Complaint to the NZ Broadcasting Standards Authority about their cringe 'gender identity' guidance.

Today, I emailed a complaint to NZ Broadcasting Standards Authority about their guidelines called ‘Complaints Concerning Gender Identity Issues’. Although a complaint is not always riveting reading - strange that :-) - it can be good for us to see what has been done by others, how it’s been done, or encounter information in it that might help in another context.

Here’s what I wrote -

Dear Broadcasting Standards Authority – I am writing to advise of some contestable assertions and use of language in your guidance called COMPLAINTS CONCERNING GENDER IDENTITY ISSUES, and suggest that some corrections to these concerns, as noted below, may be in order.

1: There is language used in the guidance which is recognised transactivist language. Examples are:

• Sex assigned at birth. The phrase “sex assigned at birth” is used in the guidance in relation to gender identity. Sex is not ‘assigned’ at birth. A person’s sex develops in utero from the time of conception, and is observed at birth, or beforehand by ultrasound. The phrase ‘sex assigned at birth’ has been taken from the intersex community, who, due to a difference of physical development in utero, sometimes have their sex mistakenly observed at birth, and are initially deemed to be the opposite sex to that which they biologically are. In these instances, it is only once puberty commences that their biological sex becomes obvious. A gender identity has nothing to do with a mistaken observation of sex at birth, as occurs with the intersex community.

• Takatāpui. The Māori word ‘takatāpui’ translates historically to an intimate companion of the same sex, and is not “a term used to embrace all Māori with diverse genders, sexualities and sex characteristics”, as asserted in the guidance. This assertion is copied from paragraph 27 in the BSA’s findings on the Kathleen Stock interview with Kim Hill which aired on 14 May 2022. But you have failed to also include paragraph 28 from it, which goes on to explain that “However, cultural acceptance of gender diversity is not uniform within these communities [my emphasis] and we must be cautious of making any finding to that effect. As noted above, the role of the Authority is to reflect community standards and attitudes, not be the promoter of social change.”

  You also reference Dr Elizabeth Kerekere’s thesis from 2017 in the same findings, in which she states that “There is not yet evidence that Māori had diverse gender identities or that takatāpui played specific roles in pre-colonial times” on page 82. To my knowledge, she has never said that she made a mistake in her thesis about this, despite her change of tack since then for whatever reasons. To use ‘takatāpui’ in a way that has been broadened from its original meaning to now encompass diverse genders, sexualities and sex characteristics does no favours to the integrity of the Māori language in its public re-emergence. Whilst the English language is robust, widely spoken, and has evolved over time, the Māori language is unique and more care needs to be taken to keep it true to its origins.

• Misgendering and deadnaming. It is not ‘misgendering’ to correctly observe and state a person’s sex. It is simply being accurate, which can be vital to others’ safety and right to privacy. To use a person’s former or original name is not ‘deadnaming’ – it is only referring to them by the name they used to go by, which can also be vital to avoid deception. Misgendering and deadnaming are hyperbolic terms that are not used for any other community or situation. Under this section in the guidance, you refer to the Human Rights Commission and the United Nations, but both are widely regarded as being ideological in this matter, and not unbiased.

  The guidance goes on to say in this section that “The BSA has acknowledged the trans community is particularly vulnerable”. Is this information obtained from any other source other than LGBTQ+ lobby groups, who have produced ‘evidence’ based on nothing more than anecdotal data? The reality is that for such a small percentage of the population, the trans community poses an outsized risk to others. Data from Corrections NZ shows that men who say they’re women are imprisoned for sexual offences at twice the rate of other men, sometimes more. This ratio is consistent across all the countries which collect the data. A recent paper by New Zealander Michael Biggs at Oxford University in the UK, titled Transgender Homicides in Britain, 2000-2025: Victims and Perpetrators, shows that men who say they’re women are more likely to be murderers than murdered. In contrast, the NZ Crimes and Victims Survey from 2023 by the Ministry of Justice, as reported in the Waikato Times (paywalled), did not include stats for transgender people, stating “The proportion of transgender adults who experienced at least one offence in 2023 has been suppressed due to high statistical uncertainty”. In other words, the sample size was too small, which leads to high statistical uncertainty and low reliability in that specific subset.

• Harm. The word ‘harm’ is used five times in the guidance, including in the word ‘harmful’. In all contexts it appears to mean hurt feelings. Yet, the BSA does not consider that using transactivist language like ‘people with cervixes” to talk about women and girls is harmful or hurtful to their feelings or dignity, but instead “was accurate and did not constitute denigration of women”. Conversely, in the same guidance it seems that “harm can be caused” when using accurate language about people who claim to be the opposite sex to that which they were born.

2: An erroneous assertion is made under the section in the guidance labelled ‘Gender identity’ issues are not new, that “…. NZ law recognises sex is not immutable.” This is a false claim. There is no law that recognises biological sex is changeable. ‘Sex’ is more than just a word that can be chopped and changed by choice - it’s a biological reality, and unchangeable. The law which allows a person’s sex marker on their birth certificate to be altered, as per the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act, does not state anywhere that it means their biological sex has changed. A birth certificate is only a document, and does not create some magical metamorphosis to the opposite sex for the holder of it when it gets altered. The Dept of Internal Affairs makes this quite clear when they advise that in determining a person’s sex “other factors can be considered over and above the registered sex listed on a birth certificate”. They would not say this if they considered that biological sex could be changed by altering the sex marker on a birth certificate. It’s clear that although they acknowledge a birth certificate can be altered, it does not mean that others have to consider the person’s sex has actually changed. Whatever a person thinks about the changeability of sex in their head, or however they might frame the narrative, in the real world no one can ever change their biological sex, and NZ law does not recognise that they can.

In conclusion, I realise that there are plans to disestablish the BSA, but the above points should still be corrected in the ‘Complaints Concerning Gender Identity Issues’ guidance. It’s not good practise to subject staff to erroneous information - they deserve to know the whole truth so they don’t make false claims, share these contestable guidelines, or take the erroneous information contained within wherever else they may go.

PS: If I get a reply that is more than a template fob off, or corporate PR patter, I have promised to buy myself my first margarita in years. Here’s hoping.

(Just as an fyi for readers, yes I did include that last sentence in my complaint :-) )