There is NO permissible number of men, of any stripe, to be in women’s and girls’ spaces.

Question: when is a man not a man? Answer: NEVER.

I was at a function recently where I was told that a certain man of position, who was also there, might be worth talking to. This was in regard to the matter of how the Christchurch City Council (NZ) allows men who say they’re women into women’s and girls’ spaces in all their facilities, completely disregarding how women and girls might feel about that. This man of position, I was told, showed an interest in the matter, and had asked how many men were doing this.

I bristled. Not at him, because I wasn’t speaking with him at that point, but at the “how many men?” question. To be fair, it’s probably a natural question to ask out of a kind of morbid curiosity, but it’s also a question that’s asked to see if the collateral damage, or potential for it, to women and girls is worth getting exercised about.

Whatever the reason, as soon as the question “how many men do this?” is asked, it carries the implication that there could be a permissible number of men, who say they’re women, allowed into women’s and girls’ spaces. What that permissible number is, will be determined by how many women and girls are adversely affected by having those men in our spaces. Which leads to the next usually asked question of “how many complaints have there been about men who say they’re women in women’s spaces?”

The answer to that last question is not determinable, seeing as no official agency is collecting data on this. Our public service and Councils have imposed policies on women and girls which allow free and unfettered access to all female spaces for any man whomsoever says he’s a woman - and then just left us to deal with it. Some unofficial sites have been set up to collect women’s and girls’ stories, such as No Conflict ,They Said¹. However, we have been subjected to enough expert fobbing-off in this latest battle for women’s and girls’ rights, to know that presenting stories and data from an unofficial site would just be another convenient excuse to fob us off.

A man in a women’s communal changing room under the guise of being a woman and flashing his penis and nuts whilst getting changed, is not considered enough to make a complaint about nor be considered an adverse effect; nor him being a voyeur as he takes his time getting changed; nor asking inappropriate or intimate questions from women and girls under the guise of just being one of the girls; or – to use an analogy - simply being a rogue peanut in what should be a peanut-free product. Losing trust in institutions is not considered enough of an adverse effect. The added burden to women and girls of never knowing whether or not we’ll find a man legitimately using our spaces now is not enough of an adverse effect. Only a gross physical assault, rape, and murder seem to be considered adverse-enough effects. Conversely, men who say they’re women had to produce no such evidence to be allowed into women’s and girls’ spaces.

The reason why women and girls need some single-sex spaces, and not unisex or mixed-sex spaces as the only option, has never changed. Back in August 2023, I wrote about those reasons here.

When the matter of men in women’s spaces is raised, the only response should be “that’s wrong”. As soon as the question “how many men?” is asked, there’s an unspoken implication that there could be a permissible number, and permissible circumstances, particularly for the so-called nice or vulnerable men who say they’re women. That line of questioning has to be shut down as soon as possible, whether politely or abruptly, as even a whiff of permission spells doom for women and girls’ rights and single-sex spaces. Let them know it’s the wrong question. The only question should be along the lines of “how do we stop this?”.

As many readers of my blog will know, I have engaged with the Christchurch City Council over their policies of allowing men who say they’re women in women’s spaces. They, of course, like many Councils, are riddled with transactivist staff, and won’t budge on policies which prioritise men who say they’re women over actual women in women’s spaces. Now, the Selwyn District Council, which is also in Canterbury, has shown their transactivist colours, too.

Like the Christchurch City Council, Selwyn promotes ‘Women and Girls Pool Sessions’ on posters without advising that men who say they’re women can come to them, as well.

That information is nowhere immediately visible. It’s not even buried in the relevant page on Selwyn’s website, like where the Christchurch City Council buries theirs. In fact, it appears there isn’t even a policy, just an arbitrary decision made by transactivist staff at the Council.

A woman visitor to Selwyn District’s Aquatic Centre saw the above poster on the wall there, so emailed a query to them asking if men who say they’re women are allowed into these sessions, although she used the term ‘transwomen’ in her query. The reply she got was “For our women and girls pool programmes, we welcome anyone who genuinely identifies as female”

I kid you not. That really was the reply.

It’s hard to know where to begin with such an inconsiderate and nonsensical response. Clearly, transactivists have had some success in ensuring women and girls have no say about men who claim to “genuinely identify as female” being in our spaces. They also appear to be trying to corrupt the meaning of the word ‘female’ now, as well as ‘woman’. How would we know if all the “female staff” mentioned in the poster are really female, or might include a man who '“genuinely identifies as female”? And, how do we check how a man “genuinely identifies?” I doubt the Selwyn District Council would be able to enlighten us about that in any way that makes sense, and could only deliver ‘poor trans’ PR patter. This is where we’re at now with how transactivists - even ‘soft’ transactivists - corrupt our institutions. They ruin women’s and girls’ rights, safety, dignity, relaxation, and freedom to have and enjoy a male-free space as soon as any man who says he’s a woman comes onto the scene.

I thought I would have a shot, too, at asking the Selwyn Aquatic Centre a similar question about men in the Women and Girls Pool Sessions via the message function on their Facebook page.

By the end of the day, I still had no answer of any sort. I presume they’re ghosting me.

So, here we be. The Selwyn District Council allows men who say they’re women into their Women and Girls Pool Sessions, but try and keep that as secret as they can from women and girls. The Christchurch City Council also allows men who say they’re women into their women’s and girls’ swim session, and bury one small line acknowledging that in their website, but otherwise also keep it as secret as they can.

There is only one permissible number of men of any stripe in women’s and girls’ spaces, and that’s ZERO. When that number gets ignored, women and girls no longer have control of our own spaces. If we’re not enraged about that, we should be.

• ¹The name ‘No Conflict, They Said’ refers to how women and girls have repeatedly been told that there’s no conflict between women’s and girls’ rights, and the wants of men who say they’re women to be in our spaces, although those wants have erroneously been presented as ‘rights’. There are some stories from New Zealanders on the site, but they’re not searchable on that basis, and the number of stories submitted has slowed down. This is not a reflection on fewer egregious incidences, but merely about time and resources available to promote the site and keep it visible on a volunteer footing.