I haven’t watched the clip. Did the opposition MS following up on his “you can’t be too inclusive” position, by giving him concrete examples of how being inclusive to males is, or risks being, exclusionary to females?
If the opposition MS is genuine in wanting to protect women’s rights, she would try to get him to listen to and genuinely engage in these very real issues, in order to persuade him to think differently and less simplistically about the issues. Adopting a “landing a cheap shot / easy punch” approach like they do in Westminster won’t achieve that. It’ll lead him to dismiss the question as political posturing.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think that being able to define what a woman is not important; it’s vital. I just don’t think it will be effective approach in getting him to start to think differently.
I do think his answer about respecting others views and finding a way forward offers a starting point for local groups to ask him to deliver on that by meeting them.