“Wilful blindness” to gender identity ideology is an essential attribute if we want to maintain a rational society.

Gender identity ideology comes with the unhealthy and irrational demand that we participate in a pretence, even if it's to our detriment.

Australian woman Sall Grover’s court case this week showed us once again just how mad gender ideology is, and how legislation and women’s rights can be corrupted by the word ‘gender’. Amongst the things Sall’s accused of by the legal team for Jason Tickle - aka: Roxanne Tickle - who’s taken Sall to Federal Court for kicking him off her now defunct women-only networking app ‘Giggle for Girls’, is “wilful blindness to gender identity”.¹

Presumably, that accusation was made because Sall refuses to see a man who says he’s a woman as anyone but a man. I suggest it would serve us and the world very well if we all adopted a wilful blindness to gender identity.

Here in New Zealand, we’ve recently been shown very clearly how our own Human Rights Commission has corrupted Human Rights legislation by inserting ‘gender’ into their interpretation of it. This was highlighted when Sport NZ made a statement on 24 July that they’d removed the transgender inclusion guidelines for community sport from their website, and ceased all related work as directed by the Government. In response, the Human Rights Commission issued a media release which erroneously said ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity and expression’ are prohibited grounds for discrimination. Upon getting pushback for that misinformation, they later amended their media release to say that they interpreted the prohibited ground of sex discrimination to include gender identity and expression.

I’ve seen how this corruption of the legislation has also filtered through to the Christchurch City Council, when I and others were challenging them on their deliberate exclusion of the word ‘sex’ in the Equity and Inclusion Policy they began creating in 2023. The team who worked on this decided the word ‘sex’ wasn’t needed in equity and inclusion, because the word ‘gender’ in the policy was sufficient.

When asked in a Council meeting to address the issue of why ‘sex’ was left out of the policy, Councillor Sara Templeton², who was driving the policy, replied “the current practice is to use ‘gender’ [in other Council policies and matters]. Gender’ is a more inclusive term, and it can incorporate ‘sex’. The legal advice is not that ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ are the same, but that the terms are used interchangeably through the Human Rights Commission, and that is quite a different thing”. The tactic of “this is how we’ve always done it” is nothing new, but I have no idea what she meant by the last phrase about it being “quite a different thing”. What’s clearer, is that the Human Rights Commission has conflated ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ according to their whims, which has given transactivist Councillors the liberty to do the same in Council policies, and flip the finger at actual legislation.

The Women’s Rights Party was one of those who made a complaint to the Human Rights Commission about the misinformation they disseminated in their media release. They then went on to write more about how much legislation we actually have which refers to ‘sex’, with no mention of ‘gender’ at all. To start interpreting gender into all this legislation would make an unholy mess of it, especially as ‘gender’ is as malleable as putty, and virtually undefinable in any concrete or singular way.

Taking an excerpt from the Women’s Rights Party article³, here is a list of legislations in the Human Rights Act which have references to ‘sex’ in them –

· Section 27 Exceptions in Relation to Employment Matters. S27 allows for different treatment based on sex or age, where being of a particular sex or age is a genuine occupational qualification for the position of employment, for example, a counsellor specialising in highly personal matters such as sexual matters or the prevention of violence.

· Section 43 Exceptions in relation to access by the public to places, vehicles, and facilities. S43 allows for the maintenance of separate facilities for each sex on the ground of public decency or public safety.

· Section 44 Provision of goods and services. Suppliers of goods, facilities, or services to the public can’t refuse to provide any other person with those goods, facilities, or services; or to treat any other person less favourably in connection with the provision of those goods, facilities, or services by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

· Section 46 Exception in relation to public decency or safety. Notwithstanding s44, in s46 suppliers of good and services can provide separate facilities or services for each sex, i.e. single-sex services or spaces, are allowed on the ground of public decency or public safety.

· Section 47 Exception in relation to skill. Where the nature of a skill varies according to whether it is exercised in relation to men or women, a person does not commit a breach of section 44 by exercising the skill in relation to one sex only, in accordance with that person’s normal practice. This is the only place in the Human Rights Act where sex is defined in terms of men and women. (Note this exception specifically refers to men and women).

· Section 48 Exception in relation to insurance. Insurance companies can offer or provide life insurance policies, or other policies of insurance, on different terms or conditions for each sex or for persons with a disability or for persons of different ages if, for example, the different treatment is based on actuarial or statistical data, upon which it is reasonable to rely, relating to life-expectancy, accidents, or sickness. (Note if ‘sex’ included ‘gender identity’ it would have said "all genders" not "each sex".)

· Section 49 Exception in relation to sport. In s49 it is lawful to exclude one sex from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina, or physique of competitors is relevant. This doesn’t apply to coaches, umpires or referees, sports administrators, or sporting activities for children under 12. It is also lawful to exclude someone from a competitive sporting event or activity if that person’s disability is such that there would be a risk of harm to that person or to others. It is lawful to conduct competitive sporting events or activities in which only persons with a particular disability or age qualification may take part, like Masters events or Special Olympics.

· Section 55 Exception in relation to hostels, institutions, etc. Hostels, or establishments such as a hospitals, clubs, schools, universities, religious institutions, or retirement villages, can provide accommodation only for persons of the same sex, marital status, or religious or ethical belief, or for persons with a particular disability, or for persons in a particular age group. This can include part of an establishment.

· Section 58 Exceptions in relation to establishments for particular groups. Educational establishments for students of one sex, race, or religious belief, or for students with a particular disability, or for students in a particular age group, can under s58 refuse to admit students of a different sex, race, or religious belief, or students.

As Sall Grover’s court case has shown us, it causes chaos and immense harm - to women and girls in particular - to start interpreting legislation which refers to ‘sex’ as also referring to ‘gender’, based on nothing more than a whim and an ideology. Imagine the tangled mess all of the above legislation will become, not to mention the havoc it will cause if the word ‘gender’ in whatever interpretation or stretch is given to it, is arbitrarily allowed to be used in place of the word ‘sex’ there.

Although the Law Commission is currently pondering on whether gender and its extensions should become protected grounds for discrimination, and is due to release its report in late September this year, organisations are taking it upon themselves to willy-nilly use ‘gender’ any way they like, regardless. Unless stopped, they will continue, whatever the Law Commission decides.

As I said above, I suggest it would serve us and the world very well if we all adopted a wilful blindness to gender identity.

¹ Transgender woman treated as ‘hostile invader’ when joining women-only app Giggle for Girls, court hears

² Sara Templeton is running for Mayor of Christchurch in the next local body elections in October this year.

³ Women’s Right Party article: 'Sex' matters in legislation about Human Rights. If it didn't, would it be there?

Sall Grover’s crowdfund - Giggle crowdfunding

• Header photo by SHVETS production