“These changes give young people the protection they deserve. The evidence simply hasn’t supported the use of puberty blockers for gender incongruence, and we’re relieved to see New Zealand taking a more cautious, responsible approach. We especially want to thank the parents, advocates and community groups who fought tirelessly to make this shift happen — often at great personal cost.” - Suzanne Levy SUFW November 20 2025 Speak Up for Women welcome yesterday's Government announcement introducing new safeguards for the prescribing of puberty blockers to young people experiencing gender incongruence. After years of advocating for evidence-based policy and stronger protections for children, families and women’s rights, we are relieved, vindicated, and deeply hopeful. A Long-Overdue Step Toward Safety and Clarity Today’s announcement acknowledges what international health authorities across Europe have already recognised: the evidence for puberty blockers in treating gender incongruence is weak, the risks are significant, and a precautionary approach is essential. These safeguards bring New Zealand back into alignment with leading international practice, including the UK, Sweden, Finland and Norway. What the New Measures Mean New patients seeking puberty blockers for gender incongruence will not be eligible until major UK clinical trial results are available, after 2031. Current youth gender services will continue. A centralised online resource will provide families with clearer information. Prescribing for unrelated medical conditions remains unchanged. Our Ongoing Concern: Young People Already on Puberty Blockers While we welcome the restrictions, we remain deeply concerned that young people already on puberty blockers will stay on treatment by default. Given mounting international evidence of potential harms — including impacts on bone density, brain development, sexual function and fertility — it is not enough to close the gate to new entrants while leaving existing patients on a pathway that may cause long-term harm. Speak Up for Women calls on the Government and health services to: Actively review all existing cases, Provide clear, balanced information to families, Offer structured, compassionate support to help young people safely phase out, where appropriate, And ensure that safeguarding applies equally to all young people, not just those entering care from December 19th 2025 onward. Review the Conversion Practices legislation to provide clarity and support for gender exploration therapy and parental rights around ‘Watchful Waiting’. The Urgent Need to Strengthen Youth Mental Health Services These safeguards make it clearer than ever that New Zealand must urgently improve its seriously underfunded mental health system. For years, young people in distress have faced long waitlists and limited access to counselling or psychological support. If we want them to thrive, they must have timely, high-quality mental health care — not years of delay, uncertainty or confusion. We urge the Government to: Boost funding for youth mental health; Ensure access to comprehensive psychological assessment and support; Strong mental health support is essential for helping young people navigate distress safely and with confidence. Acknowledging Those Who Stood Up Today’s shift would not have been possible without the many groups, organisations and individuals who have stuck their necks out to raise concerns. We thank: Gender-critical organisations across New Zealand, Concerned parents who refused to stay silent, Detransitioners and families who bravely shared their experiences, Academics, women’s groups, clinicians and community advocates who endured hostility for speaking out. Their persistence, integrity and courage have played a crucial role in bringing New Zealand back toward responsible, child-centred policy. Why Speak Up for Women Supports These Changes Our mission is to protect sex-based rights and ensure that law and policy are grounded in evidence, reality and safeguarding. For years, many New Zealanders were dismissed simply for asking reasonable questions. Today’s announcement signals a turning point toward clarity and responsible decision-making. A Win for Children, Parents and Women’s Rights This is not just a health policy adjustment. It represents a broader re-alignment of public policy with evidence, safeguarding and human rights. We are hopeful this marks the beginning of a much-needed reset across government agencies. Speak Up for Women will continue to: Advocate for clear, evidence-based laws where sex matters; Support parents and the public seeking factual information; Defend women’s and girls’ rights across all areas of policy; Call for strong safeguarding for all young people affected by gender ideology; Hold government agencies accountable for transparent, responsible decision-making.

We'll be sending this advice to every local body councillor and public pool facility in the country, that's around 800 people.   We're interested in practical solutions to preserve single sex spaces and we're happy to have the necessary discussions. Speak Up for Women (SUFW) is an advocacy group seeking to ensure sex-based rights for women and girls in New Zealand.    We are concerned that women are not being considered appropriately when it comes to single sex facilities. Our needs are being ignored by some decision makers.   Our Human Rights Act s46 allows for the "provision of separate facilities or services for each sex on the ground of public decency or public safety". When in a state of undress anywhere, but particularly in a place used by other members of the public, privacy and safety are important considerations.   Many women will self-exclude if there are not appropriate, male-free changing facilities at swimming pools and gyms.   We have been in communication with various Councils in New Zealand regarding changing room access at public swimming pools.   The information and feedback we have received indicates:   A general willingness to provide spaces for women that are free from men (and presumably vice versa). This isn't often the reality, though. A fair amount of confusion and conflicting information regarding the legal situation when it comes to excluding people from a space on the basis of their sex. (i.e. does it include gender identity?) A lack of options for accommodating people who don't wish to use the facilities that match their sex.   So we have come up with some options that we would like Councils to consider adopting across their facilities.   The options can help to ensure the following:   Everyone has somewhere safe to change and shower. Everyone is treated with respect and dignity.   These options stem from a recent visit to the Wānaka Recreation Centre - so if you're involved with Queenstown Lakes District Council, thanks for your work so far. Universal Changing Rooms Universal Changing Rooms are Family or Accessible facilities with a twist.   We propose providing more of these facilities and clearly signposting them for people who are "all genders" (don't consider they fit the sex binary),  as well as traditional users.   Whether or not they are also for disabled clients will depend on your existing set-up and patronage. You may need a combination of both types.   The labelling makes it clear who they are for and sets the expectation for existing family users that they are for others, too.   They work in conjunction with the Female and Male signs below. The Female and Male facilities have a message for people who believe they have a gender that does not match their sex, it makes it clear that the facility has considered their needs and provided somewhere for them.   It sends the same message to people who do not want to share a changing facility with members of the opposite sex - their needs have been considered and respected. Why the Confusion? We believe that much of the confusion relating to single sex spaces, and whether or not trans-identifying people can use facilities that don't match their sex, comes from guidance given by the Human Rights Commission (HRC).   Up until July 2023 the HRC did not make it clear that their (then) position on gender and gender identity being included in the Human Rights Act under sex, was untested in court and was merely the result of a legal opinion, not a law change.   In July 2023 the HRC added a disclaimer at the start of their FAQ section, unfortunately it is not seen by users unless they read the FAQs from the top.   Examples below: (the website is here ) This is not accurate advice , our Human Rights Act does not mention gender or gender identity or transgender people, the protection it gives is only on the basis of sex, an immutable characteristic.   We do agree that people should not be discriminated against for being transgender, but this does not mean they should have access to facilities designated for the opposite sex. It means they should be provided for in your facility, that your facility should be accessible to them - and we believe the options above meet this goal. Speak Up for Women has an excellent guide to the Human Rights Act and single sex spaces, you can find it by clicking the button below. If you would like more information or you would like to talk to us, please get in touch, the easiest way is to reply to this email. (email address will be supplied)

November 14th 2025 We recieved some questions from a Stuff journalist (whatever that is) relating to data and to the contribution of Helen Joyce. We provided the answers below and as we have done previously, we are sharing with our wider audience... Data on trans-identifying males assaulting women There is no single source of this kind of data. It would need to be obtained from Police and Courts and would rely on these organisations collecting consistent information on sex and gender identity as the offender and victim went through the Courts system. Given that gender identity is entirely subjective, it is impossible to obtain accurate data when one of the factors cannot be reliably ascertained. But - trans-identifying males, like everyone, have an immutable sex, and that is male, so what we do have is data obtained from Corrections, significant general information on male violence against women (which can not reasonably be included here) and some example cases of trans-identifying males assaulting and sexually assaulting women. In July 2024 SUFW submitted an OIA request to Corrections, our report is here , key data below. Approximately 14% of the trans-identifying male sentenced offenders were charged with (on remand) or sentenced for sexual assault. Approximately 14% of trans-identifying males are housed in a female Corrections facility An average of 86 trans-identifying males served a custodial sentence or were remanded in custody each year for the past five years. Approximately 35 trans-identifying males are serving a custodial sentence or are remanded in custody at any given time. Although the numbers are small for statistical purposes, the sentencing patterns for trans-identifying males are around twice that of other males and around 28 times that of females. Another issue impacting on the data in this area is the use of incorrect pronouns by the media, Police and Courts when reporting on crime. There seems to be a reluctance to report accurately on instances when a trans-identifying male perpetrator is involved. This contributes two-fold to the lie that is gender ideology. Trans-identifying males are given a special kind of anonymity and statistics regarding female offending rates are skewed. We all know who the losers are with this arrangement. The issue of trans-identifying male violence / sexual violence against women is not a transgender issue, it is simply a male violence / sexual violence issue.  It's quite ridiculous this whole thing asking for 'proof' of danger. The whole point, of course, is that any man who will ignore women's boundaries by self-identifying into a female only space,  has already proved himself a threat.  We have centuries of proof that women benefit from and require spaces where there are no males. Examples in the Media These are male offenders who identify as transgender and have been convicted of assault and / or sexual assault, rape and murder against women or children. Rory Francis / Laken McKay - child sexual assault, rape - https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/397094/high-risk-child-sex-offender-to-be-strictly-monitored-after-september-release Wayne / Blaine Maney - assault on 3 women, child sex offences - https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/116211253/jail-for-rotorua-hiv-hypodermic-needle-stabbing Matthew Nelson / Pandora Electra / Emma Nelson - triple stabbing - https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/person-admits-violent-stabbing-of-three-people-inside-cambridge-indian-restaurant/YTRR5FHCBOHLQVJQ3FKXNODKYY/ Shane  / Toko (Ashley) Winter - murder of a young girl - https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/417539/pair-jailed-for-life-for-murdering-auckland-teen-dimetrius-pairama Pierre John Parsons - rape and abduction of a 12 year old girl - https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/child-rapist-pierre-john-parsons-now-a-transgender-worman-tries-and-fails-to-have-extended-supervision-order-lifted/FXBFRTR7VZEU7LCQZXNSX5E6DQ/ Michael / Maxien Stevens - child sex offending - https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300909517/prisoner-claims-she-was-punished-for-romantic-relationships-with-other-inmates Sexual assault in prison - https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/112432880/transgender-prisoner-investigated-for-sexual-assault-behind-bars Eli Rubashkyn - assault x 2 - https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/526940/eli-rubashkyn-who-doused-anti-trans-campaigner-posie-parker-in-tomato-juice-convicted Workplace Disputes We do not have specific data on workplace disputes involving sex realist opinions. We have heard of a few cases and there have been several reported in the media. What we do know is that there are many, many people who will not speak out at work due to fear of the consequences. These are the people who we hear from on a regular basis.  The Free Speech Union will be better placed to provide information on this topic. Helen Joyce Helen Joyce with our spokeswoman, Suzanne Levy Helen provides a logical and evidence-based approach to dealing with the conflict between the sex-based rights of women and the ideological wants of men who say the magic words. Her book ‘Trans When Ideology Meets Reality’ is a great place (if not the best place) to start for those questioning how the subject of women’s rights has become so contentious. Her organisation, Sex Matters, is a leading voice in the UK fight for sanity. This is the same fight that we face here in New Zealand, where we are facing contradictory and misleading guidance from the Human Rights Commission on crucial aspects of our Human Rights Laws. The laws that allow women to participate in society while protecting their dignity, privacy and safety.  Our job is to test this guidance against our legislation - and that is what we will do. It has worked in the UK and other countries, and it will work here.

If there was ever a Masterclass in wrecking an organisation’s credibility with New Zealanders, it was delivered last week by the Law Commission in its report, 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. The report recommends inserting “gender identity” as a new ground of discrimination under section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) and amending other provisions that currently provide essential sex-based protections for women and girls. “These recommendations represent an alarming departure from decades of progress in women’s rights,” said SUFW spokesperson Suzanne Levy. The Commission had an opportunity to bring a sober and considered contribution to a complex and contested contemporary issue. Instead, in a laborious word salad of a report, the recommendations demonstrated not only its total capitulation to its panel of “experts” that represented only one point of view, but its total removal of, and contempt for, the interests of women and girls in having access to single sex spaces, sport, and services for reasons of privacy, dignity, and safety. This report is nothing short of a betrayal. Women and girls, in their view, should in many instances be compelled to share single sex spaces, sport,  schools, and services with any male who proclaims a female inner gender identity because the “harm” of excluding that male will outweigh the interests of women and girls in single sex provision. Ridiculously, the onus is on women to prove otherwise. In doing so, the Commission have revealed themselves to be utterly divorced from the realities of most New Zealanders with polling over the last few years showing strong, and increasing, support for single sex provision.  Speak Up for Women’s submission  to the Commission supported the interests of people who identify as gender diverse to have specific protections in the HRA as separate from and distinct to sex, while preserving sex specific exceptions. An approach such as this would have struck a reasonable balance between sometimes competing interests and would have been supported by many New Zealanders as a considered compromise.  The Commission’s insistence that their recommendations deliberately gutting single sex provisions in the HRA for women and girls “strike an appropriate balance” shows that they can no longer be trusted to opine on matters of reality. Alongside this, other recommendations would also make parts of the Act more ambiguous, confusing, and unworkable.  NZ ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1985. As a party to the convention, the New Zealand government is obligated to work towards eliminating discrimination against women and girls in all areas of life and their definition of discrimination against women is “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex”. To put the feelings of some men over the rights of all women is to breach this international convention and we are astounded at this considerable oversight. We wish the Government well in its attempt to salvage something of use from a significant amount of taxpayers’ money sunk into a report that only further demonstrates the chasm between elite institutions and everyday  New Zealanders.  SUFW calls on the Government and Parliament to reject these dangerous recommendations outright . Women’s rights must remain grounded in biological reality, not political fashion.

Wellington July 25th, 2025 In a disappointing, but not entirely surprising, admission this week, the Human Rights Commission has confirmed its contempt for both its own legislation and for women and girls in its hysterical condemnation of the Government’s removal of Sport NZ’s transgender inclusion guidelines. To be clear, the removal of the guidelines in no way prevents people who identify as gender diverse from participating in sport. What it does is remove Sport NZ’s ideologically entrenched position that prioritised the ability of males to self-identify into women’s sport, no questions asked, which completely disregarded the needs of women and girls to access single sex sport events for fairness and safety reasons. In addition, the guidelines also promoted the harassment, exclusion and disciplining of women who raised concerns about males being allowed into their sporting category. Section 49 of the Human Rights Act 1993 specifically provides for single sex sport where the “strength, stamina, or physique of competitors is relevant.” This is based on the long understood, and extensively evidenced, fact that the physiological differences between the sexes result in male advantage in most sports. The Commission’s insistence that it is a “right” for any male who self identifies as female to be able to play in girls’ or women’s sport is as untethered from reality as insisting it should be a “right” for someone who is 21 to self-identify into under 16 sport, or someone who is 90kg to identify as 84kg. By deliberately ignoring its own Act and instead grasping for unspecified “international human rights law” to try to support its case the HRC only proves it is both out of touch with New Zealanders and reality. There is no international or domestic law that provides for any person to self-identify into the sporting category of their choice based on their subjective feelings. We had hoped that under the new leadership of Dr Rainbow that the Commission would bring a nuanced and reasoned understanding of the interests of women and girls in being able to access single sex sports, spaces and services for the purposes of fairness, safety, privacy and dignity as set out in the Human Rights Act. In choosing not to do so the Commission has shown itself to be utterly removed from, and unconcerned for, the New Zealanders they are supposed to serve.

Our spokeswoman, Suzanne Levy has announced that she will stand for a city-wide Councillor position in the upcoming Lower Hutt local body elections, our media release is below.   We support Suzanne in this new stage of her career, we think that the phrase " She now brings that same courage and common sense to local government" sums up what she can offer to her community.   You can follow and support Suzanne's campaign by visiting her webpage - www.suzannelevy.nz  - following her on facebook  or by donating here .   Sharing this post with your friends, colleagues and family can help Suzanne to gain the name recognition and votes needed for a place around the Council table. MEDIA RELEASE 5 July 2025 SUFW Spokeswoman Suzanne Levy to Stand for Lower Hutt City Council LOWER HUTT  – Suzanne Levy, an advocate for women’s rights and a well-known spokeswoman for Speak Up For Women (SUFW), has announced her candidacy for the upcoming local body elections. Suzanne is standing as a city-wide councillor for Lower Hutt, running on a platform of accountability, essential services, and smart infrastructure investment. “As a ratepayer and small business owner, I know how important it is that Council delivers real value for money,” she says. “People are feeling the pinch, and they deserve to see their hard-earned rates spent on services that actually improve their day-to-day lives.” Suzanne’s campaign centres around three key priorities: Delivering Value for Ratepayers - Suzanne is calling for tighter control of council spending, greater transparency, and a sharper focus on outcomes. “We need to cut the waste and put ratepayers first,” she says. Focusing on the Essentials - A return to basics — with reliable water, roads, rubbish collection, parks, and libraries as the backbone of a strong community. “Let’s fix what’s broken before we spend on pet projects or luxuries,”. Securing Our Water Future  - Suzanne is committed to clean, safe water for all Hutt residents. She backs investment in essential upgrades to ageing infrastructure, better stormwater systems, and a regionally managed entity to oversee water services. “Our river, our pipes, our future — it’s all connected,”.  Suzanne brings a track record of effective advocacy and public engagement. Through her work with Speak Up For Women, she has stood up for free speech and women’s rights in challenging environments. She now brings that same courage and common sense to local government. “People are tired of feeling ignored by their council. I’m ready to listen, take action, and get the basics right.”

Submission from Speak Up for Women, May 8th 2025 Speak Up for Women (SUFW) is a feminist women’s rights organisation with a focus on promoting, protecting and advocating for single-sex spaces, services, sports and opportunities for women and girls. As a feminist organisation, our principles are that of empowerment, autonomy and education for women and girls.  Our primary focus for Relationships & Sexuality Education (RSE) is to ensure that it focuses on areas that give girls (and boys) the tools and information to make educated decisions about their bodies and relationships. We believe this can be achieved by providing our young people with age-appropriate, factual and evidence-based information in a safe environment. Not every girl comes from a home where this information is available. While it is nice to think that all girls are given the best information by their families, sometimes this information is not accurate or is based on conservative or religious ideas that do not serve girls well. Good education is empowering and all girls deserve to have the knowledge and tools to make choices for themselves. We are pleased to be able to submit on this important topic and we are happy to be contacted about our submission: contact@speakupforwomen.nz   We have split up our submission into four parts. We begin with general comments on RSE, then we address the Framework including specific answers to the survey questions. We conclude with recommendations. RELATIONSHIPS & SEXUALITY EDUCATION  As stated in the consultation supporting documentation, “Well delivered, comprehensive RSE equips young people with the knowledge and confidence to make informed decisions about their lives and navigate important topics such as consent, healthy relationships, pubertal changes and online safety”. We wholeheartedly agree, and we support the teaching of RSE in New Zealand schools. We would like to see a return to dedicated RSE classes, rather than the suggested approach of the 2020 Guidelines to ‘embed’ the topic throughout the curriculum. And we would like to see that stated openly in the Framework and Curriculum. As much as we support the teaching of RSE in New Zealand schools, it is only one subject among many and we believe parents should be able to withdraw their children if they wish to. However, it is our hope that the two consultation periods associated with the upcoming changes means parents will feel more comfortable with the content and purpose of RSE, and a more structured curriculum should make them more confident to take their concerns to their school.  Parents have lost a lot of trust in the MOE and their local school, and we think this open approach has the potential to strengthen these important relationships. THE FRAMEWORK We’re pleased to see the removal of all references to gender ideology. We think having it in the curriculum and teaching it as fact alongside the realities of pubertal change confuses children and creates unnecessary conflict in the school environment with all the demands this belief system brings. However, we would support it being taught in senior classes as a belief some people hold so students can learn to think critically about the issue. Gender Ideology has wreaked havoc throughout our society and a good deal of our work (SUFW) is aimed at improving laws and policies that are not based in facts and reality so that everyone’s rights can be considered equally. This belief system has no place in schools and we would support a requirement that school policies be rewritten to go back to separating children by sex for those times when it matters (eg. toilets, changing rooms, sports and overnight stays). For younger students we would like to see RSE provide well-researched and age-appropriate content relating to: Healthy relationships and families, including different family types; Bodies; Privacy. We think this is generally achieved well in the Framework. From Y7 we would like to see RSE provide age appropriate, well researched programs on: Puberty and body changes, differences between boys and girls; Consent; Healthy relationships (including different sexualities) We think this is generally achieved well in the Framework. As RSE is only compulsory up to Y10, we think some important topics need to be covered from Y9: The impacts of misogyny (as supported by the ERO Report 2024) and pornography; STIs; Contraception; Pregnancy and termination; Reproductive autonomy. THE SURVEY QUESTIONS A note on our format: Although the survey questions request separate responses about content appropriateness, alignment, removal and addition, we have chosen to group our responses to Q1-14 under each year group to present a more comprehensive view. Years 0-6 Appropriateness and alignment : Overall, we  agree the content in the Framework is age appropriate and relevant for these age groups. Remove : All we would remove is “most people have either a female or a male body” at Y6. This is not accurate. All people have either a male or female body. Saying anything else at this age is just confusing and untrue. Intersex conditions do not change the fact that there are only two human sexes. Add : Nothing to add Years 7-8 Appropriateness and alignment : We agree  the content is appropriate for this age group However, girls are getting their period in year 6/7 and are likely to be noticed by men at this age (sadly). From a feminist perspective girls generally benefit from knowledge about their bodies (including abortion and contraception) and they are being targeted by men earlier and earlier so year 7/8 seems appropriate for the introduction of some sexual topics, while advising them there is a legal age of consent and not everyone chooses to be sexually active and no-one has the right to coerce them. Remove : Nothing to remove  Add : We think as soon as sexual relationships are discussed, same sex relationships should be included.  Years 9-10 Appropriateness and alignment:  We agree  the content is appropriate for this age group Remove : With a rate of 0.017% we don’t see the need to cover intersex conditions.  We would also like the term “people who menstruate” replaced with correct biological language: females, girls and women. Add : As Y10 is currently the final year for compulsory RSE, and students are closer to the age of consent, complex topics such as contraception, STIs, unwanted pregnancies, pornography, misogyny, and transgender ideation all need to be included in the framework. Obviously prevention is better than cure, but we believe abortion should be covered with the emphasis on it being part of a pro-choice, pro reproductive autonomy approach, with the reminder that school counsellors are there to talk things through if needed. Years 11-13  Appropriateness and alignment : We agree  the content is appropriate for this age group Remove : Nothing to remove Add : Nothing to add Question 15  We disagree  that, overall, the content covered in the framework will support effective relationships and sexuality education, but only because of the topics left out. See next question. Question 16 The Framework is good but it leaves out important topics like the impact of pornography, misogyny and transgender ideation. We would like the MOE to be very clear which organisations have their approval to create classroom resources that meet the new curriculum, and that these are to be proven educators, not political lobby groups like InsideOut. Schools should also be reminded parents have a right to view all classroom materials. We believe our introduction has answered Questions 17-20 As we mentioned at the beginning, good education is empowering and all girls deserve to have the knowledge and tools to make choices for themselves. In a world where abuse can come at them 24/7 we believe a comprehensive RSE curriculum can help give them the strength to stand up for themselves and their sisters. RECOMMENDATIONS We endorse the following recommendations from the submission by Resist Gender Education, an alliance of educators well-versed in teaching accurate and age-appropriate RSE:

May 6th 2025 We sent our feedback to the Midwifery Council on May 5th, it appears that the Midwifery Council has taken almost nothing on board when proposing to amend the Scope of Practice, so it was simple feedback to provide, as it more or less echoed the complaint that we made to the Regulations Review Committee in April last year, you can read that complaint here. An addition of note is the reference to the directive issued by the Associate Minister for Health, Hon Casey Costello on women centred language. This is from the Midwifery Council feedback website: Te Tatau o te Whare Kahu | the Midwifery Council (the Council) is proposing to amend the wording of the revised Midwifery Scope of Practice, that came into effect on 1 October 2024, in order to provide greater clarity for kahu pōkai | midwives and the public.  Following advice from the Regulations Review Committee , the Council is of the view that these proposed amendments help clarify the role of  kahu pōkai | midwives, while continuing to uphold the mana of Te Ao Māori and other worldviews. The proposed amendments retain inclusivity and affirm and enable kahu pōkai  | midwives to practise in ways that meet the needs of all whānau in Aotearoa.  Please click here to read further about this consultation.  The area of the concern is the single page below. Our feedback focuses on the the highlighted phrases, we were asked whether we disagreed or agreed with each paragraph on a scale. Rather than answer each question individually we created an issues paper (based on our original complaint) and submitted it to the Council, the main body of that submission is below. Issues paper to accompany our written submission on the “Proposal for Feedback - Midwifery Scope of Practice” Speak Up for Women (SUFW) is an advocacy group focused on the protection of women and girls' rights, language, and spaces. We host a discussion group where around 250 women participate, including mothers and midwives. SUFW strongly oppose these fundamental changes to the SOP because they are in direct conflict to the pregnant woman’s rights under the New Zealand Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights. The changes create conflicting priorities for midwives, decentering women from their practice, and resulting in worse health outcomes for pregnant and birthing women and their babies. Our concerns 1. Conflicting priorities: the New Zealand Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights (The Code). The Code  contains ten rights that are available to each person as an individual  to ensure the protection of their privacy and autonomy to make decisions related to their health care. The Code  gives a woman, and only her, the right to make decisions concerning her pregnancy and birth. The changes to the SOP are effectively removing the rights of an individual woman to make decisions about her pregnancy, birthing experience, and breastfeeding, to prioritise the preferences of her family or whānau. There are numerous situations where it is vital that the midwife’s working relationship and focus is with the mother, the woman giving birth: Confidentiality:  how much information can/should the midwife share with the whānau?According to The Code, nothing can be shared without the express permission of the individual. Hostile environment:  without the support of a midwife how can a woman stand up to her whānau to achieve the kind of birthing experience that she wishes and/or needs? Cultural differences:  a woman may have vastly different ideas regarding her birthing experience and pregnancy than her whānau - whose views will be prioritised and supported?  Who defines who is part of the whānau when the woman is not Māori? Domestic violence: how can a midwife screen for safety issues when she may not even be able to visit with her client alone?  2. Lack of support for the proposed changes During the consultation phase, the Midwifery Council (MC) received four hundred submissions. The MC reported that 90% of these submissions were negative  (this includes 10% negative submissions from midwives) ;  5.2% were positive but raised concerns about the changes, and only 3.7%   of the submissions were positive. The Midwifery Council’s report identified common themes in the submissions that have not been addressed and cannot be ignored: The changes lacked clarity and failed to clearly describe the procedures, actions and processes that are permitted to be undertaken in terms of the midwifery profession. Why was the word whānau introduced in the SOP? Confusion regarding the use of te reo and the lack of reasoning behind the usage of two languages. Lack of description regarding education and outcomes. 3. Implications of using the word whānau in the Scope of Practice While we understand that introducing the word whānau to the SOP is presented as a move towards a more inclusive approach to midwifery, this change in the language and scope of practice devalues the importance of protecting the mother-child dyad. Pregnant and birthing women and their babies are particularly vulnerable and require adequate protection . The change of language in the SOP fails to acknowledge that “ women have unique experiences, needs and rights in relation to pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding that are not shared with others” (Gribble Karleen D., 2022). This is particularly important in situations of family and sexual violence and when the health of the mother and/or baby are at risk. Introducing the word whānau to the SOP creates a barrier for the midwife to adequately support and advocate for the wellbeing of a woman, and to support her in making autonomous decisions during her pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding periods.    4. Women centred language as per the directive issued by the associate Minister for Health, Hon Casey Costello We believe that the language in the SOP should reflect the women-centred approach / directive requested by Minister Costello.  “Individuals (however they may identify) who are capable of child-bearing…”  is an excellent example of the language that Minister Costello has directed  should not be used . Changing the word Individuals  to Women  would solve this problem. 5. Our request We request that the Midwifery Council design a new SOP based on ensuring a pregnant woman’s rights under the New Zealand Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights are protected. We request that the SOP respects the bodily and reproductive autonomy - and the privacy - that a woman deserves and is entitled to under law.

May 1st 2025 Petition Request Petition Reason Speak Up for Women (SUFW) is a feminist organisation seeking to ensure freedoms, safety, language and identities are protected for women and girls in New Zealand. We believe that if "sex" in legislation such as the HRA is interpreted to mean anything other than the biological meaning, women and girls can't rely on sex-based rights to keep them safe and able to participate fully in society. We think women need (some) facilities, services, sports and opportunities that are just for them. Introduction & Background Speak Up for Women (SUFW) is a feminist women’s rights organisation with a focus on promoting, protecting and advocating for single-sex spaces, services, sports and opportunities for women and girls. This submission will cover issues that are relevant to our petition and to our position that sex has an ordinary biological meaning in law. We are providing this submission at the suggestion of the Petitions Committee, who have given us the opportunity to provide supporting information and background. This submission will be available publicly on our website. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this document and our petition with the Committee in person. We will work loosely in chronological order, starting with the 2006 Crown Law opinion and finishing with the recent UK Supreme Court Judgment on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act 2010. There are many areas of public policy where we believe gender has been prioritised over sex and we look at some of these also. As a way of providing background information on SUFW and our position in these matters, it would be useful to reference the following from our May 2023 article Responses to Media Questions . Not all of this relates specifically to our petition or this submission but it is a useful guide to our overriding position. In the same way we have no particular view or opinion on other demographic groups as a whole, we have no particular view on people who identify as transgender. Additionally, we note that ‘transgender’ has become a very wide umbrella term that rests on self-identification.  We support equal human rights for all people, including the right to live free from violence and harassment; the right to freedom of speech and association; the right to access employment, education, housing, and healthcare without discrimination based on demographic or identity group. We note that many, if not most, people are arguably, in some respects, gender non-conforming regardless of whether they assert a transgender identity or not. We support the rights of all people to adopt whatever personal or social presentation is comfortable for them and to either adhere to or reject sex stereotypes in accordance with their personal preferences. Many of our supporters are lesbians or gender non-conforming.  Where we draw the line is the demand that a person's subjective “gender” self-identification should be affirmed in all situations in society, law and policy with no exceptions. Regarding males who say they are or would like to be women (i.e. trans-identifying males or “transwomen”), we draw the line at services and facilities and opportunities that are single sex, that is, for females.  In most day-to-day situations, a person's sex is not relevant. However, in situations where sex is relevant, we believe that sex should be the primary consideration, not a person's asserted “gender” identity. This means retaining services and facilities and opportunities for females and excluding all males–including men who want to be or claim to be women or non-binary. A note on language  The SUFW foundation is that we are sex realists. Our position on sex-based rights is centred on the reality that human beings cannot change sex.  When we refer to transwomen or trans-identifying males, we are referring to adult human males.  We use the term ‘woman’ frequently in this document. In every case it means an adult human female.  We do not believe that sex is assigned at birth, it is observed at birth. This is the basis of our worldview and is not negotiable. Crown Law Opinion (2006) on the Human Rights Act  Crown Law was asked in 2004 for a legal opinion on whether changes to the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) were necessary in order to provide protection for transgender people under this Act. The opinion was issued in 2006  and the short answer at that time was no, transgender people are already protected under the Act under the protected characteristic of sex.  The opinion specifically covers whether people are protected on the grounds of gender identity, not whether a person professing a gender identity that is at odds with their biological sex is to be considered to be the opposite sex for all purposes and in all instances in the Act. We agree with the opinion in some aspects. The rationale is that everyone has a sex (immutable) and gender identity discrimination occurs when a person is disadvantaged for not presenting or acting in a way that is “acceptable” for a person of that sex. It can extend to them having made changes to their secondary sex characteristics. The fact remains that any discrimination is grounded in the reality  of a transgender person’s sex. In this regard the 2006 opinion makes sense, it is legislating against enforcing sex stereotypes in housing, employment and in access to public services.  But the opinion does not say that gender identity is the same as sex, it says that transgender people should be protected from discrimination under the protected characteristic of sex. The lawful discrimination / exception instances still apply, and in the case of s45-49 of the Act, sex is the characteristic to be considered. Search and Surveillance Act 2012 This Act applies to Customs and Police, the word ‘sex’ appears four times in three sections (s12, s125, s126) and relates to the sex of the person conducting or witnessing any part of a strip search. s126 Guidelines and rules about use of strip searching The chief executive of a law enforcement agency that employs persons who may exercise a power, under an enactment, to search a person must issue guidelines to those employees concerning the circumstances (if any) under which a strip search may be conducted by any of those employees. The chief executive of a law enforcement agency who issues guidelines under subsection (1) must ensure that a copy of those guidelines is publicly available on the agency’s Internet site. A search of the person is not unlawful by reason only of failure by the person conducting the search to comply with a guideline issued under subsection (1). A strip search may be carried out only by a person of the same   sex  as the person to be searched, and no strip search may be carried out in view of any person who is not of the same sex  as the person to be searched. Both Customs and Police have chosen to replace the word sex with the subjective term ‘gender identity’  in their respective strip search guidelines. We wrote to these two organisations about this in March. In reply, Mike Webb, Chief Assurance Officer of Police said: We would argue that if sex does not mean “biological sex” then section 126(4) is pointless. The Stats NZ definition of gender  is discussed later in this document. Police claim their policy is “fit for purpose … lawful and … in line with best practice”. They state they wish to offer people “whose gender identity differs from their biological sex the ability to identify the gender of the person they would prefer to be searched by,” with no mention or consideration of the effect on their female staff (potentially having to search male detainees), or women who don’t have a ‘gender identity’ who care about the sex of the person searching them.  They declare, “our policy settings reflect the diversity of communities we serve,” with no regard for the women they serve and employ. The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021 and Section 79(2) The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021 (BDMRR) was the first time that the issue of sex or gender had been considered in legislation since the 2006 Crown Law opinion, and it is worth noting that the lawmakers took the opportunity to differentiate between certificated sex and biological sex. They also noted the difference between sex and gender and referenced the HRA. They did this using a section in the BDMRR Act, s79(2). s79 Certificates as evidence A certificate issued under this Act is admissible as evidence in any legal proceedings and is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be an accurate record of the information recorded in the registry as at the date of issue. Any individual, private sector agency, or public sector agency authorised or required to ascertain an individual’s sex or gender for a particular purpose may take into account either or both  of the following: the information contained in a certificate issued under this Act: any other relevant information. The explanatory notes for this are contained in Supplementary Order Paper 59  and are as follows (note, s80 became s79 in the BDMRR Act 2021): The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) did a respectable job of informing people visiting the FAQ section  on their website of the limitations (due to s79) of the birth certificate change.  The following is from the “Questions about the implications of self-identification for service providers”  section: So as recently as 2021, our lawmakers were demonstrating that biological sex, certificated sex, and gender were to be differentiated and that our legislation would accommodate these differences. In other words, sex does not mean gender, gender does not mean sex and changing a marker on a birth certificate does not change a person's biological sex.  The proposal of the BDMRR brought our group, SUFW, into being because concerned women could see the clash of rights straight away. Lawmakers at the time agreed and inserted s79(2) in response to the concerns we raised. However, things have become muddied in practice, and with this petition we are continuing our sisters’ hard work to clarify the law and ensure women’s sex-based rights are upheld. Stats NZ Tatauranga Aotearoa Stats NZ provides data standards for various terms and concepts used across data collection and reporting for all of Government. The data standards / concept definitions for gender, sex and variations of sex characteristics  are: The definitions related to gender are entirely subjective and have no place in our legislation. The idea that a person's sex can change over the course of their lifetime (with no apparent explanation!) is ideological and again has no place in our legislation. They are further proof of the ideological capture of our policy makers and the reason we need sex defined in law. Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission The Human Rights Commission (HRC) continues to provide conflicting advice, ignoring the DIA advice and making presumptions about the extent to which the 2006 Crown Law Opinion applies. This is currently their advice  to trans-identifying males wishing to attend a women-only swim session (see the “Sport and community” section): This may be what they want  the law to say, but it is not what the law does say .  Here the HRC is conflating two separate issues: firstly, the right to not be excluded  from a service to the public; and secondly, the right of a public service to lawfully exclude  people on the basis of (in this case) sex. A trans-identifying male should not   be excluded  from a service provided to the public because he is transgender, but he may be excluded  from a service that is lawfully discriminating on the basis of sex, because he is male. In the case of swimming sessions, it is ultimately up to the service provider whether they provide single-sex sessions, but if they do, and if they allow some males  (those who are trans-identifying) to attend but not other males, they are in fact discriminating against those other males. Although the HRC says that information on its website shouldn’t be taken as legal advice, it is reasonable to expect people to believe what they read from the body that exists to uphold the Human Rights Act. It does beg the question - if the HRC did  issue legal advice, what would it be? The NZ First Members Bill - Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill  While this bill  is a good opportunity to clarify what a woman is, legally, there are very few instances where the meaning of the word “woman” is contested.   Section 48 of the HRA, ‘Exception in relation to insurance’, uses the words woman  and man  as well as sex  to explain the section of the Act that allows people providing insurance to lawfully discriminate on the ground of sex (as well as disability and age). The Equity Pay Act 1972 uses female  and woman  interchangeably. The Abortion Legislation Act 2020 uses the word woman  frequently, but it would be fair to say that the meaning in this Act will never be contested. The Members Bill affirmation that a woman is an adult human female will have the benefit of providing weight to those who wish to uphold the social contract that has traditionally protected women and girls.  The contract that gives a woman the right to speak up if a male is in a space where up until a few years ago, the whole world knew he had no rightful reason to be.  In our opinion, this Bill doesn’t go far enough to protect the sex-based rights of women and girls. In our anti-discrimination law, the HRA, there is no protection or exception on the basis of being a man or a woman; the group characteristic, the word that needs defining, is ‘sex’. The UK Supreme Court Decision on Biological Sex On 16th April 2025 the UK Supreme Court handed down a judgment in the case of   For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers  which determined the correct interpretation of the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act 2010. It concluded (at paragraph 264): While there are differences between the UK Equality Act 2010 and the NZ Human Rights Act 1993, there are also many similarities and several relevant points: The concept of certificated sex vs biological sex. See the earlier section  on the BDMRR Act 2021 for key differences between the UK Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) and the NZ Birth Certificate changes permitted under the Act. The issue for the UK Supreme Court was whether there were provisions in the Equality Act 2010 that indicated that the biological meaning of sex was plainly intended and/or that a “certificated sex” meaning rendered those provisions incoherent or as giving rise to absurdity. The Court said that, “An interpretation that produces unworkable, impractical, anomalous or illogical results is unlikely to have been intended by the legislature.” See para.160. In short, the Court concludes that the significant differences between women and transwomen mean that sex must be interpreted to mean biological sex, which does not alter when a person obtains a piece of paper recording a change in sex, or announces that they are now the opposite sex to that observed at their birth. The Court goes on to detail the obvious differences between the two sexes, for example: 171. The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man. Persons who share that protected characteristic for the purposes of the group-based rights and protections are persons of the same sex and provisions that refer to protection for women necessarily exclude men. Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation. Men and women are on the face of the definition only differentiated as a grouping by the biology they share with their group. 172. A certificated sex interpretation would cut across the definition of the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way. References to a “woman” and “women” as a group sharing the protected characteristic of sex would include all females of any age (irrespective of any other protected characteristic) and those trans women (biological men) who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and a GRC (and who are therefore female as a matter of law). The same references would necessarily exclude men of any age, but they would also exclude some (biological) women living in the male gender with a GRC (trans men who are legally male). The converse position would apply to references to “man” and “men” as a group sharing the same protected characteristic. We can identify no good reason why the legislature should have intended that sex-based rights and protections under the EA 2010 should apply to these complex, heterogenous groupings, rather than to the distinct group of (biological) women and girls (or men and boys) with their shared biology leading to shared disadvantage and discrimination faced by them as a distinct group. 173. Moreover, it makes no sense for conduct under the EA 2010 in relation to sex-based rights and protections to be regulated on a practical day-to-day basis by reference to categories that can only be ascertained by knowledge of who possesses a (confidential) certificate. Some of the practical consequences of a certificated sex definition are described in the case presented by Sex Matters. They state that uncertainty and ambiguity about the circumstances in which it is legitimate to treat (biological) women and girls as a distinct group whose interests need to be considered and protected, have the effect that many organisations now feel inhibited in doing so. The judgment goes on to list examples in the Equality Act where an interpretation of Sex as being certificated sex (rather than biological) is not sensible, logical or coherent. There are many examples and we have included only a few: 184. [insurance contracts] … In the case of sex discrimination, it is impossible to see how an assessment of the differential risk known to be posed by, say, women and men drivers, could possibly be made reference to actuarial or other reliable data sources that had also to take account of certificated sex based on a GRC. There is no rational basis for thinking that having a certificate could make a difference to the risk posed by drivers of different sexes. Here too, sex can only mean biological sex. 186. … A certificated sex interpretation would make paragraph 2(2)(b) unworkable: it would be impossible to identify “risks specifically affecting women” because the same health or safety risks would also naturally and inevitably be risks that affect trans men with a GRC who would be legally male on this interpretation (albeit biologically female) and therefore liable to be affected by the same risks. 204. The second core provision is section 12 of the EA 2010 which defines the protected characteristic of sexual orientation and is framed by reference to orientation towards persons of the same sex, the opposite sex, or either sex. Read fairly, references to sex in this provision can only mean biological sex. People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate. Conclusion We are asking for: Women and girls deserve for the legislation set up to protect them to be at the forefront of policies and regulations, not ideological activism.

Wellington April 22nd 2025 Speak Up for Women (SUFW) welcome the recent UK Supreme Court decision affirming that the term “woman” in the UK Equality Act 2010 refers exclusively to biological women — a decision that reasserts the importance of sex-based rights in law and policy. “This ruling reaffirms a truth that women across the world already know: sex matters,” said Suzanne Levy, spokesperson for Speak Up for Women. “The legal recognition of biological sex is essential to ensuring the safety, privacy and fairness of women and girls in areas like healthcare, sport, and single-sex spaces.” The UK decision comes at a time of growing international recognition that gender identity should not override sex-based protections. SUFW sees this as a crucial step in restoring clarity and common sense to the law. In Aotearoa New Zealand, SUFW welcomes the introduction of a Member’s Bill by NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft, which would define “woman” and “man” in legislation based on biological sex. The proposed change aims to uphold legal certainty and protect sex-based rights — an objective SUFW has long advocated for. This follows SUFW’s own petition presented to Parliament on 25 March 2025, asking "That the House of Representatives defines that 'sex' in the Human Rights Act 1993 and any other legislation has the biological meaning." The petition reflects growing public concern about the erosion of sex-based protections through policy ambiguity and ideological drift. SUFW is also pleased with the ACT Party’s recent affirmation of the importance of biological reality and the need for legal clarity when rights are in conflict. ACT’s support signals growing recognition across the political spectrum that women’s safety, privacy, and fairness must not be compromised. There is a growing trend toward reaffirming sex-based reality in public policy. Associate Health Minister Casey Costello recently directed the health sector to use women-centred language such as “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people,” and Education Minister Erica Stanford has shown similar clarity in her draft relationships and sexuality education framework, which takes a more grounded and common-sense approach to sex, relationships and consent. These developments reflect increasing public and political support for the protection of sex-based rights and the use of accurate, respectful language Now, SUFW is calling on Minister for Women, Nicola Grigg, to back these moves to restore legal clarity and protect sex-based rights. “As Minister for Women, Nicola Grigg has a responsibility to stand up for the rights, safety and dignity of women and girls,” said Levy. “We urge her to publicly support the UK ruling and the proposed legislative changes here in New Zealand that recognise the reality of biological sex.” “We welcome political support for clarifying biological definitions to legislation,” said Levy. “This is not about being anti-anyone — it’s about ensuring the rights of women and girls are protected in law.” SUFW also calls on the Law Commission to consider both the Bill and the UK ruling when finalising their recommendation on Transgender and non-binary protections in our Human Rights Act, due in June this year. The UK decision has shown a clear path for protecting sex based rights and the rights of those who consider themselves to be transgender.

April 15th 2025 Jan Rivers Spokesperson Genspect In news released today we now owe a debt of gratitude to Associate Health Minister Casey Costello for asking Health New Zealand to reinstate the words woman and women in healthcare.   Jan Rivers, Genspect What should have been a completely uncontroversial decision has become a leading new story today with articles and interviews across NZ media.  The Morning Report story was republished in the NZ Herald and on One News and Radio New Zealand published another story at lunchtime . Only then when College of Midwives Chief Executive Alison Eddy was interviewed was there a voice from a sex-realist perspective even though there are half a dozen groups - Speak Up for Women, Mana Wāhine Kōrero, LAVA, The Women's Rights Party, Resist Gender Education and Genspect; who would have been well- qualified to comment. My involvement with this issue has been to take a deep dive into the research that was behind the decision to rename women as “people with cervixes” and to demand pronouns of public servants.  According to Health New Zealand these changes were made with no policy work whatsoever . This would have been a bit like the decision to create an inclusive definition of women by our Ministry of Women – no consultation, evidence, policy development, risk mitigation or even an announcement!!!   But that is not actually true.  A year ago the department put out a draft policy on gender inclusion to the union movement which argues that language be “inclusive” and that managers take action with staff who do not comply. Its current status is unknown. I’ve looked at the research that was done to include women who identify as men (or as non-binary) in peri-natal care too.  It was of very poor quality and I have examined it closely . The Trans Pregnancy Care Project cost $180,000, and argued that it showed what transgender “pregnant and birthing whānau wanted”. It was led by non-binary academic and former midwife George Parker and former MP Elizabeth Kerekere was an advisor The authors did not mention they had to radically alter the criteria for participation , to find an adequate number of trans people who had been mothers. The initial project proposed to interview 15 to 20 transgender and non-binary people who had been pregnant. The time period since pregnancy was doubled from three to six years to find 11 and it appears that at least one interviewee also had an advisory role within the project team, raising concerns about proper process. To find enough participants women who were trying to get pregnant were included and transgender women (transgender identified males who can never of course never be pregnant) were also interviewed although though neither group were eligible in the published scope. I have long suspected that for some women non-binary is nothing more than a convenient and trendy cultural label – and this may have applied to some of the interviewees – very few of them “identified” as transgender  but rather as other terms such as “genderqueer” or “takatāpui”.   The journal article describing this research used extreme language like eugenics, rather than convincing argument, to make the case for change. Trans people, were ‘strangers’ to the system and were “totally erased” by it. Participants used their own ‘lived experience’ which was then parsed through the ‘emerging field of transgender epistemology’ – meaning the world as viewed by transgender people.  The danger that, with transgender participants and researchers, and a transgender framing, the results would lack balance and perspective was not considered. Meanwhile the article was silent on the actual health impacts for transgender identified mothers and their babies.  These are significant such as the effect of having had mastectomies on feeding and nurturing infants or the impact of high levels of testosterone during pregnancy. The project’s final report makes recommendations that would see women and sex-based language completely removed from midwifery practice. Meanwhile every woman would have to be asked about her gender identity and preferred pronouns, and have to endure being called a ‘pregnancy’ or a ‘ person with a uterus’ or a person with a cervix (as the Te Whatu Ora website still states). The project could not find enough women necessary for the research.  How strong then, are its claims to override the interests of the almost 60,000 New Zealand women who give birth each year and for whom such changes are disadvantageous? The New Zealand Health Research Council are convinced of the need. In 2023 they gave a further   $1.2 million grant the for ‘ building system readiness for trans inclusive perinatal mental health services’ to run over three years. It may not prove popular with the sector. A similar project was recently defunded in the UK when it was found to be unworkable and it faced strong opposition from midwives. Intending mothers, no matter how they identify, should be dealt with respectfully by their Lead Maternity Carers. Referring to pregnant transgender women as men, if that is what they believe will support them and their child should be a consideration in midwifery care. Such 1:1 support is equivalent to approaches to meet the specific needs of other groups of mothers such as lesbians, those with disabilities or with little English. Providing professional empathy though does not, and cannot, demand that people must believe in gender theory. Society at large, and its professions and policy makers, must not be enjoined into dogma that deviates from both science and from truth. According excessive status to non-binary  and transgender “pregnant people” as the research proposed would see the entire midwifery system stripped of language about women and mothers. To do that is to embed exclusivity in the heart of the health system for one very small and atypical group rather than making it inclusive for all. Photo Credit Heather Mount (Unsplash)

15 April 2025 Speak Up for Women (SUFW) applaud the recent directive from Associate Health Minister Casey Costello instructing Health New Zealand to use sex-specific language—specifically the term “pregnant women”  rather than the vague and ideologically driven phrase “pregnant people.” In a letter dated 27 March, Minister Costello highlighted the importance of clarity in communications about women’s health. She noted that recent Ministry of Health documents have used terms like “people with a cervix”  and “individuals capable of childbearing,”  which obscure the biological reality that only women can become pregnant and give birth. SUFW spokeswoman Suzanne Levy said:   “Language matters—especially in health. When we stop naming a group who are impacted, we remove their voice from discussions that affect them. Women must be clearly named in health communications to ensure their needs and experiences are recognised and addressed.” SUFW also welcomed the Minister’s focus on ensuring that women—particularly those with English as a second language—can easily understand and access the health services intended for them. “This is a common-sense move that puts the rights and wellbeing of women and girls first. It recognises biological reality and ensures that health communications are accessible, inclusive, and based on truth.” SUFW thanks Minister Costello for her leadership and urges all government agencies to follow suit in restoring respectful, factual language when talking about women’s issues.