Two LGBTQIA+ advocates in the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) are up in arms over US President Donald Trump’s executive order rolling back protections for transgender people and terminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs within the federal government.

Pride Marianas founder Roberto Santos said Trump’s initiatives against the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policy were no surprise.

“While we know policies and practices promoting these values have proven to be positive, we know how futile it is to convince Trump or his supporters that diversity, equity and inclusion are human rights.”

• READ MORE: Other LGBTQIA+ reports

Transgender rights have become a contentious political topic in recent years. During November’s election season, many Republicans campaigned on reversing transgender laws with a particular focus on transgender women participating in sports.

In his inauguration speech, Trump said: “This week, I will also end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life.

“We will forge a society that is colourblind and merit based. As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders — male and female.”

Last month, the US Supreme Court tackled a major transgender rights case, and its conservative justices asked tough questions of lawyers challenging the legality of a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.

Challenging argument
Santos presented an argument to Trump’s position on two genders and his declaration they could not be changed.

“To speak specifically to his statement about there being two and only two genders, I believe he’s referring to what we call biological or anatomical sex, and the construct of male and female as gender is a social construction,” Santos said.

“So, the inaccurate terminology he’s using is a testament to how ill-informed he is on the matter.”

Marianas Business Network president and founder PK Phommachanh-Daigo, meanwhile, discussed his journey as a Southeast Asian refugee from Laos in response to the diversity question under the second Trump administration.

“My family and I were sponsored by an Irish family in a small, conservative town in northeastern Connecticut. Growing up as the youngest of six children, with my eldest sibling 15 years older, we were culturally accustomed to a straightforward view of gender — male, female, or ladyboy, a concept common in Southeast Asia.

“It’s clear that the current debate over gender and DEI programmes is more politically charged in the US, especially among Republican and liberal factions.”

On Trump’s announcement to recognise only two genders and eliminate DEI programmes, Phommachanh-Daigo said it was not surprising “given the ongoing cultural war between the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement and the so-called ‘woke’ culture”.

“The elimination of DEI programmes could potentially lead to a regression into systematic exclusion and discrimination, perpetuating cycles of inequity and racism.”

Cultural richness
He said this was in sharp contrast to the CNMI community, which was deeply rooted in cultural richness and familial bonds.

“We are generally accepting of people regardless of their gender or sexual orientation,” he said.

“Societal issues often stem from external influences rather than within our tight-knit local community. While the immediate impact on our government workforce may be minimal due to strong familial ties and the predominance of local employees, the long-term implications of eliminating DEI initiatives could erode the inclusive environment we strive to maintain.”

The message to the LGBTQIA+ community in the CNMI message is for them to just focus on personal growth, family, and positive contributions to society, regardless of the policies of the new Trump administration.

“Be a role model for others, and continue to foster a community that values acceptance, understanding, and mutual respect.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Fiji’s Women and Children’s Minister Lynda Tabuya says Pacific island countries need to “strengthen our laws” on online harassment.

Tabuya spoke to RNZ Pacific on the sidelines of the Pacific Women in Power forum taking place in Auckland this week.

She said the issue that she was dealing with — which is allegations of a sex and drug scandal between her and former cabinet minister Aseri Radrodro — was currently with the police.

• READ MORE: Other online bullying reports

“[Police] are investigating it,” she said.

“And it just so happens that a person who was causing this harassment online lives in Sydney,” she said.

She said she was able to get the assistance of Australia’s online safety watchdog to issue the notice to the person to take down the content — images — because it is a crime in Australia.

“If you put up content that is or appears to be the person, so then the person [who published it] needs to take the content down otherwise they can face prosecution,” she said.

‘Grateful for swift action’
“That was the process I followed and I’m grateful to the Safety Commissioner of Australia for the swift action.”

However, she said the situation she found herself in was not exclusive to her.

“It’s me today, it could be someone else tomorrow. It doesn’t have to be a minister or public figure.

“But if you have women in Fiji or across the Pacific who are facing this, and they’re being attacked — especially for populations where there are more people outside of the country than in [the] country.

Tabuya said therefore there was a need for strong policies, not just in Fiji, but across the region.

“You get more attacks from people who live overseas. Women MPs need to reach out to those countries where those people are attacking them live because the laws are much stronger.

“But it’s also a lesson for us within to strengthen our laws so that we can stand up against online bullying.

“The world is unfair and being a woman in politics, we face a lot of unfairness and injustices. But I think it also makes us so much more determined to stand up and be heard,” she added.

Meanwhile, Tabuya is currently the subject of an inquiry by her political party following the sex and drug allegation, the outcome of which has yet to be released.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Gender equity continues to be a significant problem in business globally. We all know the story: the gender pay gap is a persistent issue and female-dominated industries tend to be lower paid.

Female representation in senior leadership and board positions remains low in many countries, particularly in Aotearoa New Zealand. Women comprise only 28.5 percent of director positions across all NZX-listed companies and just 23.7 percent at companies outside of the NZX’s top 50.

Change is slow despite the well-established evidence showing the merits of improving gender equity for businesses — including better firm performance — and excellent initiatives such as Mind The Gap.

• READ MORE: CSW: Advancing women’s rights since 1946
• Do women-focused capital funds actually help women, or are they just ‘pinkwashing?’
• Auditing, matching pay and accountability will close the gender pay gap: study

But there is a way to support companies that have made the change towards greater gender equity — and encourage others to do the same: we can invest with a “gender lens”.

The aim of investing with a gender lens is not only to make a financial return but also to improve the lives of women by providing capital to those companies doing well on gender issues.

Gender lens investing goes beyond counting female representation at board level. It encompasses the number of female managers, leaders and employees as well as the existence of policies or products provided by a company to address the gender pay gap and other inequities faced by their female employees.

It also encourages investing in women-owned enterprises.

In essence, investing with a gender lens means identifying and investing in those companies that are empowering their female employees and embracing diversity.

This might seem simple. But there are no investment portfolios or funds investing in companies that do right by women.

One explanation for this gap is that identifying gender-friendly companies is not easy. And this is where rating agencies have a role to play.

U.N. Chief Says World Is ‘300 Years Away’ From Gender Equity And Women’s Rights Are ‘Vanishing Before Our Eyes’ https://t.co/LggXPPy79k

— Patrick F. Herlihy (@herlihy_f) March 7, 2023

The role and power of rating agencies
Over the past three decades there has been a fundamental shift towards investing for not only financial returns but also for social outcomes — so called Responsible Investing (RI).

The growth in RI has spawned an industry dedicated to defining and measuring a company’s non-financial contributions across a range of areas, specifically across the environmental, social and governance (ESG) pillars.

The rating agencies build scores by collecting data on issues within each of the ESG pillars — for instance, the environmental pillar comprises data on carbon emissions, land use and water, among other measures — and then converts this into an overall score.

Fund managers, especially those managing RI funds, use these scores to inform investment decisions. What, then, are the comparable measures for gender lens investing?

While some rating agencies have created measures to identify companies suitable for a gender lens portfolio — for example, Sustainalytics has a gender equality index — others have very little on gender at all.

Some rating agencies seem to base gender equity performance on the number of women on a company’s board or its in-house policies on diversity and discrimination.

In short, there is little-to-no substantive information available to allow investing with a gender lens. And why is that?

A group of New Zealand businesses, including Skycity, Westpac, DB Breweries, Coca Cola, Xero and Kiwibank, have urged the government to address the gender pay gap.https://t.co/5Qv17tL1T4

— RNZ (@radionz) September 21, 2022

Well, rating agency MSCI states it collects information on “financially relevant ESG risks and opportunities”. Sustainalytics requires an issue to have a “substantial impact on the economic value of a company”. These agencies require an issue to affect financial performance.

Under its “social” pillar, for example, MSCI considers water usage, arguing companies in high-water-use industries face operation disruptions, higher regulation and higher costs for water, which can reduce returns and increase risk.

The absence of data related to gender implies women-friendly policies are not viewed as affecting the performance or risk of companies.

A gender lens to the rescue?
But with a bit of a push, rating agencies can help make gender equity transparent. They have the research capability and access to company data that everyday investors do not. This can help investors make informed decisions about what to invest in.

Pressure from investors can also force companies to address equity issues. When that happens, the public metrics of company performance on gender issues become a lever around which companies can be encouraged to change.

Investors themselves may also find great personal satisfaction in being able to make gender-aware decisions if they could easily apply a gender lens when deciding where to invest.

It is time for potential investors to start demanding data be collected. Once that happens, rating agencies will send a message to companies that gender equity matters. As long as investors stay silent, progress will remain slow.

Dr Ayesha Scott, senior lecturer – finance, Auckland University of Technology; Aaron Gilbert, associate professor in finance, Auckland University of Technology, and Candice Harris, professor of management, Auckland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Part 2 of a two-part series on the one-year anniversary of the Taliban takeover. Read part 1: The world must not wash its hands of Afghanistan’s misery

The advent of Taliban rule in Afghanistan a year ago this month, after two decades under the more liberal, internationally supported Afghan National Government, threw the Afghan populace backward through a time warp.

The return to Taliban oppression has been most traumatic for women and girls, who suddenly find themselves in the equivalent of the Middle Ages again with respect to their rights and prospects.

Today’s Afghanistan is the only country in the world that bans high-school education for girls and restricts females from working, with very limited exceptions. This not only robs girls and women of their futures, but has a much larger impact on Afghan society and the country’s standing in the world.

• READ MORE:  The world must not wash its hands of Afghanistan’s misery
• Other reports on Afghanistan since the Taliban takover

A lot has changed since 2001
Guided by a traditionalist, nativist dogma, the Taliban pursued a similar policy when it previously ruled most of the country from 1996 to 2001. Since then, however, much has changed for Afghan women, especially in the cities.

Nationwide, female literacy doubled — although granted it is still low — and women were eager for education and new opportunities. Some went into politics and public service.

After the 2019 election, 27 percent of Afghan parliamentarians were women, the same percentage as in the current US Congress. Every ministry and government division had at least one woman at a senior decision-making level — I myself was one of them.

More than 300 female judges, 1000 prosecutors and 1500 defence lawyers worked in the government’s judicial system.

Although women were less well represented in business than in government, there were more than 17,000 women-owned businesses in the country. Women were also prominent in other professions including diplomacy, academia and teaching, journalism, and civil society organisations.

Public opinion polls showed that most Afghan men favoured these new roles for women.

Mixed signals
With the Taliban takeover, girls and women suddenly found themselves disempowered, without work and facing severe hardship.

At first, however, there was some hope that the “new” Taliban would act differently from before. Indeed, when we in the Afghan National Government were negotiating with the Taliban pursuant to the 2020 Doha Agreement calling for reconciliation, the Taliban negotiators indicated a willingness to accept a more liberal female role in society.

However, in contrast to the Afghan government’s mixed-gender negotiating team, our counterparts were all male.

Once in power, the Taliban initially sent some mixed signals. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs was closed. By September, schools for boys were reopened, but only elementary schools for girls.

Some women were kept in government offices only to be dismissed when men were trained to replace them.

In December, the Taliban did issue a decree that women could refuse marriage and inherit property, but otherwise nearly all their new measures have been repressive. As a result, the presence of women in Afghan society has been drastically curtailed, and in areas such as political life it is now zero.

The Commission on Human Rights was terminated. A May 7 decree forced women to cover their face in public, with threat of serious penalties.

Another on May 19 banned women from appearing in television plays and movies. Women journalists are required to cover their whole bodies, heads, and faces while reporting.

Deprived of women’s skills
There is no woman in the leadership and administration of the Taliban. None of the female judges, military officers, and women employees in the previous government have been allowed to return to their jobs.

Although a small number of women are allowed to work in the health, education, and journalism sectors, they cannot be effective or free to pursue their ambitions because of the severe restrictions imposed by the Taliban. This also affects aspirations; why should women even seek education if virtually no professional opportunities are available to them?

Although even male members of the mujahedeen have complained about the lack of opportunity for their women, the Taliban so far have privileged the most traditionalist elements of their base—even if they sometimes come up with excuses designed to hold out hope that they will change course later, like blaming the closure of girls’ schools on a supposed lack of female teachers.

The suffering from this is experienced not just at the individual and family level, but also by society as a whole, which is deprived of the skills of half its people.

Ironically, the Taliban also suffers, since it will never be accepted as a legitimate part of the international community if it denies basic rights and opportunities in education, employment, speech, and participation that are almost now universally regarded as fundamental rights of all mankind, including in most of the Islamic world.

It is hard to be optimistic about the future. But at the very least, foreign governments, the United Nations, and civil society organisations should continue to encourage Afghan women in any way possible and deny the Taliban government recognition and support beyond humanitarian assistance so long as it continues its brutal repression of women.

Dr Zakia Adeli was the Deputy Minister of Justice and a professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Kabul University before she was forced to leave the country following the Taliban takeover last August.

Former National MP and Justice Minister Amy Adams says opposition leader Christopher Luxon is right to rule out restricting abortion laws in Aotearoa New Zealand, calling the alternative “absolutely soul-destroying”.

Speaking to RNZ, Adams also sounded a note of warning to her socially conservative former colleagues that their views are increasingly “out-of-touch” with the public.

Shortly after taking the helm of National, Luxon — who describes himself as “pro-life” — committed not to change abortion laws if elected prime minister next year.

• READ MORE:  Roe v Wade shows why abortion is at the heart of America’s divisions
• Decision on Roe v Wade will not end abortion rights in Hawai’i
• Roe reversal reignites Guam debate over ‘Heartbeat’ bill
• Other abortion rights reports

Following Friday’s Roe v Wade decision, Luxon went further, stating: “These laws will not be relitigated or revisited under a future National government, and these health services will remain fully funded”.

Adams told RNZ anything other than an unequivocal assurance would have put Luxon in a “very bad” position.

She said the vast majority of New Zealanders regarded abortion as a health issue.

“There is no place whatsoever for politicians and lawyers and judges to start determining what health procedures women are entitled to,” Adams said.

Conservative politicians ‘in peril’
“When political parties wade into that space, they put themselves in great peril and they risk getting substantially out of touch with those people they represent.”

Adams said the US Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade was “outrageous” and “should scare women all over the world”.

“We can get quite complacent that our progressive movements… are set in stone, but actually it shows us that things can be undone and freedoms we perhaps take for granted… can be taken away from us,” Adams said.

“I felt quite sick… it made me really sad and actually very, very angry.”

Luxon: ‘I serve the common cause’
On Saturday, Luxon directed his Tamaki MP Simon O’Connor to remove a Facebook post showing support for the US Supreme Court ruling.

O’Connor posted “today is a good day” surrounded by love hearts.

Speaking to RNZ on Monday, Luxon said he felt the message was being “misrepresented as the National Party position”.

He said O’Connor was entitled to his own personal views but also believed the message was “insensitive to people on the other side of that debate”.

“It’s a sensitive and distressing issue, and I want to make sure that New Zealanders understand there will be no change under a National government.”

Luxon said all his MPs were united around the commitment not to change abortion law if elected next year.

“I serve the common cause of all New Zealanders,” Luxon said. “I’m not just here for one group or one interest or one topic.”

O’Connor did not return RNZ’s calls.

Questions also for Labour
Speaking at the regular post-Cabinet media conference, Acting Prime Minister Grant Robertson questioned whether Luxon’s assurance could be trusted.

“It’s great news if that is what Christopher Luxon says he’s going to do,” Robertson said.

“But I could also understand why people could be sceptical about that given what he has said in the past [and] given that over half of his caucus actually voted against [abortion reform].”

Robertson was also questioned over Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta’s tweet calling the Supreme Court ruling “draconian” despite voting against removing abortion from the Crimes Act.

He said Mahuta had dealt with the issue in accordance with her conscience and deferred questions to her.

“The Labour Party continues to support women in New Zealand to be able to access abortion services and to have reproductive rights. We passed the legislation, it was a government bill, and I stand by what we’re doing here.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.