A B'Old Woman

 Recently, upon someone’s recommendation, a woman from a small town here in New Zealand reached out to ask me if I might be able to help her sort a rainbow affliction at her local library. I can’t use her real name here, or the name of the town she lives in, because transactivists, transmaidens, and transbros walk amongst us. I think that’s all that has to be said to understand the need for protection. Therefore, I shall call her Paula, and her town will be referred to as Panga (Māori for riddle/puzzle ). Paula didn’t think that Panga’s library should be blatantly displaying rainbow ribbons and badges in a bowl on the front counter, or have rainbow-painted the outdoor seat, nor the free books box. Her initial concern was for children being exposed to this each time they visited the library, knowing how susceptible they are to suggestion, and what can result from that. Paula felt that rainbowing-up the library with enduring displays and fixtures, was aligning itself with indoctrination

 It wasn’t unexpected, but it was still gut-wrenching to hear a judge decide that women in Australia can no longer have female-only sanctuaries. None whatsoever, not for any reason. No man can be refused entry to any women’s space if he says he’s a woman. It’s that simple - and absolutely unconscionable for a judge to condemn the entire population of women in Australia to that. It also means that men can’t have their own sanctuaries, either, but the ramifications of that are vastly different than they are for women, of course. Today, I watched the Australian Federal Court livestream where the judgement was handed out re: Sall Grover’s ‘Tickle v Giggle’ legal case¹. A man who says he’s a woman, and who goes by the name of Roxanne Tickle, took Sall Grover to court for not allowing him access to her women-only multi-purpose app called Giggle. The judge decided that Sall was guilty of indirect gender-identity discrimination against the man who says he’s a woman – i.e. Tickle - and ordered

 Thursday this week¹ saw me once more winging my way to Wellington, this time to meet with NZ’s Law Commission to make an oral submission to them in person. It could have been done online, of course, as others did, but I wanted to meet them face-to-face, so I jumped on a big silver bird and went there instead. I was part of a combined delegation from the Women’s Rights Party and Mana Wāhine Kōrero to tell the Law Commission that putting the word ‘gender’ into the Human Rights Act was a terrible idea. As it turned out, some misunderstanding and miscommunication saw us presenting our oral submissions to them via Teams from an external meeting room, anyway. However, I still got the pleasure of an infrequent get-together with six other women in the delegation. The Law Commission has put together what they call an ‘ issues paper’ to review a proposal to put the ‘word’ gender’ into legislation. It’s a nightmare of blood-boiling bollox to any sensible-thinking person, and a wet dream for

 I’m off to Wellington on Thursday this week¹, as part of a combined delegation from the Women’s Rights Party NZ and Mana Wāhine Kōrero , to give an oral submission to a Law Commission panel. The Law Commission has put out an issues paper about including the word ‘gender’ in NZ’s Human Rights Act. Although the Law Commission is not a Public Service entity, they give the impression of being every bit as institutionally captured by gender ideology as our public service. I retain a small hope I’m wrong, but it’s doubtful. Looking at the ‘Expert Advisory Group’ whom the Law Commission consulted on the issues paper - and paid them well for it, I expect - there is a detectable theme of TQ+ and woke-leaning bios amongst them. Unsurprisingly, the issues paper has language running through it which is straight from the mouths of TQ+ lobbyists, and evidently adopted by the Law Commission. With this in mind it’s not unreasonable to anticipate, when it’s pointed out to the Law Commission how ‘gen

 “This is not for the faint-hearted” says Blair on engaging with his and Karen’s local school re: inappropriate content in the Ministry of Education’s ‘Relationships and Sexuality Education Guidelines’ (RSE). “You have to go in there with real determination.” The school kids in Mangawhai , on the upper east coast of the North Island, are lucky that both he and Karen have that in spades. Like an ever-increasing number of parents, grandparents, aunties, and uncles, Karen and Blair have strong objections to some of the sexuality and gender-identity content in the Ministry of Education’s ‘Relationships and Sexuality Education Guidelines’ (RSE). Here is a comprehensive analysis of those guidelines written by Family First. Blair, a solo dad who now home schools his son, had already been trying to engage with his son’s school over inappropriate sexuality and gender-identity content in the RSE Guidelines before Karen also got wind of it, and joined forces with him. Together with others, they