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.”
Had I asked 14 years ago that “if trans women can be women, how shall we talk about pregnancy and maternity as women’s issues?” I’d have been told I was fearmongering. This was a tiny minority of people just wanting to live their lives! It would have no impact whatsoever on how women talked about things that mattered to them!
The irony is, this should be the moment — or, at least, another moment — where the SNP thinks: “yes, we got it wrong.” If pretending sex is mutable and politically irrelevant means you struggle to name discrimination which only happens to one sex, the answer isn’t to adopt a different naming strategy. It’s to stop pretending once and for all.
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…
The Cass report was their “golden bridge” but they refused to take it and doubled down instead
Apparently trans people have un-human rights.
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.
The SNP are a despicable rabid English-hating rabble. They have fucked up Health outcomes and Education to the point it makes the Tories ‘achievements’ look worthwhile.
Humza let the Green tail wag the dog with the most stupid and what’s more unnecessary laws introduced.
Men do not get pregnant, women can get pregnant.
Do you think SNP will draft a Law to recognise whatever skin colour I choose too? Or would that be too offensive?
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?
The SNP went from 48 seats in the last parliament to just 9 in this. They lost five sixth of their MPs, and it hasn’t changed their thinking one iota.
There is an awful warning for the Conservatives. Complacency and a reluctance to abandon comfortable thinking are indeed options. Well, the next Holyrood election will be within the next 18 months. The opinion polls are not encouraging. Let’s see how far the SNP’s choices get it.
If there is such a thing then it just shows that the ideologues have tied themselves in knots because the biological reality of a woman becoming pregnant and giving birth trumps a case were that same woman might feel like giving her male ‘gender identity’ prominence while this pregnancy is ongoing.
It’s hard not to feel that in the case of a pregnant “man” – this is nature standing up and saying “I beg to differ”.
Can somebody explain this?
Perhaps if you can understand you are already lost.
Yeah why 25, not 19? or 27? Twenty Five minds must be the critical mass to initiate wrongthink – or somethink…
No. I gave up myself after reading it a few times.
The author did explain: she said, in other words herosexual men.
Insanity isn’t it? Men cannot have babies hasn’t anyone told these morons, what school did they go to? We’re the laughing stock of the world. Who is this Stasi ruling us, giving away the Chagos, green energy destroying our lives and industry, Marxist farming IHT , low wages , free speech oppressed and on it goes, releasing prisoners early to reduce crowding so tweeters can be jailed. And next, killing us as a service? Enough.
I’m worried my male tackle will get in the way when I give birth. What should I’d? Or am I best not to get pregnant?
So much for Kate Forbes having an impact on SNP policy. One might have thought she’d drag this rag bag lot of loser-ideologues back to the centre ground. Apparently not!
The consensus amongst my fellow readers is that the SNP are “unhinged”, “bonkers” and “insane” and “irrational”. I suspect that this SNP ploy is actually calculated. The Scottish Parliament elections are in May, 2026 and the voting age for those elections is 16. The SNP administration has given millions to trans activist groups to go around Scottish schools brainwashing kids into believing trans ideology. Now, it is the only issue that teen voters care much about: education, jobs and health are not nearly as important to them as “trans rights”. They burn their Harry Potter books. No other issue would get them to do such a thing.
So the SNP view the legal challenge as a win-win: If they win the case, they can say that they have furthered the cause of trans rights and if they lose the case they can say that their attempt to further that cause has been thwarted by the English courts, so independence is the only answer. Then the SNP hoovers up a large proportion of the teen vote in the election.
Sadly true – a brainwashed generation… who are oblivious of reality…
Just as sad is how easy it was to get the teaching profession to acquiesce to the brainwashing of the kids in their charge.
At the root of this case is a dreadful piece of Scottish legislation which, by virtue of favouring women, discriminates against men by introducing quotas for women being appointed as non execs to boards of public bodies, rather than allowing boards to pick the best person for the job – there will be a number of areas where there are very few suitable and experienced female candidates. This sort of affirmative action should have proper feminists up in arms as they should be against schemes which justifiably enable people to claim “she is only there because she is a women”. Good women should and can get there perfectly well on their own merits.
The fact that they are only upset because a group of men can take advantage of the system by having a piece of paper that say that legally they are women displays a double standard.
I fully support the generic argument that the word woman in law must mean biological women, including those biological women who claim to be men (especially those who become pregnant and are mothers), however I worry that this is the wrong hill to fight on as if you accept the premise that women need an unfair advantage in this area because they have been discriminated against in the past, then potentially an even stronger argument along the same lines applies to GRC carrying trans women (men with a bit of paper from the government).
So whilst the case is presented here as being about defining what a woman is in law with some of the very good reason why, it may turn out being interpreted in a different way and not go the way we would all hope, which would be a massive set back for the wider cause.
This is a simple problem. Woke transgenderism is plainly irrational and should be laughed out of the public discussion.
Does laughing count as hate speech?
“Gender recognition certificate”! Maybe people in Scotland should get racial identification cards at birth to assist in Affirmative Action, which is probably now called DEI or DIE in the UK as in the USA.
I suggest that Unherd readers in Scotland claim they ‘identity as SNP members of the Scottish Parliament’ and speak out against this nonsense.
I look forward to an Employment Tribunal case involving a trans man suing an employer for refusing maternity leave and pay on the grounds that she insists she’s a man.
“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.”
Ah. Can’t miss a chance to drag nasty men and the patriarchy into this. It’s like that phrase came right out of some Feminism course book. This is all on you, Feminists. You created this monster and can’t seem to miss an opportunity to reinforce its foundations and further alienate men. Good luck to you.
And that is what you take from the article rather than the dangers to denying the realities of sex? It’s been reported that the British Transport Police will allow men with or without Gender Recognition Certificates who say they’re women to conduct intimate searches on women (real ones that is). This doesn’t trouble you at all? The risks to the safety and privacy of women and children resulting from Gender Identity theory doesn’t strike you as concerning?
No. That is an ongoing problem with the third and fourth wave feminists. They want to have it both ways. They are recognizing that what they wrought has terrible downsides. Yet, some, like Victoria and Julie Bindel, can’t help themselves from taking a shot at men, lumping us all into the ‘problem’ instead of seeing us as a part of the solution.
The SNP makes our politicians look like Plato and Aristotle.
Life was so much easier when we had men and women and men who liked dressing as women and were called transvestites. By the way where have the transvestites all gone?