Sex is biological, but women and men mustn't be defined as such, says the RANZCP.

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists does a 'what about trans' media release over defining women and men in law.

Last year in December, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) made a position statement which included saying that “Sex refers to the biological characteristics that define humans as female or male”.¹

It was pretty radical stuff coming from them. A quick search of their website shows they’re not shy about flogging the ‘poor trans’ line.

Fast forward to April 2025, and hot on the heels of the UK Supreme Court ruling that the word ‘sex’ in the Equality Act means biological sex, NZ First submits a Member’s Bill to define a “woman” as “an adult human biological female” and “man” as “an adult human biological male” in law.

Although NZ First had already planned their bill prior to the UK Supreme Court ruling, nobody could have planned the perfect timing that turned out to be.

However, the RANZCP, which had previously acknowledged that sex was biological and defines humans as female or male, was aghast at the idea of actually legally defining those biological human females and males as ‘women’ and ‘men’.

In her media release, RANZCP President Dr Elizabeth Moore said the bill “risks further marginalising intersex, trans and gender-diverse people and undermining their rights, dignity and access to care.” Somehow, this risk will come about just from defining women and men in law. Why that would be so, is anybody’s guess, but she’s bound to have a reason full of more holes than a colander. And although being intersex has got nothing to do with people claiming to be the opposite sex to that which they were born, it’s been too much of a useful red herring in the past to let go right now.

The rest of the media release is full of equally questionable assertions, such as “being trans or gender diverse is not a mental illness, but trans and gender diverse people experience higher rates of mental illness than the general population”. Ahem - gender dysphoria (as it is called) is listed as a mental disorder in the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Whatever it’s categorised as, claiming to be the opposite sex to which one is born is abnormal. Some people may like to present themselves in what is considered a stereotypical manner of the opposite sex, but if you actually think you are the opposite sex, you’re definitely nuts

For many men who claim to be ‘trans’, dressing as women and girls is a fetish they’ve now been given permission to re-label as self-ID.

The behaviours from these men can be extremely disturbing and threatening, especially towards women and girls if the men are thwarted in the pursuit of their wants, but to the RANZCP they’re just part of a ‘vulnerable community’. That ‘vulnerable community’ didn’t look very vulnerable to me at Albert Park in March 2023, nor at the Women Will Speak rally in Melbourne recently.

Dr Moore inadvertently tells us how frail the concept of gender ideology is when she says “When politicians push legislation that questions people’s existence or aims to define them out of public life, it creates a climate of fear.” Define them out of public life? Is she implying that if women and men who say they’re the opposite sex to that which they were born can’t use the words ‘woman’ and ‘man’ about themselves as arbitrarily as they like anymore, they’ll have no public life? Here she gives us a glimpse of the house of cards gender ideology is constructed from, if it relies so much on being able to manipulate the words ‘woman’ and ‘man’ to mean whatever an individual wants those words to mean.

Does the RANZCP offer no other solutions or suggestions to any of these mixed-up and fetishistic individuals on how to deal with their ills, but only offers the panacea of words meaning anything they like?

Despite the vehement denials of transactivists, transmaidens, transbros, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, women and men both need the words ‘woman’ and ‘man’ to mean an adult human female, and an adult human male. Those words are foundational in how we organise many aspects of our society and lives, and rich with meaning throughout the entire existence of humankind. For women in particular, it took a long time before we started making much of an appearance in language, and now there are fools trying to put us back into the shadows of it by making the word ‘woman’ almost meaningless and unusable.

Surprisingly, the RANZCP does say something in their media release I agree with -

“Every one of us deserves to be treated with respect and dignity — including in our laws, policies, and public discourse.”

We do indeed. And if that means women and men being defined in law so we don’t become meaningless for the sake of a fractionally small percentage of the population, with a large percentage of dubiousness attached to it, bring it on.

If, in respect to the word ‘woman’, all the RANZCP can come up with is “what about the men”, they are possibly – to quote from Kathleen Stock’s post on X – a bit thick.

I’m just going to finish with this screenshot below. I haven’t verified it, but no heroine ever has been called a ‘uterus-haver’. A woman is an adult human female, not a man in lipstick and a dress. We want our word back, and because it’s been stolen once already, we now want it safeguarded by the law.

¹Family First reported on this here - https://familyfirst.org.nz/2023/12/21/royal-australian-and-new-zealand-college-of-psychiatrists-decline-to-endorse-genderaffirming-care/

Header photo by Brett Jordan: