On 23 September, Speak Up For Women announced that we would be holding an event at the Massey University Theaterette. The event is called Feminism 2020. The intention of the event is to discuss the future of feminism. What are the big issues on the horizon for the women’s liberation movement to focus on? What can women look forward to in the future? The response to an announcement that a group of women were going to discuss their own liberation movement was drearily predictable: a partnership of liberal organisations took action to shut down the conversation before it had started. Misinformation The usual dishonest pretexts were rolled out: according to ActionStation, one of the countries largest activist networks, discussing women’s rights would “harm the trans community”. One trans-activist organisation called us “anti-trans extremists”. The term hate speech has been applied liberally. Even Massey University itself has publicly said that it does not share any of our views. We have asked Massey University which of our views it disagrees with. We have had no response. In a media environment hostile to feminists speaking for themselves, we’ve been told that we oppose transgender people playing in sports; that our members are responsible for trans people killing themselves; that we are funded by powerful, right-wing Christian organisations. This Misinformation Is Dangerous Similar fear-mongering has resulted in attacks on women’s meetings, such as the mob that attacked the meeting of A Woman’s Place UK on September 23. So What Are The Facts? Feminism 2020 will be a discussion of feminism led by women and open to all. Everyone, except those seeking to disrupt the event or who pose a threat to the security and safety of those attending. Like all “uppity women,” Speak Up For Women have received threats for simply daring to quite literally speak up for women. Threats will not deter us. The phenomenon of gender identity will no doubt be discussed, along with other issues pertinent to women’s lives. We will talk about that which effects the lives of women. Do You Hate Trans People? No. We support the rights of transgender people to live their lives free from violence and discrimination. Do You Engage In Hate Speech? We have published large amounts of content on our website. We encourage you to look over it for yourself: we speak openly and honestly. You’ll find nothing that meets a reasonable definition of “hate speech”. Are You A Hate Group? No. We are a non-partisan organisation that exists to protect and advance the rights and interests of women and girls in New Zealand. Speak Up For Women formed in 2018 in opposition to the government’s sex self-ID proposals in the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill. Our campaign platform – that there was inadequate public consultation, and the Bill risked unintended consequences for women’s sex-based rights – was ultimately accepted by Minister Martin after taking legal advice, and the proposal was withdrawn. We are a diverse group of ordinary New Zealanders including teachers, academics, health professionals, care workers, activists, lawyers and students with a shared interest in the rights of women and girls. Are You “Trans Exclusive” No. We have never refused to talk with people because they are trans. We have never excluded anyone from our organisation or our meetings because they are trans. We have never kicked anyone from our Facebook page because they are trans. We speak regularly with trans people, some who share our views on women’s rights, and some who oppose them. Our meeting is open to anyone who wishes to attend without threatening people or disrupting the event. We would like you to come along and listen to us talk. Maybe even say hello to us personally after the talks have ended. We don’t have to agree on everything. But we should agree on this: If you want to disagree with an idea or a belief, then you should have a good understanding of that idea or belief first. #MasseyUniversity #ActionStation #hatespeech #Petition #feminism2020 #ActionStationPetition

Speak Up For Women spokeswoman Ani talks to Sean Plunket on Magic Talk about Action Station petition to deplatform Speak Up For Women from speaking at Massey University. http://speakupforwomen.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Ani-on-Magic-3-Oct-2019.m4a Share this post Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on EmailShare on LinkedIn

Sean Plunket invited Speak Up For Women to join him on Magic Talk to discuss the Wellbeing Budget and in particular the $3million set aside for gender reassignment surgeries over the next 4 years.http://speakupforwomen.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Wellbeing-Budget-Interview-with-Sean-Plunket.m4a

SIGN DECLARATION Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights On the re-affirmation of women’s sex-based rights, including women’s rights to physical and reproductive integrity, and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and girls that result from the replacement of the category of sex with that of ‘gender identity’, and from ‘surrogate’ motherhood and related practices. Introduction This Declaration reaffirms the sex-based rights of women which are set out in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 1979 (CEDAW), further developed in the CEDAW Committee General Recommendations, and adopted, inter alia, in the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women 1993 (UNDEVW). Article 1 of the CEDAW defines discrimination against women to mean, “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.’’ Sex is defined by the United Nations as “the physical and biological characteristics that distinguish males from females.’’ (Gender Equality Glossary, UN Women) The CEDAW places obligations on States Parties to ‘‘take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women.’’ (Article 2 (f)); and to take, in all fields, “appropriate measures, including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men.’’ (Article 3). It has long been understood in the area of human rights that the stereotyped sex roles of men and women are a fundamental aspect of women’s inequality and must be eliminated. ​Article 5 of the CEDAW states, “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures: To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.’’ ​Gender refers to “the roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society at a given time considers appropriate for men and women… These attributes, opportunities and relationships are socially constructed and are learned through socialization processes.’’ (Gender Equality Glossary, UN Women). Recent changes replacing references to the category of sex, which is biological, with the language of ’gender’, which refers to stereotyped sex roles, in United Nations documents, strategies, and actions, has led to confusion which ultimately risks undermining the protection of women’s human rights. The confusion between sex and ‘gender’ has contributed to the increasing acceptability of the idea of innate ‘gender identities’, and has led to the promotion of a right to the protection of such ‘identities’, ultimately leading to the erosion of the gains made by women over decades. Women’s rights, which have been achieved on the basis of sex, are now being undermined by the incorporation into international documents of concepts such as ’gender identity’ and ‘Sexual Orientations and Gender Identities (SOGIES)’. Sexual orientation rights are necessary in eliminating discrimination against those who are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. Rights relating to sexual orientation are compatible with women’s sex-based rights, and are necessary to enable lesbians, whose sexual orientation is towards other women, to fully exercise their sex-based rights. However, the concept of ‘gender identity’ makes socially constructed stereotypes, which organize and maintain women’s inequality, into essential and innate conditions, thereby undermining women’s sex-based rights. For example, the Yogyakarta Principles state that, “Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.’’ (Yogyakarta Principles: Principles on the application of internationals human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, March 2007). The right of individuals to dress and present themselves as they choose is compatible with women’s sex-based rights. However, the concept of ‘gender identity’ has enabled men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ to assert, in law, policies, and practice, that they are members of the category of women, which is a category based upon sex. The CEDAW General Recommendation No. 35 notes that, “General recommendation No. 28 on the core obligations of States parties under article 2 of the Convention as well as general recommendation No. 33 on women’s access to justice confirms that discrimination against women is inextricably linked to other factors that affect their lives. The Committee’s jurisprudence highlights that these may include…being lesbian.” (II, 12). The concept of ‘gender identity’ is used to challenge individuals’ rights to define their sexual orientation on the basis of sex rather than ‘gender identity’, enabling men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ to seek to be included in the category of lesbian, which is a category based upon sex. This undermines the sex-based rights of lesbians, and is a form of discrimination against women. Some men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ seek to be included in the legal category of mother. The CEDAW emphasises maternal rights and the “social significance of maternity’’. Maternal rights and services are based on women’s unique capacity to gestate and give birth to children. The inclusion of men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ within the legal category of mother erodes the social significance of maternity, and undermines the maternal rights for which the CEDAW provides. The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995) states that, “The explicit recognition and reaffirmation of the right of all women to control all aspects of their health, in particular their own fertility, is basic to their empowerment’’. (Annex 1, 17) This right is undermined by the use of ‘surrogate’ motherhood, which exploits and commodifies women’s reproductive capacity. The exploitation and commodification of women’s reproductive capacity also underpins medical research which is aimed at enabling men to gestate and give birth to children.  The inclusion of men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ within the legal categories of woman, of lesbian, and of mother threatens to remove all meaning from these categories, as it constitutes a denial of the biological realities on which the status of being a woman, being a lesbian, and being a mother are based. Organizations that promote the concept of ‘gender identity’ challenge the right of women and girls to define themselves on the basis of sex, and to assemble and organize on the basis of their common interests as a sex. This includes challenging the rights of lesbians to define their sexual orientation on the basis of sex rather than ‘gender identity’, and to assemble and organize on the basis of their common sexual orientation. In many countries state agencies, public bodies and private organizations are attempting to compel persons to identify and refer to individuals on the basis of ‘gender identity’ rather than sex. These developments constitute forms of discrimination against women, and undermine women’s rights to freedom of expression, freedom of belief, and freedom of assembly. Men who claim a female ’gender identity’ are being enabled to access opportunities and protections set aside for women. This constitutes a form of discrimination against women, and endangers women’s fundamental rights to safety, dignity and equality. Article 7 of the CEDAW affirms the importance of measures to eliminate discrimination against women in political and public life, and Article 4 affirms the importance of temporary special measures to accelerate de facto equality between men and women. When men claiming female ‘gender identities’ are admitted to women’s participation quotas and other special measures designed to increase women’s participation in political and public life, the purpose of such special measures in achieving equality for women is undermined. Article 10 (g) of the CEDAW calls on States Parties to ensure that women have the same opportunities as men to participate actively in sports and physical education. Due to the physiological differences between women and men, the exercise of this right by women requires that certain sporting activities are single-sex. When men claiming female ‘gender identities’ are enabled to participate in women’s single-sex sporting activities, women are placed at an unfair competitive disadvantage, and may be placed at increased risk of physical injury. This undermines women’s and girls’ ability to have the same opportunities as men to participate in sports, and therefore constitutes a form of discrimination against women and girls, which should be eliminated.​ It has long been understood in the area of human rights that violence against women and girls is universally endemic, and is one of the crucial social mechanism by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men. The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women recognizes that, “Violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men.’’ This domination and discrimination is based on sex and not on ‘gender identity’. The conflation of the category of sex with the category of ‘gender identity’ hinders the protection of women and girls from violence perpetrated against them by men and boys. It increasingly enables men who consider that they have a female ‘gender identity’ to claim access to female single sex victim support services and spaces, as both service users and as service providers. This includes specialist single-sex provisions for women and girls who have been subject to violence, such as shelters and health care facilities. It also includes other services in which single-sex provision is crucial to the promotion of the physical safety, health, privacy, and dignity of women and girls. The presence of men in female single-sex spaces and services undermines the role of these services in protecting women and girls, and could make women and girls vulnerable to violent men who may claim a female ‘gender identity’. The CEDAW Committee in its General Recommendation 35 underlines the importance of collecting data and compiling statistics relating to the prevalence of different forms of violence against women in relation to developing effective measures to prevent and redress such violence. “Sex-disaggregated data is data that is cross-classified by sex, presenting information separately for men and women, boys and girls. Sex-disaggregated data reflect roles, real situations, general conditions of women and men, girls and boys in every aspect of society. … When data is not disaggregated by sex, it is more difficult to identify real and potential inequalities.’’ (UN Women, Gender Equality Glossary). The conflation of sex with ‘gender identity’ leads to the collection of data on violence against women and girls which is inaccurate and misleading because it identifies perpetrators of violence on the basis of their ‘gender identity’ rather than their sex. This creates a significant impediment to the development of effective laws, policies, strategies and actions aimed at the elimination of violence against women and girls. The concept of ‘gender identity’ is increasingly used to ‘gender reassign’  children who do not conform to sex stereotypes, or who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Medical interventions that carry a high risk of long-term adverse consequences on the physical or psychological health of a child, such as the use of puberty suppressing hormones, cross-sex hormones, and surgery, are used on children who are not developmentally competent to give full, free and informed consent. Such medical interventions can cause a range of permanent adverse physical health effects, including sterility, as well as negative effects on psychological health. Preamble Recalling the commitment to the equal rights and inherent human dignity of women and men and other purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence (“Istanbul Convention’’), the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (“Maputo Protocol’’), and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (“Belem do Para Convention’’). Re-affirming a commitment to ensuring the full implementation of the human rights of women and of girls as an inalienable, integral and indivisible part of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Acknowledging the consensus and progress made at previous United Nations world conferences and summits, including the International Women’s Year in Mexico City in 1975, the United Nations Decade for Women in Copenhagen in 1980, the United Nations Decade for Women in Nairobi in 1985, the World Summit on Children in New York in 1990, the Earth Summit on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993, the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, the World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995, and the World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995,  with the objective of achieving equality, development and peace. ​Recognising that in the first decades of the United Nations human rights approach there was a clear understanding that discrimination against women was based upon sex. Noting that United Nations human rights agreements, policies, strategies, actions and documents recognize that sex role stereotypes, now more commonly called ‘gender stereotypes’, are harmful to women and girls. Recognising that the clear concept of sex role stereotyping has now been confused through the use of the language of gender. Concerned that the concept of ‘gender identity’, has been incorporated into many influential, but non-binding, international human rights documents. Noting that use of the language of ‘gender’ rather than sex, has enabled the development of a concept of ‘gender identity’ in which sex stereotypes are seen as innate and essential, which in turn has formed the basis of an erosion of the gains in women’s and girls’ human rights. Concerned that men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ assert in law, policies and practice that they are members of the category of women, and that this results in the erosion of the human rights of women. Concerned that men who claim a female ’gender identity’ assert in law, policies and practice that sexual orientation is based upon ‘gender identity’ rather than sex, and seek to be included in the category of lesbian; and that this results in the erosion of the sex-based human rights of lesbians. Concerned that some men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ make claims to be included in the legal category of mother in law, policies and practice, and that such inclusion erodes the social significance of maternity, and undermines maternal rights. Concerned at the exploitation and commodification of women’s reproductive capacity which underpins ‘surrogate’ motherhood. Concerned at the exploitation and commodification of women’s reproductive capacity which underpins medical research aimed at enabling men to gestate and give birth to children. Concerned that organizations that promote the concept of ‘gender identity’ attempt to limit the right to hold and express opinions about ‘gender identity’ by promoting attempts by state agencies, public bodies and private organizations to use sanctions and punishment to compel persons to identify individuals on the basis of ‘gender identity’ rather than sex. Concerned that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is used to undermine the right of women and girls to assemble and associate as women and girls based upon their sex, and without including men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’. Concerned that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is used to undermine the right of lesbians to define their sexual orientation on the basis of sex, and to assemble and associate on the basis of their common sexual orientation, and without including men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’. Concerned that the inclusion of men and boys who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ into competitions and prizes set aside for women and girls, including competitive sports and scholarships, constitutes discrimination against women and girls. Concerned that the conflation of sex and ‘gender identity’ is leading to the recording of inaccurate and misleading data used when planning for laws, policies and actions relating to employment, equal pay, political participation, and distribution of state funds, inter alia, thereby hindering effective measures aimed at eliminating all forms of discrimination against women and girls, and at promoting the advancement of women and girls in society. Concerned that policies based on the concept of ‘gender identity’ are being used by state agencies, public bodies and private organizations in ways which threaten the survival of women only service provisions, including victim support and health care services. Concerned that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is used to justify the intrusion of men and boys into single-sex spaces aimed at protecting the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls, and at supporting women and girls who have been subject to violence. Concerned that the conflation of sex and ‘gender identity’ is leading to the recording of inaccurate and misleading data about violence against women and girls, thereby hindering the development of effective measures aimed at eliminating such violence. Concerned that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is used to obscure the sex of perpetrators of sex-specific crimes, such as rape and other sexual offences, thereby hindering effective measures aimed at reducing such crimes. Concerned that the erasure of sex-specific actions, strategies and policies for women and girls will undermine decades of United Nations work to recognize the importance of women only services in disaster zones, refugee camps, and prisons, and in any context where the use of mixed-sex facilities would be a threat to the safety, dignity and protection of women and girls, and particularly vulnerable women and girls. Emphasising that the concept of ‘gender identity’ was developed specifically out of a body of postmodern and ‘queer theory’ in the West and is being disseminated through powerful organizations internationally, including in countries where the term ‘gender’ does not exist in local languages and cannot easily be understood. Recognising that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that, for the purposes of the Convention, a child is every human being below the age of 18 years; and that the Declaration of the Rights of the Child 1959 states that, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection.’’ Recognising that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 3) states that, in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Noting that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is increasingly used to ‘gender reassign’ children who do not conform to sex role stereotypes or who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and that medical interventions that carry a high risk of long-term adverse consequences on the physical and psychological health of a child, such as the use of puberty suppressing hormones, cross-sex hormones, and surgery are used on children. Children are not developmentally competent to give full, free and informed consent to such interventions, which may lead to permanent adverse consequences, including sterility. Recognising that the use of puberty supressing drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgery on children are emerging harmful practices as defined by Part V of the Joint General Recommendation No. 31 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women/General Comment No. 18 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on harmful practices. Noting that the use of puberty supressing drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgery on children meet the four criteria for determining harmful practices in that: (a) These practices constitute a denial of the dignity and integrity of the individual child and a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the two Conventions, in that they involve medical interventions that carry a high risk of long-term adverse consequences on the physical and psychological health of children who are not developmentally competent to give full, free and informed consent to such medical interventions. (b) These practices constitute discrimination against children and are harmful in so far is they result in negative consequences for them as individuals, including physical, psychological, economic or social harm and/or violence and limitations on their capacity to participate fully in society or develop and reach their true potential. Such negative consequences may include long-term physical and psychological health problems, permanent adverse health consequences such as sterility, and long-term dependence on pharmaceutical products such as synthetic hormones. (c) These are emerging practices that are prescribed or kept in place by social norms that perpetuate male dominance and inequality of women and children, on the basis of sex, gender, age and other intersecting factors, in that they arise from a concept of ‘gender identity’ which is based upon sex role stereotypes. (d) These practices are imposed on children by family members, community members or society at large, regardless of whether the victim provides, or is able to provide, full, free and informed consent. Concerned that some non-binding international documents claim that children have innate ‘gender identities’ which require protection under Article 8 of the UNCRC in the same way as national identity, as a matter of the child’s human rights. This claim is based on the assertion that children are born ‘transgender’, for which there is no objective scientific evidence. Article 1 Reaffirming that the rights of women are based upon the category of sex States should maintain the centrality of the category of sex, and not ‘gender identity’, in relation to women’s and girls’ right to be free from discrimination. (a) For the purposes of this Declaration, the term “discrimination against women’’ shall mean “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field’’. (CEDAW, Article 1). States should understand that the inclusion of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ into the category of women in law, policies and practice constitutes discrimination against women by impairing the recognition of women’s sex-based human rights. States should understand that the inclusion of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ in the category of women results in their inclusion in the category of lesbian, which constitutes a form of discrimination against women by impairing the recognition of the sex-based human rights of lesbians. (b) States ‘‘shall take in all fields, in particular in the political, social, economic and cultural fields, all appropriate measures, including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men’’. (CEDAW, Article 3). This should include the retention in law, policies and practice of the category of woman to mean adult human female, the category of lesbian to mean an adult  human female whose sexual orientation is towards other adult human females, and the category of mother to mean a female parent; and the exclusion of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ from these categories. (a) States should “condemn discrimination against women in all its forms, agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women’’. (CEDAW, Article 2). This should include the elimination of that act and practice of discrimination against women which comprises the inclusion of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ in the category of women. Such inclusion erodes women’s rights to safety, dignity and equality. (d) States should ensure that the words ‘woman’, the word ‘girl’, and the terms traditionally used to refer to women’s body parts and bodily functions on the basis of sex continue to be those used in constitutional acts, legislation, in the provision of services, and in policy documents when referring to persons of the female sex. The meaning of the word ‘woman’ shall not be changed to include men. Article 2 Reaffirming the nature of motherhood as an exclusively female status (a) The CEDAW emphasises the “social significance of maternity’’, and Article 12 (2) states that ‘‘States Parties shall ensure to women the appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period’’. (b) Maternal rights and services are based on women’s unique capacity to gestate and give birth to children. The physical and biological characteristics that distinguish males and females mean that women’s reproductive capacity cannot be shared by men who claim a female ‘gender identity’. States should understand that the inclusion of men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ into the legal category of mother in law, policies and practice, and the corresponding inclusion of women who claim a male ‘gender identity’ into the category of father, constitute discrimination against women by seeking to eliminate women’s unique status and sex-based rights as mothers. (c) States should ensure that the word ‘mother’, and other words traditionally used to refer to women’s reproductive capacities on the basis of sex, continue to be used in constitutional acts, legislation, in the provision of maternal services, and in policy documents when referring to mothers and motherhood. The meaning of the word ‘mother’ shall not be changed to include men. Article 3 Reaffirming the rights of women and girls to physical and reproductive integrity (a) States should ensure that the full reproductive rights of women and girls, and unhindered access to comprehensive reproductive services, are upheld. (b) States should recognize that harmful practices such as forced pregnancies, and the commercial or altruistic exploitation of women’s reproductive capacities involved in ‘surrogate’ motherhood, are violations of the physical and reproductive integrity of girls and women, and are to be eliminated as forms of sex-based discrimination. (c) States should recognize that medical research which is aimed at enabling men to gestate and give birth to children is a violation of the physical and reproductive integrity of girls and women, and is to be eliminated as a form of sex-based discrimination. Article 4 Reaffirming women’s rights to freedom of opinion and freedom of expression (a) States should ensure that women have the right to “hold opinions without interference’’. (ICCPR, Article 19 (1)). This should include the right to hold and express opinions about ‘gender identity’ without being subject to harassment, prosecution or punishment. (b) States should uphold women’s right to freedom of expression, including the  “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media’’. (ICCPR, Article 19 (2)). This should include the freedom to communicate ideas about ‘gender identity’ without being subject to harassment, prosecution or punishment. (c) States should uphold the right of everyone to describe others on the basis of their sex rather than their ‘gender identity’, in all contexts. States should  recognize that attempts by state agencies, public bodies and private organizations to compel individuals to use terms related to ‘gender identity’ rather than sex are a form of discrimination against women, and shall take measures to eliminate this form of discrimination. (d) States should prohibit any form of sanctioning, prosecution or punishment of persons who reject attempts to compel them to identify others on the basis of ‘gender identity’ rather than sex. Article 5 Reaffirming women’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association States should uphold women’s rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others. (ICCPR, Articles 21 and 22). This should include the right of women and girls to assemble and associate as women or girls based upon their sex, and the rights of lesbians to assemble and associate on the basis of their common sexual orientation, without including men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’. Article 6 Reaffirming women’s rights to political participation on the basis of sex (a) States “shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country’’. (CEDAW, Article 7). This should include forms of discrimination against women which consist of the inclusion in the category of women of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’. All measures taken specifically to improve women’s access to voting rights, eligibility for election, participation in the formulation of government policy and its implementation, the holding of public office, performance of all public functions, and participation in non-governmental organizations and associations concerned with public and political life, should be based upon sex and not discriminate against women by the inclusion of men who claim to have  female ‘gender identities’. (b) States should ensure that the ‘‘Adoption by States Parties of temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women’’ (CEDAW Article 4) shall apply only to persons of the female sex and shall not discriminate against women through the inclusion of men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’. Article 7 Reaffirming women’s rights to the same opportunities as men to participate actively in sports and physical education Article 10 (g) of the CEDAW provides that States Parties shall ensure ‘‘[t]he same Opportunities to participate actively in sports and physical education’’ for girls and women as for boys and men. This should include the provision of opportunities for girls and women to participate in sports and physical education on a single-sex basis. To ensure fairness and safety for women and girls, the entry of boys and men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’ into teams, competitions, facilities, or changing rooms, inter alia, set aside for women and girls should be prohibited as a form of sex discrimination. Article 8 Reaffirming the need for the elimination of violence against women (a) States should ‘‘[w]ork to ensure, to the maximum extent feasible in the light of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international cooperation, that women subjected to violence and, where appropriate, their children have specialized assistance, such as rehabilitation, assistance in child care and maintenance, treatment, counselling, and health and social services, facilities and programmes, as well as support structures, and should take all other appropriate measures to promote their safety and physical and psychological rehabilitation.’’ (UNDEVW, Article 4 (g)). These measures should include the provision of single-sex services and physical spaces for women and girls to provide them with safety, privacy, and dignity. Whether provided by public or private entities, such single sex provisions should be allocated on the basis of sex and not ‘gender identity’, and should be staffed by women on the basis of their sex and not ‘gender identity’. (b) Single sex provision should include, inter alia, specialized services for women and girls subject to violence, such as rape support services, specialist health facilities, specialist police investigation facilities, and shelters for women and children fleeing domestic abuse or other violence. It should also include all other services within which single sex provisions promote the physical safety, privacy, and dignity of women and girls. These include prisons, health services and hospital wards, substance misuse rehabilitation centres, accommodation for the homeless, toilets, showers and changing rooms, and any other enclosed space where individuals reside or may be in a state of undress. Single sex facilities designed to meet the needs of women and girls should be at least equal in availability and quality to those provided to men and boys. These facilities should not include men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’. (c) States should “[p]romote research, collect data and compile statistics, especially concerning domestic violence, relating to the prevalence of different forms of violence against women and encourage research on the causes, nature, seriousness and consequences of violence against women and on the effectiveness of measures implemented to prevent and redress violence against women; those statistics and findings of the research will be made public.’’ (UNDEVW, Article 4 (k)). This should include recognition that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women as a sex are forced into a subordinate position compared with men as a sex, and that accurate research and data collection relating to violence against women and girls requires that the identification of both the perpetrators and victims of such violence must be based on sex and not ‘gender identity’. “Sex-disaggregated data is data that is cross-classified by sex, presenting information separately for men and women, boys and girls. Sex-disaggregated data reflect roles, real situations, general conditions of women and men, girls and boys in every aspect of society. … When data is not disaggregated by sex, it is more difficult to identify real and potential inequalities.’’ (UN Women, Gender Equality Glossary). (d) States should ‘‘[i]nclude in analyses prepared by organizations and bodies of the United Nations system of social trends and problems, such as the periodic reports on the world social situation, examination of trends in violence against women.’’ (UNDEVW Article 5 (d)). This should require states to ensure that the identities of perpetrators and victims of violence against women and girls are recorded on the basis of sex and not ‘gender identity’ by all public bodies, including the police, state prosecutors, and the courts. (e) States should “[d]evelop penal, civil, labour and administrative sanctions in domestic legislation to punish and redress the wrongs caused to women who are subjected to violence; women who are subjected to violence should be provided with access to the mechanisms of justice and, as provided for by national legislation, to just and effective remedies for the harm that they have suffered; States should also inform women of their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms.’’ (UNDEVW, Article 4 (d)). This should include the recognition of the right of women and girls to accurately describe the sex of those who have perpetrated violence against them. Public bodies such as the police, state prosecutors, and the courts should not impose an obligation on victims of violence to describe their assailants according to their ‘gender identity’ rather than their sex. Article 9 Reaffirming the need for the protection of the rights of the child (a) “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.’’ (Article 3 (1) UNCRC). States should recognize that medical interventions aimed at the ‘gender reassignment’ of children by the use as puberty supressing drugs, cross-sex hormones and surgery do not serve the best interests of children. Children are not developmentally competent to give full, free and informed consent to such medical interventions, which carry a high risk of long-term adverse consequences to the physical and psychological health of the child, and which may result in permanent adverse consequences, such as sterility. States should prohibit the use of such medical interventions upon children. (b) States should recognize that medical interventions aimed at the ‘gender reassignment’ of children by the use of drugs and surgery are emerging harmful practices as defined by Part V of the Joint General Recommendation No.31 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women/General Comment No. 18 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on harmful practices. (c) States should establish data collection and monitoring processes in relation to these practices, and enact and implement legislation aimed at eliminating them. States’ provisions should include legal protection and appropriate care for children harmed by such practices, and the availability of redress and reparations. (d) States should ‘‘recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health.’’ (UNCRC, Article 24). This should include protection of the healthy body of the child from the use of drugs or surgery to effect ‘gender reassignment’ treatment. (e) States should “ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety and health.’’ (UNCRC, Article 3). This should include preventing organizations that  promote the concept of ‘gender identity’, or constituencies that have no clinical expertise or child psychology background, from influencing health services for children. (f) States should ‘‘respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.’’ (UNCRC, Article 5). States should prohibit state agencies, public and private bodies, medical practitioners, and other child welfare professional from taking any action which seeks to compel parents to consent to medical or other interventions aimed at changing the ‘gender identities’ of their children. (g) States should ‘‘recognize the right of the child to education, with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity.’’ (UNCRC, Article 28). This should include the right of the child to the development of school curricula which are materially accurate about human biology and reproduction, and include information about the human rights of people of diverse sexual orientations, taking into account the evolving capacity and psychological developmental stages of the child. (h) States should ensure inclusion in teacher training and continuing professional development programmes of accurate material about human biology and reproduction, and information about the human rights of people of diverse sexual orientations, which should include the challenging of sex stereotypes and of homophobia. (i) States ‘‘agree that the education of the child shall be directed to [t]he preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, and equality of sexes.’’ (UNCRC, Article 29). (d)). This should include measures to ensure that organizations are not allocated state funding to promote sex stereotyping and the concept of ‘gender identity’ in educational institutions, as this constitutes the promotion of discrimination against women and girls. (j) States ‘‘shall protect the child against all forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspects of the child’s welfare.’’ (UNCRC, Article 36). This should include effective and appropriate legal measures with a view to abolishing: traditional and emerging practices which enforce sex role stereotypes on girls and boys; diagnosing and treating children as having been ‘born in the wrong body’ when they do not conform to traditional sex role stereotypes; identifying young people who are same sex attracted as suffering from gender dysphoria; and using medical interventions on children which may result in their sterilization or other permanent harms. SIGN DECLARATION

Speech delivered by spokeswoman Ani O’Brien on Tues 26th Feb 2019 Tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa. Well, I had an entirely different speech planned for today, but instead I will begin by thanking Minister Tracey Martin for making the decision to defer the Births, Deaths, Marriages, Relationships Registration Bill. Minister Martin may not have met with us or returned our messages, but she sure did listen. Watching her on Q and A last night we saw a Minister who knew her stuff. She schooled Corin Dann on the difference between sex and gender identity and didn’t bow to the pressure of hysteria. We can understand the precariousness of the situation and why Minister Martin chose not to meet with us and judging by the reasons she gave for deferring – she heard us nonetheless. Thank you for taking the time to join us today. Although the Bill has been deferred, this issue is far from over. Speak Up For Women have been the voice for women and for reason in this fractious debate and we will continue to make sure we are part of the conversations going forward. We hope that you will leave tonight with plenty to think about and a better understanding of our position on sex self-ID and why we have fought so hard to halt this Bill. My name is Ani and I am one of the spokeswomen for Speak Up For Women. You may know me by one of my many other names including TERF or the esteemed Wellingtonian of the Year’s personal favourite; “whore”. While we laugh about the names we are called and the (so far) baseless threats thrown our way, we are just a group of Kiwi women who came together because of our concern about the impact the Bill would have on our society and in particular on women and girls. We have families and jobs, and we used to have hobbies before our lives became consumed with leafleting, writing, and desperately trying to get politicians to hear us. It has been an uphill battle. People and groups with access to much greater lobbying power than us have succeeded in silencing our voices on multiple occasions, but we did not give up. Disagreement is not hate. We are not here to incite hate nor to discriminate. We support legislation and policy that seeks to prevent discrimination against transgender people. That is what human rights are for and they are for everyone. However, what we saw in the Bill is a group of people advocating for additional rights that conflict with existing human rights and human rights exceptions. There is absolutely no way a Bill should be passed while this is the case. Now, before we go on I want to clarify for those of you who do not know that the word “TERF” is a slur. It may once have been a benign descriptor for “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist” but it is now used as an insult and a silencing tactic. Much like the word “transphobic” it has been so liberally slung around that if applying popular usage of the word virtually everyone in this room would qualify as a TERF. If you do not believe that transwomen are 100% biological females you are a TERF. If you think putting violent male criminals in women’s prisons is a bad idea you are a TERF. If you want women and girls to be able to change into their togs in the female changing rooms at the swimming pool without fear of an entirely intact male exposing his genitalia (and be completely within his rights to do so) you are a TERF. If you think it is unfair that male-bodied athletes can compete in women’s sports competitions you are a TERF. If you are a lesbian or heterosexual man and refuse to consider transwomen as sexual partners because you are not sexually attracted to male bodies you are a TERF. Have you bought Whittaker’s limited edition Plunket chocolate? TERF. Do you say breastfeeding instead of chestfeeding? Utter TERF. Have you spelt ‘transwoman’ as one word instead of two? TERF. If you believe that we are born male or female with the exception of a miniscule number of intersex people and cannot change our biological sex you are a TERF. And, if NZ twitter is anything to go by, if you defer a Bill due to insufficient public consultation, you too are a TERF. Sorry, Tracey! Ok. Now that we have established that you are all hateful bigots who should “die in a fire” let me take you through the three demands we had for our Government and which they seem to have delivered on. Demand One: Our first demand was simply this: The Government must put the self-ID proposals on hold until there is reasonable public consultation. Respectful, evidence-based public consultation must take place, including with women who are affected by the proposals. That’s it. First and foremost we just wanted the Government to “hang on a minute” so that due diligence could be done and all voices could be heard. The process up until approximately 5pm yesterday has been undemocratic – as Minister Martin has said, the proposed changes were not included in the legislation when it was introduced to Parliament, and were not the subject of public consultation. The Bill was presented at its First Reading as a straightforward, uncontroversial series of amendments to modernise and streamline the existing Act. The self‐ID proposals weren’t considered until the Select Committee as a Green Party initiative following a petition to Parliament by transgender activist Allyson Hamblett signed by just 53 people. It was a clever piece of politicking on the part of the Greens to introduce such a significant piece of social engineering, at the Select Committee stage, in an otherwise uncontroversial Omnibus Bill likely to receive cross‐party support. It nearly worked for them. Green Party MPs have been doubling down on their support for the Bill and the voices they have elected to amplify. Using their political profiles and social media accounts the party many of us in Speak Up For Women have voted for accused us and other critics of self-ID of threatening the “very lives and identities” of transgender people. MVP has to go out to Marama Davidson. If only the Select Committee had listened to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) in the first place as they emphatically opposed sex self-identification on birth certificates, they may have saved us all a whole lot of headaches. The DIA said, “because a birth certificate involves core identity information, any potential law change has wide‐ranging implications. A birth certificate forms the basis for information on other official documentation, such as passports and driver licenses. Passports and driver licenses are considered “transactional” documents that involve less formal processes than s 28 [of the BDMRR Act 1995]. Unlike a registered birth record they can be revoked.” Central to DIA concerns was the need to balance the personal interests of transgender people against the need for certainty and integrity in offiicial documentation. The DIA noted that the medical gatekeeping under existing law had been interpreted broadly in case law, such that gender reassignment surgery is no longer required anyway. This, the DIA said, provides sufficient flexibility to address Allyson Hamblett’s concerns. They came to the conclusion that “the Department is not in a position to confirm the government’s support for [self-ID] or otherwise.” Demand Two: We have already strayed into the territory of our second demand to the Government with discussion of the integrity of official documentation. Our second demand is as follows: The Government must review how the proposed changes will affect data gathering, reporting, and the integrity of records for things such as crime, health, and monitoring sex-based discrimination such as the pay gap. Increasingly data is central to business and government in New Zealand and abroad. It allows us to paint a picture of populations, assess needs, and identify areas of weakness. However, policy and planning based on this kind of intel is only ever going to be as good as the data it is based on. We implore all MPs, but in particular Minister for Statistics Honourable James Shaw, Minister of Health Honourable Dr David Clark, and Minister of Justice Honourable Andrew Little, to consider the role data plays in their portfolios and how integral that data is to their ability to plan effectively for resource allocation, crisis mitigation, and responsible day to day management. In Great Britain, for example, for the first time ever women have begun appearing in the statistics for a violent crime that has up until recently only been committed by men. You could be forgiven for launching an investigation into what was creating this sudden change in women’s behaviour, but the answer is simple. In Britain the crime of rape could only be committed by men because it requires penile penetration. Now that their crime statistics are being recorded according to gender identity rather than sex, be-penised ‘women’ are capable of rape. This is not an insignificant issue for Britain either. Releasing data under a Freedom of Information request, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that 48% of transgender inmates in England and Wales were serving time for a sexual offence. This can be compared to the rest of the prison population which has an average of 19% sex offenders. Our own Government recently promised to start funding more gender reassignment surgeries. As part of our second demand we would want Prime Minister Ardern and Dr David Clark to demonstrate how health funding would be managed for this and other various health needs for transgender people. The health budget is always notoriously stretched and women have many vital health needs that we would hate to see compromised by administrative confusion in allocation of budgets. Demand Three: This leads nicely into our final demand and the one closest to our core purpose: The Government must review how the proposed changes will impact the protected category of “sex” intended to protect women from discrimination under the Human Rights Act. Firstly, lets quickly get our definitions sorted: Sex is biological. It is our chromosomes, our sexual organs, our secondary sex characteritsics, our skeletal structures. It is in our DNA. Gender is the sets of stereotypes that as societies we have imposed on each of the sexes. For example, girls like pink and want to wear dresses. Often these two terms are confused, but to be clear it is our SEX that is recorded on our birth certificates, not gender. It is important to make the distinction because throughout history and still today women are discriminated against and suffer violence because of our SEX not because of which gendered stereotypes we adhere to. Consequently, laws which protect women’s safety, dignity, and privacy must also be defined by sex. Prominent feminist Sheila Jeffreys says “in international law gender stereotypes are recognized as being in contradiction to the interests of women. The importance attributed to the elimination of these stereotypes is exemplified in the wording of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Article 5 of CEDAW calls upon State Parties, to “take all appropriate measures’ to ‘modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudice and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women”. Did you know that in promoting multi-sex toilet and changing facilities Governments across the Western World are contravening the principles of United Nations guidance? Sex segregation is presented by the UN as a priority in achieving equality for women, especially in developing countries. Paragraph 2.1.2 of the UNICEF document on applying the UN Sustainable Development Goals to sanitation specifies that separate school toilets should always be provided for girls (UNICEF, 2016). So while humanitarians work to build vital safe spaces for women and girls in developing countries, why have developed countries been so eager to dismantle ours? We have been called hysterical and had our concerns about the loss of sex-segregated spaces minimised and mocked, but lets briefly look at some of the facts that support our entirely valid concerns: According to NZ Police data around 94-98% of child sexual abuse is committed by males and 98-99% of sexual offending against adults is committed by males. On the otherhand, women make up around 95% of the victims. According to the Transgender Law Centre in the UK 85% of trans-identified males retain their male genitalia. That number is probably higher in New Zealand due to infrequency of gender reassignment surgeries. There is no evidence that identifying as a woman even after gender reassignment surgery reduces the risk of male violence.The available evidence is to the contrary. A decades-long Swedish study concluded that “[transwomen] retained a male pattern regarding criminality.  The same was true for violent crime.” The term “transgender” has expanded so much that non-binary, genderqueer, gender-fluid and even part-time crossdressers are included under the umbrella. This makes it virtually impossible to distinguish genuine transwomen from the increasing number of autogynephiles who have hitched a ride on the gender identity movement. If the Bill had gone ahead, people would be able to change the sex on their birth certificate without even remotely presenting themselves in the gendered norms of the opposite sex. The number of examples of males accessing women’s spaces and doing harm overseas are vast. A quick google search will demonstrate this. We are told that men will not abuse self-ID laws, but to that we point out the extremes that predators have always gone to in order to access victims. They have sought positions of power becoming priests, sports coaches, teachers, and community leaders. And with self-ID they need not actually change their birth certificate. The law would impact on women’s ability to assert themselves in challenging the presence of males in our spaces making it easy for them to access them unchallenged. The issue of transwomen in women’s prisons is one that often crops up in these discussions. The now deferred Bill was far too ambiguous on the power Corrections would have to make case by case assessments on the appropriateness of transwomen being housed with women. It left the door open for already incarcerated men to go online and self-ID as the opposite sex and be subject to no opposition. If you want an example of the harm this can do to women google Karen White. White is a sex offender who identifies as a woman and so was placed in a women’s prison where he subsequently sexually assaulted multiple women. Due to cases like this, the British Government very recently walked back their policies on transgender prisoners and are advocating for separate spaces for them. Sport of course is a topic that greatly interests many Kiwis and as we have leafleted and engaged with the New Zealand public on this issue there has been a collective feeling of unfairness in regards to the participation of transwomen in women’s sports competitions. A fact I always like to use to illustrate the difference in athletic capabilities of women and men is that no woman has beaten the 100m record of 10.49sec set by Flo Jo in 1988 whereas in 2017 it was beaten by 744 different men at official events. Professor Alison Heather will talk about this issue in much greater detail shortly so I won’t say much except to quote a young student athlete in the USA who competes in track events against two young transgender women who inevitably come first and second in each race. Selina Soule says “we all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it’s demoralising”. Women and girls face a lot of challenges to laws that our foremothers fought hard for us to have to protect us. In redefining what the word “woman” means, every piece of legislation that references it is altered too. How can the Human Rights exceptions for sex-segregation in our Human Rights Act 1993 be enforced when we cannot define ourselves as women? There are a lot of vital conversations to be had and in order for democracy to work we must be allowed to have our say. Changes to law like this impact our rights and we are entitled at the very least to have a conversation about it. *** As we get over the shock of having actually achieved our goals and look to what our role will be in the next phase of this, we would like to encourage you all to examine how you think about us and other women who have spoken out about this. We must remember that engaging in good faith about issues however difficult they may be is key to the healthy functioning of democracy. Special interest groups should never be allowed to silence the voices of those that disagree with them; rather, our elected officials must facilitate robust discussion. Freedom of speech and freedom to engage in our political system are key rights that we must protect. Thank you to all who have supported us through this campaign and to those who put in the work before we even began. Congratulations to all of the women in our group and the awesome men who have been true allies to us. You have all worked so hard and this is a complete team effort. A few special thank yous: Thank you to Georgina for being a fantastic spokeswoman and leader and a great support to those of us who stepped in when she became ill. Thank you to Jenny for being an awesome campaign manager and herder of cats and Beth for being the best comms manager we could wish for. And thank you to Renee who despite not being part of Speak Up For Women brought us all together and sent us on our way. Speak Up For Women need to go back to the drawing board now. After a celebratory drink perhaps! We need to figure out what our next steps are and how we can continue to be a voice for women and girls. But make no mistake, when the time comes for consultations on sex self-ID we will be there and we won’t be afraid to speak up. #Speech

Professor of Physiology at Otago University Alison Heather speaks to Ryan Bridge on Magic Talk about the implications of allowing transwomen to compete in women’s sports competitions. Professor Alison Heather will be a guest speaker at the Speak Up For Women event on Tuesday 26th February at the Ellen Melville Centre in Auckland. Tickets can be purchased on Eventbrite.http://speakupforwomen.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/A_Heather_Magic.mp3

Following the publishing of an article on The Spinoff written by Privacy Commissioner John Edwards, Sean Plunket invited our spokeswoman Ani O’Brien onto Magic Talk to discuss whether this was an appropriate use of power.http://speakupforwomen.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/magic-talk-interview-ani-plunkett-feb-21-2019.mp3

http://speakupforwomen.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Peter-Williams-and-Ani-O_Brien-4-1.mp3

Louisa Wall’s opinion piece in the New Zealand Herald (29 November 2018) misrepresents our position. Speak Up For Women was formed in opposition to the government’s proposal that the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill be amended to provide that any person can change the sex recorded on their birth certificates via statutory declaration alone. There will be no need for any medical evidence, treatment or even a change in appearance. This significant law change was not signalled when the BDMRR Bill was first introduced into Parliament, but was raised at the Select Committee stage. Its genesis is a petition started by trans woman activist Allyson Hamblett, which attracted 53 signatures. Self-ID has not been the subject of proper policy analysis, impact assessment or public consultation. The proposed changes were pushed through despite concerns raised in the initial stages by the Department of Internal Affairs, and took a lot of people by surprise. By way of contrast, similar proposals in the United Kingdom resulted in a three month public consultation, and the government has committed to retaining sex-based protections for women and girls under their equalities legislation. Speak Up For Women believes this change will have significant consequences for women and girls, for example in relation to: access to single-sex spaces and services (changing rooms, schools, Girl Guides, prisons, shelters and crisis centres); meaningful records and statistics (crime, health, employment, pay gap); female sports; and female scholarships and quotas. The Human Rights Act 1993 recognises these concerns, by providing for exceptions to the general prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex, for reasons of privacy, safety and fairness. Speak Up For Women is a diverse, and non-partisan group of ordinary New Zealanders. We have always been clear that we support the rights of transgender people to identify how they wish, without fear of discrimination. We are not trans-exclusionary: in fact we have received messages of support from members of the trans community and, in the United Kingdom, some of the most outspoken critics of sex self-ID are trans people. We are dismayed by the way in which some government MPs have sought to shut down the debate by demonising critics in inflammatory terms, using manipulative and irresponsible references to suicide, and by misrepresenting human rights law. What has been lost sight of is the fact that transgender people in New Zealand already have the ability to change the sex on their birth certificates, via a Family Court process that involves medical oversight. Speak Up For Women supports the status quo, and supports retention of the sex-based protections under the Human Rights Act. We believe this strikes an appropriate balance in an area where there is growing recognition of the potential for conflict between transgender rights and the rights of women.

Stop Hate Speech Here’s the full recording of MP Louisa Wall’s hate speech targeting women during the Pride Hui earlier this week. http://speakupforwomen.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/louisa-walls-hate-speech-hui.mp3 The recording was made in secret by a hui attendee who will not speak publicly for fear of the attacks and threats they have already been subjected to. We demand that our MPs promote respectful dialogue on women’s legitimate concerns with proposed changes to the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationship Registration Act. What Is A Terf? The word ‘terf’ is hate speech used to belittle and threaten anyone who rejects the premises or conclusions of transgender ideology.  It is used to dehumanise and incite violence. New Zealand deserves better.

The author is a male supporter of Speak Up For Women. His opinions may not reflect the opinions of all SUFW members and supporters. A Brief Foreword I don’t entertain the notion of a crossover between trans-advocacy and feminism. The ideologies are fundamentally in contradiction. Feminists have always posited that gender is a culturally-constructed system designed to benefit males at the expense of females. Gender identification is the result of socialisation into this system. Feminists acknowledge that sex has objective reality and is observed with a near-complete degree of accuracy at birth. Culturally defined sets of meaning called ‘gender’ are imposed upon people, overlaid onto the reality of a persons sex. Trans Advocates on the other hand believe that gender identification is an innate personal psychological quality. According to this perspective, gender identification is natural and naturally good. Questioning its innateness, naturalness or goodness is harmful and intolerable. A common variation of this ideology is that sex itself has no objective existence outside of the subjective personal experience of an individual. This contradicts basic feminist theory which acknowledges that the state of ones sex exists in objective reality independently of subjective opinion. Feminism seeks to dismantle and discard gender identification. Trans-advocacy explicitly seeks to affirm gender identification. These views are incompatible. “We believe that women and girls are oppressed due to our sex and not our gender identity. That’s it” Georgina Blackmore Don’t Call Women TERF’s. Recent articles from New Zealand media outlets have been covering Gender Identity. Conversation around this subject has attracted interest lately due to the government’s pending amendments to the Births Deaths Marriages And Relationships Act. Feminist criticism of the amendments has generated passionate debate across social media. These critics object to bad lawmaking which pushes the concept of ‘sex’ from acknowledged observable reality towards being a legal fiction. This shift undermines sex-based protections in New Zealand human rights law. A ready-made way to dismiss and abuse people, especially women, who critique the amendments (or in fact any other artifacts of sexism) is to apply the term ‘terf’ to them. It is a digital scolds bridle. Some NZ media outlets are happy to propagate the term. Sometimes allowing it to be published in guest opinions as an insult hurled towards women who disagree with them. Sometimes dropping the term as “considered a slur by some”. The facts is this: the term is not neutral. It’s a loaded term used to silence voices that are mostly women’s. Let’s look at why any adult discussion of gender politics wouldn’t use the term. The Term Is Politically Meaningless The term doesn’t describe an actual political position. It simply gets applied to anyone who questions any premise or conclusion of transgender ideology. But you don’t have to be either feminist, “trans exclusive”, radical, feminist or radical-feminist to reject these premises and conclusions. The rejection of innate gender has always been central to feminist theory. Personally speaking I don’t consider myself a feminist. I get called a terf because I’m open about not believing in innate gender. You don’t have to be a feminist to see that identity itself, including that part of it called ‘gender identity’ is the product of historical forces. The hyper-individualised idea that gender identity emerges from biology is completely unsupported by evidence and it violates basic understandings of how culture and socialisation work. The UK organisation A Womans Place publicly challenges changes in UK law that mirror the changes to law in NZ. A Womans Place place no restriction on trans individuals from attending their events. They host trans speakers. Yet the organisers are called ‘terfs’ despite their explicit inclusion and platforming of trans voices. This insult against A Woman’s Place has been accompanied by organised misogyny that includes venues being denied them and constant threats against attendees. Feminists are called “trans-exclusive” because they correctly determine that their movement exists to centre the interests of people born female. Anyone born female is singled out for marginalisation by a world shaped in the interests of people born male. It is female people who are socialised into the subordinate position. This stance naturally includes the interests of female people who identify as men. Lesbians are accused of being ‘terfs’ simply for stating that they are not attracted to people with male bodies. Transgender orthodoxy insists that some males are female simply because they say so. Lesbian sexual disinterest in these males is considered heretical. There’s nothing particularly radical or “trans-exclusive” about lesbians wanting the right to say no. The only instances in which the term is self-applied is when the self-application is done ironically: no gender-critical feminists actually consider themselves ‘terfs’. No self-identified ‘terfs’ exist. Nobody calling themselves a ‘terf’ has published an article attempting to explain “the terf position”. That’s because there isn’t one. “Trans-exclusionary Radical Feminism” has no real existence: Feminists have always been clear that males are welcome to support the project of liberation for people born female. Males have never been excluded from supporting any kind of feminism. The Term Is Intertwined With Gross Mischaracterisations of  Feminist Positions It’s the new ‘feminazi’. That transgender activists are railing loudly against an ideology that doesn’t actually exist isn’t surprising given that anti-feminists typically attack “straw-woman” caricatures of feminism.re No responsible media outlet would participate in this caricaturing of the feminist position. Nor should they allow the broadcasting of these caricatured positions to continually over-ride women’s real concerns. The Term Is Constantly Used By Males Threatening The Safety of Gender-Critical Women I never liked using the ‘C’ word. Even before I had given any thought to feminism I simply noticed the way the word was used against women. If a man wants to summon the most hateful expression he can while threatening a woman’s self-worth or physical safety then he uses the ‘C’ word in a sentence. I know a woman who used to be ok with the ‘C’ word. She accepted it as part of casual kiwi vernacular. She was ok with “reclaiming” the word. But after having the word used against her by an abusive partner she couldn’t ignore the hate built into the word itself. Here is how ‘terf’ is used within the transgender community: It’s pretty evident from these threats that trans-activism believes that threats of violence against women are acceptable. Why would media outlets and pundits accept the use of the word ‘terf’ knowing how the word is used? These images are pretty horrible but they are also completely unexceptional. Trans activist threats against feminists occur multiple times daily across social media.  Terfisaslur.com documents the unending constant stream of threats of violence and death heaped upon women by trans activists. These threats are entirely acceptable among trans-activists. The San Francisco Library hosted a trans-activist exhibition. It included a t-shirt with the text “I Punch Terfs” designed to look as if it was covered in blood. The exhibition also featured baseball bats painted in rainbow colours and covered in barbed wire. This behaviour has spilled out into real life: A Womans Place formed in the wake of transactivists physically attacking a grandmother who was attempting to meet with feminists trying to avoid trans activist harassment. Why should any media outlet use the term to describe anyone while knowing that the term is deliberately meant to be dehumanising and used in calls to violence? For that matter, why would anyone who claims to care about human rights use the term while knowing it is commonly used to dehumanise and call for violence against feminists? Stuff, Spinoff and the rest of NZ mainstream media should follow the lead of The Economist and desist from using the word. The Only Sense In Which ‘Terf’ Is Meaningful Is In The Sense ‘Heretic’. Orthodoxies deride heretics and attempt to marginalise them while considering the differences between heresies as besides the point: all heretics are the same and must be subject to punishment. It doesn’t matter whether women want their own territory because as individuals they want space from male bodies due to traumatic violence or simply on principle. It doesn’t matter if the heretic simply questions the innateness of gender identity. It doesn’t if they are female and homosexual and don’t want to sleep with males. All that matters is that the faithful be protected from the pollution of dissent: there will be no debate. Feminists Are No More Trans-Exclusive Then Transgender Advocates Trans advocates claim to believe that if a male truly believes he is a female then he is. To deny his claim is considered harmful. Consequently a male making this claim would be outside of the entry criteria for male-only organisations. They would be excluded from membership in male-only sports teams. Or organisations like Male Survivors Aotearoa, MOSAIC or The Male Room. Or Big Buddy. If trans-activists really believed that women claiming to be men are in fact men, then trans-activists must also conceded that these women must be excluded from women-only organisations and services. This trans-exclusionary consequence generally doesn’t come up in discussions of gender politics partly because females are not demanding access to male-only spaces, services and provisions. The Term Is A Thought-Stopping Cliché The term is employed to prevent people from considering the feminist point of view. Accusing somebody of being a terf is to publicly announce that the opinion of the accused must not be considered. “Terfiness” is a undesirable moral quality, and those polluted by it have no right to be heard. It functions the same way that accusations of communism functioned during Americas McCarthy years: the actual words, opinions and considerations of the accused didn’t matter. The person declared a commie simply had to be dismissed out of patriotic duty. Imagine a Stuff editorial that said “some people think that ‘commie’ is a slur”? Or a Spinoff article accusing people fighting for the retention of welfare benefits of being “commies”. Here is how one person attempts to use the word ‘terf’ into drown out heretical thoughts: The Term Is Not Neutral Because they know that the term is politically meaningless, feminists who get called ‘terf’ have constantly and repeatedly asked that the term not be used. They have pointed out its problematic nature. They have pointed out that it is consistently used in violent threats against them. If the term was actually neutrally descriptive then this request would be honoured. I still remember being called “curry-muncher” while being subject to regular racist beatings. I was told that it was simply a semantically accurate descriptive term. Therefore it wasn’t racist. I guess the same would apply to the term “paki”. And yet both these terms have a much finer semantic scope than the vaguely-defined “terf”. Conclusion So here we are. The term ‘terf’ is politically meaningless, purposefully vague, used to prevent meaningful disagreement and deride unorthodox thought. It is used to ostracise and threaten women. As such it has no place in adult discussion. Women fighting for sex-based legal protections are asking you not to use it. So honestly why would you?

New Zealand women bravely speaking up to defend their sex-based rights have recently been described as a “hate group” and “anti-transgender” by some trans-activists. This reframing conflates women’s valid concerns with ‘hate’ and also implies a malicious intent on the part of women. Individual women have been targeted in vicious and defamatory personal attacks. Given the proposed changes to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationship Registration Act (‘BDMRR’) (1995) that would enable the sex recorded on birth certificates to become a matter of self declaration, consideration needs to be paid to the rights of women and girls. It is the 125th year of women’s Suffrage in New Zealand. Consequently it’s very disheartening that women are still being attacked for standing up for themselves and their rights. There is is a climate of personalised, dishonest, and misleading attacks on women who raise concerns about sex and gender related issues, in particular regarding transgender people. This only solidifies the importance of a better public understanding about the implications of sex and gender in the ‘BDMRR’ Act. You can find out more about this here. To frame women who are concerned with the denial of biological reality as a “hate group” and “transphobic”, is deeply misguided. Currently, anyone who asks critical questions about the impact of gender identity politics on women is accused of hating transgender people. ‘Speak Up for Women’ and their supporters are not motivated by hate. There are many implications of the Bill on those that have historically been, and still are, oppressed on the basis of their sex – and that is of course, females. Anyone who has concerns or even simple questions about gender issues is currently labelled a ‘TERF’. This stands for “Trans exclusionary radical feminist”. Interestingly enough, you do not need to be feminist or even a radical feminist to be called this. All you need to do is make one simple query about gender, or say something that even slightly contradicts the party line of ‘transwomen are women’. This is a very common phrase that is also seen online and scrawled over signs at protests. Surely if the conversation is about ‘equality’ and ‘inclusion,’ ‘transmen are men’ would be equally asserted in such a manner. If you set aside the emotive hyperbole for a moment, you can see that it is biological men and their supporters who are shouting at women, harassing us and telling us that we are not welcome in our own spaces. This abusive term ‘TERF’ is becoming increasingly common. A supporter of ‘Speak Up for Women’ has signed the Letter to MPs page with: “I have been abused and labelled TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) by trans activists for espousing my viewpoint.” It is incredibly difficult to have a reasonable conversation about these issues when you are constantly met with such vitriolic hostility. Biological men are now in lesbian spaces and calling themselves lesbians – this seems like something the general public may not be aware of. If you are a young lesbian today trying to navigate your same-sex attraction, you are now told biological men can literally be women and you should be open to having intimate relationships with these biological men. If you don’t agree with these terms, you are a bigot and transphobic for not accepting biological men into your dating pool. It is a cause for great confusion and alarm that this is all now considered normal in ‘queer’ groups and spaces. Self-ID will mean that this denial of reality cannot be questioned. It is deeply concerning that many members of the public are uninformed about this issue and are therefore likely to be influenced by the loudest voices. Activists garner some amount of public support and rally otherwise well-meaning people into supporting law change that negatively impacts on women’s rights. Given that most of the public are unaware of this issue, the purpose of ‘Speak up for Women’ is to bring these issues to the surface of public conversation in New Zealand. It is fair and reasonable to expect to have a conversation about something so important that impacts our lives in numerous ways. Everyone has the right to live their lives as the identity that they feel most comfortable with. But this does not negate that fact that biological sex exists, and that women’s long fought for rights and protections need to be upheld in law and in society. Biological women have needs that transgender people who identify as women do not have: reproductive rights, abortion rights, and other health issues pertaining to the female sex, such as cervical cancer, for example. Biological men also still need to retain certain sex-specific requirements. There are health issues pertaining to the male sex that cannot be ignored by identifying out of one’s sex, such as prostate cancer. If one identifies as another gender, this of course does not negate the need for sex based health care. This then raises the question: what is materially legitimate, sex or gender? It should not be deemed to be “transphobic” or “hateful” to be concerned about the specific needs and rights of everyone pertaining to their sex. Legal protections of such need to remain clear both in law, and in the minds of the public. The question of gender has become increasingly confusing, particularly for young people. Children are increasingly told if they do not conform to the gendered stereotypes of being a girl or a boy, that they may be the opposite sex or, similarly concerning, that they are neither a boy or a girl at all, which denies material reality. This only further complicates and confuses children in the stage of life where they are learning about their bodies, their sexual orientation, and the heavy pressures that are placed upon children from society to fit in. All vulnerable groups should have the right to their own spaces amongst people that share a common denominator, and one of these is biological sex. Historically, women fought for the right to have single sex spaces. An example of this is the importance of women’s only refuge centres. These are places where women can feel free and safe amongst other women to be away from their abusers, to heal in a women’s only space with the guidance and support from other women. It is more than reasonable that society provides spaces and services for abused women wishing to be free from the sex that predominantly caused them the harm in the first place. Similarly, transgender people should also have the right to such spaces, and, like every group, deserve rights and protections. But we require more public consultation, input, and knowledge regarding the solutions to issues of sex and gender so that they do not come at the cost of women’s rights. Further, it is important that women and girls have the ability to set boundaries in their own spaces. For example, women should never be forced to share a prison cell, or a refuge with a male-bodied person because of self ID. Women need the ability to consent to this. Currently, some transgender prisoners are being held in women’s prisons in NZ. Data obtained via an Official Information Act request (Department of Corrections response 18 October 2018) discloses that in 2017 13 inmates with a transgender alert were imprisoned in women’s prisons. That same year there were 4 instances of assaults on women inmates by inmates with a transgender alert. There were no instances of assault on transgender inmates within women’s prisons. Vulnerable women were not asked for their consent. Their right to set boundaries was secondary to male-bodied people’s feelings. Those of us trying to raise public knowledge about this issue will not be intimidated by those wishing to bury our concerns regarding the right to a respectful conversation and consultation about sex, gender and the ‘BDMRR’ Bill with all parties affected. We will continue to ask for respectful and critical discussions regarding biological reality, women’s rights, and the specific needs of women and girls only same sex spaces in New Zealand. As such, Speak Up for Women’s Three Reasonable Demands need to be acted on immediately.