Barrie Davis: From Sex to Gender

Winston Peters has reintroduced the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill as the latest in a series of legislative proposals from NZ First against “woke ideology” and “social engineering.” While the Bill is likely to fail at first reading (like the TPB), it has already shown that National are not with the program in the run-up to the 2026 election.

If passed, the Bill would insert new sections 13A and 13B into the Legislation Act which say that in any legislation “woman means an adult human biological female” and “man means an adult human biological male”.

The opposite categories of human sex are among the most definitive in nature, distinguished by the production of a large gamete (egg) or a small gamete (sperm). Intersex people comprise only about 1 percent of the general population. Binary sex categories have thus been conclusively defined biologically and they are a necessary element of the processes which put us on the planet as an individual and as a species.

A few brief points from Law News (here): 1) the Human Rights Act already treats “sex” as a binary and biological concept; 2) transgender people are protected from discrimination in New Zealand; and 3) introduction of the word “adult” in the Bill excludes non-adults.

Mr Peters has been called a populist because of such issues: Chris Hipkins has said Peters was pursuing “any populist cause” to try keep himself above the five percent threshold required to make it into Parliament. But Peters has also demonstrated that our Parliament is off the rails when it comes to the so-called ‘woke’ issues.

Neither National nor ACT has yet said how they will respond to the Bill and a number of National MPs are having difficulty deciding how they will vote. When NZ First announced the policy in the lead-up to the 2023 election, National leader Christopher Luxon said it was not an issue important to New Zealanders: “You are on another planet if you want to have a conversation about bathrooms and make that an election issue.” In 2025, the Minister for Women, the Hon Nicola Grigg, declined to state what a “woman” is.

Prime Minister Luxon has recently revised his stance to: “pregnant people, frankly, are women” and “Let's have some common sense about it, and let’s use some common-sense language.” However, Minister Chris Bishop said the legislation was a “distraction” and that he has better things to do. If so, then just sign it off and get on with the more important stuff.

Nevertheless, it seems that some of them have been brainwashed into believing the impossible: that a man could be a woman. If they can believe that, what else do they believe? These people are making the issue prominent with their obfuscation. If they cannot easily decide what a woman is and state that simply, then they are not suitable to be put in charge of something complex like the New Zealand economy. Little wonder that National are declining in the polls.

The Definitions of Woman and Man Bill was first lodged in April 2025, under the name of former broadcaster and current MP Jenny Marcroft (Ngāpuhi), following a ruling from the UK Supreme Court a week earlier that the term “women” in the British Equality Act refers only to biological women and not to transgender men. However, the New Zealand Bill was withdrawn from the ballot in November 2025, but recently reintroduced.

The National party will probably make it a conscience vote and Family First’s Curia polling in May 2025 shows 64% of National voters support defining “woman” and “man” biologically. Nevertheless, it will only take a minority of National MPs to vote the Bill down. That will support the view that some National MPs believe men can be women, which will push more National voters to NZ First.

The Bill has been reintroduced late in the term and if it were to pass it would take 12-18 months to get to the third and final reading, so we would need to re-elect NZ First for another term to have it enacted.

The Select Committee process would be arduous and possibly require a large volume of submissions from both supporters and opponents, extensive legal advice on how the definition interacts with existing law, and debate over exceptions or narrowing the bill to avoid unintended consequences. That would result in amendments, especially from National members.

What a lot of fuss just to call a man a “man” and a woman a “woman”. If the Prime Minister wants us to “use some common-sense language,” he could unify the National MPs to get the Bill passed. But Mr Luxon will not let Mr Peters determine the agenda. I doubt that even Mr Peters expects the Bill to pass.

Yet I cannot see how we can reasonably expect to make a viable, let alone a flourishing nation, if it is founded on falsehoods. It’s a proverbial house of cards. Instead, put the facts on the table and work from there. What are you afraid of? The truth?

I’m not trained or involved in politics: I write as a voter who is concerned for the direction my country is taking. I’m not advocating any particular party, but I am saying I don’t want a Government with the Greens or TPM in it.

And, I’m blowed if I’ll vote for someone who can’t even tell the difference between a man and a woman.

Barrie Davis is a retired telecommunications engineer, holds a PhD in the psychology of Christian beliefs, and can often be found gnashing his teeth reading The Post outside Floyd’s cafe at Island Bay.