Talk:LGBTQ rights in New Zealand

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LGBTQ rights in New Zealand article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Canterbury/International Human Rights Law (Semester One 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

New Zealand: Politics High‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Double Standard in Terminology

The article reads, 'Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people (a.k.a. LGBT) have most of the same rights as heterosexuals in New Zealand.' This wording is not acceptable and must be changed. It is not logical to contrast the term 'gays' with the term 'heterosexuals'. If the 'gays' is used, 'heterosexuals' should be called 'straights.' Alternatively, if the term 'heterosexuals' is to be retained, then 'gays' should be called 'homosexuals.' The article should use either the terms 'gay' and 'straight' or the terms 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual', but not an inconsistent mixture of both. I have raised this issue before; see the heterosexism talk page. Skoojal (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The terms used (and their order) are to match the "LGBT" abbreviation. If you change "gays" to "homosexuals" then you have to spell out what LGBT means elsewhere. I guess it's a bit hard when the formal term is an abbreviation containing informal terms. Not to mention that I guess many transgendered consider themselves heterosexual. Perhaps give your exact suggestions. I am not sure if your objections to "gay" are universal - SimonLyall (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not objecting to the term gay per se. What I am objecting to is using the term gay to describe people attracted to the same sex while simultaneously using the term heterosexual to describe people attracted to the opposite sex. It's inconsistent. Skoojal (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem this issue is important to you. I would suggest that you go over to somewhere like Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies and work with them for a policy on this term rather than argue it separately on a few thousand different pages. Please remember that things like "a formal word to describe non-LGBT people" might not exist in English. - SimonLyall (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, consistent and sensible use of language is important to me. I'm not arguing this 'on a few thousand pages'; the issue has only occured once before, and there appeared to be general agreement that either gay and straight should be used, or homosexual and heterosexual, but not an illogical mixture. Skoojal (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence still doesn't quite make sense

The article reads, 'LGBT (Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered ) people have most of the same rights as straight people in New Zealand.' There's a problem with this: the apparent assumption that transgendered people cannot be heterosexual. Skoojal (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could change it to 'non-transgendered straight people', but as well as being overly wordy, I'm pretty sure it's not necessary. None of the trans people I know have any problem with being included in LGBT or not being considered 'straight' in general terms. --Helenalex (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Non-transgendered straight people' would be overly wordy, but that sentence does have to be changed somehow. Skoojal (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

other - SimonLyall (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your response. Skoojal (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'LGBT (Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered ) people have most of the same rights as other people in New Zealand.' - SimonLyall (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. That seems fine. Skoojal (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Adoption is legal for couples and the sex of the child doesnot matter, i know this because i have been present at a few of the adotion ceremonies of two girl chidren to gay male parents in 2006. 09:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.63.27 (talk)

Niue

Since when did Niue decrimilise homosexuality?, I have still seen the Penal Code and guess what it is still there!!! Please list your sources!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Same-sex sexual conduct between females is legal, but "buggery" is still a criminal offence in Niue (s 170 Niue Act 1966). See, for instance, pg 30 of Niue's initial report under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (2011).

The Niue Amendment Act 2007 was an Act of the New Zealand Parliament, not the Niue Assembly. Since the Niue Constitution Act 1974 (Part 36, Schedule 2) provides that New Zealand legislation passed subsequent to Constitution Day (19 October 1974) does not extend to Niue without the Niue Assembly's express consent, the Niue Act 1966, including the provision relating to same-sex sexual conduct, remains applicable in Niue. Dyt10 (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media

Should there be a section on gay representation in the NZ media?--Pokélova (Pokémon Lover) (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why paint NZ in the lead as progressive if trans people are denied basic human rights?

Transgender rights in New Zealand clearly shows that trans people there are not in fact explicitly protected against discrimination, that they cannot change legal gender markers without genital reconstructive surgery, and that transition-related care for those who want it is hardly even available within the country.

So how is the “protection of LGBT rights [...] one of the most liberal in the world”? LGBT rights means more than just rights for cis gay people and cis bisexuals. The lead should reflect this, or at least not present New Zealand as friendly and safe to LGBT people.
× SOTO (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's questionable whether the legal ability to alter official papers to reflect gender identity rather than biological sex, or availability of state funding for those transgender individuals who choose medical intervention, qualify as 'basic' human rights. None of thirty articles in UN Declaration of Human Rights suggest that they are. 121.73.233.71 (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion Therapy

Conversion therapy section is slightly wordy, and needs to be cut down. Is it related to LGBT rights? I am unsure. This is an Encyclopedia, not a news publication. We do not need so many direct quotations. Sxologist (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination protections - source incomplete

The provided source "'Gay gene' donation row in New Zealand" does not give any information on the statement "some heterosexual male sperm donors had vetoed the use of their gametes for lesbian couples who seek artificial insemination". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soliac (talk • contribs) 04:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by adding a source from the New Zealand Herald. Soliac (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion therapy

@Gadfium: I just wanted to ping you to discuss this section. The opening didn't say what conversion therapy was, so I included that and copied some of the intro from the conversion therapy article to become the opening sentence. You reverted my original edit and said it already says its harmful, yet it was inadequate and made no citations. I will agree that the end paragraph could be trimmed, however I do think it is useful since conversion therapy is currently legal in New Zealand. I am happy to move some of this into a notes section which directs people towards the review or an APA evaluation taskforce on the topic if they want to do further reading. Let me know what you think. Sxologist (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other sections in the article are entirely or almost entirely about how the issue is handled in New Zealand. For example, the "Hate crime laws" section does not try to explain what a hate crime is or why it is bad. The link to hate crime is sufficient. Similarly with the sections on "Gender identity and expression" and "Intersex rights". In contrast, the "Conversion therapy" section as you have left it has two of the four paragraphs explaining the basic concepts, and these two paragraphs make up a majority of the text and of the references. A simple link to conversion therapy (or {{See also}} would be sufficient, but I was happy to accept the single short introductory paragraph for the section, which read:

Conversion therapy has a negative effect on the lives of LGBT people, and can lead to low self-esteem, depression and suicide ideation.

You mention that this includes no citations, but it should be well supported by the link to the article.

Do you plan to include the exact same material, or variants of it, to every article which has a section on conversion therapy? I expect there are dozens of "LGBT rights in <foo>" articles, and there will be articles on various organisations which may mention their support or opposition for the practice. For example, see LGBT rights in Australia#Conversion therapy, which starts with almost the same sentence as we had until today, but all the rest of the section is about Australia. LGBT rights in the United Kingdom#Conversion therapy doesn't have such an introductory sentence, but includes a link in the first sentence. The material there is entirely about the UK, except for one sentence about the EU (and a sentence comparing UK law to law in EU countries).

You mentioned WP:EVALFRINGE in one of your edit summaries, but there was nothing in the section which promoted conversion therapy.

I'm not planning on removing the material again, but I do think it's unnecessary and unbalances the section.-gadfium 03:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll come back to this tomorrow and trim it. Sxologist (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gadfium: I have trimmed a lot and with fresh eyes I see what you mean. There needs to be more about current law in NZ. Sxologist (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent info regarding conversion therapy ban

So the New Zealand parliament voted a few days ago to ban conversion therapy 112 - 8. Should we add something about this now or when the ban comes into effect (in six months)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Canadian Askew (talk • contribs) 07:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2023

This edit request to LGBT rights in New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi there, this information is incorrect. It is still illegal in Niue. They had the opportunity in 2007 but didn’t do it.

Thank you 151.210.239.228 (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]