Many parents are starting to panic about what schools are teaching their children about gender. Here in New Zealand, increasing numbers of parents are withdrawing their children from school due to concerns about gender identity instruction. In the US, after sustained pressure from angry parents, Florida recently passed controversial legislation prohibiting, among other things, classroom instruction on gender identity for students below the age of about ten. These parents are concerned about the influence of a belief system called gender identity theory, or more informally gender ideology. Gender ideology is tremendously unpopular with everyday people, as highlighted by a recent cover story in The Economist, which described efforts to “relabel women as birthing people” as one of the “most extreme and least popular ideas” of the US Democratic Party’s activist wing (the phrase ‘birthing people’ is a hallmark term of gender ideology). It’s therefore unsurprising that opinion polls in both New Zealand and the United States indicate that a large majority of people oppose gender identity instruction in schools, including many or most Left-wing voters. Recent Curia New Zealand opinion poll results show overwhelming opposition to teaching gender ideology (Link to source). Still, some people are not yet convinced that gender identity instruction is a serious problem. Gender identity lessons are marketed as efforts to reduce bullying and promote inclusion, which are laudable goals that appeal to most people. Gender activists also misleadingly package their ideas as an extension of the popular campaign for gay and lesbian acceptance. But many people remain confused about what “gender ideology” actually says, whether it is being taught in schools, and even whether it really exists. One article in Quartz claimed that the whole idea of gender ideology is a “conspiracy theory” invented by conservatives, and even attempted to spuriously tie objections to gender ideology to opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage (both of which I personally support). If you’ve been confused and on the sidelines of the gender education debate, this article is for you. I want to show you exactly what’s being taught to your children, so that you can decide for yourself whether you like it. We’ll examine several typical examples of gender identity instruction, and think through their implications. Continue reading on Reality’s Last Stand (there’s no paywall):

Michelle Uriarau - Ngāti Hinepare, Ngāti Mahu, Ngāti Kahungunu. September 5th 2022 “He wāhine, he whenua ka ora te tangata” It is by women and by land, that the people are given life In te ao Māori there is a synergy between women and land, and that without one or the other or both, man [humanity] will not survive. The representation of wāhine, therefore [sic], is a wider discussion about land and the continuation of whakapapa ’ 2018 M. Eria, ‘Te ao Māori : The synergy between women and the land’ Of all the profound questions posed to humankind throughout time, no one could have guessed that the question ‘what is a woman?’ would be one of them. Especially as the question itself is not profound at all. Yet the trending narrative that ‘anyone can be a woman’ is now considered a truth to the point that major changes have recently been passed into New Zealand law that allows men to legally falsify the nominated sex on their birth certificate, hiding evidence of their actual sex. The new law allows them to be legally recognised as a woman based on nothing more than a personal declaration. Unlike previous stringent conditions, the requirements to provide medical evidence, and undergo years of therapy and radical surgery have been removed. In other words, no man needs to change a thing about his appearance to legally be considered a ‘woman’ . The Big Lie, typically credited to Goebbels, comes to mind. To say it is surreal to witness everyone in New Zealand’s parliament acquiesce to the bizarre and perilous doctrine that is gender-identity is an understatement, although NZ is not the only Government to have done so. Even more puzzling is the seemingly docile complicity by elitist Māori to go along with the popular, yet deceitful, allegation that tamariki and mokopuna (children and grandchildren) can be born in the wrong bodies. What a time to be alive! On page 3 of Te Ara, the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, in ‘Sexual Diversity in Contemporary Māori Society’, Clive Aspin makes the claim: ‘...transgender people hold a revered position within Māori society. Transgender people play an important role within both the takatāpui community and wider Māori community as holders and transmitters of ancestral knowledge.’ Who are these so-called ‘transgenders’ that Aspin refers to? Which hapū (sub-tribe)? Which whakapapa (descendancy) are they from and what exactly does he mean by ‘transgender’? On the other hand we have the seemingly infrequently read, but gratuitously marketed, PhD thesis by Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, in which she makes a complete 180 degree turn to the above statement by Clive Aspin on p82 in her thesis , to state that: ‘There is not yet evidence that Māori had diverse gender identities or that tākatapui played specific roles in pre-colonial times.’ Clearly there is a disconnect between what we are being told by both Aspin and Kerekere, who are at odds with each other, and what is reality in relation to Te Ao and Tikanga Māori. Those of us raised within our culture know that we have always been defined by hapū established by whakapapa. Our culture has always been passed down to us by our kaumatua (elders) NOT academics or politicians. Broad sweeping baseless claims about ‘Māori’ can become quickly unravelled when specifics of hapū and whakapapa are either vague or non-existent. Gender-identity ideology originated out of American academia and threatens that everyone must invest in its most outlandish, impractical and unrealistic beliefs - even those who work within government departments. The Regulatory Impact Statement for the Sex-Self ID Bill, which was recently passed into law, claimed that (p12, 32.): ‘Only recognising binary genders may have had a negative impact specific to Māori. Research suggests that there was gender diversity within Te Ao Māori and that has diminished with colonisation. This has negatively affected the acceptance and participation of gender diverse Māori in their own communities.’ This is a direct appropriation of our culture. So, why did Māori Members of Parliament who have the power to take the Government to task over such ridiculous claims, remain silent on the matter? I can only speculate. The truth is that there is no haka, no waiata, no mōteatea, no whakataukī and no whakairo that proves that diverse gender identities ever existed in Te Ao and in pre-colonial times for Māori. Humans can never change sex. Regardless of culture, lying to any child about biological reality is incredibly cruel. How a child feels on any given day should never be responded to with off-label cancer drugs to stop their natural pubertal development or radical surgical amputation of their healthy breast or penile tissue. The very idea is horrific to the point of insanity, yet it has been written into New Zealand law. The answer to the question ‘what is a woman’ is of course, wāhine: adult human female. Only wāhine can bring forth life which is why only wāhine can karanga (make the call of welcome). In ‘The Man Called to Karanga’ which aired on Māori Television in 2018, Pita Tamiana’s mother told him, men do not karanga because it attracts death. Unsurprisingly, Pita discounts his mother’s advice and wisdom, perhaps because he is academically trained? I am not sure, but the emerging picture of our culture being contaminated by certain academics and politics instead of being governed and guided by hapū and kaumatua, as is our custom, is an unsettling one. I am co-founder of Mana Wāhine Kōrero , the only indigenous group created by indigenous women to advocate for the safeguarding of our wāhine, tamariki, mokopuna and our cultural integrity primarily against gender-identity propaganda. We refuse to capitulate to this ideology which inserts itself uninvited into our culture, erases our mana as wāhine and hijacks our ability to safeguard in law that which we hold dear above all else; our tamariki and mokopuna. How can tangata whenua (the people) survive when this ideology seeks to permanently end the continuation of our whakapapa through the castration of our children and grandchildren? When I am asked about this topic “Why are you so angry?”, I respond “Why are you not!” Michelle Uriarau - Ngāti Hinepare, Ngāti Mahu, Ngāti Kahungunu. Co-Founder Mana Wāhine Kōrero https://twitter.com/MKorero https://gettr.com/user/manawahinetalk https://manawahinekorero.printmighty.co.nz/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBLB0CizsFTu-oLb_Onq0g ‘Ko te wāhine te whare tangata o te ao Māori - ā he mea whakanui rātou i tōna mana whakawhānau oranga.’ Women are the house of humanity of the Māori world - and they are venerated for creating life.

Pregnancy, birth and motherhood made me appreciate the uniqueness of womanhood! When I was heavily pregnant with my daughter, I would go swimming 3-4 times a week. It's was very awkward getting in and out of togs! However, I felt safe to do so in the changing rooms at the pool. A lot of older women would smile at me as if to say 'been there, done that' so I felt completely confident to just get changed out in the open in the 'protection' of the older women there. Once I had my babies, when I was breastfeeding in public, women would often come up to me and say how beautiful it was to see a mother feeding her child. They would ask how it was going and sympathise when it had been hard e.g times of teething and illness etc... One woman even held my baby (for a cuddle) when I was at a cafe having a coffee!

Speak Up for Women co-spokeswomen Suzanne Levy chats with Dane Giraud about our new direction, the importance of language, the closing of the Tavistock clinic and medical scandal that we are facing. Click on the image below to listen in your favorite podcast app.

Speak Up for Women New Zealand crossed the ditch via Youtube on Friday, and had a catch up with Terf Talk Downunder in Australia. Terf Talk created their channel around 9 months ago to give a voice to gender critical women (and men). Just like New Zealand's mainstream media, the Australian mainstream media are not only determinedly silent about reporting both sides of trans ideology, including the negative impacts it may have on women and children, they actively promote and endorse it. We don't believe that all journos on either side of the ditch support this media blackout of gender critical voices and biased reporting, but stay silent simply to protects their jobs. Although there have been a small number of brave souls who have refused to toe the 'stay silent' line, there are also too many journos fully on board with it, boots and all, and they're the ones who get published and heard. Terf Talk have had a succession of really interesting guests showcasing the side of the trans issue the mainstream media won't touch, but show #43 was their first international reach-out. Speak Up for Women was delighted to be it. TERF Talk #43 Speak Up For Women New Zealand - YouTube

This guest post was submitted to Speak Up For Women by LGBT For The Freedom Of Speech Fait Accompli A ‘fait accompli’, French for ‘accomplished fact’, is something that has already happened, and unlikely to be reversed – a done deal. It is the phrase that dances across the tip of my tongue as I read through the media coverage of the “transgender issue” in New Zealand. The issue is presented as a fait accompli – that ‘we’ already know how to deal with this issue, and that anyone questioning or disagreeing must not be listened to or published. Instead, the prescribed procedure is to call them Nazis, threaten them with violence, go after their employment, and deride what they are saying as ‘hate speech’. One Stuff journalist even described people with a dissenting view on the transgender issue as a ‘cult’. The media has utterly failed on this issue. We did not have this cotton-wool attitude to homosexuals, those scant few years ago when marriage equality was up for debate. We are told this issue is “not up for debate”, and then deluged with statistics of dubious origin purporting to show that even questioning the matter will cause people to kill themselves or feel “unsafe”. A few years ago the media would have been willing to call that out for what it is – emotional blackmail. Nowhere is this ideological capture more evident in the place it least should be – Radio New Zealand, a a state-funded public service media organization. Radio New Zealand is perhaps the most egregious offender. Its article on the cancellation by Massey University of the Feminism 2020 event was possibly it’s magnum opus in its offenses against fairness, balance, and accuracy. It is a misrepresentation of Speak Up For Women, something the state organ has been complicit in since that organisation’s inception, and it barrages the reader with statistics from the Counting Ourselves report. Coverage of that report by RNZ showcases the lack of journalistic urge in our state media. Their article reads like a glowing press release – no attempt to actually contextualise the statistics or the sample that they derived from is made. That sample was gathered from the internet; duplicates were filtered out by sorting through IP addresses. This is despite the fact that the majority of New Zealand ISPs use Dynamic IP and frequently change. Duplicate submissions were easy to make. But flaws in the sampling methodology aside, we find that 63% of their sample were ‘assigned female at birth’, and 78% of ‘non-binary’ participants were ‘assigned female at birth’. The majority of the sample is also under 25 – RNZ does not inquire why this is the case. No concerns about the sample, nor the fact that over over half the ‘assigned female at birth’ respondents report being sexually assaulted, a rate that is far higher anyone else who is female in New Zealand. Instead, they repeat the researchers insistence that it is ‘discrimination’, and generalize the results to ‘all trans people’. However, the rate for those ‘assigned male at birth’ is far lower in the study. Biological sex, clearly, still matters, even when you are trying to pretend it is a social construct. Worse yet, is the media’s representation of the LGBT community on this issue as a monolith. Ignored is the fact that Speak Up For Women spokeswoman, Ani O’Brien, is a lesbian, as is prominent Wellington member of the group Jenny Whyte. I can assure you: the LGBT community is not a monolith on this issue. It has divided us. Lesbians are being called ‘TERFs’, Nazis and bigots, and deplatformed for saying what essentially amounts to ‘lesbians don’t want penis’. Gay men are being told they must include female bodies in their spaces. We are being told that asserting our right to our sexual orientation, our exclusive same-sex attraction, is transphobic and bigoted. Many of us have been cast out of the community by those claiming trans status, who are in fact exclusively attracted to the opposite sex – in simpler times, we called those people heterosexuals. A survey commissioned by Speak Up For Women show that the majority of New Zealand agrees with them on the matter – and the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill was deferred as it was an obvious political hot potato. Yet our media, particularly RNZ, are presenting this issue as a fait accompli instead of representing and giving voice to the diverse views of the general public. The pro-transgender segment of society represents an overeducated, “champagne socialist” point of view, a view that RNZ is captive to on many issues, but none more so than this one. This is also the view of the activist “rent-a-mob” that many in the media have connections to. This mob has harassed and threatened Speak Up For Women members based on their views. ActionStation, despite their endless petitions, does not represent the views of the wider general public. Radio New Zealand is failing in it’s mandate as a state broadcaster to effectively inform and provide a platform for the general public. This needs to change. The moderate group Speak Up For Women, who simply do not want male people in women’s prisons, changing rooms, sports, or in lesbian spaces, are representing the majority view of the general public of New Zealand. When they raise these issues, they are in fact speaking for the majority of New Zealanders. It is time media in New Zealand understood that, grew some balls, and told the activist rent-a-mob to bugger off. #RadioNewZealand #MasseyUniversity #ActionStation #feminism2020 #ActionStationPetition

In most learning institutions now, true feminist teachings have been replaced by ‘Gender Studies’ which no longer centre women. So, in November 2021, Speak Up for Women sponsored a young New Zealand woman to attend a true feminism course run online by Centre of Feminist Thought, UK. This is what she had to say about it - “I want to extend my gratitude to the team at Speak Up For Women for giving me the opportunity to attend the Introduction to Feminism Course, hosted by the Centre of Feminist Thought, UK. Having previously called myself a self-proclaimed feminist, I was naturally drawn to this course. I also wanted to have a deeper, personal understanding of the term and learn how I might then be able to apply this deeper understanding to the advocacy work I am involved with at GEE (Girls Empowered through Education) Nepal. Our vision at GEE Nepal is to provide young girls with educational opportunities, and to uplift them in a time and place where trafficking and poverty are significant influences. In the future, we aim to increase the number of girls graduating from secondary school and expand our offerings to have a greater impact in Nepal. We do this by providing vulnerable girls in Nepal with education scholarships so that they can pursue goals and opportunities that they otherwise couldn’t achieve. Since being actively involved in this field of work, I have had a growing understanding of the impact of a patriarchal society on women and their often inability to truly thrive and flourish in such a social construct, especially in developing nations. One aspect of the course explored patriarchy- its theory and origins as well as the power and control that it resembles in a social context. Here I learnt that patriarchy effects all women and we all face some form of oppression whether we are aware of it or not. This was a really challenging observation for me because I felt I had been blinded to the reality of this, thinking that we were unaffected by this in the Western World. When in fact, I learnt that patriarchy is more subtle and therefore harder to recognise in our societies. This especially emphasised to me that it is so important for Feminists to unite and work together to make a change globally. Early in the course we also explored the ‘waves’ of feminism, liberal feminism and feminism as a ‘civil rights’ project. What struck me most in this section was the issues of the tension between ‘equality’ and ‘difference’ in feminism. This part of the course impacted me in a personal way and challenged the way that I thought about Feminism because for so long I thought that the end goal was equality with men. However, I quickly learnt that the issue with this goal is symbolic of a system that would still be centred around men – i.e. doing life by the ‘male model’ as this is already dominant in society. The term ‘difference’ however, challenges feminists to acknowledge the importance of political activity and generational change in families to explore what a universal female subject might look like. This in fact sums up a radical feminist perspective which is to re-shape the world to hold women’s way of living more fully. As women who all came from very different backgrounds, some working for large Global Feminist organisations and others pursuing careers that were traditionally seen as ‘male jobs’ such as electricians and engineers; it was incredible to be able to reflect on the relevance of the course material to our current situations. We all completed this course with a much richer, deeper understanding of Feminism, specifically radical feminism and found this to be beneficial not only in a professional context, but in a personal one too. For me, it made me reflect on the kind of mother I want to be for my future children and the importance of mothering for the future of the Feminist movement. Given that we have literally been given the gift of producing life. At GEE, we talk about the ripple of effect of a young girl being educated as she will grow up to be an educated mother who will raise educated children, which will then someday produce an educated community. I believe this is the same for Feminism and I look forward to being part of the change that together we can create in the world for women.”

Dear supporters, It's been a while since you last heard from us, but we’ve been busy behind the scenes working on our new strategy and direction, following the passing of the BDMRR Bill. You may notice our new branding that we’re proud of, as it brings our core belief – that sex matters - to the forefront of our messaging. Please see below a copy of the media release that we are sending out on Tuesday. We look forward to being in touch with you again soon and in the meantime, please let us know of any women’s services or spaces that may be struggling to maintain their single sex status due to pressure or confusion about the meaning of the new law. We’re here to help and will be sharing more guidance soon. Media Release: Wellington July 19th 2022 On Monday, Speak Up for Women announced a new leadership team and change of direction for the organisation. Speak Up for Women was established in 2018 with the single purpose of protecting the sex-based rights of women and girls by campaigning to prevent the passage of legislation enacting self-identification of sex on birth certificates. While the Births, Death, Marriages, Relationship Registration Bill passed in New Zealand in late 2021, Speak Up for Women successfully campaigned to have clause 79(2) added to the Bill. This clause supports the continued provision of single-sex spaces, sports, and services based on biological sex, regardless of what is stated on a birth certificate. Speak Up for Women co-founders Georgina Blackmore and Beth Johnson, along with Ani O’Brien and Daphna Whitmore, say after three years of campaigning it’s time for them to pass the torch to a new group of women with expertise and enthusiasm to take the organisation forward. Beth says: “There is still a lot of work to be done to defend women’s existing rights in Aotearoa. We are immensely proud of what the group has achieved to date and are excited to see the next phase.” The group’s new spokeswomen are Katrina Biggs and Suzanne Levy. Suzanne says: “Our focus is on monitoring and recording the impacts of the new law on the rights of women and girls. We will support legal action by women’s groups needing to defend their single sex status. We will also campaign against ‘gender identity’ superseding biological sex in New Zealand law, such as any changes to the Human Rights Act. We’re inheriting an active support base and a strong record of campaigning and advocacy success, and we look forward to growing the organisation from a grassroots campaign group into a membership-based organisation to continue to protect the rights of women and girls.” Speak Up for Women is run by volunteers and receives no public funds or funds from external organisations and is not affiliated to any political party or religious organisation.

A sudden rise in students wanting to be the opposite sex is alarming many teachers and parents. The phenomenon is apparent in all English-speaking countries and, especially for teenage girls, the increase in trans-identification is exponential. –         The United Kingdom Gender Identity Service (GIDS) had 138 children (mostly boys) referred in 2011. In 2021 2383 children were seen and the sex ratio had reversed, with 70% now being female.(1) (There are no statistics for Aotearoa.) –         Many of the children have pre-existing mental health, trauma-related, or neurological conditions. At the GIDS clinic about 35% are autistic when the figure for the general population is about 1%.(2) –         Studies have shown that gender dysphoric teens who are not socially transitioned or put on puberty blockers often grow up to be gay or lesbian.(3) We need to talk about this as a matter of urgency. In some NZ schools, children are being taught that it is possible to change sex. This follows the release in 2020 of the Ministry of Education’s (MoE) new guidelines for teaching Relationships and Sexuality (RSE) from Year 1-13.(4) It is now MoE policy to teach as fact, from the age of five, the belief that children can have a gender identity separate from their sexed bodies (RSE Guide p30). The glossary to the guide (from p48) states falsely that sex is ‘assigned’ at birth and that there are three sexes – male, female, and intersex. It says that ‘gay’ means same-gender attraction, thus denying the concept of same-sex attraction. Parents deserve to be fully informed about this new policy so that they can meaningfully engage in the community consultation that every school is supposed to undertake every two years to determine the nature of relationship and sexuality education in their school. In April this year, further RSE teaching resources were recommended, including the Trans 101(5) video that states it is not even necessary to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria to be trans; all it takes is liking something that is usually associated with the opposite sex. The Ministry also advises schools that they can change a student’s name and pronouns at school (with no lower age limit) and keep it a secret from their parents.(6) Instead of celebrating diversity, these policies are teaching gender non-conforming children that there is something wrong with them if they don’t match sexist stereotypes and that the only way of fitting in is to alter their bodies. The truth that humans cannot change sex is glossed over or even denied, and wishful thinking is lauded. In Aotearoa we do not have national statistics on the number of young people seeking help for gender dysphoria, nor how many are prescribed puberty blockers, nor how many “gender-affirming” surgeries are being performed. We do not know how many transgender people regret their decisions. Yet, without any of this most basic information, the country is embracing an “affirmation” model of care and some are seeking to silence those who are raising questions. We need to talk about how affirmation, without careful investigation of other possible underlying causes, can lead to unnecessary treatments that are later regretted. The risks for young people could not be higher. Incorrect diagnosis could lead to a lifelong dependence on medication, the irreversible removal of body parts, and the possibility of sterility. To encourage this vital conversation, Resist Gender Education (RGE), a new group of concerned parents and educators has been formed. RGE believes that no child is born in the wrong body. We call for factual, science-based teaching in schools and evidence-based healthcare for children suffering gender confusion. Our website, www.resistgendereducation.nz, contains information, research, resources, and links to other related websites. All children should be able to express their personalities in dress and behaviour without discrimination, labelling, or medical intervention to ‘fix’ them. It is a fundamental human right for children to go through puberty and reach adulthood with their fertility and sexual function intact. References https://gids.nhs.uk/professionals/number-of-referrals/ https://adc.bmj.com/content/103/7/631 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18981931/ https://hpe.tki.org.nz/guidelines-and-policies/relationships-and-sexuality-education/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3ZzpTxjgRw&ab_channel=Minus18 https://inclusive.tki.org.nz/guides/supporting-lgbtiqa-students/build-understanding- of-key-concepts-and-terms/

Opening Pandora's Box By Laura May 30th 2022 On April 13th, the New Zealand Ministry of Education announced its new Relationship and Sexuality Education resource package in a self-congratulatory Facebook post. The announcement met with decidedly mixed reactions. Some commenters applauded the resources’ supposedly progressive orientation. Others seemed deeply concerned by their contents. A few said that they would join the increasing number of parents who are withdrawing their children from the state education system because of their discomfort with how sexuality is being taught. Certainly, some parents may have questioned what message the Ministry intended to send by placing a love heart next to the word “pornography”. What’s actually in these resources? The Ministry claims that the resources aim to reduce bullying and promote acceptance of lesbian, gay, and transgender people, which are goals I support. I also support frank, open, and age-appropriate instruction in the ‘facts of life’. It’s tempting to dismiss parental worries about the resources as merely the complaints of conservative Christians with religious objections to homosexuality. However, a careful review of the Ministry’s suggested resources will cause concern to any parent who understands the relevant science and cares about the health and safety of their children. These resources send messages that create risks of psychological and physical harm, and encourage schools to keep secrets from parents. Creating risks of psychological and physical harm The ideological bias of the Ministry’s resource pack is immediately apparent. Many of the resources are sourced directly from controversial trans activist groups like Australia’s Minus 18 and the New Zealand lobby group InsideOut. Minus 18 is known for actively encouraging girls to “play with” binding their breasts. A large study found that those who engage in this practice report health problems in 97% of cases, including fatigue, back pain, shortness of breath, and even fractured ribs. Breast binding is sometimes the first step towards removal of the breasts, which is experienced as a relief from the pain and deteriorating health caused by long-term breast binding. For boys, Minus 18 advocates ‘tucking’, which means tucking the penis between the legs and/or pushing the testicles back up inside the body. This practice can lead to penile and testicular pain, infertility, and serious damage to the genitals. One of the resources that the Ministry directly recommends is a Minus 18 video entitled Trans 101. The video appears designed to encourage as many young people as possible to identify as transgender. A barrage of breathlessly enthusiastic teenagers introduce their young viewers to the “huge and amazing world of people who’re trans and gender diverse”, in an unsubtle effort to position transgender-identification as fun and exciting. The video does not even hint at the serious health costs and risks of medical transition, which is associated with a lifetime of sterility, sexual dysfunction, medical dependence, and other health problems. Concerns about the dubious safety and effectiveness of youth medical transition have led to a strong move away from this practice in progressive countries such as Sweden and Finland, and a highly critical official investigation in the UK. Despite this, Minus 18 markets these life-altering drugs and surgeries as if they were harmless lifestyle choices. What is most disturbing, though, is the way that the video defines being ‘trans’. Until recently, medical transition was provided only to adults, almost all of whom were men, with severe gender dysphoria (i.e. intense distress about the biological sex of their bodies). However, the video explicitly rejects this notion, stating that “having dysphoria doesn’t make someone more, or less, trans”. Instead, it defines ‘being trans’ as follows: Most of us are taught the idea that people are born a boy or a girl, and that we’re expected to act a certain way based on what’s between our legs. But that actually isn’t true for everyone. It totally ignores the huge and amazing world of people who are trans or gender diverse. In other words, if you don’t act according to “what’s between your legs” (i.e. in line with sex stereotypes), then you’re transgender. The video continues: Traditionally, we tend to think of gender as decided by the body we’re born in. People are usually assigned female, or male at birth. But bodies and gender are actually pretty separate things. Gender is basically part of someone’s internal sense of self... You’ve probably heard the term transgender, or even gender diverse. That’s when your gender doesn’t entirely match the one you were assigned at birth... That could mean the gender you were assigned felt meaningless, restrictive, or altogether just didn’t quite fit. That might seem like a pretty broad definition, and that’s because it is. This is a bit hard to follow, because it’s incoherent (people’s “internal sense of self” is not assigned to them at birth). However, the important thing to note is that “gender” is defined by Merriam Webster as “the behavioural, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex” - in other words, sex stereotypes. So, the video is telling children that if a girl finds female stereotypes meaningless or restrictive then she must be ‘trans’. And if a boy feels that he doesn’t quite fit into male stereotypes, then he must be ‘trans’ too. These are the children that Minus 18 is channelling towards breast binding, penis tucking, and eventual gender reassignment surgery - anyone who doesn’t exactly fit sex stereotypes. This is indeed a “pretty broad definition”, and it captures a huge number of children. Over the past decade, there has been a massive surge in children seeking medical treatment for gender-related issues, along with rising levels of treatment regret. Minus 18 promotes exactly the kind of messages that many experts believe have triggered this medical tragedy. When these messages are given credibility by trusted authority figures, such as a child’s teacher, it creates a vulnerability to unhelpful peer influences and online misinformation. The brief Youtube documentary ‘The Call is Coming From Inside the House’ gives examples of online content encouraging children to identify as transgender, and the impact it can have: In December 2020, the UK Department for Education provided schools with guidelines designed to protect students from the harmful material produced by groups like Minus 18. The guidelines state: You should not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender based on their personality and interests or the clothes they prefer to wear. Resources used in teaching about this topic must always be age-appropriate and evidence based. Materials which suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity should not be used and you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material. While teachers should not suggest to a child that their noncompliance with gender stereotypes means that either their personality or their body is wrong and in need of changing, teachers should always seek to treat individual students with sympathy and support. We need similar guidelines here in New Zealand. Until then, it will be up to parents and schools to ensure that the material taught to children is accurate and safe. Encouraging schools to keep secrets from parents InsideOut, for its part, advocates for schools to facilitate the ‘social transition’ of children without parental knowledge or consent. This advice is endorsed by the Ministry and uncritically reflected in the Ministry’s resource pack. Social transition is the controversial practice of treating students as if they were the opposite sex, a central aspect of which is using a new name and pronouns (e.g. ‘he’ instead of ‘she’). Social transition is a powerful psychosocial intervention with concerning long-term effects. Research suggests that early social transition has few if any mental health benefits, and may risk instilling or prolonging gender dysphoria. For example, a recent study found that 97.5% of children who underwent social transition remained transgender-identified five years later. In contrast, other research has found that without social transition, most children seeking help for gender identity issues eventually become comfortable with their biological sex. It thus seems likely that social transition puts children at severe risk of unnecessary medical transition, which has serious health consequences as mentioned earlier. Ministry of Education guidance encouraging schools to withhold information from parents and caregivers The Ministry’s advice on social transition is shown above. Notice that this advice does not suggest any lower age limit for withholding this information from parents. By implication, the advice encourages schools to participate in the social transition of children as young as five years old without parental consent. Anyone who believes that transition-in-secrecy policies are harmless needs to read the harrowing stories of the families it has damaged. One Florida couple allege that their school kept their 12-year-old daughter’s gender crisis secret from them until she attempted suicide twice. In another case, a girl’s school allegedly encouraged her to transition against her mother’s wishes. After starting testosterone injections the girl developed chronic pain, and eventually committed suicide at age 19. Don’t believe that these stories couldn’t happen here. A recent report in local newspaper The Beacon indicates that a Whakatane school has already begun facilitating social transition behind parents’ backs. Most teachers will be instinctively uncomfortable with participating in secretly transitioning children. They know that trusting and open relationships between schools, parents, and children are critical. They know that almost every parent wants to provide the very best support for their children. They know that parents can only provide that support if they’re informed about the challenges their children face. They know that it’s not a teacher’s place to make life-altering decisions about children without parental consent. They also know that teaching children to keep secrets from their parents makes them more vulnerable to sexual abuse. These teachers just need to know that they have your support. If your school requires teachers to keep secrets from parents, this is grounds for a serious conversation with your school’s principal. What happens next? New Zealanders who genuinely care about LGBT rights and welfare can learn important lessons from how events have unfolded in the United States. There, the intrusion of extremist gender ideology into classrooms has triggered a troubling legislative backlash that may prevent teachers from supporting gay and lesbian youth or engaging in open discussions of sensitive but important topics. Educators have abused parents’ trust, and voters and politicians are punishing them for it. Something similar could easily happen here. The Labour-Green government will not be in power forever. There is much more that could be said about the Ministry’s recommended RSE resources. Fortunately, due to our devolved education system, schools are not forced to use them. You also have the right to withdraw your children from “any particular element” of RSE instruction. I suggest asking your school’s principal to exempt your child from any instruction in gender identity, preferred gender pronouns, or the false belief that there are more than two sexes. If enough parents do this, then your school may find it easier to either stop teaching these topics, or segregate them into a separate lesson. A suggested email is available here. Tackling this issue will be much easier and more effective if you work together with other concerned parents. In my experience, most teachers, school principals, and Boards of Trustees are reasonable people who respond to parental concerns. I strongly recommend that you insist that your school is transparent about what they are teaching your children as part of its RSE curriculum. Ask to see the actual resources that will be used. It’s a good idea to ask early, because schools do not always make this easy. Also bear in mind that the Ministry is encouraging schools to integrate RSE into every aspect of the curriculum, so it’s important to ask to be notified when this occurs. Take the time to understand what’s being taught, who created the materials, and for what purpose. If you’re uncomfortable with the materials then don’t doubt your instincts. Get things changed, or get your kids exempted from RSE instruction. For accurate, objective, and developmentally-appropriate RSE information for children, I recommend: Jessen, C., & Semple, D. (2020). Dr Christian’s guide to growing up. London: Scholastic. Cooke, K. (2016). Girl Stuff 8-12. Penguin Random House Australia. Cooke, K. (2009). Girl stuff: Your full-on guide to the teen years. London: Rough Guides. Laura has a Substack that is worth following - you can find this article and others at Arguments with Friends

Katrina Biggs, July 28 2022 It seems that the Mayor of Dunedin, Aaron Hawkins, believes advocating for women’s safe spaces is “repugnant”. Earlier this week, Jennifer Scott of Dunedin made a presentation to the Council where she advocated in no uncertain terms for safe female-only spaces, and the mayor’s first reaction after hearing it was to say that it was distasteful and even repugnant. That’s right, the male mayor, from the safety of his maleness, tells a woman that wanting safe female-only spaces is repugnant. Glad you educated us about that, Aaron, otherwise we might still be under the illusion that women need to be wary around men. All men, no matter how they self-identify. Make no mistake, that’s a burden which sucks big time, but Aaron nonchalantly seems to think a bit more of it won’t matter. Magnanimously, under the cloak of stating that Jennifer’s no-frills truths about the clash of transwomen’s and women’s rights and safeties “can cause harm to people in our community”, he endorses free and unfettered access to all women’s spaces to any man who self-identifies as a woman. Champion. Jennifer rightly pointed out that the vast majority of men who self-identify as women retain their penis and testicles - and they don’t park them at the door before entering women’s spaces. Penises and testicles, either seen or unseen, are not something that most women and girls are comfortable with in communal toilet areas and changing rooms. It’s of no consequence how the owners of male bodies identify, even if they’re the most benign of males, their bodies are still male. It shouldn’t even be up for debate whether women have to take their chances with them in female spaces. However, the mayor of Dunedin, from his throne of ‘I’m-all-right-Jack’, gave Jennifer a right ol’ telling-off for being so bold as to – gasp – debate the matter of women’s safety from men. I mean, how simply awful was she to do that. Repugnant, even. In her presentation, Jennifer made it abundantly clear that her main concern was for the safety of females. It’s as plain as day to anyone who thinks about it that there’s no way only ‘nice’ transwomen will use female spaces if the doors are open to all men who say they’re women. When in the entire course of our human history have opportunistic, predatory, and unstable men ever not taken advantage of a loophole to get to women and girls? So, how do we judge which men are fit for entry into women’s spaces and who’s not? We can’t. And that’s why we need to keep all men out irrespective of whether they’re decent men, self-identify as women, or come from outer space. Sure, it's not a perfect system, but it’s the best we have to ensure women and girls have safe public spaces. And once upon a time, men knew they had to respect that whether they wanted to or not. Most still do, although some seem to think that it’s no longer ‘progressive’ for women to have safe female-only spaces. Not looking at anyone in particular, Aaron. If there are men in this world who want a safe toilet or changing area to use away from other men, then accommodations should be made for them. But it is either egregiously arrogant or incredibly short-sighted to fling open the doors to women’s spaces as the means of making those accommodations. There was talk of ‘inclusivity’, of course, by some councillors, but as Jennifer pointed out how do we include women in society if we don’t feel that there are safe public spaces for us? It’s understandable that women don’t want to feel they have to be afraid, and to want to break down social boundaries which stymie our equal standing with men in life, and to be able to feel fearless. Who doesn’t want that? But do you know what one of the things is which has most helped women’s progress towards all that in the world? It is safe female-only public toilets. Without those, women were on a ‘urinary leash', but once those public toilets were installed women could travel and meet and advocate for our rights and safeties and have public lives. We give that away at our peril. And opening up our spaces to males is the same as giving them away. Yes, Jennifer’s presentation to the Dunedin City Council was hard-hitting, but there was nothing untruthful about it. Two of the nine male councillors argued with the mayor and his appalling comments, the four women councillors notably said nothing (although one was cut off at the end before she could speak). There is nothing “repugnant” about advocating for the rights and safeties of women and girls. It’s entirely legitimate to point out where the rights and safeties of transpeople clash with women’s - and to talk about it.

We have had new social housing being built opposite our line of townhouses in Auckland and families are just starting to move in. My long time neighbour, 86 years old, three doors along from me for twenty years, has been having heart problems and became dizzy the other week when walking up to the street corner. One of the new neighbours in the new social housing opposite, an older Maori woman who we hadn't yet met, saw her and dashed out to support her. Took her home and waited there two hours for an ambulance. I was phoned by my friend and joined them. She called in the next day with soup for my friend. Lovely person. Works long hours and supports large extended family. Really nice way to connect.