Earlier this week, a Supreme Court judgment caused a stir in the National Assembly, leading to the unanimous adoption of a motion criticizing the said judgment for having “invisibilised women” by using the the expression “person with a vagina”.
The beginning of this story is a column published on March 13 in the National Postin which it was affirmed that this same judgment of the Supreme Court had preferred not to use the word “woman because it was “problematic”.
But now, in the hours following the adoption of the motion by the National Assembly, we discovered in several press articles that the word “woman” had in fact been used more than 60 times in the judgment in question and that the expression of “person with a vagina”, used only once, was in fact linked to the precise context of the judgment, which concerned a case of sexual assault with vaginal penetration.
This incident is symptomatic of the issues that come with the growing place of columnists in our media ecosystem. Regardless of the political allegiance of its author, a column is not a source of information, but rather a text of opinion.
It is understandable that the average person sometimes has difficulty telling the difference between a factual news article and an opinion piece. The distinction is sometimes subtle. But what is most alarming is that elected representatives are confusing a chronicle of the National Post with a reliable source of information.
The National Assembly is the face of our democracy. Being elected is a privilege that comes with responsibilities. The decisions that are made in the National Assembly, even when they are as symbolic as a motion, have consequences. They have an effect on the public debate surrounding an issue and on our collective perception of current events.
In this situation, the thing to do was to take a break to confirm the veracity of the information reported in the chronicle of the National Post. Unlike the average citizen, our elected officials had access to all the resources necessary to carry out this exercise: press officers with in-depth knowledge of the media ecosystem, political and legal advisors, not to mention their own experience in the matter. We can even note that among the elected officials who co-signed this motion is Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, who practiced as a lawyer for several years before entering politics. The Minister responsible for the Status of Women, Martine Biron, who presented this motion, for her part had a career as a journalist before entering politics. She is therefore well placed to understand the importance of verifying her sources.
Let us repeat: decisions taken in the National Assembly have repercussions on public debate. In this case, it is claimed that the Supreme Court finds the use of the word “women” problematic and has preferred to use the expression “person with a vagina”. According to the National Assembly, the words chosen by the Supreme Court “invisibilize women”. All this in a judgment where the word “woman” is written more than sixty times. What’s more, a judgment eminently favorable to women and victims of sexual assault.
It should be understood that the expression “people with a vagina” or “person with a uterus” is often used in the trans and non-binary community to refer to people assigned female at birth who do not identify as women, and who have not undergone genital surgery. We can talk about trans men or non-binary people. This expression is often used in conjunction with and not in place of the word “woman”. We will use it, for example, to talk about sexual health or menstruation. We could say that this expression constitutes a reasonable accommodation for people for whom being associated with the word “woman” can cause gender dysphoria.
By asserting that the use of the term “person with a vagina” makes women invisible, the deputies of the National Assembly contribute to associating the trans and non-binary community with the invisibility of women in public opinion. Ultimately, such an association risks contributing to the stigmatization of trans people.
In an article from The Press published in the days that followed, the jurist Anne-Marie Boisvert mentioned “If there is a court that is careful with the words it uses, it is the Supreme Court”. The Supreme Court is careful about the words it uses because they can influence case law. They can set precedent in future legal cases. Likewise, our MPs should be careful about the actions they take, because these can set a precedent in public debate.