Totally, I was impressed with the evenhandedness in that Sports Medicine article both in covering the background and in highlighting that there’s considerably more complexity to this than the journalist (above) and DPF would care to acknowledge in perpetuating the myth that oversight of these issues is the purview of our Government with its proposed amendments to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act.
Additional background from the British Journal of Sports Medicine – for anyone interested in nurturing an informed discussion on this topic.
Continuing this intermittent and tiresome fact-check of the Herald article, in the context of "Under the proposed new law”, the journalist stated:
How about Laurel Hubbard competing straight-faced as a female in weightlifting? And all those other athletes around the world winning hands down against biological women? Is it fair to females, who’ve often trained their whole lives, only to come second to a biologically stronger athlete – no matter how they identify?
Which has absolutely nothing to do with ’the proposed new law’. Independent bodies responsible for administering competitive sport will continue to exercise oversight of regulations governing the participation of all competitors, trans, intersex or otherwise.
Self-declaration will not change this provision.
On that note thank you for sharing all this Hilary – so much forgotten/erased history. I found this documentary pertaining to how Samoa was directly impacted by this contamination incredibly moving and educational, as you mentioned:
Grief and anger towards New Zealand and its neglectful governance fostered the growth of the Mau independence movement and led to the 1929 Black Saturday deaths.
Such avoidable loss of life:
In November 1918, the Spanish flu strongly hit the territory. 90% of the 38,302 native inhabitants were infected and 20% died. The American Samoa population was largely spared this devastation, due to vigorous efforts of its Governor. This led to some Samoan citizens petitioning in January 1919 for transfer to U.S administration, or at least general British administration. The petition was recalled a few days later.
the most risible
To address potential accusations that this line of reasoning is an attempt to minimise criticisms of the crypto-antisemitic insinuations made in the current deadly climate – this was certainly not intended as anything more than a personal response to the marginalisation of trans concerns in the local discourse by cis people. My apologies at having presented the impression of hierarchization.
From a personal standpoint the crypto-antisemitism fails to pass any acid test deeming it worthy of debate simply on the grounds that global documentation of gender minorities predates Soros, Buffett et al by some considerable length as does the medicalisation of transgender people (though there are some troubling overlaps in the original article’s argument) and that medicalisation remains – despite claims we have now adopted ‘an informed consent model’ – incongruent with strict gate-keeping which still occurs under the jurisdiction of some DHBs and practitioners.
This expansive history of gender diversity is most evident locally when accounting for longstanding recognition of fa’afafine, fakaleiti and the revival of takatāpui etc rendering this spurious conspiracy as to the creation/promotion/recognition of gender minorities for the benefit of big pharma as both largely Eurocentric and farcical for any educated ally, gender minority or concerned individual with access to Google, as opposed to the allegations against the NZ health system, medical profession, guardians – which while easily refutable by those in the know – play largely – without much in the way of data – on fear of the unknown among the general population.
Though both preposterous and dangerous in their way – I assume part of the reason for the silence by the trans ally cis population wrt the child abuse allegations is in part due to lack of access to information required to refute that.
Meanwhile in Ireland:
Among those the Guardian spoke to, there was no evidence of the legislation leading to individuals – in particular teenagers – being pressured to undertake medical transition, or men falsely declaring themselves female in order to invade women-only spaces, as some feminist activists have feared.
Having said that, the most risible accusation and damaging myth disseminated is arguably:
Gender critical feminists like me also question the use of hormone blockers, or the taking of testosterone, by children as young as five
This is not a claim about some global crypto-antisemitic conspiracy theory, these are very serious allegations being made about the New Zealand Health system, the medical professionals that administer it and the guardians giving consent. As the cis population have been falling over themselves to discredit the sensationalist Soros/Buffett conspiracy, this has been a key focus of the transgender community – who have been largely talked over throughout this fallout:
Let’s talk hormones next. If the young person wants to go on cross hormones, so estrogen if you were AMAB (people thought their baby was a boy) or testosterone if you were AFAB (people thought their baby was a girl), then it’s more steps and more appointments. This is because unlike blockers cross hormone treatment causes some permanent changes. In New Zealand, on rare occasions cross hormones have been prescribed at 14. For most trans youth it is 16 or older. Before prescribing there are psychological assessments and upfront discussions with the endocrinologists. Not all trans youth (or adults ) are able or even want to take hormones. It’s a very personal choice.
While there may or may not be extremely remote odds (don’t quote me) of a pre-teen with Precocious Puberty (affecting 1 out of 5,000 children) or other exacerbating conditions being subject to this type of intervention – the circumstances would be so rare as to render the incrimination wildly irresponsible and entirely misrepresentative of contemporary standards of care and gender affirming guidelines (pdf) in Aotearoa.
Which leads to the rather unusual circumstance where a member of the Government has been allocated a Herald column to defend superfluities such as linguistics and historical precedent, leaving the role of defending Ministry of Health protocols (pdf – page 32) to impacted and concerned citizens offsite – as Kylie Parry has done (above).
If the young person is under 16, and usually until the age of 18 (though not legally required),gaining consent from both the young person and parents/caregivers as family support is strongly recommended during the transition process. However,in exceptional circumstances if the young person is under 16 and deemed Gillick competent they alone may be allowed to consent. We would recommend this is discussed with other health professionals experienced with working with youth prior to starting treatment
The thing is, selecting cannabis solely on its THC potency is actually kinda dumb. Research on cannabis social clubs in Europe found that many people like the clubs because they provided access to weed that wasn’t rocket fuel.
Good article, on that note, as has been discussed here previously specifically wrt to smokable cannabis; personally higher potency generally means I’ll smoke less entailing less tar in the lungs, likely producing less severe potential physical health consequences. I felt McCoskrie’s story was a bit of a self-own in that regard.
Don’t. Do. Christmas.
Yeah, if anything’s going to meaningfully address the gendered labour imbalance ingrained in our society, cancelling a festival is likely to be. that. silver. bullet. smh.