Journo asks NZ PM Chris Hipkins "what is a woman?" He can't answer

[JacquelinePot]

You really have to laugh otherwise you might cry

The problem is is that there is no coherent answer that includes transwomen, excludes transmen and doesn't use the circular phrase "feels like a woman"

That phrase, as well as being circular, excludes a lot of women (not trans, not non-binary, not needing to give themselves another fancy label) from the category of woman. I strongly, strongly object to being told to no longer consider myself a woman so Eddie Izzard and other such people can 'be' a woman.

The "new registration" and the "original registration" are the records held by the General Register Office, is that correct?

What does the actual certificate issued to the individual look like? In what way does it differ from the individual's original certificate and from, for instance, my birth certificate (no new registration ever made)?

Note the NZ based site for the OP’s link likes to continue the smear on KJK:

“who had turned out in force last week to protest planned events in Auckland and Wellington by anti-transgender activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull aka Posie Parker.”

Not quite, the new registration (following the issue of the GRC) is held by the General Register Office.
The original birth entry is still held by the registration office where it was recorded.
I've only ever seen one 'birth certificate' issued after an entry in the 'gender' register and it is difficult to find an example (of one issued in E&W) online.
But I guess in some ways it is irrelevant, because the person with a GRC holds a 'birth' certificate that states they are now a different sex.
My main point is that the sex is never changed on the original birth entry.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition/gender-recognition-accessible#Gender_Recognition_Certificates

I suppose the fact that the original entry remains on the public record is a good thing. To the extent that anyone would ever refer to it.

Yes, I guess.
But for parents etc, the issue of the new 'birth' cert does not erase the historical fact that the birth took place nor does it change the details on the original birth entry (save the note that the birth was re-registered).

Personally, I think the whole thing is an utter mess. The new 'birth' certs states the sex as the the opposite one when the GRC is about gender.
A legal lie has been created.

Aimee Challoner helpfully uploaded Aimeeself’s 2019 issue short form cert to wiki commons media.

Not seen a long form version.

(Obvs this is an English cert, and this is an NZ thread, but figured I’d post it anyway with this disclaimer attached)

I once saw AC in a London train station; Aimee is unmistakably male, short-form birth certificate notwithstanding.

So a transGENDER woman doesn't transition to a female gender, but a female sex on a birth certificate. Hmmm. I must be living under a rock but I didn't realise transgender is now transex.

Apologies, I am obviously back of the class when it comes to this topic.

I think it is quite surprising that no mother (or father) has (as far as I know) challenged the changing of a birth certificate.
I understand that they don't want to upset their child, or cause them to go no contact, that they are afraid.
But changing a birth certificate changes/erases the lived experience of those parents.

I gave birth to two daughters. I changed their nappies. I know what sex they are. I helped them deal with periods when they started. They were both born female and are young women.

If one of them wanted to change her birth certificate to say male I swear I would challenge it in court. I'd also put those originals in a very safe place like a solicitors safe or even a safe deposit box so I had my record. I might send them photocopies every birthday.

Present how you like. Change your name if you must though I do like the names I carefully chose. I'd strongly advise against medical or surgical procedures that may damage the good health you were blessed to be born with. But no one is telling me I gave birth to a boy. I didn't.

I do wish someone would stand up to their child and put a stop to this nonsense.

.....waits to be deleted or scolded they are a cruel parent...

I don't believe anyone can get a GRC, and therefore a re-registered birth certificate, until they are 18 and an adult. I doubt whether a parent could object at that point.

I spent time looking for the new definitions of 'woman' (and ' man', but hardly anybody is interested in challenging the old definition on that). What I found fell into three groups

1. Circular definitions: A woman is anyone who identifies as one (a ty%#$C is anyone who identifies as ty%#$C which does not tell us what ty%#$C might be).
2. Unfalsifiable pseudo-religious definitions: A woman is anyone with a feminine 'soul' (which requires defining 'feminine', see on that in 3.)
3. Clearly sexist and retrogressive definitions: A woman is anyone who feels 'feminine' where 'feminine' refers to such behaviours as being passive, submissive, emotional, and nurturing. Or a woman is anyone who is home-centred, appearance-conscious, and focused on people over things. These are not definitions which would allow us to fight for the rights of female people, and they are not that different from far right definitions of appropriate behaviour for women.

So not acceptable at all. Only the third group could be something others can validate or invalidate, and it would restrict how 'women' could act, what types of jobs they should hold, and, overall, take us back to the 1950s sex roles for the vast majorities.

That the progressive left supports such a retrogressive an sexist ideology left me in despair for a long time, given that I thought they were 'my people.'

How many actual real women don't qualify to be women under any of those new 'definitions'? I certainly don't.

I agree it's regressive as a concept.

But, in reality, number three is rare, in my experience.

The behaviour displayed is stereotypically masculine, toxically so, not feminine.

Violating boundaries, not listening, self entitlement backed up with threats of violence.

Just watched Sean Plunket’s radio show on this - here’s a link in case anyone wants to watch (don’t think it’s been posted already).

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid022fT6pMufdTYbhwSyf4FTnn9MtxhUKN4qstMTJmEm7Lek486ta6T7auh2GU3XWJY6l&id=100076248798145

@Datun

I agree it's regressive as a concept.

But, in reality, number three is rare, in my experience.

The behaviour displayed is stereotypically masculine, toxically so, not feminine.

Violating boundaries, not listening, self entitlement backed up with threats of violence.

True. Definitions I found online are not the same as observed behaviours, of course, and, yes, colonising and dominating behaviour seems not to be rare at all. The self-focus (lookatmeonly) is something I have certainly observed in groups, together with a lack of awareness of the existence of the rights of others and also an absence of empathy. It might be hard not to be that way in an obsession, of course.

What I really wanted to say is that if 'woman' is not defined on the basis of biological sex, then we really can't do anything much to support women's rights or to fight against sex-based oppression, because the alternatives either make it impossible to even define the affected group or define the group in such a manner that treating it as lesser really is not discriminatory at all.

When all genders can get pregnant, a gender identity approach in law could not be used to argue that discrimination has happened, and trying to redefine everything as problems about 'menstruators' or about 'birth-givers' or 'people who experience menopause' would turn the discrimination against one large group of people, the female sex, into lots of seemingly unrelated separate incidents. The intersectional nature of those would be disguised, i.e., that they all happen to roughly the same people over their lifetimes.

Note that with 3, if they don't identify as a woman then you would be misgendering them, so how can that work by the progressives' own rules?

Well, exactly. The three new classes of definitions exclude me, so what this framework would do is, to use their terms, to invalidate my identity and so erase me.

But a much more concern is that this would also, if successful, erase our ability to fight sex-based forms of discrimination, what's happening in Afghanistan and Iran and so on.