How to Alienate Your Voters

Fear has been instilled in parts of New Zealand’s female population by the activist left’s ludicrous insistence that trans-women are ‘actual’ women and should have access to women’s public facilities, with the media jeering and laughing at their fears and the traditional, factual interpretation of “women’s”.

Radical trans-gender policy is forcing young women in schools to share toilets with boys, ignoring their pleas for privacy and creating safety issues. This incident happened six-and-a-half years ago, when, to a degree, freedom of speech and freedom of the press still existed.

In February 2017, a brave young Otago woman named Laura spoke up:

“As a girl I feel uncomfortable at a boy being in the same toilet as me. There are already gender-neutral toilets in the school. Girls going through puberty and stuff – it can be quite stressful and embarrassing. And knowing that there could be a guy that could walk in, it’s a little bit terrifying to think about that.”

She also said she feared cisgendered boys could manipulate the school’s stance. Her mother was quoted as being distraught and upset and she believed this was a moral and biological issue. Their pleas were ignored.

You will search in vain for stories like this today with the media being in lockstep with the government and academia in decrying anyone who speaks out with concerns, labelling them as “anti-transgender”. It is in the “fringe media” (to quote Jenna Lynch) and social media where it is clear the problem still exists.

A recent quote from a blog site on the gnarly subject of women’s right to safe public personal spaces struck a chord and summed up the seriousness of this issue:

“But for schoolgirls choosing to go all day with no fluid intake because they are too scared to have to go to the toilet with boys there… it’s a bigger issue.”

Actually, it is a health issue.

If she read these comments, would Nicola Willis still refuse to take a stand on this issue?

A vicious sexual attack on a young female pupil in Virginia by a transgendering male student and the cover up and denial of it by the school (Biden and Merrick Garland labelled outraged parents “domestic terrorists”) was a key catalyst in the state changing from blue to red in a by-election in 2021.

In August 2023 the Virginia Governor introduced legislation to protect young women in school toilets and changing rooms.

Willis, who is on record as saying, “I absolutely want to grow the women’s vote”, seems to be going the wrong way about it.

In an interview on The Platform, Willis responded to Sean Plunket’s query about her daughter’s safety in changing rooms: “It has literally never happened. It’s a bridge I have yet to cross. I have got this rule in politics: I deal with the actual events which happen in front of me, that are presented to me and that has never happened.”

With over 9000 views (at time of writing) and 554 comments, almost all negative about her response, it is clear that women and men are appalled she won’t take a stand for women, and at her callous response – putting radical ideology before consideration of her daughter’s safety and that of all of New Zealand’s young women.

Her alarming admission that “I have got this rule in politics: I deal with the actual events which happen in front of me”, indicates she lacks intellectual nimbleness and (I fear) would implement risk-management selectively.

Putting a tiny radical minority group’s desires above the safety of women is not freedom.

It is oppression, created by the tyranny of the minority.

Many have said online they will change their party vote to ACT or NZ First following Willis’s comments. However given ACT’s liberal social views, don’t count on their support. We need to hear David Seymour’s position on this, and the practical solutions he would demand from coalition partner(s) if in power.

A blanket rule (like National’s proposed mobile phone ban) would be easy to implement and would include the more liberal schools run by Jacinda’s disciples, who ignore their girls’ concerns.

That’s where NZ First comes in. Of course their policy No men in women’s spaces or sport will be labelled populist, and has already been jeered at by tone-deaf Tova O’Brien on Stuff and other media.

But Peter’s comments resonate well with me:

“This isn’t about anti anything or anti anyone. This is about standing up for common sense, safety and fairness for everyone.”

New Zealand First’s policy: No men in women’s spaces or sport:

1. Public Bathrooms and Changing Rooms: We will pass legislation to ensure that all new public organisations that provide publicly used facilities, including in areas of sport, education or commercially, must provide separate, clearly demarcated, unisex and single sex bathrooms. In addition, all current provision of publicly used facilities will not allow anyone access to facilities which are designed for the opposite sex use.
2. Public Funding for Sports: We will pass legislation to ensure any publicly funded sporting body that does not have an exclusive biological female category, where ordinarily appropriate, shall be immediately ineligible for any public funding.

Despite not having even read it, Christopher Luxon rejected NZ First’s policy on transgender people, bathrooms and sport outright, saying it’s “on another planet”. This is an insensitive and derisive reaction to an issue causing huge anxiety for many New Zealand women.

A simmering issue like this has the potential to become a big one in the election. Luxon and Willis’s refusal to engage, which shows by default their support for divisive social justice policies, could alienate their voter base.

Matthew Hooton says many of Luxon’s backers are ‘privately celebrating’ the resurrection of Peters in the polls, saying the “Luxon project” was for “restoration not revolution”. Hooton’s comments must be balanced with his ill-disguised open support of ACT and apparent dislike for National.

However, I tend to agree. Peters dealing with this and other delicate issues, like restoring  “New Zealand” as our country’s name in the public service and media (denying funding to media who don’t comply, whilst removing the radical bribe clause), would be an excellent start. As would be removing all the ‘Maori wonderfulness’ (and other) funding, unless it is targeted, monitored and audited with actual measurable outcomes demanded.

Peters is more like Rishi Sunak: strong in his beliefs, confident in articulating his position, ready to challenge any media opposition and intrepid in his advocacy for the safety and rights of women and the retention of traditional family values, which the majority of citizens still embrace, but fear articulating.

I tend to agree with Chris Trotter, who said on The Platform words to the effect that there is no middle ground any more. There are just two tribes.

So the mythical middle ground to which Willis and Luxon are desperately trying to appeal, as they flip-flop seeking the politically correct stance on gnarly issues, actually does not exist.

It must be said, however, that Luxon is doing the ‘basics brilliantly’, campaigning to full town halls, ramping up public interest in National, releasing good policy and along with his team presenting a united energetic front. They make the government look like ill-prepared amateurs. And I have full confidence in Luxon’s ability to get our economy and public services back on track when they (likely) win in October.

There is one obstacle with which to contend.

Despite leaving a trail of political destruction in his wake, lurking in the background, ready to attack like the shark in Jaws, is charismatic and seasoned politician, Winston Peters. I don’t believe his piece de resistance will be opposing National’s immigration or foreign investment policy; instead, his policy No men in women’s spaces and sport will strike a nerve.

Watch out National. You may have to share power with, not one, but two other demanding coalition partners.