Govt clear ‘biological sex matters”

The UK”s National Health Service (NHS) has come to its senses:

The NHS is to crack down on transgender ideology in hospitals, with terms like “chestfeeding” set to be banned. . . 

Referring to “people who have ovaries” rather than “women” will also be prohibited under plans to ensure hospitals use clear language based on biological sex.

The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals.

Patients will also be given the right to request that intimate care is carried out by someone of the same biological sex.

It follows concerns from patients about biological men being allowed in women’s hospital wards. NHS guidance has previously stated that trans patients could be placed in single-sex wards on the basis of the gender with which they identified.

Kemi Badenoch, the women and equalities minister, has backed calls for a public inquiry into the “pervasive influence” of transgender ideology in the NHS. . . 

A government source said: “The Government has been clear that biological sex matters, and women and girls are entitled to receive the protection and privacy they need in all healthcare settings.  . . .

Of course biological sex matters. How on earth did trans ideology prevail anywhere, let alone in hospitals where science and biology are critical?

How have the radical trans activists been able to force the acceptance of their assertion that trans men are women, have access to females spaces and participate in female sports categories?

And how have they been able to infect the health system to the extent of enabling disturbed children – many of them gay and/or autistic – to undergo medical and surgical procedures without the strict ethical approval and rigorous need for proof of efficacy that usually is required for life changing treatment?

Perhaps Damien Grant has part of the answer:

The debate over gender identity has gained in prominence in recent years and, to what will be my enduring shame, I chose not to confront it.

When you distil the serious complaint by those against the current gender-fluidity of modern culture, it is that the medicalisation of children’s gender dysphoria is wrong.

That puberty blockers, hormone treatments and gender-affirming surgery are a mistake. That we are damaging and potentially sterilising children because of an ideology. . . 

This sounds like something that happened in Nazi Germany last century, it should not be happening anywhere now.

Puberty is an essential aspect of human development. At the time the local Ministry of Health addressed puberty blockers and confidently asserted they were safe, reversible, and gave young people time to consider their identity. I see that advice has changed.

Why did I place faith in the pronouncements of the Ministry of Health? Given my inherent distrust of the state I am left with the uncomfortable conclusion that it was cowardice.

Seeing how others who waded into this topic had their careers and reputations damaged, it was preferable to hide behind an official declaration that the experts knew what they were doing than look closer and risk having to speak up.

Those others included people who lost their jobs and endured public shaming. Some were public figures like Graham Linehan and J.K. Rowling, some were medical professionals and some were concerned parents of children who were given life changing medical and surgical treatment without their parents knowledge. Many were ordinary people who knew that science matters and some things can’t change and one of those is biological sex.

The Cass Report has ended the ability to seek refuge in this sophistry. . . 

According to Cass, “the long term health impacts of hormone interventions is limited and needs to be better understood”. “Young people become particularly vulnerable at the point of transfer to adult services.”

She acknowledges hormone treatment for adults is “not without costs…” but is “…dramatically outweighed by the long-term benefits.”

Adults can give properly informed consent. Children can not.

The story for those under 18, and especially under 16, is different. Children on blockers will cease development while their friends continue and “…there are no good studies on the psychological, psychosexual and developmental impact of this period of divergence from peers”. . . 

Her report states: “Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.” . . .

She writes: “This is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint. The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender related distress.”

However, “Some clinicians feel under pressure to support a medical pathway based on widespread reporting that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk. This conclusion was not supported by the above systematic review”. . . 

There will be other critiques but this report has reversed the burden of proof. If these treatments are safe and effective then the evidence needs to be presented and peer reviewed. 

Such evidence and peer reviews would be required for any other treatments and procedures.

Until they are maybe we should not treating people below the age of consent with powerful and unproven treatments.

Mostly the report has been received well and in the wake of its publication England and Scotland have joined the four Nordic nations in banning puberty blockers being prescribed to minors, although some hormone therapies are available for those over 16.

In New Zealand the Ministry of Health’s report on puberty blockers has been delayed in the wake of the Cass report.

Given the Ministry initially claimed that puberty blockers gave children an opportunity to consider their future, the following quote from the Cass report may prove disturbing: “Moreover, given that the vast majority of young people started on puberty blockers proceed from puberty blockers to masculinising/feminising hormones, there is no evidence that puberty blockers buy time to think, and some concern that they may change the trajectory of psychosexual and gender identity development.”

It is possible that we are looking at a major medical misadventure with a cohort of children having their lives compromised.

And too many of us, those with the opportunity and a platform, stood by and said nothing. Because we were afraid of the consequences, because if we did we’d feel compelled to say something, and to say something would come at a cost.

So we said nothing. Shame on us. Shame on me.

Radical trans activists and their followers have been very successful in silencing people.

One of their tactics is to label anyone who states biological facts, stands up for the safety and dignity of women, and/or their right to fair competition in sport as transphobic.

A few might be but most don’t have a problem with what adults do until they trample on other people’s rights, including those of women and children.

Adults can be who they choose to be and dress as they wish but they should not be influencing children and advocating for them to receive irreversible treatment.

Children with gender dysphoria need mental health support not medicine and surgery.

The MoH must accept the findings of the Cass report and follow the NHS which has stopped the routine prescribing of puberty blockers and cracked down on trans ideology in hospitals and it must also accept that biological sex matters.

And we must be prepared to speak out to ensure they do.

What is a woman?

What is a woman?

That is a question that few, if any, would have asked, and few, if any, would have had to think about a few years ago.

Now it’s a politically loaded question, and one which some find difficult to answer.

One who doesn’t is J.K. Rowling who nails it in this explanation to her critics:

You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes. I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes.

It’s irrelevant whether or not her gametes have ever been fertilised, whether or not she’s carried a baby to term, irrelevant if she was born with a rare difference of sexual development that makes neither of the above possible, or if she’s aged beyond being able to produce viable eggs.

She is a woman and just as much a woman as the others. I don’t believe a woman is more or less of a woman for having sex with men, women, both or not wanting sex at all. I don’t think a woman is more or less of a woman for having a buzz cut and liking suits and ties, or wearing stilettos and mini dresses, for being black, white or brown, for being six feet tall or a little person, for being kind or cruel, angry or sad, loud or retiring.

She isn’t more of a woman for featuring in Playboy or being a surrendered wife, nor less of a woman for designing space rockets or taking up boxing.

What makes her a woman is the fact of being born in a body that, assuming nothing has gone wrong in her physical development (which, as stated above, still doesn’t stop her being a woman), is geared towards producing eggs as opposed to sperm, towards bearing as opposed to begetting children, and irrespective of whether she’s done either of those things, or ever wants to.

Womanhood isn’t a mystical state of being, nor is it measured by how well one apes sex stereotypes. We are not the creatures either porn or the Bible tell you we are. Femaleness is not, as trans woman Andrea Chu Long wrote, ‘an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes,’ nor are we God’s afterthought, sprung from Adam’s rib.

Women are provably subject to certain experiences because of our female bodies, including different forms of oppression, depending on the cultures in which we live.

When trans activists say ‘I thought you didn’t want to be defined by your biology,’ it’s a feeble and transparent attempt at linguistic sleight of hand.

Women don’t want to be limited, exploited, punished, or subject to other unjust treatment because of their biology, but our being female is indeed defined by our biology. It’s one material fact about us, like having freckles or disliking beetroot, neither of which are representative of our entire beings, either.

Women have billions of different personalities and life stories, which have nothing to do with our bodies, although we are likely to have had experiences men don’t and can’t, because we belong to our sex class.

Some people feel strongly that they should have been, or wish to be seen as, the sex class into which they weren’t born. Gender dysphoria is a real and very painful condition and I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who suffers from it.

I want them to be free to dress and present themselves however they like and I want them to have exactly the same rights as every other citizen regarding housing, employment and personal safety. 

I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. I believe the ideology that preaches those tenets has caused, and continues to cause, very real harm to vulnerable people.

I am strongly against women’s and girls’ rights and protections being dismantled to accommodate trans-identified men, for the very simple reason that no study has ever demonstrated that trans-identified men don’t have exactly the same pattern of criminality as other men, and because, however they identify, men retain their advantages of speed and strength.

In other words, I think the safety and rights of girls and women are more important than those men’s desire for validation.

I sincerely hope that answers your questions. You may still disagree, but as I hope this shows, I’m more than happy to have this debate.

Standing up for women and girls is not transphobic.

It is possible to do that without fearing, or hating, trans people.

They have a right to dress how they wish and be who they want to be but those rights do’t trump others’ rights to dignity and safety.

People can change their appearance and their names, they can also mangle language by adopting  different pronouns, but they can’t  change biological reality.

No human can change sex. How you want to express your sexuality/personality in relation to society’s version of femininity or masculinity is your own unique personality – and is 100% 👍🏾 but…it’s NOT the reality of your biological sex. We must stop lying especially to kids.

— Sharron Davies MBE (@sharrond62) April 11, 2024

Stating that isn’t hating any individuals or groups, it’s stating facts, as J.K. Rowling has done so well.

Woman of the day

Woman of the Day feminist and trade unionist Rose Schneiderman born OTD 1882 in Poland, founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union, instrumental in the passing of the 1917 New York State referendum giving women the right to vote, and the woman who galvanised public… pic.twitter.com/txjjpAX2jD

— The Attagirls (@TheAttagirls) April 6, 2024

What would Kate think?

The 130th anniversary of women’s suffrage in New Zealand was celebrated yesterday.

We’ve come a long way since then and I wonder what Kate Sheppard and the others who fought so hard to gain votes for women would think about where women are now?

Women hold, and have held, roles that used to be the preserve of men including Governor General, Prime Minister and Chief Justice.

In many ways women are now more equal than men in that women are more likely to be accepted in what were considered men’s roles than men are in what used to be considered women’s roles, for example kindergarten teaching.

But not all progress has been positive.

Would Kate and her supporters be happy or horrified that people who stand up for biological reality are vilified as transphobic?

Would they be happy or horrified that many, including the Prime Minister, struggle to define the word woman?

Would they be happy or horrified that after decades of work to get rid of drugs in sport, competitors who have gone through puberty as males are permitted to compete against women in sports?

Would they be happy or horrified that biological men are allowed into women’s changing rooms and loos?

Would they be happy or horrified that a tiny minority of radical trans activists are attempting to rename female body parts so as not to offend trans people?

Would they be happy or horrified at the manipulation of language to cancel women by for example by replacing mother with birthing person?

Kate and the others fought to give women the right to vote, 130 years later radical trans activists are trampling over a whole lot of other rights.

Respect Our Sex on #Global Women’s Day (GWD)

 

#GlobalWomensDay
On the weekend of 8/9 July women from across the globe will gather in iconic locations to celebrate women & girls & draw attention to the #RespectOurSex campaign with photos shared on social media on the day with the hashtags #RespectOurSex and #GlobalWomensDay… pic.twitter.com/BRfDFJkTIJ

— Women's Rights Network – WRN (@WomensRightsNet) July 4, 2023

The Women’s Rights Network is helping to organise Global Women’s Day.

GLOBAL WOMEN’S DAY: RESPECT OUR SEX INFORMATION PACK
About
Over the last few years, we’ve seen International Women’s Day be taken over by men. It’s time to reclaim the idea of a day for women! On the weekend of 8/9 July, we’re organising the inaugural Global Women’s Day (GWD), celebrating women and girls globally. Our theme this year is #RespectOurSex – together we’re taking action to protect women’s spaces and sex-based rights.

This information pack has everything you need to get involved and create your own local event,
or link up with a local Women’s Rights Network (WRN) event, or with a local Women’s

Declaration International (WDI) group.

Aims
● To highlight that the attack on women’s sex-based rights is a worldwide issue
● To raise awareness of the topic and encourage new members to join WRN or local /other Women’s rights groups

The day

On the weekend of 8/9 July women from across the globe will gather in iconic locations to celebrate women and girls and draw attention to the #RespectOurSex campaign. Events can take place on or before the 8/9 July, with photos shared on social media on the day with the hashtag #RespectOurSex.

If you would like to plan an event, we recommend that you do it in a location that shows the city/country it is in, to amplify the message that this is a global campaign. You might like to use luggage tags with a message explaining the importance of women’s sex based rights, use ribbons in suffragette colours, use statues of women. We recommend organising local speakers and, if possible, aligning with local campaigns to protect single sex spaces and women’s sex-based rights.

Events do not need to be large – individuals can participate individually if they wish.

GWD is a celebration of women and girls and of our movement; it is not anti-men or anti-trans.

Promotion

Please share your photos after the event with the hashtag #RespectOurSex #your country and tag @womensrightsnetwork so your pictures can be shared and your success celebrated.

If you have a particular country/local women’s rights issue, you might also like to use a hashtag to bring attention to that eg #notoselfid

Safety

For safety reasons, we recommend that any events planned to take place in a public area are organised utilising EventBrite or similar, enabling the location to be revealed only at the last minute and only to those that have indicated their attendance.

FAQs

Is this competing with/detracting from IWD?
We feel IWD has become a corporate movement, which has eclipsed grassroots and local campaigns for women’s rights. GWD is a chance for women around the world to raise awareness of women’s sex-based rights. If women don’t exist in law, nor do our rights. Together, we’re calling for women’s sex-based rights to be protected in law around the world.

Can I use my group/organisation logo?
Yes! But please remember to use the hashtags above to be included in the campaign

Is GWD transphobic?
No. GWD is about women’s rights – raising awareness of our sex-based rights and calling for these rights to be protected. We are not anti trans, we are pro women.

Did you see the one about . . . ?

We are winning – Yvonne Van Dongen :

So self-sex ID came into force last week and the radfems and anyone who cares about women and girls should be in mourning. Except they’re not. Far from it. They’re quietly congratulating themselves.

Because all the new law has achieved is to make a mockery of the birth certificate. It is now utterly invalid as a document of fact. With the ability to alter one’s sex at will without the need for proof, it has validated a fiction. You may feel male, female or non-binary (whatever that is) and register that on your birth certificate (as long as you are 18 and over) and change back again a week later, if you so desire. Then back again for fun or because you can – as many times as you like.

Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of the law change is a facility that has received little, if any, public scrutiny. That is, it is now possible for a child to have two fathers or two mothers on their birth certificate. Both fathers could actually be female while both mothers could be male. Or they could choose to reject both monickers and just call themselves parent.

This flexibility as outlined in clause 12 (3) of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (BDMRR) Act 2021 could well become a drawcard for parents overseas who are denied this facility. . . 

Our birth certificate has become a record of feeling. Nothing more.

However, this equivalent of a legal comfort blanket does NOT give men the right to enter women’s spaces. A man may wave his newly minted identification in front of the person running the women’s refuge, changing sheds, gym or sports team and insist this official looking piece of paper gives him the right to be regarded as a woman. But he is wrong. It does not.

The gatekeeper could quote clause 79 (2) (BDMRR) Act 2021 or clause 80 (2) in the supplementary order paper as justification to reject entry but it is probably easier to read the Department of Internal Affairs FAQs on the legislation.

“What does the new law say about how service providers should consider birth certificates as evidence of sex or gender?

The new legislation clarifies how birth certificates can be used as evidence of sex or gender. Where service providers need to determine someone’s sex or gender, other factors can be considered over and above the sex listed on a birth certificate. This reflects the fact that birth certificates are not intended to be considered evidence of a person’s identity (usually birth certificates are provided with other documents such as a driver licence or passports to prove identity).

What will self-identification mean for single sex spaces and activities such as changing rooms and sports teams?

The self-identification process should not affect how access to single sex spaces or sports is determined. Birth certificates are not usually used to determine a person’s right to access single sex services or spaces.

Organisations and individuals can continue to rely on their own policies rather than birth certificates. For example, it is still up to individual governing bodies to determine how sex and gender are determined in sport. It is also still up to individual schools to discuss with learners, parents, caregivers and whānau what name and gender learners use, regardless of the details on their birth certificates.”

So the gatekeeper is not legally obliged to regard the birth certificate as a document of fact. “Other factors can be considered” – such as the evidence of their own eyes. . .

Speak Up for Women should be congratulated for having those clauses added to the legislation. They have ensured that what we have now is self-sex ID in name only. In reality, it is toothless. So cunning that if you stuck a tail on it you’d call it a rat.

The trick will be letting people and organisations know they have this power.

But it is heartening to know that the new legislation is a win for the majority of New Zealanders who do not support self-sex ID. A recent poll undertaken by Curia Research on behalf of SUFW showed only 20 percent of New Zealanders supported changes to the BDMRR Act. Fifty six per cent did not and 24 per cent were unsure.

Not that MSM reported the Curia poll since it didn’t back their preferred narrative – that of vulnerable trans people being monstered by nasty feminists. Which makes the public rejection of this ideology all the more remarkable. Despite a virtual media blackout on stories critically examining gender ideology, when asked, the public said no to self-sex ID. Yet another win. A demonstration at least that a skewed media narrative has not won over the hoi polloi.

And although I am a journalist I find research confirming the declining faith in MSM also oddly cheering for it shows the public are not fooled. They know when they are being conned and are much smarter and savvier than MSM gives them credit for. I look forward to the day MSM registers this and aims for a diversity of views, not just identities.

In the meantime I hope the public checks out the news elsewhere and takes note of all the other wins in the war on women because it’s happening people, it’s happening. For instance the NHS has said it will no longer offer puberty blockers to children suffering from gender dysphoria joining Norway, Finland and Sweden in introducing greater safeguards for children. In the United States a growing number of states are banning affirmative care for individuals under 18. Also Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, issued a statement condemning the bullying and silencing of women who challenge gender ideology to defend their sex-based rights. Meanwhile many sports organisations are reviewing their trans and non-binary participation policies. British Cycling recently banned trans-identified males from women’s competitions,

Finally, and this is entirely personal, but I believe this issue has had the perverse effect of invigorating feminism. Before this ghastly iteration of misogyny emerged, feminism seemed to me, admittedly as a feckless follower, to be hijacked by a libfem interpretation of women’s rights. By that I mean fun feminists jumping on the me too bandwagon but at the same time championing sex work, kink and the sex positive movement, all of which struck me as a devious way of reframing and endorsing male abuse.

Call me a ridiculous optimist but I’m hoping that the injection of intellectual energy into feminism courtesy the sinister gender agenda, will prompt a re-evaluation of these issues. It’s been 20 years since the Prostitution Law Reform Act was passed in New Zealand. Let’s talk about that!

Dealing with the underclass – Michael Bassett :

https://www.downtoearth.kiwi/post/the-productivity-commission-s-poverty-inquiry-on-well-being-in-aotearoa-nz-misled-the-cabinet

Strategic approach to mining essential – Josie Vidal :

Almost everything we depend on every day is either made from minerals or relies on minerals for production and distribution,” Vidal says. “So, we can’t just ignore mining.

A green tech future will be reliant on more minerals being mined, including for the likes of electric vehicles, the batteries that operate them, and the electricity sourced to power those batteries.

It is clear we have viable mining opportunities within New Zealand’s territorial sea and exclusive economic zone to source critical minerals the world is after. We should be guided by research and science and be prepared to take some calculated risks to benefit from these.

The government don’t understand economics – Mike Hosking :

. . . It’s only Wednesday but already this week we have millions promised by people who have less than no money to solve the problems they created.

$5 million for ski fields, piles of millions for universities, millions more for food banks. Then there’s the welfare stats that show, on average, main beneficiaries have been getting, through a variety of mechanisms, a 9.6 percent rise in income each and every year for the term of this Government.

Economic lesson number one is you shouldn’t be spending money you don’t have, because that is debt. Our debt levels are troublesome and getting worse as interest rates rise.

The universities are short of students and they are short because of the border closures. Now they are open again we don’t appeal the way we used to and crime is part of that equation.

The Government argue it’s also because there is low unemployment so we don’t go to university. But we have low unemployment because the borders were closed, and now they’re open we don’t have the same appeal. Are you seeing a trend here?

The skiing should have been solved, because we have interested parties. But the process has been a mess and the Government has decided to step in twice, even though they said they wouldn’t. A new party, a Māori party, has shown interest.

This will most likely prove a game changer, hence the Government has bought time with more money.

There is more demand for food banks because we have a cost-of-living crisis. We have a cost-of-living crisis because the Government fire hosed the economy with money it didn’t have.

Too much money chased too few goods, so the price of everything went up. We then asked for pay rises to cover the price rises, we got them and then spent it, hence the prices went up some more because the cost of labour went up.

The welfare recipients who get a pay rise based on inflation got stonking amounts, for no other reason than inflation was through the roof because we had buggered the economy.

And round and round and round we go. . . 

The question is this – do those who have made this mess not get the basic economics?

Or worse – do they get them and they just don’t care? And are literally happy to take the country down with them?

Misogynistic thinking

Brendan O’Neill says the gender jihadists are out of control :

Trans activism is now little more than a witch-hunt of disobedient women. . .

TERFs, as they’re called, which literally means ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’, but which really means witch, bitch, scold, hag. Anyone who has witnessed a hardline trans activist spit out the word ‘TERF’ will be under no illusion as to the misogynistic menace that underpins that four-letter slur. Yet while there is concern over what happened in Glasgow, there isn’t as much public fury as one might expect. . .

Just as people try to shut down debate by calling anyone criticising race-based policies racist, the radical trans community tries to silence people standing up for women TERFs. Some might be trans-exclusionary but most are not.

Being pro-woman doesn’t make people anti-Trans.

Standing up for women’s rights doesn’t mean not respecting people’s choices to choose a gender that’s different from the sex with which they were born.

How have you missed the misogynistic bile that flows not only through that Glasgow demo you gladly attended, but also through so much of the trans lobby? How are you unaware that while ‘Decapitate TERFs’ might be a new one, there have been many explosions of violence-tinged fury with TERFs in recent years, both online and off? Not seeing two hateful placards is kind of forgivable – not seeing that trans activism now seems to consist of little more than angry men bellowing ‘witch’ in the faces of women who have the temerity to disagree with them is not.

We need to talk about the hatred for ‘TERFs’. It is out of control. It is the most vehement form of bigotry in the UK right now. Over the past few days, we haven’t only witnessed gender-deluded men in Glasgow saying ‘Decapitate TERFs’. We’ve also had Reduxx magazine reveal the identity of the Scottish trans activist – a man – who wrote despicable violent tweets about someone driving a car into one of Kellie-Jay Keen’s gatherings of gender-critical women, so that we might see TERFs ‘exploding like bin bags full of baked beans on your windshield’. The same gender jihadist spoke about murdering Rosie Duffield with a gun and JK Rowling with a hammer. . . 

A political party that harbours men who dream of battering women, and whose elected representatives are seen next to banners calling for women to be beheaded, and whose councillors compare women who defend their sex-based rights to the people who oversaw the industrial slaughter of Europe’s Jews has a very serious problem, doesn’t it?  . . .

Sexist hate is a daily reality for women who question the idea that you can change sex. Witness those clips in which mobs of masked men yell ‘fucking scum’ and ‘fucking piece of shit’ at Kellie-Jay Keen and her gender-critical friends. See the rape and death threats visited upon JK Rowling every week. ‘You are next’, a lowlife said to her when she expressed sorrow over the stabbing of Salman Rushdie. Or just behold the low-level intimidation that attends virtually every gathering of ‘TERFs’. There will always be gangs of men outside gender-critical meetings; men horrified by the idea of women speaking among themselves about their rights; men who ridiculously believe that their feeling of ‘womanhood’ and badly applied lippy makes them women, too. Better women, in fact. As India Willoughby tweeted at the weekend, ‘I’m more of a woman than JK Rowling will ever be’. That’s misogyny, too. The idea that a man – yes, India’s a bloke – even does womanhood better than women is testament to the low view of womankind that’s been whipped up by the trans cult.

Any movement that attracts so many bigots really should have a word with itself. Any activist set that helps to make it fashionable again to call women witches really should engage in some self-reflection. For here’s the thing: while it might be the outliers of the trans cult who scream witch and issue death threats and say ‘suck my girldick’, their tirades only express with greater ferocity and spite the misogyny that is inherent to modern trans activism. The root idea of the contemporary trans movement – that ‘transwomen are women’ – is itself misogynistic. Its reduction of womanhood from a biological, social, relational phenomenon to a costume that anyone can pull on, even people with dicks, is profoundly sexist. It dehumanises women. It denies the specificity of their experiences. It turns womanhood into a feeling, something flimsy. So, yes, in saying that all it takes to become a woman is three months of wearing a dress, Sturgeon is contributing to the misogyny that motors 21st-century gender ideology.

This is the madness that allows men found guilty of rape to be housed in women’s prisons; that allows people born male into what ought to be safe spaces for women survivors of sexual abuse and less seriously, but just as wrong, to allow people born male to compete in women’s sports.

The mantra ‘transwomen are women’ underpins the resurgence of misogynistic thinking. There is a traceable line from this mainstream chant to the fringe cries of ‘cunt’ aimed at any woman who says transwomen are not women; that there’s more to being a woman than feeling and image. The violent hatred for ‘TERFs’ might mostly come from unstable individuals online, but it expresses the sexism and intolerance that are absolutely key to trans activism more broadly, and in particular to its belief that a man can be a woman. We need a firmer fightback against the hatred for ‘TERFs’ and in defence of the things that are threatened by this new witch-hunt – women’s rights, freedom of speech and scientific truth.

Apropos of this, Mark Dolan asks: when did standing up for women and their sex-based rights make you a bad person? *

Insisting that people born male can be women ignores biology and science.

Insisting that trans women are women and have the right to be in spaces that until now have been the preserve of women born female, and to compete in sport only with women born female is misogynistic thinking that takes women’s rights back decades, possibly centuries.

The radical trans movement is trying to cancel women, shows no respect for them and is simply misogyny masquerading as a rights-based movement that is wrong.

Hat tip: Inquiring Mind

There used to be a word

There used to be a word for adult human females.

Man: no definition needed.
Non-man (formerly known as woman):
a being definable only by reference to the male. An absence, a vacuum where there's no man-ness. pic.twitter.com/cpSaSR2Vfg

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 13, 2023

This isn’t tolerance of gender dysphoria it’s misogamy, as a lot of trans activism is.

Changing language to change world

Abigail Shrier writes that one of the first acts of the USA’s new House of Representatives could be to cancel mothers:

On Sunday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic majority proposed to eliminate “father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister” and all other language deemed insufficiently “gender-inclusive” from House rules. They would be ­replaced with terms like “parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling” and so on.

“Mother” — among the most important concepts in human life — would be erased from the lexicon of the US House of Representatives. It’s important to recognize how radical this is. And no, it isn’t akin to updating federal law to replace “policeman” with “police officer,” a rational corrective sought by feminists for generations. . . 

Those changes were to reflect fact that jobs weren’t the preserve of one gender. That’s very different from trying to eliminate biological reality.

But “mother” is a fundamental biological, emotional, familial reality. It captures the irreplaceable bond between a baby and the woman who bore her in her womb. That others can be excellent guardians — a fact no one disputes — can’t justify extirpating Mom from our vocabulary. (For that matter, the political erasure of “dad” is also dehumanizing, because it ­entails the loss of our capacity to describe relationships that define what it means to be fully human.)

House Democrats don’t pretend to seek this change merely for the sake of “streamlining” congressional language. The explicit point is to advance “inclusion and diversity” and to “honor all gender identities.” Pelosi & Co. are desperate to accommodate an ­aggressive gender ideology that ­insists “man” and “woman” are fuzzy, subjective categories, rather than biological ones.

This desperation for acceptance and inclusion ironically doesn’t include and has no tolerance for those who maintain that there is an important difference between biological sex and what some people might choose for their gender.

Remember the trouble that J.K. Rowling got into when she tweeted ?

‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud? 

She was labeled a TERF (a trans-exclusionary radical feminist); people burned her books and called for her publisher to blacklist her.

And if you think that’s mad, what about this? (back to Abigail Shrier):

Lest you think this a harmless alteration, consider the ways California’s Democrats have run wild with Newspeak. As Quillette reported last week, California’s insurance commissioner has ­issued a directive to reclassify double mastectomies of healthy breasts from “cosmetic” procedures to “reconstructive,” necessary to “correct or repair the abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects.”

You read that right: The “congenital defect” is a young woman’s healthy breasts, provided that young woman subjectively identifies as “nonbinary” or anything other than “woman.”

It matters what we call things in the public space: Just ask the ­female prisoners now housed with violent biological men in California if our lawmakers’ words matter. This lie — that a girl’s breasts constitute “developmental abnormalities” depending on her subjective state of mind — carries the result that female patients of all ages would suddenly become eligible for insurance coverage for double mastectomies. A small change in language grants doctors the green light to remove the normal, developing breasts of an 11-year old girl. Still just words?

By all means, call people what they prefer. But language in the law, by definition, ushers words into action. Words grant rights or take them away. Words can enhance or diminish status, placing people and concepts beyond the bounds of legal protection. . .

If “mother” is now a useless concept under House rules, why shouldn’t it pose an equally offensive presence in federal law?

That’s where we’re headed, isn’t it? Erasing “mothers,” and “women,” because the concepts are insufficiently inclusive to gender ideologues. The rights women struggled to win become undone, paradoxically, in the name of ­inclusion.

The female body loses its significance in language and in law: no need for doctors to regard the healthy breasts of young girls as anything more than noxious lumps. The dystopian threat to individuality lies in this: Without mother and father, we all become atomized and fungible, losing our true individuality.

Those pressing for these changes do so precisely because they know there is no more effective means of upending society than by deleting the women and the natural bonds that make society possible. Congressional Democrats move us, by Orwellian fiat, one step closer to a sterile world with sterile words. We shapeless humans — fungible as pennies — are left to await further instruction.

The cancelling of gender specific terms for family members is an extension of the idea that those who have undergone puberty as males can compete equally and fairly in sports with those born female. Or as the proponents of this madness would say, that trans women are women.

In doing so they are blind to biological differences and the fact that whatever drugs and surgery do to change gender, nothing can make someone born a boy a natal woman, regardless of what he, she, or whatever other pronoun is chosen, identifies as and what words are used to denote that identity.

People who want a different gender from the sex assigned to them at birth face many hurdles and often are victims of discrimination. But accepting some people born boys can be trans women and some born girls can be trans men, that this isn’t always easy for them and they have rights, doesn’t mean we have to disregard biological facts, cancel family labels and undo progress that came from decades of activism to give women equality and safety.

Nor does it mean that those who speak out against this are transphobic.

As J.K. Rowling wrote in defending her tweet:

. . . It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating. . .

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth. . . 

I have met only a couple of trans-women and enjoyed the company of both. I accept that some people aren’t comfortable with the sex assigned at their births, have the right to change their gender and not face discrimination because of that.

I don’t accept changing language to to deny biological reality.

People wanting social change use language to advance their agenda.

That can be sensible, for example changing gendered job titles to those that are gender neutral for occupations done by men and women. It can be good, for example changing offensive labels to ones that aren’t.

But it can also be political manipulation – changing the language to in a misguided attempt to change the world.

This linguistic trickery of cancelling family titles and denying biological reality is many radical and dangerous steps too far.

Which century is he in?

Quote of the day:

“If a woman drives a car, not out of pure necessity, that could have negative physiological impacts as functional and physiological medical studies show that it automatically affects the ovaries and pushes the pelvis upwards,” he told Sabq.

“That is why we find those who regularly drive have children with clinical problems of varying degrees,” he said.

No specific medical studies were cited to support his arguments. – Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al-Lohaidan

He was reacting to a campaign by Saudi women who want to overturn the ban on them driving.

Ministry’s role not to narrow choice

Among John Armstrong’s awards for the year is:

The Tammy Wynette “Stand by your Man” Award: Pansy Wong for demonstrating what she really thought of her former role as Minister of Women’s Affairs by putting her husband, Sammy, first, her career second

 Armstrong misunderstands the role of the Ministry. It’s not there to narrow choices for women but broaden them.

Its website says:

The Ministry of Women’s Affairs is the Government’s source of advice on issues relevant to advancing the well-being of women. This encompasses women having real choices and using their strengths to maximise social and economic success.  

There is a perception, which I think Armstrong illustrates, that women who choose to put family before a career are somehow letting themselves, and other women down.

But if  the Ministry’s actions match its words it will not be prising open the door to new roles and opportunities for women with one hand while slamming shut the door to traditional ones with the other.

I regard the Ministry as one of the low hanging fruit which could be picked to reduce the red in the government’s books. But if it is successful in its aim to help women have real choices, the Ministry will acknowledge and be equally supportive of those who choose to put family before a career as those who don’t.

How free are they?

We were wandering round Duomo Plaza in shorts and short-sleeved shirts appropriate to the mid summer temperatures when we noticed three women encased head to foot in black robes with only their eyes peeping out.

“How awful to have to dress like that,” one said.

“It’s their choice,” another replied.

But is it? Do the women who wear these all-enveloping clothes freely choose to do so?

Even if they do, what does it say about the attitude of their men, if a glimpse of flesh is regarded as obscene or an incitement to lust?

And what happens to women who choose to dress in less concealing clothes?

When the law follows the religious dogma, they risk punishment. Lubna Ahmed Al-Hussein, a Sudanese journalist faces 40 lashes because she wore trousers to a restaurant.

She could claim UN immunity but she wants to be tried in the hope of proving there is nothing in the Koran which makes it wrong to dress as she did.

She’s not alone. The Arab Network for Human Rights Information is backing her.

ANHRI calls on “all human rights NGOs interested in freedom of expression and women’s rights to back up Lubna and make efforts to stop this charade trial that violates all international treaties defending freedom of expression and women’s rights asserting that the Sudanese government persecutes antagonists in every possible way and would not refrain from using the worst laws and practices.”

The women of Vejer de la Frontera in southern Spain used to have to wear the cobijada.

 

It wasn’t a desire to give women more freedom which led to it being banned, it was security issues. During the Civil War in the late 1930s, men used the cobijada to disguise themselves and conceal weapons so it was outlawed.

Sacked for refusing to walk behind men & wear abaya

A British stewardess, Lisa Ashton, was sacked when she refused to fly to Suadi Arabia after being told she’d have to walk behind her male colleagues and wear the traditional black robe, an abaya.

Saudi experts and companies that recruit women to work in the country say it is a “myth” that western women are required to walk behind men. There is no requirement for them to wear the abaya in public, though many do.

Earlier this year an employment tribunal in Manchester ruled that BMI was justified in imposing “rules of a different culture” on staff and cleared it of sexual discrimination. Ashton has consulted Liberty, the human rights organisation, and may seek a judicial review of the decision.

What you do when your beliefs clash with those which  are acceptable in another country isn’t always simple but if this is reported correctly it does appear the airline was asking more of its employees than would be expected in Saudi Arabia.

The idea of any individual or group of people being required to walk behind another offends me and I struggle with the whole concept of the cover-all clothing which some Muslim women are expected to wear.

Some say it’s their choice but I wonder if it’s a free choice.

Fears of terrorism have declined a bit, but if there was another mass attack such as the September 9th ones in the USA or the bus and underground bombings in London authorities might look again at the security implications of voluminous robes.

That’s what put an end to the women of Vejer de la Frontera wearing the cobijaba.

 

It was common of women of the village to wear this until the Civil War when suspicion that men were disguising themselves as women by wearing the all-concealing black robe and hiding arms under it led to it being banned.

P.S. Stargazer has a related post on religion and gender equality  at the Hand Mirror.

Equal rights vs equality

The Research NZ survey  has generated debate at No Minister  and The Hand Mirror  over equal rights and equality and a post on the issue at No Right Turn.

The discussion reminded me of this Garrick Tremain cartoon which I cut out of the ODT several years ago.

My memory of what prompted the cartoon is a little vague but it had something to do with whether women would be admitted as members.

I don’t know what the upshot was then but am fairly certain membership is open to women now.