Mana Wāhine Kōrero against Newsroom
Case Number: 3897
Council Meeting: 31 August 2026
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: NewsRoom
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Errors
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Newsroom published an Opinion article on July 2, 2026, headlined Marcroft's sex definition bill fails basic science. Mana Wāhine Kōrero complains the article breaches Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; Principle (4) Comment and Fact; and Principle (12) Corrections. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. Dinithi Bowatte (Massey University PhD candidate) and Dr Max Soar (research fellow at Victoria University of Wellington) wrote the column. It was labelled comment and expert opinion.
3. The article was based on NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft’s bill to legally define the words “woman” and “man”. It quoted Marcroft as saying the bill was designed to “uphold legal certainty, protect the integrity of sex-based rights, and ensure that language in law reflects biological reality”.
4. The authors argued this language of “biological reality” had little basis in modern scientific understandings of sex.
5. Eighteenth-century European scientists adopted the two-sex model because it aligned with social ideals of the time. These held that the female body was the bodily “other” of the male, reflecting culturally and religiously pervasive narratives.
6. Previously, Western men and women were typically understood as manifestations of the same sex. Elsewhere, including Aotearoa, indigenous communities understood that gender did not necessarily conform to sex-associated binaries.
7. The article outlined discoveries around human sex chromosomes and how the two-sex model of early foetal development worked.
8. The article was updated after publication to clarify that some people did not have just two chromosomes, XX and XY. They could have more or fewer. This could affect physical traits, fertility, or have no effect.
9. Sexual determination is made up of genetic, chromosomal, hormonal, anatomical and physiological layers. There were up to 40 variations of the two-sex model. Intersex Aotearoa says this represents about 2.3% of the population.
10. Scientists increasingly understood sex as a spectrum, rejecting the two-sex model’s neat categorisation the bill was trying to put into law.
The Complaint
Initial Complaint
11. Mana Wāhine Kōrero, an organisation dedicated to upholding the biological and cultural reality of wāhine, complained to Newsroom that
the article contained inaccuracies and deceptive omissions concerning three key areas and therefore breached Principles.
12. The first was a material inaccuracy about Western medical history, and this breached Principle (4) Comment and Fact, which says, “material facts on which an opinion is based should be accurate”.
13. The article’s premise relied on the assertion that biological sex was a modern social construct. The authors wrongly asserted as fact that 18th-century scientists originally adopted the two-sex model.
14. The authors relied on a 35-year-old American humanities thesis by (historian) Thomas Laqueur (Making Sex, 1990) while omitting decades of peer-reviewed research that exposed these claims as fabricated.
15. Prominent mainstream historians of medicine such as Helen King, Joan Cadden and Katharine Park have proved that ancient, medieval and early modern physicians recognised clear sexual dimorphism and never doubted male and female were distinct biological categories. The column’s commentary was anchored on an inaccurate premise.
16. The second key area was a failure of factual accuracy and cultural fairness regarding Te Ao Māori. Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance include that publications “should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission”. This Principle was breached because the authors tried to overwrite traditional Māoritanga by asserting that “in Aotearoa, indigenous communities held a variety of understandings of gender that did not necessarily conform to sex-associated binaries”. This statement misrepresented their ancestral reality. Mana Wāhine Kōrero found this “deeply offensive”. The foundational anatomy of Te Ao Māori was built upon a binary truth.
17. The authors’ claim also ignored multigenerational registry of tribal testimonies, oral histories and continuous whakapapa lineages and expert submissions from prominent pūkenga now before the Waitangi Tribunal. Experts openly document that menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth are states of absolute tapu, mandating clear physical separation from men to preserve the safety of te whare tangata (House of humanity, womb, uterus.) The authors misled the public by omitting this evidence.
18. Thirdly, the assertion that about 2.3% of the population possess alternative configurations from the two-sex model contradicted Census data that revealed only 0.44% of respondents reported being born with a variation. Omitting the Census figure while presenting a contradictory figure violated Principles (1) and (4).
19. Mana Wāhine Kōrero requested a correction or right of reply.
The Response
20. Newsroom did not consider the article to contain failures in accuracy or cultural fairness, or in interpreting statistics, and provided a response from the authors.
21. Regarding Western medical history, the authors believed that it was factual to state that understandings of sex were (and are) affected by culturally and religiously pervasive narratives, as all scientific knowledge is. This was the premise that underlies Science, Technology and Society studies and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, which were established research fields.
22. Sex determination was notoriously intricate and had a complicated scientific history. Binary understandings that had dominated since the 18th century were rife with exceptions. The authors referenced a published academic perspective article that discussed the limitations of sex as a binary concept and how it was challenged by medical developments and a better understanding of gender diversity. They did not reference Laqueur directly, but references to him feature heavily in literature. They provided examples to support their argument.
23. The authors said they did not claim that traditional Māori did not conform to sex-associated binaries. They took their lead from Kaupapa Māori scholars, Māori organisations and commentators and their discussions of takatāpui (among other) identities. They said there was historical evidence for this. There were heterogeneous views about gender in Indigenous communities, including Aotearoa.
24. The authors used figures from Intersex Aotearoa that demonstrated the range of possible variations from the two-sex model.
Media Council Complaint
25. In its Media Council complaint, the organisation also said Newsroom’s response regarding Te Ao Māori and Tikanga misrepresented cited academic literature, relied on omission of fact and misled the public. Waitangi Tribunal evidence and Law Commission findings, for which the organisation provided examples, were also not included in the column.
26. Newsroom also altered the live article after receiving the complaint. The inclusion of a generic bracketed note to explain this failed to provide proper transparency regarding the substantive changes made. Principle (12) Corrections had therefore been breached.
The Response
27. Newsroom made additional points including that the authors chose to use Intersex Aotearoa statistics and not Stats NZ. There was no obligation to cite multiple sources for such statistics.
28. The complaint to the Media Council mischaracterised the clarification to the column. It was not in response to anything that Mana Wāhine Kōrero had raised but instead amended in response to a separate complaint, without conceding that complainant’s specific issue. There was no “stealth edit”.
29. Sources cited in the initial response but not in the article were among the reading material the authors had used in forming their own views. Alleged omissions of Waitangi Tribunal and Law Commission findings were not directly relevant or within the purview of the authors’ arguments. The column was an academic opinion in good faith.
30. The column did not and does not attempt to address all matters now sought to be argued by the complainants.
The Discussion
31. This complaint falls under four substantive sections, under which Principles have been cited. The Media Council will deal with each in turn.
Western medical history – Principle (4) Comment and Fact
32. The relevant part of Principle (4) is that “material facts on which an opinion is based should be accurate.”
33. The Newsroom column stated that 18th-century European scientists originally adopted the two-sex model because it aligned with social ideals.
34. The question of binary sex is considered a controversial issue, with different viewpoints and versions of history. Both sides in this matter provided names and material to support their arguments. It is not unusual for academics and historians to disagree and for theories and views to be challenged. It would have been ideal for the authors to have attributed or provided more context about this aspect of the column. However, they also have a right to choose which academic theories, views or concepts to believe to help construct their own opinions. As such, there is no breach of Principle (4).
Failure of factual accuracy and cultural fairness regarding Te Ao Māori - Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
35. The critical question here is whether this statement in the column is accurate: “… elsewhere, including in Aotearoa, indigenous communities held a variety of understandings of gender that did not necessarily conform to sex-associated binaries.”
36. The complainants say this statement is wrong and have provided names of experts to support their case. Newsroom has provided links to information to support its case.
37. Again, there can be different perspectives and interpretations of history and academic material, and the Media Council is not in a position to decide exactly where the historical truth lies. This was an opinion article, and the authors were entitled to rely on the versions of history they used and literature to support their views. We give a wide latitude to opinion. It is not for the Media Council to take sides in ongoing debates that have been evolving for decades. That would risk shutting down debate and a free expression of views, which is contrary to our Principles.
38. Newsroom was under no obligation to include Waitangi Tribunal or Law Commission material. Principle (1) mainly applies to news articles, not opinion. No other Principles have been breached.
Distortion of Government statistics – Principles (1) and (4)
39. The authors have accurately quoted an Intersex Aotearoa statistic. There is no compulsion for them to use any other figures as part of their commentary. Neither principle cited as been breached.
Post-publication changes and inadequate correction - Principle (12) Corrections
40. Mana Wāhine Kōrero has requested a correction or right of reply. Principle (12), in part, says that “Significant errors should be promptly corrected with fair prominence. In some circumstances it will be appropriate to offer an apology and a right of reply …. However, the Council finds no Principles have been breached and therefore no correction is warranted. The amendment to the live article is not relevant.
41. Balance was not required in this case because the article was an opinion piece. However, Newsroom could have offered a column in response and still could. This would have presented readers with another perspective and helped encourage further debate. However, that is ultimately a matter of editorial discretion and, in this instance, not doing so does not breach any Principles. The Council notes, however, that Newsroom has since published another expert column from two other academics challenging this article.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoai, Rachael Heslop
Jo Cribb declared a conflict of interest and left the room