The Definitions of Woman and Man Bill is transphobic and protects no one

On 20 May 2026, Parliament voted to send the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill to select committee. Public submissions closed on 2 July 2026, and the bill now sits with the Social Services and Community Committee, which will report back to the House.

The bill aims to write a single definition into every Act of Parliament: "woman" as "an adult human biological female", and "man" as "an adult human biological male". Supporters have framed this as common sense, and as a necessary step to protect women and girls. It is neither. It is a transphobic bill, and I oppose it.

"It fixes a real problem in the law"

There is no gap to fix. New Zealand law already allows for sex-segregated facilities and sex-differentiated sports, and ironically, the specific terms this bill tries to define aren't even used in the laws you'd expect it to touch. Barrister Graeme Edgeler noted the bill would have virtually no practical effect for exactly this reason. Even the Justice Minister stated it wasn't a government priority, and the Minister for Women, Nicola Grigg, admitted she wasn't convinced it would advance the rights or wellbeing of women and girls in any way.

If it does so little, you might ask: where's the harm? The harm is that writing a group of people out of legal recognition is an injury in itself. It carries severe knock-on effects, like undermining the value of updated birth certificates, not to mention the documented mental health toll of the debate itself. "It does nothing" and "it's harmless" are two entirely different things.

"It protects women and girls"

While this is the bill's headline slogan, the organisations that actually represent and work with women don't buy it. Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa warned that the bill could restrict the rights of women alongside trans and intersex people. The National Council of Women, a long-standing feminist organisation, opposed the bill outright and affirmed that trans women's rights are women's rights.

A rigid legal definition of "woman" as an "adult human biological female" also sweeps up intersex women and cisgender women who happen to break narrow, arbitrary assumptions. This framing doesn't protect women—it just puts more of them in the crosshairs.

"It's not discrimination, just biological facts"

Let's look at the actual legal findings on this. The Attorney-General, reporting under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, found that the bill unjustifiably limits the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of age. Because the word "adult" is used, it would exclude anyone under 20 (New Zealand's default age of majority) from legal provisions using these terms. On the question of sex discrimination, the Attorney-General didn't even reach a conclusion because the bill was simply too legally ambiguous to decide.

So the reality is an official finding of unjustified age discrimination, and a mess too vague to clear the bar on sex. Meanwhile, the Human Rights Commission stated clearly that the bill falls short of the government's human rights obligations and risks further harm. The "just facts, not discrimination" argument fails on both counts.

"‘Adult human biological female' is a precise, scientific definition"

It sounds like hard science, but actual medical bodies say otherwise. RANZCOG, the college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, formally opposed the bill, stating the definition is neither scientifically nor clinically accurate. Human sex is a complex product of chromosomes, genes, hormones, and anatomy that exists on a spectrum rather than a strict binary.

The definition is also completely circular. It never explains what "biological" actually means. Because chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and anatomy don't always perfectly align, the bill leaves the legal status of more than 100,000 intersex New Zealanders entirely up in the air. The psychiatrists' college also rejected the bill, warning that trying to legislate people out of public life creates a climate of fear that deeply harms young people.

"They're just mentally ill men who think they're women"

This is the cruder, popular-level version of the bill's premise—and it is entirely wrong on the facts. Being transgender is not a mental illness. The World Health Organization moved gender incongruence out of the "mental and behavioural disorders" chapter of its diagnostic manual and into a chapter on sexual health. They did this because the global medical evidence is clear that being trans is not a disorder of the mind, and that classifying it as one causes real stigma and harm.

There is a recognised condition called gender dysphoria, which describes the distress some trans people feel. But that describes the distress, not the identity itself. You don't have to personally share someone's experience to accept the settled medical consensus. Notably, the same psychiatrists' college that actually treats these conditions is the one opposing this bill.

"Trans people are a safety threat in shared spaces"

This argument completely collapses under New Zealand's own evidence. The Law Commission, reviewing the question directly, found zero evidence that trans people using facilities matching their gender identity increases safety risks for cisgender women and girls.

In fact, the data points entirely the other way. Trans people experience sexual violence at far higher rates than the general population, and roughly one in five trans and non-binary New Zealanders have been threatened with physical violence just for being who they are. The danger runs toward trans people, not from them.

There's also a glaring irony here that the bill's logic completely ignores. If a rigid "biological sex" definition were ever used to police bathrooms, it wouldn't keep men out of women's spaces—it would force trans men into them. A trans man—someone assigned female at birth who may have a beard, a deep voice, and who lives entirely as a man—would, on paper, be legally forced into the women's room. The definition produces the exact scenario it claims to prevent.

"It's just common sense"

"Common sense" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, usually standing in for evidence that doesn't exist. When you look at the independent bodies that have actually examined the bill, the weight is overwhelmingly against it: the Attorney-General flagged discrimination, the Human Rights Commission called it harmful, the Law Commission recommended protections over restrictions, medical bodies rejected it, and women's organisations opposed it.

On top of that, around 10,000 people protested the bill across five cities. The idea that "everyone secretly agrees" is a myth. Reaching for the phrase "common sense" is just a way to skip the part where you have to show your data.

"We need it to keep women's elite sport fair"

Let's address this honestly. The evidence on trans and intersex participation in elite competitive sports is still evolving, which is why the Law Commission recommended a case-by-case approach handled by sporting bodies, rather than a blanket law. Fairness in elite sport is a real, ongoing debate.

But this bill doesn't offer a nuanced, sports-specific solution. It imposes a single definition across every Act of Parliament, fundamentally altering healthcare, IDs, legal recognition, and daily life—areas that have absolutely nothing to do with elite podiums. Using a hyper-specific sporting debate to justify a sweeping redefinition of citizens is a total bait-and-switch.

We can look to Australia's Tickle v Giggle case to see how this plays out. It wasn't a sports case; it involved a women-only social media app that excluded a trans woman, Roxanne Tickle. Australia's Federal Court found her exclusion was unlawful discrimination under their Sex Discrimination Act. Crucially, that same Australian Act already treats sport separately: it allows sporting bodies to regulate competitive sports based on strength, stamina, or physique. Australia protects trans women from everyday discrimination while still allowing sports to be handled case-by-case. That measured approach is exactly what this New Zealand bill abandons.

"It only affects a tiny group, so it's not a big deal"

This is meant to downplay the stakes, but it actually highlights the danger. The core principle here is whether a government should be allowed to rewrite a specific category of people out of legal existence via a simple statutory definition. Today that mechanism targets trans, intersex, takatāpui, and non-binary New Zealanders—but the legal precedent won't care who it's pointed at next.

A country where human rights are conditional on being part of a large enough or popular enough group is a country where nobody's rights are safe. Protections matter most for small margins; majorities can already look after themselves at the ballot box.

"It's a home-grown response to local concerns"

Motives are hard to prove, but the template is obvious. Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa described the bill as a direct page from the American conservative playbook. The wording gives it away: near-identical "adult human biological female/male" definitions have popped up in recent US federal bills and state "sex definition" laws alongside a wave of anti-trans policies in the UK.

You don't have to guess anyone's intentions to see that the wording is an imported template. Pointing this out doesn't dismiss the sincere anxieties of everyday people, but it does highlight that those anxieties are being actively stoked by a coordinated global campaign rather than popping up spontaneously in New Zealand.

"This is about protecting children"

The child-protection framing might feel new to people seeing it for the first time, but it's a tired rerun. Commentators have pointed out that the rhetoric used today is nearly identical to the anti-gay panic used against homosexual law reform 40 years ago—arguments that history has not judged kindly.

If the goal is genuinely to protect children, the data tells us we need to protect trans youth, not legislate against them. Counting Ourselves, the national trans health survey, documents devastatingly high rates of distress and suicidality among trans rangatahi, while showing that family and community support drastically reduces that harm. Protecting kids means supporting the ones who are actually at risk.

Where things stand

Submissions have closed, but the bill isn't law and the conversation is far from over. The select committee will report back, and there are several parliamentary stages ahead. If you take one thing from this, let it be this: you don't have to match hostility with hostility. The calm, sourced, factual version of these answers is the strongest one we have.

Please be kind to the trans people in your life while this plays out. It takes an immense emotional toll to watch your very right to exist be treated as a political debate. If that's you: you belong here, and you are not the problem.

Sources

• Report of the Attorney-General under the NZ Bill of Rights Act (primary document, PDF)
• Human Rights Commission, legislation "not necessary, risks further harm"
• Law Commission review (facilities & sport), via Newsroom
• RANZCOG submission against the bill
• RANZCP, psychiatrists reject the bill
• WHO, gender incongruence is not a mental disorder (ICD-11)
• Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa, what the bill really means
• National Council of Women, trans rights statement
• Nicola Grigg & submissions explainer, RNZ
• One in five trans and non-binary people threatened with violence, RNZ
• Sexual violence & health data (Counting Ourselves), University of Waikato
• From anti-gay to anti-trans, The Spinoff
• Bill timeline & background, Wikipedia
• Barrister Graeme Edgeler on the bill's limited legal effect (Star Observer, reporting Stuff)
• Tickle v Giggle explainer & the sport exemption, Australian Human Rights Commission

This piece is current as of 8 July 2026. The bill is moving through Parliament; check the current stage before relying on time-sensitive details.