on gender

and breasts

Just a short rant today, I woke up to the sudden realisation that all the comments on social media about parliament defining men and women was something happening here in New Zealand, rather than in some other parliament.

It turns out our ACT party has put forward a bill, which has passed its first reading, to define men and women- the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill and that the National Party and New Zealand First have supported it. This bill’s first paragraph says…

“This Bill ensures clarity and consistency in New Zealand law by defining “woman” as “an adult human biological female” and “man” as “an adult human biological male”, with corresponding definitions for “male” and “female”. By establishing these definitions in the Legislation Act 2019, the Bill provides a clear and biologically grounded meaning of “woman” and “man” across legislation.”

It’s a short bill, and the meat sits in clauses 13A and B.

13A Meaning of woman or female
In any legislation, regardless of gender identity,—
(a) woman means an adult human biological female; and
(b) female means a human biological female.
13B Meaning of man or male
In any legislation, regardless of gender identity,—
(a) man means an adult human biological male; and
(b) male means a human biological male.

Right…

O.K. then…

I have opinions. But, to be fair, my opinion on the point of this legislation, its effects on New Zealanders and its hideous performative nature are mine to express in loud and expletive-ridden ways.

What I am qualified to talk about is biology. The bill begins with stating that it “the Bill provides a clear and biologically grounded meaning of “woman” and “man” across legislation”

It then fails to give any ‘biological definition’ of these things. There are evolutionary definitions of what is male and female, but the legislation doesn’t use them. It certainly doesn’t reflect the fact that ‘biologically’ there are many shades of grey in human sex and gender, as there are in many other species.

Given the bill, despite saying it will, doesn’t provide any biological definition of these terms, I have turned to the prognostications of ACT’s leader, David Seymour.

Radio NZ¹ says…

“Act leader David Seymour said his party supported it because people were "sick of pretending".

"There are two biological sexes. People don't have to believe that, but they don't have the right to tell other people they're not allowed to say it," he said.

"I hear these expressions like 'chest feed'... that is a denial of basic biological reality. It's called breastfeeding because we're mammals, because the female of the species has mammary glands, which convert glucose to lactose, which is food for infants."

Seymour said he respected people's right to identify their gender.

"But this is about the rest of us being able to see things and say things and hold our beliefs, think our thoughts and speak our mind, without having to confect ourselves into these riddles as we've been forced to do with 'pregnant people' and 'chest feeding' and all that rubbish."

Right, good, so I can’t comment on people being sick of pretending, but I would push back on the binary thinking of “two biological sexes”. Biology is often a normal curve, and in this case, it’s well to think of that. The population of humans is distributed into two normal curves, one based around what Seymour calls ‘female’, and one around ‘male’. But the complexity of how we build our bodies and how they differentiate into different states is huge. Those two normal curves have outliers, and they overlap. Biology isn’t about two fixed, set boxes for gender; there is complexity and shades in between. While you might believe it is sensible LEGALLY to define male and female as one thing, biologically, that is nonsense. As an aside, we have no evidence that this complexity isn’t adaptive, and part of our species current evolutionary success.

The rest of what Seymour says is incoherent. Worrying about chest or breastfeeding. Breast is an ancient word, from Sanskrit, via Old English, and it means (according to etymology online)

“mammary gland of a woman, bosom or the thorax or chest or part of the body between the neck and the belly;”

That’s why medieval knights, mainly men, on their way to commit genocide, wore breastplates.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

In the bible, John 13:23 (you didn’t expect that, did you?) it says

“There was reclining on Jesus’ breast one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.”

So breast and chest are sort of interchangeable. I certainly have a fine pair of breasts, though I usually refer to them as moobs.

When I make chicken katsu, which uses chicken breasts/chests, I get frozen ones out of the chest/breast freezer, beat them up with a rolling pin, breadcrumb, shallow fry (recipe on request) and then eat them. Am I breastfeeding? Language is complex. Biology is complex. Stop trying to make it sound simple.

The rest of the statement is confused. It’s called breastfeeding because we are mammals (so why not mammal feeding?), because the female of the species have mammary glands (so do all males, which can become enlarged and, in certain hormonal conditions, produce milk), which convert glucose to lactose, which is food for infants (ok. buddy, if you are feeding infants just on lactose you need to stop now).”

Wow. Your ‘Biological definition” doesn’t exist, and your biology is hugely confused.

Also, when were we allowed to define a word using the word itself? That’s really dumb.

So ACT people, given you folk are all in power and have the ability to pass whatever legislation you like, I don’t really get a say in what you are doing. I think your legislation is exactly what you say you are pushing back on, social engineering, driven by antiquarian religious views and a vague, imperfect memory of your high-school biology. You do you.

But what gets my goat is when you misrepresent MY science to justify your views. Biology is not as you describe. If you want to use biology as a way to justify your legislation, can I suggest you 1) fund Universities properly and 2) take a course?

I would recommend, as it covers all this topic, a Bachelor of Biomedical Sciences majoring in Reproduction, Genetics and Development at the University of Otago (see here). And yes, it will take three years to get to grips with this complex and changing subject.

If you want ‘biologically based’, learn some biology.

1. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/595798/nz-first-s-gender-bill-to-be-supported-by-national-act