A recent TVNZ debate for young voters featured six panelists (including four current MPs). Just one of the panelists was male. But it was the man who spoke up for girls’ and women’s rights, safety and protection while the women either stood silent or attacked the man. If a candidate for Parliament can’t define what is a woman, why would we trust them with being in a position of influence in Parliament. Our country desperately needs leaders and political parties who can define Truth.
The TVNZ/Re:News Young Voters debate on Monday night featured Labour’s Arena Williams, National’s Erica Stanford, ACT’s Brooke van Velden, Te Pāti Māori’s Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, NZ First’s Lee Donoghue (who apparently is an ex Shortland St actor) and greens Chloe Swarbrick – who, according to a recent poll – may have a run for her money on in the Auckland seat. Apparently the National candidate is polling just behind her – and given that many of Chloe’s supporters probably turned up just to vote yes in the cannabis referendum last time, they may not be so motivated to turn up this time. So that’s a seat to watch. But let’s check out the debate – and one question in particular.
One of the questions which took up quite a bit of the TVNZ / Re young voters debate earlier this week was on the transgender issue – which is no surprise given that it is a debate sponsored by the state funded TVNZ Re channel which is a dodgy and at times grubby youth news service that we have shown previously on McBlog. Here’s a bit of their promo – featuring transing, prostitution and Shaneel Lal talking about top and bottom!
So back to the debate. And here was the key question to NZ First – and they’re the target because Winston Peters has dared to suggest that gender ideology is harmful for children, that men should stay out of women’s sports, and that toilets should be based on biological Sex as they have been for generations. In other words, biology matters. So here’s the loaded question – including research from organisations you’ll have never heard of, and that’s because they’re activist groups pushing an agenda – and their research is advocacy research. In other words, they determine what they want and then do research to prove what they want. No random group. No control group.
And of course there’s the statement in the question that those with gender dysphoria have mental health issues – but that’s not the reason for the dysphoria apparently. There’s no mention of the at-risk sexual activity and drug use that sadly is disproportionately high in this group also.
And quoting the Disinformation Project who call any opposition to gender ideology “genocide”. Obviously they weren’t at the Posie Parker rally where we saw the real violence.
No it’s all because of Winston and his rhetoric.
So it’s not really a question as you will see. It’s a lecture – aimed at you.
And then of course Chloe is brought in to express righteous indignation – and to use the tactic of the left. To shut down the debate. Mate mate – it’s your rhetoric. It’s not the confusing and harmful messages to young children, or the irreversible and harmful puberty blockers, the cross sex hormones, the castration and mutilation of healthy body parts – nope, nothing wrong with that. It’s just the rhetoric. Expressing concern about the welfare of vulnerable and impressionable children. That’s the real problem, according to Chloe
What amazes me in this whole exchange is that there is a panel of women and 1 dude – and who is sticking up for the women’s rights and safety and protection? It’s the man. The women are silent!! It’s incredible to watch. Not even a nod of approval from the women. How dare that man speak up for the rights of women.
Ironically when a woman does speak up – ACT’s Brooke Van Velden – rather timidly, and says we should be able to agree to disagree: she is dumped upon by a raging Chloe
Yep – to disagree with anyone – about anything – is to deny their existence – according to the radical left. This is how they shut down debate. Except if you want to disagree with bible believing Christians. Then you can disagree. That’s ok.
The question then goes to the Maori party representative who gives us all a schooling of what critical race theory looks and sounds like. It’s a text book answer – from a critical theory text book.
So what does the National party think?
Well they’ve never heard about it being an issue – which either means they don’t talk to any parents because plenty of parents are talking about it – you just have to see the public meetings happening around the country at the moment to see that OR they just don’t want to acknowledge the issue, which is an issue because the National MP Erica Stanford could be our next Minister Of Education. And of course it’s not just about toilets, as the media lazily label it.
It’s about camp cabins, confusion, castration, cross sex hormones, pronouns, puberty blockers – and worst of
all, secrecy around parents.
Finally, the Labour candidate Arena Williams who you might remember from a previous episode of McBlog when she was asked whether a woman could have a penis, and she said …. Yes!
But here’s her response to the issue, and she confirms just how keen the current government is to fund radical gender and sexuality groups like InsideOut that parents are so concerned about – and to criminalise parents who might not affirm their children into transgenderism as the conversion therapy law does.
just finally I had to show this clip. This question to the NZ First rep. Imagine if they had asked this question about President Biden. Imagine how the left would have raged and cancelled the questioner. But when it’s Winston who’s the target, it’s all good.
What did we learn from all of this?
We learnt that the current batch of women MPs don’t seem willing or able to speak up for women and girls.
We learnt they are either captured by gender ideology or are too scared or weak to speak up.
We learnt that the possible next Minister of Education is not listening to parents on the significant and increasing concerns around the sex & trans agenda in schools including primary schools aimed at very young children.
And we learn that it took a man to defend women in this political debate while the women either stood silent or attacked the man – as Chloe did.
No wonder our society is groaning at the moment.
The confusion is palpable.
As we say in Value Your Vote, if a candidate for Parliament can’t define what is a woman, why would we trust them with being in a position of influence in Parliament.
Choose wisely. Our country desperately needs leaders and political parties who can define truth.