Main Edition
US
FR
November 24, 2024 - 1:30pm
This week, the Scottish National Party has presented its legal submission to the Supreme Court in a landmark case over the definition of “woman”. It includes some deeply disturbing assertions, not least the claim that lesbians should not associate in groups of over 25 which exclude “a person with a full GRC [Gender Recognition Certificate] in the acquired gender of ‘female’ who is attracted to women” — otherwise known as a straight male.
Despite its offensiveness, though, the 40-page document is incredibly boring. This is because we all already know what a woman is — an adult human female — even if there are legal definitions which muddy the waters. The aim of the SNP’s submission is not to provide clarity, but to provide convoluted ways of defending obfuscation. After years of witnessing the unforeseen — yet entirely foreseeable — consequences of insisting “trans women are women”, it appears the party is not going to back down any time soon.
Take, for instance, the SNP’s response to the fact that the 2010 Equality Act refers to “pregnant women” when discussing the protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity. You might think that the very existence of pregnancy discrimination — which occurs within the broader context of women’s subordinate social and economic position in relation to men — would give even the most committed sex denialist pause. Might this not indicate that biological sex is politically salient after all? Isn’t it a reminder that using gender-neutral language for sex-specific experience comes at a cost? Once we stop talking about “pregnant women”, our understanding of pregnancy discrimination shifts dramatically. It suggests this is a self-contained event which can happen to anyone. Isn’t this something we would want to avoid?
Apparently not, according to the SNP. “The pregnancy and maternity provisions are either capable of being interpreted to apply to a ‘pregnant man’”, the submission reads, “or the man would potentially be entitled to bring a claim of direct discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment.” As Dr Michael Forlan has noted, the document seems to be suggesting “that the drafters of the Equality Act 2010, when they used the term ‘pregnant woman’ made the kind of embarrassing drafting error not seen in the UK since the 1860’s”. It’s as though the “woman” aspect of this discrimination was never really meant to be included at all.
I understand the problem they are trying to deal with, but the solution is entirely backwards. Protections against pregnancy and maternity discrimination should of course cover people who are pregnant but do not see themselves as women. Nonetheless, individual self-perception does not change how this form of discrimination operates. The issue with “pregnant women” illustrates the impossibility of protecting women as a class while treating femaleness as something from which one can opt out. Sometimes, you have to choose which definition matters most.
In some ways, it is amazing that anyone could write about sex-specific discrimination and not think that there is a problem with suggesting the word “woman” could just as well be “man”. Gender-neutral language makes it much harder to understand women’s experiences of discrimination in ways extending far beyond issues of pregnancy. It is unlikely that those who drafted the SNP document sat down and said: “actually, we don’t care about this stuff anymore.” More probable is that at some point it was decided “this stuff” was simply less important than “anyone can be whichever sex they say they are.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe SNP are completely unhinged and irrational in their attitude to women and womens’ rights – trans people have human rights like anyone else, but a piece of paper does not miraculously reverse biological reality.
That’s true, but another aspect in all this (which VS hints at) is how those sections of western societies who’ve been so determined to push the trans agenda for the past decade proceed from here.
There’s just been too much vitriol thrown at biological realists and those seeking to uphold basic human rights for women for trans activists to contemplate the long and painful process of backing down. It’s their whole sense of psychological integrity that they’ve put at stake, and it’ll require more time yet before they might start to moderate their views.
Already though, there are hints that the language they use is starting to become just a tad less strident. The legal submission the author writes about sounds more defensive than hitherto, as if there’s a glimmer of recognition that they’ve been too radical in their trans advocacy. Every single slight margin of rolling back on their stridency should, however, be welcomed and encouraged.
It’s tempting to just mock and say “i told you so” but that would likely hinder the process of finally coming to terms with the dangerous illusions they’ve been seeking to foist upon society, and all in the name of the small number of genuine individuals whose adult persona is better suited to the sex other than that which their biology has determined.
Agree, and am therefore concerned about what could arise from the forthcoming court ruling…
I find the trans women are women mantra grossly offensive as I have witnessed intimately how it tough physically it is being a woman, especially a mother. Gents, it’s tough being a bloke sometimes but, gosh, all the thing women experience.
It’s a secondary things but claiming trans men are men is equally foolish. Ladies, you haven’t a clue. This isn’t trying to figure out who has life tougher; men or women, it recognising that your biology counts and nobody can possibly imagine how it feels to be the opposite sex.
Men can dress as women and vice versa, who cares? But let’s stop pretending it’s real.
a bonkers move by the SNP…particularly in relation to pregnancy and childbirth.
Tempted to say this is a contemporary angels on the head of a pin debate. But that would be flippant. Scottish nationalism founders on these rocks?