April 27, 2025 • 19 mins
The battle over gender and definitions is building steam in New Zealand.
New Zealand First has introduced a Member’s Bill that “would ensure the biological definition of a woman and man are defined in law”.
It comes after a landmark ruling in the United Kingdom, where Supreme Court judges unanimously ruled a woman is defined “by biological sex under equalities law”.
The court sided with a women’s rights campaign group that argued sex-based protections should only apply to “people that were born female”.
Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other, and stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender people.
But it was largely seen as a victory by campaigners, while trans rights advocates have called the ruling a huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society.
To discuss this issue, today on The Front Page, we’re joined by University of Waikato professor of sociology and social policy Katrina Roen.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Gilda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The battle
over gender and definitions is building steam in New Zealand.
New Zealand First has introduced a member's bill that would
ensure the biological definition of a man and woman are
(00:30):
defined in law. It comes after a landmark ruling in
the United Kingdom where Supreme Court judges unanimously ruled a
woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law. The
court sided with a women's rights campaign group that argued
sex based protections should only apply to people that were
(00:51):
born female. Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not
be seen as a triumph of one side over the
other and stressed that the law still it gives protection
against discrimination to transgender people, but it was largely seen
as a victory by campaigners, while trans rights activists have
called the ruling a huge blow to some of the
(01:11):
most marginalized people in our community. To discuss this issue
today on the Front Page, we're joined by University of
Waikato Professor of Sociology and Social Policy, Katrina Rowan. So.
First off, Katrina, it has been a fixation. I suppose
(01:34):
of anti woke activists for a while now to get
people to define what a woman is. But what are
some of the definitions that you've seen?
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Oh, definitions that I've seen are much more diverse, I
think than could possibly be legislated. So I think the
initiative to define what a woman is is being driven
by the belief that there are just two sexes and
two genders, whereas I'm much more used to seeing in
my work in gender studies, to seeing the idea that
we can define our genders much more broadly, that there
(02:06):
are many genders, and that gender expression is something that
can be explored throughout one's lifetime. It doesn't have to
fit into a fixed category at all, that might change
over the course of time.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Where is this desire to define a man and define
a woman come from? Do you think?
Speaker 3 (02:23):
I think in some instances it comes from curiosity and
from a desire to understand, which is fair enough. And
then for some instances it comes more from a fear
or a dislike of the unknown, and so it can
take quite a hostile kind of tone sometimes. So defining
(02:45):
what these categories mean is a perfectly reasonable question that
we would pursue in research. For instance, what do people
mean when they identify as a man or a woman.
We could ask that sort of question, but then sometimes
the task of defining what it means gets to be
much more judgmental and much more sort of with assumptions
(03:06):
attached to it, assumptions about whether or not you might
belong as a woman or a man, and more of
an assumption that we would exclude people who don't seem
to fit. So, I think the desire to understand things
seems very reasonable, but it's when it is used to
produce an exclusionary understanding that it really becomes a problem
(03:27):
for us, because it ends up excluding anyone who doesn't
fit into those predetermined definitions, the binary definition of woman
and man, which I think is where the current debate
is focused.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
This conversation has obviously come after the Supreme Court ruling
in the UK. Can you talk us through that and
why has that case been seen as a kind of
when for women by some and how did this even
become a women's rights issue?
Speaker 3 (03:56):
Yeah, I think we need to see this in the
context of why it wider spectrum of political changes globally
at present, we've got in the us, we've got a
roll back of anything to do with diversity and gender
and women as well. We've got in the UK is
as you say, the Supreme Court ruling, which some might
(04:17):
see as a win for women, But I would caution
about that because I think from a feminist perspective, it's
important that we understand feminism as thinking carefully about gender
power relations, working towards change to address inequities, and simply
defining categories is not going to do that, And certainly
(04:40):
defining categories as an illegal definition of what is a
woman that is not going to embrace diversity at all.
That's going to simply exclude people. It's really going to
exacerbate current issues with inequities. And so I'm very concerned
if al Tardo New Zealand would be looking to move
(05:01):
in that direction. I think it is something that's happened
currently in the UK because of the current political climate,
but it wouldn't make sense for us to follow that
at all.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
And we do, I suppose in New Zealand have a
different attitude towards trans rites. I mean, I'm thinking of
Georgina Bayer.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
Why do you hate people like us so much? Be
real Christians? I'm going to come a longage in every
one of you. I don't mind at all your hatred.
It's totally intolerable. You dare you use the cloak of
Christianity when you are impart into your children prejudice, discrimination.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Door people like me days and lesbians and other people
who live.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Differently, better by the law and pay their taxes.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Why do you do this to us? Do you think
that even the what's happening in the UK and the
US can even be translated here?
Speaker 3 (06:06):
I don't think it can or should be translated here.
As you say, New Zealand has led the way for
a long time in terms of both trans rites and
also gender rights more broadly that women's opportunity to vote
in national elections. You know, New Zealand led the way
in that, and also we've led the way in terms of,
as you say, Georgina Bayer having a openly trans mayor,
(06:29):
and numerous other things as well. I think, for instance,
intersex advocacy in Altito, New Zealand has been outstanding, and
also things like research into Takatabe identity, the sort of
mildy understandings of gender and sexuality and sex diversity, all
of these things really are recognized internationally as something that
(06:52):
New Zealand does that is special and extraordinary and worthwhile.
So it would be a real step back for us
if we tried to follow in the footsteps of either
the US or the UK and the directions that they're
currently going. The way that we embrace diversity and work
critically with these concepts of gender, gender identity, and the
(07:13):
sexed body as well, that's quite remarkable and recognized. As
an academic I regularly get contacted by researchers and research
students from overseas who want to come here because they
see this as a place where they can do research
that's in the context of embracing diversity, in the context
(07:33):
of rainbow community and understandings of gender and sex as
going well beyond the binary. So if we narrowed down
our thinking, that would be a great loss and it
would be a big change in our tada New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
I saw in the US a UGOV poll of about
one thousand adults in twenty twenty three found that respondents
estimated that about twenty one percent of the American population
is trans, when in fact it's about zero point six percent.
So do you think that this overestimation, I guess, is
fueling some of this backlash.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Well, it might be, but I think there are some
more easily documented examples of what's fueling the backlash. If
we think of it from the point of view of disinformation.
There's been a documented rise and hate speech, a documented
rise in the spreading of disinformation and disinformation about a
(08:32):
range of topics, including to do with trans and non
binary people and identities. And I think this trend is
something that we need to watch out for. And yes,
maybe that feeds into the kind of poll data that
you're citing, that people are exposed to hate speech and disinformation,
and they maybe then draw a conclusion that there is
(08:56):
some big threat out there that simply doesn't exist.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
I think we should talk about the differences between biological
sex and gender. To the uninformed person, they might see
it kind of as the same thing, but they aren't really,
are they.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
No, not at all. No. I think in terms of
gender theory and gender research, it's been since about the
nineteen seventies that there's been a very clear division between
concepts of gender and sex. So it's often explained that
gender relates to identity. How we identify how we express ourselves.
Gender roles might be a familiar concept, while sex relates
(09:42):
to the sex body, sex anatomy, sex characteristics, and so
if we think of gender as social and sex as biological,
that could be one way of understanding the difference. But
I would also like to say that since about the
nineties anyway, it's been more under did that gender and
sex have a socially constructed aspect to them. So, as
(10:06):
a society, we might construct gender as being binary, as
just being woman and man, and we might construct sex
as being binary as just being male bodies and female bodies.
But research recognizes very clearly now the way that that's
simply not the case. There isn't a clear binary except
(10:28):
in the social construction. What is observed, For example, in
sex bodies, we see a whole spectrum of possibilities of sexes,
not just two, not just male and female. We see
all kinds of variations in sex characteristics, and these are
being talked about much more widely now. If you engage
with intersex literature or activism, there's lots of talk online
(10:50):
about variations in sex characteristics or intersex identity, and similarly
in terms of gender diversity. There's of course lots of
talk about trans and non binary gender identities, so I
think these might help to tease out a little bit
those differences between gender identity versus sex characteristics, the physical
(11:13):
anatomical features.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
And I understand you've done a lot of research around
into sex people. To those who don't know, what does
intersex mean?
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Sure, so, intersex refers to variations in sex characteristics. It
refers to the way that the body naturally develops as
having sex characteristics that aren't necessarily male or female, that
might involve some kind of combination of chromosomes, genes, hormones, anatomy,
(11:45):
sexual and reproductive anatomy. That isn't simply what we might
have been taught in a biology class. For instance, we
might have been taught that women have xx chromosomes and
men have x y chromosomes. Well, it's simply not true
that the whole population either has xx or x y chromosomes.
There are a range of alternatives. There are a range
(12:05):
of different chromosome or configurations, and those that fall outside
of the norm would be called into sex. Some people
would not use the word intersex for this. Some people
would say they have a variation in sex characteristics, so
there's different terms going on at present.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
So where do trans men sit in all of this?
You don't ever hear much about people wanting to define
a man in law or worried about trans men in bathrooms.
Are they kind of a silent victim in all of this?
Speaker 3 (12:35):
That's a very interesting question because I think many trans
men pass much more easily than trans women. It is
quite usual for a person who takes testosterone to grow
a beard to develop features that are easily read as male,
and so I think trans men pass quite easily in
our society and are often not noticed. And so for
(12:58):
people who are listed in defining women legally as a
binary category and in an exclusionary way, what I would
say is that we need to imagine if what one
wants is to define a space as woman only, maybe
a toilet for instance, and say, well, I only feel
(13:19):
safe going into the space if I know that there
are only biological women in this space. Then we have
to imagine that if we define sex gender biologically in
this way, then we will end up with trans men
going into women's toilets, And that to me seems like
quite counterproductive, like not really what is desired. So yeah,
(13:42):
I think trans men are certainly often not visible, but
are very active in the space of trans advocacy and
speaking out about trans rites. And trans men would certainly
be in a very peculiar position if there was some
kind of legislation that excluded them from male spaces and
(14:04):
forced them back into female spaces.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
They would not be challenging their lifestyle until they want
to walk into a toilet they don't belong and because
they are male, or they want to well go onto
the rugby paddock or some sporting situation or with the
boxing gym.
Speaker 5 (14:21):
And how would they have to prove that That's what
I'm saying, This would be intrusive, wouldn't You would have
to have a chromosome test or something.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Well, that's the way that the medical society has been
working ever since has been a study of biology and
got to the advanced that it is. We've are known
that they've got different chromosomes. Excepting that a whole lot
of people are saying, forget all the science, forget what
we all know. Let's have our narrow work view and
force that down.
Speaker 5 (14:45):
So you would actually test them a biological test on them?
I mean, because that's where you would end up with this,
wouldn't you.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Well, if you're going to make claim that you're something
that you're not, yes, you will be subjected to a
biological test. And why not?
Speaker 2 (15:01):
What would the flow on effects be in your mind
if a biological definition of man and woman were actually
enshrined in law.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
Well, for one thing, I think it would be very
hard to do that in Altaro, New Zealand. How would
that be policed? Would it mean doing chromosome tests on
every child that's born, And then what would you do
when those tests showed that the child didn't fit into
these categories? Would it mean policing everyone as they walk
into a bathroom. It seems to me that putting this
(15:32):
kind of thing into law is quite counterproductive. But just
looking from a research point of view, what we know
is that trans and non binary people face a terrific
amount of hate speech, discrimination and abuse as it is,
and that is exacerbated when there are exclusionary circumstances. So
(15:57):
this law would set up an exclusionary situation. We know
already that children and young people who question their gender
identity have a harder time in school, are more likely
to face persistent bullying, are more likely to drop out
of education altogether. And we also know that people who
question their gender identity or who come out as trans
(16:20):
or non binary are more likely to engage in self
harming and also suicidal behavior. And so these are the
effects of a society where gender diversity is not accepted
and not welcomed. So if we had a law that
emphasized that and institutionalized that refusal to acknowledge diversity, then
(16:45):
I think we would see even worse outcomes. Just thinking
about health and education as examples, I think such a
law would be very damaging, and it might be damaging
for people beyond what is imagined as well. There are
many people people who don't identify as trans or non binary,
but who are regularly misrecognized in terms of gender, who
(17:07):
are regularly subject to some kind of gender policing, and
this law just would make that sort of policing seem
justified rather than promoting understanding, And I think what I'd
like to emphasize is the importance of building understanding and
building community rather than building barriers and building a basis
(17:30):
for animosity, which is I think what this kind of
law would do.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
And Katrina, do you think there is a world in
which both signs of this debate will ever be able
to coexist happily. Or is there just too much tension
around this to reach a resolution.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
I think we can coexist happily. But maybe I'm just
an optimist. I think that there is a lot of
room for a dialogue, There is a lot of will
to come to some shared under standings, and I do
think that is possible. That might be because I'm in
the university context where I teach gender and sexuality studies,
(18:08):
and so I'm used to having these kinds of discussions
in the classroom. I'm used to seeing people at diverse
ends of an opinion spectrum come together and find some
common ground. So I am optimistic about this. But I
think in order to come to some shared understandings what
we all need to be willing to question our sources.
We all need to be willing to ask Am I
(18:30):
just going along with some sort of misinformation or disinformation?
What are my sources? Can I actually see evidence of
the things that I'm concerned about? Do I actually know this?
Or am I actually being drawn in by some sort
of fear mongering or hate speech that I might have
been exposed to to questioning our sources and our assumptions.
(18:50):
And I think it's also important that we are all
humble in what we think we know, so to hold
our understandings with humility, and especially when we think we
know things about other people, people whose lives might be
quite different from our own, I think it's worth being
humble about what we think we know, and that way
(19:12):
we might take a step towards being able to build
understanding rather than building animosity. Thanks for joining us, Katrina,
You're most welcome. Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzdherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
our sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front
Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and
(19:49):
tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Gilda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The battle
over gender and definitions is building steam in New Zealand.
New Zealand First has introduced a member's bill that would
ensure the biological definition of a man and woman are
(00:30):
defined in law. It comes after a landmark ruling in
the United Kingdom where Supreme Court judges unanimously ruled a
woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law. The
court sided with a women's rights campaign group that argued
sex based protections should only apply to people that were
(00:51):
born female. Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not
be seen as a triumph of one side over the
other and stressed that the law still it gives protection
against discrimination to transgender people, but it was largely seen
as a victory by campaigners, while trans rights activists have
called the ruling a huge blow to some of the
(01:11):
most marginalized people in our community. To discuss this issue
today on the Front Page, we're joined by University of
Waikato Professor of Sociology and Social Policy, Katrina Rowan. So.
First off, Katrina, it has been a fixation. I suppose
(01:34):
of anti woke activists for a while now to get
people to define what a woman is. But what are
some of the definitions that you've seen?
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Oh, definitions that I've seen are much more diverse, I
think than could possibly be legislated. So I think the
initiative to define what a woman is is being driven
by the belief that there are just two sexes and
two genders, whereas I'm much more used to seeing in
my work in gender studies, to seeing the idea that
we can define our genders much more broadly, that there
(02:06):
are many genders, and that gender expression is something that
can be explored throughout one's lifetime. It doesn't have to
fit into a fixed category at all, that might change
over the course of time.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Where is this desire to define a man and define
a woman come from? Do you think?
Speaker 3 (02:23):
I think in some instances it comes from curiosity and
from a desire to understand, which is fair enough. And
then for some instances it comes more from a fear
or a dislike of the unknown, and so it can
take quite a hostile kind of tone sometimes. So defining
(02:45):
what these categories mean is a perfectly reasonable question that
we would pursue in research. For instance, what do people
mean when they identify as a man or a woman.
We could ask that sort of question, but then sometimes
the task of defining what it means gets to be
much more judgmental and much more sort of with assumptions
(03:06):
attached to it, assumptions about whether or not you might
belong as a woman or a man, and more of
an assumption that we would exclude people who don't seem
to fit. So, I think the desire to understand things
seems very reasonable, but it's when it is used to
produce an exclusionary understanding that it really becomes a problem
(03:27):
for us, because it ends up excluding anyone who doesn't
fit into those predetermined definitions, the binary definition of woman
and man, which I think is where the current debate
is focused.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
This conversation has obviously come after the Supreme Court ruling
in the UK. Can you talk us through that and
why has that case been seen as a kind of
when for women by some and how did this even
become a women's rights issue?
Speaker 3 (03:56):
Yeah, I think we need to see this in the
context of why it wider spectrum of political changes globally
at present, we've got in the us, we've got a
roll back of anything to do with diversity and gender
and women as well. We've got in the UK is
as you say, the Supreme Court ruling, which some might
(04:17):
see as a win for women, But I would caution
about that because I think from a feminist perspective, it's
important that we understand feminism as thinking carefully about gender
power relations, working towards change to address inequities, and simply
defining categories is not going to do that, And certainly
(04:40):
defining categories as an illegal definition of what is a
woman that is not going to embrace diversity at all.
That's going to simply exclude people. It's really going to
exacerbate current issues with inequities. And so I'm very concerned
if al Tardo New Zealand would be looking to move
(05:01):
in that direction. I think it is something that's happened
currently in the UK because of the current political climate,
but it wouldn't make sense for us to follow that
at all.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
And we do, I suppose in New Zealand have a
different attitude towards trans rites. I mean, I'm thinking of
Georgina Bayer.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
Why do you hate people like us so much? Be
real Christians? I'm going to come a longage in every
one of you. I don't mind at all your hatred.
It's totally intolerable. You dare you use the cloak of
Christianity when you are impart into your children prejudice, discrimination.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Door people like me days and lesbians and other people
who live.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Differently, better by the law and pay their taxes.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Why do you do this to us? Do you think
that even the what's happening in the UK and the
US can even be translated here?
Speaker 3 (06:06):
I don't think it can or should be translated here.
As you say, New Zealand has led the way for
a long time in terms of both trans rites and
also gender rights more broadly that women's opportunity to vote
in national elections. You know, New Zealand led the way
in that, and also we've led the way in terms of,
as you say, Georgina Bayer having a openly trans mayor,
(06:29):
and numerous other things as well. I think, for instance,
intersex advocacy in Altito, New Zealand has been outstanding, and
also things like research into Takatabe identity, the sort of
mildy understandings of gender and sexuality and sex diversity, all
of these things really are recognized internationally as something that
(06:52):
New Zealand does that is special and extraordinary and worthwhile.
So it would be a real step back for us
if we tried to follow in the footsteps of either
the US or the UK and the directions that they're
currently going. The way that we embrace diversity and work
critically with these concepts of gender, gender identity, and the
(07:13):
sexed body as well, that's quite remarkable and recognized. As
an academic I regularly get contacted by researchers and research
students from overseas who want to come here because they
see this as a place where they can do research
that's in the context of embracing diversity, in the context
(07:33):
of rainbow community and understandings of gender and sex as
going well beyond the binary. So if we narrowed down
our thinking, that would be a great loss and it
would be a big change in our tada New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
I saw in the US a UGOV poll of about
one thousand adults in twenty twenty three found that respondents
estimated that about twenty one percent of the American population
is trans, when in fact it's about zero point six percent.
So do you think that this overestimation, I guess, is
fueling some of this backlash.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Well, it might be, but I think there are some
more easily documented examples of what's fueling the backlash. If
we think of it from the point of view of disinformation.
There's been a documented rise and hate speech, a documented
rise in the spreading of disinformation and disinformation about a
(08:32):
range of topics, including to do with trans and non
binary people and identities. And I think this trend is
something that we need to watch out for. And yes,
maybe that feeds into the kind of poll data that
you're citing, that people are exposed to hate speech and disinformation,
and they maybe then draw a conclusion that there is
(08:56):
some big threat out there that simply doesn't exist.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
I think we should talk about the differences between biological
sex and gender. To the uninformed person, they might see
it kind of as the same thing, but they aren't really,
are they.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
No, not at all. No. I think in terms of
gender theory and gender research, it's been since about the
nineteen seventies that there's been a very clear division between
concepts of gender and sex. So it's often explained that
gender relates to identity. How we identify how we express ourselves.
Gender roles might be a familiar concept, while sex relates
(09:42):
to the sex body, sex anatomy, sex characteristics, and so
if we think of gender as social and sex as biological,
that could be one way of understanding the difference. But
I would also like to say that since about the
nineties anyway, it's been more under did that gender and
sex have a socially constructed aspect to them. So, as
(10:06):
a society, we might construct gender as being binary, as
just being woman and man, and we might construct sex
as being binary as just being male bodies and female bodies.
But research recognizes very clearly now the way that that's
simply not the case. There isn't a clear binary except
(10:28):
in the social construction. What is observed, For example, in
sex bodies, we see a whole spectrum of possibilities of sexes,
not just two, not just male and female. We see
all kinds of variations in sex characteristics, and these are
being talked about much more widely now. If you engage
with intersex literature or activism, there's lots of talk online
(10:50):
about variations in sex characteristics or intersex identity, and similarly
in terms of gender diversity. There's of course lots of
talk about trans and non binary gender identities, so I
think these might help to tease out a little bit
those differences between gender identity versus sex characteristics, the physical
(11:13):
anatomical features.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
And I understand you've done a lot of research around
into sex people. To those who don't know, what does
intersex mean?
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Sure, so, intersex refers to variations in sex characteristics. It
refers to the way that the body naturally develops as
having sex characteristics that aren't necessarily male or female, that
might involve some kind of combination of chromosomes, genes, hormones, anatomy,
(11:45):
sexual and reproductive anatomy. That isn't simply what we might
have been taught in a biology class. For instance, we
might have been taught that women have xx chromosomes and
men have x y chromosomes. Well, it's simply not true
that the whole population either has xx or x y chromosomes.
There are a range of alternatives. There are a range
(12:05):
of different chromosome or configurations, and those that fall outside
of the norm would be called into sex. Some people
would not use the word intersex for this. Some people
would say they have a variation in sex characteristics, so
there's different terms going on at present.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
So where do trans men sit in all of this?
You don't ever hear much about people wanting to define
a man in law or worried about trans men in bathrooms.
Are they kind of a silent victim in all of this?
Speaker 3 (12:35):
That's a very interesting question because I think many trans
men pass much more easily than trans women. It is
quite usual for a person who takes testosterone to grow
a beard to develop features that are easily read as male,
and so I think trans men pass quite easily in
our society and are often not noticed. And so for
(12:58):
people who are listed in defining women legally as a
binary category and in an exclusionary way, what I would
say is that we need to imagine if what one
wants is to define a space as woman only, maybe
a toilet for instance, and say, well, I only feel
(13:19):
safe going into the space if I know that there
are only biological women in this space. Then we have
to imagine that if we define sex gender biologically in
this way, then we will end up with trans men
going into women's toilets, And that to me seems like
quite counterproductive, like not really what is desired. So yeah,
(13:42):
I think trans men are certainly often not visible, but
are very active in the space of trans advocacy and
speaking out about trans rites. And trans men would certainly
be in a very peculiar position if there was some
kind of legislation that excluded them from male spaces and
(14:04):
forced them back into female spaces.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
They would not be challenging their lifestyle until they want
to walk into a toilet they don't belong and because
they are male, or they want to well go onto
the rugby paddock or some sporting situation or with the
boxing gym.
Speaker 5 (14:21):
And how would they have to prove that That's what
I'm saying, This would be intrusive, wouldn't You would have
to have a chromosome test or something.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Well, that's the way that the medical society has been
working ever since has been a study of biology and
got to the advanced that it is. We've are known
that they've got different chromosomes. Excepting that a whole lot
of people are saying, forget all the science, forget what
we all know. Let's have our narrow work view and
force that down.
Speaker 5 (14:45):
So you would actually test them a biological test on them?
I mean, because that's where you would end up with this,
wouldn't you.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Well, if you're going to make claim that you're something
that you're not, yes, you will be subjected to a
biological test. And why not?
Speaker 2 (15:01):
What would the flow on effects be in your mind
if a biological definition of man and woman were actually
enshrined in law.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
Well, for one thing, I think it would be very
hard to do that in Altaro, New Zealand. How would
that be policed? Would it mean doing chromosome tests on
every child that's born, And then what would you do
when those tests showed that the child didn't fit into
these categories? Would it mean policing everyone as they walk
into a bathroom. It seems to me that putting this
(15:32):
kind of thing into law is quite counterproductive. But just
looking from a research point of view, what we know
is that trans and non binary people face a terrific
amount of hate speech, discrimination and abuse as it is,
and that is exacerbated when there are exclusionary circumstances. So
(15:57):
this law would set up an exclusionary situation. We know
already that children and young people who question their gender
identity have a harder time in school, are more likely
to face persistent bullying, are more likely to drop out
of education altogether. And we also know that people who
question their gender identity or who come out as trans
(16:20):
or non binary are more likely to engage in self
harming and also suicidal behavior. And so these are the
effects of a society where gender diversity is not accepted
and not welcomed. So if we had a law that
emphasized that and institutionalized that refusal to acknowledge diversity, then
(16:45):
I think we would see even worse outcomes. Just thinking
about health and education as examples, I think such a
law would be very damaging, and it might be damaging
for people beyond what is imagined as well. There are
many people people who don't identify as trans or non binary,
but who are regularly misrecognized in terms of gender, who
(17:07):
are regularly subject to some kind of gender policing, and
this law just would make that sort of policing seem
justified rather than promoting understanding, And I think what I'd
like to emphasize is the importance of building understanding and
building community rather than building barriers and building a basis
(17:30):
for animosity, which is I think what this kind of
law would do.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
And Katrina, do you think there is a world in
which both signs of this debate will ever be able
to coexist happily. Or is there just too much tension
around this to reach a resolution.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
I think we can coexist happily. But maybe I'm just
an optimist. I think that there is a lot of
room for a dialogue, There is a lot of will
to come to some shared under standings, and I do
think that is possible. That might be because I'm in
the university context where I teach gender and sexuality studies,
(18:08):
and so I'm used to having these kinds of discussions
in the classroom. I'm used to seeing people at diverse
ends of an opinion spectrum come together and find some
common ground. So I am optimistic about this. But I
think in order to come to some shared understandings what
we all need to be willing to question our sources.
We all need to be willing to ask Am I
(18:30):
just going along with some sort of misinformation or disinformation?
What are my sources? Can I actually see evidence of
the things that I'm concerned about? Do I actually know this?
Or am I actually being drawn in by some sort
of fear mongering or hate speech that I might have
been exposed to to questioning our sources and our assumptions.
(18:50):
And I think it's also important that we are all
humble in what we think we know, so to hold
our understandings with humility, and especially when we think we
know things about other people, people whose lives might be
quite different from our own, I think it's worth being
humble about what we think we know, and that way
(19:12):
we might take a step towards being able to build
understanding rather than building animosity. Thanks for joining us, Katrina,
You're most welcome. Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzdherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
our sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front
Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and
(19:49):
tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.