MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Choosing your preferred gender

Filed under: Gender Politics,General,Law & Courts — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 8:12 pm Sun 12th August 2018

Something seems wrong about this proposed law change that will enable people to change their birth certificates to categorize them as whatever gender they ‘identify with’. No medical or Court involvement necessary. In addition there might be a change allowing parents to describe themselves according to their preference on their child’s birth certificate as either mother, father or parent.

We didn’t realize that this provision to choose your gender already exists for licences and passports.

Although something seems wrong about this we can’t really identify exactly what, or the implications for men and the men’s movement. Any thoughts?

We would have thought it more important first to repeal Section 17 of the Care of Children Act. An amended excerpt from our submission to the Human Rights Commission in 2015 explains:

17 Child’s father and mother usually joint guardians
(1) The father and the mother of a child are guardians jointly of the child unless the child’s mother is the sole guardian of the child because of subsection (2) or subsection (3).
(2) If a child is conceived on or after the commencement of this Act, the child’s mother is the sole guardian of the child if the mother was neither—
(a) married to, or in a civil union with, the father of the child at any time during the period beginning with the conception of the child and ending with the birth of the child; nor
(b) living with the father of the child as a de facto partner at any time during that period.
(3) If a child is conceived before the commencement of this Act, the child’s mother is the sole guardian of the child if the mother was neither—
(a) married to, or in a civil union with, the father of the child at any time during the period beginning with the conception of the child and ending with the birth of the child; nor
(b) living with the father of the child as a de facto partner at the time the child was born….

This law removes a male parent’s right to be a guardian, i.e. to be legally acknowledged and to have any rights as a parent, on the basis of the status of that male’s relationship with the mother. Whether a father will be accorded guardianship rights can thereby be controlled entirely by the mother. If she refuses to marry or enter a civil union and to live with the father, he loses his rights as a father. However, his financial obligations to pay so-called ‘child support’ are not lost! The legislation is written in gender specific terms and provides huge special parental privilege and power for women over men, and discriminates against men on the basis of their gender.


  1. I am further sickened to learn we have such laws installed in our society,,, once again, Where Is Democracy, who the hell voted for such a law .

    This should be fought against and removed , laws like this are obviously the crux of the problem.

    Our courts are slugs and only snake pits that greedy lawyers etc reap from,, Only the Judges that are considered fair and therefore unbiased should be able to give final recommendations for law change, they are the people that have power that are privy to the real effects on our people.

    Comment by mama — Mon 13th August 2018 @ 8:35 am

  2. Our current law is supposedly rights based?

    So, my right to be non gendered and not suffer discrimination?

    I would think people in this group would be claiming specific privilege while generally aligning with Feminist ideals to ensure its protection.

    That is possibly as influential in the voting system as a reduction in voting age, also being floated by this coalition.

    Comment by Evan Myers — Mon 13th August 2018 @ 9:41 am

  3. This from Australia – the same agenda is obviously being pushed there.

    If you “come out” as “non-binary” you need emotional/psychological support. You don’t need the entire society to reconstruct itself to appease your dysphoria.

    Comment by Evan Myers — Mon 13th August 2018 @ 12:26 pm

  4. Well , the mother is always a definite known.
    The father however… hmmm?
    So there are conditions under which a father is recognized as a guardian.
    I wonder what the definition that is applied to father is in this piece of legislation?

    Comment by JustCurious — Mon 13th August 2018 @ 12:29 pm

  5. S59 Crimes Act 1961 seems more of concern than father as guardian.

    Parliament intention was not to criminalize parents however the Courts have interpreted it in a way

    S59 – Parental control

    (1)Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
    (a)preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
    (b)preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
    (c)preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
    (d)performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

    (2)Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

    (3)Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

    (4)To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

    That seems more treacherous whereby they have simply removed the right to parent a child using one’s own discretion and vested this right in the police’s discretion not to prosecute.

    Comment by JustCurious — Mon 13th August 2018 @ 12:35 pm

  6. I would support getting rid of s59 and restore parental rights to parent without state agencie’s overs sight.

    Comment by JustCurious — Mon 13th August 2018 @ 12:37 pm

  7. This law contributed to the death of Coral Burrows at the hand of, yep, same old same old “mummies new Boyfriend”

    The natural father (not a guardian) knew that something was wrong for his six year old little girl.

    School was being missed, she had been to the doctor several times, the father suspected there were difficulties, he was in Tauranga and his daughter in Marsterton with mummy.

    The father was not appointed as an additional guardian and the mother had instructed the school and Doctor not to provide him with any progress or attendance information. Mummies new boyfriend killed the child.

    The NZ Family Court has blood on it’s hands.

    Comment by Brad — Mon 13th August 2018 @ 8:11 pm

  8. Yep, quite right Brad @7.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 13th August 2018 @ 10:14 pm

  9. @7 How was the Father not a guardian of his child?

    Comment by Downunder — Tue 14th August 2018 @ 8:54 am

  10. My brother lost guardianship rights because he wasn’t living with the mother during pregnancy. No rights to see child. Had to pay child support. After his daughter went into care, due to mummy’s new boyfriend, and drunkard mum, just to have her visit his house they made him become a qualified foster carer first.

    Old Law?
    Current law can still remove guardianship rights for some fathers.

    I faced a similar issue in that the law forced males to stay in bad relationships if pregnancy occurs. If you wanted to have a relationship with your child you would be forced to stay in the relationship. Males today not in a relationship with the pregnant mother simply get screwed over by the system. Mother is breastfeeding, conflict between parents, child settled in mother only care etc etc.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 14th August 2018 @ 11:30 am

  11. #3

    Appease your dysphoria

    I’m a victim of society.

    Another snowflake to be rescued from the avalanche of society.

    Comment by Downunder — Tue 14th August 2018 @ 11:47 am

  12. “Under another change, the committee has recommended that when a child’s birth is registered, as required under law, that the parents be allowed to choose their status as “mother,” “father” or “parent.””

    – Our advise to all fathers (male, biological parents) should be to make sure they are listed as “mother” on the registration of the child’s birth. If they ever go to family court, insist that they are referred to as “mother” at all times.

    Comment by Vman — Tue 14th August 2018 @ 6:59 pm

  13. Perhaps changing gender to woman on birth certificates is the way after all…. I know…
    bugger that.

    Comment by mama — Tue 14th August 2018 @ 9:00 pm

  14. #12 Miss Alice forced the judges to address him as “Miss Alice”, as a form of protest at breach of proper process in caught.
    It seems he won the public opinion battle, but he also suffered somewhat at the hands of the judges. Hobson’s Choice, so probably the last strategy to consider.
    Despite first appearances, really nothing to do with gender, other than using it as a snide insult to the judges.
    Taking proper care of children and adults shouldn’t involve such pathetic games. If the caught$ are that pathetic, then anything goes, in every sense.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 15th August 2018 @ 12:43 pm

  15. @12 – Status according to Bouvier

    STATUS. The condition of persons. It also means estate, because it signifies the condition or circumstances in which the owner stands with regard to his property. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1689.

    So choosing a status may actually mean something entirely different as to what we think it means

    STATUS: The standing, state, or condition of an individual; the rights, obligations, capacities, and incapacities that assign an individual to a given class.

    Comment by JustCurious — Wed 15th August 2018 @ 1:31 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar