Hanging around the Edge of Your Conversations

in new zealand, our evil government are trying to legislate definitions of women and men, in ways that are legally incoherent but clearly trying to pave the way for more horrifically transphobic legislation. we have an election in a few months but our main opposition party, and all our mainstream news media, are so spineless and cooked that there's a good chance the ghouls will win reelection.

it took 2 whole months for local terf group 'speak up for women' to get 2,000 signatures on the petition that led to this new bill in our parliament.

it's taken five days for this pro-trans 'they don't speak for us' petition to get 17,000 signatures.

this is a show of support that is really heartening for a lot of trans people in our corner of the world.

cis/ish women, if you're from here but haven't signed yet, please do. and if you're not from here and you know any new zealanders, could you send them this petition? a full fifth of our population lives overseas, and there's a good chance they don't follow the news.

On December 2, Girlguiding announced that trans girls would no longer be welcome. That felt especially cruel and hit me especially hard, because this was a direct attack on children. It wasn’t framed as protecting the children, as is often the case. This time the mask had slipped, and for the first time, this was a direct attack on children themselves — trans children in particular, and it was framed as compliance to a recent Supreme Court ruling. As if the court had descended from the heavens with tablets of stone declaring that little girls like my great niece are suddenly not only “not girls” but also fair game because they’re “not like other children”.

Then, the very next day, the Women’s Institute (WI) released their own sombre statement. Beginning in April, they will no longer accept transgender women as members. Frankly, it looked like a hostage video.

The WI is an absolute institution here here in the U.K. Technically, it’s a membership organisation for women, who meet up in village halls once per month, but in reality, it’s the heartbeat of village life. It’s known for jam making, choir singing, crafts, and community. For many older women, it’s a genuine lifeline — a place to go for routine and friendship in a world where social spaces are disappearing.

And now, after forty years of quiet, uneventful trans inclusion, the WI is closing the door. Not because they wanted to. Not because there was ever an issue — it’s not as if trans women were storming the jam-making classes and causing a riot. They are doing it because they felt “forced.” They claimed a recent Supreme Court ruling made their position “untenable.”

To get why they are so scared, you have to look at how earlier this year, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that in specific parts of the Equality Act, “sex” refers to biological sex. That’s it. It didn’t ban trans women from any spaces. It didn’t say we aren’t women socially or culturally. It just cracked open a legal door.

But anti-trans lobby groups pounced. They realised they could weaponise this ruling to pressure any group with “women” or “female” in its name. They are actively hunting for targets: Girlguiding, the WI, the Ladies’ Pond on Hampstead Heath, book clubs, choirs. Anything that looks vulnerable.

The WI and Girlguiding were the perfect victims. They are beloved British institutions, sure, but they are financially fragile. They run on volunteers and bake sales, not corporate budgets. They knew a single lawsuit could bankrupt them. So, they folded. Not because inclusion was risky, but because the litigation was.

That is the sad reality: the Supreme Court ruling is being used as a bludgeon. It’s not about clarity or safety. It’s about intimidation — squeezing the kindest, gentlest institutions until they push us out.

How many times countries are mentioned in Epstein files?

A 19th-century Kwakwaka’wakw "transformation mask" from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, inspired the team's logo

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-14/the-indigenous-art-behind-the-seahawks-helmet

Noting Rowling’s vast financial success, Barker felt that Rowling’s newfound position of fame ought to exclude her from discussing trans rights. He added, “It really just seems redundant for a woman as successful, as validated in the world, as Ms Rowling, to be negative, to be disruptive if you will, to a very beaten up subculture. These are human beings. She has no right to opine, I think, upon the lives of human beings that she does not know.”

“I feel very protective of people who are on the edge of our culture as gay people still are,” Barker continued. “And certainly transgender people are on the edge of our culture. And here you have one of the most successful people in the frigging world – Ms Rowling. Going after a very emotionally vulnerable portion of our culture. It just seems unnecessary and unfair.”