Table of Contents
Ming Chen
It recently came to my attention that the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill has passed its first reading and is now before the select committee. This bill seeks to define a woman as an “adult human biological female” and a man as an “adult human biological male”. I had the pleasure, if you could call it that, of reading the transcript of the parliamentary debate after the first reading. I seek to consider the various arguments recorded in the debate rather than arguing for the political utility of this bill (I’m aware of those who think it won’t do much), though you can make a submission at this link if you’d like.
Jenny Marcroft (New Zealand First), the initial speaker and member moving that this bill be sent to the relevant committee, begins with the idea that “If anyone can be a man or woman purely by declaration, then those words cease to have clear meaning, and when words lose meaning, the law that depends on them becomes unstable.” She is concerned about women’s rights, particularly given that New Zealand was the first country to pass women’s suffrage, and ultimately “ask[s] this parliament to vote for reality in law”. Other members also spoke in favour, like Karen Chhour (ACT) and Rima Nakhle (National).
My main focus, however, concerns Chlöe Swarbrick (Greens) and friends (CS&F hereafter). Swarbrick’s comments were probably the most memorable. She begins with a barrage of red herrings that went something like: ‘You say that this bill helps women? Well this government clearly doesn’t care about women as shown by x and y and z’. Swarbrick must know from her degrees in philosophy and law that even if the government hates women, this bill is not automatically invalidated.
She continues: “What is a woman? Whatever the hell she wants to be. New Zealanders have so, so much more in common with their fellow New Zealander – man, woman, trans, non-binary, intersex, all of the colours of the rainbow – than they do with the divisive politicians on that side of the House and the corporate overlords that they so diligently serve.” The last is completely irrelevant. Swarbrick merely says in flowery prose that her opposing parties don’t care for the public good.
As for the first part, Swarbrick asks what a woman is and then says it’s whoever a woman wants to be. The answer uses the term without defining it again. It’s like asking a child when World War I began and the child replying, ‘Oh, it began when it started.’ Perhaps Swarbrick is merely asserting that anyone can be a woman. In that case, the opposing politicians have already argued the detriment this definition poses for sports, bathrooms and so on. She has merely asserted, not provided reasons for, her point.
The rest of CS&F fare no better. Vanushi Walters (Labour) references the 2023 Census results on people born with a variation of sex characteristics. These data are rated by Stats NZ as overall poor quality and was of low priority in the survey. The data also provide no clarification on how significant these variations were. Additionally, an appeal to intersex people actually presupposes a gender binary: to state that these people have a variation of sex characteristics is to say that they vary from something, namely a set standard. My bigoted opinion is that this standard is male and female. This bill’s substantial point is not impacted by Walters.
Oriini Kaipara (Te Pāti Māori) bizarrely claims that “In te reo Māori, there is no differentiation of a man and woman. It is tangata.” Further, she quotes this proverb: “What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people.” Her conclusion is that “[This saying] doesn’t say, nor define, a man or a woman.” This argument is like if I were to take “All men are created equal” from the American Declaration of Independence and argue that English doesn’t have the linguistic capacity to refer to women, children, or any person in the singular. I’m no Māori scholar, but wahine and tane are clearly words referring to a woman and a man. Kaipara is seemingly conflating this one proverb with the linguistic capacity of the entire Māori language.
The last opposing member I will talk about is Glen Bennett (Labour). He characterises this bill as a “choice to single out and target some of our most vulnerable communities. At its heart, this debate is not about definitions. This debate is about who is in and who is out; it’s about who is included and who is excluded.” Bennett’s statement is confused: the debate is fundamentally about definitions. The bill proposes such definitions. Inclusion or exclusion necessarily follows from definitions and exclusion isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There are plenty of things that we ought to exclude: child marriage, murder and so on. The conservative would argue that we ought to exclude men from participating in women’s sports, going into women’s spaces, and so on.
Though I have not surveyed the anti-bill members’ arguments exhaustively, their arguments are fundamentally shockingly flawed. Their rhetoric is strong, but, as I hope I have shown, their reasoning is severely lacking. They are missing a simple but crucial element: reality. As Marcroft states, our laws must be built on reality, lest they be built on CS&F’s definition that a woman is whatever the hell she wants to be. If anyone can be a woman by mere self-declaration, then it means nothing to be a woman.
CS&F focus on oppression of transgender, homosexual and other minority groups. Let’s be honest: these groups are probably the most welcomed in modern society. Implicitly, CS&F’s position means that a majority group, namely mothers and wives who serve and love their families, becomes insignificant. Their womanhood becomes not only insignificant but literally meaningless, for if anyone can be a woman then a woman is nothing. Mr Bennett, how’s that for exclusion?
To end, I must stress that reality must be based on something. I believe the Christian view that God created us in his image (Genesis 1:27) accounts for why reality is, well, real.
