UN “Gender Equality” Frameworks Quietly Redefining Women in New Zealand – New Analysis Warns of Wider Pattern

Independent journalist Penny Marie has released a new investigation warning that UN‑aligned “gender equality” frameworks adopted across New Zealand are quietly redefining what it means to be a woman – with far‑reaching consequences for policy, data, and everyday life.

In a detailed article on her Substack, pennymarie.nz, Penny examines the UN Women’s Empowerment Principles (WEPs), Sustainable Development Goal 5 (SDG 5), the NZ WEPs Survey Report 2024–2025, and the New Zealand Law Society’s Gender Equality Charter. She argues that these documents increasingly define “women” to include “those who identify as women”, blurring the line between sex and self‑declared gender.

“Once ‘women’ becomes ‘those who identify as women’, every quota, pay gap statistic and leadership target supposedly for women can include men. The public sees ‘progress for women’ on paper, without any guarantee that female people are the ones actually benefiting.”

Penny also challenges the narrow model of “equality” embedded in these frameworks, which focuses heavily on women matching men in senior corporate and professional roles, while sidelining the realities of motherhood, caregiving and community life.

“Not all women want to live a male‑pattern career. Many mothers want balance – time for family, community, and paid work. Yet the official ‘gender equality’ narrative treats women’s success as matching men in top jobs, while quietly devaluing the work of raising children and nurturing communities.”

Penny Marie spoke at the Mom's For Freedom press conference in Washington DC last October. 

(apologies for audio quality)

Her Substack piece argues that this shift from sex‑based to gender‑identity‑based policy is not occurring in isolation. It sits alongside:

• The Law Commission’s Ia Tangata report, which recommends adding “gender identity or its cultural equivalents” and “innate variations of sex characteristics” as new protected grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act – with direct implications for single‑sex services, sport, data and women’s spaces. On February 24 the government acknowledged the findings of this report, noted that there is no explicit protection in the HRA for the TQI portion of LGBTQI, and concluded saying that progressing the Commissions’ recommendations is ‘not a priority at this time’. A decision has been put out to pasture… temporarily.
• New Zealand’s recent stance at the UN General Assembly on disability rights, where officials backed the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) language in a resolution under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a move Penny has analysed in a separate Substack article. Although that SOGI wording was ultimately voted down, New Zealand’s vote in favour of including it signalled a clear intent to embed gender‑identity concepts into yet another rights framework, this time for disabled people.

Penny links these developments to the broader spread of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies, warning that identity‑based targets risk displacing merit and undermining trust in key institutions:

“When board seats and senior roles are used to satisfy identity metrics, rather than to appoint the best people for the job, everybody loses. It’s bad for institutions, bad for the economy, and deeply unfair to women and men who just want honest, competent leadership.”

She is calling on both women and men in New Zealand to engage with these issues:

• For women: ask employers, professional bodies and unions how they define “woman” and “gender” in policy and reporting; insist on sex‑based data alongside any gender metrics; and defend genuinely female‑only spaces and opportunities.
• For men: support the women in your life who want biological reality acknowledged, speak up respectfully when language is used to obscure basic truths, and refuse token roles offered for optics rather than merit.

“New Zealand can treat every person with dignity without redefining women out of existence or treating motherhood and community work as second‑class. That starts with honesty about what these UN‑aligned frameworks are really doing – and who they truly serve.”