Gilda.
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 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 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 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 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?
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 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.
Where is this desire to define a man and define a woman come from? Do you think?
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 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 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 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.
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?
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 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 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 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.
And we do, I suppose in New Zealand have a different attitude towards trans rites. I mean, I'm thinking of Georgina Bayer.
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.
Door people like me days and lesbians and other people who live.
Differently, better by the law and pay their taxes.
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?
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,
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 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
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 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.
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.
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 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 some big threat out there that simply doesn't exist.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 anatomical features.
And I understand you've done a lot of research around into sex people. To those who don't know, what does intersex mean?
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, 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 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.
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?
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 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 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, 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 forced them back into female spaces.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
What would the flow on effects be in your mind if a biological definition of man and woman were actually enshrined in law.
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
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
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 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 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 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
for animosity, which is I think what this kind of law would do.
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.
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, 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 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.
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 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.
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 tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.