Canada’s Supreme Court finds the word woman to be “problematic”

i mean, we all find women problematic. But, it's better than the alternative.

quote:

---

Supreme Court of Canada Justice Sheilah Martin pictured in March, 2018

---

White chicks - destroyers of worlds.

There are no men in Canada.

quote:

---

Please use the phrase “person with a vagina” to avoid confusion, fellow proletariat.

---

Moderates and Progressives want you to know if a man thinks he is a woman and wants to give birth, you have to refer to him as a "person with a vagina" too. Just ignore the penis.

quote:

---

person with a vagina

---

Well how do I distinguish between women and all liberals?

What if women wake up and stop voting for libs


Nah jk it’ll never happen

quote:

---

“person with a vagina”

---

If only we had a term for that...

Wouldn’t it be offensive to call a trans woman with a surgically created vagina a “person with a vagina” rather than a woman, after he/she/they went through all the trouble? Sure seems like she’s implying trans women can’t have vaginas.

I hate to piss on this reactionary, misogynistic party this late in the thread by bringing reason and logic. Y'all look like you're having so much fun.

But in this case, Justice Martin has a point.

In a sexual assault trial, one issue was whether the assailant penetrated the victim's vagina. The victim testified that the assailant penetrated her vagina with his penis. The defense attorney demanded proof of how the victim would know if something penetrated her vagina. The prosecutor asked the trial judge to take judicial notice that a woman would know if her vagina was penetrated. The defense counsel argued that the prosecutor should be required to bring an expert to testify about whether a woman would know if her vagina was penetrated. The trial judge convicted the assailant reasoning that it “is extremely unlikely that a woman would be mistaken about that feeling [of having a penis inside her]."

To be clear, the issue was not whether the assailant could be convicted based solely on the victim's testimony. The issue was whether a judge can accept a woman's testimony that her vagina was penetrated or whether the prosecutor must bring expert witness to prove that a woman would know if her vagina was penetrated. The prosecutor would still have to prove the other elements of assault: penetration actually occurred, lack of consent, etc.

The court of appeals overturned the conviction because the victim was a woman, and the trial judge was a man. The court of appeals held that the trial judge’s conclusion that it was unlikely that a woman would be mistaken about the feeling of penile-vaginal penetration relied on speculative reasoning and was not the proper subject of judicial notice. In other words, the court of appeals ruled that a male judge cannot determine whether a woman would know if her vagina was penetrated.

The supreme court noted the trial court's unfortunate use of the word "woman" in the trial court's decision. The supreme court reasoned that a "person" knows if they have been physically assaulted, whether by "a punch to the face or a kick to the shins," and an expert witness is not required to support that testimony. Accordingly, the supreme court held:

quote:

---

Where a person with a vagina testifies credibly and with certainty that they felt penile-vaginal penetration, a trial judge must be entitled to conclude that they are unlikely to be mistaken. While the choice of the trial judge to use the words “a woman” may have been unfortunate and engendered confusion, in context, it is clear the judge was reasoning that it was extremely unlikely that the complainant would be mistaken about the feeling of penile-vaginal penetration because people generally, even if intoxicated, are not mistaken about that sensation.

---

In other words, a judge can take judicial notice that a person would know if they have been contacted without consent whether that contact happens in the vagina or anywhere else on their body.