You can find all of our previous email newsletters here - to sign up and receive your very own copy of our next newsletter, use the JOIN THE MOVEMENT form at the bottom of each page February 25th 2025 - Customs January 17th 2025 - January Update December 23rd 2024 - Changing Rooms for Everyone December 22nd 2024 - Let's Unwrap 2024 July 30th 2024  - Hate Speech July 25th 2024  - Protect the meaning of Sex in Law July 11th 2024  - July News May 27th 2024 - Poll Results April 21st 2024 - April News March 8th 2024 - International Women's Day February 4th 2024 - Welcome to 2024 Newsletter December 10th 2023  - December Newsletter November 24th 2023  - Speak Up for Women welcome coalition agreement policy changes October 16th 2023  - October Newsletter September 24th 2023  - Urgent: Help us challenge InsideOUT’s policing of speech in government September 13th 2023  - SUFW September Update August 29th 2023 - September Newsletter July 20th 2023 - We Know What a Woman is July 7th 2023 - Turn Up Nelson May 24th 2023 - May Update April 25th 2023 - April Update March 25th 2023 - Media Release 25th March

Counter protest signs at the Let Women Speak event, Albert Park, March 2023 February 18th 2025 “In a major report released today, the Independent Police Conduct Authority has called for new standalone legislation directed at protecting the rights of protestors while, at the same time, ensuring public order and safety.” “We have made findings that some Police actions were unlawful and unduly constrained the right to protest, but ascribe many of what might otherwise be regarded as Police failings to the uncertainty of the current law.” These are two important statements in the release from the IPCA announcing their Thematic Review: The Policing of Public Protests in New Zealand . It is a damning report that highlights woeful inadequacies in police systems in relation to public protests in general, and to the Let Women Speak event at Albert Park in March 2023 in particular. While the report’s even tone while discussing Police failings may not satisfy women’s need for recognition of the trauma   they experienced attending the Albert Park event, we believe that the conclusion and recommendations have produced the right outcome for the complaints process.  If a lack of procedural regulations led to the events of that day, such regulations must be created, and that is exactly what has been recommended. And this is what will prevent something similar from happening again. The statement reveals that, “New Zealand legislation provides no effective process for determining in advance what restrictions there should be on freedoms of assembly, movement and expression. … The current legal framework is therefore inadequate and not fit for purpose”. This is a surprising revelation which goes some way towards explaining what happened at Albert Park. The IPCA considers improved police training alone would be “insufficient to address the problem”, and they recommend new legislation to standardise notification of events and help police set appropriate conditions.  We believe this should apply to both event holders and counter-protestors equally  as clearly insufficient limits were put on the actions of the counter-protesters at Albert Park. The second half of the report includes an analysis of police failures at Albert Park focussing on issues raised in the 168 complaints received. “Complainants say that, even though the risk of injury and threats from hostile counterprotestors and the international dimension of the event were communicated to Police at an early stage, the Police deployment at the event was grossly inadequate. … The complaints alleged that Police failed in their duty to both give effect to Let Women Speak’s right to speak under section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights Act); and maintain public order, prevent crime, and prevent breaches of the peace.” In their review, IPCA identified and described three issues that expose major flaws in police processes (our emphasis added in the ‘findings’): Issue 1: Was the Police risk assessment and initial response to the proposed Let Women Speak event adequate? IPCA finding : “In undertaking the initial risk assessment, individual officers complied with existing Police practice and procedure.  “However, the initial risk assessment was flawed because it was based on inconsistent and incomplete information, and not supported by appropriate guidance as to how identified levels of risk should inform deployment decisions.” Issue 2: Was the operation planning and resourcing adequate? IPCA finding: “Inadequacies in the planning for this event resulted primarily from systemic inadequacies in the risk assessment process rather than any fault of individual officers.  “While the Commander’s Intent was consistent with the overarching Police philosophy for policing protests, its appropriateness suffered from the same flawed risk assessment process as highlighted in Issue 1.  “The number of staff rostered to the operation was limited by staff availability . Sourcing extra officers from other Police Areas or Districts or redeploying officers already on duty in Tāmaki Makaurau to the operation was not justified based on the information available at the time.” Issue 3: Did Police appropriately respond to events as they unfolded on the day? IPCA finding: “The Operation Commander and the Forward Commander did not properly respond to unfolding events by deploying additional staff to protect LWS supporters.  “There was no obligation on Police under the Bill of Rights Act to take positive steps to ensure that the LWS speakers were able to be heard, and Police had no power to control noise levels unless the noise reached the threshold of an offence.  “ The Police response after protestors surrounded the rotunda was inadequate and did not have sufficient regard to public safety.” This report may be cold comfort to those who attended and endured the hostility and violence that day. We acknowledge all 168 of those who submitted complaints, especially those 35 who attended the event. It is your voices that have made these recommendations possible. We will be following developments to hold our police and government accountable to ensure such a breach of human rights doesn’t happen again. ENDS

The Chairperson of the Health Committee is calling for submissions on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill.  This bill seeks to address the needs of women who have just given birth to access their choice of post-natal care for a minimum of 72 hours if desired. It also requires the Lead Maternity Carer to let the mother know what she is eligible for. In addition, it allows for mothers to stay for longer than 72 hours if the need arises. Submission of Speak Up for Women February 16th 2025 Speak Up for Women (SUFW) is an advocacy group seeking to ensure sex-based rights for women and girls in New Zealand.  We welcome the opportunity to submit on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill. The Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Amendment Bill, particularly the provision for a 3-day postnatal stay, is a significant step towards recognising and addressing the unique needs of women who have recently given birth. From a feminist standpoint, this amendment is a commendable effort to ensure that the health system is equitable and responsive to the needs of New Zealand women. We agree with the reasons for the proposed Amendment Bill as set out in the general policy statement: “Women are not making informed choices about post-natal care and the first 48 to 72 hours are critical to ensure that mothers form a loving attachment to their baby. Women are currently entitled to up to 48 hours of funded inpatient post-natal care, but many women don’t realise this and at times are pressured to leave early.” We strongly agree with the  “mandatory requirement for mothers to be advised of their choices by the Lead Maternity Carer”. In fact, we were surprised to learn that this wasn’t already the case. POSTPARTUM PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH Of prime importance to us is that the extension of the postnatal stay to three days acknowledges the period immediately following childbirth which is so crucial for the mother’s physical recovery and her mental and emotional well-being. The extended stay allows for better monitoring of postpartum complications for both mother and baby. It also provides an opportunity for healthcare professionals to offer support and education on infant care, breastfeeding, and postpartum mental health. The Best Practice Advocacy Centre  provides some helpful context for our submission: Studies in New Zealand using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale ( EPDS, Appendix 1 ) have reported rates of postnatal depression of 8-13%. Postnatal depression is a significant issue because of its impact on the health and well-being of mothers, partners, children and relationships. Postnatal depression is associated with a reduced likelihood of bonding between the mother and infant as well as impaired cognitive and emotional development of the infant, especially in areas of socioeconomic deprivation.  Suicide is a concern in women with mental health disorders in the postnatal period. In the developed world, suicide is now the main cause of maternal death [emphasis added] in the first year after childbirth, mainly due to relapse of serious mental illness.  Early detection and collaborative management can significantly improve health outcomes for both the mother and infant.  Māori women appear to be at higher risk of postnatal depression than European women in New Zealand.  The overall rate of postnatal depression in Pacific peoples is at the upper end of previously reported rates in the general population.  The nature of the bonding between the mother and infant influences childhood neurodevelopment. Maternal nurturing and attention during the first postnatal year appears to be critical for optimal infant brain development.  The early postpartum checks provide an opportunity for practitioners to screen and identify most cases of postnatal depression. And change is needed urgently. The 2020 report of the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee states that in the period from 2006-2020 suicide was the largest single cause of maternal death in Aotearoa New Zealand, with wāhine Māori having both the highest number of deaths and highest rate of death due to suicide over this period. That is a shocking statistic attributed to wider issues of poverty, housing, employment and institutional racism, requiring not only individual interventions but also a systems-level response.  For all that we are getting right, the fact that the leading cause of maternal death in the developed world is suicide, and it seems New Zealand is no exception, is an indictment on the ‘care’ we are offering new vulnerable mothers. We support any initiatives to increase women’s access to healthcare, and we believe that this extra entitlement will play a significant role in the strengthening of the physical and mental health of both mother and baby. But we do wonder if this bill goes far enough. EQUITABLE MATERNAL HEALTHCARE The amendment bill aligns with the principles of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act, which aims to reduce health disparities and promote equity. Women, particularly those from marginalized communities, often face significant barriers to accessing healthcare. By ensuring a longer postnatal stay, the amendment helps to bridge the gap in healthcare access and provides a more supportive environment for new mothers. However, there are real barriers still to overcome. A 2019 review identified six integrated factors as barriers to equitable maternal health in Aotearoa New Zealand: Physical Access, Political Context, Maternity Care System, Acceptability, Colonialism, and Cultural factors. “The structure of the maternal health system in New Zealand, which includes free maternity care and a woman centred continuity of care structure, should help to ameliorate inequity in maternal health and yet does not appear to [emphasis added]. A complex set of underlying structural and systemic factors, such as institutionalised racism, serve to act as barriers to equitable maternity outcomes and experiences.” Contributing to that, is the state of our midwifery services. According to the Health Workforce Taskforce Report of 2023, despite its role in the health system, midwifery is understaffed by 40% and, “New Zealand needs to triple the number of midwives it trains for four years [emphasis added] to address the current workforce deficit - and even then it will not close the gap until 2031, when they all graduate.” This seems to us an unacceptable and dangerous situation for New Zealand women. INFORMED CHOICE The feminist perspective emphasises the importance of autonomy and informed choice in healthcare. The option of an extended postnatal stay empowers women to make informed decisions about their health and the health of their newborns. It also fosters a sense of agency and control, which is essential for building trust in the healthcare system. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS The Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill is a progressive move towards a more equitable and supportive healthcare system. It recognizes the unique needs of postpartum women and takes a step towards reducing health disparities. From a feminist perspective, this amendment is a positive development that promotes the well-being and autonomy of women in New Zealand. Below are our recommendations. CONCERN #1: RESOURCING - While we support this bill wholeheartedly and agree with the aim of improving healthcare for women and babies at this crucial time, we have the same concerns as Dr Ayesha Verrall at the first reading; that women are already being pressured to leave hospital early and resourcing could be an issue.  RECOMMENDATION - Assess the resources available in order to avoid this bill failing as a well-meaning but hollow gesture. CONCERN #2: SCOPE - We are concerned this bill doesn’t go far enough.  RECOMMENDATIONS - Increasing mental health safety nets and encouraging midwives to join, and remain in, our health system would support the changes this bill in essence wants to achieve.

We have had several supporters share their submissions and ideas on the Consultation on safety measures for the use of puberty blockers in young people with gender-related health needs . This author kindly agreed to let us share her contribution...this is exactly what was sent to the Ministry of Health earlier this month. January 2025 I am writing this submission as I have an interest in puberty blockers, stemming from my own experience of gender dysphoria. I suffered from gender dysphoria from age five or six until after puberty. I live in New Zealand. I am happy for my submission to be published with any personal information removed.  If it is subject to an OIA request then any personal information should be removed also. I am writing this submission because my own experiences growing up with gender dysphoria are relevant when considering treatment for this condition.  About me I’m a woman. I grew up in Wellington, I was the youngest child in my family and from very early on I wanted to be a boy.  My friends were boys, I played with “boy’s” toys, I pulled things apart, I hated dresses, I hated dolls, I thought my sister was dumb, I climbed trees and convinced my parents and siblings to call me by a boy’s name, though family occasions where I was expected to be a girl were difficult and we fought. The rest of the time I was very often mistaken for a boy and I loved it. If I had been given the chance to be a boy I would have grabbed it in a heartbeat.  I had a strong athletic build and this suited my desire to be a boy. As I grew up and my body began to change I wished desperately that it wouldn’t. I chose clothes that hid my body but it became harder and harder to pass as a boy.  I was aware around this time that I wanted girls to think I was a boy because I wanted them to like me in the same way they liked boys. By 13 or 14 I was aware that I was attracted to girls - that I was same-sex attracted. I then discovered that there were other girls who liked girls - and that I didn’t need to be a boy in order for girls to find me attractive. Over the years I grew to like my female body and understood that sex stereotypes were there to be broken. I grew into a gender non-conforming adult and a lesbian. I have children and a happy relationship. So, what is my interest in puberty blockers? I have followed the arrival of gender ideology with interest. My first thoughts were that the children who were supposedly transitioning and seeking puberty blockers and wrong-sex hormones must be suffering from a dysphoria that was much more severe than my own, but when I read their stories and watched TV documentaries, I was quite surprised to find that their experiences were similar to mine, in some cases less dysphoric. So I have read and read and watched and listened and I am 100% convinced that had I been born in 2005 rather than 1970, I would have been told that it was possible to change sex and also told that puberty blockers were a tool to help me. I would have been right into the concept of being born in the wrong body. My parents would have wanted to do what was best for me. They would have listened to health professionals and would have been my fiercest advocates. We will never know what they would have done had my school and / or doctor recommended puberty blockers, but I suspect they are happy they didn’t have to decide, and maybe they think about that when they see their grandchildren. The grandchildren they wouldn’t have if I had received gender affirming care as a child. But I (and my parents) have the luxury of being able to look back at my six year old self, or my ten year old self - and I know what happened through and after puberty. I know that my feelings about my body changed and I know that I grew into a healthy gender non-conforming lesbian. I know that even though at age ten the idea of having children was quite disgusting, by the time I was an adult I had different ideas. I couldn’t have known this at six, or ten, or even 16. Our Ministry of Health is deciding whether to continue to allow the use of an off-label drug, a drug with no evidence of its safety, its reversibility or its effectiveness. For what?  And why?  Why, when there are safe, reversible, tested and effective alternatives available?  Why are we even having this conversation?? The Alternatives For a long time, without knowing it, society has been running a world-wide, all inclusive clinical trial on every single child suffering from gender dysphoria. There are thousands of women in NZ just like me, many are gender non-conforming, many are lesbians. We all suffered from dysphoria and we all found that puberty, as hard as it was, helped us discover who we were.  The same is true for men, they have mostly grown up into gay men. Without realising it, we have provided a huge evidence base for what happens when you don’t lie to children by telling them they can change sex, and you don’t prescribe puberty blockers.  So here is what we should do; Stop telling children they are born in the wrong body. They aren’t. Stop telling children (and adults) they can change sex. It is a lie. They can’t, and when the reality of this hits them it is tragic. Take puberty blockers off the table, they are a medical scandal. Stress to children and young people that puberty is hard but is unavoidable. Provide care for dysphoric children and young people that recognises reality while helping them love the body they have. Many of these children will grow into healthy and productive same-sex attracted adults. Celebrate them for that. Urgently look at the similarities between eating disorders and rapid onset gender dysphoria. Urgently investigate why so many young women are terrified of the way their body is changing, see if there are links to pornography, misogyny and homophobia.  Spoiler alert, there are.

January 2025 Renee Gerlich This was originally posted on the The First Task Substack  and is shared with permission. Read about Renee Gerlich here. Rape is the quintessential violation, connected to mass shootings, militarism, environmental destruction and hunger worldwide. To imagine our problems resolved is to imagine a world without rape. Fuck. We use the word all the time. When we’re annoyed, drop our phone in the sink, or see the damage to our car after someone backed into it. When the money runs out. When we watch the news. That four-letter word is the most economical way to express invasion and damage. When something is broken, it’s fucked. Being tricked or conned is a ‘mindfuck’: someone got into your head so they could take what they want or use you. We are ‘fucked off’ – that’s the best way to convey it. It explodes from the mouth and hits. Yes, the word is also used casually to mean sex, but it clearly does not mean making love. To fuck is to seek physical gratification, not relational intimacy. It is crude, one-sided, insensitive, and leaves a wake of destruction. In short, fuck means rape. The fact that we use it to express violation of all kinds, from how we are “f—ing up the planet”, to destroying cities and populations in war, to how we are treated at work (employers “f— us over”), reveals something. Rape is the quintessential violation, and we know it. Rape is all our problems summarised and condensed. Rape is our problem. To imagine our problems resolved is to imagine a world without rape. We may concede this in everyday speech, but in public or political discourse, rape is not treated as a fundamental social problem. It is not handled with the urgency of a war, natural disaster or pandemic. On the contrary: in our capitalist system, widespread rape is treated as an expression of market demand. Pimps, pornographers and even advertisers of all kinds leverage the notion that women are sex objects, for profit. Rape is commercialised in the ‘sex’ industry and filmed to make porn. We largely accept this – never mind that prostitution is the deadliest situation a woman can be in, where the death rate for women and girls is 40 times higher than the average. Today, close to one-third of all internet downloads in the US are from a porn site. Online porn gets more traffic than Amazon, Netflix, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, and LinkedIn combined . ‘Softcore porn’ – images that sexually objectify women – pervade media, advertising, and the urban landscape. Rappers sing about rape. Comedians joke about it. Television shows dramatise it. Film and music producers sell it as entertainment. Rape red flags are all around us, yet as legendary feminist Andrea Dworkin wrote , feminists “use statistics not to try to quantify the injuries, but to convince the world that those injuries even exist.” Rape is so commonplace it is happening somewhere in the world every second of the day. And it is clearly on our minds, or we wouldn’t constantly spit it back out with that one potent four-letter word. But we do not seem to want to address it. We need to. Rape is not only devastating and dehumanising in itself, it is a major factor in all humanity’s major crises, from mass killings to militarism, environmental destruction to hunger. It is beyond analogous to those forms of violence – it fuels them. Charles Manson, notorious cult leader convicted for conspiracy to murder seven people in 1971, would deny that. “Pornography?” he once said , “I’ve been looking at it all my life and it hasn’t affected me anything.” Ted Bundy, who raped and murdered at least 30 girls and women, would beg to differ. The day before his execution in 1989, he gave an extraordinary interview warning of the harms of porn: I’ve lived in prison for a long time now, and I’ve met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence. Without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography – deeply consumed by the addiction. The FBI’s own study on serial homicide shows that the most common interest among serial killers is pornography. It’s true. Porn functions like any other addiction – the user gets hooked on the ‘hit’ but becomes habituated. Over time, they require more degradation and brutality to get the same sexual reward. Bundy explained: Once you become addicted to it, and I look at this as a kind of addiction, you look for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material. Like an addiction, you keep craving something which is harder and gives you a greater sense of excitement, until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far – that jumping off point where you begin to think maybe actually doing it will give you that which is just beyond reading about it and looking at it. The porn industry is comprised of countless records of rape broadcast as entertainment. If users could once ejaculate while watching anal penetration, they now need to see ‘rosebudding’, when a woman suffers rectal prolapse. That is the trajectory of a porn addiction, and the industry at large. As men require more and more brutality, those acts are carried out on women’s bodies. What a person looks at and thinks about during sexual arousal and orgasm has an influence that is powerful beyond comparison. When a boy or a man learns to associate orgasm with domination, sexual excitement with aggression, degradation with thrill, it changes him. Violation becomes tantalising and “ brutality leads to arousal.” Nature did not design the penis as a weapon. It is a reproductive organ. Pornography transforms it into a weapon by offering boys and men sexual rewards for being bystanders to female violation. When a man sees his penis as a weapon, he is more likely to get interested in other kinds of weapons with which he can dominate. Between January 1 and June 30, 2024, 302 mass shootings took place in the US. Mass murderers go on killing sprees so regularly, at bars, festivals, theatres, shopping malls, and schools, using guns, bombs, knives, or weaponised vehicles, they can hardly be considered ‘lone wolves’ taking advantage of lenient gun laws. Mass killing is more than an anomaly, it is a pattern, and we need to ask what cultural conditions are fuelling the pattern. Why do so many men get off on planning and executing extreme acts of violence? What are the cultural conditions? As author Charles Eisenstein writes : “It is a mistake to blame psychopaths for our present condition; they are a result, not a cause.” It is not just that the US has a greater number of firearms than adults – a porn habit and history of sex abuse is normal among mass killers and criminally violent men. Our culture freely broadcasts that porn, then consumes murder as entertainment in countless television and Netflix shows played after 6 o’clock news reports of killing, which we act powerless to do anything about. That passivity applies not just to the cultural conditions that fuel violence, but to the signs it is happening in our family or to our neighbours. According to the UN, the most dangerous place for a woman is her home. About six women are killed per hour worldwide, nearly 50 thousand a year on average. In 2017, 87,000 women were killed by men, more than half by partners or family members. Violence expert Gavin de Becker points out that for the 137 women who will be killed before this time tomorrow, in almost every case, the violence preceding the murder will have been “a secret kept by several people.” Though spousal violence is the easiest to predict, “people are reluctant to predict it.” A significant proportion of men who murder women employ overkill, where the violence used far exceeds what is necessary to cause death – and “women’s bodies are often used and marked in very grotesque and sexualised ways when they are killed.” In New Zealand in 2018, strangulation became recognised as a standalone offence, because men who strangle their partners are likely go on to kill them. Where does this pattern of strangulation come from? Look no further than pornography, in which strangulation and torture are common. Pornography enacts, teaches and spreads this sexualised brutality. It is not only the connections we ignore, but the facts. As filmmaker Elle Kamihira says : “We have whole media genres dedicated to telling the stories of male violence, much of it featuring murdered women – but when it comes to tallying the actual lives taken of women and girls, most countries in the world just don’t do it.” The female death toll estimates above are each considered a “severe undercount,” since governments largely do not collect data on the murder of women . In the US, tens of thousands of rape kits sit in police and crime lab storage facilities, untested . Governments tend to leave the rape crisis to underfunded refuge services. Few sexual abuse cases result in a conviction – in New Zealand, it is 13% . Such inaction often means many women do not report rape. It seems like the pointless re-exposure of a wound. Our passivity harms and it backfires. The same porn use, violence and abuse that can be used to predict and prevent the murder of women constitute pre-incident indicators for other forms of violence, like mass killings. It is also no coincidence that conquest is both a military and a sexual term. In 1983, Dworkin gave a speech to an audience of 500 men, called ‘I Want a Twenty-Four Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape’. She talked about the emergence of support groups for men to recover from the impact of patriarchal conditioning and its militaristic conceptions of manhood. Men gather to talk, reconnect to their emotions, vulnerability, and ability to bond and to grieve. She said if they were serious about getting their humanity back they would have to get invested in ending rape: Rape and war are not so different. And what the pimps do and the warmongers do is that they make you so proud of being men who can get it up and give it hard. And they take that acculturated sexuality and they put you in little uniforms and they send you out to kill and to die …I think that if you want to look at what this system does to you, then that is where you should start looking: the sexual politics of aggression; the sexual politics of militarism. Rape and war have always been inextricable . In war, rape is deliberately used to terrorise, demoralise and humiliate civilians. And many men will not stay in the military if they cannot have ready sexual access to women – so brothels are and have always been present near military bases. Militaries also make use of the way rape, prostitution and porn break down men’s resistance to violence, and encourage them to bond over degradation . Porn use and production are normal in war zones , militaries and among so-called wartime ‘ peacekeepers ’. In turn this violence and desensitisation is transferred to the planet. In The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism (2009) Barry Sanders points out that “the greatest single assault on the environment, on all of us around the globe, comes from one agency ... the Armed Forces of the United States.” US military aircraft consume close to two million reported gallons of oil every day. Though environmentalists do not frequently speak about militarism, shooting, firing, exploding and incinerating, chemical attacks, cluster bombs, cannon rounds, jet fuel, napalm and depleted uranium are as devastating to the planet as to ourselves. As Dworkin said, there is a sexual aspect to aggression, a “sexual politics of militarism.” That military violence is inflicted on the planet as well as ourselves. Militarism also means hunger. The people in the world left to starve largely live in war zones. The hungriest areas in the world are in Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The DRC suffers the world’s largest hunger crisis, fuelled by over 25 years of conflict, and it has also been dubbed the world’s “ rape capital ”. Rape victims in the DRC have said war is being waged “ on their bodies .” The cause of hunger is not overall food scarcity – globally, we waste at least 1 billion tonnes of food each year. It is the inhumanity and violence at the core of which is rape. You may argue that food scarcity is still an issue, since our population of 8 billion exceeds the planet’s carrying capacity for humans. Yet the solution remains the same: female sexual sovereignty. Women have fewer children when they are emancipated, have access to education, and are not sold into marriage or otherwise treated as sexual or domestic chattel. Rape and female subordination drive overpopulation, for which female sexual sovereignty – the end of rape – is the only peaceful solution . Where I live, in New Zealand, many people pepper their sentences with that word fuck, treating it like the words ‘very’, or ‘like’, with more spice. This communicates so mething important. When people do it, they are regurgitating a pervasive cultural input that has shaped their thinking and expression. They are mirroring the culture not just with a word, but its meaning: to seek gratification through violation. Constant casual references to that mode of relating come from saturation, from being immersed in a culture that encourages it. Imagine who we would be without that programming. That is the vision feminists and spiritual teachers alike have carried through history. We will continue to explore it in essays to come.

WELLINGTON, NOVEMBER 22ND 2024 Speak Up for Women (SUFW) is disappointed with the hollow announcement by the Ministry of Health yesterday on apparent Additional safeguards for puberty blockers . The Ministry has sent a confusing message to medical professionals and parents with its latest guidance regarding puberty blocker evidence and use. On one hand the statement  appears to indicate acknowledgement and acceptance of the findings of the widely read Cass report  - that there is a lack of high quality evidence of any benefit of the use of puberty blockers in young people with gender dysphoria. On the other hand, the statement asks only that clinicians exercise caution  when prescribing blockers - something that surely should have been occurring anyway, given that the blockers are prescribed to minors, off-label, and with no clinical trial evidence available. Furthermore, two years ago, in September 2022, the Ministry quietly dropped the assertion on their website that the use of puberty blockers in cases relating to “gender” was safe and reversible.  The Ministry has always insisted that a holistic care approach was standard, yet this latest announcement and policy document seems to describe exactly that, rebranded as a new precautionary approach. The move away from general practitioner prescriptions to clinicians with experience in gender-affirming healthcare seems to be an indication that it will be ‘business as usual’ for the clinicians who are responsible for New Zealand having a prescription rate of seven times the international average. Far from adding a layer of protection for New Zealand children questioning their identity, all the Ministry has done is open public consultation on possible restrictions, but given no concrete guidelines or restrictions to clinicians. Caution is a subjective term.   In this consultation MOH is particularly seeking input from “organisations that represent people who may be affected by safety measures or that may be involved in how safety measures are used in practice”. Is this purely an invitation to gender ideologues or will the government truly listen to critical views?    Since Finland stopped broad use of puberty blockers in 2020, many other countries have chosen bans, or at the very least introduced restrictions ensuring a very cautious approach. It seems an extraordinary approach and we wonder if the same loose rules apply to other treatments unrelated to the gender identity fad - are these factors usually ignored when prescribing to children? Drugs that are used off label  Drugs that are not proven to be safe or reversible Drugs that have little or no evidence of beneficial effects Drugs where there are no clinical trials or evidence of long-term side effects when taken in children beyond puberty The New Zealand media, and Winston Peters, are heralding this a great step in the right direction, but we say it is nowhere near enough and New Zealand children, their parents, and their doctors need evidence-based guidelines from our Ministry immediately. ENDS

NOVEMBER 2024 Nicole Evans I am a mix of overjoyed and righteously defiant following the news of Eli Rubashkyn’s overturned appeal on November 18, 2024. Finally, 20 months after an appalling display of mob mentality, anger and hatred, I hope and pray that this key offender at the March 25th riot in Albert Park will get the message that differences of opinion do not equate to, nor do they justify, physical or psychological violence. Rubashkyn was convicted and discharged on two counts of common assault in the District Court in September 2024. The defendant had asked for a discharge without conviction during the sentencing to avoid having to disclose a criminal record when travelling internationally. But Judge Kirsten Lummis had very valid reasons for the conviction: first, that this was a premeditated attack, second, Rubashkyn had shown no true remorse. The maximum penalty for a conviction of common assault is a $4000 fine or 6 months in prison. I was present at the Albert Park event, I supported what it stood for and I think Rubashkyn got off lightly with no penalty. New Zealand is a free and democratic society and the protesters were entitled to be there, but when you choose physical protest, you’ve crossed a legal line. Justice David Johnstone discussed this in his decision rejecting Rubashkyn’s appeal: It is important that those who wish to oppose, by protesting against, views they consider abhorrent, do so without engaging in physical attacks. … The courts should be seen to denounce, and in that way generally to deter, that form of protest, because of the risk it will be copied, perhaps more harmfully, and because of its inherent tendency to undermine rather than facilitate the rule of law.” [i] Free speech is protected in New Zealand law up to the point that it incites violence. No-one proved Kellie-Jay Keen intended to incite violence with the rally, or the objection to her visa being granted would’ve been upheld. Tania Sturt, one of the organising committee,  defended the event to media, explaining, “We are well aware of the risk from anti-women's rights protesters or people wishing to derail our intended goal which is to give space for women to speak. We are dedicated 100% to peaceful rallies.” [ii]  Yet the whole world saw the violence incited by those opposing the event. The two victims of these assaults, Tania Sturt and Kellie-Jay Keen, and their supporters haven’t been upset for 20 long months about some stained clothing. We weren’t pleased with the conviction in September because we wish any harm to befall the defendant. We were pleased because finally someone deemed our rights worthy of defending. We were pleased because physical violence as a form of protest is against the law. We were pleased because, finally, the applicable laws for this situation were being upheld. The victims were vindicated in Justice Johnstone’s decision: “I do not accept Mr Olsen’s submission for Ms Golberstein (Rubashkyn) that her conduct involved no violence,” the judge added. “Violence is a word capable of multiple meanings. Here, in rejecting Mr Olsen’s submission, I incorporate within its meaning conduct involving the intentional application of force in a manner that may inflict psychological harm. I infer from the agreed summary of facts that Ms Golberstein’s conduct will have come as a shock to those she assaulted, causing them momentary fear before they recognised they had been doused in no more damaging a liquid than tomato juice. And I note that, in its context, Ms Golberstein’s conduct was inflammatory, and risked provoking further violence, involving bodily harm.” And this is exactly what appeared to happen on that fateful day. As soon as the juice was poured, the crowd, which had been building energy, suddenly surged as one towards the rotunda and the couple of hundred women there were trapped with nowhere to go. I got out because I left early. But if you look through any of the footage it’s clear to see escape was almost impossible for those on the rotunda itself. It took the courage of a bodyguard and a few good women to get Kellie-Jay Keen out and the rest of us were left to fend for ourselves. Tania Sturt herself was punched and kicked when the force of the crowd mowed her down. The police only cared about getting the problem – for some insane reason, this was assumed to be Kellie-Jay Keen, not the rioting mob – out, not protecting every one of us who came to enable, listen and take part in what was to be a nonviolent rally about women’s rights in the face of the misogyny and lies sweeping through our policies and laws. And look what the day turned into – the physical manifestation of the very misogyny and lies we wished to expose. Justice Johnstone summed it up perfectly: “[Rubashkyn’s] actions blatantly crossed a line that must be maintained, between the legitimate verbal or written expression of contrary opinion on one side, and physical conduct that risks provoking violence or harm to individuals, communities and institutions on the other.” Rubashkyn has joked that it was “only” tomato juice, nothing harmful, nothing to get upset about. But it was never about the tomato juice. It was about the shutting down of women’s rights to gather, to speak, and to hold opinions others may disagree with. In my opinion, the rejection of this appeal was the only correct interpretation of New Zealand legislation. Our Bill of Rights Act protects and promotes human rights and fundamental freedoms in New Zealand. Even if our law enforcement and law makers can’t be counted on to defend and uphold them, I’m relieved those who apply the law to real people and real situations still can and still do.   [i]   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime/transgender-activist-eli-rubashkyn-loses-appeal-for-dousing-posie-parker-with-tomato-juice/ZNZTRBKOKRA7BNKINYLQOVGF54/ [ii]   https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131556807/trying-to-get-a-headline-chris-hipkins-on-antitrans-activist-kelliejay-keenminshull

By Nicole Evans As an Albert Park survivor, I felt a lot was riding on the sentence to be handed down on September 2, 2024. If Eli Rubashkyn got away with the tomato juice assault at the abandoned Let Women Speak  event at Albert Park in March 2023, it would be a slap in the face to the named victims, Tania Sturt and Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, and it would send a chilling message to the other women gathered there that day, that freedom of expression no longer applies to those wishing to speak up for women’s rights in New Zealand. I met Tania through the Albert Park rally and the day was quite an eye-opener to me to the depths of the infiltration of gender ideology in New Zealand. I knew it was bad, but I really had no idea. It’s been an honour to work alongside this veteran women’s rights activist, and to support her during the sentencing was a no-brainer to me. We were both a bit nervous due to all the unknowns – who would attend, what would be said or done, what the outcome would be. So, we met early and took a leisurely drive into the city. We had lunch with Simon Anderson, a nice man with great shirts (I promised I’d mention them!) who just happened to have a camera in the right place at the right time that fateful day. He is very interested in this case, has a quirky sense of humour that kept our spirits up, and was very supportive of Tania throughout the process. Given the media’s proven infatuation with the trans lobby, he did a couple of interviews with Tania to make sure her voice was on the public record.  VICTIM Proceedings began with Tania’s Victim Impact Statement which was a very powerful reminder of the traumatic events she faced that day at the hands of someone who was offended at the thought of women speaking in public. She included a vivid description of the psychological toll of having an unknown substance poured on her, “I felt terror, then disgust and violation … You did not harm me physically, but you could have.” She went on to say “You were interviewed on camera grinning and stating you wanted to prevent hatred in this country.” Such perverse irony. Tania bravely ended with this: “Your actions instigated a series of events which have impacted my finances, my employment, my peace of mind, my mental and physical health, and my relationships. I care about my right to be a woman who can stand in public and freely speak the truth unimpeded by the actions of someone who disagrees with me.” Women the world over stand with you, Tania.  DEFENCE Then the defence counsel, James Olsen, began his verbal submissions, recapping events from his client’s perspective. Kellie-Jay Keen and her views were described as hateful and anti-trans while Rubashkyn’s actions were painted as a virtuous reaction to various alleged experiences in his country of birth. Olsen said his client stands by his pre-meditated actions and his interview on One News bragging about keeping New Zealand free of dangerous anti-trans views, but posited the assault could be described as “extreme protest”; he was exercising his right to freedom of expression and perhaps just went too far with the juice. He made out his client was also a victim, going so far as to say he suffered as much as the named victims with the bodyguard manhandling to remove him from the rotunda, water splashed on him, and alleged death threats and psychological harm in the following weeks and months. But hang on a minute. Facing the consequences of the actions you chose and planned to do is not at all the same thing as facing the consequences of someone else’s actions forced on you. He expertly distorted the nature of the harm done. As my mother used to say, “How do defence lawyers sleep at night?” The judge questioned the defendant’s remorse, noting the lengthy time between charge (April 2023) and guilty plea (June 2024). Counsel said his client had had time to reflect on his actions. No further excuse was offered. I agree with what Judge Lummis was clearly thinking; that there’s a vast difference between true remorse for your actions and mere regret at having to face the consequences of them. Of all the outlandish things Olsen said, this next defence had to be the most offensive: he drew our attention to the sometimes-unlawful actions of the suffragettes in the early 20th century to gain equal voting rights with men. I can’t remember his exact words, but, to paraphrase, he said that sometimes today’s criminals are tomorrow’s heroes, those who are “vindicated by history”. He actually asked the court, and a female judge at that, to accept the equivalence of women using violence to gain equal rights with men, and a man using violence to silence a group of mainly middle-aged women he disagreed with. It was an especially audacious tactic given the reason for the event at which the assault took place: to make women’s voices heard on a social issue which seriously threatens our privacy, and safe participation in society. Whenever the other side offers a defence for their aggression they never see the irony and hypocrisy of their position. SENTENCING In his submissions regarding sentence, Olsen noted his client’s previous good conduct since arriving in New Zealand in 2014, the harm suffered for his actions, and the effect a conviction would have on his client’s ability to travel. Something Kellie-Jay Keen would like to be able to do, I’m sure, but who feels unsafe to come to New Zealand, our little haven of trans-activism.  Further, Olsen said no harm was done to the two victims. Did he forget the psychological, emotional, financial, relational harm Tania mentioned just minutes prior? He also drew the court’s attention to a previous case of someone who got a sentence of 18 hours community service for spitting on a police officer. As this was a bodily fluid, he submitted, this was a worse offence than the one committed with mere tomato juice; completely ignoring the different settings, parties and purpose of each altercation.  The common assault charge carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to $4,000. The only way is up from here, surely. Olsen claimed that a conviction for this offence would be disproportionate punishment for the consequences of his client’s actions which amounted to excessive protesting, nothing like a Saturday night punch-up. Excuse me? He has still been charged with assault. And let’s not forget that the other man who assaulted another woman at the same event was discharged without conviction for that very “Saturday night punch-up” scenario Olsen offered. So that argument doesn’t hold water. A discharge without conviction in this case could very well send the message the two are the same (small) thing after all; a disastrous outcome for New Zealand women. His final tactic was to ask the judge not to inflate  the nature of the offending because of the cultural situation and media interest. But I would say, by the same token, this is no excuse to minimize  the nature of this offending either. This was a premeditated attack on women’s free speech. That is all the event was about, women speaking. The organisers had a permit and, as far as they knew, police cooperation and backing. The cultural situation and media interest is not what makes Rubashkyn look bad, rather it is what put the women there in danger; a riot whipped up by media with government backing. The cultural situation changes nothing about the nature of the offending, but everything about the nature of the harm inflicted. As Tania has rightly stated in her opposition to the defendant receiving a discharge without conviction, “What is effectively an acquittal will showcase and promote the societal misogyny and violence against women in New Zealand and will negate the intent of the Bill of Rights Act.” She refers, of course, to freedom of expression; a right which the women at the Let Women Speak  event at Albert Park were exercising. So, in summary, the defendant inflicted violence to prevent violence. That’s his defence. I can’t get my head around that one. Counsel for the prosecution, surprisingly, offered no verbal submissions, the judge wanted to deliberate further, and it was after 5pm, so the court was adjourned until tomorrow. It was so disappointing to leave without it all being settled.  DAY 2 “This was not an easy decision.” Those were not the first words we wanted to hear from the judge ahead of the sentencing.  Judge Lummis did all the talking today. And it was all about the defendant. She recapped the lead-up to the event in March 2023 from Rubashkyn’s affidavit – his personal history which has been the reason for his activism for trans rights and his deep commitment to social justice. The judge went to great lengths to praise his work and give context to his presence at Albert Park. I do wonder why there is such a focus on the offender’s past these days. Nothing in my past should alleviate me of my responsibility for my actions. Human beings have free will, self-awareness and rationality. In my view, his history is completely irrelevant to his actions on the day. Where is the consideration of the background and context of the victims? Regarding the sentence, Judge Lummis told the court she had to look at the gravity of the assault, the consequences of that assault and she had to apply proportionality to the sentence. GRAVITY For gravity she noted that, although it was a low-level assault and no physical harm was done, the premeditated nature of the attack added to its seriousness. She also noted there had been no apology or evidence of true remorse. Despite clear video evidence of the attack and his One News interview bragging about the assault just minutes later, he applied to have charges dismissed in September 2023. Judge Ryan decided in October that there was a clear case to answer and he waited another 8 months to enter a guilty plea.  Mitigating factors – the delayed guilty plea, prior good character, letters of support, work for the ‘rainbow community’ here and overseas, and diplomatic work. For some reason she felt the defendant would do things differently next time. But I’m not so sure about that given that delayed guilty plea.  CONSEQUENCES For consequences, she noted these were significant on both sides with a surge of abuse experienced, but that he had regained employment, was generally well respected in his circles, and she had not been presented with any reason to consider travel an immediate problem. She noted even with a conviction he would be able to travel, albeit with some potential challenges. SENTENCE Judge Lummis felt a strong sentence would have a general deterrent effect, a reminder that people can’t take the law into their own hands. This was, after all, a premeditated assault. So, he was convicted of the two charges, but, as she considered some consequences had already been experienced, and for proportionality, he was discharged with no further penalty. Overall, we were pleased with this sentence. REFLECTIONS It was hard to sit there and listen to the judge praise the offender for the parts of his life that have no real relevance to his conduct that day. He may not have organized the protest and he may not have physically harmed anyone with his actions, but he intended to send a message that our views were not welcome. He bragged about that message. He was celebrated for that message. And he pleaded not guilty despite video footage being available to an international audience on the day of the offence occurring. A conviction was the only just outcome. I was there when the assault occurred and I was there when the offender received his punishment. We still await the results of the IPCA complaint, but this is a huge step towards closure. As loud as the protestors’ message was to us at Albert Park, I’m very pleased that on Albert Street, the New Zealand justice system felt it necessary to send as loud a message back to the anti-women protesters, that in a free and democratic society, difference of opinion is no excuse for violence. This was a victory for women’s rights in New Zealand. Or, as Tania would say, “Boom!” *I use male pronouns throughout because the words in Rubashkyn’s own story are “assigned at birth as a male” and “later transitioned to be a woman”. But humans cannot change sex. https://teara.govt.nz/en/video/47405/elianas-story

Yvonne van Dongen, October 30th 2024 This article first appeared on Plain Sight on October 30th 2024 and is published here with permission from the author. Just over 20 years ago the difference of one vote ensured New Zealand would pass the most liberal prostitution legislation in the world, the Prostitution Reform Act (PRA). Now known as the New Zealand model, decriminalisation remains largely an international outlier, emulated only by Belgium and a few Australian states. Yet the country is often touted as a shining example of how well decriminalisation works by numerous academics, sex trade lobbyists, NGOs and mainstream media. However an independent report examining the reported benefits of the decriminalisation of prostitution in New Zealand found not one claim stands up to scrutiny. The 2023 paper " What REALLY Happened in New Zealand When Prostitution was Decriminalised?” was written by American data scientist J. Smith. Smith found that pro-sex trade lobbyists have had an outsize influence in New Zealand since the PRA was passed in 2003. The New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective (NZPC), a group of self-identified ‘sex workers’ instrumental in the implementation of the PRA, have consistently lobbied against further regulation. The NZPC has been government funded since 1988, a year after its inception. Government funding now totals over $1m annually. But Smith’s research refutes all claims by local pro-sex trade lobbyists. The benefits of decriminalisation touted by these lobbyists include claims that the sex industry has not expanded, health and safety have improved, as has the prosecution and conviction of crimes against women. Also vulnerable children who are victims of sexual exploitation have not been harmed and there is no human trafficking in the industry. Smith’s report found flaws with the pro-trade research process. For instance they skewed calculations on matters as basic as the number of women working in the trade and the number of commercial sex establishments. Pro-trade lobbyists claimed there was no increase in prostitution after decriminalisation. Putting aside why this is regarded as a benefit (surely if sex work is work you would want the trade to expand), Smith queried how the numbers were calculated. Major regions were omitted and reports relied on data from a private group that lobbied for full decriminalisation rather than official police estimates. Smith calculated that a more accurate assessment showed a 38.9 percent increase in people in prostitution in the first year post legislation. The number of brothel licences granted also increased from 189 before the legislation to 326 a year later, not including the number of unlicensed brothels. Smith said this is significant given the laxity of licence checks as reported by brothel owners and claims that the unregulated sector was expanding rapidly. Brothels employing fewer than five people do not require licences. A planned 2018 re-evaluation of the industry never occurred and a 2020 Official Information Act request revealed that the Justice ministry has no intention of reevaluating the PRA. In 2019 the NZPC claimed they served over 7416 sex workers in the first half of the year although in a 2024 interview in North & South, NZPC head Dame Catherine Healey estimated there were about 4000 women in the trade. Then there is street prostitution which had been decreasing for five years pre-decriminalisation. However six months pre the PRA street soliciting offences doubled suggesting the increase was in anticipation of the PRA. In another report, the NZPC also downgraded the number of advertisements for commercial sex since in their view an apparent increase in numbers included women they did not know, inactive contact numbers or rates deemed too high to be realistic. On another occasion they argued that the ads were from Asian newspapers and a new website. Smith’s examination of pro-trade sources found they reframed sex as a basic right all men are entitled to and where the privacy of men is valued above all. She said this hindered investigations into child abuse. The NZPC also discouraged arresting abusers of child victims of commercial sex exploitation, suggesting it would not deter abuse. New Zealand police reported that as a result of legislative changes, they had less contact with the sex industry and there is no systemic intelligence gathering and collation. The Prostitution Law Revieew Committee (PLRC) downplayed reports of child sexual exploitation, blaming media exaggeration, despite the US State department naming New Zealand as a “source country for underage girls subjected to internal sex trafficking.” The department has also expressed concern about New Zealand’s failure to prosecute a single case of sex trafficking Smith also highlighted the failure to define offences under the PRA as serious sex crimes, a factor that has obstructed information gathering on the law. She concluded that treating prostitution as a job like any other has fostered tolerance of child sexual exploitaiton through prostitution.  This child abuse disproportionately affected children of colour. Maori and Pacific Island children entered the sex trade before the age of 18 at double the rate of New Zealand European children. Smith found that the New Zealand sex trade, like many countries with legalised prostitution, relied disprotpotionately on migrants and people of colour to fill demand. Violence remains a feature of prostitution. Pro-trade lobbyists blame stigma, even though decriminalisation was meant to diminish this. A PRLC survey asked about services clients might request such as “golden showers” and “fisting”. Smith asks how these practices adhere to occupational safety standards? In addition, health inspections rarely took place. Smith concluded that the hypocrisy of academics, health organisations and the media, showed the total ideological capture of these institutions. For instance, following the murder of women in prostitution, the NZPC was quick to defend the PRA and claim that decriminalised sex work was working. Smith’s paper is not the only report to criticise the NZPC’s influence. In 2018 renowned feminist scholar and activist Janice Raymnond outlined the influence of the NZPC in an article accusing the organisation of gatekeeping . Raymond explained that the NZPC was not only “influential in lobbying for the law that decriminalised the sex industry, but also drafted the original bill.” Their association with brothel owners and the government funding led her to question the monopoly the NZPC has on prostitution policy and research in New Zealand. However debate is largely dominated by pro-sex trade lobbyists. Those opposed may be referred to as SWERFS (Sex Work Exclusionary Radical Feminists) in an echo of the term used to deride women advocating for biological reality labelled TERFS (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists). An Australian professor who researched the sex trade in Australia and New Zealand was deplatformed when she spoke out against decriminalisation. In New Zealand, it is difficult to get alternative views on the sex trade into the media. Even when sex trade survivors band together to lobby for reform, such as the group Wahine Toa Rising, they struggle to get their critiques of the industry into the public arena. Critics point out that the livelihood of pro-sex trade lobbyists relies on the continuation of the sex trade. The Nordic model penalises the client and assists women to leave the industry. If the Nordic Model was implemented and funding shifted to exit services instead of the current harm reduction services, they risk losing their jobs. The NZPC, for example, is flush with over $1m in government funding. Decriminalisation is also advocated by the United Nations, the World Health Organisation and Amnesty International. Critics suggest some of these organisations may have conflicted motives. UN peacekeepers have been accused of committing large-scale sexual abuse, frequently of children while on duty. The Associated Press found that in the 12 years before 2017 when accusations surfaced there had been almost 2000 allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers and other UN personnel around the world. A 1996 UN study found that half of peacekeeping missions are correlated with a “rapid rise in child prostitution” in respective countries. In 2023 the WHO Office of Internal Oversight Services, or IOS, reported it had investigated 287 allegations of sexual misconduct in all WHO regions in the last 12 months. Commentators and organisations such as Human Rights Watch ( HRW) suggest that the problem now extends beyond the “actions of a few”, with HRW highlighting that other major supranational organisations involved in these missions have the same problems, including the African Union . Feminist Janice Raymond has also highlighted the way language is manipulated to minimise violence against women which is referred to by the NZPC as “exploitative working conditions”, “occupational hazards”, “adverse experiences while working” or “malpractices.” She pointed out that in the PLRC report there is no section called violence against women. Sex trafficking is reframed as “migrant sex work.” She says since the PRA only just passed in 2003 (by a single vote), consideration should be given to assessing public opinion of the law and its consequences and to revisiting a parliamentary vote.

Write to your MP today Trans-identified males are shockingly over-represented in NZ prison statistics… and 14% of these men are placed in women’s prisons! The presence of trans-identifying males, who offend at rates far higher than women, poses a risk to the safety, dignity, and well-being of female prisoners. It compromises the integrity of single-sex spaces designed for women and ignores the reality of male-pattern offending. 14% of trans-identifying males in women's prisons is 100% too many SUFW called on the Minister of Corrections to disestablish the practice of housing trans-identifying males in female facilities immediately. Join us in protecting women’s safety by writing to your local MP - you can use our letter as a guide and you can find your MP's email address here. No More Compromise!

November 2024 Hilary Oxley - Speech at the Global Protest Against Sex Self-ID - New Zealand I am Hilary from LAVA: Lesbian Action for Visibility in Aotearoa. We have a case to settle with the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT) because Out In The City barred us from having a display at the Pride fair in 2021. To learn more look at LAVA.NZ  . In the past year, 445 NZ men have changed their ‘sex marker’ on their birth certificate. Not that their sex has changed! I will be referring to sex as some THING we are, a biological state, & using the word gender to refer to HOW we are, a stereotype. I want to start with ‘passing as the opposite sex’.  Unlike most men who want to pass as women, there are a lot of reasons, unrelated to voyeurism, for women to want to pass as men. Women have passed as men, through the ages: to get the higher male wage to support themselves and others to be listened to and taken seriously to do science; to write books; to climb trees to avoid male violence to live in same-sex relationships Nowadays we can do some of these without passing as men. We don’t need to be either closeted or pass as men so as to live in same-sex relationships in New Zealand, though many young women-who-are-wondering if they are lesbian are being channelled - via fashionable, cult-like, illogical ideas - into a trans identity rather than being out as lesbian and proud to be a woman. But some of the old reasons for passing are still more easily achieved if we pass as men. For example, being listened to and taken seriously. This is one of the dramatic benefits reported by women who are passing as men after taking testosterone. They remark on having their opinions sought after… now that they are mistaken for men. It's a new and extremely profound experience for these women. For them, and for all of us, it clearly exposes the misogyny we live with. There have always been plenty of lesbians, and other women, who have survived happily and healthily while wishing they had been born male because of the privileges that would have given them. Perversely, having your opinion asked after, being listened to and taken seriously on a day to day basis are not the male privileges that are lacking for the men who are identifying themselves as women. These men - who think they’re women or insist they’re lesbians - are taken so seriously in Rainbow circles that their point of view decides what happens to the actual lesbians who don’t include men in their safely supportive lesbian-only groups. Unlike bi-sexual and heterosexual women, lesbians have ZERO interest in engaging with men’s sexual urges, (whether these urges be considered kinks or natural urges). We certainly don’t want to be satisfying them by including them in lesbian-only, or women’s, groups or by simply referring to these privileged humans as ‘SHE’. Germany’s new law proposes that anyone, like any of us here today, who continues to refer to a man (who-claims-to-have-a "female-gender-identity") as a man, can be fined up to €10,000. (There could be lots of lesbians who refuse to pay and so spend time in prison together in Germany). We, lesbians who assert that a man is a ‘He’, will not permit men into women’s or lesbian-only spaces, even though we mix with men in many other of life’s spaces, such as, mixing together at the “inclusive” Pride fairs. For example, in 2019 Lesbian Rights Alliance Aotearoa had their booking for space at the Pride fair cancelled because, like LAVA, those lesbians knew that lesbians are same-sex-attracted women. So, they consulted the Human Rights Commission but were told by the staff that anyone can be a lesbian. This was 2019 - when many of us realised that Rainbow Advisory groups in Government departments weren’t actually representing lesbians or gays. They were, for example, following the Human Rights Commission (HRC) by saying that homosexuality is 'same GENDER, not same SEX' attraction.  Plus, the HRC had redefined the word 'woman' as had other Government departments, including the Ministry for Women (MfW). In 2021 LAVA protested at MfW against their definition of woman (i.e. anyone). Our placards said:  Sex can’t be changed Don’t trans the gay away Protect gender non-conformity & our youth Don’t skew data              Biology is a fact. Female is not ‘a feeling’ Protect Women’s Rights, Spaces, Safety & Statistics. Four days later these messages were used by Wellington Pride as justification for barring LAVA’s display from the fair. So much for Free Speech! Pride claimed that LAVA was “trans-exclusionary”. They reckon that the fair participants should be  “standing side by side” with “the most marginalised of the marginalised … including our transgender whanau…”.  Are they, our transgender whanau, “the most marginalised of the marginalised”?   They are marginalised, but who else is being marginalised by the very group that opposes marginalisation? Discriminating against lesbians, by banning us for asserting we are same-sex attracted, is marginalising us from our own similarly marginalised and repressed people.  Nowadays, trans identified people are supported by extremely mainstream businesses.     For just one astounding example: since 2016, Barclays Bank has been one of the loudest corporate supporters of Mermaids, the organisation where younger trans-identified-people who have been drawn into the fashionable & illogical cult are pushed through medical ‘transition’.  Barclays Bank is not marginal! (Google 2015, Barclays Bank, Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew). That was when that same bank decided to withdraw funding from Mumsnet, a sex realist women’s group.   Even in past decades, more locally here in Wellington, the males who identify as trans have continually had supportive socialising and income earning connections with legitimate businesses. They have had safe places to meet - unlike ‘women-who-are-wondering’ and lesbians, for whom it’s now difficult to find specifically lesbian groups for support, emotional safety, and for socialising. We, and the use of the word 'lesbian', are being ostracised and marginalised by the LGBTQ decision-makers who won’t allow lesbian-only groups. Pride also said we should be “standing side by side”.  This is, of course, exactly what we had done together, over the past 35 years, at these lesbian and gay fairs (as they used to be called).   We have been publicly side by side, as broadly inclusive and diverse examples of rainbow communities, feeling relatively safe even while not agreeing with each other entirely. Now, they are discriminating against, banning, and excluding staunch lesbians from a mixed, supposedly inclusive, group. Who is it that’s NOT standing side by side ? In my opinion - the non-binary girls, trans-identified women, and liberal women who are involved in LGBTQ+ circles, who are influenced by the dominating males (as is usual in straight cultures), and who want to welcome males into womanhood, should:  stop fearing and dissing (disrespecting) staunch lesbians                         stop fearing and dissing women who speak up for women                                         stop fearing and dissing people who differentiate between females and males -                              when it matters Remember:      we are not the ones who commonly rape both women and men we are not the ones sharing our images around  to more males to satisfy themselves by abusing us, women we are not the ones endorsing a fetish via voyeurism when intruding on our lesbian spaces,  whether those spaces be in person, online, or in their own minds   So, after LAVA was barred from the fair by Wellington Pride, in an effort to inspire newer lesbians, we displayed our banned map of local lesbian herstory outside the fair that we had been barred from. A noisy counter-protest formed, and surrounded us, chanting “pack your shit and go” in our faces - which felt unsafe - and displayed signs bearing slogans such as “Fuck TERF Cunts”, which is threateningly aggressive, insulting and misogynistic. It was scary, felt unsafe, noisy, stressful, and a VERY sad day. If we say we sometimes want the safety of lesbian-ONLY groups for coming out and connecting – as is normal for groups that have issues in common – this has been interpreted as us saying that trans identified men, specifically, are unsafe. Yet, Pride said LAVA’s presence at the mixed, diverse fair would make trans people feel “unsafe”.  Who knows whether they were referring to physical safety, or emotional safety. But physical safety is an issue. What we do know: trans-identifying males are over-represented in New Zealand prisons. In New Zealand about 14% of trans-identifying males, from around New Zealand, are housed in a female Corrections facility. Similarly, about 14% of sentenced offenders (who are trans-identifying males) are on remand or sentenced for sexual assault. That’s imprisonment at twice the ratio of men, generally. The data clearly shows that males, however they identify, sexually offend at rates much more than female rates. But for trans-identified males it’s more like 28 times more than women. So, men identifying as trans does NOT change their male tendency for sexual assault and other violent behaviour. These are the particular men that women are told they should be comfortable sharing spaces with! So, because of their prioritising trans issues (which does not account for our safety, and it marginalises and does not stand side-by-side with us) we were barred from the fair. We made a complaint to the HRC about being discriminated against simply because we assert that lesbians are exclusively same-sex-attracted women. This has led on to a complaint with the Human Rights Review Tribunal – where human rights are reviewed - and we are currently preparing for the hearing early next year. Please support our case at LAVA.NZ  .

Republished with permission from the wonderful author Garwhoungle. This issue of THE MINISTRY HAS FALLEN is Part 4 of The curious case of Pride vs the Lesbians series and focuses on the legal aspects of LAVA’s human rights case against Wellington Pride. Read Part 1 : In which it's all inclusion and aroha, but not for lesbians. Read Part 2: Lesbianism, patriarchy’s final frontier Read Part 3: Gender extremist attacks on lesbians: three quick case studies What is the case? Hilary Oxley and Margaret Curnow, on behalf of their group Lesbian Action for Visibility Aotearoa (LAVA), are taking Wellington Pride Festival Incorporated to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The case number is HRRT 053/22. What is the Human Rights Review Tribunal? The Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT) hears claims about breaches of the Privacy Act 2020, the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994, and, relevant to this discussion, the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA). Tribunal members are appointed: the Governor-General appoints the Chair and Deputy Chair on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, other members are appointed directly by the Minister of Justice. What’s the gist? LAVA believes its members have been discriminated against because of their political beliefs, beliefs based around the proposition that men can’t be women. The gist of the case is to find out whether, according to law, this has happened. It’s slightly complicated and involves several intertwining issues. Was Wellington Pride offering a service? First, the Tribunal has to establish whether Wellington Pride, in making a public call to Rainbow groups to apply for stalls, was providing a service to the public. This is important because it tells us if the Human Rights Act 1993 actually applies to what happened. Section 44 of the HRA says people who supply goods and services to the public must not discriminate. If, however, it is found to be a private event, the HRA would not apply and Pride could decide who was allowed to hold stalls for whatever reason it wanted. As the song goes, it’s their party, they can be anti-lesbian if they want to. If it was a service, did Wellington Pride discriminate on one of the HRA-protected grounds? Section 21 of the Human Rights Act lists 13 grounds on which, if the Act does apply to you, you must not discriminate. It includes sex, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and a bunch of other prohibited grounds. Pertinent to this case is the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of ‘political opinion’. This is a big deal. On the HRRT decision web page, I can’t see any record of a previous case focused on political opinion. Apparently, some cases in the 1990s talked about bus drivers with communist sympathies. This case could set a modern precedent, not just for those who want to be true to their belief in biological sex, but for anyone who fears that their political opinion might see them booted out of a job, a restaurant, or a house. Can the views expressed by LAVA be considered ‘political opinion’? Wellington Pride acknowledges that it refused LAVA’s stall because of their ‘trans-exclusionary views’. LAVA’s primary case is that its members’ views on trans issues are political opinions. If they are found to be political opinions then Wellington Pride might, according to law, have discriminated against LAVA members. But if Wellington Pride did discriminate, was it justified because of a need to protect transgender and non-binary people? But wait, there’s more! If Wellington Pride did discriminate, there’s a potential legal out. Section 73 of the Human Rights Act 1993 lays out instances where discrimination is deemed okay. They’re grouped under the heading ‘Measures to ensure equality’. If discrimination occurs, Section 73 states, it will not constitute a breach of the Act if: (a) it is done or omitted in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons, being in each case persons against whom discrimination is unlawful by virtue of this Part; and (b) those persons or groups need or may reasonably be supposed to need assistance or advancement in order to achieve an equal place with other members of the community. This is interesting. If Pride claims that transgender people are so marginalised that the discrimination against others was justified in order for trans people to “achieve an equal place with other members of the community” is such a claim reasonable? Many insist that trans people are the most discriminated against and marginalised group ever, anywhere and in all time. I don’t think the facts support this but it might be the argument made by Wellington Pride. Was Wellington Pride acting in ‘good faith’? You’ll note in the wording of Section 73 that any measures to ensure equality must be made in ‘good faith’. If Section 73 is part of Wellington Pride’s arguments, was that organisation, in refusing to let LAVA display its map of lesbian history, acting in ‘good faith’ to protect its trans and non-binary whanau? A reminder that LAVA wasn’t there to chant trans women are men or wear lesbians don’t like dick t-shirts. The problem was, according to Wellington Pride, that LAVA members simply thought such things. This gives rise to supplementary questions. Could other people attending Out in the City also have had the wrong sorts of thoughts? Was everyone vetted at the door for their opinions on trans issues? Could Pride guarantee an atmosphere free of people with TERF-like thoughts? Are trans and non-binary people protected under the current version of the Human Rights Act? The ‘measures to ensure equality’ section brings up another issue. Is discrimination against trans and non-binary people prevented by the Act? Bear with me. Section 73 of the HRA, the Measures to Equality section, only applies to those groups covered in Section 21, the Grounds of Discrimination section. This means that if Wellington Pride argue discrimination against LAVA was necessary to protect trans and non-binary people it’s got to show that Section 21 covers transgender and non-binary people. Let’s jump back a bit. While gender identity and gender expression are not explicitly listed in Section 21, the Human Rights Commission has long taken the position that they are covered in the Act under the ‘Sex’ ground. Back in 2006, Crown Law advised as much to the Attorney-General. This opinion, however, has never been tested in court. 2006 was a long time ago as well. That Crown Law opinion pre-dates the more recent expectations of some people who identify as trans or non-binary, that in every sex-based scenario (toilets, changing rooms, sport, prisons, refuges etc), they may use the facilities or category of their choice. Ambiguity around the issue remains and that ambiguity prompted the Law Commission this year to instigate a review of whether the current wording of the Act adequately protects transgender people, those with innate variations of sex characteristics, and those who are non-binary. That review is still in progress. The LAVA case, however, will be taken under the version of the Act in place at the time of the alleged discrimination. Remember the issue here is not whether trans and non-binary people should be protected under the Act, it’s whether, in law, gender identity is a characteristic that is protected from discrimination. If you care about sex-based rights, lesbian rights, or the right to hold a political opinion without discrimination, and you have some spare change, then LAVA could really use some financial support for their court case: