November 2024 Janet - Women's Declaration International NZ - Global Protest Against Sex Self-ID - New Zealand Kia ora everyone, I am Janet,  the New Zealand Country Contact for Women's Declaration International. The Women's Declaration, which  has been signed by over 38,600 people, re-affirms the sex-based rights of women and girls,   which are guaranteed by the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). We oppose all forms of discrimination against women and girls that result from replacing "sex" with "gender identity" in law, policy, and social practice.   We are very concerned  that Germany's Self ID Act, the Gender Self Determination Act (SBGG)  is violating the human rights of women and girls which are laid out in international law, in particular, CEDAW,  and  the Istanbul Convention against Violence Against Women. CEDAW opposes discrimination based on sex. The rights of women in CEDAW are sex- based. These rights are being undermined by concepts of gender coming into law, such as in Sex Self ID legislation.    Today, in Germany, an extreme piece of Sex Self ID legislation, constituting a very serious attack on women's rights, comes into force. This is a setback for women, in Germany and internationally. It reflects similar attacks on women's rights around the world including in Australia and New Zealand. Recently New South Wales became the last state in Australia to introduce Sex Self ID. Some states in Australia have draconian laws equalling the severity of the German law, making it impossible for women to gather in same sex spaces, or to tell the truth about biological sex.   The German law is worse than New Zealand's Sex Self ID law, the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 2021; which at least recognises that the Birth Certificate can no longer be relied upon as evidence of someone's sex.   The German law is so extreme that parents can put whatever gender they like on the birth certificate for a child from birth up to five years of age. I can't begin to imagine the psychological harm that this could cause. A person can be fined 10,000 Euro for disclosing what somebody's biological sex is. If a person's sex or original name cannot be disclosed, criminals and sex offenders will be able to  disguise their identities, putting women and children at risk .   Germany has ratified the  Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women  “CEDAW“, and the “Istanbul Convention“ on the protection of women from sex-based violence; and it has protections for women in its constitution.   The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls - Reem Alsalem - sent a 17-page letter to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, addressed to the foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, in which she described her great concerns about the human rights threat to girls and women posed by the Self-ID Act, demanding statements as to how Germany would continue to guarantee the rights and safety of women and girls. Reem Alsalem also reminded the German Federal Government of its obligations under international human rights law to protect children, girls and women based on sex.   In particular, Reem Alsalem noted the following rights and threats to these rights:    1. The right to be free from discrimination and violence 2.  Increased risks of violence against women and associated trauma 3. Undermining single sex spaces for females 4.  Lack of trauma-informed approach for women and girls who are victims/survivors of violence 5. The obligation to collect sex -based data in statistics 6. The negative impact on women's and girl's highest standards of mental and physical health. She particularly noted the risks of puberty blockers for children, as outlined in the Cass report 7. The lack of safeguards for the best interests of the child, as outlined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the child, particularly concerning girls 8. The risks to freedom of expression, religious freedom, and the prevention of violence, due to the ban on disclosure Women are being prevented from talking about men's violence and identifying male sex offenders.   Reem Alsalem concludes by expressing her great concern about the negative consequences that the new law would have on the rights of women and girls. She reminded the Federal Government that, as a State party to CEDAW , it will be held accountable if it does not take all appropriate measures to prevent, investigate, prosecute, punish and provide redress for acts or omissions by State and non-state actors that lead to gender-based violence against women. This is because violence against women is recognized as discrimination against women. She particularly noted the risks of violence towards women prisoners, who are forced to share cells with male inmates. Violence against women is also inherent in prostitution, which has been legal in Germany for 20 years. The Special Rapporteur asked the German government to explain what steps it would  take to address the noted  concerns. She received a very short meaningless reply which evaded all of the questions.   Reem Alsalem also noted how the word "Geshclecht" in the German Self-Determination Act is understood to refer to  both sex and gender, as German law does not make a distinction between them and uses the same word to denote both. She says this prevents a sensitive approach to issues pertaining to both sex and to gender.   United Nations law, until recently, has always recognised that sex is about biological sex, whereas gender is about the social constructs and  expectations which reinforce a hierarchy of men over women. CEDAW calls for the elimination of these sex-based stereotypes.   We have seen the conflation of sex and gender happening in other countries too, where the word gender has often been used as a polite term for sex, and then eventually came to replace sex altogether, thereby eroding the recognition of the reality of sex, and of sex-based rights.   German women have been speaking out against this harmful and misogynist  piece of legislation, but their voices have been ignored by the Government. Instead the Government have only paid attention to co-opted women's and human rights organisations who have supported it. We see this same pattern happening in New Zealand.   Undeterred, the group Lasst Frauen Sprechen has called for international solidarity, and for us all to gather today at German embassies around the world, to protest at this threat to us all! Ina Wagener, the founder of Lasst Frauen Sprechen  said on a Women's Declaration International webinar in September, "We want the so-called gender identity to be removed from all laws, because Self-ID harms women's rights. They should be removed from the EU, UN and laws in all our countries." And "Let's protest together all over the world against the arrogance and hypocrisy of misogynist politics on November 1, starting at 12.05!  And that is what we are doing! And here we all are!    And now, I'd like to read out a message of solidarity from Ina to all of us who are here today:     Dear sisters! I would like to tell you how the idea for this international campaign came about. It was born out of the anger at the politicians that I have developed in 3 years of demos against Self-ID. The politicians don't hear us? Are we too quiet? Then we should unite our voices and send a call to the whole world! In this case, united women's voices are directed at the German politicians who have passed one of the worst self-ID laws to protect the lie that sex can be changed. But politicians in other countries around the world also act as if they don't know what a woman is and abolish women's rights. So I came up with the idea of asking women in other countries if they would demonstrate in front of the German embassies. I thought, hopefully there will be 3-5 crazy women who will do something in 1-3 countries. And we made a great discovery - the world is full of crazy women! We have solidarity support from 22 countries and in some countries several protests have been announced! This is an example of women's power that inspires us all! We are real. We are the grassroots. We can only rely on ourselves, on women at grassroots level. Because the big organizations like UN Women, which were once supposed to protect us women, have betrayed us. They have betrayed our trust and even sold our word “woman” and smuggled this damn gender identity into our protective laws behind our backs. That's why grassroots women are now taking over! Women rise, because self-ID harms all women and girls around the world! Dear sisters in New Zealand, we are endlessly grateful to you and are thinking of you at our rally! You are the first on the planet today, November 1st, to take this action! The spark of this women's solidarity will fly from you across the planet today and inspire women from country to country! Thank you for this incredible experience of solidarity! Ina, coordinator of the “Lasst Frauen Sprechen!” initiative in Germany.

November 2024 Sabine Schneider - Lesbian Resistance - Speech at the Global Protest Against Sex Self-ID - New Zealand I’m Sabine from Lesbian Resistance New Zealand. I worked in this building for seven long years, and in that time, I saw three ambassadors come and go. None of them were confused about who was a woman and who was a man. It’s wild how much has changed since I quit my job in 2021! The current German Ambassador, her Excellency Frau Nicole Menzenbach, no longer recognizes the difference between men and women, or the difference between sex and gender, and it seems she also can’t tell the difference between identity and mental illness. She states that pretending to be something you’re not is a basic human right. Journalist Jennifer Bilek appropriately calls this pretense “sex deception”, which might be a lot of things. But a human right it is not. I have no idea how it is now, but while I worked at the German Embassy, no one even mentioned things like self-ID, and our email signatures did not dictate anyone’s pronouns. If I’d been asked to call a man “Frau So-und-So,” I would’ve refused, even if it meant risking my job. In fact, part of why I left was because I had a smidgen of an inkling of where things were headed. But I admit, even in my most cynical outlook I never saw Sex Self-ID coming. Forcing people by law to take part in someone’s delusion is so absurd, so grotesque, that only enlightened novelists like Orwell or Huxley could make it up. Letting people legally lie about something as basic as their sex is creating a dystopian society that has no chance of happiness or good fortune. Being forced by law to lie is not progress; that’s oppression, even tyranny. One of the most disturbing results of self-ID laws is what they mean for homosexuality. Lesbianism – by definition – is an exclusively female world. When a man can simply declare himself female and, by law, be part of lesbian spaces, it doesn’t just disrupt things—it erases the very definition of what it means to be a lesbian. In short, it is deeply homophobic. Laws that force us to lie need to go. That’s our fight here in New Zealand, and I know Germany is working on it, too. In fact, we’re actively involved with LAZ reloaded, so greeting from Downunder. We stand in solidarity with all our German sisters, united in this fight.

November 2024 Maree Docherty, Lesbian Resistance - Speech at the Global Protest Against Sex Self-ID - New Zealand My name is Maree Docherty from Lesbian Resistance. My first encounter with men presenting as women was in the late 1960s. I was 18, newly moved to the big smoke to work and checking out the night life with my best friend. We found a little bar/club called the Bo Peep. Two huge men in frocks and wigs were fighting in the women’s toilets. To say we were horrified would be an understatement.  Though I was more annoyed that I couldn’t use the women’s toilet. Then, this seemed a harmless night out at an adult venue. Now, it’s turned into a nightmare, fighting for our hold on reality and truth. My new job was serving five years in the NZ Navy. During that time, if I had confessed that I was a lesbian, I would have been given a dishonourable discharge. Today, men can declare themselves female, join the Navy, and invade women’s barracks, sleeping quarters, changing rooms, toilets. If these men outrank women, they will have additional powers. In all my long years living as a lesbian, these present times would have to be the most homophobic. The sex self-ID law in NZ and other western countries has given permission for men to force themselves into my private lesbian spaces. This is a rape of my culture. I am repulsed and disgusted by men who would call themselves lesbian. It’s homophobic and women hating. Shame on politicians who pass laws like self-ID, allowing mentally ill men with fetishes to override, take away and steal the hard-fought for rights of lesbians and/or women and girls. Lesbian Resistance stand regularly at a market square in a small rural town to talk to the public about issues like sex self-ID. Since all these years ago I often wondered how heterosexual women felt about men pretending to be women. Now I know from our talks that women do not like it at all. In fact, overwhelmingly men and women dislike sex self-ID. The days of being kind and inclusive are over. Giving mentally ill men an inch, they take a mile. Forcing something so unnatural on women and girls is insulting and dangerous. Aren’t we lucky that here in NZ the left hasn’t yet been able to push through hate-speech laws. Laws designed mostly to prevent freedom of speech and stop women like me telling the truth. The truth that you cannot change sex, there are only two sexes, male and female. Sex is not an identity. No child is born in the wrong body. This is a bad law that needs to be repealed. Lesbian Resistance New Zealand stand beside our German sisters.

November 2024 Suzanne Levy - Speech at the Global Protest Against Sex Self-ID - New Zealand This time five years ago I was living in a kind of suburban lesbian utopia - blending in with a house in the suburbs with my partner and daughter - and although we weren't married, we were no longer prevented from being so if we wished; we had the choice just like other couples. In terms of women’s rights I was fairly confident that our daughter would grow up with things at least as fair as I did; I was living in blissful ignorance. Those were my “good old days” and we have the feminists of the 60s and 70s to thank. Some of them are here today, no doubt wondering why it’s taking so bloody long! It was around this time that I first heard the term self ID. I heard the term self ID in relation to a women’s conference that had just been cancelled by Massey University in Wellington; it was to be held in November 2019. Almost exactly five years ago. That conference was for Speak Up for Women. I did a tad of investigating and realised that the woman who were being described as bigots, transphobic and anti-gay were nothing of the sort. This information made me pretty determined to attend the conference, so my partner and I went along with a load of other women (and some men I think) from Wellington and further afield, and enjoyed listening to some really fantastic and empowering speakers. Holly Lawford-Smith Megan Murphy Melissa Derby And of course, Ani O'Brien - it was eye opening to say the least and there was no going back. The first thing that struck me about the term self ID is that it was obviously being used by people to describe something about themselves or someone else that isn’t a reality. Nobody who is actually something ever has to use the term self ID - they simply are. But then I began to really dig and found to my astonishment that the term “reality” was decidedly old fashioned and was only used by fascist, nazi bigots. Not only that, thoughts and feelings that centred women’s rights on women were to be avoided at all costs! Once I realised that the word woman was being used to describe men, well, then I really lost my shit. So, I entered the world of TERFs, my partner and I spent a memorable (for all the wrong reasons) few weeks making all sorts of terrible discoveries about AGPs, ruined lesbian dating sights, rapid onset gender dysphoria and men in women’s sports. A friend who peaked at the same time messaged me and said “whatever you do, don’t google the cotton ceiling”... And here I am… So what is the LEGAL situation with self ID? The thing that the German self ID legislation and the New Zealand legislation both do is confirm that it’s all pretend. Our birth certificates are vanity documents. In Germany the legislation has exclusions for sport and other areas and doesn’t seem to count when it comes to military conscription in wartime. In New Zealand our birth certificate may or may not be used to determine a person's sex - we can determine a person's sex in other ways, dangerously still permitted to use our eyes and ears! This important addition was implemented thanks to Speak Up for Women and other feminist groups who pointed out the insanity of the law change on other legislation and most importantly on the rights of women. In both countries, from a trans activists point of view - the law gives with one hand and takes with the other. For the general public not familiar with the ins and outs of our laws, it creates confusion, an impression that self-ID actually means someone has changed sex. But one thing is clear: the lawmakers do not really believe that trans women are women. In Germany this makes it all the more ridiculous that there is scope for punishing someone who uses the name and sex of someone who has gone through the legal process of changing their birth certificate. This might come as a shock to many of you but in New Zealand there is no legislation that prevents a service provider from providing single sex spaces. Our BDMRR (or self ID) legislation has the “out” clause mentioned above and our human rights act outlines specific situations where it is not unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex - these situations include sports, accommodation, changing rooms and bathrooms and counselling of a personal nature - plus others. Our Human Rights Act does not mention gender or gender identity once. It’s all about SEX. So with the law on our side, why is it so hard to maintain women-only spaces, services and sports?? Well, nearly 20 years ago, Georgina Beyer, our first transgender MP proposed a bill to include gender identity in the Human Rights Act; it was in a limited form and proposed adding gender or gender identity to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination - also referred to as protected characteristics. It didn’t propose amending the exceptions - the parts of the act that give us protection based on our sex. Rather than going through the normal bill process in parliament, the draft was sent to Crown Law - the Government lawyers - for an opinion to see if the change was actually necessary. The short answer is that Crown Law said that in their opinion, changes were not necessary because gender was included under sex. The logic AND CONTEXT to this conclusion is best described using an example. Let’s say a man applies for a job. The job is not sex specific; let’s say the job is a bus driver. The male applicant dresses in a way that could be described as “like a woman”, to be honest, probably not like the way I am dressed today - but you know, like a gender-conforming woman! The male applicant doesn’t get the job and the reason given is that it is to do with the way he presents. Crown Law says that he should be able to claim that he is being discriminated against on the basis of his sex because he is not conforming to sex stereotypes - attire that is perfectly acceptable on a woman is not considered acceptable on him and the potential employer is unlawfully discriminating. We actually think this is fair - it is how the law should work. This isn’t about whether he wants to be legally recognised as a woman, it’s about sex stereotypes and whether our appearance matches the perceived standard for our sex. And that’s what the Crown Law opinion was about. That was in 2006, much has changed but men still can’t be women. But in more recent years the human rights commission has picked up this opinion - and that is all it is, an opinion - and run with it. They have made it their own, have altered the context and have told govt agencies, councils, employers, service providers and anyone who will listen that it is unlawful to discriminate against transgender women in women’s spaces. Our previous Human Rights Commissioner believed that men could be lesbians. We have high hopes for the incoming commissioner and hope to meet with him very soon. After some questioning from Speak up for Women, the HRC public guidance has changed; they now note alongside their women-hating advice that the law has not actually been tested in court - but the damage has been done. Organisations that should be able to rely on the HRC for good advice have been misinformed and women have been the losers and that’s putting it mildly. The HRC - and the organisations that listen to them - have done a wonderful job of destroying the social contracts that keep women safe. Our society runs on social contracts. Although it doesn’t always feel like it, in New Zealand we still live in a liberal democracy, we don’t have millions of tiny laws that govern our every move. For the most part we are left to our own devices to use common sense and social norms to decide how to behave and to decide what sort of behaviour is acceptable from others. We know that it’s not ok to throw a stick for a stranger's dog at the dog park and we definitely know that it’s not ok for a man to be in a space where women and girls are vulnerable. But this contract is broken. We can no longer expect to be supported when we invoke it. In the past we didn't even have to invoke it But thanks to TRAs and the Human Rights Commission, the social contract hasn’t just been broken or even ripped up, it’s been shredded into a thousand pieces, dropped in a puddle and urinated on - remember how they only want to pee? So, it’s up to us, the women and men who know that it’s wrong and who have common sense and good memories. We have squirrelled away our own copies of that contract and it’s up to us to wave it around, shove it in peoples faces and say “REMEMBER THIS???” OH AND TRANS WOMEN ARE MEN.

November 2024 Jenny Ruth - Speech at the Global Protest Against Sex Self-ID - New Zealand Trans rights are human rights. I do mean that. I know what it's like to be denied basic rights. I don't wish that experience on anybody. But no trans-identified man can ever be a woman, no matter how many laws are written trying to force us to pretend to accept that they can be. It is basic biology that, in humans, sex is binary and it's immutable. We all know this. There is actually no difference between the word sex and the word gender. The trans ideologists would have you believe there is a difference, but they are interchangeable words that mean the same thing. Sex is not just what's between our legs. It's in every cell of our bodies. Scientists can tell which sex we are from a simple mouth swab. Archeologists can tell female bones from male bones. Nobody is “assigned” sex at birth; our sex is determined at conception and, these days, is usually discovered long before birth. Again, we all know this is part of the human condition. No man can become a woman; the best he can achieve is to ape the appearance of a woman. We all know this. By the way, I regard the term “cis” as in cisgender and ciswoman, as hate speech. It is an attempt to categorise women as a subcategory of women. Real women stand in no need of such a qualifier and we are the only kind of women. Trans “women” are actually men. Self-ID laws, like the law in Germany that has just come into force, and like our's, which came into force in 2023, do not even require somebody wishing to change their legal gender to make even an attempt to look like members of that gender. A man can simply declare he is a woman, sign the form, and the law will deem him to indeed be a woman. This is what our Department of Internal Affairs says on its website: “A self-identification process for amending the sex on a birth certificate is a simple administrative process that requires a statutory declaration. It is based on how a person identifies, rather than eligibility criteria such as medical treatment.” The politicians and lawmakers writing these laws, and the judges enforcing them, have forgotten, or pretend to have forgotten, why women and girls need sex-based rights in the first place. It's a question of basic safety. My generation of feminists achieved quite a lot in terms of women's demands for equality. And these days, in most situations, it mostly doesn't matter what sex you are. But when it does matter, it matters a great deal. Why is safety a particular concern of women and girls? The statistics tell the story: men are overwhelmingly responsible for most violence; men are responsible for almost all rapes.   Predators are overwhelmingly men. Almost every woman and girl in the world has experienced sexual harassment – I do suspect the ones who say they haven't are telling fibs. I'm not claiming all men are violent, or that all men are rapists. The trouble is that we cannot tell whether they are or not just by looking at them.       Every woman understands the fear of a man following them on a dark street at night. We fear them because they're men and we have no way of knowing whether they're one of the dangerous men or not. Women-only spaces matter in changing rooms at gyms and swimming baths; it matters to lesbians wanting to hold women-only gatherings; it matters in women's prisons. It matters in women's refuges – I was a member of the group of women in Auckland in the '70s who opened New Zealand's first feminist refuge for battered women. It matters in rape crisis centres. It matters in women's sports. Germany's self-ID law, and New Zealand's self-ID law, and such laws around the world, are putting the safety of women and girls at risk. Imagine, if you can, you're a convicted rapist and you know you're going to prison. It's obvious there's a huge incentive to declare that you're a woman so you can be sent to a women's prison. Some people deny this will happen; it is already happening. It is precisely such men who will take advantage of self-ID laws. It was a rapist in Scotland who changed his name to Isla Bryson and demanded to be housed in a women's prison that helped to bring Nicola Sturgeon's reign as first minister to an end. How many rapists in women's prisons will society tolerate? I say just one is one too many. It's time to call BS on such laws. It's time to say no. The safety of women and girls matters and our rights must be paramount.

November 2024 Jessica - Speech at the Global Protest Against Sex Self-ID - New Zealand I feel very privileged and honoured to be asked to speak today on a topic that is very dear to my heart.   I am a midwife. A fierce protector of women as they move through the inner realm of the feminine, pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood. I am a space holder. A witch with innate knowledge to journey with these women.   Only women can understand and experience what this means. Not men. And not women who believe they are men but want to take advantage of their reproductive organs to indulge their narcissistic fantasies.   I saw a statement online recently; "We must normalise the pregnant man". I'll tell you what - no fucking way.   If you have decided you are a man, had your breasts removed, take testosterone and live your life as a man, they why would you want to do something so intrinsically female as getting pregnant? Only women do that. And you have stated you are a man. Men do not have babies. That is a biological reality. How confused must you be?   Leave us women to it.   When I was a very new, young midwife about 14 years ago, I received a page on my pager, from someone who I thought was a woman; their name was one that I would associate with a woman. When I phoned this person back, I could tell something wasn't right - the voice was older and more masculine. However, how was I to be sure? The situation the person was describing was unusual and complicated, and the only way to work out what was going on, was to send them for an ultrasound. This person was claiming to be finally pregnant, in their 50s, but didn't know how far along they may be. Everything in my being told me that something wasn't right, but I needed to ensure I'd done my due diligence and provided the person with the best care. Thankfully I had the foresight to cc their GP into the ultrasound.   A few days later, I had a phone call from the ultrasound practice advising me that they had scanned my client, and that there was no way the client could be pregnant as they didn't have a uterus. While they didn't confirm that they had investigated further, they suggested that the client was a man. I was initially confused, then reality kicked in. When I realised what was going on; that I had been fooled. I felt embarrassed to have put the sonographer in that situation, and for not having listened to my inner intuition.   I'm not sure what happened next, if I phoned his GP or his GP phoned me, but I was informed that he had done this many times, to many GPs and midwives, as he had an obsession with "getting pregnant". He had multiple scans each time wasting tax payers money, health professionals time and valuable appointments that actual biological women needed.   As the health professional who ordered this ultrasound, I was legally required to inform them of the results. I had to phone this person and inform them that there was no way that they could be pregnant, as they didn't have a uterus and it appeared they were, biologically, a man. I ended up being abused by this person and told I was a terrible midwife, I was wrong, I didn't know how to do my job and that they were going to prove to me that they were pregnant and complain to the Midwifery Council about my care. I ended up having to end the call due to the abuse, and for weeks I was worried about the repercussions from this person as they knew my name and my clinic address which was publicly available. Were they unstable enough to turn up and find me? While I had empathy for the clear mental distress this person was in, they were none the less an abusive male and impacted on my life in a significant way, where I doubted my judgement and felt for my safety for a period of time.   As a midwife, I observe sex at birth. If you have a penis, you are male and if you have a vagina, you are female. While I acknowledge that there are chromosomal deviations from the usual sex chromosomes resulting in intersex humans, the incidence rate is about 1:500. I feel deeply for these people. The confusion, they must experience is immense. However, most people born with a sex chromosome abnormality still identify as one sex or the other. I would know. I was married to a man with Klinefelter syndrome, which is XXY chromosomes. While he had an extra X chromosome, he wasn't any more female, as the Y chromosome defined he was male. While he had wider issues associated with his condition that caused the demise of our marriage, he was, none the less, a man. A shitty one. But a man.   This brings me to my biggest concern with self ID laws and observing sex at birth. I'm aware that there are parents who choose to bring their children up as non binary and allowing their child to "choose their gender" as they develop, but what does that mean for me as a health professional? Could parents now demand that no sex be observed at birth and recorded on the legal document that I need to submit to Births, Deaths and Marriages? There is the provision to select "Indeterminate" on this form but that is for ambiguous genitalia where no sex can be determined at that time, and requires follow up. Can that be ambushed now?   Is this the slippery slope? Is this where gender identity and ID politics are going to be pushed into a new sphere of parents rights of identifying sex at birth and choosing a gender or "non gender" for their child who is an innocent victim in this war.   The Midwifery Council is already on that train. They were attempting to remove the words woman, wahine, mother and pepi from the scope of practice. Thankfully the backlash was too great for them to ignore and they backed down - part way at least. They are bullying midwives into an inclusive culture that is completely exclusive of women. Who are their audience? Who do they service? Women. But they will gaslight you into believing that anyone other than women can give birth. As a woman and a feminist I am ashamed. I am embarrassed to be a part of a women dominated profession providing health care and midwifery to women that say "men can do this too".   This is the one thing women can do. Of all of the wonderful things humans can do in the world, only women can grow a human. Only women can birth a human. Only women can breastfeed a human.   I've heard repulsive analogies before "what about women who have had hysterectomies, are they no longer women?" And what about women who have cancer, or go through early menopause, are they no longer women?   Are you not a critical thinker? Can you not reason with the logic yourself? Those women are still women. By their nature, they can get pregnant and reproduce. Just because there has been some abnormality in the process, or they have suffered a horrendous outcome like cancer, does not take away the fact that they are biological women. And how fucking dare you use them for your argument.   I'll leave you with the powerful words of Helen Reddy when she sang "I am woman, hear me roar, in numbers too big to ignore".   Thank you.

OCTOBER 2024 Tania Sturt The LGB Alliance ‘Our Lives Our Future’ Conference 2024 in London was well planned with nineteen speakers plus the compere, Rhona Hotchkiss, and speaking slots from Bev Jackson, Kate Harris (co-founders) and Kate Barker (CEO). The keynote speaker was James Dreyfus who gave a blistering, moving, anger-barely-concealed speech about gender ideology that brought people to their feet in a well deserved standing ovation. First up though, Jo Bartosche interviewed a fantastic young lesbian, Alison Ellis, who creates TikTok content (@alison.ellis.6.0) which has remarkable Magdalene Berns-esque vibes. Alison discussed her coming out and her difficulty finding any lesbians in her age group as they all considered themselves trans or queer with a myriad of identities that were considered so much more valuable than plain old lesbians. Her main message was that we are losing an entire generation of lesbians due to the erasure from the TQ+ crowd. I strongly recommend supporting this woman who really is standing alone among her peers - for every gay or bisexual youth who holds fast to their sexual orientation in spite of the pull from the genderites, there are hundreds who fall victim to a very specific type of propaganda which plays on their personal feelings of shame and very legitimate fear of social ostracism. Shame was one of the common themes from the speakers today. The gay men on one of the panels represented different backgrounds and lifestyles and also each represented a decade in gay history… with one exception: the 20 to 30 year old age group. Apparently they could not find gay males in that age group who were brave enough to speak out. The panel all spoke eloquently of the shame and isolation they experienced as gay men coming out… and they all despise the word ‘queer’! On the other hand, there was also a common theme from the comments and questions from the audience. People want to know what we can do about the ideology; how do we keep fighting and how do we win! That answer was encapsulated in Julie Bindel’s off the cuff response which was echoed through other speeches for the rest of the day - one of those eventualities that wasn’t planned by the organisers, but was so important that Bev specifically highlighted how that had turned out to be the message for this year’s conference. When a commenter said that she feared loss of employment if she was open about her gender critical stance and asked what we could do in the fight while constrained by that situation, Julie recognised her difficulty and acknowledged her own career losses and how other people have been vilified. But she also said “if you can speak up, you should speak up”. She pointed out that sometimes people can speak up more but they choose to give a potential minor social loss more importance than the opportunity to add your voice to be heard. I couldn’t help but agree. If all the people who disagreed with TQ spoke up at once, the powers-that-be couldn’t ignore us so easily and they would be less able to apply insidious pressure to force us to toe the anti-biology line. Of course, it wasn't just men and women gathering today. Extras in the form of crickets and allegedly other insects (I only saw crickets myself) made a surprise appearance. A trans activist group sent out four young girls with ‘valid gender identities’ to dump bags of insects in the conference room while we were all out on a break in the afternoon. If misgendering is “literal violence” then what can we call this? I’m sure they thought they were doing a fine job of protesting hate with this juvenile, self righteous, homophobic act. But lesbians, gays and bisexuals have gone through much worse throughout history and we’re not going to be dissuaded from the new fight against those who will erase us. Ultimately some amazing men and women gathered together today to recognise the work that's been done, the work that needs doing, our anger at having to fight for our rights again in the face of the new homophobia, and, most importantly, our pride: our genuine fetish-less, preferred pronoun-less, sex-based pride. We learned that we need to speak up if we can. Keep speaking up even if it scares you, even if it means someone doesn’t like you. Keep writing, complaining, holding to account.  Just speak up!

Wellington September 4th 2024 In July 2024 Speak Up for Women (SUFW) submitted a request to The Department of Corrections under the Official Information Act 1982 as follows: We would like to request the following information, from 2020 until now, broken down into yearly or part yearly statistics (in the case of 2024).  Please break the statistics down into 'sentenced' and 'remand' where possible. A trans identifying male is a biological male who identifies as a woman. The number of trans identifying males in custody during each period The number of trans identifying males who were housed in a female corrections facility during each period The number of trans identifying males who requested a transfer to a female corrections facility The number of the trans identifying males who were sentenced or on remand for crimes involving 'sexual assault' during each period The number of the trans identifying males who were sentenced or on remand for crimes involving 'an act intended to cause injury' during each period We received a delayed but comprehensive response to questions 1,2,4 and 5. Summary of Corrections Response: Approximately 14% of the trans-identifying male sentenced offenders were charged with (on remand) or sentenced for sexual assault. Approximately 14% of trans-identifying males are housed in a female Corrections facility An average of 86 trans-identifying males served a custodial sentence or were remanded in custody each year for the past five years. Approximately 35 trans-identifying males are serving a custodial sentence or are remanded in custody at any given time. In order to establish the sentencing patterns of trans-identifying males compared to those of other males, and of females we used the ‘35 at any given time’ value and compared this to the statistical data that Corrections release quarterly. We used the following population numbers and data; Snapshot Total Female Prisoners - 649   June 2024 Quarterly Stats Snapshot Total Male Prisoners - 8926   June 2024 Quarterly Stats Approximate female population of NZ  - Stats NZ 2021  - 2,580,000 Approximate male population of NZ - Stats NZ 2021   - 2,542,600 Approximate trans-identifying male population of NZ who identify as women - Stats NZ 2021  - 4900 Based on these numbers we established the following ratios of people in Corrections facilities per population type: Female - 1 in 3,975 Male - 1 in 284 Trans-identifying Male (TiM) - 1 in 140 While there is a huge difference in the sentencing rates of males and females, we are surprised and concerned that trans-identifying males - even more than the whole male population - are over represented in prison statistics - these are the men that women are told they should be comfortable sharing spaces with.  The data clearly shows that individuals who are male, regardless of how they identify, have offending patterns similar to other males. The higher rate of incarceration among trans-identifying males compared to women underscores that these individuals do not shed male patterns of offending simply because they identify differently. Women's prisons are designed to provide a secure and respectful environment for female inmates, many of whom are vulnerable and have histories of trauma. The presence of trans-identifying males, who offend at rates far higher than women, poses a direct challenge to the safety, dignity, and well-being of female inmates. Our policies must be grounded in facts, not ideology. The overrepresentation of trans-identifying males in prisons reflects patterns consistent with male offending. Therefore, housing these individuals in women’s prisons is incompatible with maintaining the safety of female prisoners. The guiding principle of single-sex spaces, especially prisons, is to protect women’s rights to safety and privacy. Allowing males who identify as women into these spaces fundamentally undermines this principle, regardless of the individual's self-identification. Housing males who identify as women in women’s prisons is not a solution that respects the needs of all inmates. Instead, it compromises the integrity of single-sex spaces designed for women and ignores the reality of male-pattern offending. 14% of trans identified males in women's prisons is 14% too many.  While acknowledging the broader societal challenges faced by trans-identifying individuals, it is essential to separate these issues from criminal behaviour patterns. Marginalisation does not justify or explain away offending rates that match or exceed those of other men. Corrections manage a wide range of vulnerable inmates on a daily basis, trans-identifying males are no different to these other groups and can be managed within the male facilities. We call on the Minister for Corrections, Hon Mark Mitchell to disestablish the practice of housing trans-identifying males in female facilities immediately.

Auckland September 3rd 2024 Today Rubashkyn has been convicted and discharged after pleading guilty to assault by dousing me in liquid at Let Women Speak, Albert Park on 25 March 2023. In my opinion this sentence is appropriate.     In the moment, this offence affected my sense of safety, and acted as a catalyst to the following physical violence committed against me by other men. It also had the intended consequence of silencing and intimidating women who had attended a legal public event in order to speak amongst themselves.  The ensuing riot shone a spotlight on the insidious misogyny within trans activism in New Zealand. Violence is an extreme reaction to an intent to say that we know what a woman is.  While no sentence can undo the harm done, it is my hope that this outcome brings some measure of accountability for the offender. Moving forward, I invite Shaneel Lal to meet with me and explain his reasoning and justification for coordinating and inciting a riot which led to me being violently assaulted. Lal clearly believes my political stance is worthy of aggressive silencing tactics and I offer an opportunity to discuss that perspective. With words, not fists, thanks. Thank you to the Court and Police Prosecution for their attention in this matter. Sincerely, Tania Sturt

First published December 8th 2020 by Ani This document is a response to the PRISM report (‘the report’) produced and disseminated by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission. 1 According to The Human Rights Commission’s website, statutory duties related to its role includes the responsibility to: Advocate and promote respect for, and an understanding and appreciation of, human rights in New Zealand society; Encourage the maintenance and development of harmonious relations between individuals and among the diverse groups in New Zealand society;2 However, the content of the PRISM report misrepresents human rights law and contributes to rhetoric which is already contentious and pits groups and individuals against each other. It is the view of Speak Up For Women that the report has not addressed issues central to the subject matter and lacks the public consultation necessary for it to guide policy. The report is ultimately incomplete, serves to obfuscate the law, and recommends wide-sweeping social changes without proper consideration of existing legislation and the values of New Zealanders. The problem of definition That there has been insufficient public consultation is evident in the definitions outlined in the report. The definitions of words are important as they are how we orientate ourselves in our societies and communicate. One of the most important functions of words are to outline the boundaries we place around our society in order to understand ourselves, keep ourselves safe, and punish those who commit crimes. Understanding the definitions of key terms and maintaining their consistency is paramount to ensuring our legal system functions fairly and effectively. The current trend to overreach and redefine words based on the experiences of a small minority of people in activist communities - as this report has done - is a threat to our ability to use laws to protect populations, prevent crime, and uphold human rights. The glossary of terms at the end of the PRISM Report is at odds with the glossary of terms set up by the United Nations Equality Glossary . The report avoids definitions of both gender and sex in favour of obscur e   definitions under three separate headings. The definition of sex is most problematic where it states: “All babies are assigned a sex at birth, usually by a visual observation of external genitalia”. The term ‘assigned’ is inaccurate and confusing. Referring to public scientific knowledge used to underpin global understanding of human biology and medicine would have assisted the committee in writing the report in more accurate and less politicised language. It is a distortion of the English language to say sex can be ‘assigned at birth’ and it is at odds with the United Nations Equality Glossary (2017) that defines sex as follows: “The physical and biological characteristics that distinguish males and females.” Wider consultation on the matter of post-natal observation of babies would have elucidated that sex is usually detected in utero with no need to rely on a visual inspection. It is commonplace for pregnant women to have their foetus’ chromosomes tested only a matter of weeks after conception. Alternatively, they can ascertain the sex via an ultrasound. For this reason, the report appears wilfully misleading, and puts forward a definition of sex that is out-of-step with common societal understanding. The expression “assigned at birth” also lacks scientific basis. The term ‘assign’ is commonly understood to mean allocate. However, sex is ultimately determined by biology. The mechanisms for which are well-known and have been taught at schools and universities worldwide. It is necessary to reflect on why “assigned” was considered appropriate language here. The proliferation of its use in relation to sex has emerged from activist circles whose expressed purpose is to erase the boundaries – and therefore the unique rights and protections – between the sexes. In light of this, it is highly inappropriate that a human rights commission would chose to adopt the language of a small, but noisy lobby rather than that which governs our material reality in existing laws and scientific understanding. The glossary of terms in the report, if adopted, could shift New Zealand law outside of the comity of the United Nations. Instead, it is our recommendation that New Zealand policy makers adopt definitions set up by United Nations Equality Glossary (2017) . In particular, we suggest the following: Sex (biological sex) The physical and biological characteristics that distinguish males and females. Gender Gender refers to the roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society at a given time considers appropriate for men and women. In addition to the social attributes and opportunities associated with being male and female and the relationships between women and men and girls and boys, gender also refers to the relations between women and those between men. These attributes, opportunities and relationships are socially constructed and are learned through socialisation processes. They are context/time-specific and changeable. Gender determines what is expected, allowed and valued in a woman or a man in a given context. In most societies there are differences and inequalities between women and men in responsibilities assigned, activities undertaken, access to and control over resources, as well as decision-making opportunities. Gender is part of the broader socio-cultural context, as are other important criteria for socio-cultural analysis including class, race, poverty level, ethnic group, sexual orientation, age, etc. Additionally, the PRISM Report makes no acknowledgement that a belief in an innate gender identity existing within each person is both a relatively new concept to common discourse and one that very few people subscribe to. Most people do not make a connection between their personality and interests and their sex; they are simply the sex they are and have their own unique personality. The imposition of terms like ‘cisgender’ are at best foreign and at worst offensive   and confusing to the general population. By coming down so definitively on one side of a highly contested belief system the Human Rights Commission is preferencing it which brings up potential breaches of both the HRA 93 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Speak Up For Women advocates for the protection of the human rights of everyone and that includes belief systems. People have the right to believe they have a gender identity, but it is not their right – nor the right of the Human Rights Commission – to impose that belief system on others. Positive sex discrimination The PRISM Report fails to adequately consider Part 2 of the Human Rights Act 1993  which concerns unlawful discrimination. It is in this area that the report exhibits the most fundamental failings as the New Zealand Human Rights Commission quite extraordinarily elects to ignore the New Zealand human rights legislation. This section of law can be referred to as ‘positive discrimination’ and it is a concession that society does accept discrimination in some forms when it is considered appropriate. Public consultation beyond specific interest groups would have aided the report writers in understanding the purpose and benefits of acceptable practices of discrimination. Some examples of positive discrimination would be a male-only mental health group or a women-only gym. This kind of necessary discrimination is not addressed in the report which frames any delineation of boundaries based on sex as immoral, mean, and even unlawful discrimination. An example of positive discrimination that plays a core role in New Zealanders’ lives is outlined in s 49 of the Human Rights Act 1993; it permits: “the exclusion of persons of one sex from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina, or physique of competitors is relevant”. 3 At complete odds with this section, the PRISM Report states “This is related to the highly gendered and binary organisation of some sports, and the overt homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia pervasive in these spaces”. While unfortunately bigotry and discrimination still exist in New Zealand, they are not responsible for the lawful positive discrimination used in sport to ensure women and girls can take part safely and fairly. It is a ‘strawman’ argument to point to bigotry - to say nothing of the abandonment of the Commission’s role of maintaining and developing harmonious relations - when if positive discrimination is removed in this situation it will be women who will be adversely affected. The issue of ‘trans exclusion’ is a hot topic in the world of sport. Both World Rugby and the International Olympic Committee are in the process of reviewing their policies in regards to trans participation. Following a conference of diverse experts earlier this year, World Rugby has found that it is simply too dangerous to allow transwomen to play in women’s rugby. Their investigative approach included scientists, sports experts, transgender people, women’s rights groups, lawyers, doctors, and insurance experts. Their report is being consulted on currently. What the PRISM Report and the existing trans sports policies fail to acknowledge is that policies that protect fairness and safety for women in sport are not “excluding trans people”. Sporting bodies appear to be investing resource and effort into finding ways to include trans people in their sports. It is a simple fact of life that male and female bodies are different and because of these differences we separate sporting teams and competitions by biological sex. In its widest sense, the PRISM Report’s recommendation to “implement anti-discrimination policies” fails to take into account the positive aspects of legal discrimination that exist to support the rights of other groups of people, e.g. women and girls. It is because of these stances, that this report pits the rights of women and girls against the demands of activists claiming to speak for trans people. When sufficient light is shone on these matters, there is public unease and even outrage at approaches like those adopted in the report. This is currently being explored more fully in the United Kingdom where lawsuits are beginning across the whole spectrum of issues relevant to gender ideology. The British government has halted legislation which would have enabled sex self-identification (as we did here in New Zealand), the NHS is being taken to court, and the extraordinary overreach of public government agencies is being condemned as the media finally reports on it. The PRISM Report is far from the only place we are seeing pushes for the desegregation of toilets and changing spaces. There is a concerted drive through various public service agencies to force this dangerous and unwanted policy on New Zealanders; the Commission’s stance and publications are encouraging this. This report ignores entirely the material risk they place women and girls under if they remove our ability to safely access spaces that are free of all males. When women’s rights advocates resist such changes this is not because of the belief that transwomen are inherently more dangerous. Rather it is the acknowledgement that as biological males the danger they present to us does not disappear when they declare their identity. This is more relevant than ever given the drastic broadening of the term ‘transgender’ which now includes anyone who declares themselves transgender, from a casual crossdresser to a fully medically transitioned transsexual. As more safeguards have been taken away allowing men who make no effort to transition whatsoever entitled to call themselves women, it is more crucial than ever that women and girls’ rights in our law are protected. There is a real and significant risk of harm if we are forced to ignore exceptions to the prohibited grounds of discrimination on the grounds “the maintenance or provision of separate facilities or services for each sex on the ground of public decency or public safety” (Human Rights Act 1993, s46). Due to the negligence of positive and lawful forms of discrimination and the obfuscation of New Zealand human rights law in general, the PRISM Report is not fit for purpose. In recommending many of the actions it does, it effectively contradicts NZ’s legislation. Consequently, its recommendations should not guide policy. Moreover, the report recommends sweeping changes that would be difficult to implement, require significant changes to well understood social norms – such as the common definition of sex and gender, and would lead to confusion, and create social uncertainties. Sex self-identification The issue of sex self-identification is fraught with problems as already acknowledged by Crown Law and our government when they halted the Births, Deaths, Marriages, Relationships, Registration Bill. Speak Up For Women drove the discussion of the bill in regards to women’s rights, the integrity of public data, and the antidemocratic social engineering of it all. This report adds little to that discussion. The most controversial recommendation is relaxing the ability for people to amend the sex on their birth certificate. This recommendation reflects the problematic definitions set up in its glossary of terms. It is astonishing that the Commission is proposing self-identification without addressing the issues raised either by Crown Law, The Department of Internal Affairs or Speak up For Women. We would direct you to these sources and to our website to read our extensive documentation on the key issues that legal sex self-identification would cause. In a further obfuscation the PRISM Report cites Article 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  (1966) for the basis of sex self-identification with respect to a greater freedom to amend birth certificates.4 This seems to interpret Article 16 in a fashion that could not have been predicted by its drafters. It is also a wilful misreading of a simple statement. Article 16 itself reads: “Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”. A natural reading of this right does not permit a right to self-identify in the manner being proposed by the report. There is no legal basis for the interpretation adopted by the report nor would such an interpretation be a welcome addition to New Zealand law. It is but another example of the writers of the PRISM Report setting their agenda and then searching for any piece of legislation or international law to attempt to legitimise it. Changes to human rights law should not come via activist demands compelling human rights groups to fit square policies into round holes. Sexual Orientation The PRISM Report states in its definition of ‘homosexuality’ on page 61 that it is an attraction (romantic or sexual) towards the “same gender”. Given the misleading definition of gender provided by the report and the deliberate change from “same sex” this is an explicit move to include people of the opposite sex (who have declared a gender identity change) in this attraction. If sex is swapped for gender in regards to homosexuality (and associated terms) in legal and policy contexts, the rights of homosexual people cannot be adequately protected. Speak Up For Women are very concerned with the abuse lesbians in particular face online and in person if they decline to accept that transwomen (even those who have made no steps towards medical transition) are lesbians and that they should have sex with them. It has become a potent issue in the conflict over the encroachment of gender identity on women’s rights. Young lesbians in particular are being coerced to deny their sexual orientation and declare that they will have heterosexual sex if the person simply identifies as a woman. That the Commission is unaware of the pressure of this new form of rape culture and one that lesbians are fight alone when the behaviour is effectively sanctioned by organisations like the HRC and documents like the PRISM Report. As feminist and renowned academic Sheila Jeffreys says on the topic of the imposition of gender identity on lesbianism: “To give but one example, lesbians in South Africa are relentlessly raped and murdered in a state that ignores any responsibility. Right now, we cannot campaign to support them without also promoting the rights of heterosexual crossdressers to take over women’s spaces and opportunities, and to pretend to be ‘lesbians’ and pressure lesbians to allow penile access.” (Jeffreys, 2018) The definitions in the PRISM Report Glossary also misrepresent the wording in the Human Rights Act 1993 which says: sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation The conflation of the terms in the HRA 93 with new niche cultural concepts like gender diverse, non-binary, pangender etc, dangerously misrepresents our human rights law and appears intended to dilute the protections for the correct terms. It is back-to-front for our human rights organisation to be pushing one-sided cultural concepts that pit groups against each other. New Zealanders should be able to trust that the rights they have in law are being protected by the Human Rights Commission and not being obscured and tossed aside for concepts that have not been the subject of wide-ranging community consultation nor gone through judicial or parliamentary legal scrutiny. The PRISM Report also makes the inference that gay and lesbian rights have been won and attention should now be on transgender rights. Elsewhere in the report, it quotes figures that show both groups are equally vulnerable to both poor mental health and violence. Additionally, despite referring to the Youth 12 Survey in the document, the report’s dismissal of homosexual and bisexual people is a disturbing miscalculation. Youth 12 shows that same-sex attracted young people are more likely to be depressed, self-harm, and fear school violence than transgender young people. It is unfathomable that reading statistics like this could cause one to deduce that same-sex attracted people have had their day and the focus should now be on transgender people. The Commission appears unaware of an even more malignant concern. This is that young lesbian and gay people are turning to transgender identities in order to escape homophobia. A recent press story outlines the pressure applied to young lesbians to transition.5 Other research6 and testimony shows that social contagion is a growing theme in young people’s decision to transition.7, 8 It is unconscionable that the Commission fails to address this as a concern especially when there is a growing community of detransitioners in New Zealand and worldwide.9 The Yogykarta Principles The PRISM Report says, “The Yogyakarta Principles, adopted in 2007, apply existing international human rights law to sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics”. This is a mischaracterisation of the significance of the principles and the standing they have in international human rights law. The Yogyakarta Principles have never been ratified by the United Nations and came out of what was effectively a self-selecting conference facilitated by a Canadian NGO.10 While we acknowledge that the current Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt was present at the conference, this does not make the principles any less irrelevant to New Zealand law. When the PRISM Report has been so reckless with the meaning and intent of actual human rights law – both domestic and international – it is doubly as worrying to see the report promote an unratified conference document as if it were binding on the NZ government. Conclusion There are significant issues with the PRISM Report. It offers further obfuscation to policy and law rather than bringing any clarity. There are also a number of legal interpretations offered that are problematic and even wrong. The tenor of the report reflects the tone of modern societal trends in New Zealand to create a more inclusive society. However, the tone and the language of “kindness” must not be used to mask the forcing of mass illiberal societal changes on an unsuspecting public. , The glossary of terms is so far outside of those established by the United Nations that they bear no resemblance. It is another aspect of the decision making of the writers of the report that should be examined. Moreover, the anti-discrimination approach adopted in the report has severe shortcomings. It makes no effort to address the exceptions to the prohibited grounds of discrimination. This raises numerous health and safety concerns and significant impingements on the rights of women, girls, and same-sex attracted people. Additionally, the report makes recommendations with significantly uncertain legal implications. Cherry picking legislation and then dressing it up as something else is only going to result in laws being misapplied and misrepresented. Ultimately, this report puts forward far-reaching social and policy recommendations that would be difficult to implement and require further public consultation. It is our opinion, – that this report has misrepresented New Zealand and international law so thoroughly that the only responsible course of action is to recall it and restart the work with a range of stakeholders who can do justice to the issues involved. As it is now it will cause further confusion and drive more tensions between people who believe in gender ideology and people who want to see women‘s rights protected. We strongly insist that any future report should aim to be a better reflection on society while incorporating the inclusiveness that New Zealanders value.   References: Human Rights Commission. PRISM:Human Rights Issues Relating to Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC) in Aotearoa New Zealand .; 2020. https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/9215/9253/7296/HRC_PRISM_SOGIESC_Report_June_2020_FINAL.pdf New Zealand Human Rights - What the Commission Does. Accessed June 26, 2020. https://www.hrc.co.nz/about/what-commission-does/ Human Rights Act 1993 No 82 (as at 01 August 2020), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation. Accessed August 25, 2020. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/whole.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_%22human+rights+Act%22_resel_25_a&p=1#DLM304627 OHCHR | International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx Aotearoa in 20: Mikayley Bennett struggled through school life with little support as “the only known lesbian” there | Stuff.co.nz. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/122565607/aotearoa-in-20-mikayley-bennett-struggled-through-school-life-with-little-support-as-the-only-known-lesbian-there Lisa Littman. Parent Reports of Adolescents and Young Adults Perceived to Show Signs of a Rapid Onset of Gender Dysphoria .; 2018. Accessed April 25, 2019. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330 Lisa Marchiano on the trouble with transing kids. Feminist Current. Published June 22, 2017. Accessed May 10, 2020. https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/06/22/lisa-marchiano-trouble-transing-kids/ The complexity of gender transition in children. RNZ . Published online February 7, 2019. Accessed May 13, 2019. https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018681409/the-complexity-of-gender-transition-in-children The Detransition Advocacy Network. Charlie Evans. 09.01.20 . Accessed April 16, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hRFvAg54hg&app=desktop ARC International: Background Information. Accessed September 15, 2020. http://arc-international.net/about/background/

JULY 2024 Tania Sturt Recently I went to a ticketed event to hear a talk given by a woman visiting from Australia. She was discussing a legal case that she has been embroiled in for a few years, whereby her attempt at building a business venture has been paused because the policies of that business were considered discriminatory, and a stakeholder was sufficiently affronted that a legal case ensued. It was interesting stuff; she’s an engaging and passionate speaker and businesswoman. However, not everyone found her so interesting or thought that the audience should be allowed to hear her. We had a now familiar contingent find out the venue location, and attempt to disrupt the event with noise, chants, and banging on the doors. I use the phrase “now familiar” because this happens every time certain women choose to gather and talk amongst themselves. Every. Time. I know this because I’m often there – most notably I was there at Albert Park in March 2023 for the Let Women Speak event. I was there when I was doused in tomato juice beside Kellie-Jay Keen. I was there when, in the effort of helping get Kellie-Jay out of an unbridled riot, I was taken to the ground and beaten up. I was there when I managed to get myself up off the ground and out of the mob. I was there when I was harassed walking out of Albert Park alone. I was most certainly there when I screamed at the police officers loitering on the edge of the crowd chatting amongst themselves with not a care in the world, completely ignoring the violence and intimidation that women had been subjected to right in front of them. My crime for incurring a physical assault and harassment? I’m a terf. Before and after Albert Park, I’ve organised other events. And every time the police need to be notified. Every time protesters attend. Most of the events consist of women taking turns speaking into a microphone and to each other. And every time the protesters intent is to silence us. They believe we speak with hate; we wish to incite genocide and we want to erase them from existence. We believe we talk about medical malpractice, scientific research, loss of linguistic empowerment, and women losing our legal rights to single sex spaces. They believe they protest for trans joy, love and inclusivity. We believe they protest out of fear of the truth and anger that women are getting uppity, obstructing men from entering our spaces. We may never agree. Protesters aside, what are the police doing now to protect women’s rights to associate peacefully?  Rushing to stand by whenever we need them, still slightly shamefaced about the Albert Park debacle, determinedly facing a screeching sea of pink, white and blue with the full force of decades of legislation behind them? Well, no, not really. An online report and advice to ring 111 if things get messy is about as thin as a blue line can get. Personally, I push for more assistance (and to give credit where its due, the police collaboration for September 2023 Let Women Speak was a chef’s kiss ). But why do we need to push? Maybe because, as with a South Island rally I co-organised, some off-duty police officers were reportedly also attending the rally – to protest us. Is this gender ideology so successfully planted in government organisations that this is now the new frontier of acceptable oppression? And what does that say about our country and any others facing the same upheaval? I don’t believe we as a country can really see ourselves as progressive if the powers that be ride rough-shod over the rights of half the population. We keep being told that rights aren’t a pie but it’s really not the height of progression to keep smashing that pie in women’s faces under the guise of trans joy. Either we live in a society that allows women to have sociopolitical opinions, or we don’t. Either we live in a society where women can peacefully associate together without harassment, abuse and violence, or we don’t. There is no nuance here. And if we don’t live in that society, then please point me in the direction of the legislation that states that; I’ll get a railing to chain myself to.

Wellington July 3rd 2024 Speak Up for Women welcome the government response to the petition  by Maggie Ross - “Provide funding for all schools to have gender-neutral bathrooms” (please refer to the Government response download button on the petition link ) The Government has accepted the recommendation and extended this by reiterating the importance of both gender neutral AND single sex bathrooms. We commend the government for recognising the importance of single-sex bathrooms in maintaining the privacy and safety of our students. By ensuring that single-sex options are available, the policy respects the needs and preferences of those who may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral facilities. This is a significant step in promoting a respectful and inclusive school environment. Research indicates that providing single-sex bathrooms can reduce anxiety and increase comfort for many students, thereby creating a more conducive learning environment. This policy also acknowledges and respects the concerns of parents and caregivers who prioritise the privacy and safety of their children. We hope this guidance will provide our schools, school boards and parents, with clear rules on the provision of bathrooms that are safe and accessible for everyone.