Groups advocating for the restoration of women’s rights say a Bill seeking to define “man” and “woman” in law must also explicitly define biological sex.
Jan Rivers of Genspect, a gender-critical organisation that champions a healthy approach to sex and gender, said sex-based distinctions underpin parts of the Human Rights Act and should be consistently reflected across legislation. “The Bill really won’t make sense unless sex is defined,” she said.
Rivers said public sector guidance and health data protocols increasingly prioritised self-identified gender over sex, which she argued could reduce the availability of sex-specific medical information used in diagnosis and treatment.
Rivers added that some policies had been changed without sufficient public consultation and reflected a wider institutional shift influenced by gender theory.
Save Women’s Sport Australasia co-founder Ro Edge said the Bill was necessary to provide clear, biology-based definitions of sex in law, particularly in sport. Ambiguity in current legal and policy frameworks had contributed to disputes over transgender males participating in female sports categories.
Edge pointed to a 2006 Attorney-General’s legal opinion that was used to support interpreting “sex” in the Human Rights Act as including gender identity, though she noted it had not been tested in court. She also referenced legal proceedings involving Sport NZ’s transgender guidelines and a subsequent costs order following her organisation’s intervention.
Public submissions on the Definitions of Woman and Man Amendment Bill close tomorrow – 2 July, after which a Select Committee will consider the feedback received. A guide and template for preparing a brief submission are available here.
Watch RCR’s interviews with Jan Rivers and Ro Edge.
This story has been republished with permission from RCR Bites. For news like this direct and free to your Inbox every day, go to biteme.news to sign up for RCR Bites
