The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill would legally define a “woman” as an adult human biological female and a “man” as an adult human biological male.
Introduced by New Zealand First MP Jenny Marcroft, the bill passed its first reading in Parliament on Wednesday and will now move to the select committee stage for further consideration.
Marcroft said the definition of what it means to be a woman was “under attack,” and argued the bill would provide greater clarity and consistency in law.
She also pointed to a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom last year, which found that the term “woman” refers to “biological sex.”
“New Zealanders should have confidence that their institutions and the very language of their laws reflect reality,” Marcroft said.
“Progressive politics” had prioritised ideology over biology, she said – and the change would prevent ideological interpretations from creeping into the law.”
“Women have had a gutsful of the gaslighting. It is misogyny in a modern form to cancel women when we speak up; it is misogyny in a modern form to deny our biological reality,” Marcroft added.
She said the legislation would not remove anyone’s rights but would instead protect sex-based rights for women and girls.
While National MP Nicola Grigg outlined concerns and potential drawbacks of the bill, she confirmed that her party would nevertheless support it.
Nicola Grigg said there were “real and substantive” concerns about the bill’s approach, including the fact that many existing laws have moved away from using gendered terminology.
She said she did not believe the bill would provide the level of clarity its supporters claimed it would achieve.
However, she said some people felt strongly about the issue, and that National would support the bill at this stage “to ensure that New Zealanders have the opportunity to have their say” during the select committee process.
For ACT’s Karen Chhour, this was not about science but about the ability to speak plainly and directly.
“At its heart, this debate is not about hate; it is about whether ordinary people are still allowed to trust their own eyes and speak honestly and defend sex-based rights without being shamed into silence,” Chhour explained.
She said biological differences are important, citing examples such as sport, where she said males may have physical advantages, and healthcare, where she argued they can influence diagnosis and treatment.