with the attendant appendages) in women’s prisons.

                      “For example, you insist on calling trans women “biological men” and keeping them in male prisons. Where’s the tolerance there?”
                      It’s called ‘using precise language’. Now tell me how tolerant do you think Zoe Tur was when she threatened to send Ben Shapiro home in an ambulance for questioning Zoe’s biology?

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2018 at 2:49 pm

                      You’re confusing a general model of the population (binary sex, binocular vision) with policies imposed on 100% of the population.

                      Traffic lights play tones to aid blind pedestrians. We have ramps and lifts for people who are not as mobile as the general population. Yet you demand no policy concessions for people of a nonbinary sex, let alone a fluid gender.

                      That’s what makes you a bigot.

                      But that doesn’t mean they should force the remaining 99.9% of the population to accept biological men (with the attendant appendages) in women’s prisons.

                      [my italics]
                      Now you’re being a slippery cowardly bigot.

                      Be clear: even if those “appendages” were surgically removed and replaced with the relevant women’s organs, you still would oppose them being in a womens’ prison.

                      And if you met someone face to face who wants an environment where you will be beaten or murdered, how tolerant would you want to be?

                    • shadrach …
                      13 December 2018 at 3:10 pm

                      “You’re confusing a general model of the population (binary sex, binocular vision) with policies imposed on 100% of the population.”
                      No, I’m pointing out the stupidity of your ‘argument’.

                      “Traffic lights play tones to aid blind pedestrians. We have ramps and lifts for people who are not as mobile as the general population.”
                      None of which puts the 99.9% in any kind of danger.

                      “Yet you demand no policy concessions for people of a nonbinary sex, let alone a fluid gender.”
                      You don’t know that. You haven’t even asked for my view of an alternative.

                      “Now you’re being a slippery cowardly bigot.”
                      No, I’m simply speaking the truth.

                      “Be clear: even if those “appendages” were surgically removed and replaced with the relevant women’s organs, you still would oppose them being in a womens’ prison.”
                      Men who transition and have their appendages removed are a small minority. That means you are quite happy to have a person with a functioning penis, with around 41% chance of being a sex offender, in a prison with women. You’re wacky. And, btw, removing a male penis doesn’t make the bearer a biological female. Don’t take my word for it, this is written by a trans activist https://medium.com/@notCursedE/are-trans-women-female-are-trans-men-male-1cb54b556042. “Female? No. They are women, but I use the term female to refer to biological sex.”

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2018 at 5:12 pm

                      “Traffic lights play tones to aid blind pedestrians. We have ramps and lifts for people who are not as mobile as the general population.”
                      None of which puts the 99.9% in any kind of danger.

                      Never slipped on a ramp? That’s a kind of danger.

                      “Yet you demand no policy concessions for people of a nonbinary sex, let alone a fluid gender.”
                      You don’t know that. You haven’t even asked for my view of an alternative.

                      Nor, after weeks, have you offered one. I didn’t realise you were being coy about a solution to our impasse. Please, expound forth on your alternative.

                      “Be clear: even if those “appendages” were surgically removed and replaced with the relevant women’s organs, you still would oppose them being in a womens’ prison.”
                      […]And, btw, removing a male penis doesn’t make the bearer a biological female.

                      So your line about “biological men (with the attendant appendages)” is redundant. You expect someone with breasts and a vagina to be housed in a mens’ prison, and have offered nothing to mitigate the risk to them. When that person walking down the street would be “commonly understood” to be a woman by passers-by.

                      Because you’re a bigot.

                    • shadrach …
                      13 December 2018 at 7:36 pm

                      “Never slipped on a ramp? That’s a kind of danger.”
                      No. Ramps are quite safe, probably safer than curbs.

                      “Nor, after weeks, have you offered one.”
                      You are so unenlightened, I doubted you’d take any interest.

                      “Please, expound forth on your alternative.”
                      For toilets, unisex. Not sure about prisons.

                      “So your line about “biological men (with the attendant appendages)” is redundant.”
                      What gave you that idea? Only a small % of trans women have that op. The rest have a penis. And as many as 41% are sex offenders. But that doesn’t worry you eh?

                      “You expect someone with breasts and a vagina to be housed in a mens’ prison…”
                      Only 0.018% of the population are trans. Of those, only 12% have operative changes (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42221629). Biological men do not belong in a woman’s prison.

                      “Because you’re a bigot.”
                      No, because I take a sensible view to life. You, on the other hand, think this person should be in a woman’s prison. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison#img-2

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2018 at 8:30 pm

                      “Please, expound forth on your alternative.”
                      For toilets, unisex. Not sure about prisons.

                      So basically, you can’t say what you want but you know what you refuse to accept.

                      “You expect someone with breasts and a vagina to be housed in a mens’ prison…”
                      Only 0.018% of the population are trans.

                      You can’t even get your bullshit straight. 0.018% are intersex according to your definition (ISTR the actual frequency of congenitally-atypical features included in the “intersex” community is much higher than your link’s criteria of chromosomal abnormalities). Trans are higher still. But of course even if it were only one person, they would still matter.

                      You can minimise the number of people you refuse to accept in society all you want, but as long as you’re demanding policies against even a single person based on their gender or whatever, you’re a bigot.

                    • shadrach …
                      14 December 2018 at 11:36 am

                      “So basically, you can’t say what you want but you know what you refuse to accept.”
                      Yes, that’s reasonable, at least as far as prisons are concerned. I don’t think it’s safe to put sex offenders with penis’ into woman’s prisons. Perhaps not commit a crime the first place?

                      “You can’t even get your bullshit straight. 0.018% are intersex according to your definition…”
                      So? And from the same reference “One is more likely to be born with a limb deformity than an intersex condition in the United States”.

                      “But of course even if it were only one person, they would still matter.”
                      Of course they matter. But that isn’t any kind of argument for putting biological males into a prison full of females. That you think it does shows just how off beam you are.

                      “You can minimise the number of people you refuse to accept in society all you want, but as long as you’re demanding policies against even a single person based on their gender or whatever, you’re a bigot.”
                      I’m not demanding policies ‘against’ anyone. I’m arguing we should not put biological men in prison with women. Most of those biological men have a penis. A far proportion are sex offenders. You want those people in a woman’s prison. That’s more than a little weird.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 December 2018 at 3:08 pm

                      I don’t think it’s safe to put sex offenders with penis’ into woman’s prisons.

                      weasel words. You don’t want non-sex-offenders without penises in womens’ prisons, either.

                      “You can’t even get your bullshit straight. 0.018% are intersex according to your definition…”
                      So? And from the same reference “One is more likely to be born with a limb deformity than an intersex condition in the United States”.

                      cf:

                      Of course they matter.

                      If you thought they mattered, you’d have the decency to distinguish between the people you’re ostracizing.

                      But that isn’t any kind of argument for putting biological males into a prison full of females.

                      But it is an excellent example of why your binary misconception is inapplicable in the real world: sooner or later an intersex person will go to prison. Which prison will you put them in?

                      “You can minimise the number of people you refuse to accept in society all you want, but as long as you’re demanding policies against even a single person based on their gender or whatever, you’re a bigot.”

                      I’m not demanding policies ‘against’ anyone.

                      And yet if safety is an issue for people you deem to be “biological women” when placed with “biological men”, why are trans women not in even greater danger when surrounded by “biological men”? Why should that danger not be minimised by transferring them to a womens’ prison, where they can be segregated if they pose a danger to other people (rather than being segregated because other people pose a danger to them).

                      I’m arguing we should not put biological men in prison with women. Most of those biological men have a penis. A far proportion are sex offenders. You want those people in a woman’s prison. That’s more than a little weird.

                      What’s weird is applying to all what you only seem to be concerned about for “a fair proportion” of “most” of 3% of the population (including transgender people “with a penis”).

                    • shadrach …
                      14 December 2018 at 5:55 pm

                      “You don’t want non-sex-offenders without penises in womens’ prisons, either”
                      By far the majority DO have a penis. And no, I don’t want a biological man in a woman’s prison. That really isn’t that difficult a proposition.

                      “If you thought they mattered, you’d have the decency to distinguish between the people you’re ostracizing.”
                      I do distinguish between them. But that doesn’t mean putting biological males in a prison full of females. Believe it or not, it is possible to respect another person’s perspective without conceding to everything YOU think they may want.

                      “But it is an excellent example of why your binary misconception is inapplicable in the real world…”
                      I don’t have a ‘binary misconception’. It is me that pointed to the proportion of the population who are intersex. (Remember – the one you got horribly wrong?) However that proportion is so small that biological sex is almost binary.

                      “And yet if safety is an issue for people you deem to be “biological women” when placed with “biological men”, why are trans women not in even greater danger when surrounded by “biological men”?”
                      You are talking about 12% of 0.018% of the population. Get real, we cannot cater for every one, every time.

                      “Why should that danger not be minimised by transferring them to a womens’ prison, where they can be segregated if they pose a danger to other people (rather than being segregated because other people pose a danger to them).”
                      Why should that danger not be minimised by sending a biological male to a male prison and segregating them there. Why are you obsessed with a biological male being in a woman’s prison?

                      “What’s weird is applying to all what you only seem to be concerned about for “a fair proportion” of “most” of 3% of the population (including transgender people “with a penis”).”
                      You are obsessed with body parts! It’s really quite simple. 99.9% of the population are either biologically male or female, along various parts of the spectrum for each. It is not responsible or practical to always make policy for .01% (or whatever) of the population. You’re trying to argue for an exception if monumental dis-proportionality, and in so doing, placing women at risk. You’re nuts.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 December 2018 at 7:16 pm

                      “You don’t want non-sex-offenders without penises in womens’ prisons, either”
                      By far the majority DO have a penis. And no, I don’t want a biological man in a woman’s prison. That really isn’t that difficult a proposition.

                      Then why do you have so much difficulty saying that someone with a vagina and no penis should be detained in a mens prison?

                      “If you thought they mattered, you’d have the decency to distinguish between the people you’re ostracizing.”
                      I do distinguish between them.

                      cf:

                      You are talking about 12% of 0.018% of the population.

                      If you distinguish between them, why are you using the proportion of post-op transexuals with the proportion of chromasomally-intersex individuals? Oh, that’s right, because you fail to comprehend anything outside of your binary paradigm.

                      However that proportion is so small that biological sex is almost binary.

                      Well then, it’s “almost” a realistic assumption to base policy decisions. It isn’t, but it “almost” is.

                      “And yet if safety is an issue for people you deem to be “biological women” when placed with “biological men”, why are trans women not in even greater danger when surrounded by “biological men”?”
                      You are talking about 12% of 0.018% of the population. Get real, we cannot cater for every one, every time.

                      as above I’m talking 12% of the transgender community, not 12% of maybe 1% (chromosomal vs developmental/congenital) of intersex people.

                      Why should that danger not be minimised by sending a biological male to a male prison and segregating them there.

                      because there’s a difference between segregating a potential victim vs segregating a potential offender.

                      Why are you obsessed with a biological male being in a woman’s prison?

                      I’m not. You just have a weird idea that a “biological male” has a vagina.

                      It is not responsible or practical to always make policy for .01% (or whatever) of the population.

                      Are you genuinely suggesting that prisons cannot protect their inmates from other inmates? Why isn’t that your obsession, rather than finding excuses to ostracise and enganger “.01% (or whatever)” of people? You can’t even get non-binary identities clear in your head, and you think your opinion is anything other than bigotry?

                    • shadrach …
                      16 December 2018 at 11:13 am

                      “Then why do you have so much difficulty saying that someone with a vagina and no penis should be detained in a mens prison?”
                      Because, unlike you, my position is logical and consistent, and from the outset has related to biological men being put into a woman’s prison. And your example is dishonest. The number of trans women with a vagina and no penis is extremely small. It is not good policy to endanger a large portion of the prison population to favour a very small one.

                      “Oh, that’s right, because you fail to comprehend anything outside of your binary paradigm.”
                      Not at all. I comprehend that there are those (like you) who argue a biological male should be placed in a female prison because of how they identify. I am not so gullible.

                      “Well then, it’s “almost” a realistic assumption to base policy decisions. It isn’t, but it “almost” is.”
                      Are you seriously arguing that we should put a far larger portion of the population at risk to cater for a very small proportion of the population? No, I doubt it. Because that’s the sort of nutty thinking that puts people like Karen White into a woman’s prison.

                      “as above I’m talking 12% of the transgender community, not 12% of maybe 1% (chromosomal vs developmental/congenital) of intersex people.”
                      12% of the transgender community is still a very small proportion of the total community, including the total prison community.

                      “because there’s a difference between segregating a potential victim vs segregating a potential offender.”
                      No, not really. Not in any practical sense.

                      “I’m not. You just have a weird idea that a “biological male” has a vagina.”
                      Just because a man has his pecker removed and some remaining tissue folded into a vagina doesn’t make him a biological woman.

                      “Are you genuinely suggesting that prisons cannot protect their inmates from other inmates?”
                      I’m genuinely suggesting it is stupid to put a biological male, particularly one with all appendages (which the significant majority of trans woman have) and a 41% chance of being a sex offender, into a female prison.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 December 2018 at 4:40 pm

                      “Then why do you have so much difficulty saying that someone with a vagina and no penis should be detained in a mens prison?”
                      Because, unlike you, my position is logical and consistent, and from the outset has related to biological men being put into a woman’s prison.

                      Including “biological men” with vaginas.

                      And your example is dishonest. The number of trans women with a vagina and no penis is extremely small.

                      but real

                      It is not good policy to endanger a large portion of the prison population to favour a very small one.

                      But you don’t have to. You are the one who includes people with a vagina as “biological men”. Why not adopt a “no penises” rule for womens’ prisons, instead?

                      “Oh, that’s right, because you fail to comprehend anything outside of your binary paradigm.”
                      Not at all.

                      And yet you keep confusing intersex stats with transgender.

                      “Well then, it’s “almost” a realistic assumption to base policy decisions. It isn’t, but it “almost” is.”
                      Are you seriously arguing that we should put a far larger portion of the population at risk to cater for a very small proportion of the population?

                      No. I’m arguing that if prison safety is the concern, prisoner safety needs addressing – or is nobody ever assaulted by other inmates in a womens’ prison? Is that your position – that womens’ prisons are perfectly safe until a “biological male” turns up?

                      “as above I’m talking 12% of the transgender community, not 12% of maybe 1% (chromosomal vs developmental/congenital) of intersex people.”
                      12% of the transgender community is still a very small proportion of the total community, including the total prison community.

                      Small, but real. Abandoning their safety because it’s more convenient for you to pretend that they don’t really exist is what makes you a bigot.

                      “because there’s a difference between segregating a potential victim vs segregating a potential offender.”
                      No, not really. Not in any practical sense.

                      Except that in the first case you punish the offender with segregation, in the second case you punish the potential victim with the same hardship. Can you really not see why that is a major injustice?

                      “I’m not. You just have a weird idea that a “biological male” has a vagina.”
                      Just because a man has his pecker removed and some remaining tissue folded into a vagina doesn’t make him a biological woman.

                      And yet straight men hook up with transexual women without noticing a difference.

                      “Are you genuinely suggesting that prisons cannot protect their inmates from other inmates?”
                      I’m […]

                      too much of a cowardly bigot to simply say “yes”.

                    • shadrach …
                      17 December 2018 at 7:45 am

                      “Including “biological men” with vaginas.”
                      Yes. Because a biological man with a vagina could still commit sexual assault on another woman. In fact Karen White was in the process of transitioning when he sexually assaulted four victims.

                      “but real”
                      But an incredibly small sample.

                      “But you don’t have to.”
                      Don’t have to take the risk.

                      “And yet you keep confusing intersex stats with transgender.”
                      No, I don’t. You misunderstood the maths though.

                      “No. I’m arguing that if prison safety is the concern, prisoner safety needs addressing”
                      These are prisons. They contain a range of people from the innocent to the deranged. You live in lala land.

                      “Small, but real.”
                      Small. Full Stop.

                      “Except that in the first case you punish the offender with segregation, in the second case you punish the potential victim with the same hardship”
                      It takes a particularly warped kind of thinking to suggest that not putting a biological male into a women’s prison is punishment.

                      “And yet straight men hook up with transexual women without noticing a difference.”
                      So? In 88% of the cases they’ll get a bit of a shock when the clothes come off! PS – your amazing revelation really helped Karen White’s victims, eh.

                      “too much of a cowardly bigot to simply say “yes”.”
                      Too much of a realist compared to your lala land thinking.

                    • shadrach …
                      17 December 2018 at 12:25 pm

                      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12178061

                      You’ll love that, McFlock. Becasue of the sort of delusion you are advocating, kids are going to be told that ‘boys can have periods too’, that “menstruation must be inclusive of all genders”. I kid you not. Let’s all through science out the window and live in lala land.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 December 2018 at 1:56 pm

                      If you’re restricting yourself to what is “commonly understood” to be “male” or “female”, you might consider regarding a person with a vagina who straight men would “commonly” be sexually attracted to as “female”.

                      I notice that you ignored the bit about punishing people for crimes of which they at risk of being the victims rather than the perpetrator.

                      If a fully-transitioned trans woman can commit sexual assault, so can any woman. Prisons have a wide range of people, and their custodians have an obligation to keep them all safe.

                      Rather than claiming to be a “realist” while choosing to pretend hundreds of intersex and thousands of transexual people (of all types) don’t really exist from a policy perspective (some pretty awesome “realism” right there), maybe you should be more of an advocate for prison safety and reform.

                      That way to can look like less of a bigot than you really are. That should appeal to your cowardice.

                    • shadrach …
                      17 December 2018 at 3:05 pm

                      “If you’re restricting yourself to what is “commonly understood” to be “male” or “female”, you might consider regarding a person with a vagina who straight men would “commonly” be sexually attracted to as “female”.”
                      Why? Their biology is male. (Unless they are intersex). Their vagina is a surgical construct, nothing more. And I would simply point out that a straight man being sexually attractive to another man (pretending to be a woman) does not miraculously change anyone’s biological sex. To suggest otherwise just shows how scrambled you thoughts are.

                      “I notice that you ignored the bit about punishing people for crimes of which they at risk of being the victims rather than the perpetrator.”
                      No, I responded to that. Here, I’ll repost:
                      “It takes a particularly warped kind of thinking to suggest that not putting a biological male into a women’s prison is punishment.”

                      “If a fully-transitioned trans woman can commit sexual assault, so can any woman. Prisons have a wide range of people, and their custodians have an obligation to keep them all safe.”
                      But they don’t. And I would suggest that having Kern White sharing a cell with your sister or daughter might give you pause for thought!

                    • McFlock …
                      17 December 2018 at 4:12 pm

                      You said you take the position of what is commonly understood to be male/female.
                      Straight men can quite reasonably have the most intimate contact with a trans woman and not find any difference to someone born physically female. They commonly understand the trans woman to be a woman.
                      You have a weird idea of what it is to be “biologically male”.

                      “I notice that you ignored the bit about punishing people for crimes of which they at risk of being the victims rather than the perpetrator.”
                      No, I responded to that. Here, I’ll repost:
                      “It takes a particularly warped kind of thinking to suggest that not putting a biological male into a women’s prison is punishment.”

                      What you call a response was actually an irrelevant comment that bore no relevance to segregating people because of the crimes that might be committed against them.

                      I have no problem with a trans woman being transferred to a women’s prison and then being segregated because they pose a threat to other inmates. That’s good prison management. Segregating a trans woman because you want to keep her in a male prison and can’t keep her safe from all the rapists in that prison is bigoted prison management.

                      “If a fully-transitioned trans woman can commit sexual assault, so can any woman. Prisons have a wide range of people, and their custodians have an obligation to keep them all safe.”
                      But they don’t. And I would suggest that having Kern White sharing a cell with your sister or daughter might give you pause for thought

                      Of course prisons have an obligation to keep their prisoners safe. I’d be concerned if inmates were sharing a cell with a murderer, too. That’s why prisons should segregate dangerous prisoners, to keep inmates safe from all types of crime.

                      If you were genuinely concerned about preventing sexual assault in prison, you’d also look at the treatment of trans women in male prisons. But you don’t care about them. You don’t even care about safety in womens’ prisons, otherwise you’d ask why White wasn’t segregated immediately because of their criminal history. The fact that it’s the only case in the world you’ve mentioned speaks volumes. It’s the one case that allows you to openly be a bigot.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 December 2018 at 4:35 pm

                      By the way, if your “But they don’t” was intended to refer to the start of my comment (in some sort of grammatical surrealism) and suggest that female inmates do not sexually assault each other: oh, but they do. for example, in the US:

                      The rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization [PDF] is at least 3 times higher for females (13.7%) than males (4.2%). This has been attributed to the fact that a majority of prison officials do not view female-on-female sexual assault as “true rape,” making them less likely to reprimand inmates. Furthermore, as the female prison population has grown at a dramatic rate, states have been unable to keep up. Therefore, female prison facilities tend to be overcrowded and poorly designed, making them difficult to police.

                      Three times higher.

                      I guess you’re sexist as well as a trans bigot and a coward.

                    • shadrach …
                      18 December 2018 at 11:12 am

                      “Straight men can quite reasonably have the most intimate contact with a trans woman and not find any difference to someone born physically female.
                      I’m mildly curious to know how you know that, but I’ll let that slide. What you may not know is that if a trans woman sleeps with a straight man without disclosing they are trans, that that is potentially covered by ‘Rape by Fraud’, or ‘Rape by Deception’. (Shot yourself in the foot there eh?)

                      “What you call a response was actually an irrelevant comment that bore no relevance to segregating people because of the crimes that might be committed against them.”
                      No, it was entirely relevant to your post, which suggested that not putting a biological male into a women’s prison is punishment.

                      “Segregating a trans woman because you want to keep her in a male prison and can’t keep her safe from all the rapists in that prison is bigoted prison management.”
                      No, it’s recognising reality. A transwoman is not biologically female. Your delusion changes nothing.

                      “Of course prisons have an obligation to keep their prisoners safe.”
                      Again, you live in some kind of cartoon world. Prisons bring together some very bad people, including trans people who commit sexual assault.

                      “I’d be concerned if inmates were sharing a cell with a murderer, too. That’s why prisons should segregate dangerous prisoners, to keep inmates safe from all types of crime.”
                      Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Didn’t help the victims of Karen White.

                      “By the way, if your “But they don’t” was intended to refer…”
                      It wasn’t, which just goes to show how limited your comprehension is. It was responding to your comment “and their custodians have an obligation to keep them all safe.”

                      McFlock you have no grasp of the real world. You live in a theoretical bubble in which people can pretend to be something they aren’t, and the rest of society has to conform. Life doesn’t work like that. But when people that think the way you do get any kind of power, we find women sharing prison cells with Karen White, kids being told boys have periods and various other manifestations of delusion.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 December 2018 at 7:53 pm

                      What you may not know is that if a trans woman sleeps with a straight man without disclosing they are trans, that that is potentially covered by ‘Rape by Fraud’, or ‘Rape by Deception’. (Shot yourself in the foot there eh?)

                      Your use of “potentially” just means you’re making shit up.

                      No, it was entirely relevant to your post, which suggested that not putting a biological male into a women’s prison is punishment.

                      Jesus you’re a fucking moron.
                      My comment was that segregation and isolation are punishments. Putting someone in that punishment plck because they are at risk of being victimised is unjust. Putting someone in a different prison and segregating them for the safety of others is punishing them for the threat they pose, and is just.

                      A transwoman is not biologically female.

                      She is, in the common understanding of most straight men.

                      “Of course prisons have an obligation to keep their prisoners safe.”
                      Again, you live in some kind of cartoon world. Prisons bring together some very bad people, including trans people who commit sexual assault.

                      Like straight women also do.

                      “I’d be concerned if inmates were sharing a cell with a murderer, too. That’s why prisons should segregate dangerous prisoners, to keep inmates safe from all types of crime.”
                      Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Didn’t help the victims of Karen White.

                      Didn’t help trans women abused in custody, either.

                      “By the way, if your “But they don’t” was intended to refer…”
                      It wasn’t, which just goes to show how limited your comprehension is. It was responding to your comment “and their custodians have an obligation to keep them all safe.”

                      That’s quite sad. You don’t think prison custodians have an obligation to keep prisoners safe?

                      The more we argue, the more obvious how sad you are: a cowardly, stupid, bigot who apparently regards “Escape From New York” as an instructional video on prison reform.

                      BTW: your idea of the “real world” excludes thousands of New Zealanders, which makes you A) incorrect and B) a bigot.

                    • shadrach …
                      18 December 2018 at 10:59 pm

                      “Your use of “potentially” just means you’re making shit up.”
                      Ah, no.
                      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trans-people-could-face-rape-charges-if-they-don-t-declare-sexual-history-warns-trans-activist-a7076546.html
                      https://theconversation.com/guilty-verdict-in-sex-deception-case-may-be-bad-news-for-people-transitioning-to-a-new-gender-47617
                      http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/06/07/our-rape-laws-discriminate-against-trans-people
                      You really have no idea what you’re talking about. None.
                      (BTW, what is ‘making shit up’ is claiming that men who are intimate with a trans woman “commonly understand the trans woman to be a woman” .

                      “My comment was that segregation and isolation are punishments. Putting someone in that punishment plck because they are at risk of being victimised is unjust. Putting someone in a different prison and segregating them for the safety of others is punishing them for the threat they pose, and is just.”
                      Your first comment was ““because there’s a difference between segregating a potential victim vs segregating a potential offender.”
                      Your second was “Except that in the first case you punish the offender with segregation, in the second case you punish the potential victim with the same hardship.”
                      Your claim that “you punish the potential victim with the same hardship” is saying that not putting a biological male into a women’s prison is punishment. Which is utterly absurd.

                      “She is, in the common understanding of most straight men.”
                      What ‘common understanding’? Where do you get this bs? Biology is not determined by consensus.

                      “Like straight women also do.”
                      Yes. Thanks for agreeing with me.

                      “Didn’t help trans women abused in custody, either.”
                      In ‘custody’? Weasel words.

                      “You don’t think prison custodians have an obligation to keep prisoners safe?”
                      Yes. But I’m a realist. And I don’t think we should make it more difficult for them. Or put woman at risk from the 88% of trans women who still have a penis.

                      “The more we argue, the more obvious how sad you are: a cowardly, stupid, bigot who apparently regards “Escape From New York” as an instructional video on prison reform. BTW: your idea of the “real world” excludes thousands of New Zealanders, which makes you A) incorrect and B) a bigot.”
                      The more we argue the more I realise you utterly lack the knowledge to effectively debate this issue. And you also lack even a basic level of comprehension. You seem to think that a bigot is someone who disagrees with you. It isn’t. Look it up. You’ve clearly never thought through your opinions on this issue, or ever been confronted about them. I hope you’ve been educated.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 December 2018 at 12:31 am

                      I gotta say, your bigotry is consistent in some respects. You seem to think that a strap-on is the same as a penis, and you don’t need to ask whether any oof those cases involved someone who was genuinely transgender (as opposed to outright misleading) because you think a transgender man is just a woman pretending to be a man.

                      I mean, you’re incorrect, bigoted and really quite unpleasant, but at least you’re consistently an arsehole.

                      BTW, what is ‘making shit up’ is claiming that men who are intimate with a trans woman “commonly understand the trans woman to be a woman”

                      If a straight man shags a trans woman, he obviously considers her to be a woman.

                      Your first comment was ““because there’s a difference between segregating a potential victim vs segregating a potential offender.”
                      Your second was “Except that in the first case you punish the offender with segregation, in the second case you punish the potential victim with the same hardship.”
                      Your claim that “you punish the potential victim with the same hardship” is saying that not putting a biological male into a women’s prison is punishment. Which is utterly absurd.

                      Let’s take this reeeaally slowly for you. In that comment, what do you understand “the same hardship” to mean? The “same” as what? Because a normal person would simply read the word before the comma and think “segregation”.

                      What ‘common understanding’? Where do you get this bs? Biology is not determined by consensus.

                      Oh, suck my balls – what was “commonly understood” was your benchmark to defend your bigotry. Now you’re arguing that your own criteria are invalid.

                      “You don’t think prison custodians have an obligation to keep prisoners safe?”
                      Yes.

                      So if your response to “custodians have an obligation to keep them all safe” is “yes” and “but they don’t”, then the only remaining interpretation of the thread is:
                      1: you think trans women should not be held in a women’s prison because some trans women are sex offenders,
                      2: segregation of dangerous offenders apparently does not exist in womens’ prisons,
                      3: and all transwomen should be in men’s prisons where they will have 100% probability of being exposed to male sex offenders even though the “very small” number of transwoman prisoners means that women might be held with a transwoman sex offender.

                      3 is the bit that makes you a bigot. Not that you have a stupid opinion, but the bit where your gender fixation enables you to protect “biological women” from a <50% chance of exposure to a threat by forcing a "small number" of trans women to have a 100% chance of exposure the same threat. That is bigotry.

                      By the way, I have learned quite a bit. Not from you (you’re a fucking moron), but it’s been interesting refreshing my knowledge of a topic from a previous career.

                    • shadrach …
                      19 December 2018 at 4:08 pm

                      “I gotta say, your bigotry is consistent in some respects.”
                      It’s not bigotry, but yes it is easier to maintain a consistent position when it is logical.

                      “You seem to think that a strap-on is the same as a penis”
                      No, never said that, or implied it.

                      “…because you think a transgender man is just a woman pretending to be a man.”
                      A transgender man is a person who is a biological woman, who suffers from gender dysphoria and identifies as a man. They don’t have to ‘pretend’ anything. My point is not to deny a trans person the reality of their struggle, it is simply to refuse to place others at risk to indulge that struggle.

                      “If a straight man shags a trans woman, he obviously considers her to be a woman.”
                      ‘Considers’? You mean he is fooled? If so, there is the potential for criminal charges – something you were ignorant of, because the law in some places views a biological male posing as a female and engaging intimacy as rape. Or perhaps he acknowledges that the trans woman is a biological man, and yet still desires intimacy. Perhaps for the reason that intimacy with a trans woman is different to that with a straight woman. Either way, it doesn’t help your argument at all.

                      “In that comment, what do you understand “the same hardship” to mean? The “same” as what? Because a normal person would simply read the word before the comma and think “segregation”.
                      You said: “because there’s a difference between segregating a potential victim vs segregating a potential offender.”
                      I replied “No, not really. Not in any practical sense.”
                      You said “Except that in the first case you punish the offender with segregation, in the second case you punish the potential victim with the same hardship. Can you really not see why that is a major injustice?”

                      “…what was “commonly understood” was your benchmark to defend your bigotry. Now you’re arguing that your own criteria are invalid.”
                      And what was I referring to? Biology. Biology contains common understandings. I have provided sound material that supports a ‘common understanding’ of biological sex.

                      “you think trans women should not be held in a women’s prison because some trans women are sex offenders,”
                      Trans women should not be kept in women’s prisons because they are not biological women. One possible scenario is that a trans women will sexually assault a biological female inmate. And there is evidence that that has happened.

                      “segregation of dangerous offenders apparently does not exist in womens’ prisons,”
                      Yes, it happens. But there is no way of guaranteeing the safety of all inmates at all times in all prisons.

                      “and all transwomen should be in men’s prisons where they will have 100% probability of being exposed to male sex offenders even though the “very small” number of transwoman prisoners means that women might be held with a transwoman sex offender.”
                      And this is where you are contradicting yourself. If you claim all prisoners should be guaranteed their safety, what does it matter to you which prison they are in?

                      “is the bit that makes you a bigot. Not that you have a stupid opinion, but the bit where your gender fixation…”
                      You re confusing terms. Or your using terms interchangeably in a dishonest way. For 99.9% of the population biological sex is on a spectrum of male/female.

                      “That is bigotry.”
                      Bigotry is intolerance to those who have a different opinion. So you purport o know the opinion of every trans woman in jail, and to know that I am intolerant of them as human beings? You really are a fool.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 December 2018 at 10:27 pm

                      it is easier to maintain a consistent position when it is logical.

                      If it’s based on false premises, even a logical position can be completely wrong.

                      “You seem to think that a strap-on is the same as a penis”
                      No, never said that, or implied it.

                      Your choice of case for “potential” charges does. Read your links again. The only actual cases have a notable absence of penis, unless you can find a more specific link.

                      “…because you think a transgender man is just a woman pretending to be a man.”
                      A transgender man is a person who is a biological woman, who suffers from gender dysphoria and identifies as a man. They don’t have to ‘pretend’ anything. My point is not to deny a trans person the reality of their struggle, it is simply to refuse to place others at risk to indulge that struggle.

                      “indulge that struggle”? Do you even know why you present yourself as such a piece of shit?

                      “If a straight man shags a trans woman, he obviously considers her to be a woman.”
                      ‘Considers’? You mean he is fooled?

                      No, that’s your incapability rearing its head again. Biologically, any normal person would understand her to be female.

                      You said: “because there’s a difference between segregating a potential victim vs segregating a potential offender.”
                      I replied “No, not really. Not in any practical sense.”
                      You said “Except that in the first case you punish the offender with segregation, in the second case you punish the potential victim with the same hardship. Can you really not see why that is a major injustice?”

                      And what, in that, makes you think I’m talking about anything other than segregating potential victims vs segregating dangerous offenders?

                      Biology. Biology contains common understandings. I have provided sound material that supports a ‘common understanding’ of biological sex.

                      Except in practical biology. And your links even failed to mention things like intersex, so how accurate they are is questionable. Probably too inaccurate for intermediate schools.

                      “segregation of dangerous offenders apparently does not exist in womens’ prisons,”
                      Yes, it happens. But there is no way of guaranteeing the safety of all inmates at all times in all prisons.

                      so the question becomes whether you have justly apportioned that risk.

                      “and all transwomen should be in men’s prisons where they will have 100% probability of being exposed to male sex offenders even though the “very small” number of transwoman prisoners means that women might be held with a transwoman sex offender.”
                      And this is where you are contradicting yourself. If you claim all prisoners should be guaranteed their safety, what does it matter to you which prison they are in?

                      Because ther safety could be more appropriately accommodated by holding them in a more appropriate (i.e. female) prison.

                      For 99.9% of the population biological sex is on a spectrum of male/female.

                      Which leaves 40,000 NZers you refuse to even consider. Because you’re a bigot.

                      “That is bigotry.”
                      Bigotry is intolerance to those who have a different opinion. So you purport o know the opinion of every trans woman in jail, and to know that I am intolerant of them as human beings? You really are a fool.

                      I’m not the one pretending that bigotry is only about ideas.

                      But even by your definition, yes: A transgender woman is someone who identifies as a woman even though they might not have been born into the prevailing binary norm of that term. So that is their opinion. You want them at 100% risk of being imprisoned with male sex offenders because you do not agree with their opinion. That sounds pretty intolerant to me. So even by your own definition (which, like your biological definitions, is sadly inadequate), you, shadrach, are a bigot.

                    • shadrach …
                      20 December 2018 at 12:18 pm

                      “If it’s based on false premises, even a logical position can be completely wrong.”
                      Just as well mine isn’t!

                      “Your choice of case for “potential” charges does.”
                      No, it doesn’t. The examples I gave show that rape by fraud can apply to transgender people because the they have not disclosed their biological sex. In other words the law views that as misrepresentation. Get the point?

                      “Do you even know why you present yourself as such a piece of shit?”
                      Is that your argument? That putting many at risk to appease the desire of a few is the only solution?

                      “No, that’s your incapability rearing its head again. Biologically, any normal person would understand her to be female.”
                      You still haven’t presented anything to support that claim.

                      “And what, in that, makes you think I’m talking about anything other than segregating potential victims vs segregating dangerous offenders?”
                      All prisoners are potential victims! Men in prison rape other men.

                      “Except in practical biology.”
                      Practical biology affirms the male, female, intersex spectrum.

                      “ And your links even failed to mention things like intersex, so how accurate they are is questionable.”
                      You mean this one – http://willamettecollegian.com/main/sex-binary-is-based-in-biological-and-scientific-fact/? The one you tripped over? The one I’ve referred to numerous times in this thread? The one that specifically refers to intersex? The one I was specifically referring to when I said “I have provided sound material that supports a ‘common understanding’ of biological sex.”?

                      “Because ther safety could be more appropriately accommodated by holding them in a more appropriate (i.e. female) prison.”
                      Says who? How do you know they won’t be in just as much danger from women? Or that they themselves will be more of a danger to other women? You really have no idea.

                      “Which leaves 40,000 NZers you refuse to even consider. Because you’re a bigot.”
                      Who says I ‘refuse to consider’ them. I just don’t think putting biological males in a woman’s prison is sensible. How would you feel about sharing a cell with Karen White?

                      “I’m not the one pretending that bigotry is only about ideas.”
                      Bigotry is about applying your views of someone’s ideas to that person. You are incapable of separating the two, which makes you the bigot. Don’t assign your own hang-ups on to me.

                      “A transgender woman is someone who identifies as a woman even though they might not have been born into the prevailing binary norm of that term. So that is their opinion. You want them at 100% risk of being imprisoned with male sex offenders because you do not agree with their opinion. That sounds pretty intolerant to me. So even by your own definition (which, like your biological definitions, is sadly inadequate), you, shadrach, are a bigot.”
                      What I have actually argued is that a trans women should not be put into a prison for biological women. That opinion is placing no-one at risk. However you are quite willing to ignore the safety of biological women who would end up sharing space with the likes of Karen White. I won’t call that bigoted, just ignorant.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 December 2018 at 5:37 pm

                      “If it’s based on false premises, even a logical position can be completely wrong.”
                      Just as well mine isn’t!

                      Indeed. It is still partially (0.1%, at most charitable count) wrong, because of

                      “Your choice of case for “potential” charges does.”
                      No, it doesn’t. The examples I gave show that rape by fraud can apply to transgender people because the they have not disclosed their biological sex.

                      Which of those cases invovled a transgender person, rather than a cisgender person pretending to be a different sex?

                      “Do you even know why you present yourself as such a piece of shit?”
                      Is that your argument? That putting many at risk to appease the desire of a few is the only solution?

                      No, it was merely an observation that your wording about “indulging” people in real and actual distress basically means you are a piece of shit.

                      “No, that’s your incapability rearing its head again. Biologically, any normal person would understand her to be female.”
                      You still haven’t presented anything to support that claim.

                      Someone can see her naked and not notice any difference from a woman born/matured into that appearance (almost just said “born”, but of course a lot of it has to do with hormones well after birth).

                      “And what, in that, makes you think I’m talking about anything other than segregating potential victims vs segregating dangerous offenders?”
                      All prisoners are potential victims! Men in prison rape other men.

                      And where the offending prisoners are identified, who is punished by segregation?

                      “Except in practical biology.”
                      Practical biology affirms the male, female, intersex spectrum.

                      OK, so where would you imprison an intersex person?

                      “ And your links even failed to mention things like intersex, so how accurate they are is questionable.”
                      You mean this one – http://willamettecollegian.com/main/sex-binary-is-based-in-biological-and-scientific-fact/? The one you tripped over?

                      The opinion piece?

                      “Because ther safety could be more appropriately accommodated by holding them in a more appropriate (i.e. female) prison.”
                      Says who? How do you know they won’t be in just as much danger from women? Or that they themselves will be more of a danger to other women? You really have no idea.

                      Lol that’s a new one, arguing women might be less safe in a womens’ prison than a mens’ prison. Maybe we should get rid of womens’ prisons altogether…

                      “Which leaves 40,000 NZers you refuse to even consider. Because you’re a bigot.”
                      Who says I ‘refuse to consider’ them. I just don’t think putting biological males in a woman’s prison is sensible. How would you feel about sharing a cell with Karen White?

                      I wouldn’t want to. I’d want here segregated as far away from me as possible, where she belongs. And the 40,000 comes from you being happy with your “99.9%” self-professed accuracy

                      “I’m not the one pretending that bigotry is only about ideas.”
                      Bigotry is about applying your views of someone’s ideas to that person.

                      lol that explains the African slave trade then. You’re a genius.

                      “A transgender woman is someone who identifies as a woman even though they might not have been born into the prevailing binary norm of that term. So that is their opinion. You want them at 100% risk of being imprisoned with male sex offenders because you do not agree with their opinion. That sounds pretty intolerant to me. So even by your own definition (which, like your biological definitions, is sadly inadequate), you, shadrach, are a bigot.”
                      What I have actually argued is that a trans women should not be put into a prison for biological women. That opinion is placing no-one at risk. However you are quite willing to ignore the safety of biological women who would end up sharing space with the likes of Karen White. I won’t call that bigoted, just ignorant.

                      Oh, so the fact that the act you are advocating might endanger people on the basis of their gender identity can’t mean you are bigoted, because you’re not actually doing the act you are advocating be done, it’s just an opinion you have? The only thing stopping you from actually being a bigot is your impotence when it comes to actually implementing the policies for which you are arguing?

                    • shadrach …
                      21 December 2018 at 7:28 pm

                      “Which of those cases invovled a transgender person, rather than a cisgender person pretending to be a different sex?”
                      All three articles referred to concerns raised by the trans community over the law. Did you not even read them?

                      “Someone can see her naked and not notice any difference from a woman born/matured into that appearance (almost just said “born”, but of course a lot of it has to do with hormones well after birth).”
                      Says who? You can only be talking about the 12% who have had their peckers removed, and only those who have had breasts grown/added. And even then, how do you know?

                      “And where the offending prisoners are identified, who is punished by segregation?”
                      The offender. And if we don’t put people like Karen White in a women’s prison, there will be less offending.

                      “OK, so where would you imprison an intersex person?”
                      I don’t know. Where do they go now?

                      “The opinion piece?”
                      It was one of my links, and it mentioned inter-sex people. You really need to learn to read.

                      “Lol that’s a new one, arguing women might be less safe in a womens’ prison than a mens’ prison.”
                      But I didn’t argue that did I? I asked how you knew that a biological man, placed in a women’s prison, might not actually be in danger from women. Learn to read.

                      “I wouldn’t want to. I’d want here segregated as far away from me as possible, where she belongs.”
                      And yet you are arguing for Karen to be interred in a women’s prison. Sick.

                      “lol that explains the African slave trade then.”
                      The African slave trade? I’m still waiting for you to do a Godwin.

                      “Oh, so the fact that the act you are advocating might endanger people on the basis of their gender identity can’t mean you are bigoted, because you’re not actually doing the act you are advocating be done, it’s just an opinion you have?”
                      No, the act I am advocating for is not putting trans women into a women’s prison. That endangers no-one.

                    • shadrach …
                      21 December 2018 at 7:41 pm

                      Read this ‘opinion piece’, McFlock. It’s written by an evolutionary biologist.
                      https://quillette.com/2018/11/30/the-new-evolution-deniers/

                      “We can acknowledge the existence of very rare cases in humans where sex is ambiguous, but this does not negate the reality that sex in humans is functionally binary. ”
                      FUNCTIONALLY BINARY.

                      “What these articles leave out is the fact that the final result of sex development in humans are unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time. Thus, the claim that “2 sexes is overly simplistic” is misleading, because intersex conditions correspond to less than 0.02 percent of all births, and intersex people are not a third sex. Intersex is simply a catch-all category for sex ambiguity and/or a mismatch between sex genotype and phenotype, regardless of its etiology.”

                      “Despite the unquestionable reality of biological sex in humans, social justice and trans activists continue to push this belief, and respond with outrage when challenged. ”
                      Yep, that’s you McFlock.

                      “I did not train to be a scientist for over a decade just to sit quietly while science in general, and my field in particular, comes under attack from activists who subvert truth to ideology and narrative.”
                      …oh dear, that must hurt.

                      “The group that most fervently opposed, and still opposes, evolutionary explanations for behavioral sex differences in humans were/are social justice activists.”
                      There you go, you’re an SJW!! And in the same bucket as creationists!

                    • McFlock …
                      21 December 2018 at 9:28 pm

                      In no particular order: none of those cases actually invovled a transexual person.

                      I figured a Godwin wasn’t entirely applicable on the basis that the Nazis actually did persecute some people on the basis of their diffiring ideology (e.g. communists and anyone opposed to Nazis), but if you think it counts, fair enough. It’s just that we can be pretty sure that none of the cargo of the Amistad were selected because of their opinions.

                      And as before, you can argue “most”, “functionally”, 99%, 99.9%, 99.98%, even “everybody except one person”. The number doesn’t matter. If even a single person fails to conform to your model of biology and your policies pretend they do not exist, your scientific model is flawed and you’re still a fucking bigot

                    • shadrach …
                      22 December 2018 at 5:31 pm

                      “…none of those cases actually invovled a transexual person.”
                      Everyone of them expressing the concerns of trans people about the possibility of prosecution. Remember I said ‘potentially’, McFlock.

                      “The number doesn’t matter.”
                      The number absolutely does matter, because policy that put’s a far greater majority at risk to appease a tiny minority is not good policy.

                      “If even a single person fails to conform to your model of biology and your policies pretend they do not exist, your scientific model is flawed and you’re still a fucking bigot”
                      ‘My’ scientific model? Did you not read the piece I referenced? The author has a PhD in evolutionary biology from UC Santa Barbara. He reserves some particularly cutting words for people like you who deny science, and label anyone with a different view a bigot:

                      “I did not train to be a scientist for over a decade just to sit quietly while science in general, and my field in particular, comes under attack from activists who subvert truth to ideology and narrative.”

                      “But it seems clear to me that academia now is not as it was advertised a decade ago when I started down this path. It is no longer a refuge for outspoken, free-thinking intellectuals. Instead, it seems one must now choose between living a zipper-lipped life as an academic scientist, or living a life as a fulfilled intellectual. Currently, one cannot do both.”

                    • McFlock …
                      23 December 2018 at 8:42 pm

                      Everyone of them expressing the concerns of trans people about the possibility of prosecution.

                      So because someone is concerned about it, it might happen? You don’t know much about people.

                      “The number doesn’t matter.”
                      The number absolutely does matter, because policy that put’s a far greater majority at risk to appease a tiny minority is not good policy.

                      Classic Utilitarian bollocks. You’d save 100 people from a 1% risk by inflicting a 100% risk on one person. But you’re even worse than that, because you just can’t be bothered calculating the relative impacts of your proposed policy. Your risk assessment is merely an inflated justification for your policy, rather than the reason for it.

                      “If even a single person fails to conform to your model of biology and your policies pretend they do not exist, your scientific model is flawed and you’re still a fucking bigot”
                      ‘My’ scientific model? Did you not read the piece I referenced? The author has a PhD in evolutionary biology from UC Santa Barbara. He reserves some particularly cutting words for people like you who deny science, and label anyone with a different view a bigot:

                      So? The point stands. Your model is an inadequate basis upon which to form policy, as your policy doesn’t even account for intersex people let alone actual transexual people.

                      “I did not train to be a scientist for over a decade just to sit quietly while science in general, and my field in particular, comes under attack from activists who subvert truth to ideology and narrative.”

                      “But it seems clear to me that academia now is not as it was advertised a decade ago when I started down this path. It is no longer a refuge for outspoken, free-thinking intellectuals. Instead, it seems one must now choose between living a zipper-lipped life as an academic scientist, or living a life as a fulfilled intellectual. Currently, one cannot do both.”

                      He’s going to love it when the first trans woman receives a womb transplant and delivers a baby.

                    • shadrach …
                      24 December 2018 at 9:48 pm

                      “So because someone is concerned about it, it might happen?”
                      In this case they are concerned it might happen. Are you writing off their concerns?

                      “You’d save 100 people from a 1% risk by inflicting a 100% risk on one person. But you’re even worse than that, because you just can’t be bothered calculating the relative impacts of your proposed policy. Your risk assessment is merely an inflated justification for your policy, rather than the reason for it.”
                      Rubbish. I have not said anything that would place anyone at risk. You, on the other hand, are quite happy to see women bunking with biological men.

                      “Your model is an inadequate basis upon which to form policy, as your policy doesn’t even account for intersex people let alone actual transexual people.”
                      Who says it doesn’t include intersex people or trans people? That’s the point. You simply won’t read the science for fear it may challenge your narrow world view.

                      “He’s going to love it when the first trans woman receives a womb transplant and delivers a baby.”
                      I doubt he would be concerned. Because a biological man, with whatever organs or appendages medical science may add or subtract, is still a biological man.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 December 2018 at 11:46 pm

                      “So because someone is concerned about it, it might happen?”
                      In this case they are concerned it might happen. Are you writing off their concerns?

                      Eighty-odd years of gender reassignment surgery and neither bigots nor concerned trans people can find a single instance of it actually happening… seems to be pretty far-fetched to me, yeah

                      I have not said anything that would place anyone at risk. You, on the other hand, are quite happy to see women bunking with biological men.

                      Funny. That’s what I think about you.

                      “Your model is an inadequate basis upon which to form policy, as your policy doesn’t even account for intersex people let alone actual transexual people.”
                      Who says it doesn’t include intersex people or trans people?

                      You said it. Your policy doesn’t even account for intersex people. I asked you “OK, so where would you imprison an intersex person?”. You answered “I don’t know.” Therefore, your policy of imprisonment according to what you believe are “biological” lines doesn’t even include intersex people.

                      Because a biological man, with whatever organs or appendages medical science may add or subtract, is still a biological man.

                      If a “biological man” gives birth, you might want to rethink the immutability of sex. Or not, because you’re a bigot.

                    • shadrach …
                      27 December 2018 at 2:34 pm

                      “Eighty-odd years of gender reassignment surgery and neither bigots nor concerned trans people can find a single instance of it actually happening… seems to be pretty far-fetched to me, yeah”
                      Did you not read the articles? The UK law is from 2003, not 80 years ago. Trans people are expressing a genuine concern about that law. You didn’t know about, because you are ignorant. Own it.

                      “Your policy doesn’t even account for intersex people. I asked you “OK, so where would you imprison an intersex person?”. You answered “I don’t know.” Therefore, your policy of imprisonment according to what you believe are “biological” lines doesn’t even include intersex people.”
                      Nonsense. Saying ‘I don’t know’ doesn’t mean there is no solution. You just think people like Karen White should be bunked with biological women. I know you have some weird views, but that one just about takes the cake.

                      “If a “biological man” gives birth, you might want to rethink the immutability of sex.”
                      Not at all. A biological man who is able to give birth can only do so because of extreme medical intervention to his insides, not because his fundamental biology has changed.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 December 2018 at 11:39 pm

                      “Eighty-odd years of gender reassignment surgery and neither bigots nor concerned trans people can find a single instance of it actually happening… seems to be pretty far-fetched to me, yeah”
                      Did you not read the articles? The UK law is from 2003, not 80 years ago.

                      Not even you are dumb enough to imagine that the UK was the first and only legislature to invalidate “consent” obtained through deceit.

                      But should such a charge ever be laid, the obvious defense is twofold: no misconception exists if all the bits promised are there, and if the court finds a misconception did exist as a question of fact, then the trans person can’t have intended to mislead because the trans person believes it to be true. Because it is true.

                      “Your policy doesn’t even account for intersex people. I asked you “OK, so where would you imprison an intersex person?”. You answered “I don’t know.” Therefore, your policy of imprisonment according to what you believe are “biological” lines doesn’t even include intersex people.”
                      Nonsense. Saying ‘I don’t know’ doesn’t mean there is no solution.

                      But it does mean that the policies you advocate do not include a “solution” for the issue. If you add a “solution”, you’re amending your policy. So your policy as you have expressed it is inadequate for the real world.

                      The reason your policy is inadequate is that you are a bigot. You simply don’t have any regard for nonbinary people. You don’t necessarily hate, them, but you don’t really believe in your heart that they exist. You confuse intersex stats with transgender stats. You argue their “very small” number somehow allows you to ignore injustices that your policy causes. You have to be reminded they exist, and even have to be reminded of what you said about them in previous times you were reminded of them. You don’t give them any consideration when you are arguing for policies to apply to the entire population. You’re a bigot.

                      “If a “biological man” gives birth, you might want to rethink the immutability of sex.”
                      Not at all. A biological man who is able to give birth can only do so because of extreme medical intervention to his insides, not because his fundamental biology has changed.

                      Copy that. Removed all the organs required to impregnate someone, added all the organs required to become pregnant and give birth, but there have been no changes to “fundamental biology”. Most people would think that acquiring the ability to give birth is a pretty fundamental biological change, but you can’t.

                      For you, sex is binary and immutable. That is the basic problem that leads you to bigotry: you cannot imagine the concepts of diversity or change. You’re an idiot desperately clinging to the ossified remains of the binary worldview, and that has turned you into a bigot.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.7
      29 November 2018 at 2:20 pm

      Which brings me to the money trail. When movements gain full throttle as rapidly as the trans train has, it must be asked who stands to gain from it?

      Sure enough, American transgender lobby groups are being funded by the likes of billionaires Warren Buffett and George Soros. Why? Because investors want to help normalise the altering of basic human biology, and Big Pharma stands to make a fortune. It’s already started.

      Capitalists fucking things up again for their own enrichment.

      • soddenleaf 1.7.1
        12 December 2018 at 3:27 pm

        Capitalist just need to make swim ware that dries out fast so people don’t need to change in public changing rooms. Gyms, provide such clothes so undressing is unnecessary. Capitalism isn’t the problem when it’s also the solution. The problem is the clash between those who want normalized what is a minority, most don’t want to know, or care. Or, the third option in very busy gyms, swimming pools, a third room for all the alternatives, disabled, mums with babies, trans, etc. Why the classification of two forms of male, female, why not three??

        • KJT 1.7.1.1
          21 December 2018 at 8:14 pm

          Reminds me of staying in a room by a dorm full of young women.

          I whistled for at least a minute, and asked if the coast was clear, before opening the door.

          No one seemed to worry about the lesbian cook!!

          Then. On a Marae, we all sleep in the same space. The only problem is us old fellers snoring.
          In Japan, and Northern Europe, all sexes strip off and jump in the shower then the pool. Many Japanese bath houses don’t allow Westerners, however, because they are too smelly, and they get all gogle eyed and embarrassing.

          Most disconcerting is standing at a urinal at a bath house, when a women stands beside you, and pees. Then laughs at your look of astonishment.

  2. Ed 2
    28 November 2018 at 6:24 am

    Stuff leads today with a long article called Beach Road.
    This is an in-depth investigation into Climate Change and its impact on our shorelines and seaside communities.
    I salute them for putting this story to the forefront of their online news.
    I encourage them to keep it there, day in ,day out 365 days a year.
    During World War front page and many other pages of a paper were dedicated to war news.
    We are in a war. We need to adapt our whole lives as if we were.
    We need system change, not climate change.

    https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/2018/11/beach-road/

    • Robert Guyton 2.1
      28 November 2018 at 6:52 am

      “The document had been set for release in December of 2016. It was so far advanced a press release had been drafted.

      The delay was political – the Government knew that stricter planning guidelines would hurt developers, and possibly affect property prices. Although councils were regularly asking for the guidance to be released, it took a change of government for that to happen. It was ultimately unveiled last December by the new coalition government, a year to the day after it was ready to publish.”

      https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/2018/11/beach-road/

    • Ed 2.2
      28 November 2018 at 7:16 am

      Radio New Zealand interview with James Renwick.

      His words.
      “We’re staring down the barrel of 3 degrees.”
      “We’re putting gdp growth above the future of humanity.”

      So catastrophic climate change.
      Renwick said the word catastrophic himself.

      I’m listening live.
      It’s very rare we hear this honesty in the MSM.

      System change.
      Not climate change.

      Then Suzie cut him off mid sentence.

      • SpaceMonkey 2.2.1
        28 November 2018 at 9:21 am

        She had to cut him off as time was up but all up it was refreshing to finally have an interview like this in the MSM.

        “Degrowth” is the term that needs to start making it’s way into the MSM now because after hearing “we’re putting gdp growth above the future of humanity”, it should be clear to any listener that it is our economic system at the heart of our GHG emissions.

        We cannot afford to keep growing economically… the whole concept of economic growth is nonsense. It is unsustainable and killing us. Degrowth is the necessary path to a sustainable steady-state economy.

    • SpaceMonkey 2.3
      28 November 2018 at 10:02 am

      I’m not sure the war analogy works that well, though I think you mean that our response to climate change needs to be on a scale as though we were in a war.

      But that’s where we start to lose people… because when I think of what it means to be on a war footing, based on the stories from my grand-parents… I think of rationing. Suddenly all those consumption junkies are no longer listening.

      If we are in a war, it is with our selves.

      • Dennis Frank 2.3.1
        28 November 2018 at 11:17 am

        There’s actually a book on it (I got my copy in 2004): Mind Wars, Ian McFadyen, 2000. Essentially reading for anyone seeking to comprehend the interface between mass psychology & politics!

        Here’s how the publisher framed the gist of the thesis: “humans are little more than intellectual puppets – controlled by self-perpetuating belief systems that spread through society like viruses, destroying their rivals and exploiting the human animal for their own survival.”

        “This new perspective on human behaviour and history is not merely science fiction, but one which arises from the ideas of neo-Darwinism. McFadyen suggests that, just like biological organisms, our thoughts and behaviour are the result of an evolutionary battle in which it is not the most noble or the most truthful that win out, but the best replicators. Mind Wars will challenge the way you think about your own beliefs”.

        One need not be a true believer in memetics to find the book valuable. My first reaction was amusement: too simplistic to take seriously, even while I acknowledged to myself that the theory did indeed fit the behavioural facts accurately. Months later, I found myself accepting that the aussie dude had indeed made a profound contribution (he’s not academic). I realised my subconscious had been processing it. Years later, I found myself rating it even higher: nobody else has a better theory that fits the facts.

    • William 2.4
      28 November 2018 at 1:56 pm

      Today’s editorial is also worth a read. It’s (unusually) attributed to Patrick Crewdson • Stuff Editor in Chief. Presumably it has also been published in their other papers.

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/108819497/quick-save-the-planet-we-must-confront-climate-change

      It announces that the article is the first in a series ; “Quick! Save the Planet – a long-term Stuff project launching today – aims to disturb our collective complacency.”

      It goes on “We’ll feature a wide range of views as part of this project, but we won’t include climate change “scepticism”. Including denialism wouldn’t be “balanced”; it’d be a dangerous waste of time. The experts have debunked denialism, so now we’ll move on.”

      I’m tentatively hopeful.

  3. Adrian Thornton 3
    28 November 2018 at 7:19 am

    The Guardian does another bullshit hit piece on Julian Assange reporting that Manafort visited Assange three times over several years the final time, just as he was employed by Trump….It also mentions “Russians”.

    Only half way through the article we are briefly told this one extremely important little line..
    “Visitors normally register with embassy security guards and show their passports. Sources in Ecuador, however, say Manafort was not logged.”

    No more mention of that little fact, no fact checking on how often this lack of protocol occurs etc, just more unnamed sources from there on in..no mention that Ecuador want Assange gone from their embassy and that their relationship now is extremely adversarial.

    And of course no mention of the facts we do around the inhuman and despicable way Assange is being treated out in the open..of course not The Guardian is doing what it does best, being the faithful attack dog and defender of Liberal hegemony.
    “Wikileaks founder Julian Assange should be allowed to walk free and be compensated for his “deprivation of liberty”, a UN legal panel has found.”
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35499942

    “Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, sources say”
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy

    • Dennis Frank 3.1
      28 November 2018 at 7:52 am

      “The UN’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention insisted Mr Assange’s detention “should be brought to an end, that his physical integrity and freedom of movement be respected”. “Mr Assange should be afforded the right to compensation,” it added.

      “The Wikileaks founder had been subjected to “different forms of deprivation of liberty” it said, initially while he was held in isolation at London’s Wandsworth Prison for 10 days in 2010. The deprivation had been “continuous” since he was initially arrested in the UK on 7 December 2010.”

      “It also found a “lack of diligence” by the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office in its investigations, which resulted in his lengthy loss of liberty. Three members of the five-person panel found in Mr Assange’s favour, while one rejected his claim and another did not take part in the investigation.”

      I agree with the majority decision: he’s a political prisoner. International law fails to protect such people, by design. Otherwise he wouldn’t have had to remain in asylum. Equally I understand Ecuador running out of patience. What does it take to set him free? If the UK & Oz govts intend to extradite him to the USA, where’s the legal basis to do that?? My understanding is that he isn’t subject to US law, since he isn’t a citizen. Neither has he operated Wikileaks from within the USA, right?

      • Adrian Thornton 3.1.1
        28 November 2018 at 8:21 am

        Hopefully without sounding too conspiratorial, it seems pretty obvious that the rule of law will not save Assange from the wrath of powerful individuals and governments Wikileaks have exposed in various ways over the years, they will never let him get away with what he has done.
        He might of had a slight chance if the worlds press had come down in his (and ultimately their own) defense, but it turns out that Chomsky’s Manufacturing Concent is not a theory, but well entrenched reality in MSM right around the World.

        • Morrissey 3.1.1.1
          28 November 2018 at 8:55 am

          RNZ National, June 14, 2013….

          SUSAN BALDACCI: Julian Assange is a little bit paranoid.
          MORA: Oh yes? Hur, hur, hur, hur!
          SUSAN BALDACCI: Yeah, he claims that being holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, he is deprived of his human right of getting enough sun.
          MORA: Is it a human right to get enough sun?
          SUSAN BALDACCI: That’s what he claims! He claims that being not allowed to leave London is violating his “human rights”.
          MORA: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
          LISA SCOTT: Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
          CHRIS TROTTER: Haw haw haw haw haw!
          SUSAN BALDACCI: He thinks he should be allowed out of his Ecuador embassy hideout to sunbathe.
          MORA: He can get out on the balcony, where he gave that speech!
          LISA SCOTT: Yeah! Ha ha ha ha ha!
          CHRIS TROTTER: Yeah! Ha ha ha ha ha! Or get him a sun lamp! THAT’s what he needs!
          LISA SCOTT: Ha ha ha ha ha!
          SUSAN BALDACCI: He he he he he!
          TROTTER: I suspect the ambassador’s just sick of the sight of him! “Are you ever going to LEEEEAAAVE?”
          MORA: Sun lamp! Get him a sun lamp!!!
          LISA SCOTT: Ha ha ha ha ha!
          MORA: Back after the news!

          https://morrisseybreen.blogspot.com/2018/01/an-unusually-inane-and-depraved-edition.html

          • Adrian Thornton 3.1.1.1.1
            28 November 2018 at 10:58 am

            Yeh I called out Mora one time for always skewing to the right, that he has guests like the right wing blogger David Farrar, but never a Left wing equivalent, and that he quotes from Kiwiblog like it is a reliable news source…he didn’t like that too much when he responded.

            I have actually made a T-shirt which I planned to send to Mora’s show to pass on to guests at the appropriate time that reads…

            I know nothing about
            this subject but….

            The Afternoon Panel with Jim Mora

            I printed about a dozen of them, but ended up giving most of them away, and think I even sold a couple in the shop.

            • Morrissey 3.1.1.1.1.1
              28 November 2018 at 11:44 am

              Most of the people on his show would call themselves “liberals”—-like Lisa Scott and Chris Trotter on that infamous occasion. The problem here is not that they are bad people per se, but that they are conformists. Trotter had clearly divined that the liberal intelligentsia in Britain, i.e. the columnists of the Grauniad and the right wing of the Labour Party, had abandoned Assange to the tender mercies of the U.K. government, and he therefore felt almost obligated to make those unfunny and extremely derisive comments and to mimic, with an unfunny attempt at a Central American accent, the Ecuadorian ambassador.

              Mora took his lead from Trotter, repeating the taunt “get him a sun lamp!”

              Lisa Scott just laughed supportively, as she always does.

              Note also Mora’s casual question, posed with a display of seriousness, near the start of that pillory session: “Is it a human right to get enough sun?”

              • Adrian Thornton …
                28 November 2018 at 2:54 pm

                I sort of agree with your your take on the guests on Mora’s show..
                “Most of the people on his show would call themselves “liberals”—-like Lisa Scott and Chris Trotter on that infamous occasion. The problem here is not that they are bad people per se, but that they are conformists”

                This of course that brings us to a bigger topic, namely that this ‘liberal left’ class not only stand in for the ‘Left’ on shows like Mora’s, but also stand in for the “Left’ in pretty much all positions in the media from top to bottom, as far as I can see, and with the obvious and predestined result of we see and hear daily on our radio’s and TV’s.

                When you start extrapolating that line of thought further, these same ‘liberals’ end up at best being silent and at worst defending and/or selling lot’s of pretty terrible shit to the public.
                In my opinion they are more dangerous than the actual right wing media who are easily countered, whereas the ‘liberal’ left msm are like a trojan horse in the progressive left, always undermining and destabilizing real left movements that look threatening to their defended status quo.

                So in short, yeh I am sure they are nice people at a dinner party or whatever, but what they do and say (or don’t say) leads to bad things….

                • Morrissey …
                  28 November 2018 at 4:46 pm

                  Most people are nice at a dinner party. Most National Party and ACT people are personable, decent people. It’s hard in any situation not to try to fit in and seek approval; we all do it. David Lange told of how, after his mother died, he received a long and very thoughtful letter from, of all people, Bill Birch, who Lange had spent most of his time in parliament denouncing as a heartless ideologue.

                  However, I still can’t get over those people laughing at the plight of Julian Assange, and mocking his suffering. I guess that’s an exemplar of that phrase “the banality of evil.”

                  https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-21102013/#comment-714200

                  • McFlock …
                    28 November 2018 at 4:53 pm

                    I don’t know why you linked to me mocking your shit attempts at transcribing a discussion, from five years ago, no less. Assange wasn’t even mentioned in Open Mike that day.

                    Did you confuse the array of chips on your shoulder?

                    • Morrissey …
                      28 November 2018 at 5:20 pm

                      Ooooh, I think it’s clear to anyone with a triple-figure I.Q. what the point of that link was. Here’s Mora, on 21 October 2013, commenting on the Schreibtischtäter:

                      “We like to think we would stand apart, don’t we, if everybody around us was acting abominably.”

                      And here he is just four months earlier, on 14 June 2013, commenting on the suffering of Julian Assange:

                      “Oh yes? Hur, hur, hur, hur!… Is it a human right to get enough sun?… Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! … He can get out on the balcony, where he gave that speech! … Sun lamp! Get him a sun lamp!!!”

                    • McFlock …
                      28 November 2018 at 5:24 pm

                      Maybe I just don’t take enough drugs.

                    • Morrissey …
                      28 November 2018 at 7:36 pm

                      Maybe I just don’t take enough drugs.

                      Indeed. Listening to that sort of debased and brutal talk is like being in the middle of an evil dream—the sort that’s engendered, so I have read, by smoking particularly potent hashish.

                    • Ed …
                      28 November 2018 at 8:21 pm

                      Assange is in the news again.

              • greywarshark …
                28 November 2018 at 4:02 pm

                Trotter has to present stuff that gets bought, he needs to live in conservative little NZ. He also needs to be able to mix and know what is going on. I think he presents lots of views and has told Wayne Mapp off recently, despite not being as bold as you Breen. He presents fairly balanced views, but can be pointed and gives a take that you won’t see often in the media from anyone else. He is about at the zenith of what NZs can cope with, and hopefully they will be able to absorb reality over time perhaps by osmosis.

                • Morrissey …
                  28 November 2018 at 4:55 pm

                  Trotter has his moments, I must admit. A few years ago he memorably confronted that fat panda-eyed gangster Mike Moore on Jim Mora’s program. The old gladhander, who had been invited on as some sort of expert about world trade, was so incensed by Trotter’s insubordination that he snarled, live on air, “You little sh—-!”

                • Adrian Thornton …
                  28 November 2018 at 5:59 pm

                  I agree that he (Trotter) has to present stuff that gets brought, but I am not sure that he “He is about at the zenith of what NZs can cope with”,
                  more like he is the zenith of what NZ TV, Radio, Newspaper producers and editors (read the aforementioned ‘liberal’ class) can cope with.
                  I am sure that if a Left wing pundit was ‘allowed’ to express opinion/argument from the same vein of politics as the Corbyn/Sanders camps, and was allowed a bit of equal air time , that they would be as popular as any other pundit…probably more so.

              • Ed …
                28 November 2018 at 8:20 pm

                Chris Hedges outed the Liberal class a while ago.
                They are just another part of the establishment.
                Too many perks to avoid neoliberal applecart.

            • Ed 3.1.1.1.1.2
              28 November 2018 at 8:18 pm

              I think Mora’s panel’s worst crime it that it delivers obfuscates simple issues and makes them complicated.
              The reason – to maintain the status quo.

    • joe90 3.2
      28 November 2018 at 1:26 pm

      Sources in Ecuador, however, say Manafort was not logged.”

      I guess we’re in pics or it didn’t happen territory.

      The agency used a “special expenses” budget to pay for CCTV cameras to be installed in the embassy weeks after Assange moved in.

      At the same time, documents show an international security company was contracted to secretly film and monitor all activity in the embassy. The company installed a team who provided 24/7 security, with two people on shift at a time, based at a £2,800-a-month flat in an Edwardian mansion building round the corner from the Knightsbridge embassy.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/15/revealed-ecuador-spent-millions-julian-assange-spy-operation-embassy-london

  4. Cinny 4
    28 November 2018 at 7:48 am

    Bullying investigation in Parliament, bloody excellent, thanks Trevor.

    We will hear people say it’s a waste of money etc, no doubt those type of people are bullies. Good example, mark richardson on the am show.

    Over one hundred people have already come forward, which goes to show there is a problem and it needs to be addressed.

    MP’s who are bullies have no place in government.

    I wonder how many bitter nat’s, bitter about losing the last election, have taken it out on their staff?

    Wonder if the pony tail fiddlers name will come up, as the investigation goes back to 2014 when key was still in office.

    Either way this is a good thing, well done Trevor.

    • Dennis Frank 4.1
      28 November 2018 at 8:10 am

      I understand the time limit, re practicability, but prior victims will feel excuded. “The review will look to establish whether bullying and harassment has occurred and, if it has, the nature and extent of this towards staff employed or engaged since the 51st Parliament (since October 2014).”

      “This includes staff from the Parliamentary Service, the Office of the Clerk, Ministerial and Secretariat Services/DIA, contract staff and former staff who no longer work in the Parliamentary workplace. The review will be carried out by independent external reviewer, Debbie Francis, who has previously worked on reviews of a similar nature with other organisations such as the New Zealand Defence Force.” http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1811/S00265/review-to-examine-bullying-and-harassment-at-parliament.htm

      “Everyone should feel safe when they come to work”, Green Party Workplace Relations and Safety spokesperson Jan Logie said today. The Green Party have previously said that, like other workplaces in New Zealand, the Parliament has a problem with workplace culture and bullying. “It is clear we need to assess culture and practice in this place and find out what we need to do to make Parliament a safe and healthy workplace. We encourage people to feed into the independent review that has been initiated.” http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1811/S00266/green-party-welcome-review-of-bullying-and-harassment.htm

      • greywarshark 4.1.1
        28 November 2018 at 9:01 am

        National Party youth group sexual harassment comment from someone on Radionz
        this morning. I though how unctuous and oily he sounded, thought it was 99%
        likely David Farrar. Right on.

        • Cinny 4.1.1.1
          28 November 2018 at 9:13 am

          Grey, last night on the newshub, they had a clip…. simeon nat mp said he left early. Then some other nat mp, older fella, no idea who he is, says……

          ‘there was plenty of food and plenty of adult supervision’

          I almost split my sides with his excuse, such a typical white wash response.

          Anyone know who that MP was please? Thought I knew who most of our MP’s were, but have never seen that fella before.

        • AB 4.1.1.2
          28 November 2018 at 10:19 am

          The deep irony of David “Princess Party” Farrar being asked to comment on the topic seemed to be lost on RNZ.
          Sounds like a bit of common or garden sexual harassment that (inexcusably) goes on absolutely everywhere people gather. If the Nats hadn’t gone nuclear over the Labour youth camp, they wouldn’t be looking like shameful, dishonest hypocrites over this.

      • Cinny 4.1.2
        28 November 2018 at 9:14 am

        Thanks for the links Dennis 🙂

        • greywarshark 4.1.2.1
          28 November 2018 at 10:37 am

          Cinny
          How did you get links from Dennis 1 min after asking question at 9.13am? Are you in contact outside TS? Or did you mean ianmac at 9?

          • Dennis Frank 4.1.2.1.1
            28 November 2018 at 10:59 am

            Think she meant those in my 8.10am comment (see 4.1)..

          • Cinny 4.1.2.1.2
            28 November 2018 at 11:00 am

            Weird, on my screen my comment 4 was at 7:48am.

            And Dennis replied with links at 4.1 at 8.10am

            Does it show up the same for you please Grey?

            • greywarshark 4.1.2.1.2.1
              28 November 2018 at 2:26 pm

              You asked about the mp who made statement about supervision…
              at 4 1 1 1 9.13am
              And then you must have noticed it came up earlier at 8.10 am
              and you thanked Dennis at 9.14 am
              I came to the thread halfway through and thought wow how did that
              happen within a minute.

    • Chris T 4.2
      28 November 2018 at 9:30 am

      Doubt much will come out of it.

      Personally think the biggest problems are most MP’s go into parliament with zero management experience, with zero management skills, and get zero management training.

      Add to this the staff can be fired with only about a weeks notice on the whim of the MP, without the MP having to give a reason, with little to no redress or rights to appeal. This gives one of the worst employment power imbalances around. So the staff member pretty much has to walk around on egg shells.

      Then add to that Wellington is a small place where a lot of people know each other, so if it a nasty MP they could quite easily screw you chances of getting another job in a few other departments.

      Then add the fact that the staff aren’t actually the employees of the MP or the party.

      They are all employed by Parkliamentary Services (and another couple of depts, I can’t remember the names of), so if it isn’t a nice MP you have no employer/employee loyalty thing going on.

      Sorry bit of a rant there

    • Morrissey 4.3
      28 November 2018 at 9:30 am

      I wonder if they’ll take into account the malicious lying—bullying of the worst kind—by the Clark Government directed against Green M.P. Keith Locke. I can’t imagine anything sleazier or more disgusting than this vileness pouring smoothly from the lips of Michael Cullen in 2008:

      I can understand the member’s sensitivity, because that clearly was not a personal explanation. I never accused him of supporting genocide. I said he supported the Khmer Rouge regime, and that article quite clearly states that he supported the takeover by the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. The member has to stop being so sensitive about what he wrote himself, in 1975. He suggests that I was involved. I was a member of the Labour Party, which had long since got New Zealand out of Viet Nam, by that stage.

      https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20080319_00000849/cullen-michael-questions-for-oral-answer-questions

      • greywarshark 4.3.1
        28 November 2018 at 2:29 pm

        ‘It isn’t easy being Green.’ Kermit the Frog. [Keith Locke]
        Mild mannered super-politician Michael Cullen has a sharp point in his glove to stick it to ’em.

    • Antoine 4.4
      28 November 2018 at 9:32 am

      This investigation is great, I bet it will find and stop all kinds of horrible workplace behavior

      A.

  5. Dennis Frank 5
    28 November 2018 at 8:16 am

    “Labour has struck a deal on its flagship workplace legislation that appeases its coalition partners, businesses, and unions.” “The Employment Relations Amendment Bill passed its second reading at Parliament last night with the agreed changes to be made by supplementary order paper at the House committee stage.” https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/376962/coalition-compromise-gets-workplace-bill-over-the-line

    “Lees-Galloway is certain this is the final version of the bill that will be passed. “This is coalition government. We have struck a balance between the views of three different parties that have three different positions on industrial relations,” he said. “And we’ve struck a good balance we think between the needs of business and the needs of workers – I’m very happy with this bill.”

  6. WeTheBleeple 6
    28 November 2018 at 8:44 am

    ” the Government should take a balanced approach to the issue of New Zealand’s diminishing productive land and food security,” she said, noting New Zealand did not have an over-arching policy protecting food security. ”

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12166982

    That which we have taken for granted is once again being lost to us. Namely, abundant arable land and associated fresh food supply. Also, housings obsession with building in low lying flat areas is a recipe for disaster but that’s another post.

    Gardening is often left to the landscapers in cities. They create many impractical landscapes good for little but real estate photography. At regular intervals we shell out good cash to have them come in then lawns are mown and shrubs and trees trimmed. All the excess is typically removed from the section and taken to the tip where it is recycled into compost for sale. Meanwhile the gardeners are bringing in fertilisers, salts, petrol, oil, herbicides, insecticides and fungicides to maintain your useless yard that is being drained of it’s production namely organic matter.

    Fresh food’s association with decreased health costs is no secret. A healthier population is a more productive population. A population of gardeners is a wealthier, fitter and even better connected population. So, instead of shelling out each week for landscaping, we might actually turn that investment into a real investment in our property.

    What we need desperately at this stage is edible landscapers. Someone to lead the way and show how, with inputs of cash that would otherwise be spent on lawns and trimming, they might come onto your property and turn it around to fruit, nut, berry, herb, flower and vegetable production. The end result should resemble a cottage garden or half-way, with landscaped sections where trees and shrubs are of both practical and aesthetic purpose.

    The gardeners and householders can work out between themselves how the harvests work. An organisation like Oooby can be used to redistribute urban food to urban business and households turning any excess to profits. Cupboards can be stocked with preserves to enjoy all year. Food security can be increased.

    If we build on the beautiful abundant land, it stands to reason those suburbs could be beautiful and abundant. We give money to big oil for almost every product we use in our sections, and the result gives little back but ongoing expense.

    It’s time to rethink urban gardening. For you and your families physical health, for financial health, and for better meals. Increased food security, reduced food miles, reduced income to oil and ‘cide companies, improved habitats for insects and birds, and even carbon sequestration: these are the by-products of such activity.

    Are you tired of being gouged every time you head to the supermarket?

    Start with some basic herbs and greens at your doorstep. Either DIY or tell your landscaper what you want. Expand from there.

    Free composting courses in Auckland https://compostcollective.org.nz/events-calendar/

    Resources to learn to garden are everywhere. I highly recommend learning no-till organic and permaculture methods. These reduce pollution while enhancing soil biology (and carbon storage). These systems improve over time while conventional methods require more inputs over time to maintain production despite the damages being incurred.

    Canny landscapers should take note. There is potential to create a whole new food industry within cities, an industry that could grow as rapidly as you can expand edible landscaping services. Do a permaculture design course if you don’t know where to start.

    Then start.

    • Cinny 6.1
      28 November 2018 at 9:06 am

      This bit “What we need desperately at this stage is edible landscapers.”

      Oh hell yes please.

      We’ve created a food forest in one of the local parks here, which is proving popular, kids snacking on berries on the way home, somewhere to pick parsley for a salad etc.

      One of our main parks in Motueka has many fruit tree’s growing, closer to Autumn there are plums and apples galore for everyone to enjoy, and they do.

      Bleepie, my girls were saying yesterday how much they love this time of year, because they can just go out to the garden and pick some food if they are hungry. Saving money and kids eating healthy, it’s a win win.

      We grow both food and medicine in our garden, am big on companion planting, and have been lucky enough to have many bee’s in the garden this year.

      Would love to see hydroponic food warehouses in all NZ cities, flood and drought proof growing conditions with no soil requirements.

      • WeTheBleeple 6.1.1
        28 November 2018 at 9:59 am

        Hydroponics meh. Chemical systems not fit for purpose, massive plastic and other oil-derivative requirements.

        Aquaponics is closer to practical, but not there. I’ve run a prototype without tank cleaning or plant fertiliser requirements for nearly two decades now. But it’s an expensive white elephant for industrial scale… Somewhere like NZ with abundant rainfall doesn’t need it unless perhaps for specialist industry like breeding fish stocks (I bred kokopu in this prototype). In a desert, with 90% reduction in water use, aquaponics is definitely worth trying. Not a fad, just contextual.

        Aquaculture water irrigating adjacent gardens using solar pumps. Hmmm. That’s getting there. That’s bloody clever and simple.

        Flood and drought proofing (mitigation actually) is the article I’m writing right now. Not sure when I’ll be finished but will post it here.

      • Robert Guyton 6.1.2
        28 November 2018 at 10:36 am

        “Edible landscape” – the term upsets me! The problem is that we humans have “eaten the landscape” – like Tim Flannery’s “Future Eaters”. Our stomachs have caused us to consume. We should be listening to our hearts, not our stomachs.

        • Cinny 6.1.2.1
          28 November 2018 at 10:54 am

          Listening to my heart, those raspberries are good 🙂

          But I’m hearing what you are saying Robert 🙂

        • WeTheBleeple 6.1.2.2
          28 November 2018 at 12:13 pm

          Maybe ‘practical landscape’ is a better term? As the provision can be food, fuel, medicine, nitrogen and mulch, compost, wildlife food and habitat etc.

          • Robert Guyton 6.1.2.2.1
            28 November 2018 at 12:31 pm

            If we’re trying to describe those humans who do those things being described here, we need to look to indigenous/past cultures who had names for them. What I mean is, use language that doesn’t come from within our “civilised” culture, given that it’s that civilising that’s done the harm we are trying here to address. “Kaitiaki” is the one most often seen around these parts, but there might be other, better descriptions. Words are “powerful magic” in the way that action follows thought – you can only do what you’re able to describe and if you are using violet language, you’ll do violence. Our relationship with the whenua is intimately related to the stories well know and tell.

      • Exkiwiforces 6.1.3
        28 November 2018 at 5:36 pm

        Is that the park, that has or did have the flying fox?

    • ianmac 6.2
      28 November 2018 at 9:30 am

      My home has a tiny back yard. About 50 square metres.
      In that area I grow:
      3 gooseberry bushes, two apple trees (Coxes and sturmer), 2 fejoas, 12 potato plants, 1 plum (Black Doris), 6 climbing beans, 1 young grape, 4 herbs, 12 strawberries, 2 raspberries, lettuces, 2 passion fruit (good crop this year), 2 black-currants, 1 fig tree, cabbages and a number of flowers in between.

      • gsays 6.2.1
        28 November 2018 at 10:01 am

        thanks ianmac, you remind me of how remiss i am with my raised garden beds.
        three of them @ 15square metres each.
        i decided to dig out couch that had taken hold.
        6 weeks later you would have thought i had sown couch.
        very disheartening.
        i walked away and now, a year later the creeping buttercup is fighting with the couch for space.

        i have decided, in the new year, to remove the soil, and replace with fresh topsoil.
        also to lay wide limerock paths to keep the weeds at bay.

        • WeTheBleeple 6.2.1.1
          28 November 2018 at 10:29 am

          Smothering the couch is a better bet. The soil is getting compact and acidic from tilling and the creeping buttercup is a symptom. Opportunistic bacteria eat all the soil carbon when you bust soil up. It burns carbon up fast giving immediate production but later problems.

          You could perhaps get one cover and rotate your beds production using a smother then sow method as you go.

          Smother the weeds turning them into organic matter, add more organic matter as a mulch layer to repress further weeds. I tap into free mulch from landscapers and use it liberally to build topsoil over time. Do not mix mulch into the soil, only cover it.

          Or not.

          • Cinny 6.2.1.1.1
            28 November 2018 at 10:49 am

            “You could perhaps get one cover and rotate your beds production using a smother then sow method as you go.”

            Yesah, that works great.

            G, I’ve raised beds built out of pallets for vege’s, during the winter I cover a couple of them with pallets, it works great. Makes for a seat in the winter and keeps the weeds away reading for planting in the spring.

            For nutrients I dig in seaweed and horse poo. Fresh horse poo won’t burn the plants unlike other fresh manures. Lucky to have free access to both.

            DIY mulch if one has a lawnmower. Yup those plant prunings and leaves are the best, run over them a few times and bingo, mulch. The larger prunnings are cut and stacked in banana boxes for kindling and firewood (we are lucky enough to have a wetback fire).

            DIY mulch plants to avoid, yucca or cabbage tree leaves (tangles the mower) prickly plants, and plants with runners, like mint.

            In the flower, native and medicine gardens, I just use lawn clippings for mulch then pull out any weeds as I see them.

            FYI…. Gardens seem to be going crazy for everyone, it’s just the warmth and the rain.

            • ianmac 6.2.1.1.1.1
              28 November 2018 at 11:21 am

              Horse poo tip thanks Cinny. Local Riding for the Disabled Horse group is always selling bags of horse poo so now I will use. Probably good roughage too.

              • mac1 …
                28 November 2018 at 12:45 pm

                ianmac, horse manure and sawdust mix available at $5 a trailer load from our local stables at the racecourse. Great stuff, as my potatoes attest.

                I’ve also bullt tiered garden boxes from recycled pallets which grow greens etc very well and can be placed in the best sunny location with a 400 mm base and three levels of boxes.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  28 November 2018 at 2:26 pm

                  There are a lot of people doing really good stuff, also commenting here on TS. Where else might that happen? Very encouraging.

            • gsays 6.2.1.1.1.2
              28 November 2018 at 11:23 am

              thanks cinny, just the motivation i need.

            • WeTheBleeple 6.2.1.1.1.3
              28 November 2018 at 11:48 am

              Great advice. Especially on mulch and firewood generation. It doesn’t belong in landfill. If you don’t have a fire, you might find neighbors who do.

              Alternately:

              I have a char making BBQ 😀 A rough but working prototype that is now unfortunately a bit broken since a large tree limb hit it 🙁 Simply the fire pit/ concrete and flue of an old laundry copper, with added cast iron pot with air outlets at the base which is the ‘inner chamber’ to hold prunings. These off gas and turn to char. The inner chamber is propped up with and surrounded by wood, the hotplate put on top, light it, make dinner.

              Get the char out the next day.

              Grow (much of) the food, fuel cooking with prunings and enjoy summer evenings outdoors. Meanwhile the BBQ makes char to add to composting and sequester carbon. This will also reduce greenhouse gas off-gassing from the composting process.

              Provided you keep growing wood to replace it, burning it is carbon neutral. Once you start making char from some of the wood and sequestering it with compost, it is carbon negative.

              Clay soils respond very well to bio char processed via compost.

            • Exkiwiforces 6.2.1.1.1.4
              28 November 2018 at 5:49 pm

              I brought a Hassa Chipper (made in Hamilton NZ btw) to do my mulch or else I had to throw it on burn pit. The chipper is a hell’ve lot better than the using the mower and it chews up palms, wood up to 70mm etc like a hot knife through butter.

              Any dry stuff ie palms I throw into the Chipper has to be done with care or else get it’s caught in the cutting wheel, but apart from that I’ve had no issues with the Chipper.

              My lategrandmother used elephant poo on her roses etc and when she started to clean up the local Nelson/ Tasman Bay Flower shows. My late grandfather then started to use it on the veggie garden and it went gang busters when he mix it with some blood and bone.

              • Cinny …
                28 November 2018 at 8:55 pm

                Ok I’m jealous as now 🙂 Went and checked out the chippers via the net from Hamiltron, dang, very very nice. And they even have a pink one!

                https://www.hansachippers.co.nz/welcome/

                NZ made too, that should always happen.

                Elephant poo, wow, not so easy to get hold of, but wow how cool is that. Grandparents have the best gardening secrets.

                Thanks for sharing 🙂

                • Robert Guyton …
                  28 November 2018 at 9:30 pm

                  We collected elephant and camel poo from a travelling circus in Riverton. A barrow full – just one single elephant dump, as I recall, decorated with camel “apples” – our herbs grew zoobly-doo!

                • Exkiwiforces …
                  28 November 2018 at 10:00 pm

                  I think it was called Zoo Poo, but grandma always called it Elephant Poo. As Robert has said below, grandad’s veggies took off like Capt Buzz Lightyear In more ways than one (size and yield) esp when a bit of blood and bone mixed into it.

          • gsays 6.2.1.1.2
            28 November 2018 at 11:23 am

            hey thanks wtb,
            that smothering technique will kill the couch and buttercup roots too?

            so smother with compost and grass clippings and cardboard?

            i figure i still need to put paths in to give a barrier for couch.

            thank you for the advice, it is just the pep up i need.

            • WeTheBleeple 6.2.1.1.2.1
              28 November 2018 at 11:58 am

              You need to block all light and the plants will die though of course couch will have runners. You can cut down the edges of the beds with a spade when you start – to cut off any runners and their external supplies to the bed. Without a very good light barrier the weeds will find a way.

              Without extensive mulch (8 inches) something like carpet or black plastic might be used to make an impenetrable barrier to kill weeds like couch. This is later (about six weeks) removed and the bed planted.

              As organic matter goes up the weeds become much easier to control when they do pop up. Easier to pull, and less as you establish useful plants in their place.

          • Macro 6.2.1.1.3
            28 November 2018 at 12:31 pm

            Totally agree WTB!
            We use cardboard (non-coloured) boxes from the local supermarket as the first layer, (take off the cellotape as well before putting on the ground), then build up mulch on top of that. The cardboard really cuts out the light, so couch (in our case kikuyu grass) doesn’t get the sunlight energy to survive), and it also promotes the worms to turn the mulch into the soil. We have been using this process for at least 20+ years and have developed gardens all over the place using this method. It takes a little time, but so do all good things.

            • Molly 6.2.1.1.3.1
              28 November 2018 at 4:26 pm

              We have used the cardboard layers with success for kikuyu as well. Best result for least effort is when we put the cardboard layers down at the end of summer, and weighed them down with rocks, or old pavers. The combination of wet autumn and winter weather alongside the elimination of light, means that by spring the worms have consumed even the runners.

      • WeTheBleeple 6.2.2
        28 November 2018 at 10:16 am

        Nice one Ian.

        There is a saying “land poor” which refers to having too much property to tend. Ten acres is a mountain of labor, not a lifestyle, unless you really know what you’re doing.

        Many in the city are land poor. Not that they have too much, but they are simply too busy to tend it/take the learning curve and tend it. This is where I think edible landscapers could really make a difference – hiring landscapers is commonplace already, it’s only a small shift.

        When someone has a smaller plot of land like yours, they can pay attention and even create productivity unheard of in larger systems. Sounds like that small plot could significantly enhance your diet and reduce your food bills (and food miles, carbon footprint…).

    • Robert Guyton 6.3
      28 November 2018 at 10:05 am

      strongly support

      • gsays 6.3.1
        28 November 2018 at 11:26 am

        i figure this is the conversation you were talking about having a dedicated thread.

      • te reo putake 6.3.2
        28 November 2018 at 11:31 am

        Hi, Robert, I sent you an email yesterday re: the dedicated post. If it hasn’t turned up, can you email me at tereoputake@gmail.com please?

        • Robert Guyton 6.3.2.1
          28 November 2018 at 11:59 am

          Got it, trp. I’m super-busy with permaculture hui planning and council biz but will get to it tonight. Cheers.
          Robert

          • WeTheBleeple 6.3.2.1.1
            28 November 2018 at 12:05 pm

            Do you have anything to do with teaching Auckland PDC? I’m doing it next year…

            It won’t take you too long to figure out which one is me 😀

            • Robert Guyton 6.3.2.1.1.1
              28 November 2018 at 12:40 pm

              I’m in Southland but know most of the PDC teachers around the country. I’d be happy to talk with you “off Standard” about such issues. My email address is rguy10@actrix.co.nz, in case you’d like the inside running 🙂
              Robina McCurdy is staying with us presently. You might know of her. I’ve taught PDC down here, but nowadays focus on forest gardening “workshops” , seminars and public talks. I wonder if you’ve watched this:
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJFL0MD9fc

              “It won’t take you too long to figure out which one is me 😀”
              Do you wear a WeTheBleeple “t”-shirt 🙂 ?

              • greywarshark …
                28 November 2018 at 12:59 pm

                Tshirt design?
                A long tunnel house for plants with gardener’s head sticking out one end and gumboots sticking out the other.
                Caption?: This is the life!
                ……………..
                ……………….

                People could send their own photos and have them printed on the tshirt to personalise them.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  28 November 2018 at 1:36 pm

                  Riverton’s being “bombed” by graph -artists today and tomorrow as 8 large walls are blessed with beautiful painting by young NZ artists, from all across the motu. The weather’s perfect – clear skies, high temperatures and the town’s abuzz! Good times. Our wall; that of the South Coast Environment Centre, has a gorgeous work titled “Ebb & Flow” themed for the nearby estuary – at this stage, the outlining is done and one of the two “bookend” fish is mostly-coloured – it’s a treasure. I’ll post images on my blog and link to them once they’re done 🙂

              • WeTheBleeple …
                28 November 2018 at 1:43 pm

                Well, the name is a play on words, on the surface and deeper hehe. WT’Bleep’. Get it.

                So the T-shirt might look like this

                https://teespring.com/shop/what-the-fungus-tee-shirt-prom#pid=369&cid=6513&sid=front

                I’ve seen that video before. That’s you huh. Was hoping to meet that guy eventually. 😀

                I’ve always liked the concept of giving the worst land around a makeover. I’m pretty sure I got that idea off watching you. And the cabbage tree starling connection.

                • WeTheBleeple …
                  28 November 2018 at 2:09 pm

                  Do you follow Pete Kanaris on youtube? Pete is an ‘edible landscaper’ par excellence. He is always working in tropical areas. Still plenty to learn and he visits lots of interesting farms.

                  I think Pete is where I got the phrase edible landscape from.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  28 November 2018 at 2:20 pm

                  Ahh! Dammit – ordinarily I get that stuff but I’d thought “people”??
                  Nevermind. I’m 60 🙂
                  Starlings – they’re great models – super-adaptable – nest-site threatened? Build it in a tractor engine-space. Farmer’s chucked it onto the shed floor? Build another one – you’ve got 10 minutes! 🙂
                  Ours here feed on nectar (and grubs when they’re feeding yunkers): flax (te wai korari), red-hotpokers, bell-bird flower, in-season Rosaceae flowers (apple, plum, pear etc.). Then, off to the beach! There are sand hoppers there, for the taking! A little farming to follow – grass-grub galore, then back to the tii kouka nest-sites, a day well-spent 🙂 I love starlings.

                  • WeTheBleeple …
                    28 November 2018 at 5:07 pm

                    Hehe, the name is a derivative of we the people on the surface… it’s the poet in me likes to find the layers. Possibly the comic too in this instance.

                    The starlings have been scarce up here for ages but they’re moving back in lately. I reckon they scarpered after the tussock moth spraying the Lepidoptera took some time to return.

                    I’ve got 4 young fantails moved in out back. Not sure where they nest but they’re there every day doing aerial acrobatics. The birds here are too tame, blackbirds eat from the cat dish right beside the cat. Old cat…

                    One of them – ‘birdie’ – sits on my step and calls me to feed it. At long last, I’ve been domesticated.

          • greywarshark 6.3.2.1.2
            28 November 2018 at 12:38 pm

            I have been saving the interchange between you and WtB and others all ready for content to go onto a dedicated post however you do it. Some good stuff been going down which is full of fibre! to chew on. Just to let you know that I have it and apart from Acts of God or Plain Foolishness of Me, I will be able to regurgitate it like a mother bird when you get the nest ready!!

    • Gabby 6.4
      28 November 2018 at 10:05 am

      Bleepy! NAAOO! DON’T eat the landscapers.

    • Puckish Rogue 6.5
      28 November 2018 at 2:01 pm

      “What we need desperately at this stage is edible landscapers.”

      Soylent Green for the win!

      • Robert Guyton 6.5.1
        28 November 2018 at 2:21 pm

        We’ll start with trolls, though they’re stringy.

        • gsays 6.5.1.1
          29 November 2018 at 6:37 am

          i understand jugged pukeko overcomes their otherwise inedibility.
          perhaps jugged troll would work.

          • Robert Guyton 6.5.1.1.1
            29 November 2018 at 7:29 am

            Marinated in their own bile. I like it, “jugged troll”! Your idea put me in mind of hung pheasant also; I read,
            “If you hang turkeys or geese you must eviscerate them, as they retain too much heat otherwise. ”
            and given how regularly we eviscerate trolls here, thought that might be another for the “TS troll recipe book”.

            • gsays 6.5.1.1.1.1
              29 November 2018 at 9:48 am

              Excellent!
              I doubt there would be much nutritional value as their arguments lack substance.

              Come to think of it we will need a good garnish as the points of view are mostly unattractive.

  7. SaveNZ 7
    28 November 2018 at 8:54 am

    Nice to see child abusers getting (another) free ride… bizarrely if you are accused of violence against your partner apparently you are remanded and stay in prison before you are proven guilty… but if you are convicted of child abuse, you escape a prison sentence???? The prison’s seem to be full of the wrong people.

    Family’s worst nightmare: Auckland youth worker turned sexual predator

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/108847556/familys-worst-nightmare-auckland-youth-worker-turned-sexual-predator

    • DJ Ward 7.1
      28 November 2018 at 12:58 pm

      The irony is that a big part of the arbitrary inprisonment of men, hardly a majority of which are guilty of anything, has amongst other excuses “best interests of the child”

      Arbitrary arrest is part of Crimes Against Humanity law.

      • greywarshark 7.1.1
        28 November 2018 at 1:10 pm

        DJ Ward
        We are all guilty of something perhaps neglect of seeing that others have needs that should be primary for a while before our needs. You are sounding like a denier and that is boring to have on a blog where the idea is to examine problems and work through them.

        Just because you can find holes in one side of an argument and you feel they are
        OTT, it doesn’t mean that it’s all wrong. Two sides with skewed outlooks and convinced that the other is wrong aren’t going at the problem with an attitude committed to betterment of the situation.

        And arbitrary arrest can be very helpful in cooling down the situation, and indicating that if it is violence occurring, that it it a serious matter. For too long domestic violence has been acceptable as part of the to and fro of normal life for wives, and sometimes husbands. Also drunkenness, which often accompanies it.

        • DJ Ward 7.1.1.1
          28 November 2018 at 2:06 pm

          That’s like saying since people can have racial conflict, whenever the police encounter racial conflict that the brown person should be arbitrarily arrested. Just to cool things down.

          That’s why arbitrary arrest is wrong.

          Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment enables the false accuser. Causes miscarriages and travesties of justice.

          Considering most non women studies, domestic violence studies expose little difference in offender rates based on gender, shows you should go exploring to see what you find. The longitudinal Study exposed females as nearly twice as likely to be physically violent (completely unexpected) causing studies globally attempting to verify or debunk its results. It turns out it is true.

          Stuff and Herald articles don’t mention the Judiciary admiting just in the legal processing phase of the Domestic Violence Act about 2 men suicide for every woman killed by DV.

          The real enemy in this issue is the Legal Proffesion. Operating a fault divorce scam. The police follow instructions and act with cultural bias in making decisions. Hence the near 100% Police Safety Order against men (that’s men who have absolutely not committed violence (they are arbitrarily arresting if they have, or accused), but the woman has, or they can’t decide if she has)

          Fix men’s issues if you want to reduce domestic violence. Bad man. Punish men. Is a solution that will cause the problem to get worse. And things have got worse, domestic violence is not being solved because the cause is not addressed.

          Find a brick wall and bang it with your head, it fixes everything.

          50:50 shared care, variation by consent.

          See equality, not bigotry.

          • Cinny 7.1.1.1.1
            28 November 2018 at 2:14 pm

            Exactly which longitudinal study? Link please.

            • DJ Ward 7.1.1.1.1.1
              28 November 2018 at 3:42 pm

              https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/81025573/domestic-violence-study-presents-challenging-picture

              You will need to find the data they were using for my more specific comment which by memory is 22% of men and 38% of women.

              • solkta …
                28 November 2018 at 3:51 pm

                You said: The longitudinal Study exposed females as nearly twice as likely to be physically violent

                The first line of the article says: The findings of an in-depth domestic violence study, which showed violent conduct almost evenly split between the genders,

                • DJ Ward …
                  28 November 2018 at 5:13 pm

                  If it’s evenly split then why are the police figures so biased. Why is female violence ignored?

                  The 1 in 3 campaign looks a bit silly now eh.

                  Only a man thing (laughing)

                  There I had some fun.

                  • McFlock …
                    28 November 2018 at 5:18 pm

                    Did the study find that women sent men to the hospital or the morgue at the same rate as men send women to those places?

                    • ankerawshark …
                      28 November 2018 at 5:31 pm

                      Domestic violence can be catergorized as situational or characterlogical. No excuse for either, but situational to do with family stressers etc and can involve either men or women lashing out.

                      Characterlogical is far more serious as it indicates deep held pathological beliefs about demeaning and devaluing women. Situational violence can be worked with (ie teaching people anger management and coping techniques.). In the case of characterlogical violence, women should be encouraged and supported to leave these partners.

                    • DJ Ward …
                      28 November 2018 at 7:10 pm

                      Is that the only figure where males are only slightly worse than women. They don’t study male hospitalisation for DV and including the man who was mysteriously stabbed in the back, from across the table, who wasn’t murdered they often refuse help. Females go to hospital to get paperwork to guarantee they get the kids, and now time off work, men don’t.

                      Strait to the playbook. What about the dead women.

                      Actually once you count males trapped in bad relationships, knowing they can’t leave because they will never see there kids again, forced like her own wage slave because she refuses to work, then forced to pay child support and now alimony as well, I think the woman’s death toll is petty in comparison.

                      Maybe instead of letting women off with murder so the stats look good maybe we can decide stabbing someone when they are sleeping with a large knife is murder, not manslaughter.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 November 2018 at 9:12 pm

                      If they don’t record it and don’t study it, how do you know that it happens “often”?

                      You are so full of shit.

              • Cinny …
                28 November 2018 at 8:48 pm

                So you are quoting figures from a study, but you say if I want to find the data I need to look it up myself?

                Instead all you offer is a stuff article from 2016 ?!!

                Almost everyday you are singing from the same song sheet djw.

                Now you are stating that you have no personal experience, instead you claim to have heard stories from others, no doubt just one side of the story.

                You say studies you were referring to have vanished from the corrections website….. um ok then lololz, sure they have.

                Then you say the data is from a 1997 study, are you unable to find up to date info?

                Finally you claim to have been advocating for men for over two decades, how exactly? By reading hand picked studies and complaining on blogs?

          • greywarshark 7.1.1.1.2
            28 November 2018 at 2:17 pm

            Let men look at their own issues not expect others to fix them. I won’t say any more about this because it is hard to get off a convenient track for the path less followed. On and on and justification and on and on.

            • SaveNZ 7.1.1.1.2.1
              28 November 2018 at 2:50 pm

              Sexual abuse is a male issue! The problem seems to be crimes against children are deemed not worthy of any real punishment, yet if a women lodges any claim of violence against a man they can be remanded in prison for months before even getting their day in court, if they don’t plead guilty and it may not be true.

              There is a lack of justice for children from sexual abusers.

              Don’t forget the roast busters did not even get charged. Gang sex with minors and boasting about it on social media???? Not even worthy of a proper investigation.

              • DJ Ward …
                28 November 2018 at 3:19 pm

                Obviously there is issues. One issue is there is so much going on that if the system punished hard all events there would be no room in prison for other offenders. Again male offending is being addressed but female offending is rarely delt with. Sexual offending can be generational. 1/2 of men imprisoned for rape report having sexual relationships with there mothers. While males are generally involved in that as well, prosecutions for mothers is essentially non existent.
                Punishment is often imposed on the child victim in an adults body, hence why rehabilitation has high success rates for this offending.

                • solkta …
                  28 November 2018 at 3:22 pm

                  1/2 of men imprisoned for rape report having sexual relationships with there mothers.

                  citation required

                  • DJ Ward …
                    28 November 2018 at 4:32 pm

                    Looked for it. The study was on corrections website, plus looked on others. Corrections have deleted all the older research from the site. The last time I was asked that question was about 5 years ago, and it’s much older research. So sorry I can’t find it right now, one of those needle in a hay stack things. I can say though, have you ever noticed how many have unusually close relationships with there mothers.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 November 2018 at 4:37 pm

                      Just how many convicted rapists are you that closely acquainted with?

                    • solkta …
                      28 November 2018 at 4:50 pm

                      Well with the other statistics you just quoted re domestic violence you doubled it for effect so can’t really take this seriously at all.

                    • DJ Ward …
                      28 November 2018 at 4:56 pm

                      37% of women and 22% of men reported perpetrating IPV in the previous year (Magdol et al 1997)

                      Plus you haven’t explained why men are persecuted but women are not, considering the figures.

                      Satisfied now solkta.

                    • DJ Ward …
                      28 November 2018 at 5:16 pm

                      McFlock.

                      I have spent thousands of hours looking at male offending trying to understand what’s going on.

              • greywarshark …
                28 November 2018 at 3:37 pm

                I hear you savenz.
                I hear this from DJW:
                The real enemy in this issue is the Legal Proffesion. Operating a fault divorce scam. The police follow instructions and act with cultural bias in making decisions.

                It seems to me the problem about domestic violence is that it is so clearly named – Violence and Domestic. Seems clear. Also there is a residual lot of anger that fuels it. Strange that I mentioned this possibility when discussing a seemingly withdrawn and possibly angry man the other day. A response was – ignore it – take no notice, it doesn’t matter. Which probably reflects a lot of NZs attitudes. We need to clean out the inflamed wounds in people’s minds and then their mental health will improve.

                I have written down things that I have read, and learned, and gathered from other people. They would help if that is what is wanted. Some people like to have a grievance to take through life, it is like an old chair with a spring that digs into their bum, but hey they are used to it and it does the job! But it is sad we keep on like this so I have put down lots which I expect you will ignore, as you please.

                The problem arises from the way that someone looks at things. If DJW thinks that things going wrong is someone else’s fault, then there is no need to do anything himself or by the aggrieved person he is supporting. And reading DJW’s first sentences from a longer comment, it seems the thinking is trapped; the ‘everyone is agin us’ mentality can be seen good and strong. But the person who complains continually makes themselves weak and can never feel strong till they own up to themselves that their life is a mess, and it’s no use finding fault, it has happened and it has to be faced and thought about to see what good can be found.

                But no talk of suicide, and leave the violence, rage, blaming alone. Try writing down how you feel and folding the paper, put it away and look at it later, reflect when you feel calmer and admit it isn’t good. Some calm, before you talk to someone professional, not some stirrer you know, and find a way to go forward in talks towards a happier future that you will be able to make for yourself.

                And this is a process that can be followed. Think – what can I do to make it better for me – what do I want, and how can I make changes in ME and help others involved to get things going better? If the person can’t get changes made, then ask why and what do the others actually want in their lives? Put it on the table; be hopeful, present a fair case, but prepared for failure. See if you can get help from a mediator. Do an exercise of ‘the empty chair’ where you talk to the chair as if the other person is sitting there and tell them how you feel. Then you get up and yourself sit in the chair and put yourself in their shoes and tell your empty chair about their situation. Forces some empathy.

                And remember that you choose the people that you mix with, and if you mix with people you don’t like, what was it about them that attracted you, why do you stay? It may be that you should move away from them, even from a family that is toxic, if you don’t want to be involved in their skewed lifestyle games. Do your best like a straight person who is honest and retain your integrity and dignity of mind, with some forgiveness but taking a new approach that gives you a new life, and healing.

                • DJ Ward …
                  28 November 2018 at 3:58 pm

                  I don’t have any issues of my own to deal with. No child to fight over, no child support to pay, no ex I’m angry at, no self blame, no desires for revenge. I have had many people say the same thing to me as you just did, so all good, I’m used to it.

                  • solkta …
                    28 November 2018 at 4:05 pm

                    So you get wound up and all just for fun?

                    • DJ Ward …
                      28 November 2018 at 4:26 pm

                      No fun. I’ve been looking at and advocating on men’s issues for 25 years. No fun involved.

                  • McFlock …
                    28 November 2018 at 4:43 pm

                    Dude, you literally included Canada in a list with North Korea because Canada has feminists.

                    Even in jest, that strongly suggests you have issues.

                  • greywarshark …
                    28 November 2018 at 8:09 pm

                    DJ Ward
                    So impervious to any good advice, or even any advice. Just happy to sound off on behalf of other men and make a name for yourself. You aren’t even trying to help them, just help them to remain in a state of pass the blame around and choose the woman, the government, police etc etc. You are similar to Garth McVicar, just feeling wise and self-righteous and talking about being hard done-by all the time. Some people are hard done by, but will stay the same with you around. You seem to enjoy it.

                    • DJ Ward …
                      28 November 2018 at 9:13 pm

                      Well I don’t seek fame. I don’t promote myself in any way other than labelling myself. Thats only because I get, your hurt, damaged, get help, do something, troll, give it a rest blah blah. I’m just standing in someone’s corner, someone being harmed, any man bullied in the press. I stood in JLRs corner on Kiwiblog and got more downvotes than Stephieboy does. If you wish to direct your distaste for a person who does that with personal attacks that’s fine. I’m used to it.

                      If you don’t wish to discuss men’s issues that’s fine. I realise perfectly well that discussing men as victims is a repulsive concept for most people. I’m perfectly aware that I’m hated by many as well.

                      Any further complaints about men talking on behalf of men should be addressed to the Minister of Men, Parliament Buildings, Wellington.

                      I’m sure you will get a prompt response.

  8. Morrissey 8
    28 November 2018 at 9:03 am

    Incinerating Assange – The Liberal Media Go To Work
    by DAVID EDWARDS, Media Lens, 27 June 2012

    https://morrisseybreen.blogspot.com/2018/01/david-edwards-incinerating-assange.html

  9. ianmac 9
    28 November 2018 at 9:09 am

    Oh Dear. Not perfect then.
    “A member of the Young Nationals accused of inappropriately touching a teenage woman after the group’s Christmas function a week ago learned he was suspended by the party only after Newsroom broke the story yesterday of the police investigation.

    National had claimed it followed all correct procedures following the incident. The victim had been led to believe the man had already been blacklisted from party events.”
    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/11/27/340389/young-nat-suspended-after-newsroom-story

  10. Tricledrown 10
    28 November 2018 at 9:20 am

    Slater/Graham/Rich on the back foot judge allows hacked emails that they were involved in dirty politics as well as new emails the hacker has released.
    Dirty Politics is still giving and combined with JLR funding revelations and now the sex scandal Nationals got you politics is backfiring simple Siomon’s cried wolf to many times.

  11. ScottGN 11
    28 November 2018 at 9:45 am

    There’s just one 2018 House Race left to declare, the California 21st. Republicans looked set to hold the seat on election night but since then the postals have trended to Democrats. A win here will be the Dems 40th pickup in the midterms.
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-last-unresolved-house-race-of-2018/

  12. ScottGN 12
    28 November 2018 at 9:55 am

    Scott Morrison’s problems just keep piling up. Fresh from the carnage of the Victorian election, one of the Liberal Party’s 2016 star recruits, Julia Banks, decided to announce her resignation from the party and move to the crossbenches at the same moment the PM was holding a press conference to outline the timetable for next years budget and subsequent federal election. The government is now firmly in minority territory, able only to muster 73 votes in the Lower House.
    https://www.canberratimes.com.au/politics/federal/shock-resignation-subverts-scott-morrison-s-attempt-to-seize-election-initiative-20181127-p50ira.html

  13. greywarshark 13
    28 November 2018 at 10:30 am

    For contacting The Standard my gmail doesn’t recognise the address given in the information given for the site.

    What is the address if not at [thestandardnz@gmail.com]?

    • te reo putake 13.1
      28 November 2018 at 10:45 am

      As far as I can tell thestandardnz@gmail.com is the correct address.

      • greywarshark 13.1.1
        28 November 2018 at 10:53 am

        Thanks TRP. Thinking further. I have been a contentious commenter at times.
        Have I been cut off access at your end after being rather annoying at some time. Have you a way of checking whether I am persona non grata? When you have time.

        I just sent it after clicking on your link so forget above as it
        seems to have gone through. thanks

          • greywarshark 13.1.1.1.1
            28 November 2018 at 12:26 pm

            Thanks Chris T i had a few days ago tried to send an email to lprent and got the cool little message that the address was not correct or whatever. Same as I did for thestandard which actually works when presented as a live link. So should be able to make contact with lprent through your help now.

            I don’t understand why i couldn’t before but it’s a reality to the user that the programs are often busy doing things for you, being helpful when you don’t need it, but not when you do need it. I am getting asked whether i want to reply to something because 5 days have gone by. Stuff off. Is that understood in programming language?

        • greywarshark 13.1.1.2
          28 November 2018 at 2:41 pm

          Hi TRP
          If you can give me the okay to send it off to you I’ll tidy it and get it in as first step. I guess you got my enquiring email. I have got bits together a now and should do it timely-wise.

  14. Dennis Frank 14
    28 November 2018 at 11:31 am

    This post from No Right Turn alerts us to an emerging crisis of governance in the UK: http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2018/11/contempt-is-contempt.html

    The government has decided to adopt a posture of contempt toward the House of Commons. I suspect the MPs who voted for the motion will reciprocate. Mutual contempt could even force a constitutional crisis. How often does the government get away with disobeying the will of parliament?

    The suggestion that parliament send it’s enforcement official to arrest the PM & lock her up in the Tower until she agrees to comply certainly raises the entertainment level!

  15. adam 15
    28 November 2018 at 12:35 pm

    It’s probably just me, the continued economic approach of austerity does not look kind at all. Road rage incidents are on the rise (in my neighbourhood anyway) , homelessness is still the same, underemployment is still endemic and the majority of people I see are one paycheck away from total collapse.

    But hey, we can all laugh at national, right. Like that joke didn’t wear thin months ago.

    As I said before the election and got poo pooed by the so called experts here, economically the labour party are far past centre right, and they have now dragged the greens to the right as well.

    • DJ Ward 15.1
      28 November 2018 at 1:11 pm

      Well the Greens seem to have lost their way. Embracing Radical Feminism seems to be all they are achieving. We don’t know the back room deals of the coalition as to what that group gets, and has to give away.

      I spoke to some non politicaly minded people today, one an older feminist, who generally just ignore the stuff we look at and watch Game of Thrones and Shameless (missus loves it), work and pay the bills.

      They went WTF that’s just nuts. “Yes it is” I replied.

      • Dennis Frank 15.1.1
        28 November 2018 at 1:37 pm

        “Well the Greens seem to have lost their way.” Likely due to thinking themselves leftist, then joining a centrist coalition. Having to combine political praxis with adherence to idealism isn’t easy. I’ve done it sufficiently to be comfortable with it, but can empathise with their learning curve.

        My membership of the GP is currently up for renewal. I’m likely to overcome my distaste for their positioning and rejoin to support them in the coalition. As long as the Nats adhere to dinosaur thinking, the GP can’t develop much collaboration with them. I will credit their current leader for working with James Shaw on climate change legislation, but we still await the result of that.

      • Ed 15.1.2
        28 November 2018 at 8:27 pm

        Every day they should be hammering the message about climate change.
        But basically we’re getting silence.

        Here’s their message.
        System change not climate change.

        I sense that’s a bit too radical for the green gatekeeper Shaw.

    • greywarshark 15.2
      28 November 2018 at 2:38 pm

      I’m probably being simplistic but thought that Labour would be trying to keep in touch with comments from the peeps, but when I write about something I just get a form confirmation back. How do you get through to these pollies, can you have skype talks with them once a week, a minute each for the peeps to put forward their concerns, and then they get printed out and copy sent back, and the feed back would mount. And they would know people are out there supporting. It’s an idea, maybe could work. A different part of the country each week.

    • greywarshark 15.3
      28 November 2018 at 2:55 pm

      adam
      Before the election and even after it nobody wanted to put a damper on the Coalition and we have hopes that something will grow sufficient to start significant change. Trouble is we know that so much is concreted in. Anyone got a jack-hammer and pinchbar?

    • Cinny 16.1
      28 November 2018 at 2:22 pm

      Another broken system.

      “MBIE would now undertake a review on the decision making process and INZ would now undertake reviews on how they prepared case files.”

      Interestingly some additional info WAS NOT provided to him. Such as…

      The original case file did not include Sroubek’s gang associations with Hells Angels, Lees-Galloway said.

      But hey sroubek’s ex hooked up with a nat party member, so of course the nat’s would have such info, then use it against the government. Dirty Politics.

      woodhouse didn’t seem to think the system was broken, but then again he let pedophiles remain in the country rather than deporting them.

      • Puckish Rogue 16.1.1
        28 November 2018 at 2:32 pm

        Presumably he did know about the drugs and assaults though or is that Nationals fault as well 🙂

        • Cinny 16.1.1.1
          28 November 2018 at 2:59 pm

          Well we are just about to find out more PR, they are debating said topic as an urgent debate at this very moment.

          • Puckish Rogue 16.1.1.1.1
            28 November 2018 at 3:14 pm

            I’ll make it easy for you, ILG messed up

          • veutoviper 16.1.1.1.2
            28 November 2018 at 3:50 pm

            And the debate is interesting to say the least. LOL.

            Mark Mitchell was the one who called for the urgent debate and was the first one up. While watching him, cynical me could not help asking myself whether this was more a leadership bid/audition and currently Paula Bennett is doing her bit (or was that bid?) Her focus is to get Galloway out as Minister (presented in a sorrowful manner rather than her usual shouty debate voice).

            Minister Galloway, followed Mitchel and presented a very carefully worded speech (obviously for legal reasons) and did so well.

            Dear Winnie also rose to speak, had an argument with the Deputy Speaker (Ann Tolley) and got thrown out of the House … IIRC this is the first time he has achieved this since the new Col Government came in.

            Chloe Swarbrick spoke for half a minute only.

            Now we have the old Trojan Horse – Nick Smith. Perhaps he still thinks he has what it takes? To be Nat Leader, that is.

            • OnceWasTim 16.1.1.1.2.1
              28 November 2018 at 4:42 pm

              Fucking oath it is. Especially Mark Bennett and Paula Bennett’s contributions.
              I must remember to leave Anne Tolley a set of plastic pearls to clutch at her electoral office the next time I pass.
              I didn’t notice Mr Woodhouse though – did he make any sort of pompous contribution?
              The only thing I L-G is guilty of (and Labour as a whole) is not waking up to the fact (as Cinny says) that MBIE is one truly broken Ministry OR recognising that such a concoction as designed by Joyce and COleman was never going to work in the first place.
              If you think NZTA has not lived up to expectations under the oversight of MOT (that’s just one entity), then surely to Christ acknowledge that just about every entity that comprises the Ministry for Everything has been a failure to a larger or lesser degree.
              Never mind whether its under-resourcing (intentional or otherwise under the previous junta); or cosy relationships with its designers; or whether ‘officials’ are nice blokes or blokesses with whom “you can have the utmost faith”,..it.ain’t.ever.going.to.work.in.a.way.a.public.service.ministry.or.department.should.is.supposed.to – even given the corporatised environment the ps now has to operate under

              The thing that amused me most in that debate was Greg O’Connor’s reaction to Paula Bennett (a kind of Hark at Thee, Jesus Christ Spare Me look – knowing as he does a lot that goes with her baggage)

              • greywarshark …
                28 November 2018 at 6:43 pm

                I was reading about some guy that writes fake news and how well he has done. You do so much with real news Once was Tim, how can you monetise your offerings I wonder?

            • Anne 16.1.1.1.2.2
              28 November 2018 at 5:37 pm

              You mention that mealy mouthed rat, Mark Mitchell of Dirty Politics fame. He only made it into parliament in the first place because Simon Lusk/Cameron Slater spread lies and innuendo about his rivals for the Rodney candidacy. Until that point I’m told his main rival was expected to win.

              He is also the grandson of the leery eyed, dirty old man (I say that from a personal experience) Air Commodore Frank Gill – insisted he always be referred to as Air Commodore – the former MP for East Coast Bays.

              He might not have dealt in drug smuggling but his background as a mercenary soldier is questionable. Hardly the right person to be questioning Sroubrek’s background imo.

              • OnceWasTim …
                28 November 2018 at 6:00 pm

                @ Anne ….. yes I remember Mr Gill – we’re obviously of around the same vintage, and yes he was well known for being the AIr Commodore (although for some reason I’d remembered him as ‘Air Vice-Marshal’). An early version of the “Dontcha Know Who I am?.

                And I did mean Mark Mitchell rather than Mark Bennett in 16.1.1.1.2,1 above although you could shove her in a pair of strides and there wouldn’t be much difference.
                They really were amusing at times. The current lot would be amusing if they weren’t so bloody destructive and dangerous even if they’re destined to go all tits up in the end.

              • Ed …
                28 November 2018 at 8:29 pm

                Mitchell was a mercenary, wasn’t he?
                That’s not what we want our country’s MPs to have on their CVS.
                We should revoke his right to be in parliament.

    • Fireblade 16.2
      28 November 2018 at 3:03 pm

      It’s easier to make a decision when Ministers have all the information.

      It was fortunate that the National Party had an insider rooting Sroubek’s ex and leaking the previous unknown details back to the Nats .

      National don’t give fuck about Sroubek’s immigration status, they only care about shallow political point scoring crusades. The idiots are desperate for attention.

      • Puckish Rogue 16.2.1
        28 November 2018 at 3:13 pm

        “The idiots are desperate for attention.”

        Yes they are so stop giving them ammunition, ie spend some time actually reading the report then engage the brain to make the correct decision

        • alwyn 16.2.1.1
          28 November 2018 at 4:19 pm

          “then engage the brain”.
          You do realise you are talking about ILG, don’t you?
          What is the “brain” you are talking about?

          • Puckish Rogue 16.2.1.1.1
            28 November 2018 at 4:49 pm

            I’m trying to be more positive in general so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt 🙂

      • Pete 16.2.2
        28 November 2018 at 3:41 pm

        The next deputy leader of the opposition was followed by the present deputy leader of the opposition..

      • Herodotus 16.2.3
        28 November 2018 at 4:45 pm

        We were told to read between the lines, nothing has come out for those of us who were unable to comprehend this. So our PM and Min of Immigration still has some information that to my knowledge has been withheld ?
        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12150916
        “While he hasn’t been able to share all the information that sat behind that, I think just glancing back at some of the past coverage of his entry into New Zealand, reading between the lines you can probably ascertain why the Minister made the decision that he made,” Ardern said.

    • ianmac 16.3
      28 November 2018 at 3:21 pm

      Herald had a headline up that “a lawyer said the information about sroubeks was not new” (Paraphrased). Then the text was withdrawn and now not found. Wonder why?

  17. Pat 17
    28 November 2018 at 2:19 pm

    3 stranding events in NZ during past week and apparently also in Oz….

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/28/nearly-30-whales-stranded-on-remote-victorian-beach

    is there something in the water?

  18. SaveNZ 18
    28 November 2018 at 2:35 pm

    Usual bullshit. Know truck drivers and the reason the ones I knew were quitting was after having years of experience they were essentially getting paid the same as those just starting or migrant workers, therefore you were stuck on $18 p/h (a few years ago) and he knew migrants who were starting on minimum wages.

    So guess what, it is not the length of time training that stops them staying, it is the poor wages and conditions. The trucking industry is fine with gambling with people’s lives by putting the cheapest person in that driving seat or expect drivers to stay on the same wages for decades with little chance of a pay rise and then wonder why they quit.

    Difficult and dangerous – why truck drivers are quitting

    https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/2018672554/difficult-and-dangerous-why-truck-drivers-are-quitting

    I seem to remember a Standardista posting on how they used to work in forestry, but low and behold, he was made redundant constantly and then after the third time this experienced forestry worker quit the industry completely.

    If you get mucked around, or have a glass ceiling which is too low, you quit an industry and unfortunately lazy immigration is just propping up poor business practises in this country and actually creating very dangerous conditions where every day it seems like yet another murder or manslaughter or accident or migrate employer underpaying someone, caused by someone who was not born in NZ, and came in the last few decades.. bought here by our low immigation standards and now the rest of the country is paying the price for those low standards of migration here, over the last few decades.

    Plenty of Kiwi born criminals here too, the difference is, that migration is supposed to only support people of good character. If this clause was working, why are so many migrants turning into criminals or exploiters, clearly someone not doing a very good job, or maybe they want NZ to be a land of criminals giving donations to politicians and local government and funding the death of the welfare system in NZ, by overloading our justice system, our prisons, our health systems as well as the well discussed infrastructure that needs complete upgrading that the poor workers in NZ are expected to pay for?

  19. SaveNZ 19
    28 November 2018 at 2:44 pm

    Another way to overload the health system by encouraging more smoking, and avoid paying taxes..

    Customs seize 1.8 million cigarettes in major fraud case
    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/11/customs-seize-1-8-million-cigarettes-in-major-fraud-case.html

    (Wonder what the businessman will get as punishment, maybe a home detention at their luxury abode?)

    Tobacco, drugs seized at Queenstown airport
    https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/queenstown/tobacco-drugs-seized-queenstown-airport

    • Jum 19.1
      28 November 2018 at 5:24 pm

      Nah, make him chain smoke, then eat the butts, until the fraud has disappeared – win, win. No need for storage or destruction of cigarettes. And the evidence has gone, so no costly court case. He won’t be healthy for a very long time -how long does it take to smoke 1.8 million cigarettes. Perhaps someone could set up a live facebook post and the effects could be shown in schools as he starts to change colour, etc.

    • Naki man 19.2
      28 November 2018 at 5:31 pm

      “(Wonder what the businessman will get as punishment, maybe a home detention at their luxury abode?)”

      These guys won’t have a luxury abode after all their assets are sold under the proceeds of crime act 2009.

    • Gabby 19.3
      28 November 2018 at 5:48 pm

      I wonder if the ‘Auckland businessman’ was using his original passport.

  20. SaveNZ 20
    28 November 2018 at 3:16 pm

    There needs to be a 20 year period before permanent residency and citizenship is given in this country and they get welfare and freebies from Kiwis. As soon as a migrant engages in criminal activity before that time, whether exploiting others or failing to pay large amount of taxes or importing in drugs or even worse crimes, our government needs to change the law to revoke their ability to stay in NZ and send them back where they came from. There are too many rights for the world’s criminals coming to NZ as a soft touch and bulging off Kiwis whose standard of living is declining competing with all the fraudsters and bludgers out there. Lot at the Czech, owns 1/2 a 2 million dollar home but still finds times to be a gang member and drug importer here and it’s the Kiwis who are paying for him while our own kids go hungry and blind from lack of resources not given to non criminals born here.

  21. Dennis Frank 21
    28 November 2018 at 3:30 pm

    The BBC has an excellent report on one of the pioneers of fake news. The guy has become so successful that he’s actually earning a living from it! “Once his stories go viral, the Facebook comments burst forth. And that’s when Christopher Blair the fake news writer becomes Christopher Blair the crusading left-wing troll.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_godfather_of_fake_news

    Christopher Blair is “a committed liberal Democrat”. “Blair spent more than two decades as a construction worker, a trade that took a toll on his body. In the late 2000s, when the Great Recession hit and his industry slumped, he started looking for another source of income in liberal political blogging.”

    “He loved to write and found that he had a flair for making words come alive. He began a blog, the first of many. He found it liberating being able to say what he wanted – arguing in favour of a range of positions on the left-hand side of American politics. But although it was fun and a few people started reading, blogging didn’t pay. And so he tried another tactic. He began to write fabricated tales that looked like real news headlines… once his fake news started to get clicks, he was able to use Google’s advertising platform to convert page views into money. In 2014, he quit his day job.”

  22. Macro 22
    28 November 2018 at 4:18 pm

    It’s Russia Collusion Day!
    Draft Jerome Corsi statement of offense

    A document prepared by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s team as part of plea talks with conservative author Jerome Corsi allege that he alerted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone in early August 2016 that WikiLeaks planned to release material damaging to Hillary Clinton.

    You need to read the statement of offense linked to in the heading to see just how damaging this indictment is. Sorry can’t quote it here as it is a pdf.

  23. eco maori 23
    29 November 2018 at 8:04 am

    Kia ora The Am Show The labeling food of origin will be good for our farmers if Kiwis can afford it buy NZ MADE good win and move by the Green Party Gareth .Yes we should be spending big on advertising Aotearoa world class produce thats what makes the world go round.
    The FBI setting up a office A I will show a link later.
    Lloyd the FAR RIGHT have made a big mess of Britian with the Britexit were’s farg and branon trying to float there toilets again muppets.
    Its cool that the Jewish community is getting a commission looking into some of the horrors that happened to them in world war 2 ka pai.
    Aotearoa looking like a sideshow look at what happening in Britain and America come on Marcus.
    Social media is part of the 21s century communication device that will reset the Imbalances of power that the 00.1 % have we have Meto# Wiki both formats the TRUTH is very hard for the 00.1 % to cover up.
    The dumb shit is still in the system from national Lance .
    The dumb thing was listening to the OVER SEAs advice and scrapping our very good health boards and dairy boards and that process has added a huge layer of paper pushers on huge salaries in our organizations state and business I bet if we went to the data from the 80’s management will have been a quarter of what is spent now.
    Ka kite ano P.S I don’t have to worry Labour is out polling national ???????

  24. eco maori 24
    29 November 2018 at 10:04 am

    The climate report trump tried to dump/ bury – key findings No 3: water is the next battleground
    Critical water supplies will become harder to maintain

    Water will become increasingly difficult to manage in the face of climate change. Government planners are already having a harder time supplying clean water to America’s general population, farmers and ecosystems, as aquifers are being depleted in many regions of the US.

    And with climate change and rising temperatures, they will be battling an even deeper worsening of droughts and more flooding from intense rainfall events.

    In 2011, flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers caused $5.7bn in damages. But a year later, drought conditions in many of the same areas cost the US $33bn and devastated crop harvests. Ka kite ano links below

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/28/climate-report-trump-tried-kill-key-finding-water-battle

  25. eco maori 25
    29 November 2018 at 10:31 am

    Its so easy to see the paid Climate Change deniers LAIRS Ka pai Stuff hence one of my favorite mediums Ka pai Ana to kai to the trolls.
    Stuff have adopted a policy of banning opinion pieces and comments from climate change deniers payed for by the oil barons we need more to follow suit.
    Hers a good video to show the truth and OUR REALITY

  26. eco maori 26
    29 November 2018 at 12:16 pm

    Its a illusion that’s for sure the youth and minority cultures and wahine need to use our collective POWER and vote I say voting should be made compulsory in Aotearoa

  27. eco maori 27
    29 November 2018 at 2:31 pm

    We are going to get it together for the Mokopunas.

  28. Draco T Bastard 28
    29 November 2018 at 2:34 pm

    New bidder: US player could push Trade Me price above $2.5b

    Brown doesn’t doesn’t want to speculate how high bidding for Trade Me could go, but thinks it will be a good result for shareholders – if not so much for the NZX or the country.

    “In some respects, it’s sad because we’re losing another excellent New Zealand business off the bourse. It’s bittersweet. We’re getting an excellent outcome for our investors but the long-term outcome for capital markets in New Zealand is not good.”

    Meanwhile, Morningstar analyst Gareth James says if Apax or one of its peers is the successful buyer, Trade Me could be about to be saddled with a ton of debt in the grand tradition of private equity companies.

    And that debt, like the profit itself, will be fully funded by the users. The ‘investors’ are there to make a profit – not spend money.

    And not a single one of them is doing anything of value.

    The biggest bludgers in the world are the shareholders.

    • KJT 28.1
      21 December 2018 at 9:05 pm

      Typical SOP for private equity firms.

      As started in New Zealand by Brierley, Fay wait etc. And continued with Dick Smiths et Al.

      Buy firm with borrowed money. Borrow even more to pay dividends. Soak the customers and employees to the max. Sell any asset you can. Flog off to muggins of small shareholders, as it collapses through the weight of debt and lack of investment. Leave new shareholders, employees and subbies/ suppliers holding the baby.

      Rinse and repeat, until you can emigrate to Ireland with your knighthood.

  29. eco maori 29
    29 November 2018 at 5:13 pm

    Food with benefits: the urban agriculture revolution Looks are deceiving when it comes to a fledgling food forest. All the magic is happening underground Wells says it will take three to five years for the forest to really get going
    “As we say in gardening, the first year it sleeps, the second year it creeps, and the third year it leaps.”
    It’s a permaculture project so the plants have been choreographed to work together above and below the ground Working with mother nature is best .
    The urban agriculture will provide good food for people who can not afford good fruit and vegetables . Also if there is a disaster and traditional food chain breaks these gardens and orchards could be the difference to life or death .
    With global warming a disaster is just around the corner .
    The garden I planted for the moko’s has more than just LETTUCES it has broccoli spinach silver beet celery garlic spring onions spuds and more I enjoy teaching the mokos how to grow there own food .
    Its really good to grow vegetables for Christmas as the neo capitalist supermarket owner can’t help themselves they ramp up the price of groceries this time of the year I see the prices rising now wtf. Ana to kai ka kite ano community gardens has many positive effects links below. My garden cost $20 all grown by seed

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-wine/food-news/108756138/food-with-benefits-the-urban-agriculture-revolution

  30. Morrissey 30
    29 November 2018 at 5:28 pm

    Guardian ups its vilification of Julian Assange
    by JONATHAN COOK, 28 November 2018

    It is welcome that finally there has been a little pushback, including from leading journalists, to the Guardian’s long-running vilification of Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks.

    Reporter Luke Harding’s latest article, claiming that Donald Trump’s disgraced former campaign manager Paul Manafort secretly visited Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London on three occasions, is so full of holes that even hardened opponents of Assange in the corporate media are struggling to stand by it.

    Faced with the backlash, the Guardian quickly – and very quietly – rowed back its initial certainty that its story was based on verified facts. Instead, it amended the text, without acknowledging it had done so, to attribute the claims to unnamed, and uncheckable, “sources”.

    The propaganda function of the piece is patent. It is intended to provide evidence for long-standing allegations that Assange conspired with Trump, and Trump’s supposed backers in the Kremlin, to damage Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race.

    The Guardian’s latest story provides a supposedly stronger foundation for an existing narrative: that Assange and Wikileaks knowingly published emails hacked by Russia from the Democratic party’s servers. In truth, there is no public evidence that the emails were hacked, or that Russia was involved. Central actors have suggested instead that the emails were leaked from within the Democratic party.

    Nonetheless, this unverified allegation has been aggressively exploited by the Democratic leadership because it shifts attention away both from its failure to mount an effective electoral challenge to Trump and from the damaging contents of the emails. These show that party bureaucrats sought to rig the primaries to make sure Clinton’s challenger for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, lost.

    To underscore the intended effect of the Guardian’s new claims, Harding even throws in a casual and unsubstantiated reference to “Russians” joining Manafort in supposedly meeting Assange.

    Manafort has denied the Guardian’s claims, while Assange has threatened to sue the Guardian for libel.

    ‘Responsible for Trump’
    The emotional impact of the Guardian story is to suggest that Assange is responsible for four years or more of Trump rule. But more significantly, it bolsters the otherwise risible claim that Assange is not a publisher – and thereby entitled to the protections of a free press, as enjoyed by the Guardian or the New York Times – but the head of an organisation engaged in espionage for a foreign power.

    The intention is to deeply discredit Assange, and by extension the Wikileaks organisation, in the eyes of right-thinking liberals. That, in turn, will make it much easier to silence Assange and the vital cause he represents: the use of new media to hold to account the old, corporate media and political elites through the imposition of far greater transparency.

    Read more……….
    https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-11-28/guardian-vilification-julian-assange/

  31. eco maori 31
    29 November 2018 at 6:46 pm

    Kia ora Newshub The boy races get a green light in Christchurch .
    It was a sad loss when the Pink & White terraces were lost in Aotearoa .
    Country of origin labeling should have been enacted years ago we no it would not have happened under a national government they serve the wealthy only.
    The west coast is going to become a world class tourist destination with all the money being put into its infrastructure by the Coalition goverment ka pai.
    Time are changing with the china doctor producing the first designer baby’s.
    I say its a good thing companys giving people vouchers instead of a big booze up for Chrissy celebrations we need to cut back on the booze culture .
    The modern motor vehicle will change to all green technology low maintenance electric vehicles I see the oil barons have been chucking the industry a few curve balls lately .
    Ka kite ano

  32. eco maori 32
    29 November 2018 at 7:21 pm

    Kia ora The Crowd Goes Wild James and Mulls .
    Spain is a top Soccer nation good effort young wahine they are all calling for big Heidelberg awards.
    Wairangi you wish you were ten years younger lol you better replace Mulls chocolate balls .
    Nice I say you can afford the soccer ball Mulls.
    Yes Rugby is a big export for Aotearoa.
    Good impersonating the Liverpool coach James looks like you were melting someone.
    Its cool that Aotearoa has a Baseball team all the best.
    It will be a good 7 event in Dubai
    Ka kite ano

  33. eco maori 33
    29 November 2018 at 7:50 pm

    Some Eco Maori Music for the minute.

  34. Robert Guyton 34
    5 December 2018 at 2:29 pm

    Bridges gone!