Politics

[Minimoke]

What odds on a hung parliament?  ACT has got a wee bit of the wobbles - down to 8.8% on the latest poll.  They do themselves no favours when the push the nice but dim, Karen Chhour into the media.

I'm not discounting that possibility - Seems to me as each day that goes by this is becoming a mare likely proposition.

Labour seem to be bleeding votes to the Greens. And NZ First. And National  and ACT seem to be bleeding votes to NZ First.

National and ACT don't have enough votes to have a clearly majority in the house. So its going to come down NZ First success.

I'm a bit staggered on how short term memories Kiwis have. Winston hasn't worked in a National led Government since 1998. Since then he has work with Labour 2005 - 2008 and 2017-2020. And it was obvious in his Coalition Acceptance speech he was a long way removed form Nationals core principles. Its crazy to think Winston can be trusted to support a national led government. Which leaves him defacto supporting Labour. Is this what NZ really wants? (We'll find out on the 14th)

[Untamed]

This is what people fail to comprehend. Nobody chooses to be transgender, anymore than they choose to be heterosexual or homosexual. It is simply how they are. What they can choose, is whether or not they transition to the gender they instinctively feel they are. Some trans people choose hormone therapy and/or gender reassignment surgery. Many do not. There is no right or wrong way to be trans. Every trans person is simply wanting to live their life in the gender they "are" regardless of what their biological sex is. They are hurting nobody. Yet so many people seem incapable of even trying to understand what it means to be transgender, or to demonstrate any level of empathy. Not compassion - empathy.

I have said this elsewhere and people took offence at it, but a big part of the current societal "disgust" with all things trans, is the influence of porn. For whatever reason, a small percentage of trans people have found their way into the porn industry - more than likely, for financial reasons. But, I can categorically tell you - the way you see transgender portrayed in porn, is so far removed from the reality, it is doing a huge disservice to trans people. It is just not like that. It just isn't. And before anyone gets their knickers in a knot at the suggestion they may watch porn - lots of people do. Male and female. Unless it becomes an "issue" there is zero judgement on my part.

Anyway, I know I am wasting my time trying to enlighten anyone, but as the friend of someone who is transgender, I have a duty to at least try.

"gender reassignment" is fascinating. How is that we have got to the point that we think a person is defined by their reproductive organs and we are prepared to support the physical changes to those organs so a person can feel better aligned with the gender they choose to assign themselves

I wonder if we would find it acceptable if we supported Race Reassignment Surgery, because race also is a social construct and some people may feel they are born to the wrong race.

And I'm not sure there are many people out there who would support the removal of limbs from those people suffering from Body Integrity Dysphoria.

And how odd this has become such a political football.

[Minimoke]

This is what people fail to comprehend. Nobody chooses to be transgender, anymore than they choose to be heterosexual or homosexual. It is simply how they are. What they can choose, is whether or not they transition to the gender they instinctively feel they are. Some trans people choose hormone therapy and/or gender reassignment surgery. Many do not. There is no right or wrong way to be trans. Every trans person is simply wanting to live their life in the gender they "are" regardless of what their biological sex is. They are hurting nobody. Yet so many people seem incapable of even trying to understand what it means to be transgender, or to demonstrate any level of empathy. Not compassion - empathy.

I have said this elsewhere and people took offence at it, but a big part of the current societal "disgust" with all things trans, is the influence of porn. For whatever reason, a small percentage of trans people have found their way into the porn industry - more than likely, for financial reasons. But, I can categorically tell you - the way you see transgender portrayed in porn, is so far removed from the reality, it is doing a huge disservice to trans people. It is just not like that. It just isn't. And before anyone gets their knickers in a knot at the suggestion they may watch porn - lots of people do. Male and female. Unless it becomes an "issue" there is zero judgement on my part.

Anyway, I know I am wasting my time trying to enlighten anyone, but as the friend of someone who is transgender, I have a duty to at least try.

In case there is any confusion I didn't say a person chooses to be transgender. I said they choose the gender they assign to thmesleves.

The starting point is that a person does not feel comfortable in the body they find themselves in. And for some this causes distress. From this point the person can choose from one of at last 100  other gender ideates that they now been recognized. Once the choice of which genders most closely aligns with the feeling associated with the body the person can then choose whether or not to go through reassignment options. Of which there is now a growing choice. From puberty blockers, chest binding to full on physical surgery.

And it is something very different from sexual orientation - and it would be wrong to conflate the two. It was morally wrong, and now illegal to suggest that a persons sexual orientation can be changed. Conversion therapy is out lawed. Yet we continue to recgonise gender conversion is fine.

[Untamed]

No they don't. They "are" the gender they instinctively feel they are. The only choice they make, is whether or not to undertake the medical interventions I mentioned.

In case there is any confusion I didn't say a person chooses to be transgender. I said they choose the gender they assign to thmesleves.

The starting point is that a person does not feel comfortable in the body they find themselves in. And for some this causes distress. From this point the person can choose from one of at last 100  other gender ideates that they now been recognized. Once the choice of which genders most closely aligns with the feeling associated with the body the person can then choose whether or not to go through reassignment options. Of which there is now a growing choice. From puberty blockers, chest binding to full on physical surgery.

And it is something very different from sexual orientation - and it would be wrong to conflate the two. It was morally wrong, and now illegal to suggest that a persons sexual orientation can be changed. Conversion therapy is out lawed. Yet we continue to recgonise gender conversion is fine.

[Minimoke]

No they don't. They "are" the gender they instinctively feel they are. The only choice they make, is whether or not to undertake the medical interventions I mentioned.

Lets try this .

Say there is a monastery and its all full of men and boys. No women at all to be seen 24 hours a day. No womanly or outside influences. They are just basically hermits. And one day a one week old boy is dropped off in a basket on the door step. And this boy grows older. And later in life gets this really strong feeling he is not in the right body. To the point he is quite distressed about it it. How does he know what is the "right' body?

(Veering off topic a bit I know. But identity politics seems to be quite the thing nowadays)

[Untamed]

This is really not the place to have this discussion, but the vast majority of people who are transgender, have known it, since they were very young. They didn't have a label for it of course, but they had a strong, inherent knowledge of who they were, and they knew their physical body, did not match that feeling/knowledge. I get that it is hard to understand, especially for men, but it is actually not rocket science if one has an open mind. I have a friend who is transgender. I cannot share her personal story for obvious reasons, but what I can tell you is this. For the sake of clarity, let's assume that one's biological sex is female or male. And  that gender is woman or man. My friend was biologically male, but she knew from the age of about 3-4, that she was a girl. There were no outside influences or pressures from parents or anyone else (her parents did not become aware of it until much later). She is a few years older than me, so back then transgender was not a topic of public discussion. So again, no outside influences of any kind. But she knew. She even had a girl's name for herself - which she now uses, some 60 years later. She has been on hormone therapy for many years, but sadly, has never been able to afford gender reassignment surgery (she is in the US). She shared a very detailed and enlightening story with me when I first met her, and while she may not be a biological female, she is every bit a "woman" as I am. One's gender is not related solely to one's physical body. Which is the bit so many people struggle to understand. Trans people are not trying to be biological females/males. They are just trying to live a normal life as the woman or man they "are" in every sense of the word, other than biologically. Nobody is forcing anyone to be transgender. Nobody is manipulating anyone. Nobody is doing reassignment surgery on kids or young teenagers. Trans people pose no more threat to the general population, or to our kids, than anyone else does. They are far more likely to be victims of rape or violent attacks, than are they are, to be perpetrators. They are human beings just like you and I, and they deserve to be able to live their lives in peace, without judgement and ridicule, or prejudice.

That is all I have to say.

Lets try this .

Say there is a monastery and its all full of men and boys. No women at all to be seen 24 hours a day. No womanly or outside influences. They are just basically hermits. And one day a one week old boy is dropped off in a basket on the door step. And this boy grows older. And later in life gets this really strong feeling he is not in the right body. To the point he is quite distressed about it it. How does he know what is the "right' body?

(Veering off topic a bit I know. But identity politics seems to be quite the thing nowadays)

[BlackPeter]

We didn't have "gender" 60 years ago. It is a reasonably modern social construct with one of the main developers being Dr Money.

The registry officer may have made a decision on what box to tick (I have no idea  but its your argument so burden falls on you to prove it) but if he did he would have ticked a "sex" box. And would have got it right for pretty much 100% of the new born population.

Heres a 1940 birth cert. No mention of sex. Or gender
https://stocktalk.co.nz/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=1139;type=preview

Or howabout this in 1960. Its the NZ Stats report on our population. It only talks and reports on 2 "sex's" - not one single mention of "gender"

https://www3.stats.govt.nz/New_Zealand_Official_Yearbooks/1960/NZOYB_%201960.html#idsect1_1_18461

How is any of this relevant for the discussion? 

[Administrator]

Hey guys, I am happy to see this has remained civil given the topic of discussion. Regardless, please end the discussion of gender/sex here. It has no relevance to investing, is controversial and high risk in terms of causing complaints or bad blood.

[Hectorplains]

I'm not discounting that possibility - Seems to me as each day that goes by this is becoming a mare likely proposition.

Labour seem to be bleeding votes to the Greens. And NZ First. And National  and ACT seem to be bleeding votes to NZ First.

National and ACT don't have enough votes to have a clearly majority in the house. So its going to come down NZ First success.

I'm a bit staggered on how short term memories Kiwis have. Winston hasn't worked in a National led Government since 1998. Since then he has work with Labour 2005 - 2008 and 2017-2020. And it was obvious in his Coalition Acceptance speech he was a long way removed form Nationals core principles. Its crazy to think Winston can be trusted to support a national led government. Which leaves him defacto supporting Labour. Is this what NZ really wants? (We'll find out on the 14th)

Tova O'Brien thinks a NAT-ACT-NZF alliance would struggle to govern together, like "petrol meets fire." 

[Minimoke]

Tova O'Brien thinks a NAT-ACT-NZF alliance would struggle to govern together, like "petrol meets fire." 

I'm not a big fan of Tova - I reckon she is  really biased. So I don't follow her musings.

But I don't see how anything with NZ First in it will work. Winston has had a few opportunities and blown them all. And Seymour has made it quite clear he wil really struggle to be in the same room.

Given I tend to err centre right (and I most certainly don't want to see Labour, Greens or maori party back in government I only see one positive election result And that is a National /Act majority government.

If NZ First are required in coallition or support to get that majority it will be a fail.

National / ACT cannot govern with less than 61 seats. Peter has said he won't go into government with Labour. But what he hasnt said is what he will do if he is forced to sit on the cross benches along side Labour.

I think it is quite possible for the results ending up with Labour, NZ First, Greens and Maori party holding the majority of the seats. And this would be a disaster for NZ.

The only solution is to not vote NZ First. Its time to keep Winston in the comfort to which he has become accustomed. And not give him another shot at meddling.

[Hectorplains]

I'm not a big fan of Tova - I reckon she is  really biased. So I don't follow her musings.

But I don't see how anything with NZ First in it will work. Winston has had a few opportunities and blown them all. And Seymour has made it quite clear he wil really struggle to be in the same room.

Given I tend to err centre right (and I most certainly don't want to see Labour, Greens or maori party back in government I only see one positive election result And that is a National /Act majority government.

If NZ First are required in coallition or support to get that majority it will be a fail.

National / ACT cannot govern with less than 61 seats. Peter has said he won't go into government with Labour. But what he hasnt said is what he will do if he is forced to sit on the cross benches along side Labour.

I think it is quite possible for the results ending up with Labour, NZ First, Greens and Maori party holding the majority of the seats. And this would be a disaster for NZ.

The only solution is to not vote NZ First. Its time to keep Winston in the comfort to which he has become accustomed. And not give him another shot at meddling.

That Peters is in the picture at all beggars belief.  He's like ringworm.  Itchy and irritating, hard to treat and just when you think you've finally seen the end of it... dang it's back again. 

[Ferg]

National / ACT cannot govern with less than 61 seats.

Wasn't there an example under FPP in NZ where the ruling party appointed a speaker from the opposition benches to ensure a slim majority?  Interesting thought experiment...but could be complicated by any TPM overhang.

That Peters is in the picture at all beggars belief.  He's like ringworm.  Itchy and irritating, hard to treat and just when you think you've finally seen the end of it... dang it's back again.

Reminds me of an old joke ... Which is the odd one out in this list:  Herpes, HPV, the common cold and Winston Peters?

The common cold given you can't get rid of the others.

[Minimoke]

Wasn't there an example under FPP in NZ where the ruling party appointed a speaker from the opposition benches to ensure a slim majority?  Interesting thought experiment...but could be complicated by any TPM overhang.
Reminds me of an old joke ... Which is the odd one out in this list:  Herpes, HPV, the common cold and Winston Peters?

The common cold given you can't get rid of the others.

the speakers vote goes automatically to his/her party on most votes. I dont recall what happens with conscience bills - i think the speakers vote goes wherever he wants it.i suspect brownlee will be next speaker

[Hectorplains]

Mayor Brown is providing the unlikeliest boost to Labour. Strange days indeed...

He's delivered a horror budget scenario, with a starting point for rates rising of 13% and water bills by more than 20%. This while the misery of this years rises of 7.7% for rates 9.5% in water is still forefront in Auckland's minds and emptier wallets . "A new Government could also make things worse, the mayor said, citing National's plans to abolish the Regional Fuel Tax and scrap Labour's Three Waters reforms."

National need to get out of second gear.  This is a prime example of their populist policy tripping them up.  The need to immediately scrap the 11.5 cents a litre Regional Fuel Tax has not been explained.  They can't even give a timeframe for the change to 'congestion charging' let alone sell the benefits. Now it's biting them on the bum.

National should be laser focused on policy addressing the living crisis.  It is the number one concern for Kiwi punters. Even Labour supporters are worried at the economic mis management of the country.  Instead, National are sloppy and making too much distracting noise.  They have themselves to blame for the spectre of NZF rising again.

[Hectorplains]

the speakers vote goes automatically to his/her party on most votes. I dont recall what happens with conscience bills - i think the speakers vote goes wherever he wants it.i suspect brownlee will be next speaker

Agreed, Speakers tend to go on the party list rather than contest electorate seats.  National release their list on Oct 14.  Brownlee will be in  the top 5 because he is a board nominee.