“Don’t put ‘gender’ into law - it’s a terrible idea”, the Women’s Rights Party & Mana Wāhine Kōrero tell NZ’s Law Commission.

Thursday this week¹ saw me once more winging my way to Wellington, this time to meet with NZ’s Law Commission to make an oral submission to them in person. It could have been done online, of course, as others did, but I wanted to meet them face-to-face, so I jumped on a big silver bird and went there instead.

I was part of a combined delegation from the Women’s Rights Party and Mana Wāhine Kōrero to tell the Law Commission that putting the word ‘gender’ into the Human Rights Act was a terrible idea. As it turned out, some misunderstanding and miscommunication saw us presenting our oral submissions to them via Teams from an external meeting room, anyway. However, I still got the pleasure of an infrequent get-together with six other women in the delegation.

The Law Commission has put together what they call an ‘issues paper’ to review a proposal to put the ‘word’ gender’ into legislation. It’s a nightmare of blood-boiling bollox to any sensible-thinking person, and a wet dream for transgender lobbyists. Submissions from our delegation on this issues paper are published on the Women’s Rights Party website, with Mana Wāhine Kōrero’s submission published on their own website. The submission I made is also published at the bottom of this blog-piece.

The Law Commission’s hearing panel was made up of Professor Claudia Geiringer (she/her in email signatures), two young women who were there to take notes from the meeting, and an older bloke who jokingly told us how the only Boomer in the group – i.e. he - had been given the job of looking after the technical side of things. Yes, it was kinda amusing on one level, but the realisation that the group was made up mainly of those not long out of university and a university professor, and therefore potentially indoctrinated with gender ideology, was disconcerting on another.

Claudia was professionally suave, and opened the meeting by having us all introduce ourselves before we started reading our submissions. Sall Grover from Australia also made an online appearance, as did Christine who has filed a personal grievance against her employer, the Inland Revenue Department NZ, about being taken to task for a quip she made on the women’s intranet regarding free menstrual products in the men’s bathrooms. In recent times, Christine has become aware of another Inland Revenue branch where the female employees give each other a secret hand signal whenever the male employee who says he’s a woman uses the female bathroom. In this way, they know not to go in there when he’s using it. We weren’t told what the secret hand signal was, but two of the women in our delegation immediately made the male wanking movement as a guess. Dear Reader, I’m afraid all we delegates sniggered.

There wasn’t a lot of time for questions and dialogue with the Law Commission hearing panel after we finished making our submissions, and Claudia wound up the meeting with gracious words to us. Battle-hardened ol’ terfs that we are, we received this with our usual ‘cautious distrust’, knowing that a smile today and a decision tomorrow may have nothing in common. Claudia also gave a summary of what their intentions were in creating the issues paper. To me, it came across as saying they were only exploring the idea of putting the word ‘gender’ into the Human Rights Act at this point in time, yet in the issues paper they state that -

Section 21 is the ‘Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination’ in the Human Rights Act. It certainly appears that the Law Commission is favourable to the idea of adding the word ‘gender’ to this section. We can only wait and see now what their final recommendation is.

Afterwards, we were invited back to a Wellingtonian woman’s house for a shared meal. She wasn’t part of the delegation, but opened her home to us. I’m always awed by the generosity of those who do that for people they barely know, and provide food and drink for them. There’s nothing quite like sitting around a table sharing a meal and a wine after an event. It solidifies the camaraderie, as well as just being fun. I won’t name that woman, but you and the friend who helped know who you are, and your warm hospitality was wonderful.

¹ Thursday 15^th August 2024

Header pic by Venita Oberholster from Pixabay

My submission to NZ’s Law Commission

Presentation to Law Commission

I’m here today to present on three subjects. The first addresses the undemocratic position the Law Commission has taken in not counting the option with which most people agree. The second addresses the language used in the review. The third concerns the request for evidence about the negative impacts of allowing men who identify as women into female spaces.

1. The submission process

In the introduction to the review, the Law Commission states it’s not their intention to count up the options with which most people agree. I disagree with this position, as the proposal to put ‘gender’ and gender-identity’ into the Human Rights Act affects all New Zealanders, not just those capable of making a presentation deemed acceptable by the Law Commission.

I find it undemocratic that the Law Commission is not giving stronger weight to the option with which most people agree. Many people are unable to express themselves in a clear and articulate manner. Nor does everyone have a laptop, computer, or printer on which to read or print the 211-page review, or even the 21-page summary, and there was no observable option to request a paper copy. Many people only have mobile phones on which to read the review and make a submission. Multiple factors can restrict what people say and how they say it. Therefore, the elitist, singular approach to submissions should be discarded. The majority opinion does matter.

2. Language

The review uses the same language and terminology introduced and promoted by transgender lobbyists. The use of this language gives the impression of a narrative running through the review that favours the views of those lobbyists at the expense of the views of women whom this will affect. Such an impression leaves me concerned that women are being expected to sacrifice their rights and agency for the sake of men who identify as women. For the sake of clarity, a ‘woman’ means an adult human female. The prefix ‘cis’ is not required. The prefix ‘cis’ is used throughout the review, and is one example where the Law Commission has adopted language associated with transgender lobbyists.

The words ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity’, mutable concepts, are also part of the preferred language of transgender lobbyists. If ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity’ are put into the Human Rights Act in section 46, which allows for single-sex spaces, it will serve to put those words in contest with ‘sex’, with the real possibility of women’s sex-based rights being eroded. No where is this erosion of women’s sex-based rights more obvious than where women and girls will potentially be forced to accommodate any man at all who gender-identifies as a woman in their spaces.

The fact is there are Councils which have already forced women and girls into this situation, for example the Christchurch City Council. In their recent Equity and Inclusion Policy, the Council refused to put the word ‘sex’ in the list of people who should have equity (Equity and inclusion policy : Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz)), but included the word ‘gender’. This was questioned by Counsellors Henstock and Keown when the policy was put to the Council, but they were overridden.

In the video of that meeting (at the 12-min mark in part 2 of the link below), Councillor Templeton, the councillor driving the policy, can be heard to give her justification for excluding the word ‘sex’. Direct reference was given in that justification to the views of transgender lobbyists. The tone of her argument came across as considering the word ‘sex’ to be in contest to the word ‘gender’, and a threat to the precedence of gender-identity over sex.  (Hearing Panel's report to the Council on the proposed Equity and Inclusion Policy Archives - Christchurch City Council Meetings (ccc.govt.nz)).

The exclusion of the word ‘sex’ from the Christchurch City Council’s policy has the consequence of eroding women’s sex-based rights. The policy enables any man at all who gender-identifies as a woman to have free and unfettered entry into all female spaces in Council-owned facilities. Whilst not all men will identify as a woman and do this, the choice is entirely theirs. The consequence of this is that women and girls in Christchurch have been relegated to being less than men who identify as woman, due to the Council deciding that ‘gender-identity’ trumps sex.

If the words ‘gender’ and ‘gender-identity’ go into the Human Rights Act legislation, including section 46 which gives the right to have single-sex spaces, it may be extremely difficult to undo this consequence. More weight needs to be given to women’s sex-based rights than is discussed in the review.

3. The request for evidence about the negative impacts of allowing men who identify as women into female spaces.

Periodically, it gets stated that no hard evidence exists to show that allowing men who identify as women into female spaces is detrimental to women and girls. This is not true.

The entire history of humankind, and police records as far back as they go, show that men as a group, of any stripe or identity, are a threat to women and girls. No group of males is excepted - not minority, marginalised, or vulnerable groups. They all have the same mix of men in them. However, we appear to be expected to undergo this experiment of allowing men who identify as women into our spaces, purely because they have provided stories about being a minority, marginalised, and vulnerable. This anecdata, based on personal experience and feelings, is treated as if it were evidence. No hard evidence was required to show that men who identify as women don’t have the same levels of criminality as men who haven’t transitioned. To my knowledge, the same hard evidence which is deemed to be absent from women’s reasons for not wanting men who identify as women in our spaces, is also absent from the reasons which those same men give for wanting access to female spaces.

At Chapter 13 Paragraph 19, the Law Commission states that it’s interested in learning what evidence there is to support the concerns women have about sharing female-only spaces with men who identify as woman. To date, no one in any position of leadership or authority has asked for women’s stories on how we feel about knowing that any time we go into a female space now, we go in there with the knowledge there may be men in there who say they’re women. We haven’t been asked how we feel when we encounter them, what behaviours from them we’ve seen or experienced whilst in that space, the visceral reaction by abused women upon seeing them there, and how those encounters may negatively affect our future use of facilities and engagement in public life. No official avenue has ever been provided to tell those stories honestly and without fear of reprisal. The collection of anecdata, and acting on that, has been one-sided only in favour of men who identify as women. It is an outrage to say or imply that no evidence exists when women have only ever been shut down, humiliated, and vilified when trying to speak of it, or provide it.

The Law Commission urgently needs to implement an official avenue to collect evidence from women and girls about sharing female facilities with men who identify as women.

Finally, we will all have to live with the consequences if ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity’ are put into the Human Rights Act, so all our voices need to be heard, not just the voices of vocal lobbyists.