There are minorities and there are minorities.
Males at 49.7 percent of the New Zealand population are a minority. Māori are 17.8 percent of us. Those of Asian ethnicity are 17.3 percent. In the 2023 Census only 4.1 percent reported a sexual preference other than heterosexual.
Then there are those who say they’re transgender.
They number 26,097 people or 0.7 percent of population. Of those 5013 are biological women who identify as a man, and 5736 are men who say they’re a woman.
The other 15,348 are, well .. who knows? The official term is non-binary, whatever that means.
These numbers are important because way too much time and hot air has been dispensed arguing about the rights of transgender people who want to play sport, particularly at a community, or as we used to say, club level.
Three years ago, under the Ardern Labour government, Sport New Zealand introduced guidelines for transgender sports people saying they should be able to take part in games based on the gender they identified with.
Here’s the important bit: These were not hard and fast rules. Each sporting code could make its own regulations.
New Zealand Cricket said biological males could play in women’s club games if they identified as a woman. Women’s cricket has long been dominated by lesbians so if there have been any transgender players at club level nobody appears too upset by it. It may that be the LGBT+ community in women’s cricket welcomes transgender players.
Netball administrators said males who transition to female could play their sport if they had the appropriate (lower) levels of testosterone or gender reassignment surgery.
Rugby, as with many things, is still indecisive on the issue. They are still “developing” their policy but they believe in “ideally allowing people to play in the gender with which they identify.” That thinking immediately raises safety issues in a heavy contact sport and is unlikely to attract slightly built young female athletes knowing they could be facing a hulking bloke in the opposition.
The difference now with the guidelines being withdrawn is that sports which allow transgender participation, especially male to female transitioners, could lose government funding for their national sporting body.
In the case of New Zealand Cricket (NZC) it’s no big deal. NZC had income last year of $97.2 million which came from “sponsorship, grants and other activities.” NZC reported a surplus. Their funding from Sport NZ came through High Performance Sport New Zealand (HPSNZ) and was $500,000 for the White Ferns, the national women’s team. The most recent figures for any government contribution for lower level cricket are from 2021 when NZC received just $160,000.
So in a $100 million dollar operation like NZC, government funding accounts for less than 1 percent of income. Their policy towards transgender players is unlikely to change. If the women are happy to have biological males playing against them at club level then who’s to worry?
For netball it’s a different story. Netball New Zealand’s annual revenue is under $30 million and they’re in line to get over $2 million a year for the next three years for the Silver Ferns as they try and win Commonwealth Games and World Cup titles. There’s also government money each year for lower level netball which was $66,000 in 2021 but the amount is unable to be verified for subsequent years.
Therefore netball may be looking very closely at its “inclusion” policies and decide that for the sake of around ten percent of its annual income it’s best that males don’t play in female teams.
Then there’s the big money player in New Zealand sport – rugby. NZR had revenue last year of $285 million. The Sport NZ and HPSNZ contributions to that are centered around funding for the Olympic Sevens teams. For each of the next three years until the 2028 Los Angeles games there’s $2.2 million a year. NZR likely also receives about $300,000 in Sport NZ funding for lower level initiatives.
As with cricket, rugby’s government funding is a drop in the big funding pool, although with regular annual losses – it was $19.5 million last year – losing any revenue source should be of concern.
Rugby’s biggest issue on transgender matters is safety. Jennifer Shields of Qtopia, a transgender advocacy group, claims the science on male muscle versus female muscle is not settled and the disparity between transwomen and cis women (actual female women) is “not as clear as you would think.”
To which most physiologists and clear thinking people would say one word – nonsense.
The move by Sport NZ to drop its inclusivity clause was part of the coalition agreement. It was always going to happen especially if championed by the dogged Winston Peters.
Those sports which can afford to allow transgender women to play in women’s matches will continue to do so. The number of such participants is unknown but it’s likely to be miniscule.
Most transgender sports participants, and those whose presence create the most issues, are biological males in women’s games. According to the census there are 5736 such people in the entire country. Surveys suggest only 14 percent of them play sport.
So just over 800 people. A minor minority.
The rules should be simple. If you’re a biological male and you will have a physical advantage in a women’s sports you can’t compete. We know what those sports are. Rugby, rugby league, netball, weightlifting and boxing are among them.
They’re the ones that have separate men’s and women’s competitions for a reason.
If there’s no physical advantage then mix it up and fill your boots. Equestrian, bowls and archery already do.
Otherwise stay in your lane, and in your gendered competition.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced
The other 15,348 are, well .. who knows? The official term is non-binary, whatever that means.
These numbers are important because way too much time and hot air has been dispensed arguing about the rights of transgender people who want to play sport, particularly at a community, or as we used to say, club level.
Three years ago, under the Ardern Labour government, Sport New Zealand introduced guidelines for transgender sports people saying they should be able to take part in games based on the gender they identified with.
Here’s the important bit: These were not hard and fast rules. Each sporting code could make its own regulations.
New Zealand Cricket said biological males could play in women’s club games if they identified as a woman. Women’s cricket has long been dominated by lesbians so if there have been any transgender players at club level nobody appears too upset by it. It may that be the LGBT+ community in women’s cricket welcomes transgender players.
Netball administrators said males who transition to female could play their sport if they had the appropriate (lower) levels of testosterone or gender reassignment surgery.
Rugby, as with many things, is still indecisive on the issue. They are still “developing” their policy but they believe in “ideally allowing people to play in the gender with which they identify.” That thinking immediately raises safety issues in a heavy contact sport and is unlikely to attract slightly built young female athletes knowing they could be facing a hulking bloke in the opposition.
The difference now with the guidelines being withdrawn is that sports which allow transgender participation, especially male to female transitioners, could lose government funding for their national sporting body.
In the case of New Zealand Cricket (NZC) it’s no big deal. NZC had income last year of $97.2 million which came from “sponsorship, grants and other activities.” NZC reported a surplus. Their funding from Sport NZ came through High Performance Sport New Zealand (HPSNZ) and was $500,000 for the White Ferns, the national women’s team. The most recent figures for any government contribution for lower level cricket are from 2021 when NZC received just $160,000.
So in a $100 million dollar operation like NZC, government funding accounts for less than 1 percent of income. Their policy towards transgender players is unlikely to change. If the women are happy to have biological males playing against them at club level then who’s to worry?
For netball it’s a different story. Netball New Zealand’s annual revenue is under $30 million and they’re in line to get over $2 million a year for the next three years for the Silver Ferns as they try and win Commonwealth Games and World Cup titles. There’s also government money each year for lower level netball which was $66,000 in 2021 but the amount is unable to be verified for subsequent years.
Therefore netball may be looking very closely at its “inclusion” policies and decide that for the sake of around ten percent of its annual income it’s best that males don’t play in female teams.
Then there’s the big money player in New Zealand sport – rugby. NZR had revenue last year of $285 million. The Sport NZ and HPSNZ contributions to that are centered around funding for the Olympic Sevens teams. For each of the next three years until the 2028 Los Angeles games there’s $2.2 million a year. NZR likely also receives about $300,000 in Sport NZ funding for lower level initiatives.
As with cricket, rugby’s government funding is a drop in the big funding pool, although with regular annual losses – it was $19.5 million last year – losing any revenue source should be of concern.
Rugby’s biggest issue on transgender matters is safety. Jennifer Shields of Qtopia, a transgender advocacy group, claims the science on male muscle versus female muscle is not settled and the disparity between transwomen and cis women (actual female women) is “not as clear as you would think.”
To which most physiologists and clear thinking people would say one word – nonsense.
The move by Sport NZ to drop its inclusivity clause was part of the coalition agreement. It was always going to happen especially if championed by the dogged Winston Peters.
Those sports which can afford to allow transgender women to play in women’s matches will continue to do so. The number of such participants is unknown but it’s likely to be miniscule.
Most transgender sports participants, and those whose presence create the most issues, are biological males in women’s games. According to the census there are 5736 such people in the entire country. Surveys suggest only 14 percent of them play sport.
So just over 800 people. A minor minority.
The rules should be simple. If you’re a biological male and you will have a physical advantage in a women’s sports you can’t compete. We know what those sports are. Rugby, rugby league, netball, weightlifting and boxing are among them.
They’re the ones that have separate men’s and women’s competitions for a reason.
If there’s no physical advantage then mix it up and fill your boots. Equestrian, bowls and archery already do.
Otherwise stay in your lane, and in your gendered competition.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced
5 comments:
It all sounds lovely and progressive to promote the idea of transgenderism in sport...until someone gets killed.
Which is only a matter of "When" not "If".
Good grief Peter. How dare you apply logic and reason to a topic like transgender sport. And to actually quote numbers to prove a point is just not playing the game. Numbers ignore feelings, and you have now hurt the feelings of those self-entitled 800 misfits. Prepare to be cancelled.
Let’s be clear here: This isn’t an issue of inclusivity, but biological reality, safety and fairness.
1.How many women should have podium moments or dignity stolen from them? ZERO.
2.How many times seeing a naked strange men not of their choosing does it take for a woman to feel violated and sexually harassed - even if the man is simply walking past or getting changed with their back to them? ZERO.
3.How many incidences of voyerism are acceptable? ZERO
4.How many strange men should be in the same intimate space as young girls before it qualifies as pedophilia? ZERO.
Yet, if a woman sees a man - who is almost guaranteed to be an autogynaphile - in her intimate space & tells him to F off, who is likely to be the held up as the victim? The predator.
Those who claim this is a non issue are not just naive morons, but incels deliberately undermining the real threats women face every day. Any woman - handmaiden - advocating for these sickos should be forced to be exposed to the embarrassment, violation, sexual harassment, voyerism, assault & loss of acknowledgment that they are saying is acceptable for other women & girls to be subjected to.
And the fact that Benjamin Doyle’s objections to this policy were published in the media makes my case in point.
Yeah Jonesy, right on man.
Masquerading publicly as anything other than your biological self is a cross between acting and an illusion. "Playing dress-ups", we used to call it as children.
Inside that Big-Bird suit on Sesame Street was...a man. That didnt make that man a big bird, any more than living in a garage makes you a car.
Women and Girls should be protected 100% from men in drag. If I see any "suspects" in a womens loo it's "take your lipgloss and your dangley bits and get out!"
Personally I hate Uni-sex toilets in cafes or churches, which can, and do, become dangerous places. Sports teams that pretend that men and women can compete on an equal footing are delusional. And it will not end well. As you say, Peter, we are talking about a minor minority. But to hear the media, society is disadvantaging hundreds of these people, all crying "foul."
Laurel Hubbard proved nothing except he was a bloke who had grown his hair and spoke quietly. Most of us are sick of this perverse attempt by men to enter the world of women by stealth.
@anon 12:25 ‘ If I see any "suspects" in a womens loo it's "take your lipgloss and your dangley bits and get out!"
But have you? I remember lining up for the loo at the St James Theatre in Wellington before it was closed for earthquake strengthening - so probably 2018 - & I saw a young guy in a LBD walk out. No one blinked an eye & I was so caught off guard, I didn’t say anything either.
But I remember his smirk. They always have a look on their face that says they know exactly what they’re doing, daring you to say something.
They’re vile & deserved to be publicly shamed. But not many women would do it.
So therein lies the problem - this minority of a minority, these sick misogynists in stilettos, & their supporters have been breaking social norms for years. Sports NZ is a good step, but we need all those in charge of public bodies & public (including privately owned) spaces to follow suit. From councils to owners of events centres etc.
And we need to ensure women & girls have the confidence to speak up sp we can push the reset button & protect women’s basic human rights to their own space, language & sports. The HRA is already clear, but the PCBUs seem to see the Act as a suggestion, rather than legally enforceable. This whole issue is NUTS.
Section 43 of the HRA states:
Section 42 (discrimination) shall not prevent the maintenance of separate facilities for each sex on the ground of public decency or public safety
In other words, the law has given us permission to discriminate against men, no matter how confused or what they look like.
Section 62 also states sexual harassment is defined as:
An unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favours or any other unwelcome sexual conduct in circumstances in which the person who is exposed to the conduct reasonably feels offended, humiliated or intimidated.
Post a Comment