50 shades of nonsense

Opponents of the "Definitions of a Woman and Man" Bill think emotion is more persuasive than logic

Predictably, gender identity believers have responded to the Definitions of a Woman and Man Bill, currently before a select committee in NZ, with a cacophony of condemnations that are high on emotion and very low on any logic or evidence.

Politicians, columnists, public servants, and bloggers have wailed that the Bill is unnecessary, divisive, impractical, and cruel. Even the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Women’s Rights Spokesperson, Professor Gail Pacheco, 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.”

Like so many others, Professor Pacheco has wilfully sidestepped the whole point of the Bill: It is because the usual meaning of the words for men and women, male and female have been distorted in policy and practice that this Bill is necessary.

As retired District Court Judge, David Harvey, explains in his column in The Listener this week:

“Over the past decade, a handful of ordinary words – woman, man, female, male – have quietly become some of the least stable terms in New Zealand law. Where they once pointed unambiguously to sex, they are now pulled between two rival meanings: biological sex on the one hand, and subjective gender identity on the other. That ambiguity can look academic but it is not. It reaches into discrimination law, privacy, women’s sport, prisons, data collection and child safeguarding – every area that depends on knowing what these words actually mean…

The Bill simply gives legal effect to what most people already take for granted; that women are adult human females and men are adult human males. Done properly, it lets the law reflect reality rather than obscure it.”

Emotional and illogical

One blogger, Emily Writes, went even further than most trans activists and claimed she had compiled 50 reasons to oppose the Bill. But when we took a closer look, those 50 reasons include:

25 unsubstantiated emotional assertions, such as:

• Reason #2: “It encourages, legitimises and normalises anti-trans extremism toward already vulnerable communities.”

• Or Reasons #4-6: that the Bill “erases” intersex people or those who identify outside the gender binaries. Emily asks breathlessly, “If you can erase one group, you can erase any group. Who is next?”

No evidence for any of these 25 hyperbolic claims is supplied.

(NB, it is impossible for a definition to “erase” a DSD - disorder of sex development - because they are congenital conditions. Using the incorrect term ‘intersex’ is a ploy to create confusion.)

16 spurious claims about the Bill’s supposed overreach:

• Reason #39: “The bill is a continuation of a campaign that has in the past denied women the vote and denied gay couples the right to marry and have sex. It is about controlling women’s bodies and denying people their basic freedoms - like driving (you can’t get a license if your gender marker is based on Winston Peters’ idea of biology), or travel (passports where your gender assigned at birth doesn’t match your actual gender”.

Huh?

• Or Reason #11: “…this bill sets us back to a time when there was only allowed to be one type of woman – barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.” There is no logic to this argument, because we cannot have feminism if we cannot say which of us are women.

5 scientifically illiterate repetitions of the belief that sex is on a spectrum.

• Reason #18: “The bill creates categories that many people literally cannot realistically fit into because of biological variation.”

On that point, in the same Listener column, David Harvey says, “…human sex is built on two reproductive roles and two gamete types, and atypical development – real and deserving of respect – does not create a third sex. The law can acknowledge rare cases without abandoning the category most law already relies on.”

In Reason #15, Emily asserts that people will have to disclose private matters to access everyday services. False. For most everyday services, sex does not matter, but when it does matter, all that is required is for people to be honest about their sex, as everyone was until very recently.

Recognising that sex is binary is the only way to identify the specific needs of each sex, and the only way same-sex attraction is meaningful. It is the only way to put ethical principles ahead of ‘inclusion’ at any cost.

Everyone knows their sex and all they have to do is respect the social contract to stay in their own sex lane and not encroach on other people’s right to privacy and dignity.

People who claim a ‘gender identity’ need to stop expecting everyone else to accommodate their comfort without reciprocating the courtesy.

Reason #16 finally identifies the core issue: “… under the Human Rights Act, organisations are already allowed to provide services exclusively to cisgender [sic] women in Aotearoa.”

Although the HRA clearly does permit single-sex services, that legal right is being repeatedly flouted and official advice often contradicts the law. This is the exact problem that the Bill intends to correct. By accurately defining ‘sex’, services that are supposed to be for only one sex can be protected.

Trudging through treacle

The list continues with repetitions and sweeping statements about unintended consequences, wasting time and money, and how cruel, violating, and invasive it is to have an accurate definition of sex.

But Reason 27 takes the cake:

“There’s literally no problem that the bill is trying to address - nobody is forced to acknowledge the existence of trans and intersex people if they don’t want to.”

Has Emily been living under a rock for the last ten years? Here is just one testimonial showing that people have indeed been routinely intimidated into keeping silent or telling lies about sex and ‘gender identity’:

“As a teacher, I am just disappointed that there is no discussion about the impact on teachers and school staff working at the schools who are being forced to deny the truth, deny science, forced to lie and to pay lip service to something they do not believe in - because they have a job that they love doing, earn a salary that they need to support themselves and their families - and they have to live with their own consciences knowing that they are denying science and are lying/not telling the truth every day.”

And we’re only just over halfway through the list. It’s like trudging through treacle.

Emily claims the Bill will be in breach of Te Tiriti, the Law Commission, and the Human Rights Act, as if the fact that humans come in two sexes is not a foundational concept in every society.

According to a poll commissioned by Speak Up For Women in May 2026, 51% of New Zealanders support the Definitions Bill. The poll revealed only 19% of respondents opposed the Bill, while 30% were unsure – demonstrating that the confusion that has been deliberating sewn around sex and gender is widespread.

As Emily adds each new ‘reason’ to her list, her arguments become more and more ridiculous:

• Reason #33: “The bill is part of a far-right agenda.”

• Reason #41: “There was no consultation on the bill and the only people calling for it are weird bigots obsessed with other people’s junk.”

• Reason #42: “Those same weird bigots will now try to police people in bathrooms and changing rooms - leading to even more violence and intimidation toward not just trans and intersex people but anyone who doesn't fit a very strict gender norm.”

• Reason #44: “It is an HR nightmare as every day New Zealanders are forced to attack each other in the workplace.”

Until we finally reach the ultimate ‘reason’ to oppose the Bill – it’s fascist!

Reason #50: “Scapegoating a minority is the oldest trick in the fascist playbook.”

Safeguarding relies on accurate definitions

Remove the unsubstantiated emotional statements, ideological assertions, and scientific illiteracy from Emily’s list and all that is left is one legitimate criticism of the Bill – she correctly identifies that it is poorly drafted.

RGE agrees that the Bill uses circular definitions that lack meaning because they are not coupled with a precise definition of ‘sex’.

Males have the function of producing sperm, or small gametes; females, ova, or large gametes.

To be male or female does not require that sperm or ova are being produced, only that the individual’s anatomy is organised for that function. Thus, a pre-pubescent, menopausal, or post-hysterectomy woman is still a female and a pre-pubescent, sterilised, or castrated man is still a male.

As it is currently worded, the Bill will not achieve its intended purpose of protecting everyone’s right to safety, privacy, and dignity in sex-segregated facilities. However, during the select committee process, these flaws in the wording can be corrected so that the accurate meaning of sex and the ordinary meaning of ‘woman’ and ‘man’ are restored in law.

Our whole community is being harmed by the manufactured confusion around the meaning of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. Activist propaganda has replaced critical thinking and has permeated into policy in every aspect of life, including into schools. This lack of clarity impacts on the rights of children and women and also on the free speech and freedom of belief rights of all of us.

If the Bill’s wording is amended correctly, schools will no longer be pressured into having mixed sex sports, facilities, and sleeping arrangements where single-sex ones are necessary. Teachers, who are in locus parentis, will no longer be coerced into pretending a student is the opposite sex, an obvious safeguarding risk for everyone.

Accurately defining ‘sex’ will not harm or “erase” transgender, takatāpui or non-binary people. They will still be able to declare the same self-image (aka ‘identity’) and dress and express themselves as they wish. All that will be changed is that the existing law that allows for single-sex services will be clarified. It will be made plain that people cannot be compelled to affirm another’s self-image as if it is fact. And that facilities, sports, and opportunities that are intended for one sex are not open to people of either sex.

No-one has the right to use their ‘gender identity’ as an excuse to disregard the comfort and dignity of others.

Submissions on the Definitions of a Woman and a Man Bill are open until Thursday 2 July and can be made by clicking on this link. We will publish RGE’s submission in a few days.

by Fern Hickson