Did the Supreme Court of Canada ban the use of the word “woman” because it’s gotten too woke?
Reading the coverage of a recent decision, you might be justified in thinking that’s the case. It’s not, of course. A simple reading of the decision would confirm that by any reasonable analysis. But even when presented with the facts, the people who cranked the outrage machine insist they’re right.
Which is a bit concerning because they’re all people who work or have worked as journalists for mainstream media.
The decision in question is called R. v. Kruk, and dated March 8 (coincidentally, International Women’s Day). But the outrage circus started March 13 when the National Post published its daily opinion newsletter from Tristin Hopper, titled “Supreme Court decision opts for ‘person with a vagina’ over ‘woman'”. It starts as follows:
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a recent sexual assault case that it was “problematic” for a lower court judge to refer to the alleged victim as a “woman,” implying that the more appropriate term should have been “person with a vagina.”
In a decision published Friday, Justice Sheilah Martin wrote that a trial judge’s use of the word “a woman” may “have been unfortunate and engendered confusion.”
Martin does not specify why the word “woman” is confusing, but the next passage in her decision refers to the complainant as a “person with a vagina.” Notably, not one person in the entire case is identified as transgender, and the complainant is referred to throughout as a “she.”
Right-wing and clickbait social media accounts and websites and even news media pounced on Hopper’s interpretation of the decision, as did Journal de Montréal columnist Richard Martineau, who wrote in a column published the next day that “Il n’y a plus de femmes au Canada!” (There’s no more women in Canada!)
Martineau repeats the two key points of Hopper’s analysis, that the Supreme Court ruled a lower court’s use of the word “woman” was problematic, and that the Supreme Court says judgments should instead say “person with a vagina.”
Martineau’s column, in turn, prompted Martine Biron, Quebec’s minister responsible for the status of women, to present an emergency motion in the National Assembly condemning the Supreme Court’s words. Co-signed by Parti Québécois Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, Liberal MNA André Morin and independent (formerly Liberal) MNA Marie-Claude Nichols, it passed unanimously.
En choisissant de ne pas utiliser le mot «femme», nous les invisibilisons.
Après tant d’années de combat, les droits des femmes doivent continuer d’être respectés.
Très fière de l’adoption à l’unanimité de cette motion. pic.twitter.com/dTCS1vDKG6
— Martine Biron (@M_Biron) March 14, 2024
There’s just one problem. That stuff about the Supreme Court finding a problem with the word “woman”, and saying courts should use “person with a vagina” instead? It’s not true.