Main Edition
US
FR
November 28, 2024 - 11:15am
Westminster
Yesterday, I made my way to court to witness a case that will hopefully establish in law an important question: what is a woman? If we lose the case, we lose our rights as women, in law and in policy. The work of decades could be undone all too quickly.
The case began in 2018, when the Scottish Government passed a law which took as its definition of “woman” anyone who identifies as one. An advocacy group, For Women Scotland, challenged this in court and won. But then the Scottish National Party replaced this with guidance suggesting the definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 is not just a person born female, but is also changed “for all purposes” by the Gender Recognition Act. Last year, For Women Scotland went to court once again to challenge that definition — but lost. The group’s appeal will now be decided by the Supreme Court.
Inside the packed courtroom were a range of women’s rights groups and associated activists, all of whom have been attacked and labelled “terfs” for their beliefs in the past. Sex Matters, Scottish Lesbians, the Lesbian Project — which I co-direct with Kathleen Stock — and the LGB Alliance were all present. Meanwhile, Amnesty International and the EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission) have lent their support to the Scottish Government.
Much of the build-up to the case has focused on a particular detail in the Scottish Government’s submission, which claims that maternity provisions can be extended to “pregnant men”. Aidan O’Neill KC, representing For Women Scotland, said in court this week that those two words are a “legal fiction”. And yesterday, far away from the Supreme Court in London, O’Neill received support from an unexpected source. During a press conference in Edinburgh, Scottish First Minister John Swinney stated, in response to a journalist’s question, that males cannot become pregnant. Seated next to me in Courtroom 1 yesterday was former SNP MP Joanna Cherry, who noted online: “I am pleased that John recognises this biological reality, but I’m presently sitting in the UK Supreme Court watching his Government’s lawyers argue the opposite.”
Yet there is another important aspect to this case: namely, the right of lesbian clubs to legally exclude trans-identified males. A lawyer representing the Scottish Government, Ruth Crawford KC, denied that obstructing this right would create a “chilling effect”. On top of this, she claimed that the “inevitable conclusion” of a For Women Scotland victory would be that male-born holders of a GRC — who, she argued, are seen as having changed sex in the eyes of the law — would “remain men until death for the purposes of the Equality Act”.
High comedy was on offer amid arguments about heterosexual men with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) becoming lesbians, while those without a GRC remain heterosexual men. The utter absurdity, sexism and homophobia of the gender identity argument is being clearly exposed in Britain’s premier court. Regardless of the result inside the courtroom, more people will surely be convinced that the Scottish Government’s case is a ludicrous — and dangerous — fiction.
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.
SubscribeTruly a test of the sobriety of British judges. Can they keep a straight face?
Woman = Adult Human Female. The term ‘terf’ is used in ‘captured’ and irrational people’s vocabularies to attack those who assert and affirm biological reality. Trans people have the right to live without persecution in their preferred gender identity, but wishful thinking to make their assumed identities ‘real’ in every way to fulfil their fantasy does not supersede the rights of actual women. This case is important.
I really do hope this challenge in the Supreme Court succeeds, but i fear it may require a change in the Gender Recognition Act (and possibly the Equality Act) before the case that JB outlines becomes possible.
The Supreme Court can only interpret the law as it stands, not create legislation.
As was the fiction ancestral to this one: that a woman was a woman (gender) because that was what was assigned to her at birth (based on cursory physical examination) and her parents and society then colluded in turning her into one.
Most of the comedy is linguistic.
What trans activists are asking for is that the social category “women” be expanded to cover both cis and trans women. They are not claiming to be biological women. It’s only funny if you flip flop between a biological and social usage.
I’m not sure even this should be granted, but it’s important to be clear on what is being asked for.
It’s interesting that the question could just as easily be “what is a man?” since biological women seem equally keen on transitioning. But it isn’t.
Leaving aside some marginal (unproven and unquantified) increase in the risk to women, there is really no difference.
Men, in typical style, are completely relaxed about the whole idea and you can’t help wondering why. Could it simply be that men have no privileges, or special treatment to lose.
Women seldom pose a threat to men
The reverse is also true, at least in a country like the U.K. The increased threat posed by gender neutral toilets, say, will be very small indeed.
I sit on the fence on this issue – but I don’t think it helps to exaggerate the actual risk.