Complaints against NZ media not upheld regarding Kelly Jay Keen's rally

[LizaBizza]

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/09/12/posie-parker-anti-trans-new-zealand-australia/

In summary, regulators have found it accurate for the media to describe KJK as anti-trans and to say that she has the support of Nazis.

Here is your maths (stats analysis / the bell curve) problem

100 women
. 98 Women other
. 2 TM

100 men
. 98 Men other
2 TW

So if women under perform in all the rankings, TM will under perform TW

Say by 10%

90% women
. 88.2 %Women other
. 1.8% TM

100% men
. 98.0% Men other
2.0% TW

Then the TM and TW reclassify

90.2% women
. 88.2% Women other
. 2.0% TW

99.8 % men
. 98.0% Men other
1.8% TM

Is your argument that as group TM out perform Women Other?

Because if not just by reorganising into new groupings narrows the gender gap or in your terms inflate the figures for women.

@suggestionsplease1

That's right, I will continue to post it, to show that the top 4 countries that are doing the best for women, are also countries that have policies of self-ID.

Given these countries have done so well, for so long for women (and their citizens generally - look at their track records), why do you think the 4 of them have all suddenly gone mad?

Perhaps you could reflect that, actually, they haven't gone mad, and they are continuing in the trend they have consistently demonstrated - of taking good decisions for their citizens.

Now you can choose to focus on single issues and problems, which of course exist, I am more interested in the large, overall picture of how women's lives are improved and the cultures that support the wellbeing and success of women. These countries have improved the lives of women whilst also improving the lives of trans people. Of course I am not saying anything is causative here, but they see no incompatibility on these issues, and their position at the table has been untroubled by their self-ID policies.

Several further points to consider, in addition to what's already been stated in this thread:

First, the list of countries which has gender self-identification
includes Pakistan, a country well known for poor women's rights. It also includes Malta where abortion is banned, and countries where women's rights are not terribly good such as Chile, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Colombia.

I would argue that the reasons various countries support gender self-identification vary greatly and probably none have anything to do with the view that this would somehow be a good thing for women as a sex.

Second, the four countries suggestions mentions have made the changes quite recently, Norway in 2016, Iceland in 2019, New Zealand in 2021, and Finland in the spring of 2022. There hasn't been enough time for the difficulties to be visible in statistical sources, partly, because changes in various laws are put into place over time, after the self-identification was approved.

For instance, this site (https://www.dia.govt.nz/bdmreview---recognising-gender-on-birth-certificates) mentions changes in New Zealand birth certificates beginning in 2023, not in 2021 when self-identification was approved.

So enough time has not passed to see statistical effects, and in any case, as others have pointed out, they would be hidden if some male crime is not recorded as female crime. A further troubling possibility is that the relevant data is not collected at all, as seems to be the case in Ireland where one politician openly stated that no procedures were created to measure the impact of that country's self-identification law.

Third, if you have followed how these laws were enacted in the first place you will know that most people were unaware of what, in fact, was proposed and whom it would affect. The laws were supported and formulated by activists and there was very little public debate and no public consultations. As the underlying theories and the actual meaning of the goals of the changes were not given sunlight, few people realised the dangers to women's rights. Most, if aware, thought the changes only applied to a small number of deeply dysphoric people and did not understand that one goal is the redefinition of 'women' into 'feeling feminine today' and the erasure of the female sex as a political class etc.

Fourth, many of the damaging direct consequences will be limited in numbers because mtf transitioners (and the predators who pretend to be that) are a fairly small group compared to all men. But the indirect effect, on other laws which protect women are likely to be larger wherever women's reproductive rights, say, are based on rules about sex discrimination: When sex is written out of laws, then fighting sexism will also be written out of them.

Fifth, the effects could be quite large in some areas, and those, alone, are worth the debates which did not happen in the four countries suggestions focuses on:

Will women suddenly start raping each other or children a lot more?

Will policies trying to get more women and girls into STEM fields suddenly find that what looks like a great improvement is not because more vulva people are entering the field but because existing male workers are reclassified as women?

Will women suddenly increase their political leadership numbers because trans women seem to rise up rather easily?

Massive and almost certainly incorrect assumption that number of TM is approximately the same as number of TW. The sex ratio has flipped in the young but for decades TW have greatly outnumbered TM. Mostly late transitioning TW, so the assumption that they lag non-trans males can’t be sustained.
Since almost all late transitioning TW are white and often class-privileged, a better assumption is that TW economic outcomes outstrip even those of the median male.

I am aware that is a model is as basic as it can be.

suggestionsplease1 appeared not to recognise that TM exist and that their reclassification would move the results too.

The basic calculation the men are the benchmark 100%.
the benchmark falls below 100% once a single TM is added to the classification men.

Making statements that adding TW would have not change the outcomes demonstrates poor understanding of how the maths method works

As you point out when one drills down into the data and examines the socioeconomic levels having more professional self IDing women/TW on Linkedin etc also moves the numbers.
more important it ignores the real issue of women trapped into poverty. These women will be further disadvantaged by not having the financial resources to buy single sex services when they are needed and this will not be captured

nepeta · point on Ireland not collecting data is reflected in the prison population in 2019
1 additional male sex offender is 1% movement in that sub-group of male sex offenders.
1 male sex offender was a 100% movement in that sub-group of female sex offenders.

The solution was to allocate funding for 2 staff who were to be with the male inmate when in the general female population.
Say 120k -150k (for 7 day by 2 staff) would reduce funding for other services.
And the women were used to provide companionship.

Just to recap on why LinkedIn is a poor substitute for government checked data:

WEF is measuring supposedly as two categories the economic power of women and the education levels of women. LinkedIn benefits women in professional roles significantly more than women in manual labour roles, roles of close to minimum wage and roles that are not permanent full time amongst many other role descriptions.

Hell, LinkedIn requires literacy and actual access to capture the experiences of those women! And clearly, it will therefore exclude large swathes of women and girls.

Therefore: the data pulled from LinkedIn is biased and skewed.

LinkedIn is fully self reported about education and employment details. These two areas have been long known to be lied about to gain job roles. LinkedIn is therefore more unreliable because it is also likely to be an over statement of skills, roles and education. I mean who doesn’t over state their skills, job roles etc when there is a chance to, just a small positive tweak here or there to people outright lying.

Therefore: unreliable data

LinkedIn also cannot check sex of candidate.

Therfore: unreliable data.

Even in progressive countries female people in senior roles don’t use LinkedIn for many various reasons. They may have a base profile started right at the beginning but have not updated it due to privacy concerns. They may not wish to publish the fact that they are female in San industry known to be hugely sexist. Many reasons exist. These women will not be captured by this data.

Therefore : unreliable data.

Feel free to add any other main reason why LinkedIn data measuring women’s economic and educational power across the world is great for a conversation starter and may highlight areas of issue, but not good enough to create a supposedly high quality data powered list. When that list supposedly shows whether a country is closing the ‘sex gap’ on for female people to have the same opportunities and respect as male people in that country. I am still fuzzy headed and may have missed some.

The way you know it would be a tiny fraction would be how exactly?

Which data set are you using, bearing in mind it is all corrupted the moment you classify males as females?

I stopped using linked in about a decade ago when an ex managed to track me down and restart his harassment of me. Also why I don't use my photo on facebook and cannot be found outside of my actual family and friends, or real name on twitter

“I've already addressed this clearly.”

Anyone else now think that ‘clearly’ has been also redefined to include the very opposite meaning like ‘woman’, ‘tolerant’ and ‘compassion’?

Don't think KJK has ever shouted 'punch a trans person'
Can't be anti trans then
Unlike all those nasties who encourage the punching of "terfs"

Given the current "be kind" narrative and what we know of the attitudes of politicians such as Jacinda Ardern, Nicola Sturgeon, Caroline Lucas, Layla Moran, Stella Creasy, Lisa Nandy, Theresa May, Caroline Noakes, Alexandria O-C, to name but a few (in both the UK and overseas), it seems to me that the election of women like this to positions of power could cause the country in question to rise in the rankings according to that survey, but actually worsen everyday life for women in that country if their right to self determination and in particular single sex spaces and services isn't respected.

Look at Nicola Sturgeon, for example. Female leader! Great! Scotland is leading the way on gender equality!

Oh. She wants Isla Bryson to be housed in a women's prison and for there to be no single sex rape crisis support for female rape survivors in Scotland because she's mates with a transwoman who wants to head up Scotland's rape crisis services.

And for what it's worth, most of the politicians I mentioned above are women I used to rate before all this nonsense.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4851765-this-is-outrageous-medical-paper-argues-that-wanting-healthy-undeformed-babies-should-be-queered?page=1

Ah, there it is.

I cannot imagine how New Zealanders feel with the latest info coming to light.

How their police force is now recorded as no responding to a clearly volatile situation that they knew had huge potential for violence that did actually occur. They knew and they allowed a very biased person to advise them that it was all ok and no issues at all.

Clearly this was hugely negligent and has again shown that no, New Zealand is certainly not a safe nation for female people. Despite having had a female leader AND such great female representation in parliament.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4896650-kjk-has-had-to-call-off-her-trip-to-nz

While activists will be celebrating this, I suspect that if the plans for the rally goes ahead, and more violence ensues, that activists will then be forced to admit that it wasn’t the presence of KJK that caused the violence. It was just New Zealand women potentially speaking about their lives and their political wish lists.

And many more women will wake up that this is not ok. This is happening and is being described dishonestly by ‘the left’.

I am sure OP will crow about it. But what are they actually celebrating? Being shown to be totalitarian and authoritative while declaring they are on the right side of history?

Yeah… ok. Do that and watch the world climb the mountains of knowledge enlightenment!

Although in fairness, apparently NZ men are fine with NZ women having political wishlist,s so long as those lists and voices only say things that the NZ men pre approve, and which further NZ men's agendas. Particularly their sexual freedoms and right to dominate, subordinate and use women.

It's equality that they have a problem with.

And?

Let's assume that there is a high correlation between those factors and women's safety.

You can't then assume well economic and political representation statistics haven't changed much, so the policy must be fine for women's safety.

And you have said nothing about the potential high levels of distress caused to women by losing their privacy and single sex spaces and services.

Unless you look at that kind of issue, you aren't really considering "overall wellbeing".

Also I'm not sure that the claim is even correct in the first place.

"Women in Nordic nations deal with high levels of rape and abuse even as the countries lead in gender equality"

https://www.insider.com/women-in-nordic-countries-high-levels-of-rape-2019-4

porcelina

I am not sure that suggestions is listening. Because I know that I have pointed out women's safety and how this 'index' does not have any measures reflecting that safety unless women are actually dying in droves where it will reflect in the life expectancy.... and only then IF THE MEN AREN'T ALSO DYING EARLY.

I pointed this out months ago and asked repeatedly just how the fuck does this index have ANYTHING to do with the safety situation of women and girls impacted by SELF ID.

All we get is vague assurances that these people are 'experts' and that world leading policy makers use this information so.. blah blah blah. There is absolutely no indication at this stage that Suggestions has even got the basic knowledge of how to interrogate data OR how to establish how this fucking report is pulled together.

Every time we ask the questions, Suggestions disappears. Only to bring back the report as a fucked up gotcha in another thread. Once they even did it within days of us pointing out the fucking obvious issues - THAT THIS REPORT DOES NOTHING TO PROVE WHAT SUGGESTIONS WANTS IT TO PROVE!

As I said, it is just fingers in the ears every time. It must be embarrassing for them eventually. Maybe they will come back and actually show us that they DO have an understanding of the report. But if that was actually the case, we would have seen intelligent posting already telling us how it is relevant and taking us through the data.

I pointed this out months ago and asked repeatedly just how the fuck does this index have ANYTHING to do with the safety situation of women and girls impacted by SELF ID.

Kind of frustrating then if they keep bringing this up.

Although it's something different to the "KJK is being supported by bad people" argument, I guess.

It is that every fucking time it is posted, it is posted as if it is a brilliant 'gotcha'. And posted like there is this sense of moral superiority, that this report supports when it plainly is irrelevant in reality. As now numerous posters have pointed out. All with very pertinent points.

But it is always just ignored and we cycle around again.

Each time though more and more posters point out the embarrassing deficits in this 'gotcha'. Maybe this time it will break the cycle.....

Yes. Round and round. It's tedious. Stonewall need to teach their parrots some new catchphrases, we're all bored with the stock ones.

Support something

Missed a word. Sorry.

"While activists will be celebrating this, I suspect that if the plans for the rally goes ahead, and more violence ensues, that activists will then be forced to admit that it wasn’t the presence of KJK that caused the violence. It was just New Zealand women potentially speaking about their lives and their political wish lists.

And many more women will wake up that this is not ok. This is happening and is being described dishonestly by ‘the left’."

I hope I am wrong but I fear that things will get a lot worse for NZ women before they get better now KJK is out of the picture as the main focus of demonisation by the "Rainbow Community".

We already know that young men in NZ have no qualms about punching 70 year old women in the face because they believe them, incorrectly, to be "Nazis", that the police are reluctant to find and arrest them and that the legal system is content to let them off with a mild rebuke.

All that in the context of appalling levels of DV against women and the elevation to virtual sainthood of leading lights in the "Rainbow Community".

I really do hope that I am wrong but it looks like NZ is going to take a lot of turning around.

All we get is vague assurances that these people are 'experts' and that world leading policy makers use this information so.. blah blah blah.

^ Thats always funny as fuck to anyone who has ever produced a new report and needs to drill down into the underlying data or who has to remodel an historic existing one.

Sheep dip anyone? The UK government ordering farmers to wash the animals in a product developed as a chemical weapon. Warn the farmers that they themselves were being poisoned: nope, force suppliers to add warning lables: nope, run an education campaign to teach HCP about the symptoms: nope etc etc. But it did help sheep farming as a whole and for those not dying their lifestyles did improve untill NZ products began to be shipped to the UK.

If there is one thing that Maya's case proved its that some organisations have a why did the chicken cross the road attitude when it comes to collecting data for analysis. They have fuck all idea if the bird is a chicken but will be able to come up with reasons why it was a good idea that everyone accept that it is a chicken and sell that idea to someone for a fee too.

The whole financial crisis was based on very clever people in high paying specialist jobs creating reports and relying on crap data to fill any gap in their models. The whole financial system and all the major governments were patting themselves on the back over how the world financial system was doing just great. After all mortgage backed securities were as safe as houses. And the rating agency had supplied the gold stamp of approval. Lehman Brothers is a case study of world class respected experts and still the employee in the nice suit walked out with a little carbord box from a cleaned out desk to gave a "press statement" of job loss, of no wages and owing on the house loan and deferred share payment scheme not even good as toilet paper.

I had no idea of the misogyny in NZ! I admit I assumed because Jacinda Ardern was fab, so must be the people who elected her (and her party) PM.