New Zealand populist party pushes biological sex bill against woke ideology

New Zealand First proposes legal definitions of man and woman, challenging transgender rights and woke culture.

People turn their backs as New Zealand First leader Winston Peters (C) speaks during the parliamentary pōwhiri in Waitangi, New Zealand, on February 5, 2025. Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

A fierce debate over gender identity and legal definitions reignited in New Zealand on Tuesday after the populist New Zealand First Party introduced a bill that seeks to define men and women strictly by their biological sex. The move, presented as a backlash against what the party calls "woke ideology" and "cancerous social engineering," has added fuel to a polarizing issue already sparking heated debates globally.

The draft legislation was lodged in parliament by New Zealand First, the smallest faction in the nation’s three-party coalition government. Although the bill has no guarantee of parliamentary debate or support, its intent is unmistakable — to rollback progressive gender reforms and reassert what party leader Winston Peters describes as "common sense" definitions of sex and gender.

Pushback against transgender rights gains momentum

The New Zealand populist party biological sex bill defines a man as an "adult human biological male" and a woman as an "adult human biological female." It is a legal move that mirrors recent developments abroad, including a ruling by the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court that determined the legal meaning of 'woman' is based on biological sex at birth.

Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, who leads New Zealand First, claimed the time had come to reject modern gender identity frameworks.

“The pendulum is swinging back towards common sense and proving us right,” Peters stated in a press release. “These definitions in law fight back against the cancerous social engineering we've seen being pushed in society by a woke minority.”

He argued that enshrining biological definitions into law was necessary to protect women’s safety and rights, particularly in areas such as single-sex spaces and sports, which the party believes are under threat due to transgender inclusion policies.

The bill was submitted not by the government as a whole but by a single New Zealand First lawmaker. As such, it falls into the category of a member’s bill, which has limited parliamentary time and must win a lottery for the chance to be debated.

This procedural nuance means there’s no assurance the bill will ever be discussed, let alone passed. Nonetheless, the legislative proposal has reignited an intense national conversation around gender, rights, and the limits of political populism.

Critics have accused the party of leveraging divisive issues to gain political clout. Centre-left Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins denounced the move as opportunistic and lacking in vision.

“They're interested in one headline after the next,” Hipkins told Radio New Zealand. “They don't really have a coherent programme and they're certainly not focused on the things that are required to lead New Zealand forward.”

Political motives and cultural messaging

New Zealand First has long positioned itself as a nationalist, socially conservative voice that often challenges liberal orthodoxy. Its latest move aligns with a broader global trend in which right-wing and populist figures rail against what they frame as progressive overreach in matters of race, gender, and sexuality.

The biological sex legislation New Zealand campaign is part of that messaging war. Peters has repeatedly used the phrase “deluded left” to describe his political adversaries and has warned that modern gender inclusivity risks eroding traditional values.

Supporters of the bill argue that the proposed legal definitions are necessary to restore clarity and ensure the protection of biological women in sports, prisons, and public facilities. Opponents, however, view the effort as a direct attack on transgender communities and a deliberate provocation aimed at sparking a culture war.

The timing of the proposal is no coincidence. Just a week prior, the UK Supreme Court issued a high-profile decision affirming that gender status under the law refers to sex assigned at birth, not gender identity. That ruling was seized upon by conservatives worldwide as validation of their long-held beliefs.

In Australia and the United States, similar bills have been introduced or passed at state levels, banning transgender women from women’s sports or restricting access to gender-affirming healthcare. New Zealand, often seen as a progressive outlier, is now being pulled into the same ideological battle.

Peters and New Zealand First appear eager to tie their domestic campaign to this broader international movement, suggesting that common sense is “resurging” globally.

Challenges to parliamentary success

Despite its provocative content, the New Zealand gender definition law faces significant hurdles. The governing coalition includes the centre-right National Party and the libertarian ACT Party, both of which may be hesitant to publicly support such a polarizing bill. And even if the bill is drawn for debate, passing it would require majority backing — a tough ask in a parliament where opposition parties remain staunchly against it.

The legislation’s unclear pathway through the legislature has not deterred Peters, who insists that simply lodging the bill sends a strong message to voters that his party is willing to “stand up for truth” in the face of what he sees as political correctness gone awry.

“The need for legislation like this shows how far the deluded left has taken us as a society,” Peters said.

Backlash from rights advocates

LGBTQ+ advocacy groups swiftly condemned the proposed bill as discriminatory and harmful. Many view the biological framing as a rejection of transgender identity, and a violation of human rights protections.

“It’s a deeply cynical move aimed at marginalizing trans people for political gain,” said a spokesperson for Rainbow Path, a New Zealand-based advocacy group. “Biological essentialism has no place in inclusive lawmaking. This is not about safety or fairness — it’s about fear and control.”

Academics and legal experts have also warned that codifying gender based solely on biology could lead to legal confusion and conflicts with existing human rights laws in New Zealand.

Cultural division or political distraction?

As economic pressures, housing costs, and healthcare wait times dominate the everyday concerns of New Zealanders, critics suggest that the New Zealand First anti-woke bill is designed to shift attention away from more pressing issues.

By focusing on contentious identity politics, Peters may be seeking to consolidate his base and appeal to voters who feel alienated by progressive social changes. Whether this strategy will work in the long term remains uncertain, especially if the bill fails to progress through the legislative process.

Still, the introduction of this bill signals that New Zealand is not immune to the growing global trend of politicizing gender identity debates. As one of the more conservative voices in the government, New Zealand First has succeeded in pushing a topic onto the national stage — even if it may never become law.

For now, the fate of the bill lies in the procedural mechanics of New Zealand’s parliamentary system. Even if the legislation is not debated, it has already succeeded in shaping public discourse and testing the boundaries of acceptable political debate in a country known for its generally inclusive values.

Whether it marks the beginning of a broader policy shift or remains a symbolic gesture will depend not only on political will but on public reaction. In a nation often seen as a progressive benchmark, the clash over biological definitions and gender rights is revealing new fault lines in its political and cultural landscape.