Let's tell them how we feel. You can email the Minister for Stats, the PM, the leader of the opposition, the opposition spokesperson for Stats or your own MP - anyone who you think should read it. Use you own words if you wish - but the main points are here. Use a subject heading such as "Census Gender and Sex Questions" For the background on why this is necessary - check out my post on the Census Gender and Sex questions here. Please copy and paste the bits you like - send it to: The Minister for Stats - Deborah Russell (Dear Minister) The PM - Chris Hipkins (Dear Prime Minister) The Opposition Spokesperson for Stats - Simon Watts (Dear Mr Watts) The Leader of the Opposition - Christopher Luxon (Dear Mr Luxon) To write to another MP check out the list here Dear xxx, I am having trouble with the Gender question in the Census form as I am unable to answer it honestly. I don't have a gender identity, just a sex yet it won't let me skip the gender question. Gender identity is an ideology, yet it is being treated as if it is more important than sex. According to Stats it is ok to skip the Sex question - but not the Gender question. I suspect that Stats run the risk of not having complete sex data on people who do believe in gender identity ideology as those people may only wish to disclose their gender identity. I have asked via the Census helpline - and even if I use the paper forms and leave the Gender question blank, Stats NZ will fill in the Gender question for me using "alternatively sourced data" - which I understand actually means they will take my answer to the Sex question and use it for the Gender question. If I select "Another Gender" and write "None" then my gender is recored as "Another Gender". This is wrong and is not an accurate record of my lack of gender identity. I would like to have my Gender recorded as "No Gender" as this is correct for me. I am concerned about having incorrect information recorded about me. I am also expected to sign the form and declare that the information is true and complete. I am unable to do this. I want to be able to complete the census but I do not want to compromise my values and provide false information.

Our SUFW spokeswomen met recently with the Corrections Policy Team who are working on the following issue as apart of a wider consultation: The discussion document can be downloaded here but we were concerned with item 2. 2. Ensuring people are assigned to male and female prisons by considering a range of factors The following two options were up for discussion: Option 1: revoke the birth certificate rule and add birth certificates as one of the several factors that may be considered if it is presented during placement decisions (regulatory option) Under this option, a birth certificate may be considered alongside a range of other factors, such as the person’s gender and the wellbeing and safety of the applicant and others in prison. This would mark a change from the status quo, which requires a person to be placed according to the sex on their birth certificate, if it is presented.26 Under this approach, a person would not be disadvantaged if they did not present their birth certificate. This is because other information, such as gender, can be considered in the prison placement decision. This option would retain existing regulatory provisions that exclude someone accused or convicted of a serious sexual offence from applying for a review of their determined sex. Option 2: status quo – keep the birth certificate rule in place and have an operational response to manage people when required (non-regulatory option) Under this option, the birth certificate rule would still apply. If there was a possibility of harm to or from other people in the prison due to the placement, Corrections would manage this with an operational response. For example, it may be necessary for Corrections to place someone on directed or protective segregation. We gave the following feedback: Option 1, which does not rely on the birth certificate does have some merit but it is our belief that the only factor that should be considered when housing a prisoner is their biological sex. We do not support Option 2, it seems to rely on the birth certificate by default and it may have to be proven that there is a problem before a particular transgender prisoner is removed from the opposite sex prison accommodation and will obviously result in transgender people having to be housed in segregation due to security levels etc It is the status quo, but self-ID will mean that any person can change their sex marker on the birth certificate, potentially opening this pathway up to any male who is happy to sign a statutory declaration. This could be done by a prisoner after sentencing who, when faced with a long stay, might imagine that a women’s prison would provide a safer and more enjoyable experience. We stated our preferred option as follows: In the case of a biological woman who identifies as a woman, she should be housed in the women’s accommodation with no biological males. In the case of a biological man who identifies as a woman, he should be housed in the men’s accommodation with no biological females. Where a person's biological sex does not match their gender identity they should either be housed in accommodation that matches their biological sex or in accommodation specifically for transgender prisoners of their own sex, they should have some choice in the matter. In our discussion with Corrections we accepted that this is a difficult solution to implement due to the other sentencing factors that must be taken into account and the small numbers of transgender inmates. We did reiterate that the difficulty of the placement of a male inmate should not be the concern of a female inmate. We made the following points during our meeting: Transgender women may be considered “male” to female inmates, “the women who are experiencing them feel that they are men, and that is real”. Gender reassignment surgery does not change one’s biological sex. Safety of female prisoners needs to be considered during placement decision Women’s mental and emotional wellbeing may be negatively affected if transgender women are in the unit with them. This may impact their ability to heal and rehabilitate. The group discussed that women have a right to a space that is free from men. Overall, there was a general agreement with the statement that “it continues to be important to consider the safety and wellbeing of everyone in a women’s prison”. Corrections discussed that prison operational practice is the key to ensuring safety of everyone in prison. A women’s pathway into prison typically differs to that of men and there was a question asked as to how or whether the pathway differed for transgender people. The group felt that Corrections current operational practice to not bunk transgender women with women is good. Women in prison have a low level of trust in authority and are unlikely to come forward if they feel threatened by a transgender person in prison. The point was made that in a prison environment it may be difficult to maintain physical distance from someone if you feel you need to. Corrections clarified that the policy documents produced will be provided to the operational teams. The Department of Corrections policy document titled "Launch of new strategy for women" very commendable, SUFW believe that this document outlines many of the reasons why male and female inmates should not be housed together.

Suzanne Levy, January 2023 In November 2021, the Department of Statistics sought feedback on their LGBTQ Statistics reporting changes. These proposed changes included collecting sex and gender data but using the "gender as the default" method for reporting... The result seemed to be that there was no way to differentiate between a lesbian and a man who said he was a same-sex attracted woman...I sought confirmation... Below is an email conversation I had with a he/him from stats... Suzanne Levy 29 November 2021 at 19:15 To: "communications@stats.govt.nz" Hello, I cannot understand how collecting data on sexual orientation (possibly ridiculously rebranded by you to sexual identity, I’m not quite sure) is related to data on gender identity. Same sex attraction is a fact, gender identity is a feeling and the two groups face totally different issues. They should be counted separately. Ask yourself this; What does a 16 year old lesbian have in common with a 50 year old male who says he feels like a woman? Say it out loud, say it to the person sitting next to you (or 2m away), say it to your mum, say it a few times and you’ll realise the 16 year old lesbian will not have her needs met by being included in a group that includes 50 year old males. Are you doing it so that the gender identity group has larger representation perhaps? Please do collect the data - it’s important that we know how many same sex attracted people are in Aotearoa and it’s important that we know how many people identify as a gender that doesn’t match their biological sex. But the data is separate. Please don’t use the word cisgender in any survey, ever. It’s offensive and is a pathetic attempt to make people feel guilty for being the sex they are. Just stop it. Please. For your statistics - I’m a woman and a lesbian. Cheers Mike <****@stats.govt.nz>2 December 2021 at 15:47 To: "suzanne@*****.***.**" Cc: Communications - Shared Mailbox Kia ora Suzanne Thank you for your feedback and interest in this report. We are conscious of the diversity among different components of the LGBT+ population. To this end the report included tables with detailed breakdowns across different dimensions, for example table 3a – available at https://www.stats.govt.nz/reports/lgbt-plus-population-of-aotearoa-year-ended-june-2020 - provides data separately on transgender and non-binary people, and those who identify with a sexual minority – these are further broken down by age bands. The approach taken in preparing the report, and many of the terms within it, draw on the statistical standard for gender, sex, and variations of sex characteristics which was widely consulted on, but we appreciate feedback as we continue to refine how we present insights from these questions. Ngā mihi Mike Mike (pronouns: he/him/his) Acting Manager / Principal Analyst | Kaiwhakahaere / Kaitātari Matua Wealth & Expenditure | Ngā rawa me ngā whakapaunga Social & Population Insights | Ngā Mātau Pāpori me te Taupori Stats NZ | Tatauranga Aotearoa | stats.govt.nz About Aotearoa, for Aotearoa Data that improves lives today and for generations to come Suzanne Levy 2 December 2021 at 16:02 To: ****@stats.govt.nz Thanks Mike, Can you tell me from the data what percentage of the LGBT+ population are lesbian? Given that the data seems to use the word Gender instead of Sex it's impossible to tell what % of the "female" category are actually female and therefore lesbian. Lesbian and gay are same-sex attracted sexual orientations so a transgender woman cannot be a lesbian. So the data I am after is the percentage of biological females who are gay. Can you point me to that please? Many thanks, Suzanne Levy Mike <****@stats.govt.nz>3 December 2021 at 14:22 To: Suzanne Levy Kia ora Suzanne, From the survey, approximately 1 percent of adult females responded that they think of themselves as "gay or lesbian" (see question below). If you add those that selected “bisexual” or “other” this brings the total to approximately 4 percent. Survey question Which option below best describes how you think of yourself? 1. heterosexual or straight 2. gay or lesbian 3. bisexual 4. other 5. don't know 6. prefer not to say Aku mihi Mike Suzanne Levy 3 December 2021 at 14:29 To: Mike <****@stats.govt.nz> Excellent. Possibly. What is the definition of female though? It looks from table 3A like it includes transgender women in which case the stats are substituting gender for sex. Please confirm. Thanks Mike <****@stats.govt.nz>3 December 2021 at 14:35 To: Suzanne Levy Kia ora Suzanne Consistent with the “gender by default” principle set out in the “Statistical standard for gender, sex, and variations of sex characteristics”, this includes all adult respondents who indicated that their gender is female. Suzanne Levy 3 December 2021 at 14:43 To: Mike <****@stats.govt.nz> Yep - so that's a problem and it is incredibly homophobic to record a male as a lesbian, regardless of how he sees himself. Stats are collected to help with planning and various things - what use is this statistic if it doesn't count the group that it claims to? The group that any reasonable person would assume was being counted in this data? How can we consider health needs of lesbians if we don't know who they are? Should we be suggesting prostate cancer checks or cervical smears? Changing the meaning of the word female to include biological males is nonsense and will create meaningless statistics. Mike had nothing more to add but Stats NZ are still consulting on this and I'm sure Mike would love to hear from you - the links are here.

Speak Up for Women respond to Sport NZ Guiding Principles for the Inclusion of Transgender People in Community Sport Wellington December 6th 2022 Speak Up for Women (SUFW) are strong supporters of women in sport and are disappointed with today’s release by Sport NZ of their Guiding Principles for the Inclusion of Transgender People in Community Sport. These regressive guidelines officially remove the right for women to compete in a separate sex-based category, opening up the women’s category to any male who says they possess the gender identity of a woman. According to Sport New Zealand this “internal sense” that is “at the core of a person’s being” is more important than material reality, fairness, safety, or even the Human Rights Act 1993 which specifically allows for sex separated sport where strength, stamina, or physique is relevant. Further, no proof of any medical steps to change gender or suppress male physiological advantage is required and it is not acceptable to “ask people to prove or otherwise justify their gender, sex or gender identity.” As if the physical differences between the sexes is not easily observable. In fact, sports organisations are told that to not allow a male who identifies as a woman to play in the team of their self-identified gender would be “direct discrimination”. In other words, any male can declare for any reason that they possess a female gender identity, and sports clubs are required to take them at their word, no questions asked, and immediately allow them to compete in women’s sports categories. The guidelines also state that observations regarding the suitability or fairness of a male athlete’s participation in a female team is likely to be considered harassment or bullying. And, in the case study provided in the guidelines, the appropriate outcome is disciplinary action against an athlete objecting. Sport New Zealand’s position is now clear - parents, spectators, administrators, volunteers, and athletes are required to ignore what they can clearly see with their own eyes in the name of “inclusion” while even more podium places and prizes are awarded to males competing in women’s sports categories. The requirement to disregard material reality is even compulsory off the field with the guidelines stating: “Sports organisations are encouraged to be proactive when taking trips and to consider any travel and accommodation arrangements ahead of making bookings. Shared accommodation can raise significant privacy and safety concerns for transgender people. Where teams have shared accommodation, transgender people should be given the option of proposing who they would be comfortable sharing a room with and/or whether they require a separate room.” It is clear that the concerns for privacy and safety do not extend to women or girls who may not want to share a room with a male teammate. Along with sacrificing fairness and safety on the sporting field, these guidelines tell women and girls that they also need to subordinate their own privacy, dignity, and personal boundaries in order to be an “ally”. The Human Rights Act allows for discrimination on the basis of sex both in sport and the provision of sex separated services and facilities. SUFW are concerned that these guidelines deliberately disregard the law as it stands and provide no pathway for female athletes, parents, coaches, or volunteers to raise concerns. There is also no guidance for sports officials on how to handle such complaints in a way that considers the competing interests of a male who wants to participate in women’s sport on the basis of their gender identity with the fairness, safety, and privacy of female athletes. SUFW support Save Women’s Sport Australasia in their work in this area and thank them for their persistence in highlighting these regressive guidelines to the general public.

Media Release 17 November 2022 Speak Up For Women NZ (SUFW) have launched a nationwide awareness campaign to highlight the eroding of women’s language, rights and the loss of single sex spaces. SUFW are reclaiming the slur of TERF. This is generally thrown at anyone, mainly women who question gender-identity ideology. Being a woman is not something you can identify into; you just are one. Together, Empowered Rational Females are joining forces all over the world, saying “no thank you”, it’s time this experiment stopped. TERF Club cards have begun appearing in their thousands across the country. They have been found in places like cafes, libraries, shops, and airports. Spokeswoman for SUFW Suzanne Levy says “Traffic to our website has increased significantly over the past few days. Our page on Keeping gender-identity ideology out of schools has been very popular. Parents are obviously concerned about what children are being exposed to in schools. This ideology is confusing young children to the extent that young boys can think, they can get pregnant and have periods”. As part of the campaign, SUFW is proud to host Dr Michael Biggs, who will be presenting Puberty blockers and the transgender revolution livestream with Q & A on December 1st at 7pm NZT. Dr Michael Biggs is a sociologist at the University of Oxford, UK (and graduate of Victoria University of Wellington). He has written on the inadequate evidence favouring puberty suppression in children suffering from gender dysphoria and on the surprising influence of queer theory on English prison policy. His work on puberty blockers and gender medicine was used in the recent review of the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service in the UK. His publications on these topics are available on his website. You can find resources on our website about keeping the word ‘woman’ in our language, single sex spaces, keeping gender-identity ideology out of schools, women in sports and in prisons, plus the latest news and events.

Opinion: Suzanne Levy, November 6th, 2022 With Freedom of Speech back on the table this week and with much discussion about exactly what is and what isn’t “Hate Speech”, it’s an opportune time to remind our friends and foes of where Speak Up for Women (SUFW) stand when it comes to freedom of speech and expression, and of how we see any new legislation affecting our ability to continue to campaign for the rights and language of women and girls. In short, we support freedom of speech. While we are nonpartisan, we do support a democracy that allows freedom of speech, expression and thought. (click here for information on our principles). While we do not know what changes are proposed, we do know that the changes are unlikely to silence us for our gender critical views. As in the UK with the Maya Forstater Employment Appeal Tribunal case, gender critical views have been tested here in New Zealand and have made the grade. SUFW formed in 2018 in opposition to the government’s sex self-ID proposals in the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill. SUFW believed then, as it does now, that sex self-ID will have significant implications for women and girls, particularly in relation to their rights to single sex spaces, e.g. changing rooms, hostels, prisons, services and sports. In 2018 SUFW argued that there was inadequate public consultation, and the that Bill risked unintended consequences for women’s sex-based rights. This position was ultimately accepted by the former Minister for Department of Internal Affairs, Tracey Martin. After she took legal advice, the proposal was withdrawn. In 2020 the Bill was reintroduced by the current Minister for Department of Internal Affairs, Jan Tinetti. In June 2021 SUFW was attempting to hold public meetings around New Zealand to discuss the (at that stage) proposed changes relating to sex self-ID. We were called transphobic, we were described as a hate group. SUFW had venue bookings refused, initially by the Christchurch City Council and later by the Palmerston North City Council (PNCC). The PNCC refusal to allow a booking of a public venue resulted in a hearing in the Auckland High Court, the full ruling is here. Part of our submission was an explanation of our gender critical views: “Broadly speaking, SUFW takes what has become known as a “gender critical” feminist position: that a person’s sex is a material reality that does not change. Sex is distinct from gender and has a social and physical significance that cannot be ignored. If the word “woman” is taken to include any man identifying as a woman, the definitions of “woman” and “man” lose meaning, and women lose the ability to organise as a distinct group, and to describe and record their experiences of being female and of sexism and sex discrimination.” Daphna Whitmore, Speak Up for Women, The High Court of New Zealand, June 24 2021 SUFW was successful and the PNCC event was able to go ahead without incident, but more importantly the Judge made it clear that we are not a hate group: “There is sufficient evidence before me at this stage to be clear that SUFW cannot rationally be described as a “hate group” in the sense that term can be relevant in making decisions about the extent to which a particular group should be allowed to exercise its rights of free speech and freedom of assembly.” Justice Gerald Nation, The High Court of New Zealand Judgement, June 25 2021 So we will continue to say that Sex Matters. We will continue to say that men cannot become women. We will continue to fight to keep our language, our rights and our female reality. And in the words of the wonderful Magdalen Berns, “It's not hate to defend your rights and it's not hate to speak the truth”.

Katrina and Suzanne had a fab chat here with these women from America and Canada on An American Conversation Podcast. We cover a lot of ground about stuff in general around gender-identity ideology, and how it's playing out in each of our countries. Had a good time funning around with them off-record, too :-) Speak Up For Women NZ - YouTube

Opinion: by Katrina Biggs New Zealand’s Parliament recently passed Rachel Boyack’s Plain Language bill into law¹. Rachel Boyack is Labour’s Member of Parliament for Nelson, and her Plain Language bill was her first to be randomly drawn from parliament’s biscuit tin . Understandably, it was a big moment for her, and when the bill was passed into law she tweeted - “Delighted my first bill has passed through the House. Shout out to @WriteLimited for their mahi [work] and support”. There were 75 submissions made on the Plain Language bill to the Governance and Administration Committee. Included in those which were either cautionary or against the bill, The Law Society’s submission stated (to précis it) that legislation should only be used when a goal can’t be achieved by any other means. Write Limited, to whom Ms Boyack gave a shout out on Twitter, were amongst those who supported the bill in their submission , where, amongst other things, they suggested appointing departmental Plain Language Officers. This was echoed in the bill, and will require annual reports on compliance. Part of the Plain Language bill states that it should be in “ language that the intended reader can easily understand after 1 reading ”. In reply to a tweet on Ms Boyack’s Twitter thread, which asked if it could be confirmed that plain language would mean an end to the use of convoluted inclusive language like ‘people with a cervix’, Write Limited replied - “#PlainLanguage aims to be both clear and inclusive and to respect the intended audience for the communication. Word choices matter!”. Some inclusive language is good, for example where a person’s sex shouldn’t matter, and in order not to devolve to female exclusionary language – e.g. mankind, chairman. However, inclusive language, innocent sounding though those two words might be, has now grown much bigger and messier than that. It’s not easy to see how the inclusive-language term ‘people with a cervix’² is clearer than the word ‘women’ or respectful towards the intended audience, which would be women. The word ‘woman’ is rich with centuries of meaning, and has instant recognition. Technically, the definition in reputable dictionaries is adult human female , and is the same understanding that the general law of New Zealand has. In life, culture, and society it informs, conveys, encompasses, evokes, and involves more than we could ever get from the term ‘people with a cervix’. To use that term in place of ‘woman’ is reductive, demeaning, and unnecessarily convoluted. Neither does it arouse the same level of engagement from us as when we read the word ‘woman’. Men have so far not been as subjected to the indignity of reductive inclusive language as women have been, but we are starting to see more terms like ‘people with a prostate’ pop up, so it is seeping into men’s language now, too. Plain language and inclusive language can be uncomfortable marriage partners. Plain language says that we should use the word ‘women’ for women, because that’s the word that conveys the most meaning and understanding in the shortest possible way. Inclusive language says we should use a term like ‘people with a cervix’ for women, because transgender females and transgender males prefer it, due to the word ‘woman’ potentially causing discomfort for them. This particular type of term to replace the word ‘woman’ is mainly used in health-related narratives concerning our bodies, as transpeoples’ biology and gender identity are at odds with each other. Language helps us navigate the world by having rules. They ensure that we commonly understand both spoken and written narratives without first having to spend time deciphering or decoding them. Even when language evolves, there are still rules about how it is used. Inclusive language, as we know it in the context of using terms like ‘people with a cervix’, has no rules. Just like gender identities and neo-pronouns, a Google search does not find a concise and stable list of inclusive language terms. All three are mobile concepts, and completely unknown in many walks of life. Yet they are being used in place of language that has rules which enable widespread understanding for the greatest number of people the most amount of time. Will the Plain Language law apply plain language rules to women, where we will once again be called women instead of ‘people with a cervix? Depending on how it’s applied, we may have a tool in the Plain Language law to fight against inclusive language - a harmless-sounding moniker on the surface, but with deep indignities, misunderstandings, non-engagement, and resentments arising from its’ use. This new law will be tracked with interest, and, feasibly, women will use the full force of it to take back our language. ¹The Plain Language law will apply to legislation which is created after the law has been enacted. ²The term ‘people with a cervix’ is a generic example for the many convoluted terms that can be used instead of using the word ‘woman’. This website manages to not use the word ‘woman’ once in conjunction with talking about cervical cancer. Cervical / Cervix Cancer | Signs and Symptoms | Talk Peach

By: Katrina Biggs When Wellington mayoral candidate, Tory Whanau, said she was “always keen to kōrero with all” , Speak Up for Women NZ believed her. In conversation with Dane Giraud on the Free Speech Union’s podcast , Tory strongly reiterated in various ways how important it was to keep the lines of communication open. It felt like a breath of fresh air coming through – at first. Speak Up for Women are disparaged and slurred by people from all walks of life for wanting to protect women and girls’ right to access single-sex spaces. There is a uniformity of language to the slurs which suggests it’s more along the lines of rote-learning and quoting than analysis. Those who have joined in the disparagement and slurs include Members of Parliament and city councillors. Some of them showed up to protest outside venues where SUFW held public talks about changes to the sex self-ID legislation during their countrywide tour in 2021. The change of legislation around sex self-ID allows any person to have the recorded sex on their birth certificate altered to that of the opposite sex multiple times, if desired, at the cost of $10 a time. No assessment of their mental health, character, or any changes to their anatomy is required. Thanks to SUFW’s campaigning, however, clause 79(2) was added to the sex self-ID bill which states that other factors besides a birth certificate can be taken into account to judge a person’s sex (there will be more to come from SUFW about this clause). Unofficial sex self-ID is rapidly seeping into the social and public arenas, though, and right now service providers are allowing entry to men who self-declare themselves to be women into women’s spaces. We agree with Max Rashbrooke when he states in his article The curse of cosyism in public life is hurting us all that “ we must design systems for the most corrupt actors, not the least” , and believe that also applies to protecting women and girls’ single-sex spaces. So, to hear Tory Whanau say in the afore-mentioned podcast how she’d been teaching herself “to really hear other people out, even if I disagree with them” sounded almost too good to be true. But she took the time to make a comment on the Free Speech Union’s Facebook page where she promised she meant what she said, and supplied her email address to show her good faith. This kind of commitment to having an honest conversation with SUFW was very rare, and very exciting! An email was sent to Tory a few weeks after her invitation on Facebook, albeit via her website initially. No reply. Another email was sent to the email address Tory supplied, and a reply came that she was dealing with a backlog and will be in touch soon. Close to a month after that, the Free Speech Union released another podcast where Jonathon Ayling had a roundtable discussion with Tory and two other candidates for council, one of whom was from outside Wellington. The podcast was promoted as covering the topics of “What does a major Mayoral candidate think of codes of conduct? Is there wide support within councils for limiting who can speak in public venues? Where do councillors draw the line between speech they consider free and beyond the pale? And is their input even warranted? During the roundtable discussion, Jonathon raised the subject of how Speak Up for Women had been cancelled from various venues by city councils during their countrywide speaking tour. The Free Speech Union supported SUFW in taking the Palmerston North City Council to the High Court, where a ruling was made that SUFW could not rationally be described as a ‘hate group’, which was part of the rationale of the councils who cancelled them. Once again, the slur had the hallmarks of simply being a repetition of what had been read and heard solely from a small number of extremely vocal activists, and those who quote them. The High Court ruling meant that the Palmerston North City Council had to cede their public venue to SUFW, as did the other councils who had cancelled them. Some members of the Wellington City Council appeared particularly bitter about this, and took action to ensure that SUFW’s talk in Wellington was controversial and uncomfortable, which required the hiring of security staff. Jonathon asked Tory if she agreed with what the WCC had done, and Tory hedged with the comment that SUFW was a group that “was known to be transphobic” . Tory didn’t elaborate on how this was “known”. It certainly wasn’t based on meeting Speak Up for Women, and making a judgement from having a good faith conversation. After stating in her first Free Speech Union podcast, in relation to the matter of councils cancelling groups, that “If someone makes a complaint about a group, it needs to go to an independent body, independent council, and decide whether it’s a hate group or misinformation” , Tory appears to have changed her mind. Another email was sent to ask if the kōrero was still on with Speak Up for Women. No reply. We believed and trusted Tory when she wrote “I promise you I mean what I say”. Should a mayoral candidate’s promise still mean something?

The Department of Corrections have released the following discussion document and are asking for public feedback by Friday September 23rd. Consultation open now | Department of Corrections Corrections seem to be genuine in their request for feedback and have consulted widely, unfortunately they did not initially consult with us but they have now agreed to meet with us. Please read the discussion document and complete the survey if you can. The survey covers other issues but none of the answers are compulsory and you are able to complete just the section relating to male and female prison accommodation if you wish. Our notes below outline where Speak Up for Women stand on this and give you an indication of how our own submission will read. Our submission relates to item: 2. Ensuring people are assigned to male and female prisons by considering a range of factors The options Corrections are asking for feedback on are: Option 1: revoke the birth certificate rule and add birth certificates as one of the several factors that may be considered if it is presented during placement decisions (regulatory option) Under this option, a birth certificate may be considered alongside a range of other factors, such as the person’s gender and the wellbeing and safety of the applicant and others in prison. This would mark a change from the status quo, which requires a person to be placed according to the sex on their birth certificate, if it is presented. Under this approach, a person would not be disadvantaged if they did not present their birth certificate. This is because other information, such as gender, can be considered in the prison placement decision. This option would retain existing regulatory provisions that exclude someone accused or convicted of a serious sexual offence from applying for a review of their determined sex. Option 2: status quo – keep the birth certificate rule in place and have an operational response to manage people when required (non-regulatory option) Under this option, the birth certificate rule would still apply. If there was a possibility of harm to or from other people in the prison due to the placement, Corrections would manage this with an operational response. For example, it may be necessary for Corrections to place someone on directed or protective segregation. We do not agree with either of the proposed options. Option 1, which does not rely on the birth certificate does have some merit but it is our belief that the overriding factor that should be considered when housing a prisoner is their biological sex. In the case of a biological woman who identifies as a woman, she should be housed in the women’s accommodation with no biological males. In the case of a biological man who identifies as a woman, he should be housed in the men’s accommodation with no biological females. Where a person's biological sex does not match their gender identity they should either be housed in accommodation that matches their biological sex or in accommodation specifically for transgender prisoners of their own sex, they should have some choice in the matter. Option 2 seems to rely on the birth certificate by default and it may have to be proven that there is a problem before a particular transgender prisoner is removed from the opposite sex prison accommodation. It is the status quo, but self-ID will mean that any person can change their sex marker on the birth certificate, potentially opening this pathway up to any male who is happy to sign a statutory declaration. This could be done by a prisoner after sentencing who, when faced with a long stay, might imagine that a women’s prison would provide a safer and more enjoyable experience. Other points worth thinking about and including in your own submission might include: Our Human Rights Act 1993, in particular section 55 allows for single sex accommodation in institutions and prison could be regarded as one of the most important of these spaces. We can see that there could be problems with having to individually manage transgender prisoners due to them not being able to be housed in the general prison population with either males or females but this should not be the concern of female prisoners, their safety should not be compromised. Biological sex is the only way to segregate and to keep women safe from male prisoners, there is nothing to indicate that a male is less likely to pose a risk if he identifies as a woman. Women should be able to be housed without males at all times and regardless of how a male might identify. The birth certificate is a low value document when used to identify a person's sex and will become even more so once the BDMRR self-ID legislation is implemented during 2023. Clause 79(2) in the new BDMRR legislation allows for a birth certificate to be bypassed in favour of other relevant information; 79(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. Thank you for taking part in this consultation.

Carol Bartle and Katrina Biggs talk to Women’s Declaration International about the state of things here in Aotearoa New Zealand around gender identity ideology. Carol speaks about the removal of the word ‘woman’ from language, especially in the areas of women’s health and midwifery; therapists and the conversion therapy bill; and puberty blockers (the MoH changed the advice about puberty blockers on 16 Sept 2022). Katrina talks about Speak Up for Women; the Ministry for Women; the National Council for Women; The Ministry of Education and its endorsement of InsideOUT’s disregard of girls; and the Christchurch City Council’s decision to include anyone who calls themselves a woman in the Women’s Session at Linwood Pool. At the end, Carol shows some of the organisations in New Zealand which do not subscribe to gender identity ideology. Carol Bartle and Katrina Biggs - New Zealand - An Update from Aotearoa New Zealand - YouTube

Media Release: Wellington September 19th 2022 Speak Up for Women welcomes the recent Ministry of Health guidance changes regarding transgender healthcare and puberty blockers. We have been approaching the Ministry for some time with concerns about the wording on their website, in particular the insistence up until September 16th 2022 that puberty blockers are “safe and reversible”. “Blockers are a safe and fully reversible medicine that may be used from early puberty through to later adolescence to help ease distress and allow time to fully explore gender health options.” There has been concern for this position for some time, and in the UK a recent review by Dr Hilary Cass for the National Health Service (NHS) has resulted in the closure of the NHS Tavistock Clinic in London. Our various requests over the past few years, for a review of the website guidance have been largely dismissed. In New Zealand, as in the UK, puberty blockers are not approved by Pharmac for the treatment of gender dysphoria, the long term side effects of their use are largely unknown as is the success rate of resolving or reducing the gender dysphoria they claim to treat. In the Tavistock, UK, over 99% of the children and young people who took puberty blockers also went on to take cross-sex (or opposite-sex) hormones - which begs the question - are they are pause button or a stepping stone? On September 16th 2022 the Ministry updated the advice on their website as follows: “Blockers are sometimes used from early puberty through to later adolescence to allow time to fully explore gender health options. This is done under the guidance of a clinician who specialises in their use.” More information can be found on the MOH website: Transgender New Zealanders: Children and young people | Ministry of Health NZ We welcome this small change and hope that in time it is replaced with more research and guidance.