Posie Parker a “pro-women activist” – NZ Herald opinion piece. How times have changed.

It took a Supreme Court decision in the UK to allow the words "pro-woman activist" to be written in NZ.

I believe this might the first time a mainstream media publication in New Zealand has allowed the words “pro-women activist” to be written in relation to Posie Parker – aka Kellie-Kay Keen.

An opinion piece by journo Fran O’Sullivan titled “Why UK Supreme Court decision matters for women’s rights” appeared in the NZ Herald on Saturday 19 April. Not only is it remarkable the NZ Herald featured an opinion which didn’t scream “anti-trans” about the UK Supreme Court decision ruling, which stated the words ‘women’ and ‘men’ mean biological sex in their Equality Act – although that piece may yet come – it allowed the line which contained “British pro-women activist Pose Parker” to remain.

“Pro-women activist” - knock me down with a feather!

A quick internet search will show that the NZ Herald hasn’t been shy about promoting and venerating all things TQ+, disguised under the ubiquitous LGBTQ+ label. Neither has it been shy about decrying anything and anyone who doesn’t venerate trans ideology as ‘anti trans’.

I’m told that Fran O’Sullivan has never bought into trans ideology, but I suspect like other journos she’s been stifled by her bosses and pro-trans colleagues in expressing that. When I say “stifled”, what I really mean is that in my entire life in the workforce, I have never encountered the kind of sustained viciousness, venting, and threats in the workplace, like we’ve seen and heard of in the name of trans ideology, for anything else. Why it has been allowed, and even encouraged is neither normal nor productive, despite words to the contrary from TQ+ snake oil salespeople.

Fran’s opinion piece is behind a paywall on the NZ Herald site, so I have copied it out below for those who can’t access it via the link. It’s a fairly measured opinion, but still comes down on the side of the UK Supreme Court ruling that ‘woman’ means biological sex, and not just a word to be manipulated and dicked around with as desired. That will without doubt get steam coming out of more than a few ears.

Why UK Supreme Court decision matters for women’s rights - Fran O’Sullivan

THREE KEY FACTS

• The UK Supreme Court has ruled that “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to biological women.

• Public bodies, including the NHS and police, must update guidance following the ruling.

• NZ Associate Health Minister Casey Costello has directed Health NZ to use “women” instead of “pregnant people” in communications.

What is a woman? Just coming up with a simple definition initially confounded then Prime Minister Chris Hipkins when put to him in 2023 at a post-Cabinet press conference.

Luckily the UK Supreme Court had no such difficulty in a ruling out this week.

The Hipkins question came after the furore over the visit by British pro-women activist Posie Parker to Auckland. [my highlight]

Hipkins equivocated, saying the question came “slightly out of left field for me”.

“But in terms of gender identity, I think people define their gender identity for themselves.”

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the British Equality Act refer only to a biological woman and to biological sex.

It’s a victory for common sense.

The group For Women Scotland initially took the Scottish Government to court, arguing that trans women should not be included in quotas designed to increase the proportion of women on government agency boards to 50%.

The Scottish Government had amended its guidance to say that only trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) met the definition of a woman under the Equality Act of 2010, and could therefore be included in the quotas.

The matter finally went to the UK Supreme Court where five judges ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold GRCs.

Inevitably there have been calls from British trans activists to rewrite the act. Their concern is that trans people could be barred from women’s spaces such as toilets, hospital wards, prisons and domestic abuse refuges and crisis centres.

Fortuitously for Associate Health Minister Casey Costello, the UK judgment arrived in the very week when she has faced criticism for asking Health New Zealand to say “women” instead of “pregnant people” in communications on health issues.

Costello directed the agency to use “clear language” in a communication to interim chief executive Dr Dale Bramley on March 27.

“Recent documents that have reached my office from the Ministry of Health have referred to women as ‘pregnant people’, ‘people with a cervix’ or ‘individuals capable of childbearing’,” she said in the letter.

“Only women and people of the female sex can get pregnant and birth a child no matter how they identify.”

“It is important that we have clarity about the people we are referring to when talking about women’s health. Sex-specific language ensures that women know what health services they are entitled to and can access these easily, especially for those women with English as a second language.”

“Clear language should be used in all documents and communications that refer to health issues specific to females.”

It’s extraordinary that it has taken a ministerial directive in 2025 to get Health New Zealand to change its policies so the word “women” is not scrubbed out in favour of “people”.

Anyone doing just rudimentary research on Health NZ’s website will quickly find that biological “men” are accorded appropriate name recognition. For instance, in references to prostate cancer website viewers are pointed to tools “to help men” understand more about prostate cancer and to decide if they should see their doctor to get tested.

The UK ruling is a victory for the female campaigners including writer J.K. Rowling who has long stood up against bullying and attempts to cancel her.

Susan Smith, the co-director of For Women Scotland, said “Everybody should be protected by the Equality Act”.

“This is not about prejudice or bigotry, as some people would say, it’s not about hatred for another community. It’s just about saying that there are differences, and biology is one of those differences, and we just need protections based on that.”

Certainly, that outcome is absolutely at the forefront of the mission by gender-critical feminists.

It’s a shift that New Zealand chief executives who belong to Global Women’s Champions for Change offshoot need to take on board. Making sure staff can “take their whole selves to work” is well-established in New Zealand corporate HR departments.

But there is a tidal shift under way that suggests the views of women should be factored in. Some workplaces will embrace trans inclusion. Others may not and might prefer separate spaces for biological women, for instance.

As for Hipkins, he was still equivocating when asked about Costello’s directive. He was surprised this was taking her time when there were more pressing issues in the health system.

He felt Cabinet Ministers should not be involved in such matters.