NZ Politics

875 readers

2 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Dave@lemmy.nz

RaoulDuke@lemmy.nz

NZ First's gender bill to be supported by National, ACT (www.rnz.co.nz)

submitted 1 month ago by Dave@lemmy.nz to c/politics@lemmy.nz

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

National and Act will support a New Zealand First member's bill seeking to define the term "woman" in law.

It would define "woman" in law as "an adult human biological female", and "man" as "an adult human biological male".

New Zealand First vowed to fight "cancerous social engineering" and "woke ideology" with the Bill.

Last year New Zealand First quietly withdrew its proposed legislation to fine those who use public bathrooms not for their designated sex.

But Peters suggested his member's bill defining a "woman" would prevent men using women's toilets.

Labour and the Green Party confirmed they would vote against the bill.

Green Party Chlöe Swarbrick said it was "despicable, but unfortunately not surprising" that the government was painting a target on the back of a minority.

"Trans people are not the reason that New Zealanders can't afford their groceries. Trans people are not the reason that New Zealanders cannot afford their power bills. Trans people are not the reason that New Zealanders are experiencing record high unemployment."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

"But this is about the rest of us being able to see things and say things and hold our beliefs, think our thoughts and speak our mind, without having to confect ourselves into these riddles as we've been forced to do with 'pregnant people' and 'chest feeding' and all that rubbish."

If that actually happened, that's absolutely ridiculous.

Is there anywhere that people are actually required to say these things?

[–] Splenetic@lemmy.nz 7 points 1 month ago

Required? No - But sometimes, for the sake of inclusion, a healthcare professional might say something like "people with a cervix" for more inclusivity and then people like NZF have to pretend they don't understand to justify their bigotry.

[–] worik@mastodon.social -1 points 1 month ago

@Ilovethebomb @Dave The Guardian had their journalists doing this for a while.

The idea that not including every sing tiny edge case (like pregnant men) is "exclusionary" is IMO a fallacy

It is OK to assume that a person who is pregnant is a woman. Yes, there are exceptions (I know one) but sometimes the sky is not blue, not all leaves are green and some politicians are honest.

Still Ok to say "blue sky thinking", "green leaves" and "lies like a politician"