The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill imposes a single biological definition of "woman" and "man" across every Act of Parliament in New Zealand. It overrides the legal recognition trans, intersex, takatāpui and non-binary New Zealanders have relied on for twenty years. It fixes no real problem in current law. The harm is concrete — and the deadline is short.
The select committee groups identical submissions as one. This tool varies every output — different phrasing, different ordering, your own context — so yours counts on its own. Three short steps. Copy the output into the Parliament form when done.
Anyone can submit — any age, no NZ citizenship required. The one-line description is optional but lifts your submission out of the pile.
Tick the concerns that resonate. Each adds a paragraph in your own variant of phrasing.
Optional. One or two sentences in your own voice — a relevant fact, someone you love, why this matters. The thing that makes a submission stand out.
The Bill imposes a single legal meaning of "woman" — an adult human biological female — and "man" — an adult human biological male — across every existing Act of Parliament in New Zealand. It was introduced as a measure of "biological reality".
In practice it tears a hole through twenty years of legal recognition that trans, intersex, takatāpui and non-binary New Zealanders have relied on — without identifying a single concrete problem in current law that it claims to fix.
Splitting medical reality from administrative categorisation has predictable downstream costs. The select committee can stop this Bill here.
None of this is hypothetical. Each follows directly from legally splitting a person's medical, administrative and lived reality from a category the state has now fixed by statute.
Roughly 1.7% of people are born with innate variations of sex characteristics — chromosomal, hormonal or anatomical patterns that don't fit neatly into a single binary category. A rigid statutory definition of "biological female" and "biological male" pretends those New Zealanders do not exist. It overrides the careful, individualised medical and legal recognition intersex Aotearoans and their advocates (notably ITANZ and the Darlington Statement community) have fought for. Intersex people are not a footnote to this Bill — they are the most direct refutation of its premise.[7]
Trans women on long-term oestrogen develop breast tissue and carry documented breast cancer risk; trans men retain cervical and ovarian cancer risk. Screening pathways are organised around legal categories. When law refuses to recognise a person as the gender their body requires care for, those pathways fail at exactly the point where lives are at stake.[1]
Health insurers use legal sex for eligibility. If the law tells an insurer a trans woman is legally a man, the insurer is empowered to deny cover for screenings she actually needs. The mirror applies to trans men and gynaecological care. Real money for real cancers the Bill insists their bodies cannot legally have.[1]
Currently New Zealanders correct the sex marker on their passport. This Bill puts that right in conflict with itself. More than sixty countries criminalise same-sex relationships, and several criminalise trans expression and identity specifically. A discrepancy between documents in a hostile jurisdiction can mean detention, deportation, outing or violence. The Crown has a duty not to manufacture that risk for its own citizens.[2]
Since 2006, the Crown Law Office has interpreted "sex" in section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 to include gender identity. That interpretation has protected trans, intersex, takatāpui and non-binary New Zealanders from discrimination for twenty years. This Bill directly undercuts that interpretation. The Law Commission's 2025 Ia Tangata report recommended the opposite direction — adding "gender identity" and "innate variations of sex characteristics" to the Human Rights Act as explicit, named grounds of protection. The Government shelved that recommendation in February 2026; this Bill goes the other way.[3][4]
When the state misgenders trans people in law, every institution downstream follows: government forms, employment records, aged care, schools. The mental health cost is documented in our own New Zealand data — the Counting Ourselves (2019) community survey records elevated psychological distress and suicidality compared with the general population. RANZCP is explicit that being trans is not a mental health condition and that affirming recognition is appropriate.[5]
Single-sex provisions in workplaces, schools and clubs currently function because legal recognition lines up — the Human Rights Commission's 2020 PRISM report documents how those settings already accommodate trans, intersex and non-binary people in practice. The Bill creates contradictions every employer, principal and HR department then has to navigate. Trans parents face complications around birth certificates, custody and family law. The trans, intersex or non-binary person carries the cost of every uncertain interaction.[6]
NZ First (Jenny Marcroft) introduced this Bill. National and ACT voted it through at first reading. None of them has pointed to a single concrete harm in current New Zealand law that this Bill repairs. They cannot. Because there isn't one.
The Bill mirrors anti-trans legislation being introduced in the United States and the United Kingdom. The playbook is the same: pick a small, visible minority. Manufacture a crisis around their existence. Pass laws that purport to "solve" it. Use the noise to distract from real government failures.
It arrived alongside major public sector cuts and ongoing failures on housing, healthcare, cost of living and wages. Trans, intersex, takatāpui and non-binary New Zealanders are being used as a smokescreen.
Even if you are not personally affected, the precedent matters. A country where the state can decide overnight that a category of people no longer legally exists is a country where rights are conditional. Today the target is trans, intersex, takatāpui and non-binary New Zealanders. The same legislative machinery can be turned on any minority next.
If you're new to this Bill or to making a select committee submission, these are the quick answers.
A New Zealand Bill that would impose a single biological definition of "woman" — an adult human biological female — and "man" — an adult human biological male — across every existing Act of Parliament. It passed first reading on 20 May 2026 and is now before a select committee receiving public submissions.
02 July 2026. Submissions are made to the select committee via the Parliament of New Zealand website.
Anyone. There is no age requirement and no New Zealand citizenship requirement. Submissions can be made in English, te reo Māori or New Zealand Sign Language.
About ten minutes in total. This page generates a personalised submission in under sixty seconds, which you then paste into the Parliament submission form.
It imposes a single biological definition of "woman" and "man" across every existing Act of Parliament. This overrides legal recognition that trans, intersex, takatāpui and non-binary New Zealanders have relied on under the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 2021 (birth certificates), the Department of Internal Affairs' passport policy and the Crown Law Office's 2006 interpretation of section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993.
A state that can legislate a category of people out of existence overnight is a state where rights are conditional rather than guaranteed. The legislative mechanism the Bill demonstrates — rewriting a minority out of legal recognition by statutory definition — does not stop at trans, intersex, takatāpui and non-binary people.
Use the submission generator on this page to produce personalised comments and recommendations, then paste both into the corresponding boxes on the Parliament submission form. Identical submissions are grouped as one, so each personalised submission counts independently.
Submissions to a select committee are normally published, but you can request that your name be withheld when you submit. The committee considers reasonable requests for privacy.
Every claim above is grounded in the documents below. Read them. Cite them in your own submission.