Submission against the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Am...

27 Jun

27Jun

This is my submission against the 'Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill'. Of all the anti-horrific bills I've had to submit on in the last couple of years, this is the most personal. You'll read why.

You have until 11.59pm on Thursday, 02 July 2026 to make your own submission. Please do! I have put some template links and guidance at the bottom of this page. And even a single sentence saying that you do not support the Bill counts.

I have written previously about how the frequency of issues raised across multiple submissions has power. If you want to tap into this please feel free to use the bullets below, they are points likely to be raised by many. For maximum submission effect please personalise them in some way - reword, change the order, make them longer or shorter, give more evidence or less etc.

Submission against the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill:

13 June 2026

My name is Indira Neville and I oppose the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill in its entirety. I recommend it not be progressed through the House.

This Bill makes me cry

Today I marched down Queen Street as part of the Mana Irawhiti Defy Definition protest. And as I marched I cried.

I cried with fury and despair and disbelief.

I cried because I am the mother of a non-binary child, a spectacular person whom I love with all my heart. They know who they are and they exist gloriously in the world. This Bill attempts to negate my child’s existence. It tells them a ‘male’ or ‘female’ identity is their only option. It also tells them if they insist otherwise and dare to live as their authentic self then they are not worthy of respect, protection, even existence.

I cried because in the 1980s my mother marched for homosexual law reform. She was also a spectacular person, sure of her lesbian identity and her right to openly embrace this. My mother and her queer community fought furiously and were victorious in the passing of the 1986 Homosexual Law Reform Act.

I cried because in the 2000s, while marching together in the Pride Parade, my mother told me how she’d tried to get custody of my brother and I post-divorce. She explained how at the time no judge would award this to a lesbian and how it had broken her heart. But now here she was! Openly gay, walking publicly with her daughter and surrounded by celebration. She said she had never dreamed such a thing could happen.

I cried because my mother and many others thought the world had changed, that because of their fight and fury we’d progressed and people could be who they were. I cried because the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill means this is not true. I cried because my child - her grandchild - forty years later has to suffer the same legal limitations and legitimised hatred that she did.

I cried because my mother and my child never met. I cried because she would have loved them so much, been so proud of them, and fought this Bill alongside them. I cried at the thought that she would have had to.

As I said, I cried with fury and despair and disbelief.

And now an abrupt change in tone

The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill causes me tears and personal pain but there are so many other reasons it is wrong. The Bill:

blatantly discriminates against trans, non-binary, takatāpui, and intersex people. It is inconsistent with human rights obligations of the NZ Government under The NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993.
Is inconsistent with The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021:
- This Bill renders the right for individuals to update their registered sex legally meaningless, requiring an alternative, biology-based means to establish gender. A publically available government issued sex-ID via database seem the only practical option for doing this, a catastrophic violation of privacy.

- A sex-ID would also be extremely expensive, a multi billion-dollar project with no line item in the Government’s current budget. And hardly a fiscal priority.

- Since the passing of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act there have been no recorded instances of trans women behaving badly in women’s spaces. Similarly there are no recorded instances of a cis man posing as a trans woman in order to infiltrate and threaten said spaces. Trans people have been using spaces that align with their chosen gender with no trouble whatsoever.
Is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi:
- Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi provides Māori with rangatiratanga or self-determination, the right to live as Māori and to own and protect taonga. Traditional Māori definitions of gender, and the right to live according to these, are taonga and guaranteed under this Article.

- Article 3 provides for rite tahi, the rights and responsibilities of equality and citizenship to all New Zealanders. That’s all New Zealanders, regardless of biology and gender.
Is racist and sexist generally:
- The Bill is not predicated on any universal concept of gender but on a Western colonial artefact. The male/female binary is tied to ‘whiteness’, christianity and patriarchy. It legitimizes the acquisition and inheritance of wealth and property, and the related civil and social rights of a particular type of ‘biological man’.

- And this can only happen at the expense of others. Untold research shows how colonial structures produce and perpetuate inequalities, including - significantly - those of trans, non-binary, takatāpui, and intersex people. This Bill champions that system.
Is performative and hypocritical in its contemporary claims to ‘protect women’. This Government has removed pay equity and defunded sexual violence agencies, two objectively dangerous actions.
Is legally redundant. The Human Rights Act already allows for the provision of single sex spaces when deemed necessary and safe. Legislated definitions of gender are not required to make this happen. (It is worth noting that Women’s Refuge and similar organisations generally choose not to do this because trans women are impacted by the same kinds of abuse and harm as all women. You know, because they’re women too).
Defines ‘woman’ as ‘adult human biological female’ and ‘man’ as ‘adult human biological male’, gender definitions that are vague, unscientific and unworkable:
- The Bill does not define ‘biological’. The term might refer to chromosomes, genitals, hormones or anatomy, which do not always align.

- It also explicitly excludes the 100 000 or so intersex people currently in NZ.

- Anyone outside of the binary is excluded. This confuses and potentially restricts access for trans, non-binary, takatāpui, and intersex people to healthcare and services. For example, under this Bill could a trans man with a cervix access cervical screening? And without gender or sex-based discrimination?
Similarly contains vague, unscientific and unworkable age definitions:
- The Bill does not define what ‘adult’ means. Currently, if the age of maturity is not specified in a piece of legislation it means someone over 20. This means gender diverse 16 to 19 year-olds may have issues with healthcare, education, identity documentation, housing and welfare. The current abortion law is an example. It refers only to ‘women’ i.e. ages 20 and above. Does this mean those aged 16 to 19 would be unable to access the service?

- According to The Bill a ‘girl/boy’ is not the same as a ‘woman/man’. Existing legislation using ‘women/men’ to cover both adults and children breaks down. All references would have to be replaced by something like ‘female/male child’, a complicated, expensive, time-consuming, and futile process.
Generally diverts attention and resources away from real issues affecting individual and social wellbeing, for example the cost-of-living crisis, rising unemployment, stagnant wages, environmental destruction, and increasing inequality.

Finally, the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill normalises hate. This anti-non-binary, anti-trans, anti-takatāpui, and anti-intersex legal redefinition signals to society that those in this group can be targeted with impunity. It tells those employers, landlords, teachers, doctors, church members, law enforcers, and keyboard warriors who are already full of poison and bias, that the state agrees with them. And that their vicious, dangerous actions are OK.

This Bill tells the world that it is OK to hate my beautiful non-binary child.

And I am crying with fury and despair and disbelief.

I oppose the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill in its entirety. I recommend it not be progressed through the House.