Emma Barraclough September 2023 This story is about a talk given by InsideOUT at the Ministry of Transport. It’s not really about me: instead it’s about how views around gender identity are treated within government and what happens when someone asks questions or dissents. Like many, I’ve been on a journey when it comes to thinking about the implications of gender identity ideology. I’ve always seen myself as progressive: economically on the left and socially liberal. “So what?” I thought, as I heard about children believing that they were in the wrong body and the growth in so-called gender-neutral toilets. “Live and let live.” But once, on an online Labour Party forum in the UK, I queried the view that transwomen should be able to use female changing spaces. I was told that only bigots thought like that and to educate myself. So I did. The more I read, the more I saw that people weren’t just being asked to accommodate and empathise with people with such crippling gender dysphoria that they believed they should have been born the opposite sex, but to accept that they actually were the opposite sex. That an unprovable self-proclaimed feeling in a man’s head meant that he should be able to access female sporting competitions, prisons, domestic violence refuges and changing areas. No questions are to be asked: this is a matter of personal identity and only the individual knows whether they are a man or a woman (or, indeed, neither). I have revisited my views many times, but the sense of the absurdity of this proposition has never left me. Fast forward to late 2021. I had been working as a policy advisor in Wellington at the Ministry of Transport for almost three years when the Ministry hosted a talk by advocacy group InsideOUT. The talk was on “How to Connect with the Rainbow Community”, with a focus on how to be a good LGBTQIA+ ally. Staff were urged to attend by the then chief executive Peter Mersi. The talk lasted an hour. Much of it was contested opinion and some of it based in activism rather than fact. The claims ran like this: we know, and the scientific community knows, that sex is not binary but exists on a spectrum; intersex people are as common as red heads; always ask for people’s pronouns and practise using them; don’t ask people to explain their identity (it’s very personal). The speaker also told us the correct way to talk about sexuality as a LGBTQIA+ ally: we were urged not to say “same-sex attracted” but to say “same-gender attracted”. She explained that this was because “we are talking about feeling attracted to someone based on their expression, you know, and also what you understand their gender to be rather than their actual, like physical characteristics or sex characteristics”. I think this is wrong, and I think it matters. I believe that telling young lesbian, gay and bisexual people that what they are attracted to is “gender expression” (essentially, haircuts, make up and clothing) and not someone’s sex is regressive. It’s based on sexist stereotypes and denies same-sex attraction. The speaker then explained what we had to do when faced with language or beliefs that we thought were discriminatory: we were told to challenge them by saying they made us feel uncomfortable. At the end, I asked if she would take questions. I said that some of what she had said had made me feel uncomfortable. I explained that a relative of mine is a lesbian and asked the speaker whether she thought that lesbians as a group should be willing to accept male people with penises as sexual partners if they identify as women? We had a short, calm exchange. The below is taken from a recording of the session: IO: Saying male is part of the problem. We ascribe genders and meanings to bodies that are socially constructed. It’s interesting you focused on penis. It’s part of the narrative that transwomen are a threat to cisgender women. EB – no, she would say that she is same-sex attracted. IO: We live and grow up with different generational understandings. That isn’t how our rangatahi would use that language. We hear from them that they identify as lesbians because they are attracted to women. It's less about someone’s sex characteristics and more about the gender of that person. EB: I think that gets rid of same-sex attraction. Which to her - and me - is denying homosexuality. If you are saying that a lesbian should consider having a relationship with someone that is male bodied – I accept that you disagree with that term but if you are distinguishing between gender and sex we can talk about sex characteristics – then that means that lesbians should be open to having relationships with people who are male bodied, which to me seems... [I tailed off here, somewhat lost for words] IO: Maybe it’s based on your [relative’s] understanding and that’s her journey, her narrative. But transwomen are women so they need to be included in lesbian communities. They are women. But she can have her own preferences. That’s her prerogative. But it’s important that we shouldn’t erase transwomen from those communities because they are women. She signalled that was the end of her answer, the audience clapped and we all filed out. I heard no mention of the session from any colleague until, almost a fortnight later, I received a two-page letter from the Deputy Chief Executive who headed up our corporate functions. It was about my behaviour. “At the presentation … you asked me if I would allow extra time to enable you to ask the presenter a question. I was surprised and disappointed that you chose to use that opportunity to inappropriately challenge the presenter, [Name], and the highly informative presentation she had given us. It was concerning to me and others that you persistently used language to describe trans women such as 'male-bodied', even after [Name] explained that such language is inappropriate and offensive. Since the presentation I have been advised that a number of other attendees were also offended and shocked by your behaviour.” She quoted from the Ministry’s code of conduct and said “the Ministry is committed to creating a workplace that is diverse and inclusive, where a variety of voices are encouraged and heard. … I understand that you are entitled to express your views openly. However, having a diverse workplace means that we all are required to be respectful and considerate of others. Your behaviour in the session was not either of those things.” Finally, she said she hoped I would “take the time to reflect on your actions”. I didn’t consider I had done anything wrong and I certainly didn’t believe I had breached the code of conduct: I had simply asked a speaker a question. It was a challenging one, but I had done what the speaker had urged us to do: I spoke up when someone used language that made us uncomfortable. For a junior staff member to receive such a letter from a deputy chief executive was alarming and undoubtedly career limiting. But since I had already decided to leave New Zealand for family reasons I had little to lose. I replied, noting that the Human Rights Commission itself defines transwomen as “someone born with a male body who has a female gender identity” and said that rather than encouraging respect and open acceptance, the Deputy Chief Executive’s letter implied that the Ministry wished to silence people with different views. We subsequently had a meeting with the Ministry’s HR manager (also attended by a representative of the Free Speech Union at my request) where the Deputy Chief Executive insisted that since the speaker had disliked me using the term “male bodied,” then I should not have used it a second time. That was regardless of the fact that the term is factually correct, or that it is part of the definition of “transwomen” used by the Human Rights Commission. The meeting lasted over an hour, during which time the Deputy Chief Executive repeatedly castigated me, accusing me of being rude and offensive and (in her view) acting inappropriately. The Ministry’s HR manager (who had not attended the InsideOUT talk) told me that it wasn’t so much the words that I had used that were the problem, it was the tone in which I had said them. Although the Ministry was keen to emphasise that the letter did not form part of a disciplinary procedure, the Free Speech Union was so concerned about the Ministry’s position that it wrote to the Public Services Commissioner. In its letter it noted that the Ministry appeared to be requiring an employee to distort fact-based language because it was deemed offensive after the fact by colleagues of a different ideological persuasion, despite the fact that the public service should be ideologically neutral. The Public Services Commissioner referred the matter to Peter Mersi, Chief Executive of the Ministry of Transport. Unsurprisingly, he dismissed the Free Speech Union’s concerns. He wrote: “In her letter, [the Deputy Chief Executive] made it clear that Ms Barraclough is entitled to her own views and did not seek to prevent her from expressing those views. She reminded Ms Barraclough about the Ministry’s expectations and the requirements of our Code of Conduct, which include being respectful and considerate of others. [The Deputy Chief Executive] simply asked Ms Barraclough to take some time to reflect on her behaviour and consider how she might express her views in a manner that is respectful and considerate of those around her. She did not go so far as to allege that Ms Barraclough had breached the Code of Conduct, nor did she make any mention of potential disciplinary consequences.” Regardless of what public service senior leaders say about people being entitled to their own views and being able to express those views without fear of facing formal disciplinary proceedings, the reality is very different. My experience suggests that there is no acceptable way for a public servant to express the (widely held) belief that there are two sexes, that sex is immutable, and that the sex and the material reality of a person’s body and physiology sometimes matters more than their gender identity. During my time in government I learnt the importance of definitions. We spent much time thinking about, and discussing, words: who or what would be affected by any regulatory or legislative changes we proposed? Was our language sufficiently clear and accurate? Yet InsideOUT is allowed – even encouraged – to tell public servants to use euphemisms in place of factually correct language. To assign new meanings to commonly understood words, so that “gay” no longer means same-sex attracted but now “same-gender attracted”. Giving InsideOUT an effective veto over the use of certain words and phrases doesn’t just affect a public servant’s ability to raise concerns about their ministry’s changing rooms going mixed sex. It has far wider implications for public servants’ ability to provide robust advice about a range of policy issues affecting all New Zealanders. It also compromises the political neutrality of the public service. The public service is no longer politically neutral if public servants are not allowed to use fact-based language to describe important matters of public policy. Nor is it politically neutral if junior staff members receive letters from senior leaders accusing them of acting inappropriately and offensively by questioning a predetermined ideological position. The public service is no longer politically neutral if it allows the position of one activist group to drive advice on a contentious social issue. And the public service is no longer politically neutral if leaders claim that “a variety of voices are encouraged and heard” but the reality is that only one particular set of views are encouraged and affirmed while views that surveys show are shared by many New Zealanders are deemed offensive and inappropriate. I didn’t have to undergo a formal disciplinary procedure to be punished for wrong think. The letter from a DCE tiers higher than me in the Ministry with the ability to commence action against me was a punishment. Attending a meeting with senior leaders in the Ministry to be told repeatedly that I had been rude and offensive and needed to reflect on my actions was a punishment. Being told that I could not use fact-based language, even the very language used by the Human Rights Commission, was a punishment. Knowing that if I was staying in New Zealand that I would have to leave the Ministry of Transport to progress my career was a punishment. It should not require courage for a public servant in 2023 to say that lesbians are same-sex attracted females. And yet here we are.

WELLINGTON, SEPTEMBER 25TH 2023 A former staffer at the Ministry of Transport is blowing the whistle after being reprimanded for asking science-based questions at a rainbow training session. Emma Barraclough, a former policy advisor at MoT, says staff were told to use the term “same-gender attracted” and not “same-sex attracted” when describing gay men and women during a rainbow training session delivered by InsideOUT. Barraclough - who has a lesbian family member - asked the presenter if she thought lesbians should be willing to accept male-bodied people with penises as sexual partners if they identify as women. You can read Emma's full story here. Explains Barraclough: "I know lesbians who feel silenced and bullied for saying they’re not attracted to males who identify as women. I wanted to add their voice to the conversation, and say they should be able to say “same-sex attracted” without being shamed. In response, she was told by the InsideOUT presenter that saying “male” and “penis” was “part of the problem” and “part of the narrative that trans women are a threat”. Barraclough was then reprimanded in a letter and in a subsequent meeting with the Deputy Chief Executive. In the letter to the policy advisor, MoT’s Deputy Chief Executive wrote: “I was surprised and disappointed that you chose to…inappropriately challenge the presenter…It was concerning to me and others that you persistently used language to describe trans women such as 'male-bodied', even after [presenter] explained that such language is inappropriate and offensive.” The letter quoted the Ministry’s code of conduct, and the Public Services’s code of conduct, and said “the Ministry is committed to creating a workplace that is diverse and inclusive, where a variety of voices are encouraged and heard…” Says Barraclough: “It’s concerning and ironic to be reprimanded with a code of conduct that encourages diversity, inclusion and a variety of voices, when that’s exactly what I was attempting to provide. “The Human Rights Commission defines a trans woman as ‘someone born with a male body who has a female gender identity’. Yet when I used the term ‘male-bodied’ I was reprimanded for being rude and offensive. I question how it’s acceptable for advocacy groups like InsideOUT to police the language of public servants, especially when that language is factually accurate.” Suzanne Levy, Speak Up for Women spokesperson says: “Transgender perspectives should absolutely be included, they just shouldn’t be the only one allowed. “I support all LGBTQ rights, especially given I’m the L in that equation myself, and I agree with the Ministry of Transport’s code of conduct that a variety of voices should be encouraged and heard—they just need to adhere to their own code of conduct. "If advocacy groups are invited into government ministries and they attempt to redefine scientific concepts and language, public servants should be able to ask reasonable questions without fear of reprimand. “Having only one sanctioned perspective is not how we’re going to achieve a more inclusive society. “Speak Up for Women is therefore calling on all government departments to be more inclusive of various perspectives when it comes to LGBTQ and women’s issues—including, and especially , perspectives from members of those communities. “We’re also calling on the Ministry of Transport - and all other government departments - to release publicly how much time and money has been spent on providing rainbow training from InsideOUT and other providers over the last six years. “Finally, we’d like to hear from people who have had similar experiences. You can get in touch via our website at speakupforwomen.nz .”

Speak up for Women supports the right of all women to be able to speak openly and freely about the issues that concern them. We absolutely condemn the actions that led to the silencing of Kellie-Jay Keen and the women who were at her Let Women Speak event at Albert Park in March of this year. Threatening, intimidating and physically abusing women is never justified and should never be tolerated. Kellie-Jay is coming back to New Zealand and Standing for Women (NZ) are holding a rally on the day of the Court hearing of the case against her alleged assailant. Standing for Women should be able to expect their rally will go ahead free of harassment and intimidation. The police should ensure that these women are protected throughout their event and guarantee their safety and their right to speak and to be heard (something they fail to do in March). Meanwhile, Speak up for Women will continue to work on our own local campaigns which are directed at maintaining sex-based services, spaces and opportunities for women and girls. We will continue to speak out against an ideology that harms children and women, and we will continue to highlight evidence based studies in order to protect them from medicalisation and surgery. We will continue to work to ensure the voices of all women are heard in our country. We do not believe that it is possible to change sex and we will continue to challenge those who spread this lie.

MEDIA RELEASE: Wellington Central Candidates Censor Free Speech Wellington, September 11 2023 Wellington Central candidates Tamatha Paul (Greens) and Ibrahim Omer (Labour) have been caught red handed censoring free speech at the Mt Victoria Residents Association candidates meeting in the highly contested Wellington Central electorate. Speak up for Women (SUFW) has received leaked emails showing that both Paul and Omer attempted to shut down pre submitted questions concerning transgender women in women’s sport and gender teaching in schools. SUFW spokesperson Suzanne Levy said while candidates had the right to decline to answer questions, depriving all candidates of the chance to respond to issues that voters are concerned about represents a troubling trend in our democracy. It is clear pressure was brought to bear on the Mt Victoria Residents Association to omit these questions. We regard this as a gross curtailing of free speech. This is part of a pattern we see where any attempt to lobby for the rights of women and girls is shut down, even using violence and intimidation, as seen in Albert Park earlier this year. Ms Levy stated that towards the end of the meeting when a question was asked about violence against women at the March 25th Posie Parker rally, one candidate answered and then the meeting was abruptly ended. Given the evidence of the advantage biological males have over women in sport - The science of transgender women in sport | RNZ and the evidence from a Curia poll showing only 16% of voters support trans-identifying males in women’s sport, voters have a legitimate right to question candidates on where they stand on this issue. The issue is even more pertinent given the Minister of Sport, Grant Robertson has trumpeted the new Sport New Zealand guidelines which allow transgender athletes to compete in the gender to which they identify. He described those opposed to this policy as petty and small minded . SUFW strongly support keeping the women’s sports category for women only. And we know the vast majority of New Zealanders agree with us.

The following is a letter that Speak Up for Women sent to the Minister of Health, we copied the letter to other interested parties. Diana Sarfati, The Director General of Health Shane Reti, Opposition Spokesperson for Health Matt Doocey, Opposition Spokesperson for Mental Health September 4 2023 Dear Minister Re: Ministry of Health Evidence Brief on Puberty Blockers Speak Up for Women (SUFW) welcomes the news that the Ministry of Health is broadening the scope of its evidence brief on GnRH agonists (puberty blockers) to include studies regarding mental health and wellbeing outcomes. However, given that a number of other countries have already conducted recent evidence reviews in this area, we are concerned by the Ministry’s statement that this broadening of scope is going to delay the release of this evidence brief by a number of months. Given the importance of this brief on the treatment of distressed and confused children and young people in New Zealand, we would like to take this opportunity to highlight the recent evidence-based findings completed by other countries’ health agencies or other independent organisations and/or researchers. This is particularly important given a number of researchers and clinicians in this area who claim that puberty blockers provide mental health and/or wellbeing benefits but who have significant conflicts of interest. This includes, but is not limited to, medical organisations and researchers (particularly in the US) who have received funding from pharmaceutical companies that manufacture medicines used to blockade puberty, and clinicians who blockade the puberty of patients as their primary treatment pathway and have a direct interest in their current practices being affirmed. We note that the countries that have completed research (including systematic reviews that are considered the gold standard) have all concluded that puberty blocker use is not well evidenced, that in general the risks outweigh any potential benefits (including mental health benefits), that other methods of care need to be pursued first, and that medical interventions should be confined to research settings and/or be subject to ethical approval for each individual. A summary of the studies completed to date and key excerpts from their findings is below: 1. Sweden National Board of Health & Welfare (NBHW), 2022 Care of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria – Summary of national guidelines – December 2022 “The Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) concludes that existing scientific evidence is insufficient for assessing the effects of puberty suppress-ing and gender-affirming hormone therapy on gender dysphoria, psychosocial health and quality of life of adolescents with gender dysphoria [2]. Knowledge gaps need to be addressed and the National Board of Health and Welfare recommends that these treatments be provided in the context of research.” “At group level (i.e. for the group of adolescents with gender dysphoria, as a whole), the National Board of Health and Welfare currently assesses that the risks of puberty blockers and gender-affirming treatment are likely to outweigh the expected benefits of these treatments. The National Board of Health and Welfare therefore gives the following weak, negative recommendations as guidance to the healthcare system: • Treatment with GnRH analogues, gender-affirming hormones, and mastectomy can be administered in exceptional cases. Care must be provided on the basis of scientific evidence and proven experience and according to the principle of doing good and not harm. In revising its recommendations, the National Board of Health and Welfare has taken account of the fact that the efficacy and safety, benefits and risks of treatments are not proven.” “The new recommendations entail that a larger proportion than before, among adolescents with gender incongruence referred for diagnostic assessment of gender dysphoria, will need to be offered other care than hormonal treatments.” 2. UK National Health Service (NHS) Implementing advice from the Cass Review June 2023 NHS commissioning » Implementing advice from the Cass Review After an evidence review, NHS determined that “gender incongruence [usually] does not persist into adolescence,” that “psychological support” and “a watchful approach” are generally recommended instead of “social transition” due to its “risks,” and that puberty blockers/cross-sex hormones will only be given to minors in a research study. 3. The Cass Review Interim Report (Independent expert review commissioned by UK Government) Interim report – Cass Review “In the short-term, puberty blockers may have a range of side effects such as headaches, hot flushes, weight gain, tiredness, low mood and anxiety, all of which may make day-to-day functioning more difficult for a child or young person who is already experiencing distress. Short-term reduction in bone density is a well-recognised side effect, but data is weak and inconclusive regarding the long-term musculoskeletal impact. “A closely linked concern is the unknown impacts on development, maturation and cognition if a child or young person is not exposed to the physical, psychological, physiological, neurochemical and sexual changes that accompany adolescent hormone surges. It is known that adolescence is a period of significant changes in brain structure, function and connectivity. During this period, the brain strengthens some connections (myelination) and cuts back on others (synaptic pruning). There is maturation and development of frontal lobe functions which control decision making, emotional regulation, judgement and planning ability.” 4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Evidence review, 2020a (UK) https://cass.independent-review.uk/nice-evidence-reviews/ New Systematic Reviews of Puberty Blockers and Cross-Sex Hormones Published by NICE | SEGM The NICE evidence review on GnRH agonists (puberty blockers) major finding is that GnRH agonists lead to little or no change in gender dysphoria, mental health, body image and psychosocial functioning. In the few studies that did report change, the results could be attributable to bias or chance, or were deemed unreliable. The landmark Dutch study by De Vries et al. (2011) was considered “at high risk of bias,” and of “poor quality overall.” The reviewers suggested that findings of no change may in practice be clinically significant, in view of the possibility that study subjects’ distress might otherwise have increased. The reviewers cautioned that all the studies evaluated had results of “very low” certainty, and were subject to bias and confounding factors. “The results of the studies that reported impact on the critical outcomes of gender dysphoria and mental health (depression, anger and anxiety), and the important outcomes of body image and psychosocial impact (global and psychosocial functioning), in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are of very low certainty using modified GRADE. They suggest little change with GnRH analogues from baseline to follow-up. The studies on puberty blockers “are of very low certainty [i.e., quality] using the G.R.A.D.E. rating system... As the studies all lack appropriate control [groups], any positive changes could be a regression to [the] mean.” The G.R.A.D.E. rating system is the most widely adopted tool for grading the quality of [research] evidence.” 5. Finland Board for Selection of Choices for Health Care (PALKO / COHERE Finland), 2020 SEGM Recommendation of the Council for Choices in Health Care in Finland (PALKO / COHERE Finland) “Medical Treatment Methods for Dysphoria Related to Gender Variance in Minors” “In a larger study consisting of 201 adolescents, 101 patients with the average age of 15.5 (12-18 years) started an 18-month psychological supportive intervention, and, additionally at six months, pubertal development was suppressed by starting GnRH analogue treatment. The other cohort of 100 only received psychological supportive intervention for 18 months. In both groups, statistically significant increases in global psychosocial functioning were found at 12 and 18 months; among those having received psychological intervention alone, the improvement in global functioning was already significant at the 6-month mark. Both studies lack long-term treatment follow-up into adulthood.” “The first-line treatment for gender dysphoria is psychosocial support and, as necessary, psychotherapy and treatment of possible comorbid psychiatric disorders. In adolescents, psychiatric disorders and developmental difficulties may predispose a young person to the onset of gender dysphoria. These young people should receive treatment for their mental and behavioural health issues, and their mental health must be stable prior to the determination of their gender identity.” 6. Denmark Joins the List of Countries That Have Sharply Restricted Youth Gender Transitions” (SEGM) Denmark Joins the List of Countries That Have Sharply Restricted Youth Gender Transitions | SEGM Original research published in Danish. https://ugeskriftet.dk/videnskab/sundhedsfaglige-tilbud-til-born-og-unge-med-konsubehag “Following systematic reviews of evidence conducted in Europe and the subsequent reversal of the “gender-affirmation” paradigm in favor of a cautious, developmentally-informed approach that prioritizes psychosocial support and noninvasive resolution of gender distress in Sweden and Finland, Denmark appears to have made a quiet but resolute shift to treat most youth presenting with gender dysphoria with supportive counseling rather than puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery. In 2022, only 6% of those referred to Denmark’s centralized gender clinic were prescribed endocrine interventions (puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones).” “Most youth referred to the centralized gender clinic no longer get a prescription for puberty blockers, hormones or surgery—instead they receive therapeutic counseling and support.” 7. Sweden’s Karolinska Ends All Use of Puberty Blockers and Cross-Sex Hormones for Minors Outside of Clinical Studies (SEGM) Full Article: Sweden’s Karolinska Ends All Use of Puberty Blockers and Cross-Sex Hormones for Minors Outside of Clinical Studies | SEGM The Karolinska Hospital in Sweden recently issued a new policy statement regarding treatment of gender-dysphoric minors. This policy, affecting Karolinska's pediatric gender services at Astrid Lindgren Children's Hospital (ALB), has ended the practice of prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to gender-dysphoric patients under the age of 18. According to Karolinska’s newest policy, which went into effect in May 2021, going forward, hormonal (puberty blocking and cross-sex hormone) interventions for gender-dysphoric minors may only be provided in a research setting approved by Sweden’s ethics review board. The policy states that careful assessment of the patient’s maturity level must be conducted to determine if the patient is capable of providing meaningful informed consent. There is also a requirement that patients and guardians are provided with adequate disclosures of the risks and uncertainties of this treatment pathway. It is not clear whether minors under the age of 16 would be eligible for such trials. The Karolinska Hospital’s new policies echo a growing international concern over the proliferation of medical interventions that have a low certainty of benefits, while carrying a significant potential for medical harm. The latest policy issued by the Karolinska cites the UK NICE evidence review, which found the risk / benefit ratio of hormonal interventions for minors highly uncertain; the 2020 UK judicial review, which highlighted the overarching ethical problems with the practice of medical "affirmation" of minors; as well as Sweden's own Health and Technology Assessment (SBU) evidence review conducted in 2019, which found a lack of evidence for medical treatments, and a lack of explanation for the sharp increase in the numbers of adolescents presenting with gender dysphoria in recent years. 8. Puberty Blockers for Children: Can They Consent? Full article: Puberty Blockers for Children: Can They Consent? Highlights weaknesses of researcher claiming positive mental health benefits: Turban (Citation 2020) in a paper on the risk of suicidal ideation in young people given PBs concluded that suicidal ideation was reduced in those who had PBs. There are however serious weaknesses in their methodology: they derived the information from a voluntary survey of transgender adults in the U.S. Excluded from this sample of 89 respondents were people who had PBs and then de-transitioned. Any who had committed suicide were of course omitted. Most had started taking PBs after the age of 17 (when puberty would have been well advanced). Since PBs are generally given only to those who are aged 12–16, this means the respondents did not represent the group which is the focus of this review, and is therefore of limited relevance to consent in under 16s. “It is concluded that children are unable to consent to the use of puberty blockers.” We hope that this information is helpful and that the Ministry of Health is able to release its expanded evidence brief without undue delay. Suzanne Levy Speak Up for Women

Wellington August 5th 2023 Speak Up for Women (SUFW) are pleased to see the introduction of The Human Rights (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Gender Identity or Expression, and Variations of Sex Characteristics) Amendment Bill , a Members Bill under the name of Dr Elizabeth Kerekere. SUFW believe that Sex Matters. Sex (which includes variations of sex characteristics), gender identity and gender expression are entirely different concepts and should be treated independently. Sex is immutable and binary and there are particular circumstances when it must be respected and recognised. These circumstances have historically been clear in the Human Rights Act 1993 and include providing legal and exclusive access to particular services, spaces and sports - on the basis of sex. Our Vision is for women and girls to maintain sex-based services, spaces and opportunities in New Zealand. The Bill introduced by Dr Kerekere seeks to differentiate between sex, gender identity and gender expression in law and we welcome this. Adding gender identity and expression to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination provides legal protection for gender diverse people while not undermining the rights that are currently provided to women on the basis of sex. However we believe that gender identity should be included in the Act as a subsection of either religious belief 21(c) or ethical belief 21(d). Gender identity has no material existence - it is a subjective belief akin to a religion and should be treated as such in law. It is not necessary to hold a religious belief in order to understand that protection may be required by those who do and it is not discrimination to disagree with a belief or ideology. Dr Kerekere’s Bill specifically includes the addition of “gender identity or expression” into two sections ( 45 and 59 ) of the Human Rights Act 1993 that consider exceptions in relation to courses and counselling. Gender identity and gender expression are two separate concepts and should not be treated as one or the same. To include a provision to add gender identity to the Act means that transgender people are able to attend counselling sessions and courses that are run exclusively for them. SUFW particularly welcomes these additions as it clarifies that women are also able to attend courses and counselling exclusively for them.

Submission by Speak Up for Women for the DIA Consultation on Safer Online Services and Media Platforms July 30th 2023 Information about the consultation and how to contribute can be found on the Department of Internal Affairs website here. Attacking democratic norms Speak Up for Women (SUFW) opposes the undemocratic nature of the proposed regime, which intends that unelected bodies will write the codes that regulate what is permissible. There is a very real risk the codes will reflect the current ideological preferences of the government, civil service, legacy media, and professional-managerial class which has increasingly shown itself to be out of touch with the wider public on the issue that concerns SUFW, gender ideology. Under this regime ideological opponents will have no recourse. SUFW is concerned that the proposed approach and structure will effectively empower the “usual suspects” in the gender debate to shut out science realist views. This is in effect hate speech laws via the backdoor. The proposed regime is ripe to be gamed by people who claim moral superiority and who want to exert their own political, philosophical and religious beliefs. The proposed approach and structure will further enable and embed ideological zealots to shelter themselves and influence policy based on the insular, “Wellington bubble” worldview and assumptions, including the bizarre truth claims and language forms of gender identity believers. It appears an idea has taken hold in officialdom in Aotearoa New Zealand that the democratic process is only good if the political/media/professional-managerial class can be assured of the outcome, and information should only be permitted to flow freely if it conforms to boundaries set by that same group. Fears of “harm” are continually talked up by the political and media class, and activists, because in spite of efforts to stop discussion on certain topics and deem some opinions beyond the pale, a true democratic consensus has not been reached on a number of issues important to the public, including gender ideology – rather a false consensus has been imposed. Curia polling commissioned by SUFW shows that most New Zealanders don’t accept gender ideology truth claims. The opinion-shaper class senses this and they don’t like it. Suspicious that its dogmas are not shared by the wider public, the professional-managerial class and activists are showing increasing paranoia over the plebs engaging in wrongthink. This strengthens the desire to root out any evidence of ideological non-compliance and maintain the fake consensus lest more people are exposed to the “wrong” ideas. In the minds of our self-appointed moral betters, democracy is only good if it gets them the outcomes they want. Increased ideological capture As the concept of gender identity has no material reality and exists only in language, our ideological opponents many of whom are in government, the civil service and NGOs that contract to government, are unstinting in their efforts to demonise, de platform and otherwise silence and declare beyond the pale the expression of doubts about gender, and the expression of science realist beliefs. (Of relevance is the investigation now underway with the IPCA related to the failure to enable a gender critical public event to proceed in Albert Park in March 2023. Also of relevance is the new BSA guidelines which show that the BSA is captured by gender ideologues; also the recent census which shows that the Department of Statistics is captured by gender ideologues). SUFW is extremely concerned that given the existing ideological capture , the proposed regulator will become an enforcement mechanism for the essentially illiberal claim that there is a “right” to be perceived in a certain way i.e. according to one’s asserted gender identity. We are extremely concerned about the introduction of any structure, process or tool that will enable gender ideologues to implement their demands that other people should be conscripted into the self-perception of those who claim a gender identity, and that the speech and writing of others should be compelled based on this. Again we point out, of relevance is the recent guidance issued by the BSA which asserts genderist concepts such as “mis-gendering”. SUFW and their supporters have already faced harassment, abuse, mis-representation and deplatforming in our efforts to enable public debate around gender ideology, we have been forced to go to court to access public meeting spaces, we have been denied advertising services. Gender ideologues will certainly utilise a content regulator to attempt to stop gender critical individuals and groups from publishing and organising, and potentially to punish us for wrongthink. SUFW supporters have received threats, been warned by employers, and been investigated by professional bodies for asserting science-realism. Leaked draft Cabinet Office guidance from the UK states that people are entitled to say that “biological sex is immutable”, and that “Employees who hold this belief must be treated with respect and dignity and protected from bullying, harassment and discrimination. However New Zealand seems to be moving in the opposite direction with genderism receiving full-throated support from officialdom along with the belief that dissenting views are harmful and dangerous and should not be aired. Many of our supporters do not express their views publicly using their own name. Ours is not a healthy democracy if people cannot openly discuss issues they consider important, and openly dissent from the official line. Creating a self-perpetuating “harm” industry in Aotearoa New Zealand SUFW notes a concerning pattern of fear-mongering and catastrophising coming from the pro-regulation voices in Aotearoa, including from the Disinformation Project which enjoys the uncritical support of government, and legacy media. This includes the a-historic and hyperbolic claim that gender critical views are genocidal. It appears that gender enthusiasts and activists want criticism of their beliefs to be made beyond the pale and SUFW is extremely concerned that a mechanism will be put in place via the proposed regulation regime, that will enable gender ideologues to use bureaucracy to hound gender-critical groups and voices out of the digital public square as well as the real world public square. As well as a concern that “harmful” ideas will spread, pro-regulation officials apparently believe in a type of “harm” relating to how people feel emotionally as a direct result of being exposed to online content. This concept is too subjective and vague for officials to be empowered to decide. Abuse and threats are already illegal, the concept of “harm” as something to be developed, defined or described by policy makers is a dangerous cultural direction - “harm” will undergo concept-creep and will be weaponised to shut down debate. The Disinformation Project is a good example of the way in which enthusiasts for this framing operate. The Disinformation Project and its supporters, and like-minded political operators and activists spread the claim that there is a growing threat from speech and online content, thus making some people afraid. Those fearful people become anxious and hyper vigilant, and demand that authority intervenes. Authority then introduces further concept-creep and new definitions of harm, and following this more “threats” are (of course) found. In effect, a self-perpetuating harm-identifying industry is created, driven by an ever expanding definition of harm, paranoia, and escalating claims of victimhood. An example of the way in which gender ideology implements this framing is by making the claim that “mis-gendering” harms trans-identified people because such language allegedly “says trans people do not exist”. The use of the word “exist” implies a physical threat. This conflation of words with physical harm is then used to compel other people’s use of language, for example, the new Broadcasting Standards Authority guidance. Everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi Those who would impose restrictions refuse to accept that their ideological opponents also have the common good in mind and instead deem people “dangerous” based on what they believe or say regardless of whether those people have used abusive or threatening language. A tactic has emerged used by those in favour of regulations and restrictions, whereby the most extreme content that can be found online is conflated with any view along the spectrum other than complete ideological lock-step with the political and media class. This is held up as evidence that a range of views must be deemed “harmful”, threatening, dangerous etc. With regard to content included in a Disinformation Project report, one blogger, a critic of SUFW, wrote that: “…comments below are quotes from the report, shared on social media by your fellow New Zealanders, who you live beside, you work with, and who share your democracy.” This very paranoid worldview asserts that neo-Nazis are everywhere – a modern re-working of the C20 “reds under the beds” fear. It is true that science-realist views are held by the majority of New Zealanders. The public is not persuaded of the truth claims of gender ideology no matter how much this blogger would wish it. She doesn’t like that, so in an attempt to justify calls for state intervention and narrow the parameters of what it’s acceptable to write and say, she claims Nazis are everywhere and that those who don’t agree with her ideological dogmas are Nazis. Socio-economic class discrimination Efforts to control speech and online content stem from class snobbery. Would-be thought-reformers are looking for ways to cut corners as the plebs may decide to ignore the “correct” message. In the name of protecting social cohesion, the would-be information-controllers ruin social cohesion by infantilising the wider public, and restricting the rights of other citizens. Speech and information control regimes such as the one proposed stem from a mindset that does not treat other adults as adults; a mindset that is paternalistic and implies Nazism and other forms of extremism are contagious. Ordinary people are given no credit for being able to think, rationalise and respond to information. Instead credentialed experts and officials are appointed to be gatekeepers and the wider public is deemed too suggestible to be exposed to certain content. Another way of looking at it is, the self-appointed experts very much hope the public is suggestible - as long as it’s the self-appointed experts doing the suggesting. This shows a shameful disdain for one’s fellow citizens and is very much the “bubble” mindset. Fundamental values It seems that establishment authorities, officials, and fearful people who like to appeal to authority, have talked themselves into a crisis mode. From this fear-mongering they have formed the belief that the proper response is to empower themselves to gate-keep information. Handily this approach will also enable a power grab by the self-appointed grown-ups and “usual suspects”, and the expansion of the bureaucracy and associated career opportunities. SUFW calls for the proposed content regulatory regime (and “hate speech” laws and similar) to be once and for all abandoned. Instead we call on the government, the media and the wider public to commit to upholding core democratic values and ideals, centering free speech, and free and open discussion and debate. Suzanne Levy Spokeswoman for Speak Up for Women contact@speakupforwomen.nz

This New Zealand school hosts a club for sharing advice on breast binding and cross-sex hormones Laura López This article was first published in Plain Sight . The gender unicorn - slide from Hutt Valley High School’s Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) lessons: Who am I? Diverse Gender & Sexual Identities Hutt Valley High School didn’t want parents to see the classroom materials that I’m about to show you. And it’s little wonder. Many of the school’s parents are probably under the impression that the school is merely teaching their children to be kind to gay and trans people, which would be admirable if it were true. The content of these lessons dispels that myth. These classroom materials were provided to me by concerned parents at Hutt Valley High , a large, co-ed high school located near Wellington (New Zealand’s capital city). My contact told me that the school was initially very reluctant to share these materials with parents, and did so only once the possibility of an Official Information Act request was mentioned. Past media reports have revealed toxic mould and brutal sexual assaults at Hutt Valley High. Unfortunately, these classroom materials are likely to once again undermine parents’ trust in the school. Hutt Valley High’s lessons are based in gender identity theory, an unscientific belief system that seeks to redefine boys and girls . Despite the fact that New Zealand parents are overwhelmingly opposed to gender identity theory, our Ministry of Education has been attempting to introduce these types of lessons across New Zealand. At Hutt Valley High, they have succeeded. The underlying messages sent by Hutt Valley High’s lessons are that: Your biological sex was arbitrarily assigned to you, and can be changed. Whether you are ‘really’ male or female depends on your feelings about gender roles, and is independent of your biology. Girls who don’t feel comfortable with the stereotypical female gender role should consider medical gender transition (as should boys who don’t feel comfortable with male stereotypes). Disagreeing with any of these beliefs is unacceptable (i.e. ‘transphobic’). These messages are false and potentially harmful. Hutt Valley High’s lessons risk nudging vulnerable adolescents into a descent into lifelong medical dependency . The broader context Medical gender transition involves the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and/or surgeries to mimic the superficial appearance of the opposite sex. The number of young New Zealanders undergoing medical transition has increased dramatically in recent years. Youth gender transition is controversial and unproven . Sceptical clinicians and researchers have described it as “ dangerous medicine ”, comparing it to the frontal lobotomies that were popular in an earlier era of psychiatry. Britain’s National Health Service recently restricted puberty blockers to research settings, citing the “ significant uncertainties surrounding the use of hormone treatments ”. In New Zealand, MedSafe (our medicines safety regulator) has warned the Ministry of Health that by publicising the off-label use of these drugs for gender-questioning children, it could be breaking the law. One likely cause of the recent spike in gender-related distress is a shift in beliefs about sex and gender. These new beliefs encourage teenagers to interpret feelings of general unhappiness , discomfort with their developing bodies , or not fitting into stereotypical gender roles as signs of ‘being trans’. We can see this reflected in research into young people who detransition (e.g. stop taking opposite sex hormones). Here’s how one research participant explains the impact of gender identity theory on her decision to medically transition: People said well, everyone has a gender identity. So, if… you're happy being a woman and you're happy being treated like a woman, then you have a female or a woman's gender identity or whatever. And I felt like Oh well, I'm not so I must be a man gender identity… So I felt like OK that's the path I have to go down… it was definitely being told… if you don't identify as a woman, then you're transgender. She says that she eventually realised that the concept of gender identity is “just kind of nonsense”, and has now detransitioned. Another detransitioner, Laura Becker, explains in a personal video essay that she transitioned after becoming immersed in gender identity theory on social media: Tumblr exacerbated my vulnerabilities through an entire internet’s worth of irrational ideology like queer theory, gender identity, and woke, radical leftist social justice tactics which socially encouraged the breakdown of self-concept into an identity crisis. Laura’s journey to detransition began when she encountered criticisms of gender identity theory. She grew to understand that she had transitioned in a misguided attempt to deal with trauma, not because she was ‘born in the wrong body’. She now describes gender identity theory as “spiritual and ideological nonsense”. Similarly, in an essay in The American Mind , detransitioner Sierra Weir explains that she started experiencing gender distress after becoming immersed in gender identity theory at university. Her distress evaporated when she stopped believing in the idea of a gendered soul. She is relieved to have narrowly avoided irreversible surgical treatments, titling her essay “How gender atheism saved my body”. And similarly again, well-known detransitioner Helena Kerschner writes bluntly that “It was this weird belief system I found on the internet that made me want to be trans”, and that learning to doubt that belief system was a key part of her recovery. “It was this weird belief system I found on the internet that made me want to be trans” — Helena Kerschner, detransitioner These four young women are far from unique. Gender identity theory is often an integral theme in stories of transition and detransition. In fact, a recent study of 100 detransitioners found that the most common reason given for detransitioning was that “My personal definition of female or male changed and I became more comfortable identifying as my natal sex”. Of course, not every young person exposed to gender identity theory will end up transitioning - only a vulnerable few. Gender identity theory is just one part of a more complex picture . But redefining ‘female’ and ‘male’ as subjective gender identities may increase the risk of gender-related distress and subsequent transition. As we will see, Hutt Valley High’s lessons redefine female and male in exactly this way. Concerns that gender identity instruction will influence teenagers towards transition are sometimes dismissed by claiming that gender identity is fixed and innate (and thus that the decision to transition is immune to the social influences that impact most human behaviour). However, there is no convincing evidence for the idea of a fixed or innate ‘brain sex’. New Zealand’s Department of Internal Affairs has acknowledged that “gender [identity] can be fluid” and “may change at different stages of life”, and even our Ministry of Education has admitted that gender identity “is not fixed or immutable”. Claims that gender identity is similar to left-handedness or same-sex attraction (both of which do appear to be stable and biologically-based) are thus misleading. Instead, research suggests that when young people experience gender distress, it often resolves over time if social and/or medical transition is avoided. Britain’s National Health Service has warned that among “children and young people”, gender distress “may be a transient phase”. Recent studies show that up to 30% of young people who take cross-sex hormones detransition within just a few years, suggesting that trans identification is often temporary, even among young adults. Both clinicians and parents have also observed numerous cases where gender distress appears to arise ‘out of the blue’, often in the wake of exposure to trans influencers (e.g. through schools , peers , the media , exploitative TikTok and YouTube videos , and manipulative online communities ). As a 2021 research review of youth gender transition , published on the widely respected medical website Medscape Psychiatry, put it: There is legitimate concern that... comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth. Schools that embrace gender identity theory may put their students at particular risk. For example, in 2016 , Pittsburgh Public Schools started training all its staff in concepts of gender identity. This initiative grew into a comprehensive “ plan of building acceptance and understanding around concepts of gender identity and expression ” among students, staff, and school families. Astonishingly, by late 2018 nearly one in ten students in this school district identified as transgender, genderqueer, nonbinary, or another unspecified gender identity; marking them as potential candidates for life-changing hormonal and surgical interventions. In this context, it’s essential for all schools to take a careful, science-based approach to their Relationships and Sexuality Education lessons (as recently recommended in guidance from the UK Attorney General ). Unfortunately, Hutt Valley High’s lessons follow a very different path. Inside the lessons It should be first noted that the Hutt Valley High lessons are loosely organised and sometimes self-contradictory. Often I agreed with what the slides and videos had to say, for example in the places where they encourage acceptance of gay sexuality and freedom from the restrictions of sex stereotypes. However, several aspects of the lessons caused me grave concern. The first thing that stood out to me was actually nothing to do with gender. It was a strange claim about animals and sex. Slide from Hutt Valley High School’s RSE lessons: ‘Somewhere under the Rainbow’ The slide shown above claims that humans, and possibly dolphins, are the only animals that have sex for pleasure. Other animals, it claims, have sex only to “produce more of their species”. This is incorrect. In reality, the animal most famous for indulging in non-procreative sex is the bonobo (an ape species closely related to humans). A quick Google search finds plenty more examples. This 2014 BBC article , for example, lists white-faced capuchin monkeys, lions, Japanese macaques, spotted hyenas, and several other species. This glaring mistake suggests that Hutt Valley High’s lessons have not been properly fact checked. Unfortunately, these lessons contain other false information which is far more fundamental and consequential. One example is this slide, which misinforms students about the nature of sex itself: Slide from Hutt Valley High School’s RSE lessons: Who am I? Diverse Gender & Sexual Identities This slide states that when referring to someone’s sex, it’s essential to use the term “ sex assigned at birth ”. The reason given for this is that the word “sex” by itself is supposedly a “vague” term loaded with “transphobia”. To provide further explanation and ‘evidence’ for this extraordinary claim, the slide links to an article in a queer radical magazine, written by a self-described “entertainment journalist and cultural critic”. This article claims, based on distorted logic and a very poor understanding of biology, that: There’s nothing intrinsically male about XY chromosomes, testosterone, body hair, muscle mass or penises… Sex, like gender, is indeed socially constructed and can be changed. It’s truly alarming that a New Zealand school would base its lessons in such a bizarre and thoroughly confused worldview. In reality, of course, sex is an objective biological fact which occurs in most animal species . Biological sex existed long before humans were around to “ socially construct ” anything. In biology, sex has a precise technical definition that is neither “vague” nor laden with prejudice. The article’s claim that sex can be changed is also factually incorrect. Male and female are two biologically distinct developmental pathways , one of which evolved to lead to potential fatherhood, and the other to potential motherhood. Because the human body is a complex system, a doctor cannot transform you from male to female , any more than a vet could turn a dog into a cat. Requiring compliance Students with a modicum of common sense will naturally have difficulty believing the claim that there’s nothing inherently male about penises. However, the Hutt Valley High lessons warn such students that their doubts are symptoms of “transphobia” (see the slide above). The implied threat is that students must keep their doubts to themselves, lest they suffer the harsh treatment meted out by trans activists to those they accuse of transphobia. This is what makes these lessons so potentially damaging. If these high school students were being introduced to gender identity theory in a neutral way that encouraged critical thinking, that would be fine. Instead, they are being told, falsely, that these ideas are scientifically established and that they must accept them or risk being accused of bigotry. According to my contact, this has created a climate of fear within the school, where few students are willing to openly state their belief in biological reality. Even worse, the lessons require students to not just accept gender identity theory, but to put these ideas into practice. They mandate that students must actively participate in socially transitioning their peers. Social transition is a powerful psychosocial intervention that entails treating someone as if they were the opposite sex. While social transition often includes cosmetic changes like new clothes and a new hairstyle, its core component is referring to the person by opposite-sex or gender-neutral pronouns. Worrying evidence suggests that early social transition may ‘lock in’ a trans identity, prolonging gender distress and putting young people on the pathway to eventual medical transition. While activists claim that social transition is essential to the mental health of gender questioning youth, three high-quality studies have found that it has few if any real benefits. For these and other reasons, the UK Attorney General recently provided cautionary guidance to schools, stating that : Schools have a duty of care in relation to the health, safety and welfare of their children and they risk breaching this duty when they encourage and facilitate a child’s social transition as a blanket policy; or take the decision to do so without medical advice.... This is particularly so when the child is harmed as a consequence, especially if social transition were to lead subsequently to binding, or medical or surgical procedures, and even more so if done without the knowledge or consent of the child’s parents... Further, no child should be made to fear punishment or disadvantage for questioning what they are being taught, or refusing to adopt a preferred pronoun for a gender questioning child, or complaining about a gender questioning child using their toilets or changing rooms... The right to freedom of belief, thought, conscience and speech must be protected. Hutt Valley High’s lessons, however, demand that students (and presumably teachers ) brush any concerns about the detrimental effects of social transition to one side. A video included in the lessons ( ‘Gender Identity - The REAL Sex Talk’ ) instructs students: If you get confused about what pronouns to use, again, just ask. Trans people experience some of the worst abuse from society, and this is motivated by transphobia. Transphobia can be lots of different things, but two examples include intentionally using the wrong pronouns or doing what we call deadnaming. Deadnaming means calling someone the name that they had before they transitioned. Don’t do it... So if you identify as transgender and you’re experiencing transphobia, you can reach out to a trusted adult or get in touch with Rainbow Youth, or in extreme cases, the police. In other words, the lessons require students to ‘affirm’ their young peers down a pathway towards lifelong medicalisation, or face being reported to the authorities for “transphobia”. This puts students in an unconscionable position, requiring them to say things they don’t believe and may well know are harmful. In short, these lessons intrude on students’ freedom of speech, belief, and conscience . They also seem destined to create a school environment where gender questioning students are influenced in only one direction: towards the syringe and the scalpel. Medicalising gender nonconformity How can students know whether they are suitable candidates for social and/or medical gender transition? The Hutt Valley High lessons explain that this decision should be made on the basis of a vaguely defined “internal sense” called “gender identity”. Here’s how the lessons explain the concept of gender identity: Slide from Hutt Valley High School’s RSE lessons: Who am I? Diverse Gender & Sexual Identities This slide says that being female, a woman, or a girl; or conversely male, a man, or a boy; is not based on your biology, but that these words instead refer to “just six common gender identities”. It also claims, oddly, that being “female” and a “woman” are “not necessarily linked to each other”. The slide then makes the dubious claim that everyone has a gender identity that determines whether they’re trans, stating this as if it was an uncontroversial fact. It defines gender identity as an “internal sense of being male, female, neither of these, both, or another gender(s)”. It’s not self-evident what this hypothetical “internal sense” of being male or female is supposed to feel like, and the slide does not explain this. However, the included REAL Sex Talk video does explain how to recognise that your gender identity is misaligned with your body. Here’s how a young woman featured in this video says that she decided she was trans: So I think I was about 14 when I first started playing around with my gender. Obviously there’s been moments in my life before then that have been, kind of, not strictly male or female. And I felt quite comfortable flipping between the two. But I think it was when I hit school and worked out that girls do this and boys do that, and it started not working for me. So, I think God bless the internet is all I’m going to say because that really gave me the resources and the curiosity to go and look at what’s out there, and that gave me a lot of strength to pursue finding out who I really am. Did you catch that? According to this video, if you hit adolescence and you don’t feel comfortable adhering to rigid gender roles (i.e. “girls do this and boys do that”), that means you’re trans. By this young woman’s own account, she was perfectly comfortable with her female body until she reached puberty, experienced discomfort with societal gender expectations, and started immersing herself in online trans spaces. This online immersion was the trigger for adopting a trans identity and deciding to take synthetic testosterone . And Hutt Valley High is presenting this young woman as a role model for its students to follow. According to this video, if you hit adolescence and you don’t feel comfortable adhering to rigid gender roles, that means you’re trans. The REAL Sex Talk video makes it clear that your discomfort with traditional gender roles doesn’t need to be extreme or distressing for you to qualify as trans. Instead, the video implies that considering yourself to be a man or a woman is extreme. Here’s how the video explains this : Before a baby is born, half of what anyone talks about is whether it's going to be a boy or a girl. But just like sexual orientation, gender is a spectrum. It’s not as simple as pink or blue. A spectrum is like a line. So, woman, non-binary, man. And they’re all somewhere along the same line. Screen capture from the video Gender Identity - The REAL Sex Talk. Notice that the video thoroughly confuses gender (identity) and sex. Once again, being a man or a woman is described as a feeling, rather than as a biological fact. Also notice that “woman” and “man” make up only the 1% most extreme points of this graphic. The visual implication is that most students are probably non-binary , at least to some degree. It’s no accident that the REAL Sex Talk video presents discomfort with traditional gender roles as a symptom of a misaligned gender identity, and thus of ‘being trans’. This message is consistent with popular kids’ books about gender identity, which more-or-less explicitly define gender identity as an affinity with sex stereotypes. So do official sources like the World Health Organisation. In fact, it’s unclear how gender identity could be meaningfully defined without reference to sex stereotypes. Tragic consequences The Hutt Valley High lessons fail to highlight the potentially serious medical consequences of starting down the trans pathway. Instead, the lessons present ‘being trans’ as, literally, rainbows and unicorns (i.e. one of the slide packs is titled “Somewhere under the rainbow” and features a rainbow on every slide; while the other prominently features a “gender unicorn”). From this rainbows-and-unicorns perspective, hormones and surgery are advertised as a joyful path to self-actualisation, rather than as risky medical interventions. The slide about gender identity (shown earlier) states that: Many transgender people seek to make their gender expression (how they look) match their gender identity (who they are), rather than their sex assigned at birth. Similarly, the REAL Sex Talk video states cheerfully: Someone who is trans may take hormones or have surgery so that their body matches their identity. But all of these steps are optional, because nothing is compulsory when you identify as trans. The fact that this video at least presents medical transition as optional might at first seem comforting. However, students who are prompted by the lessons to adopt a trans identity will enter a social world where breast binding and medical transition are constantly promoted as a cure for unhappiness and distress. (Girls who bind their breasts can lose consciousness during exercise or suffer long-term medical harm .) For example, the flyer below advertises a ‘meet up’ where Hutt Valley High students can seek advice from other students on binding their breasts and starting on cross-sex hormones. The school has confirmed by email that the teacher who supervises this group is not medically qualified (I’ve redacted her name from the flyer). Flyer for a ‘meet up’ where Hutt Valley High students can seek advice from other students on breast binding and cross-sex hormones. The notion that medical interventions are “medically necessary” for “many trans and non-binary people” is promoted by numerous youth outreach groups in New Zealand, as well as by prominent media outlets here and internationally. For example, in 2019 the New York Times ran an irresponsible article titled ‘It’s Binding or Suicide’: Transgender and Non-Binary Readers Share Their Experiences With Chest Binders . Similarly, other media outlets have claimed that cross-sex hormones and gender surgeries are “ life-saving care ”. In reality, of course, there is no convincing evidence that binding or medical transition improve youth mental health. Let’s put all this together. Hutt Valley High is teaching its students that their sex was arbitrarily assigned to them, and they can change it if they want to. It’s teaching them (perhaps inadvertently) that if they feel uncomfortable with sex stereotypes, then they should want to medically transition. It’s letting them believe that if they do transition, everything will be rainbows and unicorns. It’s requiring their teachers and their peers to reinforce (‘affirm’) any steps they take towards transition. And prominent media outlets are falsely telling them that if they don’t transition, they’ll probably end up dying by suicide. Is it any wonder that rates of youth gender transition have soared? It seems to me that at heart, the whole point of Hutt Valley High’s lessons is to convince students to consider gender transition. Activist teachers would argue that the permanent medicalisation of teenagers is a good thing, reflecting greater acceptance of diversity and leading to greater happiness. While their faith in the benefits of gender medicine is doubtless sincere, the evidence suggests that they are sadly, tragically, brutally wrong. And it is not Hutt Valley High’s teachers that will forever live with the consequences: the surgical complications , the chronic pain conditions , the heightened cardiovascular risks , the infertility , the psychological distress , the breakdown of family relationships , the regret . It’s the vulnerable adolescents in their care, and their families. If you find Hutt Valley High’s lessons concerning, then it’s time to take an interest in the Relationships and Sexuality Education lessons in your own school. Hutt Valley High’s lessons are not unique; for example the REAL Sex Talk video quoted above has been viewed over eighteen thousand times, suggesting that it has reached a broad audience. Parents are starting to notice the spread of gender identity instruction in our schools, and its destructive effects. It’s up to you to protect your child. New Zealand parents can find information on how to ask schools to exempt their children from lessons that encourage trans identification here . For advice on how to approach schools with your concerns, you can contact Resist Gender Education . The full-length Hutt Valley High School lessons are available on Laura's Substack . Laura López is the mother of two girls and holds a graduate degree in psychology. Her work has been featured by Quillette, Reality’s Last Stand, The Standard, Plain Sight, The Platform, Resist Gender Education, and Speak Up for Women New Zealand. She writes ArgumentsWithFriends on Substack.

MEDIA RELEASE: July 11th, Wellington, New Zealand Speak Up For Women is as surprised as most New Zealanders to discover that two of the major telco providers in New Zealand don’t want the majority of New Zealanders as customers. To back up a bit, on Saturday, 24 hours before Sarah Jane Parker, an ex convict who served 30 years for attempted murder, kidnap and torture is telling the madding crowd at London Trans Pride that “If you see a TERF, punch her in the fucking face”, our favourite theybie is asking his pals on Threads (Meta’s answer to Twitter apparently) to back him in not tolerating TERFs. He is rewarded with a response from a bright young thing at Spark, NZ’s oldest telco. One New Zealand took the opportunity to respond too, perhaps they should consider a rebrand to “One-but-not-you” NZ? “TERF” stands for “trans exclusionary radical feminist”, but is widely applied by “transgender” enthusiasts to anyone who speaks up for science and sex-based rights. It’s intended as a slur and is often accompanied by efforts to damage a person’s reputation, and sexist abuse and threats. Think witch and bitch and you’re on the right track. The belief that “trans women” are literally women no different to your gran and your mum is a luxury belief popular with the professional-managerial, political, media and graduate classes, but the truth is, you’re probably a TERF. If you think that trans-identifying people should be free from discrimination in the workplace, but you don’t want your 15 year old daughter competing against a male in football, congratulations, you’re a TERF. If you think that trans-identifying people should be free from discrimination in housing but you don’t want your eight year old daughter sharing a changing room with an adult male, you’re a TERF. And if you’re worried about hormone use in young people or if you don’t really think people can actually change sex, you’re a TERF too. Pointing and shouting “look, look over there and not at the less savoury aspects of our corporate behaviour!”, the corporate world has also jumped on board, busily rainbow-washing and Pride-monthing all year long (having been conspicuously silent when there were still actual civil rights battles underway for gay people). But this undisputed-truth claim – that men who identify as women should be treated as women in all respects - is not shared by the wider population. Yes, these pesky TERFs and plebs stubbornly continue to believe sexual dimorphism in humans is real, the result of millions of years of evolution and in some instances should be taken into account for reasons of safety and dignity. This impasse between the commoners and our thought-reforming overlords means there must be “no debate” and the “TERFs” need to be kept out of the public square. The corporates and opinion-havers boost each other's fealty-signalling to differentiate themselves from the workaday dummies. And Spark and Lal have just provided a masterclass. Whether this was a savvy business move remains to be seen, but there are even more important matters at stake. Speak Up For Women implores Spark, One, and other corporates to consider whether we really want to create a country in which people are denied services, abused and unpersoned because of a political viewpoint. We also invite Lal and other gender enthusiasts to consider if the authoritarian boot they currently hope to kick the TERFs with was on some other foot, they would still be in favour of powerful people and corporations being enabled to exclude citizens from accessing the digital public square.

However, this equivalent of a legal comfort blanket does NOT give men the right to enter women’s spaces. Yvonne Van Dongen June 21st, 2023 So self-sex ID came into force last week and the radfems and anyone who cares about women and girls should be in mourning. Except they’re not. Far from it. They’re quietly congratulating themselves. Because all the new law has achieved is to make a mockery of the birth certificate. It is now utterly invalid as a document of fact. With the ability to alter one's sex at will without the need for proof, it has validated a fiction. You may feel male, female or non-binary (whatever that is) and register that on your birth certificate (as long as you are 18 and over) and change back again a week later, if you so desire. Then back again for fun or because you can - as many times as you like. Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of the law change is a facility that has received little, if any, public scrutiny. That is, it is now possible for a child to have two fathers or two mothers on their birth certificate. Both fathers could actually be female while both mothers could be male. Or they could choose to reject both monickers and just call themselves parent. This flexibility as outlined in clause 12 (3) of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (BDMRR) Act 2021 could well become a drawcard for parents overseas who are denied this facility. In 2020 in the United Kingdom a male-identifying female, legally recognised as male, lost a Supreme Court case to be recognised as the father of the child he birthed. Next time all he has to do is fly here. Our birth certificate has become a record of feeling. Nothing more. However, this equivalent of a legal comfort blanket does NOT give men the right to enter women’s spaces. A man may wave his newly minted identification in front of the person running the women’s refuge, changing sheds, gym or sports team and insist this official looking piece of paper gives him the right to be regarded as a woman. But he is wrong. It does not. The gatekeeper could quote clause 79 (2) (BDMRR) Act 2021 or clause 80 (2) in the supplementary order paper as justification to reject entry but it is probably easier to read the Department of Internal Affairs FAQs on the legislation. “What does the new law say about how service providers should consider birth certificates as evidence of sex or gender? The new legislation clarifies how birth certificates can be used as evidence of sex or gender. Where service providers need to determine someone’s sex or gender, other factors can be considered over and above the sex listed on a birth certificate. This reflects the fact that birth certificates are not intended to be considered evidence of a person’s identity (usually birth certificates are provided with other documents such as a driver licence or passports to prove identity). What will self-identification mean for single sex spaces and activities such as changing rooms and sports teams? The self-identification process should not affect how access to single sex spaces or sports is determined. Birth certificates are not usually used to determine a person’s right to access single sex services or spaces. Organisations and individuals can continue to rely on their own policies rather than birth certificates. For example, it is still up to individual governing bodies to determine how sex and gender are determined in sport. It is also still up to individual schools to discuss with learners, parents, caregivers and whānau what name and gender learners use, regardless of the details on their birth certificates.” So the gatekeeper is not legally obliged to regard the birth certificate as a document of fact. “Other factors can be considered” - such as the evidence of their own eyes. Remember that skit in Little Britain - towering David Walliams in drag insisting he enter the women’s changing rooms at the pool because “I’m a lady” and the man behind the counter directing him to the male cubicles because men “get thrown out” of the women’s? It’s like that. We are not fooled. Speak Up for Women should be congratulated for having those clauses added to the legislation. They have ensured that what we have now is self-sex ID in name only. In reality, it is toothless. So cunning that if you stuck a tail on it you’d call it a rat. The trick will be letting people and organisations know they have this power. But it is heartening to know that the new legislation is a win for the majority of New Zealanders who do not support self-sex ID. A recent poll undertaken by Curia Research on behalf of SUFW showed only 20 percent of New Zealanders supported changes to the BDMRR Act. Fifty six per cent did not and 24 per cent were unsure. Not that MSM reported the Curia poll since it didn’t back their preferred narrative - that of vulnerable trans people being monstered by nasty feminists. Which makes the public rejection of this ideology all the more remarkable. Despite a virtual media blackout on stories critically examining gender ideology, when asked, the public said no to self-sex ID. Yet another win. A demonstration at least that a skewed media narrative has not won over the hoi polloi. And although I am a journalist I find research confirming the declining faith in MSM also oddly cheering for it shows the public are not fooled. They know when they are being conned and are much smarter and savvier than MSM gives them credit for. I look forward to the day MSM registers this and aims for a diversity of views, not just identities. In the meantime I hope the public checks out the news elsewhere and takes note of all the other wins in the war on women because it’s happening people, it’s happening. For instance the NHS has said it will no longer offer puberty blockers to children suffering from gender dysphoria joining Norway, Finland and Sweden in introducing greater safeguards for children. In the United States a growing number of states are banning affirmative care for individuals under 18. Also Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, issued a statement condemning the bullying and silencing of women who challenge gender ideology to defend their sex-based rights. Meanwhile many sports organisations are reviewing their trans and non-binary participation policies. British Cycling recently banned trans-identified males from women’s competitions, Finally, and this is entirely personal, but I believe this issue has had the perverse effect of invigorating feminism. Before this ghastly iteration of misogyny emerged, feminism seemed to me, admittedly as a feckless follower, to be hijacked by a libfem interpretation of women’s rights. By that I mean fun feminists jumping on the me too bandwagon but at the same time championing sex work, kink and the sex positive movement, all of which struck me as a devious way of reframing and endorsing male abuse. Call me a ridiculous optimist but I’m hoping that the injection of intellectual energy into feminism courtesy the sinister gender agenda, will prompt a re-evaluation of these issues. It’s been 20 years since the Prostitution Law Reform Act was passed in New Zealand. Let’s talk about that! This article first appeared on The Platform and is republished with permission.

Suzanne Levy, Updated April 2023 This article contains detailed legal info - for an overview and updates please check out our main sex self-id section here. Sex Self-ID has been one of our main topics of conversation for several years now. We know we don’t want it, we know it’s wrong, but what does it actually mean for women in New Zealand? Update April 2023 Since writing this article, our Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) has released some excellent guidance - in particular their information for Service Providers, this can be found by following this link - please note that the link may not work directly, in which case copy and paste it into a browser. The main info is summarised below. I’m going to attempt to unpick the New Zealand situation, which I believe is quite unique compared to other parts of the world. This is in no way a legal opinion, it is my take on things and has come about from various discussions with lawyers along with a lot of listening and reading. What is Sex Self-ID? This can be described in two parts: 1. Sex Self-ID in law This is a legislative change to the way a birth certificate can be altered, it makes it easier and faster for a person to change the sex marker on their birth certificate and simply requires a statutory declaration by a person stating that they feel they are living as the opposite sex. A statutory declaration is a serious and binding legal document and there are consequences for providing false information, but when it contains feelings it is entirely impossible to prove that a person was not feeling a particular way. The legislation will also allow for multiple changes and will not be limited to male and female. Fortunately, the same legislation that makes it easier to change the birth certificate also brings in a new clause that makes the birth certificate less binding. (See 79. Certificates as Evidence below) The New Zealand birth certificate is now a vanity document. Speak Up for Women did not suggest that birth certificates should never be changed, our position was that the legislation and process should be left alone. 2. Sex Self-ID in public life In some ways the horse bolted long before the legislation changed. The concept of sex self-ID has been infiltrating our government departments for several years, wording changes that talk about “women or anyone who identifies as a woman” are common yet have no legal backing. This form of self-ID does not involve a birth certificate, it involves a statement by one person that overrides reality and breaks the social contracts that have helped to keep women safe. The idea that “trans women are women” has been hammered through our society to the extent that many people believe that it is a legal concept and that they have no choice but to treat trans women as women in every respect. The legal birth certificate changes cement this belief and make our job more difficult. This belief is also cemented in the minds of transgender people who are led to believe that they are legally the opposite sex. Background and Speak Up for Women’s position Speak Up for Women believe that sex matters. This is our core belief when protecting and fighting for the rights of women. This belief impacts our core areas of work: To protect single sex spaces and services that are currently legal under the Human Rights ACT 1993. To prevent our education professionals teaching concepts that say that sex is something that can be changed. To protect language that focuses on and celebrates women and the roles they play in our society. In 1993, when the Human Rights Act was passed into legislation it would be fair to say that most people used the words sex and gender interchangeably - that is because 30 years ago, while not strictly accurate, they were almost always used to describe the same thing. The generally accepted definition of sex is biological. SUFW believe that sex cannot be changed and we believe that the exclusions in the Human Rights Act are based on this definition of sex. We are concerned that there are groups and service providers also who believe that sex matters but are including people who self-ID because they think it is illegal not to. In working with these groups it is interesting to see how and when they are being advised and by whom. Are sex and gender the same thing in law? Should they be? When the Human Rights Act says “sex” does it also mean “gender”? We are aware that there are groups who wish to include people who self-ID into various categories, this is not an issue for us. The HRA was not designed to prevent inclusion. Inclusion can mean many things. Ironically it is exclusion that creates inclusion. In sport, we make categories so that more people can be included. We have age groups so that 12 year old boys don’t play football against adult men. The exclusive categories are what make sport truly inclusive. Without them, almost every sport would be dominated by men between the ages of 20 and 30 and most others would not bother participating. The same goes for services. Would women use a rape counselling service where all of the counsellors were men? The real answer is that the law around discrimination on the basis of sex has not been tested in recent times, since sex and gender have come to mean very different things. The Legal Situation The Human Rights Act 1993 The Human Rights Act 1993 explains the situations where it is legal to discriminate, there are not many situations and it doesn’t say that you must discriminate - it simply provides the option. We are concerned with two main sections of the Act - Section 44 and Section 53. Section 44 of the Human Rights Act 1993 covers the provision of goods and services. These are the exceptions that we are focusing on. 45. Exception in relation to courses and counselling Nothing in section 44 shall prevent the holding of courses, or the provision of counselling, restricted to persons of a particular sex, race, ethnic or national origin, or sexual orientation where highly personal matters, such as sexual matters or the prevention of violence, are involved. 46. Exception in relation to public decency or safety Section 44 shall not apply to the maintenance or provision of separate facilities or services for each sex on the ground of public decency or public safety. Compare: 1977 No 49 s 24(4) 49. Exception in relation to sport (1) Subject to subsection (2), nothing in section 44 shall prevent 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. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the exclusion of persons from participation in— (a) the coaching of persons engaged in any sporting activity; or (b) the umpiring or refereeing of any sporting activity; or (c) the administration of any sporting activity; or (d) sporting activities by persons who have not attained the age of 12 years. (3) It shall not be a breach of section 44 to exclude any person from any competitive sporting event or activity if that person’s disability is such that there would be a risk of harm to that person or to others, including the risk of infecting others with an illness, if that person were to take part in that competitive sporting event or activity and it is not reasonable to take that risk. (4) It shall not be a breach of section 44 to conduct competitive sporting events or activities in which only persons with a particular disability or age qualification may take part. Section 53 of the Human Rights Act 1993 covers Land, housing, and other accommodation There is one exception in this section we are focusing on: 55. Exception in relation to hostels, institutions, etc Nothing in section 53 shall apply to accommodation in any hostel or in any establishment (such as a hospital, club, school, university, religious institution, or retirement village), or in any part of a hostel or any such establishment, where accommodation is provided only for persons of the same sex, marital status, or religious or ethical belief, or for persons with a particular disability, or for persons in a particular age group. Compare: 1977 No 49 s 25(3) Using section 49 as an example (exception in relation to sport) it is obvious that the reference to strength, stamina or physique is there because these are the attributes that give a male sexed person an advantage. Those same advantages would not be present in a female presenting as or identifying as a male gendered person. They are biological attributes. The other exceptions also relate to sex differences that are not overcome or negated by a gender identity. Someone’s gender identity is subjective and in the case of the other exceptions (45, 46 and 55) which are designed to provide safety, dignity and privacy for each sex, the reality of the person's sex is what matters. We are entitled to believe what we see with our own eyes. We also believe that clause 79(2) in the new legislation (Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021) reflects this. Supplementary Order Paper 59 In August 2021 Supplementary Order Paper 59 was released in relation to the BDMRR changes, we were pleased to see that a new clause was proposed, described as follows in the Explanatory Notes: Clarification of status of birth certificates as evidence of sex and gender New clause 80(2) clarifies that any individual, private sector agency, or public sector agency authorised or required to ascertain an individual’s sex or gender for a particular purpose may take into account matters other than the information in a person’s birth certificate in accordance with any other applicable legislation (including the Human Rights Act 1993) and the rules of the common law. Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021 Clause 80(2) survived the Select Committee process and became clause 79(2) in the Act as follows: 79. Certificates as evidence (1) A certificate issued under this Act is admissible as evidence in any legal proceedings and is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be an accurate record of the information recorded in the registry as at the date of issue. (2) Any individual, private sector agency, or public sector agency authorised or required to ascertain an individual’s sex or gender for a particular purpose may take into account either or both of the following: the information contained in a certificate issued under this Act: any other relevant information. Our goal is to increase awareness of this clause and to provide information and support for individuals and organisations who wish to provide single sex spaces and services. What does it all mean? This is new legislation and is yet to be tested, but this is how we interpret it Single sex spaces are allowed in the same way they have always been allowed and sex means what it has always meant. Sex and Gender are mentioned as separate concepts, this is a positive step in ensuring that Sex is treated appropriately in law - that sex does matter. Organisations are given wide scope to establish sex or gender, the birth certificate offers no more evidence of sex than any other information that might be available to the organisation or individual who is establishing sex. The exceptions in the Human Rights Act 1993 are still valid exceptions. It is legal to discriminate on the basis of sex as per the Human Rights Act 1993. What happens next? The Minister responsible for the Law Commission, Hon Kiri Allan, has asked Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission to review the protections in the Human Rights Act 1993 for transgender people, non-binary people and people with diverse sex characteristics. We will be contributing to this consultation and will be asking our supporters to do the same, you can find out more and subscribe to updates on the Law Commission website here.

MEDIA RELEASE: Wellington - June 8th 2023 A poll of New Zealand voters undertaken by Curia Market Research on behalf of Speak Up For Women (SUFW), shows that sex denialism (gender identity ideology) is a minority view in Aotearoa New Zealand. The poll was conducted between May 2nd and 7th 2023 with 1000 eligible voters - poll details are at the end of this release. The majority of respondents did not support a key aspect of sex denialism, the introduction of sex self-ID in law, a change that was supported by all political parties in Parliament in 2021. We also polled the respondent’s political affiliations (National, Labour, Act, Greens) and provided this information to the party leaders. Changing a birth certificate on demand to the opposite sex (or “non-binary” or no sex). Most respondents did not support a person being allowed to change the sex marker on their birth certificate to the sex they say they are, or want to be, via statutory declaration only (sex self-ID). Do you approve of the law change (known as sex self-ID) to allow anyone to change the sex on their birth certificate with no medical or surgical changes? Approval / Disapproval rates by probed voting preference. Since 2018, SUFW has campaigned to protect women-only spaces. While from June 15 2023 people in our country will be able to change their birth certificate sex marker with a statutory declaration, there is provision in the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021 (BDMRRA) to establish a person's sex via means other than the birth certificate. Clause 79(2) in the BDMRRA 2021 maintains the right of service providers and public and private agencies to continue to use information other than the birth certificate to establish a person's sex. Vitally, it differentiates between sex and gender in the law, specifically as it relates to the Human Rights Act 1993. We support the addition of this clause in the BDMRRA (2021) However we continue to oppose the sex self-ID section of the legislation as it creates a legal fiction that can produce negative outcomes in the real world. Altering an historic document - the birth certificate can no longer be relied upon as a meaningful record of historical fact. Altering a fact - sex is not “assigned” at birth, it is observed. Impacts on whakapapa / genealogy. Children with birth certificates that do not give them an accurate picture of the circumstances of their birth. The provision of single sex services, facilities and sports remains legal. Males can be excluded from services, facilities and sports intended for females, regardless of whether they claim a gender identity as a woman (or “non-binary”). However SUFW is concerned that activist officials and policy makers have been and will continue to misrepresent the law, creating bad policy and confusion among service providers. An example of this is the way in which two government websites represent grounds for discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA). The HRA does not mention “gender identity” yet the New Zealand Government website has included gender identity in their list of prohibited grounds for discrimination in relation to the HRA. Speak Up For Women would like to invite voters to challenge election candidates from all parties, about whether politicians intend to allow and enable the top-down implementation of radical sex denialism in Aotearoa New Zealand or instead, support sex-based rights; the safety, dignity and privacy of women and girls; and freedom of belief and speech in discussions related to sex and gender. We also expect it will motivate candidates to listen to voters’ concerns. If you are concerned about the denial or withdrawal of single sex services, the protection of women’s and girls’ rights, you can find more information on our website. Poll details POLL DATES : Tue 02 to Sun 07 May 2023. The median response was collected on Thursday 04 May 2023. TARGET POPULATION: Eligible New Zealand voters. SAMPLE POPULATION: Eligible New Zealand voters who are contactable on a landline or mobile phone or online panel. SAMPLE SIZE : 1,000 respondents agreed to participate – 800 via phone and 200 via online panel. SAMPLE SELECTION : A random selection of 15,000 nationwide phone numbers and a random selection from the online panel. WEIGHTING : The results are weighted to reflect the overall voting adult population in terms of gender, age, and area. SAMPLE ERROR : Based on this sample of 1,000 respondents, the maximum sampling error (for a result of 50%) is +/- 3.1%, at the 95% confidence level. CODE COMPLIANCE: This poll was conducted in accordance with the Research Association New Zealand Code of Practice and the International Chamber of Commerce/European Society for Opinion and Market Research Code on Market and Social Research.