![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I may not have achieved much else today but I have managed to move my submission on this odious bill from in-brain-draft where it has been stewing all week to actually submitted. I may have been a little snarkier than is strictly productive, but I can only suppress so much indignation.
Usual preamble, if you want to draw on mine as inspiration for your own personalised submission go right ahead, but please write something unique, don't cut and paste from this without making it clear that you are quoting from another submission :)
And the official online submission form The closing date for submissions is 11.59pm on Thursday, 02 July 2026.
---
As a New Zealand / Aotearoa (cis, male) voter I wish it it be on record that I *vehemently* oppose the "Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill".
Putting aside that the submission of such a poorly drafted[1] bill to the biscuit tin and forced progression to select committee
* displays a lack of respect for the time and processes of the New Zealand Parliament and
* appears to be little more than a "dog-whistle"[2] to a prejudiced minority of NZ voters
.. to engage with the content:-
Other submitters will write at length about the fact that biological reality does not match the simple binary definition of what it is to be "male" or "female", a "woman" or a "man", thus invalidating the basic premise of the bill out of the gate. I wish to address the issue that while the wording claims to give primacy to science (biology); the rhetoric around the bill's submission displays that it is actually attempts to co-opt "science" to legitimise, legislate and enforce *culturally* defined ideas of what it is to be "male" and "female", and from there what *behaviours* (under the guise of protections of the other) are acceptable/allowed to those identified as "a man" or "a woman".
Note "identified" not "identifying". By narrowing these definitions in law this bill would strip individuals of their right to determine their own identity and to be treated an as entire person -- expressing their personality and culture as they see fit -- and not just a collection of body parts.
This is problematic, because not only does what is considered culturally "masculine" or "feminine" vary widely across cultures and across time/circumstances, so does whether these are the only two options. Many cultures have recognised one or more types of person who are neither one nor the other as normal and legitimate within their society. What is the situation of, to pick an example from one of our closest neighbours, a Samoan fa'afafine under New Zealand law which incorporated the changes proposed by this bill?
New Zealand / Aotearoa portrays itself as proud of it's diversity and welcoming to those of other cultures. Even progressing a bill such as this past the first reading sends a signal to anyone considering visiting or immigrating that these are only words -- not even aspirations -- and the reality is that our national culture (or at least those with influence) is hostile to anyone who doesn't present themselves as belonging to one of certain, officially defined categories.
This bill effectively "others" anyone whose experience of life and humanity does not match that of those who set the definitions. And as we have seen throughout history, "othering" almost invariably leads to scapegoating and persecution. Is that really the kind of country we want to be?
I accept that until New Zealand culture far more broadly evaluates a person's worth and right to respect based on who they are as an individual regardless of sex or gender expression that there will need to be legislative protections for certain groups. However at the present time there does not seem to be any need for "women" or "men" to be included in those groups, and for all the reasons above and more this bill should be consigned to the trash can as soon as procedurally possible.
An example of a better alternative and one I would likely support (the devil always being in the details) would be a bill which explicitly sets out in legislation the right for a person to receive medical care appropriate to their individual biology regardless of how they choose to identify. This would provide genuine protection for sex-based rights.
Thank you for taking the time to read this submission.
[1] though eminently memeable, without thought for use of the terms in legislation outside the context of the human animal.
[2] used here with some irony, as most dogs have far more compassion and far less concern that people's appearance and behaviour is "appropriate to their genitals".
---
I pretty much stuck to using "New Zealand" in this submission because this is a bill by and for colonisers and not directly targeting treaty rights and as such does not deserve to be legitimised by the use of Aotearoa.
Usual preamble, if you want to draw on mine as inspiration for your own personalised submission go right ahead, but please write something unique, don't cut and paste from this without making it clear that you are quoting from another submission :)
And the official online submission form The closing date for submissions is 11.59pm on Thursday, 02 July 2026.
---
As a New Zealand / Aotearoa (cis, male) voter I wish it it be on record that I *vehemently* oppose the "Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill".
Putting aside that the submission of such a poorly drafted[1] bill to the biscuit tin and forced progression to select committee
* displays a lack of respect for the time and processes of the New Zealand Parliament and
* appears to be little more than a "dog-whistle"[2] to a prejudiced minority of NZ voters
.. to engage with the content:-
Other submitters will write at length about the fact that biological reality does not match the simple binary definition of what it is to be "male" or "female", a "woman" or a "man", thus invalidating the basic premise of the bill out of the gate. I wish to address the issue that while the wording claims to give primacy to science (biology); the rhetoric around the bill's submission displays that it is actually attempts to co-opt "science" to legitimise, legislate and enforce *culturally* defined ideas of what it is to be "male" and "female", and from there what *behaviours* (under the guise of protections of the other) are acceptable/allowed to those identified as "a man" or "a woman".
Note "identified" not "identifying". By narrowing these definitions in law this bill would strip individuals of their right to determine their own identity and to be treated an as entire person -- expressing their personality and culture as they see fit -- and not just a collection of body parts.
This is problematic, because not only does what is considered culturally "masculine" or "feminine" vary widely across cultures and across time/circumstances, so does whether these are the only two options. Many cultures have recognised one or more types of person who are neither one nor the other as normal and legitimate within their society. What is the situation of, to pick an example from one of our closest neighbours, a Samoan fa'afafine under New Zealand law which incorporated the changes proposed by this bill?
New Zealand / Aotearoa portrays itself as proud of it's diversity and welcoming to those of other cultures. Even progressing a bill such as this past the first reading sends a signal to anyone considering visiting or immigrating that these are only words -- not even aspirations -- and the reality is that our national culture (or at least those with influence) is hostile to anyone who doesn't present themselves as belonging to one of certain, officially defined categories.
This bill effectively "others" anyone whose experience of life and humanity does not match that of those who set the definitions. And as we have seen throughout history, "othering" almost invariably leads to scapegoating and persecution. Is that really the kind of country we want to be?
I accept that until New Zealand culture far more broadly evaluates a person's worth and right to respect based on who they are as an individual regardless of sex or gender expression that there will need to be legislative protections for certain groups. However at the present time there does not seem to be any need for "women" or "men" to be included in those groups, and for all the reasons above and more this bill should be consigned to the trash can as soon as procedurally possible.
An example of a better alternative and one I would likely support (the devil always being in the details) would be a bill which explicitly sets out in legislation the right for a person to receive medical care appropriate to their individual biology regardless of how they choose to identify. This would provide genuine protection for sex-based rights.
Thank you for taking the time to read this submission.
[1] though eminently memeable, without thought for use of the terms in legislation outside the context of the human animal.
[2] used here with some irony, as most dogs have far more compassion and far less concern that people's appearance and behaviour is "appropriate to their genitals".
---
I pretty much stuck to using "New Zealand" in this submission because this is a bill by and for colonisers and not directly targeting treaty rights and as such does not deserve to be legitimised by the use of Aotearoa.
Tags:
