Earlier this week, a late submission was made on the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration (BDMRR) Bill currently under consideration by a select committee. Public submissions on the Bill overwhelmingly emphasise the issue of gender identity, asking that the current BDMRR Act be amended to allow greater ease in changing the sex marker on birth certificates. The Green Party, Human Rights Commission and Law Society are among the submitters who want this process to be made as free as possible of costs, questioning and court processes.
Underlying these proposals are new, postmodern ideas that challenge the reality and immutability of biological sex. Those who support gender identity ideology, or sex self-identification, believe that sex can be nominated and changed either through pharmaceuticals, plastic surgery, adamant thinking, or a combination. Some submitters claim that these ideas and practices are feminist and have indigenous roots. Last week, a member of the little known Handmaids Association, Ofjames, joined this chorus.
“We, the Handmaids Association, completely concur with the Green Party “Documents with Dignity” proposals,” Ofjames told reporters. “They suggest that sex is both real, not real; material, immaterial; different from gender and the same, and relevant and irrelevant. That is doubleplusgood NewSpeak doublethink.”
Ofjames says the Handmaids Association had additional reasons for supporting the Green Party’s sex self-identification proposals.
“It is important that, as Handmaids, we distance ourselves from a number of gender traitors who have made submissions on this Bill,” says Ofjames. “They include lesbian gender traitors who seek to maintain sex-based protections and female only spaces, like bathrooms, safehouses and sports teams. The Handmaids Association will not stand for this kind of doubleplusungood bigotry. We welcome any handmaid who does not want to be sent to the colonies or otherwise persecuted for gender treachery to stand with us against it,” Ofjames offers.
Punishments currently issued to women who do not comply with gender identity ideology include no-platforming; loss of livelihood; ostracism including cyberbullying and online pacts; violence, and death threats made with rainbow-coloured weaponry including knives and baseball bats painted in pastel blue and pink. A selection of these custom-designed implements has recently been on display at the San Francisco public library. Such displays may soon be viewable in Wellington, especially once the city has established its own phallocentric “rainbow” precinct as per mayor Justin Lester’s proposals.
Before such time, Ofjames says it is imperative that all handmaids become acquainted with the sex, gender and feminism NewSpeak. This involves memorising phrases such as “transwomen are women”, “boys bleed too”, “men can get pregnant”, “a girl is anyone who identifies as a girl”, “abortion is a cis privilege”, “misgendering is literal violence”, “some lesbians have a penis”, “I found the TERF”, et cetera.
Ofjames says these phrases should be regularly rehearsed for deepest reprogramming, to avoid thoughtcrime as well as facecrime. Facecrime occurs when thoughtcrimes are made evident through involuntary facial expressions.
Feeling somewhat overwhelmed, I asked Ofjames how one might safely celebrate something like the birth of prime minister Jacinda Ardern’s baby girl.
For many, supporting Ardern as a Great Leader has meant recognising and rejecting the sexism that Ardern faced and will face before, during and after pregnancy – just because of her female reproductive anatomy. How can that sexism be opposed (and the baby girl celebrated) by those also keen to adopt NewSpeak, which requires denying that anatomy is sexed in the first place?
Ofjames recommends following the lead of NewSpeak proponent Robbie Nicol. Soon after Ardern’s baby was born, Nicol tweeted:
“It’s the gorgeous gift of life! It’s a healthy li’l cuddly baby! Gender identity is not the same as assigned sex! It’s a beautiful newborn!”
According to Ofjames, “That is exemplary NewSpeak. Basically, female erasure plus being doublepluskind is NewSpeak. Doubeplusgood!”
The Handmaids Association acknowledges that the process of re-education they and the Green Party advocate involves a great deal of doublethink, but that doublethink is actually “goodthink”.
“Doublethink is essential to doublepluskind inclusivity,” says Ofjames. “To be doublepluskind inclusive, one must accept and promote plusgood ideas that, in oldspeak, would be considered mutually exclusive.”
I asked Ofjames if she had considered bringing an interpreter with her to parliament to deliver her submission. “It is not my job to educate those still accustomed to oldspeak,” she says. “It is obvious, for instance, that doublethink is essential to promoting both feminist body positivity but also the distribution of chest binders. So it simply must be learned,” she insists.
I then asked Ofjames if she was at all concerned about what might happen to her rights as a woman who suffers oppression, and any spaces she might have to gather and organise with women – like the Handmaids Association itself – should sex continue to be redefined through further reforms like the BDMRR Bill.
“Handmaids are extraordinarily privileged,” says Ofjames. “We are also doublepluskind. So we are always willing to accommodate. If minihealth was to approach us to request our uteruses for gender conversion experiments – blessed be the fruit. We are ready and willing to donate our uteruses to aid the validation and full conversion of all transwomen. Nothing is a problem for us.”
Does Ofjames think that NewSpeak ideas about biological sex being immaterial, and sex-exclusive spaces bigoted, should also apply to organisations like the Department of Conservation and the Freemasons?
To this question, “It is proper for handmaids to be accommodating and doublepluskind,” was Ofjames’ only response.
Intriguingly, the Handmaids Association has included in their submission – which otherwise broadly resembles the Green Party’s – a request to ban all copies of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from the country’s bookshops and public libraries. “Orwell’s critique of doublethink shows that he is a raging transphobe,” says Ofjames. “His work should not be available for reading by anyone.”
“Orwell is a known TERF. There is an extensive passage on page 223 of his book Nineteen Eighty-Four that satirises doublethink and has been quoted by TERFs. Doublethink is crucial to supporting doubleplusgood women – transwomen – and so we must ban copies of Nineteen Eighty-Four from all libraries immediately for transphobia.”
On this note, I thanked Ofjames for her time. “Praise be,” she replied. “Under His Eye.”