When 'transitioning' goes wrong By Sacha Jones I feel rather naive now thinking back to 2017 when I was a 50yo stand-up rookie and hooked up with another, similarly, if less rare, rookie stand-up: a middle-aged man. Only this man wore a skirt and called himself ‘Jenny’, which was quite rare on the stand-up circuit at the time. He had been in the game for a year at that point. He had also recently started on oestrogen - as had I. About six months into my stand-up experience I decided this coincidence had comedic potential and proposed to ‘her’, as I addressed him then, that we pitch a show together to the NZ Comedy Festival called ‘Transitioning’. He liked the idea and together we worked on our show pitch, mostly online but a couple of physical meetings too. This seemed to be progressing quite well, though what I found funny about our common, but also very different experiences was not always what he found funny, with his sensitivities around his ‘transitioning’ being that much more extreme than mine were about my approaching menopause, I guess with some good reason. But one example of how these sensitivities undermined our project came when ‘Jenny’ shared with me his frustrations with weight gain since he’d started on oestrogen and I, without thinking, and seeing the joke, replied ‘Welcome to womanhood!’ Well, Jenny did NOT think that was funny at all, firing back at me: ‘Sacha [that’s my name], I AM a woman! – hence no need to welcome him. I hurried to apologise, and meant it. I regret that apology now, though. He will never be any kind of woman having lived as a man for 55 years and being male in every cell of his body whatever changes he makes for the remainder of his life. And I now know that if you pay even lip service to the idea that a man can be any kind of woman, these extra sensitive men will only demand more and more and more, such as being treated as if he is was a woman born, with everyone around him, especially the women, being strictly policed to never say otherwise; to never speak the truth about his sex. My truth about this particular oversensitive, narcissistic man in a woman’s name and dress, is that he began to make my skin crawl after he came into the Ladies at the comedy club one night when I was in there alone in the only other cubicle, and seeing his unmistakeable and by now familiar man-in-women’s-shoes feet under the cubicle door I froze – mid-pee – and tried to pretend I wasn’t there till he left. But he took his time. So in the end I had to finish what I was doing, a thousand times more self-conscious about him listening than I would have been if he were a she, then exit the cubicle in a hurry, to speed wash my hands, hoping he wouldn’t come out of his cubicle before I’d finished. But he did exit his cubicle, perhaps having waited for me, and my stomach turned with a mixture of fear and rage, and a physical skin-crawl shiver to have this six-foot man so near to me in the Ladies with no one else around. I am one of those women who generally doesn’t like to show men how much they disturb or indeed frighten me, perhaps feeling that any sign of fear would only empower them to believe they are in charge and can do what they want to me, just as it can be with dogs with respect to female fear especially. Fortunately, another woman – a real one, in trousers not a skirt, as most female comics I mixed with preferred to wear, as I was wearing, indeed – came into the Ladies then and I left in a hurry of relief without saying more than a ‘hi’ to ‘Jenny’, my show partner. Our ‘Transitioning’ festival show application had at that point already been submitted, and shortly afterwards, when we found out the application had been unsuccessful, I was not disappointed. What he and I were going through was nothing the same at all, and not so funny after all, indeed. Our working ‘relationship’, such as it was, ended at that point, though I still saw him on the open mic circuit and I recently heard that he, as a ‘she’ still, is doing a solo comedy festival show this year. Of course he is. He’s ‘trans’, and new and improved without a pesky TERF partner to hold him back – and expose his truth. I have left the stand-up circuit for a while now, due in large part to this trans-queer takeover and the general culture of pandering to men in or out of dresses, as well as its’ sexualising of young female comics, and the inevitable harassing of them too. But I miss it and hope to get back to it at some point. But as a known TERF now – I came out as a TERF on Facebook in early 2020, causing ‘Jenny’ to immediately ‘unfriend’ me, without comment, and various other comedy ‘friends’ to do the same, some with vicious comments about my ‘bigotry’ and ‘ignorance about sexuality’ – that seems rather unlikely. For now I am writing instead, a few different projects, one of them being my comedy story… Don’t worry, this is not him. It’s me! On a rare occasion performing stand-up in a skirt, in early 2020, pre outing myself as a TERF, and pre-Covid – just. But you TERFs knew that, right? Of course you did. Even the gremlin guy in the tree knows that I’m not a bull in a skirt, and he doesn’t seem too happy about it in fact. He’s probably a TRA. They’re EVERYWHERE! This was originally posted on the Til Sex Do Us Part Substack and is shared with permission.

June 2024 Tania Sturt The idea of ‘hands across the aisle’ has this noble feel about it. It's an apt expression that tries to encapsulate the notion of opposing groups making tentative motions of conciliation for the purpose of a unified goal. A joining together to fight a common cause, a letting down of barriers and a humble nod of acknowledgement that ‘yeah, we don’t all believe in the same things but we can sure agree on this’. Heart warming, really. Certainly in the heat of the moment it makes a good deal of sense. Combining resources, knowledge, experience, collaborating on the strategies to achieve a common end goal - what could go wrong? When the term was first used in the gender critical movement it tended to reference the idea of the gender identity and gender critical crowds reaching some sort of ability to co-exist. This never really happened in reality. We had too much of the  “we just want to pee” around the public bathroom type of discourse, not to mention the petulant squeal of “no debate!” whenever any questions, rhetorical or otherwise, were lobbied across the twittersphere. However, times are a-changing. Hands across the aisle also now refers to the radical right (the dreaded Neo-Nazis that follow Kellie-Jay phantom-like around the world at least in the minds of shit-stirring journalists) and the religious right (as is anyone’s Destiny - amiright?) collaborating with the earnest, single minded gender critical women’s groups. Their common ground is of course the fight against a harmful, nonsensical ideology that appears to prey on the vulnerability of children, fill them with fake science facts and encourage them to see their bodies as a mistake; the only way out of their misery being a lifetime of cross sex hormones and surgery. The children are the key. It certainly isn’t women, who are equally being attacked by attempts at erasure and removal of sex based rights. And don’t make me laugh, it definitely isn’t about the LGB community who has had their community decimated and appropriated in an abstract version of the genocide that the genderites keep banging on about. Unfortunately for the gals and the dykes, the measure of support over the gender identity ideology battle is fairly one dimensional from the radical religious right. And that's where I start to see the twitch of a red flag. Like it or not, women’s rights are inextricably linked with GC activism. Not least of which, the lesbian feminists who were at the forefront of the movement - they sounded the alarm, albeit largely unheard for some time. The attacks on women have been extraordinarily hostile. Someone with more education than I would be able to elaborate on a deeper level, but basically it has been and still is a toxic bloodbath where the idea of a woman has been consistently attacked from all sides, mainly formed by a deep desire to enforce a systemic subjugation of women in order to utilise them for the benefit of men and their sexual inclinations. Of course that is nothing new in history but the ferocity and speed of this ideology is astounding. The fact this is overtly state sanctioned is horrifying. Those who believe the radical religious right would not have some stake in that intended subjugation are being naive given the history of major religions around the world and their relationships with women's places in society. Naivety has no place in a social change movement, particularly when in a defensive position. To align with groups or individuals that fundamentally work against the broader view, with values which can never align, has its pitfalls. The radical/religious right are fundamentally opposed to homosexuality. There's no way around that. Sure, they may say the right words if directly challenged but I’m not the only one who has seen the rise in homophobia in the gender critical sphere over recent times. It’s often accompanied by some suspiciously short sighted attitudes which can only stem from a desire to return to the 1950s and the stringent sex stereotypes which were prevalent in those days. When a gender critical woman promotes the idea that all sex and relationship education should be removed from schools and teens should never be subjected to the concept of heterosexual or homosexual sexual activity, I believe we may have taken a wrong turn somewhere, probably back there where the Harley is parked up. Does it shock anyone that those 1950s stereotypes which are making a sneaky traditional comeback are the other side of the coin from the genderites attempts to bring back those same 1950s stereotypes in the form of “I’m a woman because I like vacuuming - never mind the todger” school of thought? Frankly, that's not a coin I want in my currency. I’m not intending this to be an attack on those who choose to reach their hands out across that increasingly complex aisle. It does take many hands to the wheel to effect change; there are resources to be combined and support to be offered and received. Potentially this will ensure progress in a way that couldn’t be achieved otherwise. I don’t have the right to inflict my values on others though it certainly doesn’t prevent others from inflicting their values on to me, I note. You do you. And I accept maybe I’m wrong and maybe my mental image is my own personal nightmare which won’t come to fruition. My mental image of the Final Days in whatever form it takes, is where we all turn and look back at the aisle we’ve all journeyed down and see the collateral damage (of the existence of collateral damage I am sure): the detransitioners nursing broken, pain-filled bodies, the burnt out activists nursing broken relationships, damaged careers and exhausted minds, and the hopefully shame-faced public servants that shoved this shit down the public’s throats, shuffling their feet and studiously avoiding each other’s eyes. I see the lesbians and gays struggling to stand and preparing to fight for their rights again. And I turn to look ahead and see the radical religious right stepping over the collateral damage, buoyed by the out-reached arms of support across that aisle, sending their women off to the kitchen to make them a damn sandwich.

May 27th 2024 Last week we asked Curia Market Research to conduct a poll* on our behalf. We asked: "Do you think that schools should ensure children have access to bathrooms and changing facilities that are categorised by biological sex?" General Results The general population response shows that people strongly agree that Sex Matters when providing bathroom and changing facilities in our schools, the results have been rounded hence the total of 101% Results by voting preference When the results are collated according to the voting preferences of the respondent there is a disturbing lack of care from Green party voters in this area, with only 26% expressing a wish for single sex facilities. This is in stark contrast to the other voters who sit within a relatively small range of 65% to 88%. In New Zealand, our school boards are responsible for creating the policies that can ensure that your child has access to a safe and appropriate bathroom while at school. This means: Separate bathrooms and changing facilities for girls Separate bathrooms and changing facilities for boys Gender neutral bathrooms and changing facilities Accessible bathrooms and changing rooms for disabled students that are also safe and appropriate So what can you do? Many schools are already providing single sex facilities - and some think they are but are not! You can ask about their policies by writing to the school Board of Trustees (BOT). These questions are a good tool for making the BOT aware of their responsibilities too. Many BOT who allow students to use the bathroom that matches their self-declared gender identity do not consider the implications for all students. Do you provide single sex bathrooms and changing facilities for all students? Do you allow students to use the bathroom and / or changing facility that aligns with their gender identity? If the answer to Q 2 is 'Yes', do you understand that this policy means that your facilities are not single sex? Have you informed the school community that you do not provide single sex bathrooms and / or changing facilities? Did you consult with the community on this issue? Do you provide gender neutral bathrooms and changing facilities that are safe and appropriate for all students? Do you provide accessible bathrooms and changing facilities that that are safe and appropriate for disabled students? Contacting your BOT is easy, anyone can do it and your email or letter will be read and possibly discussed at a BOT meeting, the BOT are obliged to respond to you too. Most school websites will contain information on how to contact the BOT - it's often something like chair@myschool.nz. We hope that these poll results will confirm for you that you are not alone in wanting to insist on safe and appropriate facilities for our children and young people. *The poll was conducted by Curia Market Research Ltd for Speak Up For Women. It is a random poll of 1,000 adult New Zealanders and is weighted to the overall adult population. It was conducted by phone (landlines and mobile) and online between 19 May and 21 May 2024, it has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1.

Wellington, May 15th 2024 Speak Up for Women reaffirms its commitment to the principles of free speech as the murmurings of anti-free speech protest gather momentum both within Wellington City Council and in the wider Wellington community.  Upon learning that a collection of organisations have the temerity to utilise rate-payer funded venues for the purposes they were designed, employees of the Wellington City Council have voiced their bias on social media with an attempt to cancel the event. This is a poignant reminder of the need to yet again safeguard the freedom of expression for all New Zealanders, even the ones we disagree with. Because we’ve been there. Speak Up for Women have repeatedly out-manoeuvred the ‘woke’ in their determination to silence and negate the principles we hold, as have many other organisations. We stand in solidarity with all those who are utilising their freedom of expression in the face of insults, self-righteous protest and attempts to cancel their event. It is important that we protect this most fundamental human right.  Speak Up for Women urges the public to resist any attempts to suppress dissenting voices by the accusations of bigotry and facism. It is not possible to live in a society which 100% follows one ideology, however it is possible to live in a society which adheres to the rights set out in legislation, namely the right to gather in public, the right to seek, receive and impart information, and the right to hold an opinion. Speak Up for Women remains committed to advocating for the preservation of free speech rights for New Zealanders and we call upon elected councillors to maintain your commitment to all Wellingtonians and to all rate-payers.  #sexmatters #holdtheline

Wellington April 13th 2024 Please refer to our article - Correcting the homework for a guide to the misinformation published by PATHA and InsideOUT. Speak Up for Women welcome the findings of the final Cass Review report  into gender identity services for children and adolescents in the United Kingdom. The independent review, led by Senior Paediatrician Dame Hilary Cass, includes an analysis of scientific literature on the effects and outcomes of social and medical  transition of children and adolescents with gender issues. It follows on from the interim report issued in 2022, which called for the closure of the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service  (GIDS) in London. That report and other subsequent correspondence between Dame Hilary and the NHS can be found here. The Cass review highlights the lack of sound evidence for the prescription of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones  for young people presenting with gender issues.  It also points out that there  is insufficient evidence  of any benefits of social transition, but clear risk of creating the persistence of an identity that would have in all likelihood resolved.   These findings represent a clear refutation of the model known as Gender Affirming Care, where a presenting child’s gender identity is accepted by clinicians without question. The Cass review reported that the population of gender dysphoric children had high rates of autism, trauma, and other mental health problems.  She also noted that there was a higher rate of same sex attraction in this clinical population and acknowledged the social influences on these young people, including on-line pornography, social media and peer pressure.  The report points out that ‘social contagion’ is the most hotly contested explanation for the exponential rise in the number of teenage girls experiencing gender incongruence.  We contacted the Hon Dr Shane Reti  and the Hon Matt Doocey  in March of this year, outlining our concerns and providing them with information on the NHS changes to the way puberty blockers can be prescribed, and the leaked WPATH files.  We now call upon the above Ministers to seek an enquiry into the adoption of Gender Affirming Care for children and adolescents with gender identity issues in New Zealand.  This model has now been all but discredited by the Cass Review Final Report. We also call upon them to remove the funding and contract for The Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa (PATHA) to continue to operate as an authority on gender identity healthcare in New Zealand.   PATHA continues to reference and endorse WPATH despite concerns with the information and methods championed by them, and they have publicly denounced the Cass Review.  Their claims of a lack of representation and clinical input from transgender and non-binary experts can be easily refuted - please see this article. The Cass Review systematic guideline review  (table 1) gave PATHA’s existing guidelines a score of 149/600, the second lowest score out of 21 assessed.  Children have been utterly let down and the Cass Review final report is not just a wake-up call for the NHS, but extends to all countries, including New Zealand, who have adopted without question, the model of gender affirming care.  This has been allowed to happen aided and abetted by the media, politicians, childcare professionals and all adults who cheered this experiment with children on with no questions asked: it has been the failure of society as a whole to safeguard the health and welfare of children.

New Zealand transgender lobby groups react emotively to the final Cass Review report April 12th 2024 Please refer to our media release - Speak Up for Women welcome the findings of the Cass Review for more information on The Cass Review. “Remarkably weak evidence” “limited understanding” “extreme caution” These are some of the warnings sounded by Dr Hilary Cass in her landmark 388 page final report, titled Independent Review of gender identity services for children and young people that was published on 9 April 2024. The report contains 263 pages of evidence from around the world and twelve appendices. Instead of welcoming this comprehensive review that was four years in the making and included a specially-commissioned systematic review by the University of York, trans lobby groups in New Zealand (PATHA, InsideOUT) have immediately denounced it. Here are some of their unsubstantiated claims, rebutted by words quoted from the Cass Report (CR). PATHA: The final Cass Review did not include trans or non-binary experts or clinicians experienced in providing gender affirming care in its decision-making, conclusions, or findings. In addition to formal research, an extensive programme of engagement has informed the  Review. A mixed-methods approach was taken that prioritised input from people with  relevant lived experience and organisations working with LGBTQ+ youth or children and  young people generally, and clinicians and other professionals with responsibility for  providing care and support to children and young people within specialist gender  services and beyond. (CR, p26) PATHA: It’s shocking to see such a significant inquiry into transgender health completely disregard the voices of transgender experts. I have spoken to a very wide range of clinicians and academics. Clinicians who have spent many years working in gender clinics have drawn very different conclusions from  their clinical experience about the best way to support young people with gender-related  distress. Some feel strongly that a majority of those presenting to gender services will go  on to have a long-term trans identity and should be supported to access a medical  pathway at an early stage. Others feel that we are medicalising children and young  people whose multiple other difficulties are manifesting through gender confusion and  gender-related distress. (CR, Foreword) To scrutinise the existing evidence the Review commissioned a robust and independent  evidence review and research programme from the University of York to inform its  recommendations and remained cautious in its advice whilst awaiting the findings. The  University of York’s programme of work has shown that there continues to be a lack of  high-quality evidence in this area and disappointingly, as will become clear in this report, attempts to improve the evidence base have been thwarted by a lack of  cooperation from the adult gender services. (CR, p20) A strand of research commissioned by the Review was a quantitative data linkage study.  The aim of this study was to fill some of the gaps in follow-up data for the approximately  9,000 young people who have been through GIDS. This would help to develop a stronger  evidence base about the types of support and interventions received and longer-term outcomes. This required cooperation of GIDS and the NHS adult gender services. 92. In January 2024, the Review received a letter from NHS England stating that, despite efforts to encourage the participation of the NHS gender clinics, the necessary cooperation had not been forthcoming. (CR, p33) PATHA: The lived experience and knowledge of our community members and clinicians does not make them biased - it means they’re the experts in this care. There remains diversity of opinion as to how best to treat these children and young people. The evidence is weak and clinicians have told us they are unable to determine  with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans  identity. (CR, p22) The adoption of a medical treatment with uncertain risks, based on an unpublished trial  that did not demonstrate clear benefit, is a departure from normal clinical practice. (CR, p73) Given the lack of evidence-based guidelines, it is imperative that staff working within NHS gender services are cognisant of the limitations in relation to the evidence base and fully understand the knowns and the unknowns. (CR, p28) The research programme, led by the University of York, comprised appraisal of the published evidence and guidelines, an international survey and quantitative and qualitative research. A Clinical Expert Group (CEG) was established by the Review to help interpret the findings. (CR, p26) PATHA: This review ignores the consensus of major medical bodies around the world and lacks relevance in an Aotearoa context. It often takes many years before strongly positive research findings are incorporated into  practice… Quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care for children. Based on  a single Dutch study, which suggested that puberty blockers may improve psychological  wellbeing for a narrowly defined group of children with gender incongruence, the  practice spread at pace to other countries. This was closely followed by a greater  readiness to start masculinising/feminising hormones in midteens, and the extension of  this approach to a wider group of adolescents who would not have met the inclusion  criteria for the original Dutch study. (CR, Foreword) The World Professional Association of Transgender Healthcare (WPATH) has been highly  influential in directing international practice, although its guidelines were found by the  University of York appraisal process to lack developmental rigour. Early versions of two  international guidelines - the Endocrine Society 2009 and WPATH 7 - influenced nearly  all the other guidelines, except for the recent Nordic guidelines. (CR, p28) These two guidelines are also closely interlinked, with WPATH adopting Endocrine Society recommendations, and acting as a co-sponsor and providing input to drafts of  the Endocrine Society guideline. WPATH 8 cited many of the other national and regional  guidelines to support some of its recommendations, despite these guidelines having  been considerably influenced by WPATH 7. (CR, p130) The circularity of this approach may explain why there has been an apparent consensus  on key areas of practice despite the evidence being poor. (CR, p130) WPATH commissioned a systematic review to underpin version 8, an approach it had not  undertaken for WPATH 7. This systematic review (Baker et al., 2021) found that “hormone therapy was associated with increased quality of life, decreased depression,  and decreased anxiety”. However, “certainty in this conclusion is limited by high risk of  bias in study designs, small sample sizes, and confounding with other interventions”. (CR, p31) PATHA: The report published today again shows how the UK is an outlier in this field, and that our practice in Aotearoa aligns with other countries such as Australia and Canada. The findings raise questions about the quality of currently available guidelines. Most guidelines have not followed the international standards for guideline development, and  because of this the research team could only recommend two guidelines for practice - the Finnish guideline published in 2020 and the Swedish guideline published in 2022.  However, even these guidelines lack clear recommendations regarding certain aspects  of practice and would be of benefit if they provided more detailed guidance on how to  implement recommendations. (CR, p27-28) [NB The guidelines for NZ were included in the review. See p129 &135.] For many of the guidelines it was difficult to detect what evidence had been reviewed and how this informed development of the recommendations. For example, most of the guidelines described insufficient evidence about the risks and benefits of medical treatment in adolescents, particularly in relation to long-term outcomes. Despite this, many then went on to cite this same evidence to recommend medical treatments. Alternatively, they referred to other guidelines that recommend medical treatments as their basis for making the same recommendations. Early versions of two international  guidelines, the Endocrine Society 2009 and World Professional Association for  Transgender Healthcare (WPATH) 7 guidelines influenced nearly all the other guidelines. (CR, p130) PATHA: While we certainly look forward to more longitudinal research, the evidence in support of gender affirming care is clear, and we’re disappointed to see this review discard so much robust work from researchers around the world. Preliminary results from the [GIDS] early intervention study in 2015-2016 did not demonstrate benefit. The results of the study were not formally published until 2020, at  which time it showed there was a lack of any positive measurable outcomes. Despite  this, from 2014 puberty blockers moved from a research-only protocol to being available  in routine clinical practice and were given to a broader group of patients who would not  have met the inclusion criteria of the original protocol. The adoption of a treatment with  uncertain benefits without further scrutiny is a significant departure from established practice. This, in combination with the long delay in publication of the results of the study, has had significant consequences in terms of patient expectations of intended  benefits and demand for treatment. (CR, p25) PATHA: When multiple observational studies produce similar findings, the cumulative evidence becomes compelling. There are many reports that puberty blockers are beneficial in reducing mental distress  and improving the wellbeing of children and young people with gender dysphoria, but as  demonstrated by the systematic review the quality of these studies is poor. (CR, p179) Only the Swedish and Finnish guidelines differed by linking the lack of robust evidence  about medical treatments to a recommendation that treatments should be provided  under a research framework or within a research clinic. They are also the only guidelines  that have been informed by an ethical review conducted as part of the guideline  development. However, these guidelines like others lack clear recommendations  regarding certain aspects of practice and would benefit from more detailed guidance  regarding implementation of recommendations. (CR, p130) A significant weakness of the studies evaluating psychological or psychosocial function  was the short follow-up interval, with many following-up for less than 1 year, and a  smaller number for up to 3 years. (CR p184) InsideOUT: The Cass Review is a biased, unethical, methodologically flawed and politically motivated review… This is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated  or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint. The  reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to  manage gender related distress. (CR, Foreword) Throughout the course of the Review, it has been evident that there has been a failure to reliably collect even the most basic data and information in a consistent and comprehensive manner; data have often not been shared, or have been unavailable. This has led to challenges in understanding the patient cohort, referral data and outcomes, all of which have hindered the work of the Review. More importantly, this has  been to the detriment of young people and their families being able to make informed  decisions. (CR, p214) I would also like to share some thoughts with all my clinical colleagues. We have to start  from the understanding that this group of children and young people are just that;  children and young people first and foremost, not individuals solely defined by their  gender incongruence or gender-related distress. We have to cut through the noise and  polarisation to recognise that they need the same standards of high-quality care to meet  their needs as any other child or young person. (CR, Foreword) InsideOUT: The review justifies cherry-picking data by complaining about a lack of ‘high quality’ evidence in the research literature. But the ‘high quality’ evidence they’re talking  about is actually a specific kind of research – usually ‘double blind’ randomised trial (RCTs) where one group gets medication and the other gets a placebo. It is often the case that when an intervention is given outside a randomised control trial  (RCT), a large treatment effect is seen, which sometimes disappears when an RCT is conducted. This is especially the case when there is a strong belief that the treatment is effective. The fact that only very modest and inconsistent results were seen in relation to improvements in mental health, even in the studies that reported some psychological  benefits of treatment with puberty blockers, makes it all the more important to assess  whether other treatments may have a greater effect on the distress that young people with gender dysphoria are suffering during puberty. (CR, p177) The University of York concluded that there is limited research evaluating outcomes of  psychosocial interventions for children and adolescents experiencing gender incongruence, and low quality and inadequate reporting of the studies identified. Therefore, firm conclusions about their effects cannot be made. Identification of the core approach and outcomes for these interventions would ensure they are addressing  key clinical goals, attending to the needs of children and families as well as supporting  future aggregation of evidence. (CR p154) InsideOUT: Requiring a different standard of research for one population in order to justify restricting their access to healthcare is discrimination. Firstly, you [Gender distressed children and young people] must have the same standards of care as everyone else in the NHS, and that means basing treatments on good evidence. I have been disappointed by the lack of evidence on the long-term impact of taking hormones from an early age; research has let us all down, most importantly you. (CR, Foreword) There are different issues involved in considering gender care for children and young people than for adults. Children and young people are on a developmental trajectory that continues to their mid-20s and this needs to be considered when thinking about the determinants of gender incongruence. An understanding of brain development and  the usual tasks of adolescence is essential in understanding how development of gender identity relates to the other aspects of adolescent development. (CR, p27) However, there are clearly lessons to be learned by everyone in relation to how and why the care of these children and young people came to deviate from usual NHS practice, how clinical practice became disconnected from the clinical evidence base, and why warning signs that the service delivery model was struggling to meet demand were not  acted on sooner. (CR, p74) PATHA: The Review’s recommendations include restricting access to both social transition and gender affirming hormone therapy… The information above demonstrates that there is no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has positive or negative mental health outcomes. There is relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence. However, sex of rearing seems to have some influence on eventual gender outcome, and it is possible that social transition in childhood may change the trajectory of gender identity development for children with early gender incongruence. For this reason, a more cautious approach needs to be taken for children than for adolescents. (CR, p164) Parents should be encouraged to seek clinical help and advice in deciding how to support a child with gender incongruence and should be prioritised on the waiting list for  early consultation on this issue. Clinical involvement in the decision-making process  should include advising on the risks and benefits of social transition as a planned  intervention, referencing best available evidence. This is not a role that can be taken by staff without appropriate clinical training. (CR, p164) The clinician should help families to recognise normal developmental variation in gender role behaviour and expression. Avoiding premature decisions and considering partial rather than full transitioning can be a way of ensuring flexibility and keeping  options open until the developmental trajectory becomes clear. (CR, p32) InsideOUT: Suggesting clinical approval for things like changing your name, pronouns, or changing your wardrobe. We do not know the ‘sweet spot’ when someone becomes settled in their sense of self,  nor which people are most likely to benefit from medical transition. When making life changing decisions, what is the correct balance between keeping options as flexible and  open as possible as you move into adulthood, and responding to how you feel right  now? (CR, Foreword) The current evidence base suggests that children who present with gender incongruence at a young age are most likely to desist before puberty, although for a small number the incongruence will persist. Parents and families need support and advice about how best to support their children in a balanced and nonjudgemental way.  Helping parents and families to ensure that options remain open and flexible for the child, whilst ensuring that the child is able to function well in school and socially is an important aspect of care provision and there should be no lower age limit for accessing  such help and support. (CR, p41) It is not possible to attribute causality in either direction from the findings in these studies. This means it is not known whether the children who persisted were those with the most intense incongruence and hence more likely to socially transition, or whether  social transition solidified the gender incongruence. (CR, p163) InsideOUT: These recommendations violate the human rights and bodily autonomy of trans young people. A further concern, already shared with NHS England (July 2022) (Appendix 6), is that adolescent sex hormone surges may trigger the opening of a critical period for experience dependent rewiring of neural circuits underlying executive function (i.e. maturation of the part of the brain concerned with planning, decision making and judgement). If this is the case, brain maturation may be temporarily or permanently disrupted by the use of puberty blockers, which could have a significant impact on the young person’s ability to make complex risk-laden decisions, as well as having possible longer term neuropsychological consequences. (CR, p178) Blocking this experience means that young people have to understand their identity and  sexuality based only on their discomfort about puberty and a sense of their gender identity developed at an early stage of the pubertal process. Therefore, there is no way of knowing whether the normal trajectory of the sexual and gender identity may be permanently altered. (CR, p178) Once on puberty blockers, they will enter a period when peers are developing physically and sexually whilst they will not be, and they may be experiencing the side effects of the blocker. There are no good studies on the psychological, psychosexual and  developmental impact of this period of divergence from peers. (CR, p196) For the more recently presenting population of predominantly birth-registered females who develop gender dysphoria in early to mid-puberty, there is even less understanding of what in medical terms is called the ‘natural history’ of their gender dysphoria (that is,  what would happen without medical intervention). Because an intervention intended for one group of young people (predominantly pre pubertal birth-registered males) has been given to a different group, it is hard to know what percentage of these young people  might have resolved their gender-related distress in a variety of other ways. (CR, p177-8) Dame Sue Bagshaw: "Because most kids know what they want, most kids know who they are. And that's confirmed with time, so they do carry on with the hormones.” Although young people often express a sense of urgency in their wish to access medical  treatments, based on personal experience some young adults have suggested that  taking time to explore options is preferable. The option to provide   masculinising/feminising hormones from the age of 16 is available, but the Review would recommend an extremely cautious clinical approach and a strong clinical rationale for providing hormones before the age of 18. This would keep options open during this important developmental window, allowing time for management of any co occurring conditions, building of resilience, and fertility preservation, if required. (CR, p34) “I just wanted to get my bloody hormones, that was what I was there for, that’s what I wanted, that would’ve been my therapy, all my distress was related to needing to get on hormones and I was expressing this, I had a trans history, I was clearly aware of what I wanted and what care was on offer.” (CR, p166) The early intervention study results were not published in preprint until December 2020  (Carmichael et al., 2021). There were no statistically significant changes reported in gender dysphoria or mental health outcome measures whilst on puberty blockers, and 98% proceeded to masculinising or feminising hormones. (CR, p71) A subsequent re-analysis of the early intervention study (McPherson & Freedman, 2023), using original anonymised data from the study, took account of the direction of change in mental health outcomes for individual young people rather than just reporting group means. This secondary analysis found that 37-70% experience no reliable change in  distress across time points, 15-34% deteriorate and 9-29% reliably improve. (CR, p71) PATHA: [A number of people involved in the review…] have promoted non-affirming ‘gender  exploratory therapy’, which is considered a conversion practice. In addition to treating co-existing conditions, the focus on the use of puberty blockers  for managing gender-related distress has overshadowed the possibility that other  evidence-based treatments may be more effective. The intent of psychosocial intervention is not to change the person’s perception of who they are, but to work with  them to explore their concerns and experiences and help alleviate their distress regardless of whether or not the young person subsequently proceeds on a medical pathway. (CR, p31) It is harmful to equate this approach to conversion therapy as it may prevent young people from getting the emotional support they deserve. (CR, p150) InsideOUT: We cannot disregard the fact that the overwhelming majority of existing clinical research supports a trans affirmation model of social and medical transition. The systematic review undertaken by the University of York found multiple studies demonstrating that puberty blockers exert their intended effect in suppressing puberty,  and also that bone density is compromised during puberty suppression. However, no  changes in gender dysphoria or body satisfaction were demonstrated. There was  insufficient/inconsistent evidence about the effects of puberty suppression on psychological or psychosocial wellbeing, cognitive development, cardio-metabolic risk or fertility. Moreover, given that the vast majority of young people started on puberty blockers proceed from puberty blockers to masculinising/ feminising hormones, there is no evidence that puberty blockers buy time to think, and some concern that they may change the trajectory of psychosexual and gender identity development. (CR, p32) The Review’s letter to NHS England (July 2023) advised that because puberty blockers only have clearly defined benefits in quite narrow circumstances, and because of the  potential risks to neurocognitive development, psychosexual development and longer term bone health, they should only be offered under a research protocol. (CR, p32) InsideOUT: Our informed consent model requires clinicians to have robust conversations about the benefits and potential risks of gender affirming care, ensuring that trans people and their whānau have all the information they need to make informed decisions. The gaps in the evidence base regarding all aspects of gender care for children and young people have been highlighted, from epidemiology through to assessment, diagnosis and intervention. It is troubling that so little is known about this cohort and their outcomes. An ongoing programme of work is required if the new casemix of children and young people and their needs are to be fully understood, as well as the short- medium- and longer-term impacts of all clinical interventions. (CR, p40) The option to provide masculinising/ feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but  the Review would recommend an extremely cautious clinical approach. There should  be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18. This would keep options open during this important developmental window, allowing time for management of any cooccurring conditions, building of resilience and fertility preservation, if required. (CR, p196) InsideOUT: We categorically reject any calls to restrict gender affirming care in Aotearoa. Too often this cohort are considered a homogenous group for whom there is a single driving cause and an optimum treatment approach, but this is an over-simplification of  the situation. Being gender-questioning or having a trans identity means different things to different people. Among those being referred to children and young people’s gender  services, some may benefit from medical intervention and some may not. The clinical approach must reflect this. (CR, p27) One of the problems that has been exposed is the governance of innovative clinical practice. Whilst care cannot improve without innovation, good clinical governance should require collection of data and evidence with appropriate scrutiny to prevent the  incremental creep of new practices without adequate oversight. (CR, p74) Innovation is important if medicine is to move forward, but there must be a proportionate level of monitoring, oversight and regulation that does not stifle progress,  but prevents creep of unproven approaches into clinical practice. Innovation must draw from and contribute to the evidence base. (CR, p45) Contrary to the emotive claims of trans lobby groups, The Cass Report is an internationally significant, landmark report, characterised by rigorous and empathetic evidence-based recommendations.

Wellington March 30th 2024 Speak Up for Women (SUFW), an advocacy group dedicated to advancing women and girls’ sex-based rights, strongly condemn the recent acts of vandalism targeting the rainbow pedestrian crossings in Gisborne and Auckland. These cowardly and senseless acts not only deface public property but also undermine the values of tolerance and diversity that our society should strive to uphold.  SUFW have always supported lesbian and gay rights and we support the rights of trans-identifying people to live their lives free from harassment. Our fight is against gender ideology, an anti-science, anti-biology belief system that has imposed and embedded itself through our public institutions, especially the health and education sectors. Although the rainbow flag has recently been cynically co opted by local authorities, corporates and institutions, the rainbow remains a cherished and powerful symbol of LGB / same-sex attraction rights. SUFW stand in solidarity with same-sex attracted people and condemn all efforts to erode LGB rights, whether this comes from socially conservative religious homophobes or sex denying gender activists.

This is our tribute to all the women who, before us, dared to challenge society and worked hard to secure the human rights women enjoy today. Thank you to all the women who support our efforts, and those who work alongside our organisation, to protect women and girls' human rights, language, spaces and opportunities. We wish you all a wonderful day!

Speak Up for Women dismayed at discharge without conviction for attack on elderly woman. Wellington March 5th 2024 Speak Up for Women (SUFW) are disappointed with the Court's decision to grant name suppression and a discharge without conviction to the 21 year old male who repeatedly punched a 71 year old woman, Judith Dobson, at the Let Women Speak rally in Albert Park on March 25th last year. New Zealand has one of the worst rates of family and sexual violence in the world. Yet again the system has sent a message to men that they can violently attack women with no consequences. Holding men who assault women to account is crucial to reducing New Zealand’s shocking rates of violence against women.  Women have for too long endured men being shown leniency by the courts due to their age or other unrelated problems, in this case, neurodiversity. While misinformation about the Let Women Speak event likely fuelled the frenzy of the counter protesters at Albert Park, had women's right to free speech been upheld by the government, the assailant might have heard the women’s point of view. Many women in attendance that day are highly supportive of gay rights, but are concerned about the impact of gender ideology on women and girls’ sex-based rights.  Regardless of whether others agree with these concerns or the views of the MC at the event, Ms Keen-Minshull, the descent into violence at Albert Park was a disgrace and the excuses were rampant misogyny. The Court’s judgement brings into question the extent to which women exercising their rights to free speech, including voicing concerns about gender ideology, can feel confident of their personal safety when doing so. “Today’s discharge without conviction is a tragedy for women” - ACT MP Laura Trask. SUFW believes that it is imperative for our government to uphold the right to freedom of speech in our country.  We are heartened to see ACT and NZ First MPs expressing disapproval of this court judgement and support for women’s free speech rights. We hope these words become actions to ensure the safety of women and girls who wish to express their concerns about gender identity ideology in New Zealand. We commend the bravery of all women who continue to speak up for the protection of women and girls’ sex-based rights, in spite of threats and abuse from men.

The points below will form the outline of our correspondence to Minister Reti, you are welcome to use the same points but it is a great idea to personalise your letter with an introduction that tells the Minister about you and your own experiences - about how this could impact you and your loved ones. To Hon Dr Shane Reti s.reti@ministers.govt.nz The proposed Midwifery Scope of Practice (MSP) is due to be implemented by the Midwifery Council on July 1st 2024. A key change in the scope and language of the proposed MSP is the replacement of the words “woman” and “mother” with “whānau”. The feedback received during the second consultation phase was over 90% negative. There are fundamental concepts contained within the proposed Midwifery Scope of Practice (MSP) that are directly at odds with the New Zealand Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights (The Code). The Code contains 10 rights that are available to each person as an individual, the rights provide all individuals with privacy and autonomy over their health care - except in circumstances where the individual is deemed to have diminished capacity / competency. Even in cases where capacity or competency is limited, the individual is still entitled to make decisions up to the limit of that capacity. The Code gives a woman - and only her - the right to make decisions concerning her pregnancy and birth. The MSP is removing the right of an individual woman in favour of the right of her family or whānau. This is in direct conflict with the rights that women have fought for over the past 60 years, rights that include autonomy over her body and her birthing experience. Because of the conflict between The Code and the MSP, we believe that the MSP should be rejected by the Ministry of Health and the Midwifery Council should be required to design a new MSP based on the feedback received. The existing MSP should remain in force until this can be completed. There are numerous situations where it is vital that the midwife’s working relationship and focus is with the mother, the woman giving birth; Confidentiality - how much information can the midwife share with the whānau? According to The Code, nothing can be shared without the express permission of the individual, Hostile environment - without the support of a midwife how can a woman stand up to her whānau to achieve the kind of birthing experience that she wishes? Cultural differences - a woman may have very different ideas regarding her birthing experience and pregnancy than her whānau - whose views would be given priority? Domestic violence - how can a midwife screen for safety issues when she may not even be able to visit with her client alone? These changes are being forced upon midwives - they will have no choice but to treat the mother and whānau as a whole. Failure to do so will be a failure to adhere to the MSP.

Could this legal opinion change the climate of fear that clinicians are experiencing when talking about gender identity? Introduction This paper is in response to Paul Thistoll’s correspondence to professional bodies regarding a conference organised in New Zealand by Genspect in November 2023. Mr Thistoll is the CEO of the recently formed Countering Hate Speech Aotearoa. Mr Thistoll suggested that health professionals attending the Genspect conference would be in breach of ethical obligations, The Free Speech Union sought a legal opinion from Nicolette Levy KC, regarding Mr Thistoll’s assertions and this letter contains excerpts from that opinion. I am a therapist and a member of one of the professional bodies Mr Thistoll wrote to. The issue At present, the psychotherapy and counselling community routinely shuts down views that question or oppose the affirmative treatment of gender dysphoria. Many clinicians have rushed to adopt the model known as gender affirming care when working with young people with gender dysphoria, and this approach is actively endorsed by some professional bodies. At least two professional bodies offer courses that present gender affirming care as a treatment option. In training sessions presenters share their frustrations about the barriers to young people getting puberty blockers, and recommend that young people be informed that having mental health problems won’t be a barrier to the prescription of puberty blockers. There is a façade that curiosity and questions are encouraged, but the reality is that these courses are not an environment in which genuine debate or discussion about treatment options is permitted. I have observed colleagues being shut down, accused of bigotry, and called TERFs, for raising doubts about gender affirming care, or favouring a more cautious, non medicalised approach to gender dysphoria. Their posts have been removed from professional social media pages. Speakers have pulled out of presenting their views at conferences because of pressure and threats to their reputation. Many in the profession are scared to speak up, and so the numbers sharing their concerns are not known. The irony that some therapists are afraid to speak up, when professionally our purpose is to encourage clients to feel free to speak, is surely obvious. Our colleagues in the psychiatry profession have adopted a far more nuanced response to this complex area. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists position statement on Gender Dysphoria (last updated August 2021) says: There are polarised views and mixed evidence regarding treatment options for people presenting with gender identity concerns, especially children and young people. It is important to understand the different factors, complexities, theories, and research relating to Gender Dysphoria. The Genspect conference One such attempt to understand gender dysphoria and its complexities was the Genspect conference. Genspect New Zealand says it promotes respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender in the light of current scientific and clinical evidence, and its conference will address questions such as: How strong is the evidence base for gender transition in NZ? Do children have the capacity to consent to gender treatments? Do we do more harm by giving or withholding treatment? Are puberty blockers safe and reversible? Jan Rivers of Genspect New Zealand has stated: Genspect’s purpose is a healthy approach to sex and gender. It has members in 26 countries including professionals, trans people, detransitioners, and parent groups who work together to advocate for a non-medicalised approach to gender diversity. It was founded in 2021 and its rapid growth is testament to the international concern about medicalising gender non-conforming children. The object of the conference is to advocate a precautionary approach. Research shows that social transition of children and adolescents to the opposite sex is not a neutral act, and this often leads to a prescription for puberty blockers. Treatment with puberty blockers then invariably lead to cross sex hormones and surgical interventions. However strong evidence shows puberty resolves feelings of gender incongruence for the majority of young people. Social transition and puberty blockers – although considered safe and reversible in New Zealand (puberty blockers are currently undergoing a systematic review process by the Ministry of Health) - reinforce the likelihood of concretising the mistaken idea of ‘being in the wrong body’ in the children and adolescents who receive them. In response to this conference, and indications that a medical doctor would be speaking at it, Mr Thistoll wrote to the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners and other related professional bodies, asking them to fire a warning shot to members about attending or speaking at the conference. He cited professional ethics, the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022 and hate speech as supporting his position. The Free Speech Union was approached about this attempt to silence health professionals and sought a legal opinion from Nicolette Levy KC, about Mr Thistoll’s assertions. In her written legal opinion to the Free Speech Union, Ms Levy discussed the issues and precedent cases and said: My opinion is that a doctor speaking at the Genspect conference, intending to contribute to an evidence-based discussion on the issue of treatment of childhood gender dysphoria, would not be in breach of any ethical standard or guilty of professional misconduct likely to bring discredit to the profession. Likewise, my view is that any health professional attending the conference to listen or contribute on the same basis would not be in breach of any ethical standard. Mr Thistoll’s assertions about gender exploratory therapy were that it was a therapeutic practice with a very low evidence base that falls well outside the mainstream of gender-affirming practices, and is highly likely to be prohibited under the Conversion Practises Prohibition Legislation Act 2022. Ms Levy’s view was different. She said: In my opinion this is incorrect. One of the stated purposes of this Act is to promote respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender. Exploratory therapy was referred to by MP Ginny Anderson (in Committee) during the progress of the Bill. She said: The definition [of conversion practice] would not capture, for example, a parent not supporting their child to seek support for gender dysphoria, withholding consent for the administration of puberty blockers, or advising a wait-and-see approach to gender-affirming care. [...] people who are struggling with their sexuality or gender should be able to receive the support they need, including that ability to explore their identity or to reconcile their faith and sexuality. However, rather than being supportive or exploratory, conversion practices are external attempts to achieve a predetermined outcome of changing or suppressing a person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. This reference to exploratory treatment being outside the scope of the Bill is supported by the wording of the Act which provides that a conversion practice is any practice, sustained effort, or treatment that— (a) is directed towards an individual because of the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression; AND (b) is done with the intention of changing or suppressing the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression”. Mr Thistoll also claimed that a speaker at the Genspect Conference had a long history of making gender-critical and highly transphobic remarks, and recently ran as a list candidate for the Women’s Rights Party, and that a Fellow of the RNZCGP was going to speak anonymously with a gender-critical Australian psychiatrist who recently lost her position because of her transphobic beliefs. Ms Levy’s response: Mr Thistoll refers to speakers being gender-critical, in a way which implies that speech by such speakers will necessarily be hate speech, and listeners guilty by association. In the United Kingdom an Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that gender-critical views are worthy of respect in a democratic society, and in New Zealand the High Court has said that a prominent gender-critical group, Speak Up for Women, could not rationally be called a hate group. Dr Charlotte Paul Dr Charlotte Paul, an epidemiologist and emeritus professor at the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the University of Otago recently wrote an article in the magazine North and South, outlining her concerns about puberty blockers and approaches to treating gender confused youth. She notes currently there is a review by the Ministry of Health into the efficacy of puberty blocker and she is frustrated that this review is taking so long. Professor Paul has previously written in the Listener about her concerns about these medications after being urged by younger colleagues who were too afraid to speak up. She quotes one such colleague: Like others I am very afraid that in the guise of helping, medicine may risk doing considerable harm. Professor Paul also wrote of colleagues that had contacted her, to say that they doubted there was sufficient psychological assessment before children were prescribed puberty blockers - to help distinguish between those few who will remain transgender from those who it is a phase or whose distress has another cause. Professor Paul continues: A youth worker told me that his experience of working with marginalised teens closely aligned with what I had written. These teens had “complex histories of trauma, and an unusually high prevalence of trans-gender identification”. Dr Hilary Cass, senior paediatrician who conducted the Cass review at the Tavistock Clinic gender identity service in the UK also noted that these young people are vulnerable and have complex needs. Her review took place after staff at the Tavistock Clinic blew the whistle over their concerns that children were being rushed into social and medical transition. Her recommendations included that the Tavistock Clinic should be shut down, there should be regional teams connected to local mental health services, and that a more holistic approach was appropriate for these children. Dr Cass proposed that use of puberty blockers be for a subset of those with early onset gender dysphoria, and prescribed only in a research setting. Conclusion The history of psychotherapy is one where theories and treatment approaches evolve. While evidence shows some therapeutic models are more efficacious for particular presentations, it is widely acknowledged amongst therapists, that one size doesn’t fit all. Many therapists are wedded to the particular model they have specialised in. However, debate and discussion about different treatment approaches should always be welcomed, even if uncomfortable. After all, debate and discussion has allowed therapy to evolve, leading to better outcomes for clients. Unfortunately, respectful debate and discussion are largely absent in the therapy community when discussing approaches to working with young people with gender issues. My experience is that some professional bodies are fostering this “no debate”, “one size fits all” approach to troubled young people with complex needs. I call on all professional bodies to reflect on this. And to reflect on the words of one de-transitioner that Professor Paul quotes in her article. Nobody asked me questions. No therapist, no doctor, nobody stopped to ask me, are you sure this is what is right for you? Nobody searched for underlying causes for what I was feeling. Nobody tried to dig deep into my emotions to pinpoint what was really wrong with me, because it wasn’t really gender dysphoria.. Everyone I saw simply affirmed me. They told me, yes you are transgender. You are really a man…

MEDIA RELEASE: Wellington, November 24th 2023 With the announcement today of a new coalition government, Speak Up for Women welcome in particular several policy decisions within our scope of work. Our campaigning, in conjunction with other groups, has brought these issues to the attention of our incoming politicians and they have been unable to ignore the fact that these are issues that voters care about. The recent Talbot Mills poll confirmed that these issues are important - and that they are the issues where the public are most at odds with the outgoing government. We look forward to working with incoming Ministers as a stakeholder in areas where women need representation and where sex really does matter. EDUCATION: "Refocus the curriculum on academic achievement and not ideology, including the removal and replacement of the gender, sexuality, and relationship-based education guidelines". Gender Ideology is to be removed from the Relationship and Sexuality Education guidelines. Ideological concepts have no place in a fact based curriculum. Our children and young people should not be taught that sex is something that can be changed. We look forward to seeing revised RSE guidelines that provide our young people with sex, sexuality, consent and relationship information that is evidence based and age appropriate. We also want to work with the incoming Minister to establish firm guidelines for bathroom and changing facilities within schools. SPORTS: "Ensure publicly funded sporting bodies support fair competition that is not compromised by rules relating to gender" . Voters have consistently stated that they do not support trans-identifying males in women's sports and this new coalition agreement recognises this. We congratulate Save Women's Sports Australasia on their work in this area. The Sport NZ 'Guiding principles for the inclusion of transgender people in community sport' are anti-women, unfair and go against the wishes of the majority of our population. These guidelines should be replaced with guidelines that prioritise integrity and fairness. Sporting categories are what create inclusive participation and we believe that while sport should be open to all, this does not mean that anyone can compete in any category they choose. FREE SPEECH: "Protect freedom of speech by ruling out the introduction of hate speech legislation and stop the Law Commissions work on hate speech legislation". After our attempts to meet in public venues to discuss the proposed changes in the BDMRR Bill were consistently cancelled by council facilities and being labelled as “transphobic”, “bigoted” and a “hate group” by a number of organisations and individuals (including MPs), we took one of the most recent and important court cases regarding freedom of association and speech and the Bill of Rights Act in recent times (Whitmore vs Palmerston North City Council) . We know we are not a hate group and the Judge agreed - but legislation around what can and cannot be said is subjective and dangerous. Our vision is for women and girls to maintain sex-based services, spaces and opportunities in New Zealand and we look forward to working with the new coalition government to achieve this. We will be inviting discussion on how we can confirm the meaning of Sex in law and how we can ensure that government policy, guidelines and documentation match our legislation. The SUFW position is that “gender identity” should be categorised and treated as a belief system in government policy making. As with any other religious or philosophical belief it should not be grounds for discrimination - but it should not be incorporated into government policy or enforced to the detriment of sex based reality. This means: sex is immutable no males in women's refuges no males in women's prisons single-sex facilities provided where appropriate women's health initiatives that use language that reflects reality, we are not cervix havers! women's violence and sexual violence programs that recognise the sex-based nature of the problem women being free to speak about issues that concern them a Ministry for Women that recognises that a woman is an adult human female an examination of the influence of activists, NGOs and lobbyists on government policy making, including activist staff and affinity groups including “Rainbow” networks Suzanne Levy, spokeswoman for Speak Up for Women