Refer 'woman' as 'person with a vagina', Canada Supreme Court rules in sexual assault case

In recent times, one of the most heated debates among gender activists, humanists and intellectuals has been over the vocabulary that we use to differentiate between a male and a female. With changing times, when gender has not remained limited to just male or female; and more rungs have been added to the ladder of gender and sex, it becomes crucial to evolve our vocabularies too.

In light of one such event, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled to opt for “person with a vagina” over “woman” in a recent sexual assault case.

The top court judge, Justice Sheilah Martin pointed out that referring to the alleged victim as a “woman” by a lower court judge was “problematic”. She argued that the lower court should have used more appropriate terms like “person with a vagina”.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

Also Read |How Biden administration aims to tackle Chinese EV competition

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.”

‘Person with a vagina’ and not ‘a woman’: Canadian SC ruledin a recent sexual assault case

The case that came to the Canadian top court was that of Charles Kruk, who was allegedly involved in a 2017 charge of sexual assault against34-year-old Maple Ridge.

“Mr. Kruk found the complainant intoxicated, lost, and distressed one night in downtown Vancouver,” reads the background to the case. “He decided to take her to his house, and connected with the complainant’s parents by phone.”

The complainant testified that she woke up to find that her pants were off, and Kruk was vaginally penetrating her. Kruk testified that the complainant’s pants were off because she had removed them herself after spilling water on them earlier in the night and that what she assumed was a rape was actually just Kruk startling her awake.

Also Read |DeltaAir Linesto resume flights to Tel Aviv in June

Justice Martin was of the opinion that instead of using the word “woman”, the complainant, Ridge, was addressed as “person with a vagina”, as it could have created confusion about whom the word was referring to.

Martin, though, 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.”

(With inputs from agencies)