'Supreme Court Gender Decision Achieved Nothing and Was a Waste Of Money'
Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
We typed 'woman' into Google News this morning: it gave us one woman beaten, another poisoned by an unlicensed botox clinic, several women pictured for an objectifying Daily Mail article about 'sex faces'… and an op-ed in the Spectator titled: 'Ofcom still isn't sure what a woman is'.
The latter involves some bloke called Toby complaining about how 'woman' isn't being used properly as a term, as he peddles his own agendas of transphobia and climate-scepticism (his view is that the press should sooner be questioning the climate crisis than the 'clear, scientific, biological definition of a woman'). Looking through this morning's headlines, poor lexicology is the least of women's problems. So fight your fights, Toby, but not in our name.
Eleven weeks on, it seems the Supreme Court ruling described by the British press as "historic" and a "vindication" for "feminism" has achieved quite a lot of nothing. We were told it would bring "clarity" to equality law and reduce male violence in single-sex spaces. In reality, the confusion wrought has seen a new misogyny law thrown out and the Labour women's conference postponed.
'When Hate Spreads Faster Than Truth, Should We Fight Fascism With Censorship?'
Censorship is dangerous, but I am struggling to see how we fight the rising tide of hate and fear without it, writes Mathilda Mallinson
Mathilda Mallinson
Toby says the definition of woman is now a "settled matter". Keir Starmer said "a woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear". And so our first exercise on this week's Media Storm was trying to define an "adult female". But we couldn't pin down a biological criteria that comprehensively captures all cis women. Chromosomes, gonads, genitals, hormone levels, facial hair - someone always falls through the cracks.
The Independent's solution has been to equate "biologically-female" with "assigned-female-at-birth", but that doesn't hold up because transitioning people's biology changes, and so people born male may become biologically female.
Meanwhile, some cis women are born without ovaries, or with a rogue Y chromosome. Imane Khalif was born a woman, given a female birth certificate, and then deemed to have failed one of these modern "biology" readings. Does she now lose protection under UK equality law? If so, do not tell us that was done in our name.
For our part, it seems counterintuitive to put the definition of womanhood to paper - we never felt the need to contemplate it before the media decided to lynch any MP who didn't have a "simple answer". Prescriptive definitions of what a 'woman' should be have never worked in women's interests. Indeed, the entire point of feminism has been challenging restrictive characteristics.
So, clarity? No. We have not been given that.
Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
We typed 'woman' into Google News this morning: it gave us one woman beaten, another poisoned by an unlicensed botox clinic, several women pictured for an objectifying Daily Mail article about 'sex faces'… and an op-ed in the Spectator titled: 'Ofcom still isn't sure what a woman is'.
The latter involves some bloke called Toby complaining about how 'woman' isn't being used properly as a term, as he peddles his own agendas of transphobia and climate-scepticism (his view is that the press should sooner be questioning the climate crisis than the 'clear, scientific, biological definition of a woman'). Looking through this morning's headlines, poor lexicology is the least of women's problems. So fight your fights, Toby, but not in our name.
Eleven weeks on, it seems the Supreme Court ruling described by the British press as "historic" and a "vindication" for "feminism" has achieved quite a lot of nothing. We were told it would bring "clarity" to equality law and reduce male violence in single-sex spaces. In reality, the confusion wrought has seen a new misogyny law thrown out and the Labour women's conference postponed.
'When Hate Spreads Faster Than Truth, Should We Fight Fascism With Censorship?'
Censorship is dangerous, but I am struggling to see how we fight the rising tide of hate and fear without it, writes Mathilda Mallinson
Mathilda Mallinson
Toby says the definition of woman is now a "settled matter". Keir Starmer said "a woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear". And so our first exercise on this week's Media Storm was trying to define an "adult female". But we couldn't pin down a biological criteria that comprehensively captures all cis women. Chromosomes, gonads, genitals, hormone levels, facial hair - someone always falls through the cracks.
The Independent's solution has been to equate "biologically-female" with "assigned-female-at-birth", but that doesn't hold up because transitioning people's biology changes, and so people born male may become biologically female.
Meanwhile, some cis women are born without ovaries, or with a rogue Y chromosome. Imane Khalif was born a woman, given a female birth certificate, and then deemed to have failed one of these modern "biology" readings. Does she now lose protection under UK equality law? If so, do not tell us that was done in our name.
For our part, it seems counterintuitive to put the definition of womanhood to paper - we never felt the need to contemplate it before the media decided to lynch any MP who didn't have a "simple answer". Prescriptive definitions of what a 'woman' should be have never worked in women's interests. Indeed, the entire point of feminism has been challenging restrictive characteristics.
So, clarity? No. We have not been given that.
Activity