In a move that has reignited national and international debates around gender identity and rights, New Zealand First, a minority coalition partner in the current government, has introduced a bill seeking to legally define gender based on biological sex. The proposed legislation was presented to the New Zealand Parliament on Tuesday, April 22, 2025, and is already stirring significant controversy.
The Essence of the Bill
The bill, spearheaded by New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, proposes that individuals be legally recognised as either male or female strictly based on their biological sex at birth. If passed into law, it would mean that transgender individuals would no longer be able to change their legal gender on official documents in accordance with their gender identity.
According to Peters, the intent of the legislation is to “reflect biological reality” and bring what he described as “legal certainty” to matters of sex and gender. He argued that current laws and administrative practices have introduced confusion into public policy, education, sports, and healthcare, where gender is often used as a self-identified concept rather than a biological classification.
Winston Peters’ Statement on the Bill
In a public statement, Winston Peters said:
“This bill is not about discrimination. It is about clarity. Our laws should be based on observable, biological facts that provide certainty for all citizens. Gender, as understood by science and common sense, is rooted in biology—not in self-declared identity.”
He further noted that the bill is aimed at preserving spaces and services designated specifically for women or men, such as sports teams, bathrooms, and changing facilities, which he claims are being compromised under current gender identity policies.
Implications for Transgender Rights
Should the bill pass, it would mark a significant shift in the legal recognition of transgender individuals in New Zealand. Currently, under New Zealand law, individuals can change the gender marker on their official documents, such as birth certificates and passports, following a legal and/or medical process. This bill would roll back those provisions and require legal documents to align strictly with biological sex as recorded at birth.
Critics argue that such a law would undermine the dignity, rights, and safety of transgender and non-binary individuals by stripping away recognition and access to essential services under their lived gender identity.
Public and Political Reactions
The introduction of the bill has triggered immediate backlash from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, opposition parties, and human rights organisations. Many have described the move as regressive, exclusionary, and harmful to a vulnerable segment of the population.
The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand released a statement condemning the bill, saying:
“This legislation is a direct attack on the rights of trans and non-binary people. It attempts to erase identities that are valid and deserving of recognition and protection under the law. New Zealand should be moving forward, not backward.”
The Labour Party also voiced its opposition, asserting that the bill threatens to undo years of progress toward inclusivity and equality.
On the other hand, some conservative groups and citizens have welcomed the bill, viewing it as a necessary corrective to what they perceive as ideological overreach in gender policy. These supporters argue that sex-based rights must be protected, particularly in areas like women’s sports and single-sex facilities.
Impact on Women’s Spaces and Sports
One of the key arguments made by Winston Peters and proponents of the bill relates to women’s rights and spaces. They argue that allowing self-identification of gender can compromise the integrity and fairness of women’s sports and lead to discomfort or safety concerns in sex-segregated spaces such as restrooms, prisons, and shelters.
Peters stated:
“This is not about hating anyone. It’s about ensuring women and girls have their rights protected. It is also about fairness in competition and maintaining trust in institutions where sex-specific policies have a purpose.”
Human Rights and International Response
Several international human rights organisations have already weighed in, expressing concern over the bill’s implications. Amnesty International’s New Zealand branch said the legislation would be a “serious step backward for human rights” and called on Parliament to reject it outright.
UN Human Rights spokespersons have in the past warned against similar bills in other countries, arguing that they contravene international human rights treaties protecting freedom of identity and expression.
