A Global Law Today article critiques New Zealand First’s proposed gender definition bill, highlighting significant human rights concerns. The bill aims to redefine gender in law based solely on biological sex, which critics argue undermines the rights of transgender individuals and conflicts with New Zealand’s Human Rights Act 1993. The article also notes potential breaches of international human rights treaties, such as the Yogyakarta Principles, which recognise gender identity as a protected characteristic. Legal experts anticipate that the bill could face judicial review due to concerns that it conflicts with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, particularly in terms of freedom from discrimination and the right to dignity.
The article further explores the political and public reaction, with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon dismissing the bill as “on another planet.” Critics view the proposal as a regressive step that risks importing polarising debates from overseas, which could disrupt New Zealand’s progressive approach to gender inclusivity. While the article provides a detailed analysis, it mistakenly refers to the “Fair Access to Bathrooms Bill,” a separate and now-withdrawn proposal by New Zealand First. This error underscores the need for clarity when discussing legislative initiatives with overlapping themes.
It is deeply disappointing that the New Zealand First Party would even contemplate introducing a bill to define “woman” in legislation. This proposal feels like a regressive step, especially in light of the unanimous passing of gender self-identification laws in the previous parliament—a moment that showcased New Zealand’s commitment to inclusivity and respect for diverse identities. Such a move not only undermines the progress we have made as a nation but also risks importing divisive debates from overseas that have no place in our unique and forward-thinking society.
The Spinoff opinion piece critiques New Zealand First’s proposal to define “woman” in legislation, arguing that it is both unnecessary and counterproductive. The article highlights New Zealand’s progressive stance on gender, particularly the unanimous passing of gender self-identification laws in the previous parliament. It contrasts this with the UK and US, where gender debates have often been polarising and politically charged. The author emphasises that New Zealand’s approach has fostered inclusivity and respect, making the proposed bill a step backwards.
The piece also delves into the legal implications, pointing out that defining “woman” in legislation could create confusion and conflict with existing laws. It argues that such a definition is redundant, as current legal frameworks already accommodate gender diversity without the need for rigid categorisation. The author warns that introducing this bill could undermine the progress made in recognising and respecting diverse gender identities, potentially alienating marginalised communities.
Finally, the article critiques the motivations behind the bill, suggesting it is a political manoeuvre rather than a genuine attempt to address legal or social issues. It calls on New Zealanders to reject this divisive approach and continue championing the country’s unique and inclusive perspective on gender. The author concludes by urging political leaders to focus on policies that unite rather than divide, reinforcing New Zealand’s reputation as a leader in progressive social change.
Having been at the receiving end of some abuse a few months back because of my perspectives on a range of topics including gender that almost brought me to the decision to cease all online discussion and comment, I appreciate Yenn’s resolve. Yes, In a world where there is a growing movement to suppress diversity in all its forms, we all need to find the strength to speak up. Thank you Yenn.
Following on from my previous post. As well as the offensive outburst from SoM, to my comment, Citizen Tom also replied. To his credit it was more moderate in tone but completely ignored the content of my comment. His reply:
This whole thing has been made overly complicated. The emotional babble is unnecessary.
A DNA test can settle the matter. Y chromosome = male. No Y chromosome = female. Perfect solution? No. There is no such thing. Someone’s feelings will be hurt.
Putting guys in boxing ring with females is utterly stupid. We may avoid hurting somebody’s feelings, but putting a biological man in a boxing ring with a woman is just going to get some woman killed.
Note “The emotional babble is unnecessary“. I assume it refers to my comment as it was a follow up to my comment, not SoM’s. Notice also that he too repeats the falsehood of allowing a “biological man in a boxing ring with a woman“. So I replied to Citizen Tom saying that I too would be outraged if a man was allowed to box against a woman, but that the point of my comment was to refute the claim made by SoM – no more and no less.
I also mentioned that I have no reason to believe that SoM’s belief that men competed against women in the 2024 Olympics might not be genuine as is mine. While I believe my understanding is correct and his is incorrect, I am open to correction. I then asked where I was guilty of emotional babble, and how that compares with the the comments by SoM in response to and Nan and myself. Finally, I asked how those comments by SoM could be condoned in any way without any form of reprimand or sanction.
Unfortunately I didn’t think to save a copy of my comment. It appeared for a short while on Citizen Tom’s blog but has since disappeared, so the best I can to is the summary above. In the meantime, SoM’s offensive comments remain in their full “glory”. I think Citizen Tom’s response says all I need to know about his ethics and morality. He has none no matter how much he professes to being guided by God.
Anyone who facilitates the level of hatred and intolerance that exists in Citizen Tom’s blog is not a Christian, no matter how much they claim to be one. I’m not a Christian, but I am reminded of a passage in The Sermon on the Mount which goes something like “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits“. I think that’s a very appropriate warning I should have taken heed of before I even considered commenting on Citizen Tom’s blog.
Thank you to all who have given me moral support. It’s been appreciated, whether it was in a comment or by email. However I will not do as some have suggested – the winding up of SoM. I am reminded of another passage from the Bible that goes something like “Do unto others as you would have them done unto you” It does not say “Do unto others as they have done unto you“. Unlike Citizen Tom, I don’t need to read the Bible to know this. It’s imprinted in my subconscious mind – an evolutionary adaptation as the human species have evolved into the social animals we now are. Ultimately it’s a combination of nature and nurture. Although Ark hasn’t definitively described how he knows right from wrong I suspect he would more or less concur with my understanding.
There are many reasons why I usually refrain from commenting on fundamentalist Christian blogs on the one hand and anti-religion blogs on the other. They both tend to define me in rather unflattering, dare I say inflammatory terms while falling short of actually arguing against my conclusions. I often find these personal attacks quite distressing, not because I don’t like what was said, but because there might possibly be an element of truth to what I am accused of. I take my beliefs and how I practice them very seriously.
This frequently results in many sleepless nights and pacing the floor – the health app on my phone recorded just under 10,000 steps while I mulled over a recent comment by Ark on the topic of veganism (no I’m not suggesting that Ark had launched a personal attack on me). This is by no means exceptional. Outside of my immediate family, almost all of my social activity is in online forums of various sorts as it offers me the opportunity to fully consider and comprehend what others communicate to me, and it allows me to form ideas in response that I hope are fully formed and unambiguous. I can’t say I’m always successful at either. However, success is very unlikely when communication is conducted in “real time”.
The core of this article has been sitting in my drafts for over a year, but there has been no particular reason for me to publish it, except for a recent blog by Ark that lead me to an article by Citizen Tom titled ABOUT THAT MORAL COMPASS. There was one comment by SoM in response to one by Nan that I felt in need of correction. SoM had written:
Yeah, Nan. You think it’s okay for a man can kick the snot out of woman in Olympic boxing, yet a man raping a woman is wrong. Where is your brain?
Nan didn’t make any reference to the Olympic boxing, and SoM’s last sentence was totally unnecessary and discourteous. But like a bull to a red flag I responded to SoM as follows:
Both the Algerian boxer and the Taiwanese boxer in question are women. They were born female, they are identified female on their birth certificates. They grew up as girls, and are now women. They both hold passports that identify them as women. Imane Khelif had to overcome the social barriers faced by girls and women often in rural Islamic communities in order to pursue her interest in football, which often lead to her being bullied by boys. It was the skill she gained dodging the attacks by boys that gave her a path into boxing. All this is documented if you care to investigate.
You do realise that there is no recognition of being trans in Algeria, that the one’s assigned gender at birth is the only gender permissible on a passport and it’s illegal for a male to present as a female in Algeria. There is absolutely no reason to question Imane Khelif’s gender.
The IBA made an arbitrary decision after the commencement of a competition in 2023 that Imane Khelif did not qualify as a female. They have refused to reveal the nature of the test or tests, or the results. There have been contradictory comments about the nature of the tests claiming extremely high levels of testosterone by one official, while one another claimed that testosterone was not tested for.
The IBA lost its olympic credentials in 2019 due to its lack of transparency, arbitrary decisions and rulings, and ties to Russian money. Russian oligarchs weld almost complete control over the IBA and the decision to disqualify Khelif came after she defeated the Russian boxer Amineva Azalia. The Olympic committee has warned that there may not be any boxing in the 2028 games unless the national boxing organisations create a new international association that can be trusted.
To claim that Imane Khelif is not a woman because of the arbitrary decision of a body with connections to the Russian “mafia” without any supporting evidence is the height of disrespect to Imane Khelif and to all women. I really don’t care what Libs of TikTok, Trump, Rowling or Musk claim. They are repeating malicious lies that have no basis in fact. Unsubstantiated rumours are beneath you. Do not repeat them.
FYI there was just one competitor who identifies as trans. That was the American Nikki Hiltz who identifies as transgender/non-binary and uses “they/them” pronouns. She was born female and came out transgender/non-binary in 2021.
I realise that I misgendered Hiltz in my comment, but for the sake of consistency I haven’t changed it here. The facts as I presented them are brief but to the best of my understanding are correct. The body of that comment was another draft post that I started following a confrontation with a family member about this very topic. If it wasn’t for that draft, I could not have been able to prepare the comment in a timely manner. What I expected from SoM in response was for the facts I presented to be challenged. Instead, SoM responded as follows:
Barry, You are either a dirty rotten liar or so ignorant it beggars the imagination.
Anyone with two eyes and functioning brain can see Imane Khelif is a man. He was also disqualified by an international boxing association for being a man.
And you also know what you can do with your social barriers.
I am giving creeps like you the treatment our society should have given you 40 years ago. Get back into the closet where you belong.
The rest of us have a civilization to manage and develop into something greater. And stay away from our women and children you pathetic monster.
I should have remembered that I have had run ins with SoM before, although the last occasion would have been seven or eight years ago, maybe more. I had forgotten just how vindictive SoM is. As much as I would like to argue the case, I feel that SoM has a closed mind.
What I find more disturbing than SoM’s willingness to make a false assumptions about what an unsubstantiated claim by a discredited sporting body actually means, was his willingness to redefine a woman as a man on the grounds that she she doesn’t meet some ideal of femininity – an ideal which happens to vary from culture to culture and is often unattainable. That in itself is quite frightening. There’s already too much judgement in the world. Gender policing to some extent already exists but what a dystopian world we’d create with SoM in charge.
If SoM cared to look up the facts available they would realise that the IBA did not claim that Khelif was a man. The IBA claimed, without any evidence provided, that Khelif deliberately and fraudulently made a false claim about her eligibility to compete as a woman, and that the IBA had conducted undisclosed tests that according to them (no results provided) indicated she did not meet the criteria to compete as a woman. Among the IBA requirements are having XX Chromosomes and testosterone below a prescribed level. Women whose natural level of testosterone is above that level are prohibited from participating in women’s events. Having a high level of naturally occurring testosterone does not mean you are a man. But again I remind readers that no evidence one way or the other has been provided by the IBA.
While I think it’s probably not productive to argue the facts, I am curious about what kind of monster SoM thinks I am. Over the years I have been described in quite horrific terms from both ends of the religion spectrum, and yes I admit I take most criticism to heart and can anguish for days mulling over whether or not the criticism was justified. But what should I make of SoM’s description of me? Should I cringe or role on the floor laughing?
The social barriers I mentioned are those that liberal societies have for the most part abandoned, but still apply to females in conservative Muslim societies. They are not my social barriers. Perhaps SoM wants those social barriers to apply to all women in all societies?
So I’m a creep. I’ve been called that for going on seven decades. It’s like water off a duck’s back. I’m autistic and that creeps out many people. It shouldn’t, but it’s an unfortunate fact of life. I’m not sure what sort of treatment society should have given me 40 years ago when I was 35 years of age. Perhaps I should ask him? And I wonder what closet he thinks I came out of? The only one I can think of is the autism closet which is still a work in progress and started less than 15 years ago. Once I understood the dangers to life and limb of not presenting specifically masculine when in my late teens/early twenties I have always presented unambiguously male irrespective of how I personally identify myself internally. So his comment baffles me.
As for SoM’s “And stay away from our women and children you pathetic monster” comment, I’m tempted to respond with “Too late. I’ve been happily married to a wonderful woman for 53 years and have two great children and three amazing grandchildren.” but somehow I don’t think irony will sink in. Perhaps SoM is confusing me with a certain blogger who admits a fondness for consuming Christian babies?
Here’s the thing. SoM’s comments are not going to distress me because they are so nonsensical and over the top. There’s no way I’d take them seriously. I don’t think SoM will ever have a change of mind but I’d hate to think that someone else might be influenced by unchallenged falsehoods. On the other hand, given that on average I compose comments at about one word per minute, would I be better off concentrating my resources elsewhere? Any thoughts?
The title of this post is a direct lift of the title of a post over on Filosofa’s Word. This post itself has been prompted by a comment made by a reader that has been gnawing at me ever since I saw it. The sentiments expressed give me cause to be concerned about the wellbeing of those who are trans. Originally I was going to reply to the comment, but as my comment continued to grow in length, I realised it deserved a post of its own. So below is my take on the matter.
I will provide a broad summary of my position and then go into detail on a few of the statements I see as being misleading:
Excluding the “T” from the LGBTQ+ acronym:
The acronym has evolved over time to be more inclusive. While it originally stood for “Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual,” adding the “T” (for transgender) recognises the unique challenges faced by transgender individuals.
Transgender people have historically been part of the LGBTQ+ community, advocating for their rights alongside LGB individuals. Excluding them would be counterproductive to the fight for equality and acceptance.
Pride Parades and Trans Children:
Pride parades celebrate diversity, acceptance, and love. They are not solely about sexuality but also about gender identity and expression.
Trans children exist and deserve support. Gender dysphoria is a real experience, and affirming care helps them live authentically.
The claim that “no child is born in the wrong body” oversimplifies a complex issue. Gender identity is multifaceted and not solely determined by physical characteristics.
Trans-ideology and Medications:
Gender-affirming care is evidence-based and supports transgender individuals. It includes counselling, hormone therapy, and, in some cases, surgery.
It is not about “Big Pharma” or plastic surgery. These treatments improve mental health and well-being.
The decision to pursue medical interventions is individual and not forced upon anyone.
Identity and Feelings:
Gender identity is more than feelings; it’s an intrinsic sense of self. It’s not merely about “identifying” as something.
A person’s gender identity may not align with their assigned sex at birth. Acknowledging this is essential for understanding transgender experiences.
Straight Allies and Pride:
Straight allies play a crucial role in supporting LGBTQ+ rights. Their presence at Pride events shows solidarity.
Corporations supporting Pride often do so genuinely, but it’s essential to hold them accountable for meaningful actions beyond marketing.
Now on to specifics:
“No child is born in the wrong body”
Many trans people recognize their gender identity from a young age. The feeling that they have the ‘wrong body’ often arises due to societal discouragement or punishment. When trans children are denied their true gender, it reinforces the notion that they are in the wrong body. It’s not that trans people want to change their gender because they believe they have the wrong body; rather, they believe they have the wrong body because they are denied the opportunity to express their gender in the body they have.
Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation
Transgender Identity: Transgender individuals have a gender identity that doesn’t align with their assigned sex at birth. This internal sense of being male, female, or nonbinary develops independently of sexual orientation.
Sexual Orientation: Sexual orientation pertains to whom someone is attracted to on physical, emotional, and romantic levels. It is distinct from gender identity.
Transgender vs. LGB: While both transgender and LGB individuals face challenges, transgender people often encounter additional barriers due to societal misconceptions and lack of understanding.
Unique Struggles: The journey of self-discovery and acceptance can be particularly complex for transgender individuals, especially when it comes to affirming their gender identity.
In summary: Transgender children often know their gender identity early on, and the stigma they face is distinct from that experienced by LGB individuals. Listening to their feelings and providing support is crucial.
Pride Month
Pride Month is about celebrating identity, acceptance, and the right to be oneself. While sexuality is a part of it, the broader focus includes gender identity, expression, and the diverse experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals. Autistic Pride Day’s inclusion (18 June) recognises that pride extends beyond sexual orientation—it encompasses all aspects of self, including gender and neurodiversity.
Given that autistic people are significantly more likely than their non-autistic peers to express non-conforming sexuality and gender identities, including Autistic Pride Day in Pride Month is entirely appropriate. For instance:
Autistic adults and adolescents are approximately eight times more likely to identify as asexual or with an ‘other’ sexuality compared to their non-autistic peers.
Autistic males are 3.5 times more likely to identify as bisexual compared to non-autistic males.
Autistic females are three times more likely to identify as lesbian compared to non-autistic females.”
My perspective
Many Polynesian societies, including the Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand, have long recognised that gender isn’t binary—well before the advent of “big pharma” and plastic surgery. New Zealand has been a pioneer in progressive policies, enabling individuals to self-identify their gender on official documents like driver’s licenses, passports, and, more recently, birth certificates. Importantly, there’s no need for medical procedures such as surgery or hormone therapy; a statutory declaration suffices.
In fact, the majority of trans people in New Zealand do not undergo “bottom” surgery due to its limited availability within the country. The National Council of Women in New Zealand, a prominent women’s organisation, unequivocally supports gender equality, including for trans and gender non-conforming individuals. They affirm that trans women are women and trans men are men.
New Zealand’s trailblazers, like Georgina Beyer — possibly the world’s first openly transgender mayor and Member of Parliament—have championed these rights. Their legacy underscores the importance of recognising diverse identities and advocating for human rights, including those of women, children, and the trans community.
Colours intertwine, Love blooms fierce, unapologetic, Pride in every hue.
(This post was prepared and edited with assistance from Copilot)
The LGB to T theory is a subset of wider “gender ideology” or “gender critical” theories, and is a conspiracy theory claiming that transgender activists are trying to recruit or groom lesbian, gay and bisexual people into becoming transgender. This theory is based on the false assumption that transgender people are not really their affirmed gender, but rather confused or deluded homosexuals, lesbians or bisexuals who have been influenced by “transgender ideology” whatever that is supposed to mean.
There are many arguments against this theory, but here are some that I think are worth considering:
The theory is homophobic and transphobic, as it denies the existence and validity of transgender people and their identities, and implies that homosexuality and bisexuality are inferior or undesirable orientations.
The theory is unscientific, as it ignores the overwhelming evidence that gender identity is a complex and innate aspect of human development, and that transgender people benefit from affirming their gender identity through social, medical and/or legal means.
The theory is illogical, as it contradicts itself by claiming that transgender people are both a threat to and a product of lesbian, gay and bisexual communities, and by ignoring the diversity and fluidity of sexual orientation and gender expression among all people.
The theory is unfounded, as it relies on anecdotal and sensationalised stories of detransitioners or regretters, who are a very small minority of transgender people, and who often face external pressures or barriers to accessing appropriate care.
The theory is harmful, as it fuels stigma, discrimination and violence against transgender people, especially transgender youth, who are already vulnerable to rejection, bullying and suicide.
In the last decade, since learning I’m autistic, I have come to realise my understanding of gender does not comfortably sit with what I will term the neurotypical binary gender stereotype. Like many autistics, I struggle to understand many social constructs, including that of gender.
In coming to terms with who I am, I have done a lot of reading about gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexuality and sexual expression. I am stating my position here because I see a rise in hatred and violence against the LGBTQIA+ community, especially the transgender community. It has to stop. To those who hold a contrary view to my position as outlined above, in all probability I have already read, carefully considered and dismissed the perspective you hold, so do not attempt to argue your case here. Any such comment will be deleted, and the offender will likely be banned from further comment.
New Zealand has become one of the few countries in the world to allow its citizens to change the sex recorded on their birth certificates without providing evidence of a medical procedure. The new law, which passed unanimously in Parliament in 2021 and became effective from today, is a major win for the rainbow community and a recognition of their right to self-identify.
The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationship Registration Bill removes the requirement for applicants to prove they had undergone medical treatment to align their sex and gender identity. Instead, they can simply fill out a statutory declaration stating their preferred sex marker, which currently is limited to female, male, and non-binary. There is also an option for indeterminate for intersex people who want to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate. Other markers may be added in future – probably to include Māori and Pasifika concepts of gender diversity.
The law also gives young people more agency over their identity, as they can apply for a change of sex on their birth certificate with the support of a suitably qualified third party, such as a doctor, counsellor or teacher.
After the law was passed in 2021, Internal Affairs Minister Jan Tinetti said the law change will make a real difference for transgender, non-binary, takatāpui and intersex New Zealanders. “Today is a proud day in Aotearoa’s history. Parliament has voted in favour of inclusivity and against discrimination,” she said.
She added that the law supports young people’s mental health and well-being by allowing them to be accepted for who they are and be treated with dignity and respect. (Are you listening DeSantis?)
Tinetti challenged some reactions to the bill. “There have been real people who have been hurt when they have been belittled, mocked and discriminated against. People who like any one of us just want to be accepted for who they are and be treated with dignity and respect,” she said. “Trans misogyny is still misogyny so I stand strong in challenging this discrimination.”
Transgender people desire to be able to change their sex marker on their birth certificate so that they are less likely to be outed as trans without consent or dead-named using their previous given name, which is typically one that is not associated with their preferred gender. This can cause them distress, discrimination, harassment, or violence. Having a birth certificate that matches their gender identity can also help them access services and benefits that require proof of identity, such as education, health care, employment, travel, or banking. Moreover, changing the sex marker on the birth certificate can be seen as a form of recognition and affirmation of their identity and dignity by the state and society. Therefore, the new self-identification process has been welcomed by many transgender people and advocates as a major step towards inclusivity and equality.
With all the hoo-ha regarding trans rights and bathroom use in the USA and the legislators pushing through literally hundreds of anti LGBTQIA bills, here’s something to consider:
In America, more US politicians have been convicted of assaulting someone in a public bathroom than have trans people. Given that there are far more transgender folk in America than there are politicians, perhaps these so called “Bathroom bills” are targeting the wrong people. Just a thought.
For the first time in our history, women Members of Parliament outnumber men. With one vacancy in Parliament (a by-election is due soon) the swearing in of Soraya Peke-Mason yesterday means that there are currently 60 women MPs (Members of Parliament) and 59 men MPs.
Grant Robertson (an openly gay MP) who is Acting Prime Minister while Jacinda Ardern is in Antarctica, stated that It is a significant moment in the democratic representation of New Zealand. “At a time when we have a female prime minister, Governor General and Chief Justice, it is further evidence of the strides that we’re making in gender equality.” Notice that he said strides we are making – in other words there’s still progress to be made.
Aotearoa New Zealand made history in 1893 by becoming the nation to grant universal suffrage regardless of ethnicity, gender or property ownership. Then we progressed at a snail’s pace, with women not being able to be elected to parliament until 1919, and the first woman being successfully elected fourteen years later in 1933. As Ms Peke-Mason said, “Good things take time. No doubt it’s a special day for me but it’s also a historic occasion for Aotearoa New Zealand.”
What is significant is that it’s the left of centre parties where women are better represented. Of the 64 Labour MPs, 37 are women, while 7 of the 10 Green MPs are women. In contrast, the right of centre National party has only 10 women amongst its 33 MPs, and the ACT party does slightly better with 4 of its 10 MPs being women. It’s interesting to note that in the first 23 years of this century, we’ve had a woman Prime Minister for 14 of those years.
As a footnote Aotearoa New Zealand became the first nation to elect an openly trans woman to Parliament in 2005. Following the 2020 general elections, our Parliament became the “queerest” in the world with 12 openly LGBTQI representatives elected – 10% of all MPs sitting in Parliament.
You must be logged in to post a comment.