The Women’s Rights Party supports the aim of the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill. Previously, there was no need to define the terms “woman” and “man”, because there was universally held centuries-long societal understanding of what these words meant.
However, with the push to include beliefs driven by “transgender ideology” in legislation and in policy as if they are reality, it is now necessary to define sex more clearly, the Women’s Rights Party said in its submission to the Select Committee considering the Bill.
“You can’t protect what you can’t define,” says Co-leader Jill Ovens.
While Ms Ovens welcomes the Bill, she says it will not achieve the goals it sets to address in its current form. Hence, the Party’s submission suggests amendments that would strengthen the Bill in achieving its aims.
Ms Ovens says that despite hysterical claims by opponents of the Bill that it would “erase transgender people”, the Bill simply seeks to define “woman” as a human biological female and “man” as a human biological male (with parallel definitions for “female” and “male”) so that sex-based rights already in New Zealand law are clearly protected.
Many of the organisations opposing the Bill (such as unions, the National Council of Women and liberal churches) are misrepresenting the Bill, she says. “They have prioritised solidarity with trans and gender‑identity politics over women’s sex‑based interests.
Ms Ovens says legal and policy shifts from “sex” to “gender” and “gender identity” are eroding protections originally intended for women and girls. The Party’s submission notes that key laws (such as the Human Rights Act and the Crimes Act) have removed or neutralised references to “women”.
The untested 2006 Crown Law opinion that “gender identity” is included under the prohibited ground of discrimination “sex” in the Human Rights Act has been treated as if it were law – which it is not, she says.
“This undermines the 19 sex‑based exceptions in the Human Rights Act that permit single‑sex facilities, services and sports, for example, and makes it harder to protect same‑sex orientation, since “same‑sex” cannot be defined if “sex” is undefined.”
The Party’s submission draws on international developments, including the UK Supreme Court decision (For Women Scotland) affirming that “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, and Australian litigation (Tickle v Giggle) to show that unclear sex definitions prioritise “trans rights” over sex-based protections.
The Party also criticises the use of “intersex” as an argument against defining woman and man, as disorders of sex development (DSDs) are rare medical variations within the two existing sexes; not a third sex
The Party proposes several amendments:
- Define “sex” first, then define woman and man, female and male, making it explicit that women/girls are human females and men/boys are human males.
- Confirm that existing provisions for people with differences of sex development (DSDs) remain unaffected by defining woman and man in law.
- Explicitly state that “sex” in New Zealand legislation means biological sex, not gender identity.
- Delete “regardless of gender identity” from the Bill and resolve a conflict with section 16 of the Legislation Act (which says words denoting a gender include every other gender) by ensuring the new definitions for sex and for woman/man and female/male override that section.
- Remove the word “adult” by adding “girl” to “woman” and “boy” to “man”, so that minors are clearly covered under existing laws (e.g. contraception and abortion, and parental leave for under‑18s) are not unintentionally narrowed.
- Provide clear scientific definitions of “female” and “male”; also emphasising that cosmetic or hormonal interventions do not change sex.
The submission challenges claims that the Bill is discriminatory, and a “waste of time,” citing polling showing that support for defining a woman and man in law has increased between two polls taken a year apart (Curia polls for Family First and Speak Up For Women).
These show majority support across party lines for defining woman and man in biological terms, with growing support among Labour, Green and Te Pāti Māori voters. Thus, public opinion contradicts those MPs and organisations arguing against the Bill.