A less simplistic bill would be good

Winston Peters announced:

New Zealand First has today introduced a Member’s Bill that would ensure the biological definition of a woman and man are defined in law.  

The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill will provide clarity and consistency in New Zealand law by defining “woman” as “an adult human biological female” and “man” as “an adult human biological male” in the Legislation Act 2019.  

I think this bill would have unfortunate unintended consequences. But, a simple amendment, could improve it.

I’m all for having the law allowing sporting events, facilities to restrict entry to those who are biologically women. But I’m also for allowing facilities to have entry based on gender identity, if that is what they want to do.

Trans NZers should be able to have their gender identity recognised in law. But the law should also recognise that this doesn’t replace biological sex. The health system, for example, needs to know your biological sex, but I’m not sure the Department of Conservation does.

So what I would do is have the law define both sex and gender. It could be along the lines of.

When referring to sex:

• a “woman” is “an adult human biological female”
• a “man” is “an adult human biological male”

When referring to gender:

• a “woman” is “an adult who identifies as a female”
• a “man” is “an adult who identified as a male”

When laws are passed, the laws could refer to either sex or gender, as is appropriate. In the absence of a specific reference, the assumption would be it is biological sex that is being referred to.