Dignity and the law
“Everyone as a member of society has the right to human dignity, and with individual personalities, has the right to develop [their] being as [they] [see] fit; subject only to the most minimal of State interference being essential for the convergence of the common good. Together with human freedom, a person, subject to the acquired rights of others, should be free to shape their personality in the way best suited to their person and to their life. All persons by virtue of their being are so entitled.” [1]
At its heart, law should be concerned with human dignity. It should be used to uphold the worth of all people, to protect minorities from prejudice, and to create the conditions in which individuals can live authentically, safely, and freely. It should not be used as a vehicle to import ideological conflict into the lives of those already facing marginalisation.
To our transgender, non-binary and intersex communities: you are valued and your place in Aotearoa New Zealand is not contingent on political cycles or parliamentary debates. You deserve to live lives of dignity, safety, and possibility. You deserve laws that recognise your humanity, rather than question it. We know that debates such as these can be exhausting and harmful. We affirm that your existence is not a matter for controversy. Your lives matter, your experiences matter, and your futures matter.
The Bill
Adhikaar Aotearoa stands against the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill.
The Bill reflects a broader illiberal culture war and is an exercise in poor law making.
Illiberal culture wars, imported from overseas, often seek to frame minority rights as threats and to construct false binaries where complexity has long existed. Aotearoa New Zealand should resist this trajectory. Our legal traditions, though imperfect, have increasingly moved towards recognising diversity, respecting dignity, and expanding protections for those historically excluded.
This Bill is an exercise in poor law making. The Attorney-General has already reported that the Bill appears inconsistent with the prohibition on age discrimination contained within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2] We add that there are serious questions as to whether aspects of the Bill may also be inconsistent with protections against discrimination on the basis of sex. When legislation raises rights inconsistencies, Parliament should take notice.
Proponents of the Bill frequently invoke practical concerns regarding sex segregated spaces and protections. Yet New Zealand law already contains exceptions within the Human Rights Act 1993 that address many of these issues. The Bill therefore does not appear to remedy an identified legal deficiency. Instead, it risks creating confusion where mechanisms already exist.
Similarly, as the New Zealand Law Commission has observed: “There is no single definition of sex in New Zealand law, and the word sex is used in different ways in different contexts. […] Our research has located over 100 New Zealand Acts or regulations that contain a reference to sex, none of which provide a definition of the term. In many cases, the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are used in the same legislation, sometimes interchangeably.” [3] This reflects an important reality: legislative terms derive meaning from context and purpose. Attempting to retrospectively impose rigid definitions onto words whose function varies across legal settings risks creating interpretive problems across the statute book. Retrofitting singular definitions where contextual meanings have evolved over decades is poor legislative design.
The Bill may also create internal inconsistency; the Legislation Act 2019 already provides that references to a specific gender or kind of person include others. [4] Questions arise as to how this principle would coexist with the restrictive definitions proposed by the Bill. Such tensions suggest inadequate consideration of downstream legal consequences: poor law making.
Gender diversity in ethnic contexts
As an organisation that works alongside and represents queer and transgender people from ethnic communities, we are acutely aware that rigid Western understandings of sex and gender have never reflected the ways human societies have understood identity. Across cultures, gender diversity has existed for centuries. In South Asia, for example, Hijra communities have long occupied recognised social and cultural roles beyond binary conceptions of man and woman. Similar traditions and identities exist across many Indigenous, Asian, Middle Eastern and Pacific societies. While these experiences are diverse and should not be collapsed into one another, they illustrate an important point: the notion that sex and gender must always fit within narrow binary categories is neither historically universal nor culturally neutral.
First reading is not law
Importantly, although the Bill has passed its first reading, it is not law.
The parliamentary process now enters the select committee stage. This is a crucial democratic moment in which members of the public, organisations, experts, and affected communities can make submissions and have their voices heard. Public participation matters. Engagement matters. Dialogue with Members of Parliament matters.
The progression of this Bill is not inevitable. It is time to organise.
Concluding thoughts
The question before us is not merely one of definitions. It is whether Aotearoa New Zealand continues moving towards a society grounded in dignity, inclusion, and freedom, or whether we permit fear and imported culture wars to narrow who is recognised, protected, and respected under the law.
Adhikaar Aotearoa stands for dignity. We stand for good law making. And we stand with transgender, non-binary and intersex communities.
[1] Foy v An t-Ard Chláraitheoir [2007] IEHC 470 at [118].
[2] See New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, s 19.
[3] Te Aka Matua o Te Ture | New Zealand Law Commission Ia Tangata: A review of the protections in the Human Rights Act 1993 for people who are transgender, people who are non-binary and people with innate variations of sex characteristics (NZLC R150, August 2025) at [3.112]-[3.113].
[4] See Legislation Act 2019, s 16.
