Talk:Women's Rights Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2023

6Bluedoves (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Policy

The policies of the Women’s Rights Party reaffirm women and girls' sex-based rights, and challenge the discrimination we experience from the replacement of the category of sex with that of 'gender identity'.

The Party is committed to ensuring New Zealand legislation reflects our Government's commitment to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women.

We acknowledge Te Tiriti o Waitangi as Aotearoa New Zealand’s founding document. The Women’s Rights Party advocates for economic and social equity, health and wellbeing of wāhine Māori and their whānau.

The Women’s Rights Party calls for language in policy, law, health, and education to recognise that women and girls are human females, that being female is based on biology, and that motherhood is exclusively female.

The sex-based rights for women guaranteed in the Human Rights Act 19933 must be respected in law and policy, such as the right to single-sex spaces.

The Women’s Rights Party is committed to the rights of lesbians to organise and socialise separately where they wish, recognising that lesbianism is same-sex attraction, not same-gender attraction.

Biological males should not compete in women’s and girl’s sports, and biological females should not play in men’s and boy’s sports, where there are issues of fairness and safety.

Gender is an imprecise concept that refers to sex-based stereotypes and social expectations, Gender identity and expression refer to the identification with, and expression of these stereotypes. The rights of women and children to reject gender stereotypes without discrimination or medical intervention to ‘fix’ them is paramount.

The freedom of speech to question the concept of gender and to assert the sex-based rights of females, is a fundamental human right. It is protected in the Bill of Rights Act 1994, and must not be removed by any legislation, policy or government practice.

Children under 18 should not be given puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or gender reassignment surgery in order to change the appearance of their biological sex. We will oppose any legislative changes that do not contain age restrictions.

The Women’s Rights Party calls for the repeal of self-identification for determining sex on the birth certificate in the Births, Deaths and Relationships Act 2021. The new law encourages a belief that a man can change his sex at will and enter women’s spaces without being challenged.

If birth certificates include provisions for a “nominated sex”, it needs to be clear that this is the individual’s preferred sex and not biological sex. Clear and accessible records must be kept of any changes to the birth certificate, and this information must also be recorded on the certificate itself.

The Women’s Rights Party will advocate for a review of the Prostitution Reform Act to strengthen protections for women, and advocate for increased powers of prosecution. The party would also advocate for funding to help women who want to leave prostitution.

The Women’s Rights Party opposes commercial surrogacy arrangements due to the potential for exploitation of women and we agree this should remain illegal in New Zealand. We oppose any proposed changes to legislation which would remove the birth mother as the first legal parent in the case of surrogacy.

Protecting women’s and children’s spaces and safety Women and girls have the right to single-sex gatherings for any purpose. This includes the right to women-only social media groups. Single-sex spaces preserve women’s and girls’ safety and dignity. These include, but are not limited to toilets, changing rooms, prisons, refuges, rape crisis centres, saunas, swimming facilities, hospital wards and other facilities.

In particular, school policies should guarantee that all children in schools have the right to privacy from the opposite sex in single-sex spaces, such as toilets and changing rooms.

The Women’s Rights Party opposes the housing of biological males in women’s prisons. The human rights of all women prisoners must be fully respected. We support public funding of refuges providing women-only services.

The Women’s Rights Party opposes pornography, which includes filmed prostitution, rough sex, strangulation, other forms of violence, and sexual abuse.

The Women’s Rights Party is calling for more support for new families, including wrap-around services for vulnerable mothers and their babies. We recognise the links between poverty and child protection, and support action on strategies to alleviate poverty.

Midwifery and maternity services must retain words such as “mother”, “woman” and “breastfeeding”. Maternity services should be adequately resourced and funded to ensure quality, affordable provision for all.

We support a review and extension of paid maternity leave from six to 12 months, and entitlement of women’s partners to paid leave at the time of the birth.

The Women’s Rights Party calls for the Ministry of Education’s Relationships and Sexuality Education to be replaced with guidelines that recognise the primacy of biological sex. Schools should not use resources that conflate the words, “sex” and “gender” or confuse sexual orientation and gender.

The Women’s Rights Party advocates for income support while raising our children or caring for our elders, recognising that mothering and caring is work and contributes to society.

The Party also calls for access to quality, affordable (or free) childcare, with qualified and fairly paid staff available to all who need it. To that end, the Women’s Rights Party supports a complete review of the current for-profit Early Childhood Education sector to ensure it meets the needs of women and their children.

Women’s health services, including cervical smears and breast screening, must be free and easily available to all women.

Quality housing is a priority and should be affordable and available for all. Women, due to low income over their lifetime, career breaks to raise children, and disadvantage following relationship breakdowns, are negatively affected by housing insecurity as we age.

https://womensrightsparty.nz/policy/

 Not done Wikipedia doesn't print the policy statements of any political parties. We already link to your website, and we might reference reputable third parties which cover and analyse the policies.-gadfium 04:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Notability

Could the notability of this subject please be set out? So far the page has only two sources. The first is written by the subject. The second is a blog that appears not to meet reliability standards. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah this feels vaguely like the party organizers/leaders decided to make their own page to give themselves an air of authenticity and authority. I'm not saying that is absolutely the case, but only two sources (one possibly unreliable and the other possibly not unbiased) is a bit sus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.152.250 (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I created this page and can confirm I am not a member or involved with it in any way. The unsigned IP user should remember WP:GOODFAITH. As for sources, this is a new party so will naturally not have much coverage of its activities initially. However it is starting to be reported on by secondary sources such as this article from Stuff mentioning it. Kiwichris (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Kiwichris, it sounds like you acknowledge there are not enough sources currently to establish notability, but that you expect there will be soon. Is that correct? If so, I would not support this article being in mainspace until those sources come into existence. This article I think demonstrates some of the point on why notability requirements exist: without any reliable sources we risk perpetuating misinformation, and without independent sources we can't write a fair and balanced article from a neutral point of view. I recommend moving this article into a draft space until there is at least one reliable source, preferably more. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed 203.114.152.250 (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Draftification is much mor desirable than a deletion via the PROD. Schwede66 18:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The party applied for registration today. This is almost never refused, so its likely to be registered, and therefore notable, within a month. The process will likely generate media coverage.--IdiotSavant (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

And its now registered, so I think there's a presumption of notability. IdiotSavant (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

"according to the Women's Rights Party"

Citations 1 2 and 3 do not support the Women's Rights Party saying this. Two of them support that violence was perpetrated toward women, but do not mention the Women's Rights Party at all. The third is an unreliable source about the existence of the Women's Rights Party, written from a POV outsider perspective, not the WRP perspective, and also does not mention the Women's Rights Party saying that violence was perpetrated.

To support the assertion that "according to the Women's Rights Party, violence was perpetrated on women" you would need to source the Women's Rights Party making a statement about this. Currently linked evidence supports that violence was perpetrated but not that the Women's Rights Party has spoken about this.

Suggest simply removing "according to the Women's Rights Party," or finding a source that actually supports that they said this. 219.89.55.17 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Human Rights Act protections removed from the article

I do not think that the assertion that transwomen belong under the rubric of sex is correct. If that were valid the case why has Elizabether Kerekere introduced a bill to include gender identity under the Human Rights Act? And why is the Law Commission investigating the impacts of this inclusion with a view to releasing a discussion paper in 2024 Why has the HRC commission recently issued advice that its own advice on the HRA is not if fact legal advice see https://twitter.com/SpeakUp4WomenNZ/status/1685892470712967169. The writer is relying on the previous stance of the Human Rights Commission. I will reinstate that information. Swannieriv (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

assertions about transgender people,

I am not sure that a biography of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull is required in this post. It appears it was the police and political response to her visit - thugs veto, preventing the event from happening, incitement to violence by members of the Green Party towards Keen-Minshull ahead of the visit and the political response by Michael Wood the Prime Minister and others that were the primary cause of the formation of the party. I recall this from the time and am seekig suitable sources. However her 'assertions about transgender people' really does need to be sourced in context, with credible references if it is to remain in the article. Swannieriv (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is supposed to be about the party, but is devolving into an attack page against Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. She is not a member of the party and I can find no evidence of her having any involvement with it. The founders merely founded it in response to the lack of any political response to her attempted speech in Auckland. The party has a life of its own beyond this one event. Kiwichris (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

Merrymirthful (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Change "single sex spaces" to single sex spaces. It's not something that should be put in quotations.

 Not done. It's in quotes because the party believes trans women are not women, but Wikipedia separates itself from that belief.-gadfium 04:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Restricted Editing

This page contains inaccuracies. The Women's Rights Party NZ is not "transphobic". This is a slur used to silence women who call for accurate data collection on sex and a review of sex self identification in policy and legislation. Why has the editing function on this page been restricted? 6Bluedoves (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"A slur used to silence women" is transphobic propaganda pure and simple. These people are not victims...the language of that manner is like saying that calling the KKK racist is a slur used to silence white people. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@6Bluedoves I have just removed it. I have not seen any source describe it this way so it appears to be WP:OR. If anyone could provide a source that would be great; older versions of this article did not have transphobia as a listed ideology. —Panamitsu (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The party supports full and open expression of gender and identity but defends the need for single sex spaces in prisons, refuges, rape crisis centres and sports to ensure fairness, dignity and safety for women and girls who make up 85% of victims of sexual assault - 98% of which are committed by male perpetrators. 6Bluedoves (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The page is still describing the party as transphobic. The page is generally written in a polemical tone with several defamatory statements. It omits major contextual information around the events that lead to the formation of the party after New Zealand effectively erased the identity of women by passing self-ID legislation giving any man the right to enter women and girls' private spaces. This is not controversial but a matter of record. I request permission to edit the page to remove the defamation and supply appropriate factual context. ChrisPook (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have an extreme interpretation of the law. For you to edit the article would not be appropriate.-gadfium 21:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's telling that you are hurling around accusations of extremism. I'm not hiding behind an anonymous identity here. I'm an actual scientist biologist with an interest in equity. The Womens' Rights Party was set up to advance the interests of an oppressed class and they are legally allowed to pursue those rights under the Human Rights Act 1993. Claiming that they are 'phobic for doing so is the extreme, misogynist position. 2404:4408:8786:600:B82:C3E2:8EF4:3319 (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Whoops. Didn't realise I wasn't logged in. Here's my reply to Gadfium: I think it's telling that you are hurling around accusations of extremism. I'm not hiding behind an anonymous identity here. I'm an actual scientist, a biologist, with an interest in equity. The Womens' Rights Party was set up to advance the interests of an oppressed class and they are legally allowed to pursue those rights under the Human Rights Act 1993. Claiming that they are 'phobic for doing so is the extreme, misogynist position. ChrisPook (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to go into this detail about this in the talk page, it should be more about improving the article. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be engaged in the Dunning–Kruger effect and Argument from authority fallacy. "I'm an actual scientist, a biologist" comments and claims of this nature are not relevant on Wikipedia. It is an argument from authority attempting to give more weight to your contributions and diminish the weight of other users contributions. No single user acting in good faith and within the policies of Wikipedia has any more of less weight just because it is being 'said by an expert'. Secondly there is no way of verifying what you are saying without you giving out personal identifying information, which Wikipedia strongly discourages. The content of the comments, not who the user is, determines the weight given to comments. The Dunning-Kruger effect is you saying you are an expert in one field and then inferring that because of that expertise, you are an expert in another area. In this case inferring expertise in the law and political science. This is seen with the claims "they are legally allowed to pursue those rights under the Human Rights Act 1993". The comments you are stating also seem to be from someone very close to the party "The Womens'[sic] Rights Party was set up to advance the interests of an oppressed class". This is a potential conflict of interest; and specific rules surrounding that apply.

Finally you are making personal attacks and not assuming good faith which are core principles of Wikipedia. Comments such as "Claiming that they are 'phobic for doing so is the extreme, misogynist position". This is making assertions that those who are using a term you disagree with are doing so rooted in negative stereotypes and are doing so deliberately. In this case, calling those describing the party as 'transphobic' as 'extreme' and 'misogynist'. Wikipedia is not a battle ground and must not devolve into one.

The above is not a personal attack but an analysis of the comments and why they do not carry the weight or influence more or less than anyone else simply because. It is also designed to point out and show the flaws in making such comments, as they do not benefit Wikipedia particularly on contentious and political topics. It generally entrenches positions and reduces the ability to resolve the content issues at hand. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisPook How about if you want to make changes, you make edit requests in the talk page. As you have certain views, it may constitute a conflict of interest which may introduce bias (ignoring any potential bias on the article, I have not read it properly). —Panamitsu (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to work out how to do that. It's not intuitive. ChrisPook (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Just write in this talk page "change x to y", making sure to provide sources. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This talk page is also not a soap box for the general positions of the party. Discussions of this kind need to be avoided.

I would also like to point out these edits have been made shortly after the following was released by the party itself. It seems more than coincidental that the edits have started all of a sudden after this was released. womens rights party press release on Wikiepdia

The closeness of this release and these edits is strong evidence of a conflict of interest and the subject of an article directing the content of an article PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• @User:Kiwichris: Please be aware of 1RR in effect on the contentious topic area. Could you explain why you consider Substack a reliable source in this case? Fermiboson (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  In that vein please justify the inclusion of the dog whistle part platform language ‘erosion of sex based rights’ and the inclusion of a sideshow film by a us bigot being shown in NZ where the party jumped on the bandwagon of synthetic outrage. I shall give a 3 day deadline here otherwise I will consider the reverts to be without justification and the discussion not engaged with and will remove the content. The content will not get to stay through non-engagement. That would subvert the purpose of Wikipedia and override the 1RR requirements and those are not designed to be perverse and retain content that is not agreed upon, contentious, overtly promotion or biased in its coverage. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  @PicturePerfect666 You are not doing a particularly great job at explaining why you think that content on the film was a POV. I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a place for mind-reading. Please tell me why you think it is a POV and I'd be happy to cooperate —Panamitsu (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  I asked for a discussion and nothing was forthcoming from the user who added the content. The content which has been removed is simply promoting the party and is not encyclopaedic. You don't quote dog whistle political positions and every bandwagon a party jumps on. The foundation fo the party great you do that and it has been, but some film screening where they were also shouters as part of the outrage mob. That is puff and not encyclopaedic. It is designed to push the party narrative and nothing more which is why it is POV. it is biased and promotional towards their positions. That is not how Wikipeida works. Additionally cherry picking one line and stating that is breeching the policy os WP:NPOV

  TL:DR

  1. Selective quoting party positions and language is POV pushing.
  2. Selecting specific events the party favours is POV pushing.
  3. The context is not shown other than a promotional for the party and gives more weight to events than they carry.

  PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  I see here you've removed a statement I added about the party wanting to stop people from identifying as non-binary because Please do not cherry pick individual positions the party holds, please be broader. There are almost zero sources on what the party wants to do, so I'm not sure why you consider this to be "cherry picked". If you there were more political positions in said source that I missed, you should have added them. Simply removing the content is disruptive. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  It is a selective addition of only one position of the party which is POV pushing. There must be wider and broader inclusion of the party as a whole. For example. The party can be described fairly as wanting to remove legalisation in relation to Trans and non-binary rights and recognition, including the repealing of legislation which was passed to allow birth certificate to be changed. The party positions on a variety of topics should be included. It cannot be just non-binary recognition mentioned, or 'sex-based rights', etc. which gets mentioned. it must be broad. even though they are a single issue party, the points must show the whole of the issue they are single focused on.

  It must include the party has been shown by x, y, z to focus on transgender rights in the context of gender critical feminism and has party positions which further this and examples of this are list some policies. The party denies it is single issue and this is disputed by others give examples.

  Single sentences, and single events do nothing but push a POV of one side or the other. This is probably frustrating but NPOV is essential and cherrypicking must be avoided.

  The fact there are almost zero publications on what the party wants to do demonstrates the party is not notable enough and does not pass the general notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia and is currently looking likely to be deleted for that reason. Wikipedia is not for everything and something are to soon to be included and something are not significant or notable enough to be included. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Well certainly, but we can't include the whole range of their positions if they get removed in the first place. Editing takes time, although it might not be worth it seeing as consensus may be in favour of deleting the article. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  You can easily by adding them more than one at a time and including them in a larger copyedit of the party which covers all of this. It seems though this is no possible due to a lack of reliable sources relating to the party and the lack of notability the party has. Sometimes it just worth accepting not everything gets a place on wikipedia. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  I've just posted this onto the NPOV noticeboard. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic comments which should be on a user talk page. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@PicturePerfect666 Just so you know, you are not supposed to go around in talk pages calling people bigots. That is a WP:BLP violation and you should be more careful with your words. —Panamitsu (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC) I hold your comment in contempt please strike it as I consider it a personal attack that you are attempting to censor me here. If you had a genuine concern you are better off commenting on a user talk page. You have simply made a drive-by inflammatory comment which is unhelpful and a bad faith assumption.PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Here is a reliable source to back up my use of the word bigot to accurately describe Matt Walsh...a spade is a spade and Matt walsh IS A BIGOT PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Above discussion moved to PicturePerfect666's talk page. Fermiboson (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)