What is a Man?

Winston does it his way.

For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels
And not the words of one who kneels
The record shows
I took the blows
And did it my way

Lyrics: Paul Anka.

---

Morena folks, before we discuss Winston’s latest salvo in NZ First’s War on Woke, I have a few words about someone else doing it his way, and if I could be so immodest, it’s me.

This is the 900th edition of Nick’s Kōrero, and I’m tremendously grateful to be able to write freely, without pressure from corporate sponsors or anyone dictating my topics or opinions.

I wasn’t sure if this would be possible when I began. Writing about the things that mattered to me seemed too good to be true, yet with your support and many long hours, here we are—900 newsletters in and not slowing down.

Thank you. You guys rock! Unlike certain other people…

What is a woman?

New Zealand First is pushing for the term "woman" to be defined in law as "an adult human biological female" as the party vows to fight "cancerous social engineering" and "woke ideology".

Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters says his party has proposed a new member's bill that would "ensure the biological definition of a woman and man are defined in law", which he says will protect the term "woman." Robert Kitchin / The Post.

Isn’t it funny how the people who cling so bitterly to outdated terminology, lamenting political correctness or proclaiming the sanctity of their freedom of speech, now want to dictate what others can or cannot say and how they may identify?

When I saw the headline above, I thought I might need to see the optometrist because I read it as a revolting door.

Like the worst episode of Play School ever. “Oh look, kids, what’s behind NZ First’s revolting door of members’ bills? Ooh look, it’s an attack on Trans people to stir up votes.”

Fans of the Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle might recognise a certain degree of artistic homage in the above scenario.

Regarding a revolving door of policies, for NZ First, it’s in with defining a woman and out with monitoring who’s using public toilets (an election promise), along with devolving fluoridation decisions to local, non-experts. It made me wonder—don’t these people have any sensible policies?

Like many of you, I’m sure, I find this a difficult topic to discuss. This issue is complex and things aren’t black and white, but perhaps that’s the point?

I no longer engage on social media with one of the people I love most on this planet. She has strong views and while I sympathise and to a degree understand her fears I also know that as with any group who faces prejudice the majority of those who identify as a gender other than their biological sex are having a hard enough time being accepted without people suggesting they’re motivated by something sinister and not simply trying to live genuine lives.

But I also hate that we paint women who feel they are standing up for women as witches, calling them TERFS, and silencing them. That is wrong too.

Social change is always hard, and I’m sure that many who are later seen as having been on the wrong side of history believed that what they were doing was right, given the prevailing attitudes of the time.

In years to come, we will look at these supporters that NZ First is pandering to, as we do images of the angry faces in the US, furious at mixed education during segregation. Jeering brave young students for wanting to attend the same school.

Image: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/september-4/arkansas-troops-prevent-desegregation

I sometimes think about those faces and wonder what the people photographed thought of their actions later in life. Did they come to believe that segregation was wrong, or did those prejudices linger, feeding a new generation with hate?

Does Winston think he can make people disappear by defining a word?

It's insulting to a group that has faced so much disrespect.

First and foremost, this is a distraction from things that affect people’s lives. Our acting PM should focus on those rather than asking what a woman is.

As Green Party co-leader, Chlöe Swarbrick, says in this video:

---

The following section was written by Chris, who has generously agreed to my sharing it with you:

To the Rt Hon Winston Peters and 'others' who think like him

Let’s be honest: NZ First’s latest Member’s Bill is not about “clarity.” It’s about control.

Their attempt to legally define “woman” as “adult human biological female” is not just regressive—it’s dangerous. It ignores science, disregards lived experience, and feeds into a global wave of anti-trans, anti-rainbow sentiment that is causing real harm.

Let’s break it down:

The XX/XY binary is not the whole picture. Biological sex is not a tidy either/or. Intersex people exist. Chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy vary widely. Science knows this. Medicine knows this. Pretending otherwise is ideology, not biology.

The idea that trans women pose a risk to women’s safety is a myth—statistically unfounded and rooted in fear, not fact. If we’re serious about protecting women, let’s name the real threat: overwhelmingly, violence against women is perpetrated by cisgender, heterosexual men. But that’s a harder conversation, isn’t it?

This kind of legislation doesn’t protect women. It polices identity. It erases the existence of trans and non-binary people. It emboldens hate. And it puts already vulnerable people at greater risk - of violence, of mental distress, of exclusion from work, healthcare, and community.

Make no mistake: this isn’t about “common sense” or “biological reality.” It’s about aligning Aotearoa with a toxic global backlash against the rainbow community—a backlash steeped in fear, misinformation, and cruelty.

If you support this bill, you are part of the problem. You are endorsing exclusion. You are choosing ideology over evidence. You are deciding that some people deserve fewer rights, less dignity, and less safety.

In a time when leadership should mean compassion and courage, this is cowardice dressed up as legislation.

We must be better than this. We must stand with our trans, intersex, and non-binary whānau—not because it’s “woke,” but because it’s right. Because it’s human.

---

Well said. Thanks very much, Chris. 🙂

Winston’s demand that we define a woman has only one purpose: to win votes from those who wish to see the rights of others diminished.

Peters said the Members Bill was “not about being anti-anyone or anti-anything”, as a flying porcine formation drifted by.

Pushing this bill doesn’t necessarily mean that Winston doesn’t care about hurting those who will be hurt, although I strongly suspect that’s the case; it’s simply a means to an end, with collateral damage.

Which raises another thought:

How would you describe someone who has perpetuated a political career by spinning ugly misinformation to appeal to the prejudices of those with a fairly insecure handle on things at the best of times?

It’s not what I would call a man. How about you?

It’s not what I’d call a legacy either.

---

I'm really pleased to share this 900th edition of my newsletter with you. To mark this occasion, I’m offering new subscribers a 30% discount for the next 12 months. This means you can enjoy a year of Nick’s Kōrero for $70 or $7 monthly.

To end, Frank Sinatra with My Way. Have a great day, all you lovely people. I know it sounds extra cheesy, but thank you for enabling me to do this my way. 🙂

Ngā mihi,
Nick.