Scottish Greens are out of touch on answer to 'what is a woman?'

 “What is a woman?” used to suggest a straightforward answer, but over recent years and months, this question has posed a real challenge to many public figures.

In the For Women Scotland v the Scottish Ministers case, our highest judicial minds are required to examine and pronounce on the definition of “woman”, and their answer will affect many aspects of our social, cultural, legal and political life, and indeed, our well-being. For men, this has seemed a simple matter. For women, however, and for same-sex attracted folk, the new uncertainty creates a radical threat to their safety and wellbeing.

The outcome of the appeal that is to be heard on 26 and 27 November will determine the legal meaning of the term "woman". More specifically, the five judges of the Supreme Court will consider the question whether a person with a full Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) that describes the holder’s gender as female, is a "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.  For Women Scotland have challenged the Scottish Government’s guidance on this point. They maintain that the definition of woman in the Equality Act is tied to natal biological sex and hope that the Supreme Court will declare the Scottish Government’s guidance to be unlawful.

Definitions matter. Uncertainty in this area follows on from the confusion between “sex” and “gender”, or “gender identity”, the latter being a term that has come into mainstream use very recently. Sex is a biological reality and both the site of and excuse for women’s oppression. It should not be confused, or merged, with “gender”. The latter is a social construct informed by historical roles and stereotypes that are associated with, but not intrinsically linked to, the two sexes.

Women and girls currently have the right to sex-based protections, including female-only spaces. They also have a right to socialise and organise themselves in the absence of members of the opposite sex. A dismissal of For Women Scotland’s appeal would mean that these rights may not be protected after all. Alongside female victims of male violence, it is lesbians who would pay the highest price, because the rights of same-sex attracted people are contingent upon the understanding that “sex” means “biological sex”.

Organisations that continue to provide the single-sex services and spaces that vulnerable and traumatised women want may find that government funding of their services gets further restricted. In other words, Scottish Government-approved guidance and funding requirements could be used to undermine the existing legal provision for exceptions to trans-inclusive services.

The days the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the appeal happen to coincide with the first anniversary of the Scottish Green Women’s Declaration (SGWD). The SGWD signatories represent, but are not restricted to, members and former members of the Scottish Green Party (SGP) who have been expelled or suspended from the party for their sex-realist views, or left in frustration.  

The need for such an initiative arose in 2018, when the SGP formally adopted the dogma that ‘trans women are women and trans men are men’, which effectively removes any rights specific to the sexes. Critics have consistently been sidelined and open debate at a national level has proved impossible. Public support for the Scottish Green Women’s Declaration was deemed incompatible with party membership, which resulted in 13 of its founding signatories being expelled. We consider this to be out of line with Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom of opinion and expression).

Alongside our defence of these rights, we fully support the recommendations of the 2024 Cass Report, which evaluated gender services for children and young people in England. Cass highlights the dangers that unqualified support for “trans rights” entails for vulnerable individuals affected by gender confusion, and for people whose role it is to protect them (parents, teachers, clinicians, etc). The refusal by the SGP leadership to accept the report’s findings and recommendations has rightly been described as science denial.

This irrational approach to gender identity matters has contributed to a growing perception of the SGP as an extremist party that is out of touch with mainstream concerns and has been detrimental to the party’s public standing. Many members have left the party over this issue or stepped back from active involvement, causing significant damage to several local branches.

The SGWD group promotes policies that are rooted in biology and scientific progress more generally. It is committed to the protection of women as a biological category, to the safeguarding of children, young people and vulnerable adults, and to justice and saving the planet for future generations. We are inspired by the achievements of equivalent groups in other parties, most notably Green Women’s Declaration in England and Wales and Labour Women’s Declaration. Even more encouraging are policy reversals in other countries that have secured single-sex provisions as originally intended, restored fairness and safety for women in sport, and addressed the mindset and practices in their health services that have failed too many gender-questioning children and young people.

We hope that Scotland won’t be far behind.

Mary MacCallum Sullivan on behalf of the Scottish Green Women’s Declaration