Short answer, no.

Much longer answer: Marianne Elliott has written a Twitter thread about fear, manipulation and ‘cis’ women. I want to rip into it partly because it’s funny, but also because I have a lot to say on this that is relevant to NZ and hopefully gives her some things to think about.

Marianne is someone who is well respected in NZ’s NGO community. She’s done loads of important work and has influence. I don’t think she’s a bad person or anything, so my critiques here are about the content and what’s going on generally regarding any critiques of sex-self-ID policy in NZ.

I am not advocating removing all Marianne’s human rights just because I disagree with her, or attempting to ‘erase’ her (I assume we have to make these disclaimers now).

Her thread is presumably in response to Rachel Stewart’s most recent column ‘TERF a derogatory term to shut down debate’ as well as the opposition by groups like Speak Up For Women and the Lesbian Rights Alliance Aotearoa to one step self-declared sex change law which is currently going through the NZ parliamentary process.

I’m going in …

[The first tweet reads ‘I’ve been thinking a lot this week about transphobia, and the way that fear can be created and exploited for the purpose of oppression. I recently went to the Museum of African American History and the Holocaust museum in DC. Both tell this story.’]

Tweet 1: Marianne has been thinking. I don’t have any major issues with that, so I’m going to use this chance to define some terms she mentions. Feel free to skip this ‘showing your working’ bit & head to tweet 2.

Oppression:

‘a system of interrelated barriers and forces which reduce, immobilize and

mold people who belong to a certain group, and effect their subordination to another group.’ — Marilyn Frye

Transgender:

‘an umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is culturally typically associated with the gender/sex they were assigned at birth.’ ‘Some people who fit this definition may not consider themselves to be under the transgender umbrella or transgender’ and ‘a transgender identity is not dependent upon medical procedures.’ — Gender Minorities Aotearoa

Gender identity:

‘one’s actual, internal sense of being male or female, neither of these, both, etc. Everyone has a gender, including you.’ — Gender Minorities Aotearoa

Gender expression:

‘the physical expression of one’s gender through clothing, hairstyle, voice, make up, body shape, etc.’ — Gender Minorities Aotearoa

Transphobia:

“ignorance, fear, dislike, and/or hatred of trans* people, which may be expressed through name-calling, disparaging jokes, exclusion, rejection, harassment, violence, and many forms of discrimination (refusing to use a person’s name/pronoun, denial of services, employment, housing)” — The World Professional Association for Transgender Health

So in plain English you are trans if:

your actual internal sense of being male or female, neither of these, both etc differs from what is culturally typically associated with your sex, or the actual internal sense of being male or female, neither of these, both etc differs from that which was assigned to you at birth

or if

the physical expression of your actual internal sense of being male or female, neither of these, both etc through clothing, hairstyle, voice, make up, body shape differs from what is culturally typically associated with your sex, or the actual internal sense of being male or female, neither of these, both etc differs from that which was assigned to you at birth.

And you are transphobic if you refuse to use those peoples preferred name, pronouns, say no to them using a certain service and/or treat them poorly.

I can’t imagine why feminists might find these definitions annoying to work with.

[The second tweet reads ‘I think the fear is very real for many people. In the same way that many Americans were genuinely afraid that desegregation would lead to white women being raped by black men, I think many cis-women are genuinely afraid of transwomen.’]

There’s a lot to unpack here.

First off, as I am hopefully making irritatingly clear: any male could be a transwoman. For all we know Bill English and John Key are both transwomen in the closet. Being trans is about your inner identity and how you conceptualise yourself, not dysphoria, distress, how you express yourself or alter your body (except when it is). That means as females if we see a male we have no way of telling if he identifies as transgender or not.

By cis-women Marianne means female people. I am going to refer to female people from now on, and include females who identify as trans in that category. I don’t see value in using the term cis. Everyday Feminism says ‘cis’ means ‘your nature successfully paired you with your culture’. I reject the idea that any woman is ‘naturally’ suited to a culture in which women are beaten, raped and thought of as secondary to men. [Further reading]

Here in Aotearoa there are over 33,000 incidents of male violence against women reported to the police and followed up by Women’s Refuge each year. At least 80 per cent of family violence incidents are not reported to the police. Renée Gerlich has more stats here. This male violence against women is traumatising for many women. Dhejne et al. 2011 showed males who identify as trans show male-pattern criminality, including in violent crime. We see this in UK and NZ’s prisons too — if trans identified people had offending patterns that matched the sex they identify as, our prisons would have mostly ‘transmen’ (female people) in them. Instead we have mostly ‘transwomen’ (male people) in them, with clear male-pattern offending. Therefore, yeah, women being cautious of males who insist they are women does appear to be justified.

Sidenote: Marianne later said Dhejne et al. 2011 is ‘commonly misinterpreted’, but she doesn’t specify how or by who. I assume she means she had read this Reddit AMA. In this AMA, one author claims people misrepresent Dhejne et al. by saying trans-identified males have an increased criminality compared to other males. I’ve responded here because that’s not what we argue: we argue males who identify as women are as risky as other males. Here’s a quote from my spoken submission at Select Committee about risks of potential introduction of sex-self ID measures:

“The research so far — which is important because we need to be making evidence-based decisions — shows that even when men identify as female (overseas) they retain male-pattern violence or they retain patterns of violence that are much higher than the amounts of violence we see in females so we know that it’s a public health issue as soon as we talk about putting these males into women’s spaces even when they fully identify as female.”

In Renée Gerlich’s spoken submission she said, “Internationally, it has been shown that trans identifying males retain male pattern violence. This Bill would also skew reporting on that violence.”

In my written supplementary evidence I pointed out,

“Organisations representing transgender individuals in New Zealand have failed to commission or cite a single study which demonstrates that men who ‘identify as women’ display a rate of violence at or below the female crime rate.”

I think if women like Marianne are going to continue smearing the evidence we use to justify our stance, the least they could do is provide a strong counterargument and evidence.

Evidence so far shows that the risk males pose to females is based on biological sex (possibly because of socialisation on the basis of biological sex) and not on the basis of ones actual internal sense of being male or female, neither of these, both etc.

I’m going to leave the offence of bringing up the Holocaust and oppression of African American’s aside as many others addressed that on Twitter. I think Dr Jane Clare Jones analysis was great, and I know Marianne’s already read that & she does acknowledge it was ‘unhelpfully inflammatory’. I’m hoping she will read this too so I’ll continue responding as one of the five outspoken NZ women that really, if we’re being honest, this thread is all about.

[The third tweet reads ‘That fear is built on a foundation of intentional misinformation driven by hatred then spread through fear and ignorance’]

Now we’ve established that what Marianne calls ‘misinformation’ may just be ‘information she doesn’t like’ what is she implying in this tweet? That female peoples justified caution of male violence and request for public consultation about a change in law may lead to a holocaust? That women asserting their rights led to Apartheid?

Is the ‘intentional misinformation’ she’s referring to this letter by a grassroots self-funded feminist group? This is the only group I can think of intentionally campaigning on this issue in NZ. The group says to the MP sponsoring the sex-self-ID bill:

“We urge you to support public consultation around this significant proposed change to the legal definition of “female,” and a review of how the proposed changes will affect sex‐based exemptions under the Human Rights Act.”

I think it’s quite a leap to characterise women asking for public consultation as ‘intentional misinformation driven by hatred’. In fact, pick any ‘gender critical’ submission to the select committee and see if it’s full of misinformation. This one is probably dodgiest and it’s still okay.

[Note for anyone reading: At the stage we submitted sex-self-ID wasn’t in the bill, so we had to make submissions against the hypothetical idea that it may be introduced.]

Perhaps the misinformation Marianne is referring to is me saying this law change risks changing our rights on the basis of sex. In which case, some friends and I have given every single MP the opportunity to clarify whether that’s true or not.

The email said:

“We understand parliament is considering implementing full legal sex changes based solely on “self declaration”. This would allow males to be legally recognised as females and vice versa. How will females retain their right to female only spaces, services & provisions if males can be legally recognised as females?”

We got a reply from Hon Tracey Martin’s office saying, “I have noted your concerns about the impact of the bill on women, including the safety of women-only spaces” and saying that submissions to Select Committee have closed. No answer.

I’ve asked Marama Davidson and many other politicians the question directly.

Tweet Charlie Montague to Marama Davidson on August 20 reading, “I believe in females right to female only spaces, services and provisions — especially given how many of us have been raped, beaten or had women we know murdered by male-bodied people. Do you?”

No answer. I asked Davidson this question in person on Sept 7th at a public event. She said, “I’ve been ambushed! You ambushed me! You should’ve set up a meeting with me to discuss this!” and left the gathering.

Of course, people with issues with sex-self-ID are almost always denied meetings with MPs to discuss these things.

You might notice at this point that the questions we ask are about female-space, female rights and protecting those things — not about taking away the human rights of others. I think it’s cynical and lazy to frame us asserting our existing rights and seeking to protect them as being out to remove the rights of those who identify as trans.

I lay out the core of my argument from 2:50–4:30mins in the clip below (I was really burned out at the time so please forgive some of my awkwardness):

Now, still on the misinformation theme:

Marianne’s a Board Member of Action Station, an NGO who often collaborates with Gender Minorities Aotearoa. GMA clearly have an epic glossary. It includes this definition of ‘TERF’,

“Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism, or ‘Fundamentalist Feminism’, is a small but very vocal sub section of ‘Radical Feminism’, which is generally focused on removing human rights, legal protections, and access to medical treatments and supportive social environments for transgender people.

Fundamentalist feminists also tend to be anti-sex worker’s rights, anti-kink, anti-vaccination, anti-pharmaceuticals, and may be anti-contraceptives and anti-choice in relation to abortion.

Fundamentalist feminists have strong links to primitivism, ‘’back to nature’’, fundamentalist family values, and sometimes fundamentalist religious views.”

In NZ the term is routinely used to slur less than 6 women, none of whom meet the criteria above. ActionStation sanctions this misinformation by working with and promoting Gender Minorities Aotearoa.

GMA include this image in an article which only names Renée Gerlich and I:

This image says ‘They are Anti-Trans Extremists: Advocating Against Transgender human rights’. ‘they work to exclude us from public life, schools, health care, sexual violence services, women’s bathrooms, legal recognition, close our transgender youth suicide prevention services and contribute to fear, stigma, discrimination and violence. They are not feminists but anti-trans-extremists that do great harm.’ Image description continues in my post text.

After naming us in particular there are cartoon images of:

a person throwing a bottle at another person,

someone hunched over bleeding presumably stabbed in an alleyway,

a person in a dress slapping another person across the face,

a person pulling up a persons skirt,

a person pulling the bed sheet off someone in bed,

a worker at a computer throwing something at another worker,

a person fuming and holding a baton,

a person using a baton to beat someone in a dress,

someone lying on the street bleeding from their abdomen,

and a pile of 10 dead bodies.

In this, Renée Gerlich and I are painted as the physical abusers in each of these situations like we are physically dangerous. This vilifies us so that if we are punched, hit or beaten the community feels they can justify it as defence. “Punch a nazi” ring any bells? If Renée or I are beaten by trans-activists, I hope I will be able to name everyone I know who saw the way we were portrayed and stayed silent. I don’t believe for a second people who ‘care about safety’ like Marianne don’t see the risks of this.

If people truly thought I was a major risk to trans people, then why do they think I didn’t do something awful for the 4 years I lived among them? If trans people truly are 1–4% of the population, both Renée and I must come across them often. We obviously aren’t violent towards people who identify as trans.

I don’t know what meets Marianne’s criteria for “misinformation driven by hatred” is but I’d suggest this framing of two feminists might fit it.

Building on the beliefs of Gender Minorities Aotearoa, the Trans Dignity Collective made a submission to the NZ Ministry of Health opposing the collection of all biological sex data because “the concept of “biological sex” is inherently derogatory towards trans people.”

They go on to say “a field for “biological sex recorded at birth” is particularly bad as it implies a fixed concept that cannot be changed.”

This is your crew Marianne! Your people! Your own friends believe that mammals can change sex (they can’t), they tend to believe that biological sex is a social construct (it’s not) and yet even though you will have witnessed plenty of the above the people you choose to come after for ‘misinformation’ are feminists who’ve provided references and arguments but have a different power analysis to you.

[The fourth tweet reads, ‘Cis-women have a good reasons to be afraid. We have many centuries of experience of being violently harmed by cis-men. We’ve also had to fight, long and hard, for everything from spaces safe from violence to medical recognition of and respect for the way our bodies actually work.’]

Fourth tweet. I’ve had to explain this to Stephanie Rodgers before, and as someone who is obviously far more trans-literate than both of you I’ll take this opportunity to educate you about the rules of gender identity for the millionth time so far this post:

You can’t know anyones gender identity unless they tell you because it’s your actual internal sense of being male or female, neither of these, both etc. (don’t ask me what that is) Just like it’s wrong to randomly assume someone is ‘trans’ it’s also wrong to assume anyone is ‘cis’. Do you think all the witches were ‘cis’?

All we can say for sure is that we know there has been and is a pattern of violence from males towards females that is not present within the sex category ‘female’. There is no reason to exclude males who identify as transgender from the male sex category.

Also — if we had achieved respect for how female bodies actually work we probably wouldn’t have males claiming they get periods, promoting the idea a vagina is just a hole & saying that lesbians ‘can get over’ their orientation because dildos are the same as penises. #justsaying

[The fifth tweet reads, ‘I have no problem understanding how these experiences make some cis-women susceptible to fear transwomen. But I also believe that fear is the result of an intentional misdirection.’]

Let’s stop with the passive shit and start naming agents. An intentional misdirection by who? How? Please elaborate.

[The sixth tweet reads, ‘I don’t know if I’m expressing this very well, but I think the point I want to make is that the work of undoing the harm done by hatred-fueled misinformation about transwomen may fall on cis-women who see it for what it is.’]

As I said on twitter, no, you’re not expressing any of this well.

It seems you are saying that women who identify with what this culture has to say about women (‘cis’) should tell radical feminists (who do not identify with what this culture has to say about women) that we are wrong to be cautious of male people. You’re arguing that some males are exceptions and our issue is not seeing that. Guys who insist they’re women are nice guys, not like the rest of them!

You’re situating women as the oppressors, and not just oppressors but irrational, hysteric oppressors who need a good talking to. The ironic thing is: you could speak us into subservience (‘cis’) and males will continue to hurt gender non-conforming males... so you won’t have got to the heart of the problem anyway. Feminists are easy villains but taking us down won’t stop male violence.

So what could Marianne Elliott & others like her do to improve things?

She could stop intentionally misrepresenting feminist arguments. She could acknowledge there is a conflict between females sex-based rights and the introduction of “gender identity” based rights. She could apologise for misrepresenting women’s arguments and likening women to nazis, however unintentionally. She could apologise for saying women’s fears are ‘unfounded’ given reasons to be cautious of males are about as substantiated as you can get. She could reflect on what we have in common, and try use messaging from that point going forward. She could learn the difference between biological sex, “gender identity” and gender as radical feminists understand it. Defining terms without using circular logic would mean we have a common language to actually speak to each other with. She could go along to a Speak Up For Women event and speak. I’m sure they’d have you. She could even work with them to protect sex based rights and advance protections for those who identify as transgender. She could demand that male sports competitions are made into ‘open’ categories but women’s remain female only so we keep fairness in sport. She could make it clear she stands against the homophobic idea it’s natural and normal for lesbians to date male people (the ‘cotton ceiling’). The clearest and easiest possible way to improve the situation around this ‘one step sex change’ bill in NZ would be some politicians explaining how women’s sex-based rights and sex based statistics will remain protected in NZ law and how we will continue to be able to exercise the exemptions in the HRA. She could push for that to happen.

It’s not like there are no options here. It’s not like any of the above take away from the human rights of males who identify as women.

I think the reason left wing activists don’t do any of the logical things above because there is a fundamental clash here between trans politics and women’s sex-based rights that is politically inconvenient to acknowledge.

It’s not great for the narrative.

One final point before I go:

Where sex self ID laws or policies have been implemented so far and been abused, it is men that benefit and women who are hurt.

We’ve seen this with the male rapist Karen White moving to the women’s prison and sexually assaulting women, the male making money off suing 16 different female beauticians for not waxing his balls in Canada, the man who sued a woman in Norway who wasn’t expecting a male in her changing room and the male prioritised over women in the Toronto shelter this August. The impacts of this policy so far are sexist and that alone should be a red flag. [Bonus reading]

If a single man ever abuses this policy and rapes a woman, hurts a woman or otherwise harms a woman or girl then we’ve failed her. Wanting to safeguard against that happening is not an irrational fear, it’s a rational amount of care for other women.

Over and OUT,

⚢⚢⚢⚢⚢