“Gender dysphoria” could be a psychological disability – NZ Crown Law opinion.
A frequently glossed-over part of the continuously cited 2006 Crown Law opinion.
It’s there in black and white. The 2006 NZ Crown Law opinion¹ says on the first page, to summarise, that “gender dysphoria” could be considered a “psychological disability”.
Funnily enough, no ‘transpeople’ or transactivists in any walk of life ever mention that bit. Heaven forfend! The only bit they cite is a cherry-picked part in the conclusion of the Crown Law opinion, which opines “There is currently no reason to suppose that "sex discrimination" would be construed narrowly to deprive transgender people of protection under the HRA [Human Rights Act]”.
The 2006 Crown Law opinion came about as a result of transsexual MP Georgina Beyer (a male) putting forward a private member’s bill to add ‘gender identity’ as a prohibited ground of discrimination. The Attorney-General at the time, Michael Cullen, took his cue from that Crown Law opinion, and decided that no amendment to the Human Rights Act was necessary, as gender identity could be protected under the same legislation as sex discrimination.²
Transactivists wave that decision around like a Lotto win, and fait accompli. It isn’t, of course, as ‘gender’ can mean one thing, and ‘sex’ another thing entirely. Despite using it as some sort of proof, though, that men who say they’re women are entitled to have access to female spaces and sports, they know it’s tenuous. Why else would there be another drive currently underway to insert ‘gender’ into legislation?³ No decision has been made on that yet, but considering the undue influence which TQ+ lobbyists have on too many of our politicians, it’s far from certain that commonsense will prevent its addition.
I’ve encountered the Christchurch City Council’s lawyer, councillors, council staff, politicians, transactivists, TQ+ lobbyists, and a motley crew of others all using the Crown Law opinion as a way to shut down our objections about men being given free and unfettered access to female spaces and sports just upon their say-so that they’re women. There’s room to doubt that many, or any, of the above-mentioned have read the Crown Law opinion in its entirety. If they had, why would they use it like a cudgel to shut down our objections, when the very first page of it has a clearly stated legal viewpoint that ‘transgender people’ can be considered to have a psychological disability? If they have a psychological disability, surely this shows that their belief they’re not the sex they were born is wholly in their heads?
It’s noteworthy that when Michael Cullen decided there was no need to add ‘gender identity’ to the Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination, there’s no evidence that he thought it meant men in frocks and wigs should get to go into female spaces and sports at will. Nor did he dispute that “gender dysphoria” could be considered a “psychological disability”.
It doesn’t stop the misusers of the Crown Law opinion misusing it, though. They have so little in the way of coherent arguments for why men who say they’re women should be allowed in women’s spaces and sports, that they won’t be relinquishing their cherry-picked bit of it any time soon. The holes in their arguments are many, but what can we who know the Crown Law opinion is being cherry-picked purely to give weight to wrongful dictates do? My experience with the Christchurch City Council on the matter of allowing men who say they’re women into female spaces, is that they have a whole bagful of tricks to use, and I expect other Councils have the same ones. They were pulled out to stymie my objections and there was nothing I could do, even though after a while I could see what they were up to. I was ignorant at first to their wily ways, but even if I hadn’t been, I couldn’t have done anything. Those of us aware of these tactics to prioritise men who say they’re women over actual women, don’t have the sort of money behind us to mount legal challenges to stop it like Councils, politicians, and transactivists have.
However, whenever the NZ Crown Law opinion is referred to in the attempt to ’trans rights’ us, we Kiwis – and others, perhaps – can cherry-pick a bit of it, too. We can point out that the same legal opinion has the viewpoint that ‘transgender people” can be considered to have a “psychological disability”. So, it’s all in their heads as we always knew - and it’s there in black and white.
Of course, it’s a mental illness! Psychological disability! It’s all in their heads and needs to be addressed as such. When ever were we forced to agree with such a mental state?
If there were a bunch of men running around claiming to be Napoleon would we be forced to believe they were and all royalty and bow down to worship them?
Because, actually a lot of these trans” women” want exactly that!
Thanks for another excellent piece, Katrina.
You've made me think of a Sherlock Holmes joke.
Holmes and Watson come to a yellow door.
"What's this, Holmes?"
"A lemon entry, my dear Watson."
However I don't think that Holmes would think that 'gender dysphoria' was 'elementary.'
Some like Kat Highsmith and EDI Jester argue that gender dysphoria doesn't exist at all.
Since there are some people who claim to be unhappy in their own bodies, I prefer the Dr Miriam Grossman explanation ( see her book 'Lost in Trans Nation') that it is a symptom of something else and you don't treat a symptom but find the root cause. This may end up in the same place because the obvious root cause is probably....a psychological disability. What else could it be? It is hardly a symptom of a broken leg or a bad case of flu!
Will cross post in due course.
Dusty