The Law Commission has recommended changes to the Human Rights Act to clarify how protections are applied to transgender, non-binary and intersex New Zealanders, although it says the reforms would not significantly change current practice.
Here they state the false premise that people who are transgender, non-binary and intersex deserve additional protection. And yes, I know non-binary people don’t actually exist but I’ll let that one go.
In addition, the commission says it should be made clear transgender people should have access to single-sex schools and public facilities (like toilets) that match their gender identity, but advised allowing for a case-by-case approach to participation in competitive sport.
And why? Why should men with a mental illness have access to women’s spaces? (Note that it’s rarely the other way around.) As for “but advised allowing for a case-by-case approach to participation in competitive sport”, how kind of you. Oh, and women can always tell when a man has invaded their spaces, no matter how many surgeries he’s had or the oestrogen he’s taken.
[…] In practice, the commission said, the law’s protections have been applied to gender diverse and intersex people. However, the commission wrote, “we do not consider that the state of the law on this issue is satisfactory. In the absence of any case law on the point, it remains unclear whether protection from discrimination is available to people in these groups and, if so, what the scope of that protection might be.
Whatever. It’s pretty clear that people with a mental illness should have additional protection.
[…] Ultimately, the commission recommended two new protected grounds: “gender identity or its equivalents in the cultures of the person” and “having an innate variation of sex characteristics”, with the latter protecting intersex people.
Wow. I can’t even begin to decipher that piece of nonsense. And even if I could I wouldn’t bother.
The practical effect of these changes is to confirm that these groups have protection from discrimination in housing, hiring and access to goods and services. For the avoidance of doubt, the commission said, the changes “will not result in the criminalisation of misgendering or deadnaming, or of any other forms of speech or expression”. Misgendering is when the wrong pronouns are used for a person, and deadnaming is the use of a gender diverse person’s previous name.
Again, how kind of you.
Across the vast majority of the existing exceptions for different treatment based on sex in the act, the commission recommended allowing for different treatment based on gender identity as well.
This included exceptions enabling different treatment of transgender people in hiring both household employees and staff in organised religious groups, employing counsellors on highly personal matters such as sex or the prevention of violence, and in offering services like health insurance where risks might be expected to differ across sex or gender.
Well, sh*t. If that paragraph didn’t send shivers down your spine nothing will. Here the Law Commission is basically saying that people with a particular mental illness should be elevated to a protected species.
“We did not find any evidence to support concerns that were raised with us by some submitters that transgender women pose a safety risk to cisgender women in women’s refuges. Further, we understand that most refuges inAotearoaNew Zealand already accommodate transgender women,” the commission wrote.
What about a woman’s right to at least feel safe?
[…] On privacy, the commission said there was a difficult balancing act to strike between the different rights and interests involved.
“Social and cultural norms about bodily privacy are evolving, and mixed-sex facilities are more common than they were in the 1970s, when exceptions relating to bodily privacy were enacted as part of New Zealand’s first law about sex discrimination. Nevertheless, taboos about being seen naked by people of a different sex in public settings are still widely held and were reflected in many submissions we received,” the commission wrote.
Working out the significance of this privacy rationale for the new ground we propose of gender identity is not straightforward. The way social norms about nudity currently apply to matters of gender identity is unclear. In consultation, we heard from some people that these norms are about ‘biological sex’, from some people that they are about sex characteristics and from others that they are about gender identity. We suspect these norms are in a state of transition and that they mean different things to different people.
The commission said it weighed privacy issues carefully where they arose in the process of its review.
I’ll make it real simple for the Law Commission. Guys shouldn’t be allowed to expose their dicks to women.
One area where the commission said there should be no exception was in single-sex facilities.
Transgender people should have access to single-sex public facilities, like toilets and changing rooms, that match their gender identity. Although this too threw up issues around privacy, the commission decided the concerns “are outweighed by the harmful effects of exclusion”.
So if a man ‘believes’ (and there’s no requirement that they have to actually believe it – you just have take them at their word) he is a woman, then he should be allowed into women’s spaces.
[…] The other significant exception considered was around competitive sports. The commission said the evidence around participation of transgender and intersex people in competitive sports was incomplete and noted it did not have expertise in sport science or physiology.
To most sane people, that men have a significant advantage over women in sport is pretty damn obvious. But, like I said at the start, dealing with transactivists in good faith makes you dumb.
The proposed reform would permit different treatment of gender diverse or intersex people in single-sex competitive sports if it was “reasonably required” to “secure fair competition between participants, having regard to the level of competition and the public interest in broad community participation in sporting activities; ensure the physical safety of all participants; or comply with an international rule”.
Yet, in reality, fairness has always taken a back seat to ‘inclusion’.
The elephant in the room here is the phrase “match their gender identity”. Not only is it the elephant in the room but it’s also a mammoth-sized one upon which the Law Commission sits like Humpty Dumpty (the reference to Alice in Wonderland is deliberate.)
The heart of the trans movement has always been a battle over language.
The genius move of transactivists was to separate gender from sex. Once upon a time, gender just meant sex but didn’t include the act itself. In other words you could say ‘his sex is male’ or ‘his gender is male’, but not ‘I’d love to have gender with him’.
By separating gender from sex, this allowed transactivists to then redefine gender fluid as a feeling. It allowed someone to say, ‘Yes, my sex is male but my gender is female because I feel more like a woman than I do a man.’
The next move however was far more insidious. It was then to use the old definition of gender to mean a person’s sex. If I feel I’m a woman then I must be a woman because, with the exception of the act itself, sex and gender are the same thing.
And somehow they were allowed to get away with it.
But, anyway, I actually identify as someone who is always right. And if you say I’m wrong then you’ve just mis-righted me and made me very upset and I need to cry all the way to the New Zealand Law Commission.
B@st@rds.
Ref: https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/09/04/ban-housing-and-hiring-discrimination-for-transgender-kiwis-law-commission/
Kevin is a Libertarian and pragmatic anarchist. His favourite saying: “There but for the grace of God go I.” This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment