It’s not a debate, it’s a disinformation campaign

I've been a reader of the Spinoff's daily newsletter, the Bulletin, longer than I can remember now - at least five years, for sure. For most of that time it was the best way for me to keep up to date with relevant news. I've been proud - and grateful for the opportunity - to write for the Spinoff a few times over the years. When the Spinoff launched their membership drive earlier this year, I was happy to join and contribute.

Unfortunately, that didn't last long - the Spinoff's position on the disinformation campaign levied at Benjamin Doyle made me cancel that donation. Wanting any of our queer leaders to diminish or hide parts of themselves to avoid abuse or controversy from disinformation campaigns is the naive position - thinking that there's any way for us to be perfectly acceptable and respectable enough to avoid that abuse is unrealistic.

But I had continued to remain subscribed to the Bulletin and continued to read the Spinoff - until today. I was seriously disappointed to read a long article from Duncan Greive which discusses and quotes extensively from Sarah McBride's interview with Ezra Klein - one that generated extensive discussion amongst trans communities internationally a full month ago when it aired - and takes a similarly naive, centrist position along the lines of "how can we effectively argue and bargain for our rights while we compromise and allow disinformation campaigns to push the Overton window further right?"

I wonder whether any part of this column was run by any trans folk, or if the Spinoff took the opportunity to seek feedback - and I wonder if the Spinoff would run a story where any other minority was told to consider waiting for their base human rights while we brought the public on board - because that's the position McBride takes and Greive argues for. I certainly couldn't imagine the Spinoff allowing a Pākehā writer to argue that tangata whenua should consider conceding ground or compromising while waiting for the general public to agree.

Greive argues for trying to convince the middle, and repeats the claim that trans people have been asking for too much, too fast - this is a right wing talking point influenced by disinformation and does not reflect reality. All around the world, trans people and community organisations have been compromising, working to win popular support, focusing on what's achievable - puberty blockers themselves were the compromise position. People have been having open conversations. Many people have taken different tactics and approaches, including focusing on small, popular, and achievable wins; and on increasing the broader acceptance of trans people. It's reflected in the data - we've seen unprecedented levels of popular support for trans inclusion in society - including in sport - until relatively recently.

One of the pieces I was happy to write for the Spinoff was one asking for media outlets to consider things beyond the surface level, because disinformation thrives under the surface. Yes, on the surface, trans inclusion in competitive sport is polling poorly. Below the surface? There are absolutely minuscule numbers of trans people competing in sport at an elite level, and even more are disengaging from community sport. Websites claiming to track trans athlete wins which are being cited in NYT pieces are linked to Southern Poverty Law Centre-designated hate groups, utilise crowd-sourced data and feature duplicate and fraudulent entries. The story here is why, all of a sudden, is trans inclusion in sport such a big deal? The angle that gets taken by McBride and Greive? Why are trans people demanding trans inclusion in sport all of a sudden?

What's changed, then? It's not that we've suddenly started demanding an all-or-nothing approach out of nowhere - it's that trans people have become an effective wedge for a global movement fueled by disinformation. Again, we see that in the data, and in the money trails - like this recent report uncovering a number of anti-trans organisations directly funded by fossil fuel interests. We see that in Helen Joyce, of Sex Matters, who FSU have invited to Aotearoa to speak, when she openly describes fears around transgender children and sports as a "stepping stone" to the "end of the trans child", and that "people are almost automatically where we want them to be" when it comes to "child gender medicine and sports".

Five, ten years ago, our rights were limited. We were working in a variety of ways to achieve change. Now, our rights are actively under attack. Those are very different contexts.

Overnight, the United Kingdom introduced what is effectively the new Section 28, banning schools from teaching about gender identity, mandating that they discourage social transition, removing the word "transgender" from guidance, and declaring that if a child discloses their gender incongruence, they must be told they cannot be affirmed, acknowledged, or recognised in any way until they are 18. The UK Labour government have announced a review into adult gender medicine. The list of "fucked up things trans kids in the UK are facing" is long, and most people aren't aware of it beyond the "puberty blockers have been banned" headline. If I were to attempt to travel to the US as a trans person, I could be withheld, charged with major fraud, and barred from the country for life.

Is it any wonder, then, that many trans people have had enough with the ceding of ground? Why is it now, of all times, that we're being told to be patient? To be polite? To wait, while anti-transgender actors openly describe using sports and healthcare as a way to push trans people out of public life?

All of this has been achieved by intentional disinformation campaigns. This is the kind of political strategy being imported here. This is the kind of critical background information missed in Greive's piece that shows an absolute misunderstanding of what is happening and why.

I sent a version of this letter to the Spinoff, because I am invested in that outlet - or, at least, an outlet that can do good work in countering disinformation, in providing real, in-depth news coverage to people, in building an online community. I've been a reader for a long time. I've been grateful for them publishing three of my pieces. I'm invested in the Spinoff doing well, and getting things right. I heard back quickly - the piece is about political debate in New Zealand, rather than trans rights specifically. Funnily enough, I've heard that before...

This is not a game, and it's unbelievably inappropriate to publish an extensive opinion piece asking whether we're at fault for these threats, for asking too much too fast - when that's simply not true. It's inappropriate to use the threat to our rights as an anecdote for what you think is wrong with political debate in Aotearoa - not least when you don't have an accurate understanding of trans advocacy, or the challenges we're facing. It's naive to write this piece and leave out what the "other side" are advocating for, what we should be finding common ground with: pushing trans people out of public life.

I know that Greive argues for finding common ground, and I know I'm writing this angry, and I know it may seem like I'm demanding ideological purity, which would be deeply ironic - but I'm asking for considered, truthful reporting that engages with the disinformation that is threatening our rights.

So, I'll answer Greive's question: "have the 10 years or so in which this has been the dominant style of argument felt like progress to you?"

This has not been the "dominant style of argument" for the last 10 years. It may have been, in places and parts of the internet, but on the ground? Absolutely not. Have the last 10 years felt like progress? Yes, of course! Increased funding for gender-affirming care, easier access to accurate documentation, and protection from conversion practices - all in the last five years. It's frankly incredible how much ground we've covered in 10 years - it's wilfully naive to argue that we haven't seen progress. What we're now fighting for is to maintain that progress in a new context - one that is actively hostile to our lives.

I'm disappointed and confused as to how this piece ran in an outlet I felt like I could trust. I'm sad about the piece it could have been: a meaningful engagement with the ways disinformation and polarisation are being successfully used by political actors - and the ways the "meet them in the middle" rhetoric needs updating for the 2025 political and media landscape.

Jennifer Shields is a trans advocate based in Ōtautahi, who has been volunteering and working in community advocacy spaces for the last 10 years