top of page

We are Winning

However, this equivalent of a legal comfort blanket does NOT give men the right to enter women’s spaces.

Yvonne Van Dongen

June 21st, 2023


So self-sex ID came into force last week and the radfems and anyone who cares about women and girls should be in mourning. Except they’re not. Far from it. They’re quietly congratulating themselves.

Because all the new law has achieved is to make a mockery of the birth certificate. It is now utterly invalid as a document of fact. With the ability to alter one's sex at will without the need for proof, it has validated a fiction. You may feel male, female or non-binary (whatever that is) and register that on your birth certificate (as long as you are 18 and over) and change back again a week later, if you so desire. Then back again for fun or because you can - as many times as you like.

Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of the law change is a facility that has received little, if any, public scrutiny. That is, it is now possible for a child to have two fathers or two mothers on their birth certificate. Both fathers could actually be female while both mothers could be male. Or they could choose to reject both monickers and just call themselves parent.

This flexibility as outlined in clause 12 (3) of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (BDMRR) Act 2021 could well become a drawcard for parents overseas who are denied this facility. In 2020 in the United Kingdom a male-identifying female, legally recognised as male, lost a Supreme Court case to be recognised as the father of the child he birthed. Next time all he has to do is fly here.

Our birth certificate has become a record of feeling. Nothing more.

However, this equivalent of a legal comfort blanket does NOT give men the right to enter women’s spaces. A man may wave his newly minted identification in front of the person running the women’s refuge, changing sheds, gym or sports team and insist this official looking piece of paper gives him the right to be regarded as a woman. But he is wrong. It does not.

The gatekeeper could quote clause 79 (2) (BDMRR) Act 2021 or clause 80 (2) in the supplementary order paper as justification to reject entry but it is probably easier to read the Department of Internal Affairs FAQs on the legislation.

“What does the new law say about how service providers should consider birth certificates as evidence of sex or gender?

The new legislation clarifies how birth certificates can be used as evidence of sex or gender. Where service providers need to determine someone’s sex or gender, other factors can be considered over and above the sex listed on a birth certificate. This reflects the fact that birth certificates are not intended to be considered evidence of a person’s identity (usually birth certificates are provided with other documents such as a driver licence or passports to prove identity).

What will self-identification mean for single sex spaces and activities such as changing rooms and sports teams?

The self-identification process should not affect how access to single sex spaces or sports is determined. Birth certificates are not usually used to determine a person’s right to access single sex services or spaces.

Organisations and individuals can continue to rely on their own policies rather than birth certificates. For example, it is still up to individual governing bodies to determine how sex and gender are determined in sport. It is also still up to individual schools to discuss with learners, parents, caregivers and whānau what name and gender learners use, regardless of the details on their birth certificates.”

So the gatekeeper is not legally obliged to regard the birth certificate as a document of fact. “Other factors can be considered” - such as the evidence of their own eyes.

Remember that skit in Little Britain - towering David Walliams in drag insisting he enter the women’s changing rooms at the pool because “I’m a lady” and the man behind the counter directing him to the male cubicles because men “get thrown out” of the women’s? It’s like that. We are not fooled.

Speak Up for Women should be congratulated for having those clauses added to the legislation. They have ensured that what we have now is self-sex ID in name only. In reality, it is toothless. So cunning that if you stuck a tail on it you’d call it a rat.

The trick will be letting people and organisations know they have this power.

But it is heartening to know that the new legislation is a win for the majority of New Zealanders who do not support self-sex ID. A recent poll undertaken by Curia Research on behalf of SUFW showed only 20 percent of New Zealanders supported changes to the BDMRR Act. Fifty six per cent did not and 24 per cent were unsure.

Not that MSM reported the Curia poll since it didn’t back their preferred narrative - that of vulnerable trans people being monstered by nasty feminists. Which makes the public rejection of this ideology all the more remarkable. Despite a virtual media blackout on stories critically examining gender ideology, when asked, the public said no to self-sex ID. Yet another win. A demonstration at least that a skewed media narrative has not won over the hoi polloi.

And although I am a journalist I find research confirming the declining faith in MSM also oddly cheering for it shows the public are not fooled. They know when they are being conned and are much smarter and savvier than MSM gives them credit for. I look forward to the day MSM registers this and aims for a diversity of views, not just identities.

In the meantime I hope the public checks out the news elsewhere and takes note of all the other wins in the war on women because it’s happening people, it’s happening. For instance the NHS has said it will no longer offer puberty blockers to children suffering from gender dysphoria joining Norway, Finland and Sweden in introducing greater safeguards for children. In the United States a growing number of states are banning affirmative care for individuals under 18. Also Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, issued a statement condemning the bullying and silencing of women who challenge gender ideology to defend their sex-based rights. Meanwhile many sports organisations are reviewing their trans and non-binary participation policies. British Cycling recently banned trans-identified males from women’s competitions,

Finally, and this is entirely personal, but I believe this issue has had the perverse effect of invigorating feminism. Before this ghastly iteration of misogyny emerged, feminism seemed to me, admittedly as a feckless follower, to be hijacked by a libfem interpretation of women’s rights. By that I mean fun feminists jumping on the me too bandwagon but at the same time championing sex work, kink and the sex positive movement, all of which struck me as a devious way of reframing and endorsing male abuse.

Call me a ridiculous optimist but I’m hoping that the injection of intellectual energy into feminism courtesy the sinister gender agenda, will prompt a re-evaluation of these issues. It’s been 20 years since the Prostitution Law Reform Act was passed in New Zealand. Let’s talk about that!

This article first appeared on The Platform and is republished with permission.


bottom of page