Reality always wins

Defining 'sex' is not "divisive"

Regular readers will already know the main arguments Resist Gender Education has made in its submission in support of the “Definitions of a Woman and Man” Bill but for those who want to read the full submission, click on this link.

RGE has requested to make an oral submission to the select committee – this allows us a 10 minute slot, rather than the 5 minute slot allocated to individuals. If our request is granted, we would like to be able to quantify our support.

If you would like to be counted as a supporter of RGE’s submission, please comment below or, for anonymity, email info@resistgendereducation.nz and write SUPPORT SUBMISSION in the subject field.

Who are the “divisive”ones?

The debate about the definition of ‘woman’ and ‘man’ is a clash between fact and feelings, between reality and wishful thinking. One of the claims of opponents of the Bill is that defining ‘sex’ is “divisive”.

But what is truly divisive is the situation we are in where those who believe in ‘gender identity’ have forced their views on everyone else. Worst of all, they have imposed these adult concepts onto children.

People who have raised questions have been intimidated into silence. Parents have been shut out of decisions about their own children. Language changes have been compelled. It is these things that are truly divisive in our community.

Categories frame groups

The whole purpose of definitions is to create categories to objectively sort things into groups so that laws and policies can be applied in different ways, according to need and purpose.

Not all motor vehicles are the same. We define cars, vans, trucks, and buses according to objective criteria and then apply bespoke traffic rules and regulations in a coherent and consistent way. A bus does not become a van by removing a row of seats. A speed restriction that applies to trucks is not necessary for cars.

The same principle applies to categories of humans. Sex is a defining characteristic, unchangeable, and highly relevant in everyday life affecting safety, health care, fairness, and opportunities (or lack thereof).

The Definitions Bill is intended to recognise that ‘sex’ is a binary human category that should be applied consistently in legislation and policy across all spheres of public life.

Far from “reducing women to their biology”, an accurate ‘sex’ definition will protect women because of their unique female biology. It will bolster their existing right to single-sex spaces, it will stop dehumanising language being used in healthcare, and it will provide legal clarity for those providing single-sex spaces or care.

Best of all, RGE hopes it will prevent gender activists from teaching children the damaging lie that sex is malleable and a matter of personal choice.

Deflecting responsibility

Gender ideologues are prone to projecting their own tactics onto opponents. In a recent article in the Conversation, Jaimie Veale (a member of PATHA* and a man who claims to be a woman) accused sex realists of belonging to, “ideologies that frame a targeted group as incompatible with society and therefore as requiring removal.”

Veale needs to look in the mirror.

• It is his side of the debate that has targeted the female sex class.

• It is trans activists who declare that a definition of ‘woman’ that excludes men is incompatible with their world view.

• It is PATHA (amongst others) that has pressured organisations to remove female words from healthcare messages.

Health NZ and various other organisations have taken to replacing the word ‘woman’ with dehumanising and offensive phrases like “person with a cervix”, “menstruator” or “gestating parent”. Breastfeeding has become “chestfeeding” and the unique role women have in reproduction is being routinely disrespected by use of the phrase “pregnant people”. This language erasure has become so prevalent that the Associate Health Minister, Casey Costello, issued a directive to Health NZ to cease the demeaning practice in March 2025.

Veale also accuses his opponents of “dehumanisation”. “When a group is portrayed as irrational, defective, immoral, or less deserving of dignity, moral inhibitions about harming them are lowered. This makes it easier to justify restrictions on their rights or dismiss their testimony and experience.”

That is an exact description of what has happened to women and girls in recent years.

• What could be more dehumanising than reducing women to “menstruators”?

• Policies that allow males into female spaces, as at the Linwood pool in Christchurch, inevitably restrict the rights of women and girls.

• The testimony of women who have objected to these changes has been routinely dismissed and silenced, most notably by the trans activists’ violent attack on women at the “Let Women Speak” rally in Albert Park in 2023. Women were not even permitted to speak.

This threatening behaviour is ongoing. Here is an example of the “dignity” that people on Veale’s side of the debate are seeking. Photo taken at a “Defy the Definitions” protest in Dunedin, June 13, 2026.

In another example of sheer hypocrisy, a group of “rainbow” activist organisations last week published an Open Letter to Aotearoa decrying the Bill and saying, apparently without any irony, “We are are not asking for anything we would not extend to you. We are only asking for the dignity of being left to know who we are, and the ordinary safety of being counted in.”

• These groups do not extend their pleas for “dignity” to anyone else.

• They do not want women and girls to be “left to know who they are”'.

• They want spaces that were set up specifically to protect women and girls from predatory men to be made open access to any males who wish to be “counted in”.

• They do not consider the safety and dignity of girls or women, nor respect the foundational words that belong to females – woman, girl, mother.

• They want ‘gender identity’ to overrule ‘sex’ in law and for the whole community to bow to their world view and suffer in silence.

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

Category errors are the cause

It is because of two popular but enormous category errors that we are in the astonishing situation that people are afraid of the question “what is a woman”.

The first is the conflation of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. In everyday language the two words are often used interchangeably but this has allowed imprecise definitions to easily take hold and be transferred to policy. Without public consultation, the idea that a “woman” might include “anyone who identifies as a woman” has become sacrosanct so that any male who desires it can now be included in female spaces or competition.

The law must return to a precise definition of ‘sex’ and leave ‘gender’ to the field of social science.

The second category error is that ‘identity’ has been accorded the status of a fact. Instead of recognising the statement “I identify as a woman” as a personal belief, we are required to treat it as an undeniable fact that we must all concur with on pain of denunciation.

An identity is a self-image; a belief about oneself that others are free to agree or disagree with. A person may ‘identify’ as an excellent driver, or the best journalist, or the opposite sex, but these are all subjective feelings that others should not be obliged to accept.

A fact is something objectively real and true such as: the earth is a globe; gravity is a force; or a woman is an adult human female.

An identity is not an observable fact. No one can validly identify into whichever group they choose. It is not a human right to be able to ‘identify’ into any group; it is an imposition on everyone who legitimately belongs in that group.

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.

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 cannot be based on these enormous category errors and still be applied without prejudice.

Reality always wins

When someone asks, “what is a woman”, the correct response is “what is a transwoman?” A transwoman cannot be defined without the sex binary. A transwoman is always a person born male who wishes to be perceived as a woman. Only men can be transwomen.

“When you argue with reality, reality always wins.”

The Definitions Bill is an opportunity to set the record straight about the meaning of ‘sex’ in public life. With appropriate amendments, the Bill can restore the accurate binary meaning of ‘sex’ and confirm that many important human rights are based on sex. It is essential that the wording of the Bill is made precise enough to prevent inconsistent interpretation and court challenges about the intended effect of the legislation.

RGE urges the Select Committee not to miss this opportunity to uphold everyone’s basic human rights by defending the ordinary meaning of foundational words in our language and law.

The Bill must be drafted specifically to provide a consistent and unambiguous legal framework that defends the existing rights of women and girls to single-sex spaces and fairness in sports, and that respects females as human beings wholly distinct from males.

Submissions are open until July 2 and can be made via this link. Don’t miss this opportunity to ask our MPs to stand up against an orchestrated campaign that is trying to deny reality.

By Fern Hickson

*PATHA = Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa