Boys can't be girls - let's remind our politicians

Submit to the Definitions of a Woman and Man Bill

In recent years, some teachers (and parents) have become a little confused about who is a boy and who is a girl.

• They have let boys compete in girls’ sports.

• They have expected boys and girls to share the same school toilets.

• On overnight trips, they have allowed girls to sleep in bedrooms with boys, if they ‘identify’ as a boy.

That these are safeguarding breaches is obvious to everyone except those who are in thrall to the crackers ideology that insists a girl is a boy if she says so, and vice versa.

This ideological blindfold is (hopefully) about to be ripped off thanks to a Bill introduced to parliament by NZ First MP, Jenny Marcroft.

Definitions of a Woman and Man

The Definitions of Woman and Man Bill has passed its first reading in parliament and is now open for public submissions until 2 July.

The bill would amend the Legislation Act 2019 by adding a definition of “woman” as “an adult human biological female” and of “man” as “an adult human biological male”, with corresponding definitions for “male” and “female”.

While this wording needs significant improvement, RGE supports the intention of the Bill, which is to reinforce legal protections for women and girls against the onslaught of transgender ideology that aims to reduce womanhood to a stereotyped costume.

Until about 2010, there was no need for ‘woman’ and ‘man’ to be defined in law because no-one disputed that sex is innate, immutable, and binary. But in the last 15 years, the lack of clear definitions has allowed a minority belief in transgenderism to creep into public life and, amongst other things, persuade teachers that it is kind and inclusive to pretend that some children have changed sex.

This pretence starts as “kindness” but soon forces the whole community to go along with it or suffer public condemnation and social exclusion.

Transgressions of trangenderism

Children are being exposed to and deliberately taught a fundamentally false concept about sex and gender that undermines their security and their trust in adults.

Here are a few examples from the testimonials on RGE’s website:

A teacher:

I am finding the blurring of truth and also the backlash of student response when other students do not use the pronouns increasingly hard to manage and my open public apology to a whole assembly when I have misused them as well makes me feel I am walking a dangerous line of falsity. I am wondering what protection is in place for teachers who may be feeling like this because it is leading to a creation of a fear-controlled environment.

Parent A:

My youngest son is enrolled at a big state co-ed high school. Last year (2020) when he was in year 10, he was kicked out of his Social Studies class by his female long-term reliever teacher for affirming that biological sex is fixed, determined at birth (actually even before, in the womb) and can never be changed and neither can a person’s DNA ever be changed.

Parent B:

My young son is being forced to change for swimming in a shared change room with a male-identifying female child. The son is aware that the other child is female and is at an age where he feels self-conscious about nudity in front of members of the opposite sex. Many parents of the same children are unaware that the child is female and no-one has been asked whether they consent to their sons sharing the purported single-sex change room with a female child.

Parent C:

My son told me that one day he said to his teacher “Sam is a girl, it’s not right to call her a boy.” He said the teacher responded that, yes, she knew, and she agreed with him, but we need to just keep it quiet. We understood that the teacher was also doing her best to manage this issue, however a teacher should never tell a child to keep secrets, this is inappropriate behaviour and unacceptable.

Safety and sanity must prevail

Coherent laws and policies depend on having clear definitions of who we mean when referring to males or females. We have now reached the point where, for the safety of our children and the sanity of the public, we need to clarify in law that sex is not a personal choice and that ‘male’ and ‘female’ are reproductive categories that cannot be changed by feelings, costumes, medication, or surgery.

Boys who like things associated with femininity are still boys. Girls who are ‘tomboys’ are still girls. It’s called their personality and it doesn’t make them transgender.

Children deserve to attend schools where the teachers tell the truth about sex. Everyone has a biological sex. Denying that is not compassionate or progressive; it is a breach of trust by the adults whom children rely upon.

At school, girls need fair sports and private spaces. Boys also don’t want to share changing rooms with girls. Both sexes need their safety and dignity preserved in single-sex spaces that are true to their name.

We need to get back to legal certainty about sex so that the Human Rights Act can be applied consistently with policies that are grounded in material reality rather than controversial personal beliefs.

Fixing the wording

The Bill will not achieve its intentions unless the wording is corrected. Currently, the definitions used are circular and lack meaning because they are not coupled with a proper biological definition of ‘sex’.

First, the Bill must define ‘sex’ as two reproductive categories:

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

Because there is no third gamete type, there are only two sexes.

Sex is binary*.

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 castrated man is still a male.

*Those with disorders of sexual development (DSD) have variations of reproductive anatomy within one of the two sexes. No DSD produces a third type of gamete and therefore ‘intersex’ is not a third sex or a person between the sexes or a person somewhere on a sex ‘spectrum’.

Second, add a definition for ‘girl’ and ‘boy’

Defining women and men as ‘adult’ human beings would have the unintended consequence of excluding girls and boys from legislation that specifies it applies to a ‘woman’ or a ‘man’.

Rather than removing the word ‘adult’, the Bill should add a definition that ‘girl’ and ‘boy’ are juvenile humans of their respective sex.

Third, apply the definitions to the HRA

The Bill must make it crystal clear that ‘sex’ in the Human Rights Act means a biological male or female, not a self-declared gender identity. This would protect the single-sex provisions for sport, services, accommodation, and facilities that are already in the Act and would ensure that everyone’s dignity and safety is respected.

This Bill highlights that the problem we have is not a lack of protections for women and girls, but that the sexed language we use has been so eroded that people are no longer confident in applying the law.

Defining that sex is innate, binary, and immutable does not mean that people must conform to sex stereotypes. Everyone would retain the right to present themselves as they choose but would be restricted from encroaching into single-sex spaces to which they do not belong.

There is no human right to identify into a category to which you don’t belong. Inclusion does not mean the right to be included into any group of your choice.

Catastrophising the Bill

Contradictory public denouncements of the Bill abound. We are told, on the one hand, that the Bill is a waste of time and won’t do anything useful and, on the other hand, that it is an attempt to “erase” transgender, non-binary, and intersex people.

Even the Minister for Women, Nicola Grigg, said in her introductory speech, “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.”

Those words look like they will come back to haunt her because a recent Curia poll indicated that there is already a 51% majority in favour of the Bill, with strong support for voters of Coalition parties. (National 65%, NZ First 71%, Act 72%.)

As Ani O’Brien said in her open letter to Nicola Grigg:

“Women should not be expected to diminish ourselves or surrender the language and boundaries that describe our experiences in order to accommodate activist demands or male feelings. If anyone should understand that it should be the Minister for Women.”

What the definition WILL do:

The purpose of this law is to recognise the fact that sex is binary and immutable and apply that fact to legislation and policy. Having an accurate, biological definition will bolster existing protections, especially for the female sex, and will provide legal clarity for those providing single-sex spaces or care.

What the definition WON’T do

• It won’t “erase” transgender people

A claim that the Bill “erases” transgender and non-binary people is nonsense. They will still exist because a definition cannot stop people from adopting a self-image (aka ‘identity’) of their choice.

All that will be changed is that the existing law 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 single-sex facilities, sports, and opportunities are not open to people of either sex.

Everyone knows their natal sex and can opt to use the facilities that align with that or can use unisex spaces. Refusing to do so indicates a self-image that is so fragile that it must be sustained by subertfuge.

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

• It won’t “erase” intersex people

It’s not possible for a definitions Bill to “erase” intersex people – a misnomer for people with a DSD (Disorder of Sexual Development). People with a DSD have an innate sex, just like everyone else, but chromosomal or hormonal abnormalities mean their bodies do not fully develop as the males or females they are.

‘Intersex’ is manipulative language that implies that there are people ‘between the sexes’, who are a third sex. There is no third sex because there are only two types of gametes. No human can produce viable gametes of both types.

• It won’t force people to carry sex ID.

The claim that the only way to establish someone’s sex is for the government to issue sex-ID is plain silly. From about the age of three, humans are expert in distinguishing another person’s sex.

No special tests are needed if people simply tell the truth and abide by the social contract to stay out of spaces meant for the opposite sex.

The only reason the International Olympic Committee has been forced to use cheek swabs to confirm eligibility for female competitions is because more and more males were forcing their way into women’s sports.

Did you report that?

Another claim from opponents of the Bill is that transgender people have been using facilities of the opposite sex for years without any trouble at all. This is an unverifiable claim. That infringements of women’s spaces have not been recorded does not prove there have been none.

It is well known that women report very little of the voyeurism, exhibitionism, and threatening behaviour they often endure in public spaces because there is so much of it and because very often it is the victim who is blamed and shamed.

Take males in female sports, for example. Laurel Hubbard and Kate Weatherley - both men who identify as women - have taken prizes, money, and opportunities that were intended for women. When women complained they were ignored by their sporting bodies and received threats and hate mail. Harm occurs even when (especially when) no-one is collecting the evidence.

No recorded complaints is not the same as no transgressions.

Ethics over Inclusion

The debate about the definition of ‘sex’ is a clash between fact and feelings, between reality and magical thinking. It is not the role of the law to protect a person’s self-image, no matter how sincerely they wish to be perceived as the opposite sex. The law must uphold the truth and champion policies that are based on principles.

It is not bigotry, exclusion, or erasure to expect everyone 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 ethics ahead of ‘inclusion’ at any cost.

As has happened in the UK, when sex is correctly defined it becomes inarguable that single-sex spaces are for the use of people of that sex and not to be infiltrated by someone who simply ‘identifies as’ the sex. ‘Identity’ is not a magical state that overrides reality.

It’s not true that humans can change sex. Acquiring a beard or breasts is cosmetic. Underneath, the person remains their natal sex because it is a reproductive category.

It’s not kind to lie to children and give them false hope that they can transform their bodies and lives. Puberty is a natural and necessary developmental stage that children have the right to go through.

It’s not wise to pretend that feelings can overrule facts. Children do not have the emotional or cognitive maturity to separate wishful thinking from reality and make life-changing decisions.

Have your say before 2 July

Use this link to send your submission.

• Use your own words as much as possible because copied submissions are not given the same weight.

• Start by saying why the Definitions Bill is important to you. How have you, your children, or community been affected by policies that don’t differentiate between the sexes when it is warranted?

• Use examples from your own experience in schools, public facilities, health care, data collection or any other setting where sex matters.

• Ask parliament to clarify the Human Rights Act so that access to existing single-sex provisions is based solely on a person’s biological sex.

And finally, please sign this open letter from LGB Alliance NZ.

By Fern Hickson