{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreibjn3ippqvooik4ffp6iyt2emvmu2mh6feikwoctmkdinhokixhfe",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:sl2hrcwo6voaorzsr26d3bo2/app.bsky.feed.post/3mehffrgujtp2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreiadttp5cdxf3vqgw3q33rfkc2vbictr52ggf72te4mulabocngoha"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 678464
  },
  "description": "Current New Zealand cases.",
  "path": "/sex-based-rights-on-trial/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-09T21:30:00.000Z",
  "site": "https://goodoil.news",
  "tags": [
    "**Yvonne van Dongen**",
    "awarded",
    "author’s Substack"
  ],
  "textContent": "**Yvonne van Dongen**\n _Veteran NZ journo incredulous gender ideology escaped the lab. Won’t rest until reality makes a comeback._\n\nThe first successful case of medical negligence has been decided in a US court.\n\nA woman with the fantastic name of Fox Varian, now aged 22, successfully sued both her therapist and the medical clinician who performed a double mastectomy on her at the age of 16, when she was considered a ‘mature minor’ in US legal terms.\n\nVarian was awarded “$2 million in damages, with $1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering, and another $400,000 for future medical expenses”.\n\nIf this win doesn’t scare the pants off insurers, medical professionals, politicians and parents everywhere, I don’t know what will.\n\nWhen she visited New Zealand last year, Sex Matters Director of Advocacy, Helen Joyce, said legal victories were one of the most effective tools for winning this war on women. Even victories in overseas jurisdictions have a bearing on what happens here.\n\nWe have our own ongoing litigation in a number of cases plus the lingering need to throw out laws permitting self-sex id and the inclusion of gender in the conversion therapy bill, both travesties enacted during the last Labour government.\n\nThis article aims to list the various fronts we’re still fighting.\n\n## **Legal cases**\n\n### **Christine Massof v Inland Revenue**\n\nChristine Massof, a former Inland Revenue employee, challenged the department’s gender-based policies. As a result she received a “letter of expectations” for expressing views which reportedly upset colleagues. The case relates to women’s sex-based rights by highlighting potential conflicts between gender policies and protections for biological women in workplace facilities.\n\nMassof was supported by the Women’s Rights Party and Mana Wāhine Kōrero. The Employment Relations Authority hearing exonerated Inland Revenue prior to January 2025. The appeal was scheduled for the Employment Court in late 2025, and as of early 2026, no final decision has been reported, suggesting it may still be under consideration or delayed.\n\n### **Lesbian Action for Visibility Aotearoa (Lava) v Wellington Pride Festival Board**\n\nIn 2021 Lava’s stall application at an event organised by Wellington Pride, was cancelled due to the group’s sex realist views. Lava argues this constitutes discrimination based on political opinion under the Human Rights Act 1993. The case directly engages with women’s sex-based rights, including debates on biological sex definitions, safety in bathrooms/changing rooms, sports, and lesbian-only spaces. The case was heard at the Human Rights Review Tribunal last year with a**decision expected early this year.**\n\n### **PATHA v the New Zealand government**\n\nThe New Zealand government ban on new prescriptions of puberty blockers for treating gender dysphoria in minors was announced in November 2025 to take effect on December 19, 2025. The Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa (PATHA) responded by filing an urgent application for judicial review in the High Court, challenging the regulations on grounds including lack of proper consultation, improper decision-making process (e.g., cabinet overstepping the minister of health’s authority), and ethical concerns.\n\nOn December 17, 2025, the High Court (Justice Wilkinson-Smith) granted interim relief to PATHA asking the Crown not to enforce the regulations pending the outcome of the full judicial review. The court refused PATHA’s request for a mandatory injunction but emphasised the need to preserve the status quo, citing the reversibility of puberty blockers, potential mental health harms from the ban, and arguable unlawfulness of the regulations.The substantive judicial review was ordered to proceed with urgency.\n\nSo the ban itself stands but is effectively paused pending these proceedings. The Ministry of Health (MoH) enforces the Medicines Act 1981. On its website the MoH states that it will abide by the court order and not pursue enforcement of the regulations. This will be upheld until the conclusion of the judicial review.\n\nThe Court of Appeal reconvened early from its summer break to hear arguments on January 26, 2026. Recently the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. This means they upheld the High Court’s approach to the interim orders — the relief (protection) ordered by the High Court was not ineffective, and it was appropriate in the circumstances.\n\nThe broader judicial review case about the lawfulness of the regulations can continue, but this appeal on the interim orders failed. That leaves both parties preparing for the substantive judicial review hearing in the High Court, where the real challenge to the regulations’ validity will be decided. The Court of Appeal loss only affects the temporary/interim aspect – it doesn’t end PATHA’s overall case.\n\n### **The New Zealand Law Commission**\n\nThe New Zealand Law Commission has been working on the review of protections in the Human Rights Act 1993 for people who are transgender, non-binary, or have innate variations of sex characteristics (often referred to as the**“Ia Tangata” project**). Ia is Māori third person plural, equivalent to they/them, which gives you some indication of the direction of travel of the writers.\n\nThe commission presented its final report to the minister of justice in August last year. A month later it was presented to parliament.\n\nThe report contains 27 recommendations for reforming the Human Rights Act 1993. The central recommendation is to amend section 21 (prohibited grounds of discrimination) by adding two new grounds: gender identity and people with innate variations of sex characteristics (intersex variations).\n\nThe**** Women’s Rights Party (WRP) of New Zealand regards the report as a serious threat to women’s sex-based rights, since the recommendations would effectively alienate biological women from basic human rights protections.\n\nIn particular the core proposal to add “gender identity or its equivalents in the cultures of the person” (including gender expression) as a prohibited ground of discrimination in section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993, entrenches gender ideology into law, prioritising subjective feelings over biological reality.\n\nAlso they are concerned about the report’s suggestions to amend or weaken many of the 19 existing sex-based exceptions in the act. These exceptions currently allow differential treatment based on biological sex in areas like:\n\n  * Single-sex sports\n  * Changing facilities and toilets\n  * Shared accommodation\n  * Other services where sex-separation is deemed necessary for privacy, safety and fairness\n\n\n\nThe party also criticises recommendations for making some language in the act more “gender neutral”, viewing this as contributing to the erasure of the word _women_ (e.g., in women’s health services like maternity care).\n\n### **NZ government pauses new puberty blocker prescriptions – until the results of the UK trial are out.**\n\nLate last year the government announced it would halt new prescriptions for puberty blockers for gender dysphoria until the results of the UK trial on puberty blockers – expected several years later – are available.\n\nThe UK situation has fuelled intense debate – with critics arguing current medical practice lacked robust evidence, and that a trial would effectively be experimenting on the 226 children who receive the medication. Some are considering launching a judicial review.\n\nThis dynamic is mirrored locally, where public statements from health bodies, political leaders, and advocacy groups often reference UK developments.\n\nThis article was originally published on the author’s Substack.",
  "title": "Sex-Based Rights on Trial",
  "updatedAt": "2026-02-09T21:30:00.000Z"
}