Protect women's rights and spaces: Submission on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill

1 March 2018
Submission on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill

To the Governance and Administration Select Committee,

I am making this submission to the above committee as an individual. My submission is in response to the opening up of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act (BDMRRA) for amendments through a Bill before the House.

My submission seeks to ensure that the BDMRRA is made consistent with Section 21(1a, 1m) of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1993, which lists sex as well as sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation) as prohibited grounds for discrimination. My submission seeks to ensure that the BDMRRA is also made consistent with Section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and with the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), particularly Article 1, which reads:

For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “discrimination against women” shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.

To ensure that the BDMRRA does not breach Section 21(1a) of the Human Rights Act, section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act and CEDAW, I request that Section 28 of the BDMRRA be amended to include a necessary preamble: a definition of sex and a definition of gender with which the rest of the Act be made consistent. I suggest that these definitions are made consistent with the HRA and CEDAW: namely, that sex be defined as biological: persons can be either male or female according to standard definitions (chromosomes, gonads, genitals and secondary sex characteristics). I support the maintenance of an “indeterminate” provision for intersex persons under section 28 of the current Act.

Any definition of sex proposed to underpin the BDMRRA that challenges commonplace understandings of “sex” as biological, as well as definitions drawn on to prevent sex discrimination in the HRA and CEDAW, must not be legislated for without a full public consultation. This consultation should include every single service that will be affected by the institutionalisation of definitions of sex and gender that are not commonplace. Consultation must be carried out with rape crisis shelters, women’s refuges, sports teams, Corrections and within women’s prisons, any public facilities that include bathrooms and changing rooms, women in women’s representative groups and positions, all-girls schools, and other groups. I also propose that without the addition of a preamble clearly defining sex and gender, no amendments can be made to the BDMRRA. The BDMRRA is already at odds with Section 21(1a) of the HRA and CEDAW, and any changes made, if not underpinned by clear definitions, will remain weak and problematic at best and will become circular, illogical and increase harm to women at worst.

I request that a preamble be added to the BDMRRA clearly defining sex as biological, and gender as a system of discrimination, norms and stereotypes based on sex, to be consistent with the HRA and CEDAW and in light of the following. I also request that any alternative proposed definitions be put forward for public consultation in light of the following.

1. Sex, gender and “nominated sex”

The language of “nominated sex” in the current BDMRRA lacks transparency. It conceals the very different relationships to sex and gender held by males, females, males or females who identify as transgender, and intersex people. Many of those who seek to “nominate” a sex are males or females who identify with the gender presentation stereotypically associated with the opposite sex. These people may often seek medication and surgeries in order to feel that their bodies align with the gender presentation (clothing, mannerisms) that they favour. It is problematic to conflate “sex”, even using the language of “nominated sex” with what is in fact “gender presentation”, and based on sex role stereotypes. Article 5 of CEDAW also specifically requires that state parties operate “with a view to achieving the elimination of… stereotyped roles for men and women.” Ideas of “sex nomination” entrench stereotyping, thus putting the current BDMRRA directly at odds with CEDAW.

If a preamble is added to the BDMRRA, clearly defining sex as biological, this concept of “nominated sex” would become illogical. Biological sex is immutable, and cannot be “nominated”; when defined as such, it becomes clear that what is meant by “nominated sex” is in actual fact nothing to do with sex, but “gender presentation”. The idea that one can formalise a nominated “gender presentation” as a nominated “sex” dangerously conflates sex and stereotype.

Gender is inextricable from biological sex in the sense that gender is a system that discriminates based on biological sex. For instance, the “gender pay gap” is one economic expression of routine and systematic discrimination that disadvantages women on the basis of biological sex. The idea that sex is something immaterial that can be “nominated” undermines all efforts to close a gender pay gap based on sex as a biological and material reality. The fact that the notion of “nominated sex” undermines women’s efforts to end sex-based economic discrimination makes the current BDMRRA in breach of Article 13 of CEDAW.

2. Intersex

Intersex people are born not discernably one sex or the other – for instance, they may be born with XY chromosomes, but female genitalia. According to the Intersex Trust Aotearoa New Zealand, 1 in 2000 people is a conservative estimate of the number of people who are intersex, meaning that they have “genetic and physical variations placing them in between male and female”.

Intersex people are often “assigned a sex at birth” and doctors often perform “normalising” surgeries on intersex people without medical reasons. This is a problem, and also a reason why many in the intersex community worldwide actively resist having their condition trivialised to an issue of identity, preference or taste. Definitions of sex, gender and intersex must avoid any conflation of intersex with transgenderism, intersex with gender “identity”, or intersex with personal taste or preference. The definition of intersex in the BDMRRA must relate to the definition of biological sex, and to the specific priority needs and concerns of the intersex community.

3. Medicalisation of gender

While many intersex people, and women, continue to challenge and question gender norms (including through CEDAW) and their medicalisation, ill-defined ideas of “sex nomination” further entrench these norms. The current BDMRRA and its language of “nominated sex” tacitly condones a highly medicalised paradigm based on steretyping, and does this to the detriment of women, girls, children and intersex people.

Currently, the highly medicalised notion of “sex nomination” is leading many parents in New Zealand to encourage pre-pubescent children onto puberty blocking drugs, and adolescent youth onto sex hormones (oestrogen and testosterone). The effects of these are damaging and irreversible, and taken in two courses in succession, puberty blockers and sex hormones lead to sterilisation. Between 2009 and 2016 the number of people referred to endocrine services in Wellington alone because of “nominating” a “sex” contrary to their biological sex increased twelvefold, from three to forty-one referrals. The relationship between these increasingly common endocrine referrals, widespread sterilisation, the notion of “nominated sex”, and eugenics cannot be ignored. Activities like the distribution of mutilating breast binders in schools by groups like RainbowYouth, and the promotion of radical mastectomies among dysphoric girls and women, are also associated with “sex nomination”. Appropriative promotion of the indigenous concept of takatāpui as associated with medicalised concepts like “sex nomination” also indicates that Māori and Pacific youth are particularly at risk.

4. Lesbian women at risk

The concept of “nominated sex” places lesbian women at risk, and this puts the BDMRRA at odds with Section 21(1m) of the Human Rights Act. Increasingly, lesbian women in New Zealand are bullied because they are same-sex attracted, and do not therefore seek sexual relationships with heterosexual, biological males who identify as “women” and therefore “lesbians”. These males often bemoan the fact that they may be socially accepted as “lesbian” except for the fact that lesbian women will not have intercourse with them (this trend is known as the “cotton ceiling” and lesbian women in New Zealand certainly suffer because of it). The sexual and psychological coercion and manipulation involved is a torment for many lesbian women, and this will continue to escalate until moves are made to clearly define sex and gender in legislation such as the BDMRRA. Until this happens the BDMRRA will remain at odds with Section 21(1m) of the Human Rights Act.

5. Making “woman” meaningless

One of the painful ironies of the sexual and psychological coercion and bullying mentioned above is that it consistently takes place at the hands of those who cannot muster definitions of the words “woman”, “female” or “sex”. This is another implication of “sex nomination” and the current lack of clear definitions of “sex” and “gender” in the BDMRRA. Women are hindered from being able to discuss, and certainly to end, social problems such as the aforementioned “gender pay gap”, when we have no agreed upon definition of “women” to use in surveying women’s pay against men’s. Including the paypackets of men whose “nominated sex” is an undefineable version of “woman”, derived from stereotyping, in pay gap assessments will distort the reality of sex-based discrimination including invisibilising women’s sex-based economic disadvantage, and this is a breach of CEDAW (Article 13). The same will be true for discussions of violence against women. The concept of “sex nomination” will see male violence increasingly reported as having been committed by “women” – this trend is already observable. Many conversations that feminists are working hard to raise around sex-based oppression in New Zealand will be greatly facilitated should the BDMRRA include clear definitions of sex and gender based on biology.

6. Women-only spaces, representative positions and sports

Should the BDMRRA include clear definitions of sex and gender based on biology, this will also greatly aid the protection of all important female-only spaces. Women’s safety and sovereignty in women’s refuges, bathrooms, changing rooms, sports teams, representative positions, quotas, and all-girls schools are undermined by the concept of “sex nomination”. “Sex nomination” allows males to hold women’s representative positions. “Sex nomination” also allows men such as weightlifter Gavin Hubbard to undermine the accomplishments of female athletes, and push back progress women have made in competitive sports. It allows young men like Stefani Muollo-Gray to change entire Girls’ College and bathroom policies without any affected women or girls being consulted. Most alarmingly, the concept of “sex nomination” has serious potential to enable male sex offenders to gain automatic access to women’s prisons upon sentencing. Given that indigenous women – biological females – constitute the fastest growing prison population in New Zealand, Māori and Pacific women are especially at risk wherever “sex” and “gender” are ill-defined in law. All of this puts the BDMRRA at odds with the HRA, Bill of Rights Act – specifically sections protecting the rights of females to freedom from sex discrimination – and CEDAW.

Sex and gender must be defined in the BDMRRA, and “sex nomination” must be questioned, in light of the right of biological females to safe, sex-segregated spaces. Any changes made to the BDMRRA that facilitate the process or further embed the concept of “sex nomination” in law would be irreconcilable with women’s rights to safe sex-segregated spaces. The conclusion of any realistic assessment of the BDMRRA in relation to women’s rights should therefore always find moves to further embed the concept of “sex nomination” unconscionable.

In conclusion, the BDMRRA is currently illogical – because it is without a clear definition of “sex” and “gender”. It is unjust, because the concept of “sex nomination” invisibilises females, sex-based discrimination, and facilitates the rollback of women’s rights and safety. Because of this, the BDMRRA is currently at odds with Section 21(1a and m) of the HRA, Section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and CEDAW. The language of “sex nomination” lacks transparency, and glosses over the very different concerns of males, females, and intersex people with regard to sex and gender. The concept of “sex nomination” in the BDMRRA embeds highly medicalised notions of gender, relying on stereotyping, in legilsation. The notion of “sex nomination” is already leading to child abuse through medical experimentation and sterilisation of children, and the normalisation of harmful practices like breast binding. “Sex nomination” is also exacerbating and emboldening homophobia and leading to the bullying of lesbian women. This is because the concept of “sex nomination” divorces the concept of “woman” from biological sex, therefore undermining the existence and validity of same-sex attraction – as well as women’s rights to safe, sex-segregated spaces like female only bathrooms, changing rooms, refuges and schools. Māori and Pacific women are placed especially at risk through the concept of “sex nomination”. Women in prisons will be at especially high risk through changes in the BDMRR Bill that will more readily allowing men, especially male sex offenders, to share female-only space with them.

The BDMRRA requires a preamble with clear and consistent definitions of sex and gender. The current ill-defined language of “sex nomination” is illogical, sexist, unjust, immeasurably dangerous for women and children, and in breach of the HRA and CEDAW. A preamble including a definition of sex should be added to underpin the BDMRRA. This definition of sex should be based on biological sex, and gender should be defined as a system of sex-based discrimination; any alternative proposals should be put forward for full public consultation. In light of the six serious concerns listed above, no changes should be made to the BDMRRA before clear definitions of “sex” and “gender” are settled on and included in the Act making it consistent with the HRA and CEDAW.

I would be happy to appear before the committee to make an oral submission in support of my written submission.

Sincerely

Renee Gerlich

If you liked this article feel free to leave a tip.

$
Personal Info

Donation Total: $2.00

13 thoughts on “Protect women's rights and spaces: Submission on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill”

  1. Kia ora Renee,

    Thank you for posting your submission here. Reading it has raised many questions for me, which I hope you don’t mind me asking here.

    When you discuss definitions of sex as being solely biological, are you claiming that the concepts of female, male and intersex are universal, objective, and benign (just like the existence of differing body formations are)?

    What do you make of differences between cultures, such as how many cultures never created social categorisations based on visible bodily variances (eg. Yorùbá), and therefore never had the concept of sex (including concepts of female, male, or intersex) until European colonisation imposed it?

    When you state that “persons can be either male or female” (with provision for intersex) according to chromosomes, gonads, genitals and secondary sex characteristics, are you continuing that colonial imposition of sex on to all people – instead of acknowledging that the only thing all peoples have in common are bodies? That the various ways that peoples interpret and give meaning to bodies are entirely cultural and subjective?

    Within our culture, do you believe that sexism only operates against people with certain body parts, ie. those associated with childbearing – and not against the broader socio-personal group of woman/female, and not against those who are deemed to be feminine in any way?

    If you believe that people are only defined and oppressed by their body parts, wouldn’t you expect us all to be simply called vulvas and penises? And that only people with vulvas would experience oppression, rather than the reality, where non-conforming people with penises are also heavily oppressed by the patriarchy?

    Rather than that simplistic view, would you acknowledge that female and male are far broader and multifaceted cultural concepts that are inextricable from those of women and men, femininity and masculinity?

    If so, would you agree that privilege under the European imperialist system of sex/gender is not so simple as penis=privilege, and instead encompasses the following intersecting states:
    – being white
    – having a sex/gender that is recognised by the European system and can be expressed in English
    – being able-bodied and neurotypical
    – having body parts deemed adequate for being assigned either to the female or the male socio-cultural group without physical alteration
    – having body parts associated with the ability to inseminate, and not with childbearing
    – being male
    – being masculine
    -being of the socio-cultural group that is expected for those with your body: ie being female if you have body parts associated with childbearing
    – having an expression that is accepted for those of your socio-cultural group: ie being masculine if you’re male
    – having a constant, permanent sex/gender and expression throughout life
    – being heterosexual (which requires being either female or male)

    Rather than perpetuating a form of sexism that insists that a vulva makes someone female and a penis makes someone male, why not fight all forms of sexism that give rise to the above privileges and the reciprocal oppressions – by affirming peoples’ right to self-determination of their own sex/gender (if any), as well as their expression and sexuality?

    I would genuinely like to hear your thoughts and discuss our differing understandings. I wonder if we could have a dialogue over email, or even better by phone – or most ideally in person. I’ll be in Wellington on the 16th and would be happy to meet with you to see if we can get to the heart of the matter kanohi ki te kanohi.

    Ngā mihi mahana,
    Jess
    jessmio89@gmail.com

    1. Postmodernism takes away our ability to analyse power structures. Postmodernism and a denial of material reality (different to objective reality) take away our ability to articulate our own sex-based oppression, experiences and dreams for liberation.

      Gender being assigned on the basis of biological sex in no way means we should call people penises or vulvas? Why make that leap?

      Of course this is cultural. This is patriarchy. Nobody denies it hurts men, violence hurts the perpetrators too – we know that by looking at PTSD in soldiers even when they ‘win’.

      Are you aware of assuming that the word ‘woman’ means WHITE WOMAN means you are excluding women of colour from being female. Why do you not think women of colour are female??? bell hooks has a word or four for you. Being female is a class condition we share with our sisters all around the world. To deny that and pretend it is a uniquely white thing raises serious questions about what you think being female means. Are the girls taken by Boko Haram there because of identity? Because of feelings? Because of some special soul.

      Of course not: females are oppressed on the basis of biological sex. Using indigenous women as props to try pretend that we do not suffer at the hands of males too is sick.

      ‘1. Do you believe that being born with the kind of body that has the potential to gestate children – a body with a uterus, ovaries, and a vagina – is of any political significance? Does having that kind of body have any bearing on a person’s likely opportunities and outcomes?

      2. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies have historically been subject to any distinct forms of injustice, oppression, exploitation or discrimination? Have they historically been subordinated to the people with penises and testes?

      3. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies continue to be subject to any distinct forms of injustice, oppression, exploitation or discrimination?

      4. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies often suffer physical and sexual violence, abuse and harassment perpetrated by the people with penises and testes?

      5. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies ought to have a label with which to define themselves? Does our language need a word to refer to the people with uteruses and ovaries?

      6. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies have a right to organise politically around their shared experiences, and to campaign and work for policies to secure their own interests?

      7. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies have a right to associate freely with other people with those kinds of bodies, and to have some separate spaces for their safety, privacy and dignity? Do people with those kinds of bodies have a right to some spaces where people with penises and testes are not permitted to enter?

      8. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies sometimes have a right to policies and resources designated towards rectifying their historical and continued marginalisation and oppression?’

    2. Hi Jess, I just discovered where I recognise your name, because you are a person who tried to explain sexism to me on Twitter in a very strange way back in September. You also write for the Spinoff I see, that’s very interesting. So look. If you want this dialogue had, you need to write to your editor Duncan, or whoever it is now, and tell him to stop censoring feminist voices and to actively seek critical writers on gender. If you don’t want to do that, and instead want to seek a private service here while condoning the public silencing of feminists, no problem – just reply back to me with a follow-up inquiry about my rates for private consultation. If you don’t think you can afford that, but just want to understand what sex is or what biology is, that’s fine: easy. Just pick up any elementary science or human biology book from the children’s section of your local library. And yes, it may surprise you, but indigenous people also come in male and female and reproduce just like white people do. I know! Amazing.

      When you comment on my blog or tweet at me Jess, just know that you work for the same media machine that silences feminists at the moment and will not let us publish critique. I am not the only one being silenced. If you think I want to have secret e-mail conversations or “coffee” after coffee with strangers about whether biology is real or not, rather than have actual representation, no. Just no. I write because I want feminists to be heard. Please do not treat us like all we want is to be fed scraps under the table. Please. Have some respect. This is a public issue, not some personal curiosity. If you want a discussion, ask for one to be had in public. Don’t ask me to work for you for free.

      Renee.

      1. Hi Renee good on you , & well said.It’s really disturbing when trans are wanting to ‘meet’ or ‘talk on the phone’ it’s creepy , and red flags come up all over ,place Not satisfied to write their opinions, but wanting to drive theirs into onto you more forcefully. Clearly showing how they cannot be a woman as they’re complete absence and awareness ,they cannot see and will never see the effect of a woman knowing how that would be a dangerous and suspicious yet knowing that it would be unwise to meet with a male or pretends to be a woman. some for the fetish others because they feel their male entitlement. Reminds me of the Male, trans identified from Canada ‘Morgane Oger’, who was harassing a women from the women’s March on Washington 1st anniversary, these people to my mind are volatile , prone to aggression and abuse and not to be trusted . JUst also reinforces that males are Not Women, Never will Be and they think we don’t know Pffft SMH at their stupidity, and utter ridiculous udacity not less fantasy of thinking they are a woman, lol because we also Know that what they are doing is obvious and trying to gaslight people while also trying to brainwash them, changing meanings of words, are not will fly more & more are seeing this latest surge of ‘trans’ stemming from UK Canada And the USA a Outrageous Phenomenon as a farce , lies, fad, fetishizing woman, autogynephilia , and homophobic sexist chauvinistic woman hating.
        Yours Was a Great inform piece written, lets hope common sense prevails and not this BS that Males who think /feel like they are women are pushing down others throats. it’s outright psychological abuse .. KNOWN as Gaslighting !!

  2. Kia Ora Jess.

    I’m replying to you as someone on the opposite side of the ideological
    fence from you. I can’t and don’t claim to speak for Renee. But I
    believe I understand where Renee is coming from, and I share her
    viewpoint. So I’ll address some of your questions from the viewpoint
    that I believe I largely share with Renee.

    Neither do I think I’ll convince you of anything. But I appreciate
    being able to discuss this with someone who appears to approach the
    conversation in good faith. Most of the time discussion of gender
    across ideological lines is trollish yelling and that sucks.

    I’m not going to address all your questions: I’m sure we both have
    lives outside of online arguments.

    “When you discuss definitions of sex as being solely biological, are
    you claiming that the concepts of female, male and intersex are
    universal, objective, and benign”

    My understanding is that ‘male’ and ‘female’ are categories that all
    cultures have their own words for, because humans have always been
    able to tell the difference between these two classes of human. Human
    cultures understand that there are two reproductive classes. One
    class contains people capable of giving birth. One class contains
    people capable of inseminating.

    Sex is observed at birth with an extremely high degree of
    accuracy. Cultures assign meaning to birth-sex.

    “are you continuing that colonial imposition of sex on to all
    people…”

    Pre-colonial people have always been able to tell which class of
    people contains those capable of giving birth, and which class of
    people contains those who produce semen.

    I’m no expert on the Yoruban people,
    However, If the Yoruban language is like all other languages, it’s a
    safe bet to say that it acknowledges human sexual dimorphism.

    Are you aware of any ethnographic work that states that pre-colonial
    Yoruban cosmology doesn’t reflect sexual dimorphism? Are you aware of
    any Yoruban voices who insist that Yorubans cease to acknowledge
    sexual dimorphism in the service of anti-colonialism?

    Prior to colonisation did the Yoruban word for denoting ‘female’ fail to
    distinguish between people with vulvas and people with penises?

    I’m certain that in common with all peoples pre-colonial Yorubans had
    their own systems of meanings built on their observations of sexual
    dimorphism. But not acknowledge sexual dimorphism at all would be
    unique.

    Are indigenous cultures that acknowledge dimorphism and build it into
    their social organisation and cosmology themselves colonial because of
    their acknowledgement of dimorphism and their social organisation?

    I can’t accept the claim that sex itself is a colonial imposition
    because the claim has no convincing evidence. Not in claims made about
    pre-colonial Yoruba. Not anywhere else.

    “If you believe that people are only defined and oppressed by their
    body parts, wouldn’t you expect us all to be simply called vulvas and
    penises?”

    I’m not sure how this train of questions make sense. Patriarchy is
    interwoven with other aspects of culture/s. Like, the nomination of
    individuals by individual names. Just because females are targeted for
    socialisation into the submissive class doesn’t mean that various
    culturally-specific naming schemas cannot exist.

    In historical american slavery slaveowners gave individual names to
    their “property”. Slaves used and adapted their slave names.

    “And that only people with vulvas would experience oppression,
    rather than the reality, where non-conforming people with penises are
    also heavily oppressed by the patriarchy?”

    It makes perfect sense that a system based on male domination would
    abuse those fail to conform to gender stereotypes. Masculinity demands
    that males constantly perform in the dominant role or be
    punished. Coercive socialisation into the role of dominator and abuser
    assures the perpetuation of patriarchy.

    “Rather than that simplistic view, would you acknowledge that female
    and male are far broader and multifaceted cultural concepts that are
    inextricable from those of women and men, femininity and masculinity?”

    As you can tell by now myself (and I understand Renee) do not accept
    that ‘male’ and ‘female’ are usefully understood as words that refer
    to “multifacted cultural concepts”. They reflect empirically observable
    realities that are then overlaid with culturally specific meanings
    that may be “broader and multifaceted”.

    Even though science discovers more depth and complexity in male and
    female biology, it remains observable that sex phenotypy clusters
    around two poles.

    “why not fight all forms of sexism that give rise to the above
    privileges and the reciprocal oppressions – by affirming peoples’
    right to self-determination of their own sex/gender (if any), as well
    as their expression and sexuality?”

    Anyone can make any claim about reality that they want to. Refusing to
    believe an interesting claim isn’t sexism. I don’t believe that Rachel
    Dolezal’s claim that she is black. I don’t think I’m racist for
    disagreeing with Rachel.

    Neither do I think that a person who is female owe affirmation to a
    person who is male, should the male make an incredible claim about
    reality.

    Male dominance has always required that women disbelieve their own
    senses their own critical understanding of reality.

    Although you and I can appreciate and discuss the nuances around
    the sociology of sex the prevailing reality is that men know who to
    abuse and why. People motivated by the masculine violation imperative
    don’t need a sociology degree to decide who to abuse.

    We can discuss nuance and cultural interpretation and sociology for
    as long as we want. But without clear definitions of words, then the
    conversation becomes pointless, frustrating and unproductive.

    Partly for this reason I support Renee’s submission asking for clarification
    of language in a preamble to the BDMRRA: if the state wishes to
    substantially change policy around sex-based protections for women,
    then the very very least that the state could do is describe it’s
    understanding of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’.

  3. Hi Renee good on you , & well said.It’s really disturbing when trans are wanting to ‘meet’ or ‘talk on the phone’ it’s creepy , and red flags come up all over ,place Not satisfied to write their opinions, but wanting to drive theirs into onto you more forcefully. Clearly showing how they cannot be a woman as they’re complete absence and awareness ,they cannot see and will never see the effect of a woman knowing how that would be a dangerous and suspicious yet knowing that it would be unwise to meet with a male who pretends to be a woman, some for the fetish others because they ‘feel’ their male entitlement. Reminds me of the Male, trans identified from Canada ‘Morgane Oger’, from Canada who was/is still harassing a women from the Women’s March on Washington 1st anniversary, these people to my mind are volatile , prone to aggression and abuse and not to be trusted . Just also reinforces that males are Not Women, Never will Be and they think we don’t know Pfft SMH at their stupidity, and utter ridiculous audacity not less fantasy of thinking they are a woman,female lol because we/I as a Radical Feminist for decades, many also Know that what they are doing is obvious and trying to gaslight people while also trying to brainwash them. Changing meanings of words, are not will not fly, more & more are seeing this latest surge of ‘trans’predominately males stemming from UK Canada And the USA a Outrageous Phenomenon as a farce , lies, fad, fetishizing woman, autogynephilia , and homophobic sexist chauvinistic woman hating.
    Renee yours is a Great informed piece written, lets hope common sense prevails and not this BS that Males who think /feel like they are women are pushing down others throats. it’s outright psychological abuse .. KNOWN as Gaslighting !!

  4. Pingback: Press release: ANZAC Day “Patriarchal Bollocks” work temporarily installed at memorial park – writing by renee

  5. Pingback: My Submission to the U.K. Consultation on Enforcing the Equality Act 2018 – Musings and Conversations

  6. Pingback: Renee Gerlich: A lone voice fighting for women's rights in New Zealand

  7. Pingback: New Zealand is green-lighting gender identity ideology and policy without considering the consequences

  8. Pingback: Protect women’s rights and spaces: Submission on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registrati on Bill (NZ) | Feminist Legal Clinic

  9. Pingback: Why are Transactivists hostile to Radical Feminists? | Situations Vacant

Leave a Reply