When Culture Wars Reach Parliament
Sydney (14 June)
The New Zealand Parliament is currently hearing public submissions about the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill, which could redefine most legal mentions of ‘man,’ ‘woman,’ ‘male,’ and ‘female’ in strictly biological terms.
New Zealand’s three ruling parties – the National Party, ACT Party, and New Zealand First – voted the Bill through its first reading in Parliament. But multiple National Party MPs, including Minister for Women Nicola Grigg, have expressed concerns about it.
The Bill is meant to “uphold legal certainty, protect the integrity of sex-based rights, and ensure that [legal language] reflects biological reality,” according to an explanatory note.
But it does none of those things. It is mostly performative, yet still riddled with enough mangled definitions to potentially strip young women of their reproductive rights. The Bill prevents anyone below the age of 20 from being classed as either a ‘man’ or ‘woman’ by default – which could limit access to abortion services – and ignores the existence of intersex people.
To the extent that there are rare cases where it makes sense for the New Zealand Government to craft policy on the basis of sex, rather than gender, the Bill does little to address them.
Organisations across New Zealand can already create single-sex spaces and sex-segregated sporting events under the Human Rights Act, Attorney General Chris Bishop – a National Party MP – noted in a 19 May letter to Parliament.
New Zealand’s anti-discrimination frameworks also generally either define ‘male’ and ‘female’ in terms of sex, in laws like the Equal Pay Act, or protect against gender discrimination without mentioning specific genders or sexes.
Despite solving no apparent policy problem and creating a few, the Bill will not be inconsequential. The New Zealand Government’s support for the Bill could drag Parliament into the kind of performative culture wars it has largely steered clear of in recent decades.
In 2005, over 60% of Parliament voted down an effort by United Future – a minor, socially conservative party – to define marriage as exclusively between men and women and prevent recognition of same-sex marriages certified abroad.
“Let us see the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill for what it is. It is a cheap political stunt,” then National MP and current BusinessNZ CEO Katherine Rich said during the Bill’s first reading.
“This Bill is a cheap political stunt, and will be used as a platform for every … homophobe who wants to stand up and make comments about the way other people lead their lives,” Rich added.
Two decades later, the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill risks alienating another community of New Zealanders, who already face exceptionally high rates of bullying, coercion, and psychological stress.
Two-thirds of trans people have withstood attempts to change their identity, including efforts to treat their identity as a defect, according to the 2022 Counting Ourselves survey. Trans people are also more than six times as likely to experience high psychological stress as the general public, the Counting Ourselves survey found.
The Government – if it passes the Bill – may legitimise harassment and prejudice, but is unlikely to achieve anything of substance. Religious fundamentalists who have disrupted library events in recent years will have their beliefs codified into law. Trans communities, on the other hand, will see the state endorse petty denigrations for no clear reason.
There appears to be no legitimate basis for passing the Bill. Irrespective of people’s views on gender, it is difficult to see any reason for Parliament to gratuitously step into cultural debates that have little impact on policy and routinely harm vulnerable communities.
New Zealand law is already sensitive to the difference between gender and sex. And in the rare situations where explicit sex-based, rather than gender-based, protections are warranted, Parliament can amend legislation without turning into a culture warrior.
By Avinash Govind