Keep gender ideology out of the HRA
Submission to the Law Commissions Issues Paper #53
Today RGE sent its submission to the Law Commission regarding the proposal to add protections for ‘gender identity’ to the Human Rights Act.
Click on this link to read our full submission.
Many of you are probably feeling daunted about making a personal submission because of the sheer scale of the Issues Paper and the many problems it exposes. That is completely understandable - RGE’s submission has taken many hours of work and individuals simply do not have that time available.
So, here are a few tips on how to submit without blowing a gasket!
Choose two or three questions that are most important to you to submit on.
Quote from RGE’s submission (or another group you agree with) and add your own personal experience of this matter.
(Speak Up for Women and the Women’s Rights Party both have links to their own and others’ submissions on their websites.)
Either put your comments in the correct question box in the online submission form, or put all your comments in the box for Question 80, at the end of the form. Here is the link for online submissions.
The Law Commission has repeatedly said they want to hear about and understand the ripple effects their proposals may have. Don’t miss your chance to tell them!
Here are some of the main points from RGE’s submission:
Question 6
RGE submits that the current protections in the HRA against sex discrimination need to be strengthened by accurately defining that ‘sex’ means whether a person has primary reproductive organs organised around the production of sperm (male) or ova (female), (or similar wording).
RGE does not support amending section 21 of the HRA to provide specific protection for people who are “transgender or non-binary or who have an innate variation of sex characteristics.”
The Issues Paper has not provided a clear definition of any of these categories. It admits that innate variation of sex characteristics are “often not obvious to strangers” (IP53 3.56.) No addition to the HRA is warranted for characteristics that are not visible or are impossible to precisely define.
However, RGE supports having a new protected characteristic in s21 of “variation of sex characteristics: the variation in the external presentation of primary and/or secondary sex characteristics”, as suggested in the SUFW submission.
This new protected characteristic would not impinge on the existing prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex. It would extend protection to anyone with visible variations to their sex characteristics, whether innate or caused by taking synthetic hormones or having cosmetic surgery, or any other reason.
Our rationale for this addition is that interest in adopting a transgender identity has increased dramatically in the past ten years, meaning there are now quite a number of young people who have visibly altered the secondary sex characteristics of their bodies. Our hope is that adding this phrase would prevent, for example, a girl with facial hair or a boy with breast development from being treated differently in schools from other people of their same sex.
For example, in a co-ed school where the policy is to have one male and one female head student, a girl with facial hair would continue to be eligible for the role as a female student and a boy with breast development would continue to be eligible as a male student.
Question 8
The Issues Paper asks which wording option is best for protecting people who are transgender or non-binary.
RGE does not support any of the suggested options. The terms ‘gender’, ‘gender identity’ or ‘gender expression’, as well as ‘transgender’ and ‘non-binary’ should not be the basis of law because they are imprecise and subjective.
People who hold the minority belief of gender ideology already have sufficient protection under the Bill of Rights Act, in the same way that a religious or political belief is protected.
For the safety and dignity of adults and children alike, school policies must be based on SEX.
Question 52
RGE supports Option 3: The exception should clarify that it entitles schools to refuse to admit students whose sex assigned at birth does not align with the school’s designated sex.
Note: We do not support having the ideological phrase “sex assigned at birth” enshrined in law. Sex is determined at conception, can be identified in utero, and is recorded accurately in 99% of babies at birth.
Question 59
RGE supports Option 3: The Act should clarify that service providers can exclude people from single-sex facilities that do not align with their sex assigned at birth.
RGE strongly opposes Option 2: The Act should clarify that it is lawful to use a single-sex facility aligned with your gender identity.
Question 75
RGE supports Option 2 or Option 4: The Act should provide that misgendering and deadnaming are never unlawful under Part 2. / There is no need for reform.
Any prohibition of ‘misgendering’ or ‘deadnaming’ is counter to the freedoms of belief and expression guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.
The deadline for submissions is 5pm, Thursday 5 September.
