Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 am, December 10th, 2025 - 43 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
The narrative is that this will be a one term government. From just a few of their actions, they should have been tipped out already eg tipping the scales to landlords during housing shortages, the many attacks on Te Reo/Maori/Te Tiriti, pay equity, Finance Minister bumbling incompetence and a leader that lacks charisma or leadership skills.
And yet, despite running a 'small target' tactic, Labour is, at best, neck and neck with the Nats.
A concerning contributor to this is the Lefts inability to unite. Bomber over on TDB is a shining example. Despite the plenty of good work he does (The Bradbury Group), he always seems to come up with a post that just tears the scab off any wound and sticks his grubby finger in it.
The latest is comparing the fringe US anti-vaxx stance with Aotearoa reforming puberty blocker use.
"The Antivaxxer madness of Amerika is coming here and we already see the alt-right culture war malice manifest in the transphobic decision to ban puberty blockers."
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2025/12/08/the-antivaxxer-madness-of-amerika-is-coming-here/
It is always going to be an issue.
The "right" react from fear, whether induced or real. They want to be part of the "right group". Interestingly the Conservative religious mind was just as apparent in Soviet Russia, as it is now in the USA and NZ. Being part of the "in group" of the powerful.
Right wing politicians know that appealing to fears, of crime, vaccines, the other, change, will garner them votes from conservatively inclined people. The more they can rack up fears, the more votes!
Left wingers on the whole are open to changes, new experiences, new thoughts, new information.
That means however, that getting the Left to agree on a united direction is like "herding cats".
You can add "diagnosable sociopath" to that list.
Makes sense. Fear of socioeconomic change is a powerful 'force' for conservatives to work with, and NAct1 (govt by and for the sorted) benefits from the popularity of its 'normal' Ponzi schemes – grow baby GROW, we're all gonna get rich ! ! !
"Straight old white man desperately grabbing out for relevance sticks his head into stuff he knows absolutely nothing about."
Puberty is not a disease. Children are not born in the wrong body and they have the right to go through the important stages of puberty with their bodies intact.
Chemical castration of same sex attracted and/or neurodivergent children is not supported by any reputable science and is the ultimate conversion therapy.
Puberty blockers were first used because of early physiological maturation (girls) and were used on a short term basis for social and psychological reasons.
There was no harm from this, the risk of harm occurs if used on a longer term basis.
I suspect your perception that it is those children "apparently born in the wrong body", that are the same sex attracted ones, is a fallacy.
The otherwise "neurodivergent" explanation is also inadequate.
it's well established that kids who turn out to be gay, and neurodiverse kids, are over-represented in children that transition. As well as children with trauma, including sexual assault trauma, eating disorders, and those with other mental health challenges.
Here's a starting point,
https://statsforgender.org/60-of-males-and-70-of-females-attending-the-worlds-largest-gender-clinic-gids-are-same-sex-attracted/
It's a site run by Genspect.
I suspect categorising other "gender" attraction (after "transition") as being "same sex" would lead their results.
Sure there are these other factors.
No it doesn't. There's other research that shows the same pattern.
For instance a recent Dutch study of adolescents and 'gender non-contentedness showed (as reported by New York Times),
The study reports:
There's earlier research that shows a similar patteern, that, if left to develop, without so-called 'gender affirming care, most who are unhappy with their sex tend to outgrow it. And most will be LG or B.
I, and many other lesbians I have talked with and read about or listened to online followed the pattern of 'gender non-contendedness in early adolescence, which disappeared over time. This is particularly true for those of us who were teenagers before the widespread promotion of the current transgender ideology.
I was well-known as a 'tomboy' in my childhood- preferred the kinds of activities most common with boys, IDed with male characters in screen, print and audio fiction. Hated wearing dresses or skirts.
At around 9yrs old I had an ongoing fantasy that I would magically turn into a boy. I had an extremely troubled puberty and teen years to early 20s. I hated all the changes that went with puberty, physically and in terms of social expectations and perceptions and the way I was treated. If adults had told me maybe I was a boy, and I could take medication to change it all, I'm pretty sure I'd have gone for it.
I'm very glad that never happened to me, knowing what I know now and having had a very stable and pretty successful adult life. I cannot understand why anyone would encourage children to take PBs with all the known risks, and with no evidence it is beneficial in the long term.
Bradbury makes a single comment about puberty blockers,
I only skimmed the post, but the problem here is twofold.
One is that we do in fact have a significant issue in NZ with the alt-right and religious right and their involvement in the gender/sex wars, and we need to be paying attention to that to prevent damage to people and society.
And, he's wrong in this position on gender/sex but also ignorant about why the PB ban happened.
A lot of the work was done by gender crits who aren't alt/religious right, some of them are left and centre left, some are centrists. Many are progressive rather than gender conservatives.
I'm sure that there is plenty of religious right influence on the government in this decision, maybe alt right too, and Peters is a loose unit who is very skilled at populism and using this issue to his political advantage without being particularly committed to it. But the science supports a precautionary approach and Bradbury is likewise a loose unit who comes across as someone who's jumped on the identity politics bandwagon (god knows why).
Completely agree.
Most commenters on Martin Bradbury's following post appear to disagree with him encouraging the Greens to criticise Labour:
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2025/12/09/the-genius-of-taxpayers-union-attacking-nicola-willis-and-what-the-greens-can-learn/
"Labour’s only fear is an attack from the Left because it highlights their hollowness.
The Greens should over the next year hit Labour every time they speak:
“This Hateful right wing Government is terrible, and all Labour are offering is a slightly less cruel version, the Greens are the only major party offering a true alternative….”
The Greens should knock Labour every chance they get and use the same dynamics at play that the Hard Right are enjoying".
Prior to the 2023 election Bradbury quite often criticised Labour and Jacinda Ardern, which likely added fuel to the online attack campaigns by the then Opposition parties and their supporters.
Most people weren't voting for a wealth tax, or a tax exemption from the first $20,000 or so of income, as more would have voted for Te Pāti Māori or the Green Party if these policies were a priority. Clearly many people voted against their own interests, as quickly became apparent.
The Coalition parties publicly appear to be collaborating, regardless of what is happening behind the scenes.
The Opposition parties should show that despite differences in their policies, they can work together for the benefit of the majority of NZers. Focus on co-operation, as division will not work.
I think it was last night's TV news where Chris Bishop branded the RMA as 'insane' legislation.
From memory, it's a 1991 act, so his party must have passed it into law.
Your are right. The RMA was developed under a Labour government but was passed with very few changes by a National Government. Effects based Planning rather than the old Rules based Town and Country Planning Act was quite revolutionary at the time.
Good of Hipkins to explain how our deep state agents operate:
So ministers must trust the agents who control their information flow, so as to ensure that they are only ever informed if the judgment of the agent determines that the information is sufficiently harmless, in accord with the doctrine of plausible deniability.
Some will assume these masterminds are public servants. Others will assume they are contractors, in accord with neolib free-market doctrine, a la public/private finance theory.
Others will probably prefer the covert hiring of party hacks theory. Which of those 3 groups is better at organised lying will be a moot point for a while yet, despite the astonishing clarity of the explanation produced by the lucid Hipkins.
@ KJT @ 1.1
Thanks for yr considered reply.
You are
rightcorrect when you say it is difficult for the left to unite. Made more so that traditional ways to organize and unite have gotten weaker. Eg unions, sports and social groups, scouting, religious groups.That doesn't mean we can't just hold our tongue. So often our outrage merely serves the little me, the ego when there is a far more important vision.
@Visubversa @ 1.2
There is an irony that the one of the "straight old white man's" targets is the 'middle class vegan mummy bloggers' signalling their virtue.
True – but "trans kids" are the ultimate status symbol. The Gucci handbag is so last year.
oh piss off. Comparing trans kids to Gucci handbags. You're appalling. .
I know I'm asking for trouble just reacting to your clearly firmly held beliefs on this topic, but what on earth did a trans person do to hurt you so much that you have to constantly attack a group of people?
please don't make this personal. If you can't follow Visub's argument then ask for clarification and stick to the politics.
I understand what she meant, despite it being a brief, sarcastic comment, and I get that others won't because No Debate means that in a left wing/progressive space like the comments section on TS there is often a big gap between those that understand the gender critical view and those that don't, but even so, there is an onus on people to learn about a topic if they want to get involved in the discussion.
btw, the rejoinder to your comment is why has the left abandoned detrans people to lifelong disabilities with little to no proper medical care?
Is there any difference between right wing and left wing governments in providing this care?
Are gender critical feminists demanding this care be provided?
Internationally and in NZ, RW and LW governments have both enabled and pursued GAC and abandoned detrans people. There should be specialised clinics by now, but in addition to the problems below, the medicine isn't there yet. The transition surgeries are experimental, and it's very difficult to do reconstructions later, so post-detrans care is medically, technically challenging. It's a medical scandal because many young people in particular couldn't give informed consent.
The other reasons that there aren't services for detrans people are because of the pressure from TRAs to deny the needs and reality and, ironically, existence of detrans people.
examples,
The whole gender ideology position is based on the idea that transness is inherent, is no a pathology, and transition should be treated like any other medical care. Detrans people threaten that idea.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/13/regret-transgender-surgery-nhs-detransition-service/
https://archive.is/RPos4#selection-2381.0-2381.479
Ritchie Herron is a good person to follow, because he's one of the detrans people who's talked in detail about the post-surgery and hormone complications.
Linked in that article is this one, on the NHS setting up the first detrans service in the UK. That article is from 2024. Afaik it hasn't been set up yet.
But of note,
Why is there no long term data? Because GIDS didn't keep any, and no-one has done the normal follow up research. Why is that? Cass tried to get the adult clinics to share their data, and they refused. Why is that?
Again, this is a medical scandal.
can you please put a bit more explanation into your comments like this? Because TRAs and allies are naturally going to not understand or misinterpret.
The ‘no debate’ engages.
Could explain their current 'popularity' – perhaps 'gay kids' aren't trendy anymore?
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose 🙁
P.S. Not a TRA, nor a TRA ally, but what’s not to understand or misinterpret?
yes, but in some places, kids transitioning is now on the decline. Thanks to GC/Fs and the kids themselves getting sick of the bullshit.
Needless to say, there’s a big difference between the public support for being gay, and giving kids puberty blockers and lying to them about what their life will be like in society as a transitioned person.
Yes, and might "the bullshit" also apply to Visubversa's comment @5.1? Trans and anti-trans radical activists typically leave me cold. I like the idea of people being able to conduct their personal business in a peaceful, law-abiding manner.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/transgender-trend-sharply-declining-american-college-campuses-new-analysis-finds
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321525000289
I don't think so, but I know what she is referring to. If you think her comment was bullshit, then please explain how.
Visub isn't an anti-trans activist. Nor am I. Not sure why you went there, seems a non-sequitur.
What are you referring to re peaceful/law abiding?
Yep. I have't dug into it, but it matches what people are saying in GC circles, including about younger kids. Which relates back to Visub’s comment. The social contagion didn’t just affect pre-teens and teens, it has affected some parents too.
Opinions appear divided – see 5.1.1. I took ""but trans kids" are the ultimate status symbol" at face value – just another ‘natural’ misinterpretation?
However, if "bullshit" is inaccurate, and/or too strong, how about 'unhelpful'?
In good faith, I "went there" simply because of your comment @5.1.3:
Re "What are you referring to re peaceful/law abiding?", I was refering to the idea that people have a right to conduct their personal affairs (in a peaceful and law-abiding manner) as they see fit. There's no hidden agenda here – I'm using 'peaceful' (not involving war or violence) and 'law-abiding' (obedient to the laws of society) in their generally accepted sense. The start of the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights may be of assistance:
As for the idea of "social contagion", it's not new.
Some of us have a life outside a computer and I have been busy. Just look at the number of "celebrities" happy to show off their "trans or non-binary" son or daughter. From Jamie Lee Curtis to David Tenent.
It is a tragedy that children and young people are being told that their reluctance to conform to sexist stereotypes and/or unhappiness with their changing bodies means that they should be subject to "off label" drugs and lifechanging and irreversible surgeries which destroy sexual functioning.
It is worse that they are being told these things at the behest of those that generally will not have such surgery themselves, but require the existence of "trans kids" to justify their paraphilia.
People should not comment on this until they have at least looked at the Cass Review. https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q837
Thanks Visubversa, I’m glad that we both have lives outside a computer, although for my health I try not to get too busy these days.
Yes, just look at them. I believe even some non-celebrity parents have been know to 'show off' their children – perhaps it's not that unusual.
Please have a look at the Cass Review and listen to the voices of de-transitioners. Children who were lied to and are now harmed for the rest of their lives.
Kids can wear what they like, call themselves whatever they want.
So called "puberty blockers" were developed for end stage prostate cancer and used to chemically castrate sex offenders until they were discontinued because of the side effects.
Dr Marci Bowers who used to chair WPATH and has spent decades doing genital surgery on older autogynephilic men has stated that a child 'blocked" at the Tanner 2 stage of puberty is likely never to have an orgasm. Children cannot consent to that sort of "care".
Browsed the final Cass review (doesn't mention the 'paraphilia' issue?) when it came out in April 2024. My thinking on trans youth issues has shifted over the years, thanks in part to comments on The Standard, and is now more closely aligned with perspectives at odds with 'Cass'.
And, since my views have changed, they could always change again, but for how this has become a niche issue for me, and I try to refrain from joining the fray here. Sadly, on this occassion, I took the ““trans kids” are the ultimate status symbol” bait.
Re "Kids can wear what they like, call themselves whatever they want.", that is generous, and I believe it's also important to listen to trans young people, and to present proportional evidence of the benefits and harms of medical interventions.
When your source has qualifications equal to those of a Professor of Pediatrics and the qualified researchers from the University of Leeds – and spends 4 years doing the research and reviews – then you can quote them.
Thanks for your guidance on who I can quote. I acknowledge that you and the Cass reviewers were / are motivated by the best of intentions.
Please take a look at the professional backgrounds of the authors of that recent critique of the Cass review, and then at least consider the possibility that they are motivated by a commitment to "evidence-informed health care for trans and gender-diverse people of all ages."
Some may regard the provision of trans health care matters as done and dusted – I see it more as a work in progress.
Understanding anything that isn't them seems beyond these hateful pricks.
/
Wes Streeting must stand up to the ADHD activists
I can help with the minister’s review: some people are just confused by life
On Wednesday I received an email which was pretty much interchangeable with half a dozen other emails I receive every month. Sometimes they’re about an aspiring TV presenter; other times it’s a fading pop star. This one was about an author, and the publicist offered up in the first sentence what made this particular author so interesting: she had received a diagnosis of ADHD.
[…]
Maybe Wes Streeting received the same email because the next day the health secretary announced he had ordered an independent review of whether ADHD, autism and certain mental health conditions are being overdiagnosed. The statistics are certainly bad enough to break anyone’s brain. Between 2019 and 2021 there was a 3,200 per cent increase in the number of British women taking online ADHD tests. Judging from my email inbox, that has now increased by more than 1,000,000 per cent. Of more concern for the government is that between 2019 and 2024 the number of 16 to 34-year-olds off work with mental health conditions rose by a nationally devastating, and socially tragic, 76 per cent.
https://archive.li/3t4VV [thetimes]
What's happened to the Daily Review lately? I appreciate that as a second commenting free-for-all each day, it always was a bit redundant. But it did mean that anyone posting late in the day had a better chance of being read than if they had to tack their piece on to the bottom of OM and hope that people had the stamina to scroll through to the end.
It's probably not really worth having a "Daily Review" as the number of comments / commentors isn't really that high. Over the weekend open mike it didn't even get in to double digits!
Donald Trump now dictates National Party policy! What next, we’ll be in the Caribbean supporting murder?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360912227/bill-make-tech-giants-pay-local-news-halted-because-trump-minister-says
”National Minister Paul Goldsmith has hinted that a bill designed to make big tech companies help fund local media was halted because of Donald Trump’s election.
Introduced by the previous Labour Government, the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill was designed to get the likes of Google and Meta to pay for news content.
If passed, the bill would help news companies secure tens of millions of dollars, a massive boost to the news media sector.”
As I recall, Mr Goldsmith's predecessor (Melissa "Actua" Lee) was always dragging the chain too on this one, long before the 2024 US elections.
Hmm. I'm inclined to share his caution despite my view that the Labour bill was on the right track. The entire relation of news value to society is involved: allowing media corps to privatise it via publishing reports of events and interpretations of those is a double-sided thingy. I support their right of free speech whilst disapproving what they do with it! I guess the rubber hits the road via reprints of original reports, eh?
Who owns those? The originator, if one is an ethicist. The copier, if one is human. Both, if one is ambidextrous! An issue for supreme courts everywhere…