- Date published:
6:05 am, May 24th, 2023 - 153 comments
Categories: feminism, gender critical feminism, United Nations - Tags: gender identity, OHCHR, Reem Alsalem, women's sex based rights
Statement by Ms. Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls* (PDF)
I am deeply concerned at the escalation of intimidation and threats against women and girls for expressing their opinions and beliefs regarding their needs and rights based on their sex and/or sexual orientation. Disagreement with the views of women/girls including politicians, academics, and women rights advocates should never be used as grounds to justify violence and intimidation. In addition, discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation is prohibited in international and regional instruments.
I am concerned about the decreasing space available for women and women’s organizations to organize and/or express their opinion peacefully in several countries in the Global North. Women coming together to demand the respect for their needs based on their sex and/or sexual orientation have been threatened, attacked, and vilified.
Law enforcement has an important role and responsibility to protect lawful gatherings by women. Law enforcement agencies should ensure women’s safety and rights to freedom of assembly and speech without intimidation or coercion. Whereas counter-protesters also have the right to freedom of expression and assembly, law enforcement must ensure that this is not exercised in a manner that prevents women from exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and speech, whether through threats, intimidation, or use of violence, where women’s speech is effectively silenced by loud counter-protests. There is a positive legal obligation to protect women in such circumstances, including by keeping counter-protesters at a distance that is safe, and enables women’s speech to be audible. The impact of law enforcement failing to provide the necessary safeguards has been observed in some countries. Women and girls have been exposed to verbal and physical intimidation and attacks and/or been drowned out by the noise of counter-protesters in attempts, frequently successful, to derail these events. Threats and acts of violence, suppression of speech should not deprive individuals of their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. Law enforcement should therefore ensure the full protection of the rights of women, girls, and their allies to express their views, including women politicians, women rights advocates, sportswomen, “de-transitioners” and academics to ensure that those that have perpetrated violence are brought to account.
I also note with concern the frequent tactic of smearing women, girls and their allies who hold lawful and protected beliefs on non-discrimination based on sex and same sex attraction as “Nazis,” “genocidaires” and “extremists” to intimidate women, instill fear into them and shame them into silence. They also have been made with the specific objective of inciting violence and hatred against women based on their beliefs. According to international human rights law, freedom of expression should be protected unless it incites violence and hatred. The victims of these sort of attacks on freedom of speech and expression who call for respectful and transparent discussions around the definition of “sex”,”gender” and “gender identity” and the interaction of rights derived from these for rights holders in any given society.
The duty not to discriminate based on sex and associated stereotypes regarding the roles of men, women, boys, and girls is a tenet of international human rights law that States are obliged to adhere to and that they have codified into most national laws. Concerns around the continued adherence to these obligations should therefore not be delegitimized, trivialized, and criminalized. Women and girls who emphasize the specific needs of women born female and who call for and engage in discussions around the definitions of sex gender, and gender identity and the interaction of rights derived from these for rights holders in any given society should therefore be able to express themselves and their concerns on these issues in safety and in dignity.
Moreover, it is important that people, including researchers and academic, who express their views on “gender affirming” interventions including for children are not silenced, threatened, or intimidated simply for holding and articulating such views. This is particularly important given the implications for vital issues such as safeguarding, participation and consent by children, and sex education.
Measures that I find particularly concerning include reprisals such as censorship, legal harassment, loss of jobs, loss of income, removal from social media platforms, speaking engagements and the refusal to publish research conclusions and articles. These tactics have affected the ability to discuss issues related to sex, gender, and gender identity within universities and in society. I am furthermore aware of women politicians who have been sanctioned by their political parties, including through the threat of dismissal or actual dismissal. These actions have been accompanied by attacks and integrity, both online and offline, via smear campaigns and the incitement of hatred.
According to international human rights law, any restriction on freedom of expression should be carried out strictly in accordance with the human rights standards of legality, necessity, proportionality and to serve a legitimate aim. Those disagreeing with the views of women and girls expressing concerns related to gender identity and sex also have a right to express their opinion. However, in doing so they must not threaten the safety and integrity of those they are protesting against and disagreeing with. Sweeping restrictions on the ability of women and men to raise concerns regarding the scope of rights based on gender identity and sex are in violation of the fundamentals of freedom of thought and freedom of belief and expression and amounts to unjustified or blanket censorship.
In addition, I note with concern the way in which provisions that criminalize hate speech based on a number of grounds, including gender expression or gender identity, in countries in the Global North have been interpreted. Some such provisions are being taken to mean that any interrogation of the scope of rights based on gender identity amount to hate speech against non-binary persons and perhaps even incitement of hatred and genocide.
I would like to emphasize that the rights to free expression and peaceful assembly are crucial to ensuring that societies can develop their priorities and policies democratically and balance the rights of diverse groups in a pluralistic society. Attempts to silence women based on the views they hold regarding the scope of gender identity and sex in law and in practice and the rights associated with these, severely affects their participation in society in dignity and in safety, as well as their country’s prosperity and development.
*The Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, as a Special Procedures mandate of the Human Rights Council, serves in her individual capacity independent from any government or organization
Press release from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: Allow women and girls to speak on sex, gender and gender identity without intimidation or fear: UN expert (22/5/23):
Reem Alsalem is the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences;
The Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts and Working Groups are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.
An excellent post. This could be speaking to New Zealand politicians and News media who smeared women's rights campaigner Kellie Jay Keen leading to violent assaults by trans rights activists. Our government needs to take a good hard look at itself. As a direct result of this the Women's Rights Party NZ has been formed and is looking to stand for the list this election.
Yes, there is a new party forming. They have issued a press release on this UN statement. It can be found here: https://womensrightsparty.nz/united-nations-statement-on-womens-right-to-speak-without-fear/
I would like to know who they are.
Several women's groups contributed to the fearmongering around LetWomenSpeak. This political party strategy is lifted directly from the Standing for Women campaign, which is a good approach.
However, the lack of history, names or acknowledgement makes me cautious.
The Party’s National Secretary is Jill Ovens. A former union leader, Labour Party activist and women’s advocate.
And make that former…there are also amongst us: educators, lawyers, advocates, women who have worked in Family and other courtsxto assist women victims of rape and incest. Writers, lecturers, radical feminists, at least one nominee for NZer of the Year myself in 2012 for speaking up for women!
one of the committee wrote this https://thestandard.org.nz/un-expert-allow-women-and-girls-to-speak-on-sex-gender-and-gender-identity-without-intimidation-or-fear/#comment-1951425
thanks Dawn. WRP's press release is on point about the NZ situation,
It's extraordinary that she has to say this, and that it is in part related to a country like New Zealand.
Doesn't get clearer than that.
Re the concern of smearing. I think this new party will further put that to test here in NZ.
It will be interesting to see the MS media response to this party. Such as their framing of them, and whether or not they are allowed airtime on shows such as Q&A and The Nation?
So far there has been no response from the MSM, including on this UN Statement which I would have thought was very relevant to our experience in the week leading up to 25 March with constant allegations of Nazism, on the day of the Albert Park riot by the trans rights activists, and then in the media coverage since.
Despite the fact that none of the women involved in the newest struggle for women's rights, for women to be able to speak, to assemble and to be heard, have made any hateful comments about transpeople, the Disinformation Project is frequently reported as if they are an authoritative source without any attempt at balance from those of us maligned and accused of outrageous claims of "genocide".
Thus the UN Statement is absolutely spot on for New Zealand!
Thanks for the response and update re the MS media.
Surely the MS media are aware of this party forming and the UN related press release made, thus their silence to date would suggest to me they're hoping your formation fails.
Furthermore, I think they (the MSM) will be aware that the public are cottoning on to their cancelling and smearing tactics. Therefore, I think they will opt for a slight change of tactic. Where you will eventually get some airtime (opposed to being cancelled or ignored) but it will be used as a hit piece (passing you the rope so to speak). And I believe this will be done using a female journalist. Additionally, they will scrutinise your past and present attempting to find something to tar you and the party.
The MS media have largely painted themselves into a corner on this matter due to their stance on Posie. And as you also stand for women spaces and the right not to be erased, it is unlikely the MSM will give you a fair run.
Have you been on The Platform? I'm sure Sean will have you on.
You’ll need to stay in front and control of the narrative. Good luck.
KJKM has said she wants trans men to be sterilised, US men who carry guns to use womens' toilets in order to protect their womenfolk from a non-existant trans women threat, women who do not support her anti-trans rheotric to be annihilated, and claims trans women are sexual deviants and pedophiles. You agree with KJKM's violent speech against trans people, and the many, many women in NZ, who support the trans community.
Links, please. Directly quoted speech preferred.
Here's a few to go on with:
The last one is a NZ Herald editorial. I don't subscribe so cannot provide full text but the opening sentence is an indication what they think of Kelly Jay Keen-Minshull alias Posie Parker.
Anne, Mpledger said provide direct quotes/vid clips of PP.
Yes she did appear on the alt right persons blog. She will talk to anyone about her cause. I think I read her say that she didn't realize that they were alt right, but maybe someone else can provide a direct link on that one.
I think Parkers message is about women's rights. This is what I have heard her say rather than someone quoting her.
That you shouldn't be able to have sex change surgery till you are 25 years old (the brain has finished developing then). You shouldn't be able to transition (i.e. take puberty blockers/cross sex hormones as a teenager and before you have a "sex change" you should have three years of therapy.
I am surprized if/that she said transmen (women) should be sterilized. If you go on puberty blockers/cross sex hormones you are going to end up with major fertility problems anyway.
You didn't look at the links I provided @ 18.104.22.168. Try the first one which is a letter to a Canadian govt. minister asking him to ban PP from Canada. It ends with a long list of links that make interesting reading. Some include the actual messages from PP calling for the sterilisation of trans-persons etc.
The Nazis were good at sterilising people in the 30s and into the war years.
Those links aren't labelled, making it a chore to trawl through.
The first just goes to an event page which seems to be a strange evidential link.
Can you isolate and post the link regarding sterilisation?
I can recall a discussion (which I believe was KJK) around a woman who had unexpectedly got pregnant while on exogenous testosterone, who had thought that her medication acted as a form of birth control. While this is apparently true for some women, it is not universal. She had posted social media posts on the pregnancy (which continued to full term) that did not report on the development of the fetus, but bemoaned the requirement to get off testosterone once the pregnancy confirmed. After the birth, the posts celebrated the opportunity for reinstating the testosterone injections, and there were a couple of posts where the very young baby was referred to in a very oblique way while in the shot, which many maternal providers would note may require more support.
The discussion started with the lack of informed consent. How this woman was mistakenly assuming that testosterone replaced any need for birth control. The disconnect between the harm for fetal development both before and after the pregnancy was known – of testosterone, which is exacerbated if the child is female, and the nonchalant attitude after the baby was born.
So, it moved onto the discussion that if women – who have decided they don't want children – want to take exogenous testosterone, they perhaps could avoid the situation of having to deal with pregnancy, and the significant impacts on fetal development, by ensuring other forms of birth control (which are never 100% failsafe) or medically sterilising.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that current medical interventions (such as puberty blockers, exogenous hormones and surgeries) are more than likely to result in sterility for those patients. But when this is referred to only in reference as "affirming healthcare" this factor is ignored.
The grief of many female detransitioners is the loss of fertility – that is a known possible factor of the medical treatment they received.
However, this might not be the clip you have. So I would appreciate a direct link to the one you have seen.
The 'first' link is the letter to the Canadian Govt. letter.
The second link at the bottom labelled "sources" includes PP's past twitter remarks. They are also mentioned in other links together with further material. Can't trawl through them again. Got other things to do.
I'm going to make a guess you haven't seen any source material then Anne, until you can make the time to trawl through them instead of expecting others to do so.
Until then, any comments on the resulting sterilisation that occurs when "affirming" medical interventions are undertaken?
Your sarcasm has been noted. For your information I read those links. You would appear not to have done so. They were never meant to be anything other than interim links only if you had been so bold as to read the original comment @ 22.214.171.124.
"Your sarcasm has been noted."
Interesting because sarcasm was not present, just observation.
The following question was genuine, so I'll repeat in a clear form so that it cannot mistaken for anything other than a query:
If you are concerned about sterilisation of women who declare they are men, how do you reconcile this with the "affirming" medical treatment that often results in infertility?
we've been over this before. You cannot make claims of fact and then vague handwave to supporting evidence. You have to do the work to back up what you say. This means direct links, quotes and your own words making the evidence clear (and time stamps for audio/video). If I see you do this again I will moderate, because it is now a pattern of behaviour.
Had already replied to Molly before seeing your message.
I dared replied to MPledger a few days ago – who asked for links so I gave him some quickly found at 126.96.36.199 "to go on with" before dashing off to an appointment – and I'm in the naughty box.
These posts are becoming an exercise in futility. Count me out of them.
my moderation note stands. It's nothing to do with the post or topic. If you do that pattern of behaviour again on any topic, I will moderate. You have a history of acting as if the rules here don't apply to you. They do.
If you are too busy to provide evidence to claims of facts, then I suggest waiting to comment until you have time.
Thanks Anne. No I didn't look at the links and have now.
1. Don't agree that transmen who are women and have babys should be sterialized.
2. Don't agree with men carrying guns to protect women in toilets (however as a woman who experienced an attempted rape in a change room, I do understand the feeling. I am outraged that our bathrooms are being opened up to any man who declares himself to be a woman. Absolutely outraged. But as a non violent woman (unless in self defence as I had to do) I condemn all violence (unless in self defence).
3. The Nazis in Melbourne is bull shit. By this I mean they turned up of their own violition and the police ushered them to stand near the gender critical women.
4. I will continue to fight for women's rights in this battle despite the Posie Parker views I disagree with.
Posie Parker in giving women a platform in NZ (which trans rights activisists stopped witth violence) has highlighted the vicious mysogamy that is the trans gender activists (not neccesarily trans people).
Thousands of women have joined gender critical groups as a result of PP visit to NZ. As I am part of these groups, I can assure you none of them are calling for violence against transpeople. The focus is on women's rights.
I know myself well enough to know that I would never become a Nazi. and I also know that I would be one of the first people to call Nazis out. Just like I am calling out this mysogynist, authoritarian and science denial movement which is gender ideology.
I don't think the links will come mpledger. But a great call on your behalf to ask for them!
tWiggle merely illustrates the point the UN expert was making. Its all about the smear. They never engage in the actual arguement because their arguements are so weak.
tWiggle needs to read my comment about the good people of Invercargill who don't want male bodied people changing in women's changing rooms in their local pool
This is simply not true. She is a working class woman who is a former Labour Party supporter, who speaks for women to retain our rights and who gives a platform for many women to speak across the UK.
KJK might have voted in the left in the past, but she's clearly embraced right wing politics since then. She routinely denigrates both the left and feminists. She has a strong moral streak that is conservative. And she doesn't things like this,
That's a play on MAGA caps, Make America Great Again. She is using the branding of Trump, the serial rapist and sexual abuser.
it politically untenable to support that in NZ imo.
A great example of what I was alluding to Jill re the type of questioning this party will face and how it will be used against them by the MSM.
They can always use the Daily Blog and liberal critics will be the ones censored.
if a political party wants to support MAGA rhetoric, have a it. Of course the MSM will report on that, it's their job. And LW people will comment on it too.
Unfairness would be tying a political party to MAGA rhetoric when it wasn't true. Which is why it's important to make one's positions clear.
I’m talking here about KJK’s political party. But I do think that WRP will have to be prepared to be clear on these things if they want support from the left.
Republican women are often concerned about the same things as GC women on the left.
The loss of single-sex provisions, the impact on children, the lack of evidence of medical interventions, and the institutional capture that has infiltrated all levels of government and society.
The humour of that item for the American store, will be embraced by many of those women. If the Party of Women is enacted in the US, they may have just strategically stolen one of the most recognisable political slogans for their own purpose.
Current Democratic President Joe Biden will go nowhere near such a plain political statement such as "Make Women Female Again" and neither will the Democratic politician who lost against Trump:
I would think that is a greater concern for left-wing women in the US, than an item of merchandise.
You'll find that you will be required to provide links for your bold assertions.
Furthermore, you seem to be unaware of the more militant movement of rainbow activists in the US. They carry guns and have put out a call to arms.
Additionally, although this is about women's spaces and rights, it's not about Posie. She is merely one of many fighting this cause.
A U.N. statement which reasserts women have rights well recognised under international conventions. Now our New Zealand government needs to listen to we women. The other governments cancelling women such as Australian and the Scottish parloament also need to listen.
Women are a massive population and have every right to speak to our human rights whenever we wish and transgender people have nothing to do with this. I cannot understand why so many have abandoned women, many who know our struggle for human rights and know full well the violence stats against women. As long as I remember women and men were separated in change rooms, etc. What has changed? We are being asked to ignore the habits of a life time and just let anyone into those facilities. Yet we are taught stranger danger from a young age. I could start on the appalling language changes where we are called pregnant people etc and virtually banned from using the word woman for ourselves. We are now harassed while meeting in groups. We are not a population to be degraded and a social experiment for other groups. If we complain we have lost our right to keep ourselves safe and frankly, as child bearing women our right to hygiene and privacy, we now get called Nazi because we learned to ignore that pathetic and obnoxious word 'terf'. Albert Park showed us just where the hip liberal 'politicians' in this country are at…women cannot depend on them to condemn violence against us… Along with. this diminishing of our rights has come a deterioration in health services for those born female,,go figure.
Thank you Reem Alsalem. And thank you Weka for posting this.
Every person on TS who has minimised what we have been saying and failed to recognise that women should be allowed to speak up without fear of being smeared or experiencing threats, intimidation and violence should read this
A perspective from a gay conservative man….. as I have little skin in this issue, I’ll just leave it here.
That’s a great article Grumpy.
Distinguishing between the homosexual rights movement and the queer movement…and yes of course there is a backlash and I am sorry for all the lesbian women and gay men who had achieved so much!
Thanks Anker, I have huge respect (and am in awe of) the courage of you, Weka, Molly and others who are fighting to protect the hard earned rights enjoyed by much loved and valued members of my family.
Hi Grumpy, really nice of you to say that.
I have to say I have never been involved in a political issue like the gender critical one. Never have I had meetings cancelled, been called a bigot, a transphobe (or equivalent) or felt that it was too dangerous to go to a rally because people were assaulted the day before at a similar rally. Never have I experienced having my cause associated with Nazism, Alt Right etc etc. Never have I been gaslite by opponants in the way I have with this cause. Never have I found arguements contrary to my own so weak and without any depth "trans women are women" rinse and repeat. Never have I felt that left wing men (a significant number of them) who use to bleat on to me about supporting feminism so insightless about how gender ideology effects women.,
So thanks for your positive feedback. And I have to say I don't think I would have been able to continue commenting on this site without Weka, Molly, Shanreagh, Francesca, Sabine, Roblogic, Bwagon, Pukish Rogue (where is he?) , Visub, and many other gender critical women (and some men)
From the post:
Well, I note the author of this "Statement" is referring to countries in the Northern Hemisphere. I cannot comment on her conclusions re-those countries, but I can say that to suggest women's groups in NZ have been subjected to censorship, bullying, threatening behaviour and a general downgrading of their status is nonsense. Apart from some individuals (usually inadequate men who's views are obnoxious) the vast bulk of women in NZ have never had it so good. We can rise to the top of the tree, we can lead multi corporations, our voices are heard in all spheres of activity, we have equality of opportunities (admittedly still a little way to go there) and our views are able to be freely expressed without fear nor favour.
NZ had been at the forefront of women's rights for many decades and I find it disgraceful that some women refuse to acknowledge as much, and use the odd unfortunate set of incidents – eg the Posie Parker debacle – to inculcate a sense of mass threatening, intimidatory and violent behaviour towards women in general.
And just for the record, I was subjected to intimidation, covert violence, threatening institutional behaviour and other acts of degradation on and off for years, and on a level that is rare for this country. Some of it was based on my being a woman so I speak from experience – albeit unusual as to it's cause.
My impression Anne , was that the special rapporteur was addressing the violence towards women who were questioning self ID legislation and the consequent dilution of womens rights to their own spaces .That has most definitely been happening in NZ
SUFW being cast as far right lunatics etc, people afraid to raising their heads above the parapet, venues cancelled, reputations trashed in the media
I hope the Greens and Labour take a good hard look at themselves
I found this (below) interesting.
Well TC that is Jill Oven's take. I expect you could find another whose 'take' is different. Who knows, I was not there.
I agree with many of the concerns being expressed. As an example: I find the suggestion that we use the term "pregnant people" as ludicrous – not to mention a slur on 50% of the population. But when misinformation is also being rammed down our throats, its time to stand up and speak out.
That is my reason for finally engaging on the topic…to ensure that one side of this argument does not hog the entire stage as has happened in the past. Indeed it has driven a number of valuable contributors away from TS. Let's hope they will drift back in due course.
Who knows? Anyone that has bothered to watch the videos of SC hearings (still available online) or read the many comments about how the MPs behaved.
What information are you referring to?
Yes, Anne, that was Jill's take. However, after having a look myself, I must say I agree with her.
I agree with you that the term "pregnant people" is ludicrous. And on that topic, did you see the report in regards to the two radio hosts brashly discussing the use of this term on air, resulting in them having to take Rainbow Tick training?
As for your assertion re misinformation, I'm unaware what you are referring too.
I was referring in the main to the wild accusations that come from some individuals – the likes of Posie Parker and co. whose outlook is imo extremist. I find it offensive and obviously untrue that trans people in general are any more prone to violence than any other group. But if their enemies are being deliberately provocative then they have to expect consequences.
I have no quarrel with gay people. To the contrary my experience of them is they are usually competent, intelligent good all rounders. I have a young relative who is gay and we are proud of her achievements.
Nobody cast SUFW members as far right lunatics. Unfortunately 'far right lunatics' attached themselves to the cause. The cast of individuals responsible for the meeting should have refuted their presence but they didn't. Mumbling plaintively afterwards as PP did 'we didn't invite them" prompted the obvious response "but you made no effort to declare that their presence wasn't wanted".
As for them being "afraid to raise their heads above the parapet". Some have brought that fear upon themselves by over-egging the situation.
What Labour and Green politicians trashed reputations? They may have expressed criticism of the unsavoury bedfellows – and rightly so – but they did not trash the reputations of anyone else. Mis and Dis information abounds in this case.
The Global North isn't exclusively a geographical term –it includes Australia, NZ, Canada and Japan among others.
That aside, there's still a lag between formal and social equality for women in NZ, and the country's rate of domestic violence is an indicator of that. To argue that "the vast bulk of women in NZ have never had it so good" is to ignore the reality of the large number of Kiwi women who are poor, homeless or living in sub standard, precarious housing, and/or are targets of racism and other forms of bigotry.
The fact that some women can attain parity with their male peers and climb to the top of the political or corporate ladder is an ideological trompe l'oeil. While Neoliberal-friendly governments hand out formal equality with one hand, the conditions in which those rights can be meaningfully exercised by vast swathes of the global population, including a lot of people here in NZ, are being curtailed or removed entirely.
I dislike the hyperbolising and catastrophising that's now common on both sides of the sex-based vs gender identity rights debate but the latter set the tone of the discourse and was responsible for preventing a sensible and nuanced debate about the issues.
Punishing people – mainly women –for holding what are deemed to be heretical views on the gender identity issue has happened, and is still likely to happen.
However, that's likely to be overtaken by a more worrying trend in the form of a socially conservative backlash. If the backlash follows the Alex Jones' playbook it will involve a range of religious and secular right wing groups and conspiracist fringe elements and will have a far wider target in its sights than just trans people.
The conservative backlash is gathering in the USA and not just in Florida legislation. There's some increasingly angry rhetoric on social media egged on by reactionary voices like Alex Jones. It is so crazy, I think the TR activists are trying to provoke violence and division
But this doesn't appear to be the case in New Zealand, as religious conservatism doesn't have the same foothold in the culture.
it's happening in two areas of NZ. The far right, and the anti-mandate subculture (real woman ties into the whole sovereign man thing). Both of those groups tend to anti-trans rather than women's rights as leftists understand them.
What's good in NZ is the people that vote on the centre right who are GC are relatively supportive of women. How much of that would hold in a hard wing right culturally I don't know (eg in climate collapse). We do also of course have misogynists on both the right and left.
It's not merely the conservative fringe that are pushing back – fairly erudite and by no means fringe figures like Kathleen Stock and Camille Paglia are making some pretty good points against what is, at the end of the day, a group in thrall of a set of theories too ludicrous to gain or retain widespread support.
CP made those comments back in 2016. As usual her positioned is nuanced – being the first out lesbian at her graduate school, being mentored by men (like a younger male in Greece). And while being transgender questioning public support for transitioning (not just in youth but also while at university – because it might just be a phase in questioning the world they were born into).
Her opinion about the liberal concepts such as male and female equality leading to acceptance of androgyny (and now transgender identity) being related to late stage in a civilisation (empire) leads to more masculine barbarians at the gate seeking to take over – Rome to the Weimar Republic – is if true, a disturbing trait within humanity – any apparent sign of weakness identifies a victim to a predator.
Yes – I've been following CP for nearly twenty years now – though not specifically on these issues. I don't always agree with her, but she makes good arguments – something we rarely see anymore.
It’s a ludicrous movement but it has massive widespread support, posing a serious challenge to academia, medicine, teaching, religion, media, adolescent health, and family life. It remains to be seen whether sanity will prevail
It has captured the zeitgeist of a society wide identity crisis brought on by the oppressions of capitalism and the loss of faith in social institutions that once seemed honest, solid and reliable.
It is powered by massive amounts of money – an ersatz civil rights movement that is a perfect distraction from the capitalists’ ongoing plunder of the Earth and destruction of the entire working class of the western world. A diabolically clever false religion, IMO
There is widespread support in the west for the concept of equality, despite difference. It's part of multiculturalism and acceptance of migration.
However it appears to have reached peak (gone over the top a little – CP refers to the need not to grant special favours) – and the wider idea of post biology may be related to an agenda for normalising interface, ("metaverse") and then onto implant systems.
There are already head attachments that measure brainwave activity used on Chinese school children and workers. A Chinese company provides venture capital to grow US start-ups into the Chinese market (so they acquire and apply the latest tech first – all but the US security tech at least).
Obviously it's in accord with global market capitalism and is of a design to pose critics with social conservatives (and culture wars) and (economic) nationalists. Thus to form a friendly to private corporation alliance with the liberal internationalists (those concerned about human rights and enacting global warming action).
Of course it also leaves these liberals to face the consequences of political gaming by "conservatives" who are no threat to "business/wealth inequality".
The timing of this global division within western feminism, while the GOP is weaponising an appointed majority control of the Supreme Court to capture the electoral process at the state level, is concerning. Little wonder CP sees parallels to late stage (democractic in this case) civilisation collapse.
There's a misunderstanding here
I didn't say Labour or Greens had trashed reputations Apart from Posie Parker.The media has largely done that
What the Greens and Labour have done is push the self I'd legislation with very little regard for women's objections
In the light of what the special rapporteur has reported ,they need to take that on board and do some soul searching
That is a helpful clarification of what you meant Francesca. Perhaps I need to clarify what I mean:
Most women, including me, agree with much of the concerns being expressed. The right of women to have their own private spaces is paramount. As an elderly person, the thought that someone of another gender had the lawful right to enter women's toilets fits ill with me. What the answer to that one is I don't know.
What annoys me is the obsessive over-hyping by some to the exclusion of almost everything else. I have faith that common sense will prevail among the parliamentarians on all sides when it comes to the legislation passed, and that the rights of the vast majority will have been satisfactorily addressed.
Again, what are you referring to?
Legislation has already been passed that affects women, policy changes have already happened, there are no political parties in parliament who support women's sex based rights, and MPs on the left have actively ridiculed or condemned women speaking up for our rights.
This has all been discussed on TS over a long period of time.
What MP has actively ridiculed or condemned women speaking up for our rights? Sure, there are quite a few ultra conservative males who actively ridicule or condemn women's concerns but not those on the left. Methinks you have over-read something.
I know legislation has been passed but its only the beginning…
"What MP has actively ridiculed or condemned women speaking up for our rights?"
> How about MPs Kerekere and Russell when facing contrary opinions to the Conversion therapy or BDMRR (Self-ID) bills
Well, Kara Isaac, whoever she is, is entitled to her opinion. I suspect however she's well and truly over-egging a scenario in order to discredit those who don't agree with her.
As for her accusation they were “attacking democracy”? Give us a break!
Well, Anne, you are entitled to your opinion (as are we all).
However, it would hold more weight if you could provide some counter evidence, that the named MP (you've been given 2 examples, I believe), were respectful of all opinions throughout the select committee process.
So far, your contribution has been much along the lines, of 'I don't believe it because they're left-wing politicians' – which is not exactly convincing.
Yes both those MPs in that arrogant display of contempt of womens views different from their own were obnoxious. Kerekere and Russell are a disgrace to our Parliament.
I would throw in their our current Minister of Police, Ginny Anderson as well (re ridicule from MPs during the select committee process).
She was incredibly condescending to.a year thirteen student who was submitting. Disgraceful on her part.
Yes I remember Ginny Anderson and how she was towards that young man from New Plymouth High School. She showed herself to lack any sort of decouram that should go with the office of MP
Yes, the challenge for women seeking their rights is immense.
It's not just all of our political parties women and their supporters are up against.
This is being accelerated by the World Economic Forum along with their business partners and supported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
It is part of the World Economic Forum’s Centre for a New Economy and Society
Reassured to hear that you see the right of women to have private spaces is paramount. And also pleased you took some time to read the article.
Speak Up for Women were regularly referred to as a hate group, until the High Court in Palmerston North ruled their meetings should go ahead and that they couldn't be considered a hate group. So a group of mostly left wing women, many lesbian and/or feminists had to go to the High Court to be allowed to hold a meeting to discuss a piece of legislation that effects women. Take that in for a moment. In all my time of political activism on the left, I have never had this experience of having a meeting cancelled by a public facility.
I am glad Reem mentioned the smearing of women to shut down their views. This is exactly what has happened.
As for the violence against women in Albert Park, it was more than the 70 year old women being repeatedly punched (how come the Minister of Violence Prevention against women, Marama Davidson didn't condemn this violence when asked?). The Maori women's group Mana Wahine Korero, who invited Posie to NZ, provided security to PP were kicked and one was pushed to the ground. The braying angry mob appeared to be intent of kicking PP to the ground and she believes with good reason she wouldn't have made it out alive. Other women trapped on the rotunda (one who was pregnant) were terrified. The pregnant women was lead to safety by a very tall cameraman. I have read his account of what happened at Albert Park, and he said he had covered many protests and never experienced what he saw at any other protests (his camera and lens were damaged by the mob).
BTW Anne, currently in Invercargill a group of women are protesting that their changing rooms are being open up to people who identity as a women. They wrote to the pool manager (no luck there ), they wrote to the council representative (no luck there) they held a (very fiery) meeting with both these gentlemen (no luck there) and the Mayor got involved (no luck there). The new policy will remain in place.
At the meeting a number of women (and some men spoke). They talked about an 84 year old of their acquaintance who swims at the pool, but will no longer continue because of the policy. They talked about a women who had been sexually abused who doesn't want men in her change rooms. They talked about a women with a double masectomy due to breast cancer who doesn't want this new arrangement. And they talked about young girls using the pool being forced to change with male bodied people in the change room. One woman said she would now take her child home in wet togs.
if you want to run TRA talking points, at least get your facts right. SUFW weren't the organisers of LWS in NZ.
She wasn't referring solely to the Ak LWS event. You could take KJK/LWS out of the picture entirely and what Francesca said would still be true.
Here's a (non-comprehensive) list of what's been happening in NZ to NZ women when they speak about women's sex based rights. Let us know which ones you think aren't ok. This is off the top of my head, others can add more examples.
What that adds up to is the political silencing of women. It's intentional, and it's exactly the thing Alsalem is talking about.
at this point, your ignorance on the issues is wilful.
Agree Weka. There is no room for rose tinted spectacles at the moment.
Mysogyny is alive and well and coming to a place near you……might be in sport, might be in changing rooms…..actually it is probably there already.
Make no mistake this is a huge problem and we won't get anywhere by ignoring it, denying it or relying on fairminded males to grasp it with the same fervour as we do.
I believed this too Anne until a few months/years ago.
What started me on my view that the surface of this happy state having been scratched showed the usual mysogyny were several aspects of anti women life in NZ
I think the Albert Park debacle and the cancellation of the Wellington event showed this face up front and confident.
I feel we can either
I can see that some places in the US & Europe are swinging against under age transitions and against such seemingly benign manifestations of bringing sexualised identities into drag story time. Some places overseas have moved against unfairness to women in sport.
I think there is work for NZ women to do in the area of sport. While the women who gave comments to the latest bill on sport were received courteously this time, it still remains, according to several of those commenting that women do not appear as stakeholders….
Now all those of us experienced in legal drafting will note that this is one of those clauses that seemingly allows for examples and all of the words after 'particpants' are used as examples and these examples are not meant to be exhaustive.
The problem with this form of drafting is that when it it passes down the line to those who administer it these nuances are largely lost and we may find that all of those groups mentioned are consulted but not women. So not groups representing women in sport unless they are caught by one of the other examples. Lazy drafting in my view.
So as well as the gnawing of mysogynists…meaning making fun of women, denying women dignity such as being able to change in safe spaces etc we have sport still to deal with.
As well as women per se we have a growing problem, in my view, where sexism & mysogyny is coupled with ageism. Everytime we read of a "Karen" on social media we can bet that it is a middle-aged woman sticking up for her rights…..to read the posts against women who are protesting about hyper-sexualised drag shows for children is to see face to face how far we have not progressed with respect to women's views.
I only wish this were true. Women who speak out and say outrageous things like "a man cannot be a lesbian" are called Nazis on national television.
I'm so relieved that the UN has done this report
Things have been getting very dark and dystopian.,the linguistic gymnastics unbelievable.
Thank you so much Weka,Molly,Shanreagh,Visubversa,Anker
Sabine and others for your fearless standing up for women's rights
I'm very relieved too.
I was beginning to think we somehow, without me knowing, had legally become pariahs and not worthy of a voice.
Just a warning too…..the issue does not manifest itself along traditional left/right lines.
So attempting to slur by calling things far right etc misses the point, some woman are taking the gains where they can find them and some Republican state govts in the US are backtracking on the flamboyant anti women's issues. And that is all to the good. Realism is always good. The same women who are following the issue for the long term will not be pinning their hopes on Republicans forever for a way forward.
I suspect the same will happen here in NZ. So women will be scrutinsing parties' views to see
The trans ally position of terf = nazi is disingenuous (it's patently obvious that there are many left wing people who are gender critical). The annoying thing about it (apart from the whole slurring of women to shut us up) is that it makes it harder to critique RW GC positions.
GC women are playing a dangerous game when using the right in the US. The religious conservative view is that gender roles are good, and women shouldn't have abortions. But each time someone like Matt Walsh is supported by GC women, we do the right's work for them. Yes, there are laws being put in place to limit the excesses of gender ideology, but that's not the only thing happening. Do you think conservatives will be happy with that? Or is it more likely they will make inroads into abortion restrictions as well? That's already happening. Then what next?
Yes i agree with you Weka, it is truly dancing with the devil stuff following the RW line holus bolus.
That is why i feel we need to be alive and alert, and take the gains where and if we can whule leaving the rest. To me it is ironic that having fought for women's rights, and my mother and grnadmother before me that these 'gains' may end up being past practice being reinstated.
So a 'gain' today might be that men are not welcomed in women's safe spaces or compete against in sport which was actually the commonsense view/practice until relatively recently. So it is not a gain but a restoration of the status quo that we should never have lost to begin with.
That's true for the US, which is an outlier in many ways. However, the fact remains that the trans activists and gender ideologues have successfully co-opted the NZ left. Of course there are left-leaning New Zealanders who disagree with the gender ideologues but the fact remains that the latter have captured the institutions of the left, and there is no reasonable prospect of contesting this in the near to medium term.
How many Labour or Green MPs have to publicly laugh in the face of GCFs before you accept that you have no leverage with the left any more?
The National Party are not the Republicans, and aren't particularly conservative. Rational feminists should be looking to see what concessions they can get from the liberal wing of the National Party instead of engaging in the Sisyphean task of trying to win back Labour and the Greens. The current trend isn't going to stop until the parties of the left can no longer get into government because they've lost too much of the female vote. That means a number of woman will have to tactically switch.
Look, I hate the National Party. But then again my rights as a dude aren't being trampled on by Labour and the Greens. Any GC woman who votes for Labour or the Greens these days is a mug, plain and simple. They hate you and they mock you.
It might make some sense if National was offering something to women, but they are not.
If the only avenue left to those concerned about gender ideology impacts is to remove their political support, then this option will no doubt be taken by many.
The architects who dismantled the forms of democracy and suppressed public discussion should have foreseen that possible outcome. Guess we'll see at the election.
Actually it was well before this. It was around the mid 2000s when I came face to face with CE in the PS who had no knowledge of women's issu, a largely male staff numbering in the 1000s with a minority of women staff. Then younger women who could not understand me, and others of my age group, being forever on our guard against 'inadvertent' anti women processes…….
Oh yes, I can concur with you there Shanreagh. Unfortunately my experience took a sinister turn which placed me in fear for my safety. A few individuals beyond the Public Service became involved. I cannot reveal any more except to say I had some knowledge in my possession and was deemed a threat by those individuals.
It happened a long time ago but it still affects me. I still find myself on the alert from time to time which is not a bad thing anyway.
Truly sorry for you Anne. Sincerely it does sound sinister
It was extremely unpleasant to say the least.
I know we disagree about quite a bit Anker and things get heated from time to time, but there is nothing personal in it. I know you to be a sincere person.
Thanks Anne. Same from me. Take care.
And I am glad we have found some common ground on this issue (at least I think we have). That’s always good!
Yes we have.
Ensuring women can use toilets that are confined to women only is a no brainer. I've never believed otherwise. Imagine if women started to use men's toilets. Imagine the uproar!
Yes, I know they have uni-sex toilets now. That’s fine for some people but not others. I’m in the ‘others’ category.
My beef is with the way some women are behaving. I especially do not like the apparent link with the fascist groups. The women in this category are being used by them in an effort to create a false image of chaos. That is exactly what the Nazis did in the 1930s.
Ok, well lets stay with what we agree on i.e that womens toilets and change room should be for biological females only.
I did comment about a group of Invercargill women who are having to fight to ensure their single sex spaces remain single sexed. Imo it is an outrage that this should be an issue.
We probably can agree to disagree on your last paragraph about the women being used to create a false image of chaos. I am not sure who you mean by this, but up to you if you want to elaborate.
I am very closely involved in three gender critical groups. I have come to know many of these women well and I can vouch that they don't have any alt right or Nazi sympathies. They are as I keep saying, mostly left wing, many are lesbian and have been involved in some stunning left wing, feminist activism over many years. You don't have to do this if you don't want to, but if you click on the SUFW website and then click "about us" it lists the incredible campaigns these women have been involved in.
"…women being used to create a false image of chaos. I am not sure who you mean by this, but up to you if you want to elaborate."
No, I'm not meaning women are being lured into right wing nut-bar lairs and carried off as trophies – a spot of exaggeration to make a point.
But it is clear there are calculated attempts by the extreme right too link the two groups together for political gain. That is why they turn up at public gatherings and there are reports of behind the scene meetings taking place but not as far as I know in NZ.
That is how the Nazis started their campaign and we all know where that ended. Bear in mind communication links being what they are today means these individuals can spread their destabilising efforts across the globe and there has been plenty of evidence of that in recent times.
I'm still not sure what you are referring to (because you haven't said), but let's tease this out a bit.
Whoever she has voted for in the past, KJK is now a centre right populist, with mixed views on socially liberal issues, and with the potential to go far right. She gets platformed by the right because she shares some values around gender identity, but also her general politics are closer to the right so she's a better fit than say LW GCFs.
In Melbourne, the Nazis were most likely attracted to LWS for these reasons:
KJK has responsibility for number 2. She was warned by Australian feminists ahead of time that Nazis would show up, she should have been prepared. The 30m post-LWS youtube was shocking, it was a group of conservative women sitting with KJK joking and celebrating with glasses of wine after literal Nazis had turned up. What should have happened is KJK made a clear announcement at the beginning of that livestream distancing herself and condemning the Nazis. She didn't have to spend the whole time on that, but she did have to say something. She didn't say anything useful, which allowed the narrative for the next 24 hours to be about the Nazi connection to LWS. This is basic messaging and PR even for people that don't care about the Nazis being there.
She was either incredibly naive, or didn't care, or both. Her political positioning means she will work with anyone, but that has consequences and Melbourne made that very clear.
KJK is not responsible for the other numbers. This distinction matters because the left genderists are saying that all people with GC positions are Nazis, Nazi sympathisers or Nazi adjacent. That's specious, and a flat out denial of the large number of LW GCFs and other women who are left or centre left or even right who aren't hard right or allied with fascists.
So it's complex. Also complex is the issue of overlaps between some groups. If we look at women in NZ, the groups I know about are these,
Any women who want to retain women's sex based rights need to be able to differentiate between those groups. From my LW GCF position, I want the women just waking up to the issues to be attracted to WLA and SUFW rather than the Freedom movements, but as we've seen with LWS, populists like KJK are attractive because they reach people emotionally.
The GC feminist position is that this battle has to be won by convincing liberals not siding with conservatives. In countries like NZ, it's the people who are socially liberal that are going to have the influence on politics, legislation and policy. This applies to MSM too. In other places eg the UK, the need is also to use progressive not conservative or regressive politics to make changes, because using conservative politics will strengthen the right (and the right in the UK is a very scary proposition now).
The problem we have is that left/liberal genderists are attacking progressive GC positions in a very authoritarian way, and many people are left wondering if there is any point in being lw. There obviously is, hence another reason to make progressive positions on GC issues clear and accessible. No Debate has had a terrible impact on all this, which is another reason why so many people don't understand the issues, or so but are afraid to speak out.
much of what I just wrote is for the women on TS who think it's useful to use the right in this battle. It's not, it's actually dangerous and a strategic fail. I get the temptation, because it does seem like it's the most obvious way to win (get a bunch of people het up about stuff and the mainstream positions will change, but it will also shift the overton window and that's not going to be good for women)
I really need to do a post on how the war has three sides.
Good points Weka.
Dealing with the right is like dancing with the devil in my view….I am not sure that any/many of us can do this, get whatever gains and whip away before losing fundamental women's stuff in the process.
in the US there's a single Bill that removes trans rights and women's abortion rights. There are GC women arguing that we can cede abortion rights for now, that the most important fight now is the GC one. It's insane.
Thinking about my response to this diatribe focused on one woman.
"From my LW GCF position, I want the women just waking up to the issues to be attracted to WLA and SUFW rather than the Freedom movements, but as we've seen with LWS, populists like KJK are attractive because they reach people emotionally."
Short version: This type of patronising (ha!) assumptive dismissal of many women by self-declared left-wing feminist groups is very unattractive to me at a personal level. Interactions online with such groups have only increased my wariness. If this is left wing political activism, it's going to fail as a recruitment or retention tool.
Demanding unquestioning support from women is not the road I would expect feminists to take, let alone embrace so willingly.
(I'm also disappointed to see a repeat of the word association game that seeks to smear by including Nazis when no connection is there.)
Diatribe? Here's my dictionary's definition of diatribe,
I made an indepth, considered political analysis of a number of dynamics in this debate, including parts of KJK's work but not limited to that. You call it a forceful and bitter attack on her. This is a characterisation not borne out by my actual words (and I can tell you categorically that I don't feel bitter towards KJK).
The forceful bit I don't have a problem with, KJK is forceful in her arguments, lots of people are, but I don't think my comment above was forceful in a particularly aggressive way.
You then reduced that indepth political analysis down to three words and told me I was patronising and dismissive of many women. Again you mistake something here. I don't think populist approaches that use emotion are wrong (and I'm not sure why you took it as an insult). I wish the left were better at this. But I see a need to have strong political analysis along side that.
Further, I don't dismiss women who are attracted to KJK for that reason, I think the attraction is valid. Women have an intuitive understanding of the danger of gender ideology, and in the absence of the left providing much in the way of addressing that, of course women are going to go where they are met and welcome. I just disagree with the value in that overall if we want to retain and maintain women's wellbeing in society. I think there are strategic issues here that need to be discussed. I note that you haven't responded to any of those points.
All my words here are my own, and I'm not speaking for any groups at all.
I haven't demanded unquestioning support from women. Ever. It's so completely against my politics that I wonder what you are even talking about.
Then you clearly don't understand what I am saying. My argument isn't the argument of the TRAs, it's only superficially similar. Given that the attacks on GC rely on such superficially similar comparisons, I'd appreciate not having that done to me either.
It's not a word association game, this is high stakes politics playing out in the real world. If Nazis turn up at your event and you don't front up in a meaningful way on that, then you can expect to be criticised for that. Wanting to not be associated with Nazis is understandable, but when you are being associated with Nazis, it's a good idea to address that.
KJK doesn't want to deal with those things proactively, fine, that's her politics and her choice. I understand but disagree with her rationale. But she doesn't remain immune from criticism for that.
I didn't look up the dictionary definition of diatribe before using. The consumerism reference is clearly nonsensical in this situation, and so is the "bitter" because that is not a critique that could reasonably be made about your contributions.
So, I accede your point, and would replace with the more neutral "dialogue" if I could edit.
"Again you mistake something here. I don't think populist approaches that use emotion are wrong (and I'm not sure why you took it as an insult). I wish the left were better at this. But I see a need to have strong political analysis along side that.
Further, I don't dismiss women who are attracted to KJK for that reason, I think the attraction is valid. "
The assumption that emotion is playing a part for women, rather than reason or analysis of the situation is one that I personally find patronising. Along with the reference to attraction – which is again an ascribed emotional impetus, not one that many women would ascribe to themselves. I think the conversation could sometime turn to the detraction that others feel necessary to engage in. THAT would be a long dialogue.
"I haven't demanded unquestioning support from women. Ever. It's so completely against my politics that I wonder what you are even talking about."
Not a reference to you at all. That comment followed on from:
"This type of patronising (ha!) assumptive dismissal of many women by self-declared left-wing feminist groups is very unattractive to me at a personal level. Interactions online with such groups have only increased my wariness."
Quite happy to reiterate this again – it was regarding some of the available political feminist groups in NZ with whom I have interacted – not you as an individual, or indeed every feminist organisation.
" If Nazis turn up at your event and you don't front up in a meaningful way on that, then you can expect to be criticised for that. Wanting to not be associated with Nazis is understandable, but when you are being associated with Nazis, it's a good idea to address that."
I don't support this perspective.
It makes any person or organisation particularly vulnerable to easily orchestrated events.
I also don't assume to advise individuals HOW to expend their personal energy, nor what priorities they should have. If I was particularly concerned about this, I would definitely directly engage in an effort to persuade or convince, but the organisations that did repeatedly make that smear, did neither of those things as far as I am aware.
No I am pretty involved in GC circles in NZ. No such meetings are taking place that I know of.
I believe it is true that there is a growth of Nazism across the globe (at least I did read that).
I don't see that happening with Gender Critical groups from the ones I am aware of across the globe.
For example Posie Parker is a single issue activist i.e. a promoter of the right of women to have their own sex based spaces. She does also comment on medical transitioning of children. So the issues she is concerned with are to do with gender ideology.
She has started her own political party and the whole basis of their policies can be said to be gender critical.
Are you able to let me know of any reports of GC women and Nazis meeting behind the scenes?
Not sure how you mean "this is how the Nazis started". Can you elaborate?
Hi Anne, I am the spokeswoman for SUFW and I can assure you that we have no links to fascist groups, most of us are left-leaning (whatever that means now days) many of us are lesbian, some of us are Jewish and absolutely none of us are Nazis. It is convenient for the media and The Disinformation Project to paint us this way as it essentially silences us.
This gives a good summary of what we stand for.
Another insidious aspect of this movement is capture of language so that even if women do speak, meaning is subverted and confusion reigns. The audacious (insane) goal is boundary destruction and disempowerment of half of humanity. Thread:
Moral degeneracy and male fetish is camouflaging itself in the garb of victimhood.
that's quite the thread. Not sure the property analogy works, but she's on point generally.
While I applaud the author of this article and wholeheartedly support everything said in it, I am aware that the major cause of the gender vs sex debate currently taking place in many countries including New Zealand, where I reside, is the elevation of trans-sexual issues as being of more importance than biological women's issues. When trans-sexual need are put back into perspective, as the needs of only 1-3% of people in New Zealand in comparison to a near 50% women in the country, then this issue will lose its overinflated importance. Let women speak about their needs.
Important article, just want to add some tautoko.
Though it shouldn't need to have it, the mana of the UN gives powerful weight to the issue.
I often have a hard time defending the arguments, being not a woman and seemingly man-splaining and -spreading over the discussion (not that being one would seem to make it easier with the terms terf and nazi chucked around!), but it's harder to argue with the UN.
not sure it is the UN exactly, the Special Rapporteur is independent. I don't know how that works yet.
When did The Standard become a TERF site? Haven't visited here in years and dear god it's gone downhill in a big way.
Terf is a misogynistic slur, associated with some of the worst sexualised violence directed at women online. This is what your position sanctions, look closely https://terfisaslur.com/
You cannot use the term here in the way you just did. If you do I will ban you.
If you’ve read at TS before, you know that we value robust debate, not random slurs or whines about the site. Bear this in mind if you want to comment here.
Some issues are a bit more complex than the mindless slogans beloved of the NZ MSM
Explain yourself, because I don't know what you mean either. And no, I won't take the silly bait of 'presuming' to know and arguing that. Pointlessness.
Rando you do realise that by referring to TS as a terf site and saying its gone down hill in a big way you are reinforcing the point of what the UN expert is saying don't you?
If you have some good arguements or even some mediocre ones about gender ideology, put them forward. You will be debated on the issues.
Slurs? No thank you
I know this is important. But it is not an issue I am prepared to die in a ditch on, especially when it comes to a new Jill Ovens party and the election. She well knows the risks to hard won women’s rights in front of us we will have to defend. I will listen respectfully and try to understand, Meanwhile, the bigger fight I am engaged in is winning pay equity for systemetically low paid care and support women workers. You have no idea how hard this is.
Darien, those working class women will not appreciate it when they have male bodied people entering their spaces and their daughters spaces. They won't like it at all.
But also hats off to you for the work you are doing!
it is very serious when women feel they can’t voice an opinion because they they will be cancelled or risk not being promoted. Being socially ostricized. I had this experience in my line of work when I made gender critical comments that were relevant to my field. I was called a terf a bigot and then cancelled (hard to explain how I was cancelled without giving away what I do). The UN article raises very serious issues about what is happening to women who speak up about gender ideology. What happened in Albert Park only confirms it.
Hi Darien, regarding the Women's Rights Party. One of it aims is to bring this issue of women's rights erase into the political arena. This far all political parties refuse to engage regarding the real consequences of this Gender Ideology movement into primary and secondary education, health, sport, prison, sex- single spaces, wages, etc.
If only we can ask each MP and those candidates in the electorates were they stand on this issue – they can start thinking about their answers.
[Please correct your username in your next commment, thanks – Incognito]
As you know Darien, I have been working on pay equity for employed midwives for the past 5 years and before that for decades advocating for working women to have respect and fair pay and conditions, in the union movement and in the Labour Party, including several terms on the Labour Party Council as a regional rep as well as being President of the Labour Party Affiliates, a role I took on after you went to Parliament. I don't think we can say one fight is bigger than another.
Just today, two men have been found guilty of drugging, assaulting and raping young women, including young women working in their bars, incidents that occurred predominantly in the women's toilets. That is why we need to protect women and our single-sex spaces.
As you know Darien, I have been working on pay equity for employed midwives for the past 5 years and before that for decades advocating for working women to have respect and fair pay and conditions, in the union movement and in the Labour Party, including several terms on the Labour Party Council as a regional rep as well as being President of the Labour Party Affiliates, a role I took on after you went to Parliament. Having fought for a range of women's issues over more than 50 years, while I acknowledge what you are doing, I don't think we can say one fight is bigger than another.
This is not a Jill Ovens party. She and I are both on the interim committee. There are 9 other women on the committee but because they are fearful they could be disciplined, bullied or fired at work for standing up for women they are not wanting to be identified. Let that sink in. No one has any faith in their union to defend them as most of the major unions including psa and etu were at Albert Park supporting the anti women protesters. There will be an inaugural agm next month when office holders will be elected.
Yes Dawn I have let that sink in and it truly appalls me.
There is a barely covered mysogyny here in NZ. I was astounded to read in response to the concern of women about males in changing rooms & sport, that perhaps this was something of a response to women from the males hurt in some way by women's rights granted in the past. That we did not want them, ie males, then and now 'they' ie women need allies good hearted males are not around to help if needed.
So all those 'scratch a kiwi and you will find' sayings
seem to be coming to the fore
I love cities, the should be denser.
Te Pāti Māori supporter
More food forests, not less.
Women Rights Party sound far from silly in this deeply boys own society the last 40 odd years has fostered onto us.
I did have a rude comment to make. It's very rude so if you are easily offended – scroll past quick. The only person who I will respond to in this particular post is Incognito.
When slogans go wrong…
" Girls can do anything,
as long as they have a penis"
Ha ha ha Adam. Yes Girls can do anything as long as they have a penis.
You have captured trans rights activism and gender ideology perfectly. Buth the absurdity of it i.e that girls can have penises, and the mysogyny of it in that it is only "girls" with penises who can do anything
Thanks, Dawn. It's good to have both you and Jill comment directly here.
Ive been here before under The Fairy Godmother but have decided its best to be out under my own name.
Well that's great Darien. I really support you doing that.
Thanks so much Weka, for this post . Good to read the the well informed responses and the writing on the wall..
Also the the erase of our language: this is how I was addressed by my health centre when I was recently due for a cervical smear: "all people assigned female at birth" :
I responded with: I was not assigned female at birth, I'm a female, my sex was observed at birth, so this letter is obviously not applicable to me..
So far no correction has been received and so no cervical smear for me, because "they want to be inclusive"..
[Please correct your username in your next commment, thanks – Incognito]
Just today, two men have been found guilty of drugging, assaulting and raping young women, including young women working in their bars, incidents that occurred predominantly in the women's toilets. That is why we need to protect women and our single-sex spaces.
From staff at commercial premises? The greater problem is name suppression, and home detention sentences to multiple rapists and those who liked the status quo of a fair trial for the accused (see The Daily Blog for the case that anything else is a threat to justice from liberal “woke feminists” who need to be put in their place politically).
Designated women's toilets didn't protect them at all.
poor protection isn't the same as no protection. Women already get raped in women's toilets isn't a progressive position.
Women don't only want their own toilets and change rooms for protection from male preditors Ad. But lets talk about that aspect of it. Good evidence exists (and I am looking for the links to info I read and will post when I find it) that more sex crimes (including recoding women) take place in unisex toilets. Just think about it. Ease of access in crime is huge.
But many people who defend opening up women only toilets etc to male bodied people miss the point that aside from the threat of rape, we just don't want men in our sex segregated spaces. As a survivor of an attempted rape in a woman's change room, I am particularly wary of male bodied people in my spaces. I have been shocked that the empathy for male bodied people who identify as women has completely trumped any empathy for me when I have discussed this with people who favour males being legitamately able to enter female change rooms.
Currently there a group of women (and some men too) in Invercargill who are protesting the changes to the changing room rules at their local pool ie. the rules that say any man who identifies as a woman is allowed to use the female change rooms.
I watched the video of their meeting with a council rep and the pool manager before it was taken down. They gave their reasons for objecting to the change. They spoke of an 84 year old woman now who will no longer use the pool because she is uncomfortable about a trans identifying male being in her change room. They quoted a women who has had a double masectomy who is not o.k. with the new arrangement. They quoted a sexual abuse survivor who doesn't want a male bodied person in her change room. One women who was comfortable speaking for herself said she would have to take her daughter home in wet togs.
The vote compass poll before the last election showed that the majority of people didn't want gender self ID. This has come about because of a vocal minority who will smear and shut down people (including using violence as seen in Albert Park)
And this Ad. More to come
Katrina Biggs has been following up on the situation with the provision of female toilets at Queenstown airport. Following her Twitter convo it is still not clear that females have their toilets as one that a passenger found had a sign signifying transgender.
6:55 PM · May 21, 2023
Net result is that men have two toilets male and this transgender/female version and who knows where women go…..I suspect many will go to the accessible toilets if they find too many men in the female toilets.
If you want to know where toilets are in the Queenstown Airport, then an ability to read a map, read signs or use the net comes in handy.
For instance this took me about 3-4 minutes to find and read
By asking for "queenstown airport toilet locations". I'm pretty sure that I saw the same or a similar map displayed there last time I was in that airport.
It appears from my fast view that there are male/female toilets in at least 6 locations. Gender neutral toilets in 4 locations. Disabled toilets in at least 6 locations.
Basically Karin Biggs or their sources are either incompetent at finding a map, incompetent at using using the net, incompetent at reading signs, too shy to ask for a directions or a map, are blind, or are lying for effect.
I'm picking the latter – because how can someone be that thick and still be competent to go to a toilet by themselves?
BTW: As I have pointed out before, provision on toilets is a requirement of various building legislation (like the Building Act 2004) and regulations about different types of properties.
As far as I am aware, there are no legislation or even regulation to provide gendered toilets. Rules about who may go into particular toilets is a rule by the property owner and is a property right. If you want to complain about toilet provision and their rules, then complain to the property owner about their attention to customer preferences.
I think it's more willing to run with a story rather than fact checking (replacing women's toilets with unisex has happened in other countries).
It took me less than a minute to find the Queenstown airport twitter replies confirming they have female, male and unisex/disabled toilets.
The woman who raised it has said that it was the set of toilets available once you had passed through security and these were a male and one with the sign for transgender. She was not able to find a set that said female.
Replacing female toilets with unisex toilets is NOT a solution. I feel unisex toilets is seen as a solution by some,,,,I never use them & neither do many of my female friends as we still have the probs with wee all over the floors or seats if they have been left down. We should have M/F & accessible as a minimum.
I am attaching a copy of the tweet that explains this
Worshiper of Coffee ♀︎
To be clear, because I think this has stemmed from my tweet, the toilets I’m referring to are in the departure lounge past security screening. There may very well be female only toilets elsewhere in the terminal, but I didn’t see any in the departure lounge, just ⚧️ and male.
Also, look at the Queenstown Airports tweets and replies list. There's a lot there.
here's a photo of the toilet signs. Male, NB, and female.
The link for Worshipper of Coffee's post
The point is not if there are M/F toilets at Queenstown airport but if there are M/F toilets in the departure lounge as she has clarified.
I don't have an issue with female, accessible and unisex as the default options.
However, I note that that solution never comes up in the consultation process, somehow….
I seldom use twitter as a source, too much self-serving going on. Most of my delay was moving tom finding the map on a phone, then jumping to desktop so I could read the map on a larger screen. It'd be OK on a wall or even A3.
I find twitter useful in those situations where a formal response is given. I have a high confidence that the NZQN account wasn't lying. It's not infallible, because some organisations have idiots in charge of their social media, but in this case the person tweeting went and took actual photos, which is what seemed to be needed.
btw, I looked at that map and while I could see they had male, female and NB toilets, I couldn't tell from the map that the female toilets were separate. In the past it would have made sense to assume they were, but atm that's not necessarily so.
I've been thinking about that conversation a fair bit. That there is no legislation enforcing provision doesn't mean that women don't have a rightful expectation. Best outcome would be female toilets are retained rather than women having to go to court or push for legislation to be written.
GB News invited a woman to debate with a Tory MP, she was shocked to find the anti-woke media had only a unisex toilet for her to use.
She was frightened that Dan Wootton might walk in.
I was thinking more of the Old Vic theatre in London. High profile case. They fundraised with women and actors support to increase women's toilets, but when they built them they converted them all to gender neutral. And, they labelled them urinal or cubical so essentially men had double the loos, women had no female only toilets and half the GN toilet access as men.
none of that is rocket science, all it requires is treating women like humans and actually listening to them.
To soon for far to many.
Excellent points Weka. We now have a requirement for accessible toilets and these should be catered for as a minimum.
I have no issue with expectations. That is how the public toilets for women, disabled, and unisex got provided in the first place. But it is pretty clear when you read the building regulation guidelines, that the choice about provision is constrained regulations and building codes. If you read our current regulations
you will see that the choice s made by the property owners. The code describes what the facility and provision requirements are for various types of place under all scenarios. But the decisions about what the owner would provide goes all of the way from unisex individual toilets to open plan male urinals with limited WCs.
Legislation, regulation, or courts are not a good approaches for setting the balance of provision of toilets types if that is the objective. I can't think of a way to word a provision for exclusively female genetic toilets that can't cause legal issues and challenges in all sorts of ways. Especially from property owners who would really prefer to toilets goers to go elsewhere and leave them more real-estate for other purposes.
If you ever want to look at tortures of that kind of debate in regulation, then look up some of the debates on building regulations about equivalences of urinals vs WCs in male toilets that happened in the early 20th century.
The optimal approach to retain or extend genetic female toilets would be to to property owners by using existing 'customer' leverage and let them make the choice. For some strange reason elected bodies and businesses seem to be quite responsive to targeted social campaigns designed to pressure them.
This was the approach that caused public women's toilets to be installed in the first place both by councils and by businesses. The right to vote, hold property, and get bank accounts and the provision of public and business toilets for women happened at roughly the same time in NZ and around the world. I think that it wasn't a coincidence.
Similarly the legislated and regulated standards of both public and business toilets started rising over that same half-century. But that could have also been because of the public health awareness of both the disease theory and the increasing frequency of epidemics as transport links and city concentrations increased.
If you want a legislated approach, then the optimal course would be to target the building regulations (without needing to change legislation) for an increase in the total number of provided toilets, their physical accessibility, and what should be provided in them as part of the building code.
Based on how disgusting some toilets are and how overwhelmed that they often are with users, then that seems like something that is worth while to do anyway. In my experience there always seems to be a bit of a queue in any heavily trafficked location like airports.
I know you have wanted to blow the story out of the water Lprent.
But a small point……unisex toilets do not replace female toilets. Thye are a desirable extra but the configuration should be male/female and accessible as a minimum. If venues want to provide unisex or GN toilets then let them do but not by making women give up a single sex toilet.
The story has been clarified that the person complaining has said she was not able to find a women’s toilet when she had passed through security, only male and one with a transgender symbol.
Also part of the story was that a public body such as the QN airport has blocked a member of the public from asking further questions. I don’t think this is rationale or sensible behaviour from a public body. Katrina BIggs was not using insulting or derogatory language where blocking would be acceptable.
The point was that it was a "story" given apparently according to your tale by one person, who appears to have not looked. The map clearly shows different toilets including male, female, disabled and unisex. The male and female ones being most common and in all areas.
Perhaps someone should actually check the veracity of bold assertions. In this case that there was only signage for male and unisex (according to you).
The design of ablution areas often has separate entrances. The signage for one type at the entrance is often only at the entrance end. I commonly have have to wander down a wall of find the entrance to the male toilets.
The scenario that you are describing would tend to indicate that a entrance where a male toilet has been converted to a gender-neutral one. What is the bet that if a more observant investigation went in, we'd find that the disabled toilet was at the other female entrance to the ablutions. That is a common pattern in ablution designs.
Which wasn't in anything that I had read by the time that I was looking up a map. But based on the apparent initial pile of bullshit lying, it would seem more likely that is also a result of some idiot making an assertion and then getting wound up when the answer didn't met a preconception.
I just have an aversion to idiot trolls trying to invent or assert a 'story' to fit political objectives. If you want my attention on a political or social problem, then don't emulate Mike Hosking. He likes inventing stories for the same underlying reasons as well.