A bill seeking to formally define the terms “woman” and “man” in New Zealand law has passed its first reading in Parliament, sparking sharp debate between supporters who say it restores legal certainty and critics who have labelled it “divisive” and “outdated”.
The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill, introduced by New Zealand First MP Jenny Marcroft, would define a woman as “an adult human biological female” and a man as “an adult human biological male”.
Marcroft argued the legislation would provide “clarity and consistency” in the law, saying New Zealanders should be confident that legal language “reflect reality” and warning that “progressive politics” had elevated ideology over biology.
She said many women were frustrated by what she described as efforts to deny “biological reality”, adding the bill would protect sex-based rights for women and girls without removing anyone else’s rights.
“Women have had a gutsful of the gaslighting. It is misogyny in a modern form to cancel women when we speak up, it is misogyny in a modern form to deny our biological reality,” said Marcroft.
Opposition parties condemned the proposal during debate, describing it as a backward-looking measure that risks deepening social division as it heads to the select committee stage.
Image credit: Alex Shuper
The opposite of misogyny – misterogyny?
It is ‘Misandry’.
It is the contempt for males, boys and men in moral terms, psychological or sociological terms.
Misandry is widespread and pervasive in advertising, TV, movies, MSM, legislation, education, and especially in the Family Courts.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/747700.Spreading_Misandry
How stupid that NZ has come down to this – that we now have to have a bill passed in Parliament to define what a man or woman is!
Yes. It seems common sense isn’t so common.
The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion writ large.
The fact that this is even being proposed means that once it’s in place sometime in the middle of the night when they think no one is looking they will tweak it so it does not mean what it was originally supposed to mean. Just more globalist rubbish. While we are at it I just want is to be allowed to self identify as somebody who does not have to pay rates or tax.
I agree with this bill. However NZ has yet to address the gender inequality.
After 3 years of relationship, sometimes just 2 years, parters loose half their wealth and its men who loose out.
Result is NZ birthrate not even replacing itself. Now dropping from 1.56 to 1.53. This is compounding. In a few short years our economy will be devastated. The only alternative is uncontrolled immigration that will continue to degrade our identity.
Men are not committing for these simple reasons. They don’t want to loose their assets. The don’t want to be psychologically abused by women, especially with alienated children. Fix the family court rules or watch this the economy crash.
Men are not committing because of the units that want to be looked at as women.
Tattooed, nose ring like a sow, fat, loud-mouthed, butt-ugly, the make-up is a make-down, lascivious… . Whores have more deportment.
Top that with the sexist position of the Courts and you don’t need to wonder why men do not commit to family.
Nero fiddled whilst Rome burnt…https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15833411/Afghan-father-plans-sell-seven-year-old-daughter-marriage-feed-family-four-years.html
For the cost of a ballgown this man could feed his family for the rest of his life.
What has happened to humanity that we can’t see the wood for the trees?
This is just an extended moan because the economic system in Afghanistan was build on the expectation that the rest of the world would keep on supporting them.
The rest of the world could financially support every Afghan alive for their whole lives and nothing would change.
It’s their culture.
I’m surprised no one on the looney left has not yet complained the word “Bill” for draft legiation is mysoginistic and anti-trans
A “billie” seeking to formally define the terms “woman” and “man” in New Zealand law has passed its first reading in the New Zealand Company Church Parliament by a house full of confused and bewildered estrogenics.
You are both wrong.
Why is there misery to such an extent in 3rd World Countries? Because of the lingering wounds of imperialism having unhinged and wrecked local economies.
These societies always lived in poverty, but so did YOURS!!!
No news alerted to starvation, no internet provided ‘live’ death footage.
The ‘West’ also lived in serfdom, peasantry and exploitation by nobility. That was until the aggravation through imperialism which was founded because it could be funded. Since the Rothschilds, the King didn’t need his own war chest, no, he could enslave his minions via generational war debt, debt to be paid to the international bankster cabal via thejr ‘investments’:
American Revolutionary War: Haym Salomon provided critical financial support to the Continental Congress.
American Civil War: Seligman Bros. and Speyer & Co. financed the Union; Messrs. Erlanger funded the Confederacy.
Napoleonic Wars: The Rothschild family financed the anti-Napoleonic coalition.
Austro-Prussian War (1866): S. Bleichroeder bankrolled Prussia’s military campaign.
World War I: Kuhn, Loeb & Co. financing Prussia, then Britain and France after 1917.
Today the exploitation is more ‘peaceful’ via Blackrock/Vanguard.
That ‘funding’ via debt/credit/interest, and most important COMPOUND interest was done by ONE cabal which, emanating from one religion, nowadays even eats its own.