The Law Commission’s report into expanding human rights protections for transgender people, who are non-binary and people with innate variations of sex characteristics, reads like a Christmas wish list for radical gender activists.
Entitled ‘Ia Tangata: Protections in the Human Rights Act 1993 for people who are transgender, people who are non-binary and people with innate variations of sex characteristics’, the report was tabled today by the President of the Law Commission Amokura Kawharu and commissioners Claudia Geiringer and Geof Shirtcliffe.
In effect, and if the recommendations were to be made into law, women as a category would no longer exist. The same could be said of men, too, but so much of the obsession with gender identity impacts women. For the Law Commission, sex does not exist in any meaningful way. Instead, all that matters is what someone believes about themselves.
The commission does also discuss people who are intersex but, as expected, conflates this with gender identity and transgenderism. The former is a medical condition, and one that still relies on the binary of male and female, for intersex is a blending, or confusion, of the two. It is not a third sex or ‘new’ as such. Gender identity in all its forms is an ideology or belief system.
The report makes for depressing reading, even though its recommendations were anticipated from the outset. From day one, the commission was committed to gender neutral language and ideas – in effect, already indicating its direction of travel.
The report is 457 pages long, so these are just our early first impressions. The commission makes a total of 27 recommendations, but the two key ones are that Section 21 of the Human Rights Act needs two new prohibited grounds of discrimination:
‘gender identity or its equivalents in the cultures of the person’
and
‘having an innate variation of sex characteristics’.
This puts gender identity on an equal footing with sex. It is precisely the mess that Australia is currently in, with women such as Sal Grover and Kirralie Smith having to defend their rights as women from men who claim their gender identity is being discriminated against.
As Sal Grover in her Giggle vs Tickle court case (where a biological man is insisting on being allowed onto a woman-only app) is showing, sex and gender identity are mutually exclusive. So one will win over the other. In her case, its gender identity.
The Commission recommends that legislation be updated with gender neutral language. Biological reality to be erased from law in the name of inclusions. Even pregnancy is targeted, with the commission insisting the law no longer speak of ‘pregnant women’. The commission’s insistence on being inclusive trumps reality, accuracy, and the experience of women.
The commission wants section 74 of the Human Rights Act to say “anyone who is pregnant or who is giving birth”. The commission was at pains to say in its report, “most people giving birth are women, but not all”. That only biological women can get pregnant appears lost on the commissioners and that leaving the law as it is would still ensure all women, including trans men (that is, a biological women believing she is a man), would get pregnancy care.
The recommendation to include gender identity as a new ground to claim discrimination means that single-sex schools, sports teams, and clubs are all undermined. Put simply, to stop a biological male who believes he’s a girl from joining a girls’ sports team will be discrimination. The same is true of a biological girl who thinks she’s a boy attending a boys-only school: to decline her access will be discrimination. The commission’s recommendations are a free pass to those with gender identity, and a compulsion on existing groups.
It is important to note that there are some nuances, yet these will undoubtedly come with much resistance and review. For example, while prohibiting a gender confused boy from joining a girls’ sports team will now be explicitly considered discrimination, it would be possible if safety issues can be proven or international sports rules apply. However, we can expect activists and radicals to use all recourses, from media beat ups to legal threats, to get their way when exemptions are applied.
The commission’s report is also determined to suggest that the concept of ‘sex’ is a complicated one. They also note that “we do not think that fixing a particular meaning of sex at the outset is a helpful way to advance this review”. The report’s twisting and turning to confuse the concept is striking, including insisting that there has not been an explicit definition of ‘sex’ in New Zealand law and therefore proves it is a contested concept.
Sex is not a contested idea. It’s an innate part of human life and life in general. It is not specifically defined in New Zealand law because it has never needed to be, in the same way the law doesn’t define what the colour ‘white’ or ‘black’ is.
A few other quick impressions. The commission, when discussing discrimination against those who are intersex, suggest the wording be “a ground of having an innate variation of sex characteristics”. We can only ask, how can the commission effectively say sex is not definable and then definitionally use the term ‘sex characteristics’.
There do remain some carve outs where discrimination is allowed, such as for religious groups, people employing someone in their own home, and if the job specifically requires a certain characteristic, e.g., if an actor needs to represent a particular ethnicity or age. But we note that the commission seeks to tighten this as much as possible in relation to gender identity and, like single sex spaces, we can anticipate much activism and litigation.
Importantly, the Law Commission’s report can only make recommendations to the minister of justice. It is up to the government of the day and parliament to make such changes. There is no requirement for the minister to do anything, although the commission’s work does increase pressure on governments to act, and their report will be promoted aggressively by gender identity activists.
Ultimately, the report is very much the story of ‘the emperor has no clothes’, but now on steroids, with the steroids being the full coercive power of the law to compel those watching to go along with the gender delusion or face prosecution.
This article was originally published by Family First New Zealand.
