‘Gender’ and the law – and a chat with Jill Ovens from the NZ Women’s Rights Party about this.

Basically, the concept of ‘gender’ is bullshit. There might be politer ways to phrase this, but it’s a shape-changer of a word, and can’t be pinned down with a definition that sticks. ‘Gender’ has long-since busted out of any confines in which it was once used, and abandoned all pretence at consensus of meaning. It’s a veritable diarrhoea of a word now.

Yet, we have countries scrabbling to put that word into law. Australia did it back in 2013, and we’ve seen how it worked for Sall Grover when she tried to make a female-only app called Giggle for Girls. The TQ+ (trans, queer, and all other made up ‘genders’) desperately need ‘gender’ in law, because it’s the key to getting entry into those sex-specific spaces and sports which might otherwise legitimately exclude men who say they’re women. Lawmakers are unfathomably almost falling over themselves to oblige them in this pursuit.

Although it’s not yet in law here in New Zealand, our Law Commission has now been tasked with reviewing how to get ‘gender’ into the Human Rights Act. They have created an ‘Issues Paper’ which technically looks at the pros and cons, but the cons are noticeably thin on the ground in it. Public submissions on the review have been invited, and close on 5^th September. Many individuals and groups have made submissions against having ‘gender’ in law, including the Women’s Rights Party.

In their submission, the Women’s Rights Party says -

“Legislation reflected the recognition that our biological differences meant we needed services and facilities tailored to our unique needs. Single-sex public toilets, safe and private changing rooms in our places of work or recreation, provided protection under the law so we weren't seen as fair game for whatever sexual harassment men felt like indulging in, and to be taken seriously if we reported incidences to the police.

Women gained the right to say "No" to men. Do not take this right away from us by putting into law an obligation that we see others in the way they demand we see them, rather than the evidence of our eyes and ears. Do not humiliate us by denying our perception and do not tell us we are suffering from some phobia when our fear of male violence and sexual harassment is very real and absolutely justified.”

Writer, Joan Smith, in reference to Australian woman Sall Grover’s ‘Tickle v Giggle’ court case in her UnHerd article, nails the current situation perfectly, including here in NZ, too, in her closing paragraph -

“We are now in a bizarre situation where sexual predators and domestic abusers know what a woman is, but most of Australia’s political class can’t answer the question.”

In contrast, the submissions by TRA lobby groups could likely be summed up by a post from a barking getup called Countering Hate Speech Aotearoa (CHSA). The “hate speech” part of the name is mainly anything said by those (particularly women) who don’t think men can become women. This getup appears to be run solely by a very vocal feminophobic man, who wants any sex-based rights women have to be obliterated.

This same man backed out of an invitation he initially accepted a while ago to debate Jill Ovens, the national secretary and co-leader of the Women’s Rights Party, on The Platform. In some ways I don’t blame him, as Jill is one of the most knowledgeable women I know about matters pertaining to people, politics, and rights. Here, she and I have a chat about the proposal to put ‘gender’ into law in NZ, how Sall Grover’s legal case may affect that, and traverse other related subjects, too, of course.

‘Gender’ and the law - Jill Ovens from the Women’s Rights Party NZ chats with me about this.

• Here is the link to the Women’s Rights Party submission to the Law Commission. There is also a guide on how to make a submission, plus a link to the very good submission by FOWL (Feminist Older Women Lobbyists) made.