Rainbow Wellington submitted against the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill. The text of our submission is below:
Rainbow Wellington Incorporated is a membership group, supporting and advocating for rainbow people in Te Whanganui-a-Tara Wellington and throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. We are an incorporated society and registered charity. Our members include lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, takatāpui, intersex, non-binary, asexual, and other rainbow people, as well as their whānau and allies. We are committed to fostering inclusion, belonging, safety, and equity for all rainbow communities.
We wish to submit on Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill.
We would like to appear before the Committee to submit in person.
Opening position statement
Rainbow Wellington strongly opposes the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill and urges the Committee to recommend that it not proceed.
We wish to make the following comments
Rainbow Wellington believes this Bill represents a significant step backwards for Aotearoa New Zealand.
The Bill would impose a single ‘biological’ definition of “woman” and “man” across New Zealand legislation. In doing so, it risks overriding legal interpretations and protections that trans, intersex, takatāpui, and non-binary New Zealanders have relied upon for many years.
We do not consider that a genuine legal problem has been identified that requires this legislation. Existing laws, public services, and institutions already operate using established legal frameworks and human rights protections. We agree with Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Human Rights Commission Women’s Rights spokesperson Professor Gail Pacheco, who stated:
“There’s no need to define ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the law because the law already works well using the usual meaning of those words. Adding strict definitions can create confusion, leave people out, and cause problems without actually changing how the law works.”
Even the Attorney-General’s Bill of Rights report to this House states that the definitions in the Bill won’t affect interpretation of the Human Rights Act 1993, as that Act doesn’t use the terms “woman” and “man”, and that how these definitions are intended to interact with section 16 of the Legislation Act 2019 is unclear, as that section says, “words denoting a gender include every other gender”.
Experienced human rights barrister Matt McKillop wrote in an article for LawNews:
“The lack of demonstrated legal need for the Bill, and the many unanticipated issues it would seem to create, suggests secondary motivations to mere protection of women’s interests. The treating of transgender persons and other vulnerable groups as an object of political debate is a concerning trend, which this Bill seems to follow.”
We would agree. Rather than providing clarity, Rainbow Wellington is concerned that the bill introduces uncertainty, exclusion, and unintended consequences while not solving any real problem.
The Committee should therefore consider the Member’s motive for introducing this Bill. Is it about women’s rights, or about appealing to anti-trans voters?
Erasure of communities
Rainbow Wellington is deeply concerned that this Bill effectively erases the existence and lived realities of many members of our communities.
The Bill reduces human diversity to a narrow binary framework that fails to reflect the complexity of human biology, identity, and culture.
In particular, we are concerned about:
- The erasure of intersex people whose bodies do not fit simplistic binary definitions of sex.
- The erasure of non-binary and gender diverse people whose identities exist outside the categories recognised by the Bill.
- The erasure of takatāpui and other culturally specific understandings of gender and identity that do not neatly align with imported Western concepts of sex and gender.
The National Council of Women of New Zealand has described the Bill as:
“[…] unworkable and unscientific in that it ignores innate variation of sex characteristics (that is, intersex people), exclusionary and discriminatory, and breaches human rights.”
Rainbow Wellington shares these concerns.
The Bill’s sponsor, Jenny Marcroft MP, has stated “I’m not a scientist or a biologist.” We would agree, and ask that the Committee take the advice of scientists and biologists. “Sex is a multifaceted trait that has some components that are present at birth and some components that developed during puberty,” says evolutionary biologist Dr Sam Sharpe. “And each of these components shows variation.”
We encourage Members to listen to the lived experience of intersex people. As intersex Māori leader Tu Chapman has said:
“Our voices have disappeared. Our faces have not been seen in these discussions, yet others are comfortable speaking about us.”
We refer to and endorse the submission of Intersex Aotearoa.
The Bill erases nonbinary gender identities, which are already widely erased and invalidated in Western societies, due to binary normativity. These daily experiences contribute to the internalisation of negative emotions referred to the self, including discomfort, shame, and a sense of social inadequacy.
Ms Marcroft may say that this Bill is not about excluding intersex and nonbinary people, however, this Bill is supposed to be about statutory interpretation, and in statutory interpretation terms, expressio unius, exclusio alterius – the express inclusion of one or more things of a particular type necessarily implies an intention to exclude others of that type.
Such simplistic definitions continue to try and impose European colonial views of gender on our takatāpui whanau. Academic Leonie Pihama has written:
“[C]olonial dominant views of sexuality, sexual identity and gender identity were imposed upon our people in ways that created layers of oppression for takatāpui, Māori LGBTIQ whānau.”
Language and definitions are an important part of this. Assoc Prof Pihama continues:
“Within te reo Māori we have many indications of the ways in which our tupuna saw gender. What we also know is that translation and interpretation of our languages and practices have been particularly problematic for Māori and Indigenous nations. This requires us to think critically about the ways in which English translations of key Māori ways of being and acting have contributed to the creation of simplistic and palatable definitions that sit most comfortably with colonial ways of thinking and being. Translations that align with colonising views about gender identities contribute to the hegemonic internalisation of such beliefs about ourselves and within wider Māori society.”
Harm to our communities
The people affected by this legislation are not abstract groups. They are our members, volunteers, community leaders, friends, and whānau. We are already seeing fear, anxiety, frustration, and exhaustion within our communities because of this legislation and the public debate surrounding it.
Many members of our communities have spent years advocating for recognition, inclusion, dignity, and equal treatment. This Bill sends a message that those gains can be withdrawn and that their identities remain open to political debate.
Rainbow Wellington is particularly concerned about the impact on young rainbow people. During community engagement on this issue, one non-binary secondary school student described feeling afraid that they would be forced to hide who they are and spoke about the fear that their identity could effectively become illegal.
While this is only one voice, it reflects concerns Rainbow Wellington has heard more broadly from members of our communities about the uncertainty, fear, and exclusion this legislation may create.
No young person should feel that their identity, safety, or place in society is open to political debate because of legislation before Parliament.
“My existence does not harm anyone. Yet this Bill would erase significant parts of who I am while making it harder for people like me to access healthcare, navigate public life, and feel safe in our communities. It offers no real solutions to New Zealand’s challenges. It simply tells people who do not fit neatly into ‘man’ or ‘woman’ that we don’t matter.”
— Anonymous Rainbow Wellington community member
The impact of these debates about our identities is not theoretical. The “minority stress model” is a well-known explanatory theory explaining the social, psychological, and structural factors accounting for mental health inequalities facing sexual minority populations. The high prevalence of mental health problems among TGD people has been found to correlate with the impact of minority stress.
It is well documented that public and political debates regarding rainbow people’s identities actively harms the mental health of rainbow people. After the Australian marriage equality debate, three separate psychology studies have confirmed that that debate caused rainbow Australians psychological distress.
We therefore submit, that the ‘harms’ that this Bill are claiming to remove are imaginary, while the harms that the Bill itself is causing, are very real.
Attack on transgender people
To frame this Bill as an administrative or technical clarification is disingenuous.
It sits within a broader international trend of legislative measures directed at transgender people. Similar proposals in jurisdictions such as parts of the United States, the United Kingdom, and several European countries have sought to define sex exclusively by biological characteristics assigned at birth to regulate transgender people’s recognition and participation in public life.
The press release announcing the introduction of this Bill to the ballot linked the Bill to the party’s other anti-trans policies and Bills (“New Zealand First is the only party that campaigned on keeping men out of women’s sports, keeping men out of women’s and girl’s changing rooms, and we have received two petitions this term calling for protecting the term ‘woman’ in legislation.”)
By seeking to define “woman” and “man” in a way that excludes transgender women and transgender men, the Bill would signal that the law does not recognise their lived reality and would create a foundation for further restrictions on participation in public life, access to services, and recognition by government agencies.
The significance of the Bill therefore extends beyond the wording of the proposed definitions themselves. For many transgender people and their families, it is perceived as an attempt to use legislation to invalidate their identities and reduce existing legal recognition. We are concerned it is just one step in an ongoing attempt to chip away at hard won rights for rainbow people.
Perhaps Georgina Beyer should not have withdrawn her Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill in 2006, and we should have taken the chance to enshrine transgender rights in law at the time? At the time, Crown Law advised that “[t]here is currently no reason to suppose that ‘sex discrimination’ would be construed narrowly to deprive transgender people of protection under the HRA.” In the opinion of law professor Elisabeth McDonald, the amendment is still needed. We would encourage Members to take up that issue.
Healthcare and practical consequences
Trans women may require breast cancer screening. Trans men may require cervical or ovarian cancer screening. Intersex people may require healthcare that does not fit binary assumptions.
We are concerned that creating legal definitions that conflict with medical realities, through trickling down in regulations and policies, risks introducing barriers to healthcare access and creating confusion across healthcare systems.
We are also concerned about potential impacts on identity documents, insurance, public services, and other administrative systems that currently recognise the diversity of New Zealanders.
Rather than creating clarity, this legislation risks creating uncertainty and unnecessary bureaucracy.
Impact on women
Rainbow Wellington rejects the suggestion that this bill advances the interests of women and girls. As Minister for Women Nicola Grigg stated:
“I’m not convinced that this bill would advance the rights and opportunities or the wellbeing of women and girls in any way, shape or form in New Zealand.”
We share that concern.
We have seen no evidence that this Bill will improve safety, wellbeing, healthcare outcomes, economic opportunities, or equality for women.
We are also concerned that attempts to narrowly define womanhood often result in increased scrutiny of all women, not just transgender women. There is no practical way to enforce rigid definitions of sex in public spaces without encouraging people to judge, question, or challenge others based on their appearance.
In practice, this disproportionately affects cisgender women who do not conform to stereotypical expectations of femininity, including butch women, gender non-conforming women, women with certain disabilities or medical conditions, and women from diverse ethnic backgrounds.
Gender policing does not make women safer. It creates environments where women are expected to prove their legitimacy in order to access public spaces.
A distraction from real issues
Rainbow Wellington is concerned that Parliament is devoting significant time and resources to legislation that does not address any pressing issue facing New Zealand women, rainbow communities, or the wider public.
The challenges facing our communities include:
- Access to healthcare, including women’s healthcare, reproductive healthcare, and gender-affirming healthcare.
- Pay equity.
- Child poverty.
- Affordable and accessible childcare.
- Disability support and accessibility.
- Sexual violence prevention.
- Abuse and harassment directed at women and gender diverse people in leadership and public office.
- Housing insecurity and the cost of living.
We have seen no evidence that trans women are causing widespread harm in women’s spaces, nor that this legislation addresses any significant or documented public policy problem.
Rainbow Wellington is concerned that this bill reflects imported culture-war narratives rather than New Zealand realities.
Inclusion is a New Zealand value
This year marks 40 years since Homosexual Law Reform. New Zealand’s progress has been built on expanding recognition, dignity, and human rights, not restricting them.
As Kate Sheppard observed:
“All that separates, whether of race, class, creed, or sex, is inhuman, and must be overcome.”
Rainbow Wellington believes this principle remains as relevant today as it was when it was first written.
Historically, New Zealand has been at its best when it has chosen inclusion over exclusion.
This Bill moves us in the opposite direction.
We wish to make the following recommendations:
- That the Committee recommend the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill not proceed.
- That Parliament does not proceed with legislation that removes recognition, protections, and dignity from trans, intersex, takatāpui, non-binary, and gender-diverse New Zealanders.
- That any future work relating to sex, gender, identity, or bodily diversity be undertaken in partnership with affected communities, including trans, intersex, takatāpui, non-binary, and gender-diverse people, alongside legal, medical, human rights, and community experts.
- That Parliament focus its attention and resources on addressing issues that materially improve the lives of New Zealanders, including healthcare access, pay equity, child poverty, affordable childcare, disability support, housing, and violence prevention.
- That New Zealand continues its long tradition of choosing inclusion, dignity, and human rights over exclusion and division.
The question before Parliament is not simply how words are defined in legislation. It is what kind of country we want Aotearoa New Zealand to be.
Rainbow Wellington believes New Zealand should continue its long tradition of choosing inclusion, dignity, evidence, and human rights over exclusion, division, and fear.
We urge the Committee to reject this Bill in its entirety.