Is a rose a rose by any other name? Well, yes. There’s the scientific genus Rosa, then there’s a Rosie, a form used in English speaking countries, and then there’s Rosalie, a variant, but often used as the given name for a Rose. So, naming things, as the language expert and philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out, is just a very small part of language identification, and proper names as such generally don’t have a single, hard-and-fast, immutable definition. Rather, they function like a collection of representations, where we can still talk about any particular entity, even if one or two facts about what it represents turn out to be inexplicable.

Therefore, is a man a man by any other name? Sure, he is also a guy, a dude, a bloke, a dandy, a fellow and a gentleman to name a few. But, what about a woman? Sure, it’s pretty much the same. A woman is also a lass, a miss, a chick, a sheila, a broad and a lady to name a few. And, no doubt we’ve names and classifications for both men, woman and boys and girls which are less flattering; but nonetheless are used frequently.

So why legislate on the definitions of a man and a woman when those definitions are so arbitrary? Well, there are the proponent’s argument that the bill is necessary to provide legal certainty, protect the integrity of sex-based spaces (like women’s sports and bathrooms), and ensure legal language reflects biological reality (whatever that is).

The legislation for defining a man and a woman was introduced by a member of the right wing New Zealand First Party, Jenny Marcroft, and has the support of its party leader, Winston Peters. He said opponents of the bill were “egotistical mouth breathers”; whatever that means. Marcroft claims that “what it means to be a woman is under attack”. She hasn’t qualified this assertion, probably because it such an absurd generalization to have made in the first place. Although she claims that the common view “has existed for millennia and that “since Adam and Eve, people have known what a woman and man are…since the dawn of time”. Well she fails to understand human evolution and its timeline, and how we have many ancestors and other species contributing to our evolution long before Adam and Eve, (if they ever existed). But, if this is what she believes, why introduce the bill at all?

The other right wing nationalist party ACT (Association of Consumers and Taxpayers), also supports the bill.  Its leader David Seymour said his party supports it because “people were sick of pretending“ Whatever that means!

The bill seeks to define a man as an adult biological male, and male as a human biological male; while woman would be defined as an adult human biological female, and female as a human biological female.  Leaving aside the linguistic and language representation problems mentioned earlier; it’s also problematic because it misses the evolutionary and biological fluidity of sexual identity and development. For example, at what point in the development of a human being do they represent a male or female and a man or a woman? Is it utero when the potential to be a man or woman is defined by XX or XY chromosome? Is it through socially and culturally defined notions of gender after birth? Or is it defined through the biological stages of development of the child? If so, at what stage does the child become, the boy or girl, then the man or woman? And what of the socially constructed definitions of the developing human being such as the  pre-pubescent, the adolescent, the teenager, the young adult, and the mature adult. How do these markers, which differ across societies and cultures determine the right time to say when a person is a man or a woman?

And what of the ever changing markers of one’s biological sex?  While the foundational genetic markers generally remain stable over time, various physical, hormonal, and anatomical markers associated with biological sex can change significantly. Biological sex is a complex combination of chromosomes, gene expression, hormones, and internal and external anatomy. There’s a fluidity in our biological sex that no piece of legislation will ever get right.

The bill isn’t seeking to protect the rights of a man and a woman, or the rights of male and female children. It is an ideological attempt to gain control over a narrative which questions traditionalist views on the politics of sex and sexual identity, and the ongoing debates around gender and gender inclusivity for all. Further, it is an excuse to marginalize and legally remove the rights of transgender, non-binary, and intersex individuals.

The bill should be opposed. More information on the ramifications of this bill and how to make a submission can be found here:

https://qtopia.org.nz/news/submission-guide-legislation-definition-of-woman-amp-man-amendment-bill

Sources:

https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution

https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender-people-gender-identity-gender-expression

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0303720718301230