If someone had said that I should write on transgender rights when I began my Political Bytes blog in January 2021, I would have said nonsense.
Partly this was because I didn’t appreciate the level of intense bigotry and hatred of those opposed to their rights that subsequently emerged. And partly it was because I had not drilled down into the underlying issues.
I simply intuitively supported transgender rights as I would for the victims of other forms of discrimination or oppression, such as racism, sexism or homophobia. The common driver is dislike of bigotry.
But there is another driver; that opinions on things have an evidential as well as values base. Call it epistemological (theory of knowledge) if you like. Opinions on matters should be empirically well-founded.
Posie Parker: oh what a difference her visit made
Oh what a visit from a far-right anti-transgender bigot known as ‘Posie Parker’ has made! To date I’ve published two blogs. The first was on 4 April: Class, transphobia and street democracy. The second was on 23 May: The bullying of Marama Davidson. .
The consequences were both a significant increase in the readership of Political Bytes (the smaller of my two blogs) and being ‘cancelled’ by bombastic blogger Bomber Bradbury’s The Daily Blog (if I was younger I might have put this on my CV; to be fair he does express support for trans rights and opposition to Parker’s bigotry).
The catalyst for this blog
And now there are three blogs! While I had been thinking about it for some time, the catalyst was a Facebook post (21 June) from Len Richards.
He is aggressively anti-trans and part of the similarly transphobic Workers Now group. His personal views are consistent with ‘mainstream’ transphobia, including those of the far-right Destiny Church.
Richards was criticising the deregistration of a teacher for his treatment of an upper high school transgender student. He boiled it down to the use of pronouns.
However, it is clear that the decision was more about the teacher’s professional conduct in expressing his opposition to the student transitioning.
In Richards’ words:
Whatever his beliefs (strongly Christian in this case), all he is doing is upholding scientific truth and the reality of biology.
And the BELIEF (and that is all it is) that a child can be the opposite sex to that which they were born is inviolate and cannot be questioned?
A teacher loses his job for not participating in the ‘transgender’ charade!
The reversal of reality that is the ideology of the trans-cult is now being officially preached and enforced in all NZ schools.
Children are being shepherded down the road of irreversible bodily damage from drugs and surgery that are the ultimate destiny of any child who travels on the trans-train.
Key messages
The key messages in this post are:
- transgenderism is contrary to “scientific truth” and biological “reality”;
- the belief that one can be different from their assigned sex at birth is false;
- transgender is just a “cult” or “trans-train”; and
- children are being pressured to undertake “irreversible bodily damage”.
What characterises this post is its dogmatic rigidity of Richards’ views on transgenderism and transgender people. Trans people are artificial constructs; they aren’t natural. It is as if they are sub-human. This, for Richards, is all that needs to be said on the subject!
There is no scope for any other view. Neither nuance nor sensitivity get a look in. Richards’ hardline post is simply a stream of bigoted unsubstantiated and uncompromising absolutes masquerading as evangelical truths.
Fellow travellers
Given his claim to be left-wing (a claim I find incredulous) Richards might want to think about the contrasting experience in Cuba and Florida of a trans woman, Melinda Butterfield, from New York (16 June): Trans women reflects on Cuba and Florida.
Next, he might want to contemplate the congruence between his position and the bigotry of Florida Governor and Republican presidential aspirant, far-right Ron DeSantis.
Governor Ron DeSantis: a fellow traveller
Richards also has another far-right Republican governor fellow traveller, Greg Abbot of Texas, as reported in The Intercept (5 May): Genocidal anti-trans campaign opens new front in Texas.
Understanding transgenderism
Who has the better the understanding of transgenderism between Len Richards, ‘Posie Parker’, Destiny Church and Workers Now, on the one hand, and the World Medical Association on the other? If ever there was a rhetorical question, this is it.
At its General Assembly in October 2015 the World Medical Association (WMA) adopted a statement on transgender people, along with several resolutions, which was strongly supportive of their rights including to healthcare: World Medical Association on transgender people.
It is a highly informative read providing invaluable insights, including on the science and what transgenderism and gender identity are. There are few best placed to analyse these issues that the medical profession with its strong scientific foundation.
Informative transgender statement from World Medical Association
The statement begins by noting that in most cultures, an individual’s sex is assigned at birth according to primary physical sex characteristics.
Individuals are expected to identify with their assigned sex (gender identity) and behave accordingly (gender expression). Gender comprises both identity and expression.
Transgender refers to people who “experience gender incongruence”; that is, “a marked mismatch between one’s gender and the sex assigned at birth.” WMA advocates that these people be treated without stigma or pathological characterisation.
WMA recognises this is a complex ethical issue. There is a spectrum of transgenderism. Hence the importance of the quality and sensitivity of the medical profession’s advice over possible treatments.
The spectrum includes those who seek to change their sex characteristics and gender role completely in order to live as a member of the opposite sex (transsexual).
There are others who seek to “…identify their gender as falling outside the sex/gender binary of either male or female (gender queer).”
While some transvestites and intersex people aren’t transgender, some are depending on their gender identification.
Being transgender is not a form of mental impairment. However, they can suffer from ‘gender dysphoria” where they experience “…clinically significant distress resulting from gender incongruence.” Hence the importance of access to appropriate healthcare support.
Success, acceptance and joy
It is encouraging that the medical profession in New Zealand, including general practitioners, is stepping up to provide this support in caring and sensitive ways.
On 6 January New Zealand Doctor republished a sensitively written article (paywalled) by Dr Cathy Stephenson. She provided suggestions to help GPs work successfully with transgender and non-binary young people, to ensure they don’t add to the barriers their patients face.
Another paywalled article (27 April) reported on a Goodfellow Symposium attended by around 1000 delegates. Dr Rona Carroll, GP and transgender health expert, was a keynote speaker.
She advocated for GPs taking a bigger role in managing and repeat-prescribing gender-affirming hormone therapy.
Dr Rona Carroll: empower health professionals to support trans patients
Dr Carroll promotes empowering health professionals in primary care to feel confident in supporting their trans and non-binary patients.
She referred to a 2018 survey identifying that over a third of gender-diverse young people had avoided seeing their doctor at some point.
What these accounts highlight is the compassion, respect, sense of professional responsibility, and empathy that doctors have towards the transgender people they work with.
This is something Len Richards, Workers Now and the Destiny Church would do well to learn from.
They might also benefit from reading the heart-warming story of Monica Mulholland by Olivia Caldwell in the Sunday Star Times (28 May): Coming out as a transgender woman in conservative New Zealand has brought success, acceptance and joy.
Monica Mulholland: success, acceptance and joy
Seven years since 59-year old Mulholland came out as a transgender woman from “deep in the heart of conservative New Zealand”.
At the time she had been a member of the Queenstown Rotary Club, “traditionally filled with ex farmers, business community and conservative types.”
Now she has been elected president! If this doesn’t confirm the kindness and tolerance of most New
Zealanders, I’m not sure what does. It was a severe kick in the teeth of bigotry.
On 15 May Stuff reported another heart rendering transition experience described as “euphoric”: Being trans: the euphoria of looking how you feel.
Women’s rights
One of the attacks on transgender people is that they will aggressively violate women’s privacy in public spaces, such as toilets. It is based on an unsubstantiated assumption that transgender women are inherently predators.
Not only is there no evidence to support this claim. There is also no consideration given to the fact that many transgender women have their own apprehensions about using these same spaces.
NZ Herald investigative reporter David Fisher provides a well-written observation on the specific fear-mongering claims concerning safety in toilets (2 May): Toilets and changing rooms going unisex bringing comfort to gender-fluid ‘comfort stops’ .
Speaking for all women?
Those who claim that transgender people are a threat to women’s rights frame it in a way that implies they are speaking on behalf of all or most women. Arguably the most well-established women’s organisation in Aotearoa is the National Council of Women New Zealand.
Prior to the arrival of ‘Posie Parker’ (Keen-Minshull), on 23 March, the Council made the following media statement:
NCWNZ recognises transwomen as women and affirms their rights to live free of discrimination from physical and mental violence. NCWNZ President Dr Suzanne Manning says, “We are concerned that Keen-Minshull’s rhetoric attacks transwomen’s rights to live their lives without gender discrimination. Her active promotion of prejudicial and stereotyped views of gender identity sends the message that transwomen should not be permitted to simply exist and that they should hide their authentic selves from the world. This goes against basic human decency, and infringes on transwomen’s human rights.”
NCWNZ believes that gender equality is a fundamental human right which applies to people of all genders and all expressions of gender and sexual identity. Transwomen and all people have a right to live without fear of physical violence and mental distress and the hate speech demonstrated by Keen-Minshull puts these rights at significant risk. We stand with those who support transpeople and their rights to live with the same freedoms as other New Zealanders.
The highly level of tolerance towards trans people reinforces the view that those arguing women in public spaces is under threat is held by only a relatively small number and basis on dogmatic prejudice rather than evidence.
In my first blog on transphobia (see link above) I reported an international survey of tolerance towards transgender men and women (2023).
Conducted by Ipsos Global Trends, it asked whether transgender men and women should be free to live their lives as they wish.
The results for New Zealand could not have been more impressive; second fractionally behind Vietnam. Aotearoa is a world leader.
The survey provided three answers to the question – Agree, Neutral and Disagree. Globally 70% agreed. New Zealand was 88%. Globally 10% were neutral; New Zealand was 4%. Globally 20% disagreed compared with 8% in New Zealand.
I struggle to believe that that women respondents would be markedly less supportive of trans rights than the male respondents.
An important caution
There is an important caution, however. As the World Medical Association noted, the issues are complex. Understanding them is relatively new. It was only in May 2019 that the World Health Organisation stopped categorising being transgender as a “mental disorder”.
It has to be remembered that for a long time homosexuality was considered to be a “mental disorder” contributing to horrible consequences for gays. Fortunately expert assessments evolve as evidence and experience improves.
In respect of transgenderism there are important lessons from the experience of the United Kingdom’s only children’s gender identity development service, run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.
Dr Hilary Cass: a timely warning on puberty blockers
It was the subject of a review led by paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass which presented its interim report in February 2022: Cass Review. Its full title is the Independent Review of Gender Services for Children and Young People: Interim Report.
The Cass Review was “strictly focussed” on the clinical services provided to children and young people seeking help from the National Health Service to resolve gender-related stress. It was not about the wider issues of gender identity.
The interim report was not, as claimed by them, a vindication for anti-trans activists. Dr Cass herself was explicit about this when these claims were made. However, the report did raise some serious concerns, particularly about the robustness of the evidence relied upon for puberty blocking.
It recommended the replacement of the single gender identity development service (Tavistock and Portman) with a series of regional hubs. Dr Cass drew upon her experience of regional paediatric hubs in the NHS to develop this recommendation.
The review’s warning about the approach to puberty blockers is important. It should be incorporated into a more cautionary approach in New Zealand as further evidence and learnings unfold.
Time to call transphobia out
The Cass Review is not a shot across the bows of transgender rights. Rather it is an invaluable lesson for how best medically to approach a complex issue and a firm reminder of being confident of evidence.
It is opposite to the aggressive negative hostility towards transgenderism and transgender people which is the essence of transphobia. Transphobia is consistent with the intolerance that has prevailed towards particular groups in particular times for centuries.
Trans activists have been criticised as being overzealous or dogmatic. I have some sympathy for this view but only in respect to a passionate component of the wider transgender movement. But the same can be said for anti-racism, anti-sexism and anti-homophobia movements.
Dogmatism can be offspring of some of the victims of these various forms of discrimination and oppression. In fact, dogmatic zeal also exists in both the political left and right (except that the left has been more successful in developing it into an art form).
It is time to call transphobia out for what it is. It is time to be blunt. Transphobia is shameful uncomplicated and sickening bigotry.
I’ll leave the final word to comic-cartoonist Toby Morris in The Spinoff (2 May): Trans tipping point: transphobia and scapegoating.
Political Bytes 
Great. Another man telling women what to think and do and if they dare question this you label them transphobe.
LikeLike
Shows appalling ignorance of gender critical feminist arguments. Of course transgender adults must be free to live and express their ‘gender identity’ as they please. Of course they should feel safe and free from discrimination. But at present NZ human rights law protects women on the grounds of sex, a biological category. Aside from the very tiny number of people born ‘intersex’ ( with biological features of both sexes) we are all male or female ( albeit with variations within the categories). Women fought long and hard for such legal protection – to privacy when we undress, to fair competition in sport, to choose a same sex therapist or gynaecologist. These rights are being eroded in policies that erase sex, confuse or replace it with self defined ‘gender identity .’ Nobody is saying that trans people are predators, but many women are pointing out that MEN rape women, abuse women, ‘perv’ at women. That’s why we have single sex spaces. Lesbians and gay men are same SEX ( not same gender) attracted. Trans people describe their own safe spaces, but allowing any man to say he’s a women ( with no medical evidence) endangers the security of women by removing the protections we currently enjoy. This is Not transphobia it’s is not hatred. It’s pointing out some real problems that have to be addressed.
LikeLike
There’s a typo in my contribution above. Predictive rnexting changed the word ‘deserve’ to ‘describe their own safe spaces.’
LikeLike
I managed to get to the end of your blog partly by skipping the last two paragraphs. I’m a user of the descriptor ‘sex observed at birth’ kind of a girl. Always have been, even when I found out that the range of presentations of genitals to view was broader than I had previously thought possible. I also found out that even so called extremes were still the outcome of either XX (female/woman) or XY (male/man) chromosomes. Like JK. Rowling I think that women and men should be able to wear what they want & love who will have them etc- note the term adult here. This doesn’t give any citizen of the world the right to demand to be acknowledged as a member of the opposite sex, or to free surgery to appear as if they are either. I reach these conclusions about life in part through assessment of hard, verifiable evidence and in part through my experience of being lesbian in a society where heteronormativity continues to be valorised. In my (empirically verified) opinion the beliefs you draw on to write this piece are unscientific and ill thought through. What do you know about being a woman in this world, trying to make her way in a society dominated by practices of male entitlement? If you have not had this experience the best thing you can do is to re-look at what you have written above and, with my question in mind, think what would I change? I’d be interested in reading the outcome.
LikeLike
I have known you for many decades Ian and I am disappointed in your lack of sensitivity to the rights of women to speak up about their concerns re the trans activist agenda. Of course those individuals who struggle with their gender identity are entitled to the same level of health and wellbeing services afforded to everyone else. Of course New Zealanders largely support the freedom of trans identifying people to live as they wish.
The argument for women’s rights in my considerable experience is not, and never has been, at the expense of other individuals. Surely we can also say the same for biological women. Can they not also live the life they wish without having to bow to the wishes of others who want them to wipe out their identity as biological women? I believe the argument you postulate could well be viewed as supporting the trans activism rights at the expense of those same rights for biological women.
I think you would agree I am in a strong place to know how gender issues affect women….being concerned about women rights, their health, their safety has been and is still a never ending mission. The abusive tactics to stop women speaking up to those who want to make biological women invisible again is not going to be tolerated. Many women and men are raising concerns as they can see the underbelly of the often homophobic , misogynistic, trans activism crusade you so vigorously and, with respect, naively defend.
To ignore biological women’s rights in a global climate where they die in childbirth by the millions, (mortality rates for pregnant women is actually rising in the USA) where biological women in every country continue to endure rape, incest, murder and mutilation in the millions. Why are their rights invisible, ignored and dismissed…sadly no new enabling legislation for them. Meanwhile the same governments legislate to force society to prioritise a very small group of men who wish to be identified as women. (The voice of trans men is very quiet in the activists activities.) Isn’t this situation exposing the bigotry you accuse in others?
I recently listened to midwives telling their experiences in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Haiti, Nigeria, Iran where their colleagues have been murdered for the crime of attending women in childbirth. Where is the world-wide condemnation, government crackdown, responsive legislation and health services to these women that measure up to the concerns and outrage for the trans activists rights? Where is the hormone replacement supply for women with reproductive cancer…gender affirming care taking priority maybe? Where is the medical community “stepping up’ to fix biological women’s issues such as endometriosis, menopause? Why are biological women not prioritised?
Covid saw medicine and management in every country closing maternity wards and hospitals and many countries turning them into covid hospitals…mother and newborns out and elderly in…women left to birth alone …no one cared or called out for respect and support of new mothers and newborns and yet in many countries Covid killed pregnant women and their midwives. Not a word from the medical community or political parties about those biological women’s issues. No shouting and screaming outrage towards government’s about that! Any wonder women are rising up to speak! I invite you, Ian, to rethink your shaming language and increase your understanding of the real complexity that surrounds this debate.
LikeLike
I see that others have addressed your take on so-called bigotry. I do encourage you to read more widely and not to misconstrue what many women (and the majority of NZ )are concerned about. It is policy capture pure and simple – not transgender people – but people who argue that gender is more important than sex. Here is a survey of some parts of NZ government from 2021 that I co-authored. It is a signigficant and legitimate concern when government becomes captive to partisan (and bad) ideas in the name of kindnews and compassion. https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/7316
So instead I would like to thank you for endorsing the view that “The Cass Review is not a shot across the bows of transgender rights. Rather, as you say, it is an invaluable lesson for how best medically to approach a complex issue and a firm reminder of being confident of evidence.” You are correct it is not a victory for transphobia but for medical evidence and evidence-based processes. I was lucky to have an op-ed article in the NZ Herald explaining some of the background to the CASS decision and linking it to the NZ MoH review of puberty blockers currently underway. I’d be delighted if you would read take some time to read what happened in the aftermath of that op-ed. https://blog.fullyinformed.nz/p/a-tragedy-and-a-farce
In brief I think you have got it back to front. It is trans-activists and advocates for medicating children who are arguing that people concerned about puberty blockers are ‘anti-trans activists’ irrespective of their motivation.
Part of mine for writing on this I that I am also worried about overtreatment and careless treatment. This is inarguable.
I have seen testimony from parents and have heard that their children are transitioned rapidly – with medication proosed at the first appointment – for gender related distress. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9jVmPZ9uXA&list=PLhQF8k91j3KjjHSzOlq-A0iUqLSD3OhlY&index=4 Absolutely other issues – same sex attraction, serious mental health issues, autism and neurodiversity and even an inability to fully explain their situation are used to make the case for gender medicine interventions.
There are now several young NZ women who have detransitioned from a transgender identity and for some their testimony includes that they were encouraged and persuaded into this route by counsellors and psychologists! All were same sex attracted young women. Thus current policy settings in NZ gender medicine appear to be anti-lesbian (and anti-gay) conversion therapy. If the concerns, of people like me, our observations, and the evidence from the UK and elsewhere that the young women (and young men) we see transitioning are driven by other factors rather than ‘being truly trans’ then it is clear that this labelling us as ‘anti-trans activists’ is a cheap and dishonest response even as it is highly effective in persuading people with concerns to shut up.
LikeLike
I loath the misuse of the word bigotry as is so apparent here. It is an extreme word to use against people genuinely concerned about medical transition of children..and I am going to add it is a word designed to shut parents and women down also concerned about their legal status as a sex in New Zealand. Women fought a fifty year hard fight for our rights in New Zealand (please do read second wave women’s liberation) It was a battle as important as gay and lesbians, trans rights. Bear in mind the women’s rights activists in New Zealand are not only straight many are lesbian. Who know what prejudice. is all about. Please be more measured and balanced in your words. Which can also. harm women. Women who are defending our rights but more the rights of children especially girls to a healthy future where our law makers consider their sex as important to prioritise as anyone else. Women are victims of violence in New Zealand and so are children. It was pointed out on the weekend that little progress has been made in this country regarding this. Women need a public voice to speak to these issues. and the banning of their meetings from venues is a disgrace…it is also unlawful in democracy. Men should not be colluding in the suppression of women’s voices as many are in. this country. There are also men well aware of the affect law is having on women and now fight against it. Women and girls have the right to retain their language and their own facilities and services. We never consented to losing both. Removing women’s legal status immediately affects our lives and not in a good way.
LikeLike
It is so disappointing to read an article that is misinformed on some of the key issues it purports to address. I’m pretty certain that there has been minimal “drilling” down into the underlying issues to present a balanced view.
For starters sex is binary. As a health commentator I thought you would be able to understand basic biology. You know about large and small gametes, I’m sure. The sex of babies is observed at birth and not “assigned” – assigned makes it sounds like midwives are using some sort of Hogwarts sorting hat. For the tiny percentage of babies born with differences of sexual development (0.018%) almost all will have either male or female chromosomes. Using the term intersex is not appropriate as many people with DSD frequently request this term is not used, while also protesting the ‘forced teaming’ with the rainbow acronym.
As a health commentator I feel certain the concept of informed consent is one that you understand. At what age do you think a child can consent to irreversible medical and surgical treatments? Can they understand the loss of fertility, or the side effects of medication? The pressure you speak of dismissingly in your blog, can come from social media, peers, and in some situations teachers. The NHS determined that “gender incongruence [usually] does not persist into adolescence” and that “psychological support” and “a watchful approach” are generally recommended instead of “social transition” due to its “risks,” and that puberty blockers/cross-sex hormones will only be given to minors in a research study.” The current evidence base globally, basically does not support the informed decision making we need, and does not support safe practices for children. That’s why the Ministry of Health are reviewing the use of puberty blockers and why many countries are re-considering treatment practices. Here’s a useful site to check out https://segm.org/
You are also mistaken in terms of the threat women may face when they find themselves unable to access single sex spaces. Being a male, perhaps you do not fully comprehend the impact of sexual violence. Women with personal experience of sexual violence may only feel comfortable talking about their experiences of male violence in a safe environment. A safe environment in this context is a women-only space – without any men, regardless of how they ‘identify.’ Some women may self-exclude from services that are not single-sex.
The internet is full of stories about assaults in gender neutral toilets – including in schools, (Google it) and the threats incarcerated women face when a man is housed in the women’s estate because he has identified as a woman – often after sentencing, which is interesting.
No-one thinks all transgender people are predators. I expected a better analysis of this issue from you as that statement is inflammatory and ridiculous. Women and girls get assaulted by men – end of story. How do they know which ones? They don’t. This is why we have single-sex spaces. There are some pesky statistics that get in the way of your ‘argument’ as well. The UK Ministry of Justice data shows that men who identify as women exhibit a male-type pattern of criminality. Again – obviously this is not ALL transgender people. UK prison data from 2019 showed that 81 out of the 163 transgender prisoners in England and Wales had at least one conviction for a sexual offence.
So – I think women can be allowed a bit of concern about their single-sex spaces, if that’s OK with you Ian. Just because you, and others – including some women of course – are fine with trans women in women’s spaces it doesn’t mean all women are.
LikeLike
Ha, pity you have fallen for the new stripey form of misogyny Ian. Pull back the ideological hysteria adopted by our policy makers and captured community groups and it’s the same old shite with men wanting women to shut up and not be able to make decisions about things that affect them. Just because it’s politically trendy doesn’t might it right or progressive.
LikeLike
Contrary to the assertion in the article, Workers Now is not a “transphobic group” The accusation presumably refers to point seven of our policy statement :”Defend the rights of women. Defend the right of women to single-sex public toilets, changing facilities, refuges and prisons. No biological males in women’s sports. Prosecute rapists to the full extent of the law. Remove Sex Self ID clauses from the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act.” Nothing in that statement impinges on the rights of transexual people to live as any other citizen, which they should be fully able to do.
LikeLike
Calling Kellie-Jay Keen a “far-right anti-transgender bigot” immediately disqualifies this blog from anything resembling civilised, balanced, discourse. I salute the women who managed to write reasoned, thoughtful, and informative responses to this load of misogynist rubbish. I coudn’t actually stomach reading it. This life long “commie, pinko queer” knows what a woman is.
And you better start thinking of excuses why you supported this toxic movement that celebrates the sterilisation and mutilation of children and the colonisation of women.
LikeLike
On the contrary, not calling Keen a far-right anti-transgender bigot disqualifies your comments. I’m driven by an intense dislike of bigotry. I don’t support the behaviour you accuse transgender people of in your final sentence. Nor do I believe that it is behaviour inherent in these same people.
LikeLike