AS an academic who has published on matters concerning meaning and synonymy, I have been somewhat startled to see issues such as whether the expression “woman” is synonymous with “adult human female” come to play such a prominent role in the party of which I’ve been a member for more than three decades. Startled and dismayed by the confusion and division which has been engendered at such a crucial stage in our fight to regain our independence.
What it is for a burst of sound or string of letters to have meaning is a very ill-understood thing. What is evident is that meanings, whatever they are, are complex things, that words usually have many, that they shift from context to context, speaker to speaker, time to time.
Regarding the NEC’s new definition of “transphobia”, the whole idea of defining a word has to be treated with great caution. In maths a system of precise, non-trivial, non-circular definitions plays a key role; however elsewhere in science and ordinary language most words are indefinable in any strict sense, their meanings thoroughly interlinked. Beware, in particular, the brandishers of dictionaries who seem to think it scientific and rigorous to demand one define terms. Citing a dictionary definition such as “women are adult human females” establishes little; from the other direction, pointing out that “female” can’t be defined, for example in terms of chromosomal type, does not in the least show there are no females. Nor do intersex individuals show there are no males nor females; most systems of categories fail to apply determinately to everything in their range. Similar arguments would show there are no atoms, planets, indeed no people.
True, we do need definitions, in medicine, in law, and in disciplinary rule books. We need some criteria for applying the term “racism”, notwithstanding that “race” is an unscientific term, in order to have a rule-based way of rooting racists out. But judgement and good sense have to be used in applying these rough and ready definitions. Some aspects of the new transphobia definition, though it contains much which is valuable, cause me concern. In particular the claim that “referring to a trans woman as a ‘biological man’” is an example of deliberate misgendering (scare-quotery is always a danger signal).
This seems to row back the implicit acceptance earlier in the definition that biological sex is real (indeed the concept of “gender” makes no sense without it). And this makes me worry that the post-modernist, anti-scientific fringe of transactivism, whose confused arguments would see them flunk a first-year philosophy course, have laid down roots in the party.
Where next? Will there be no gynaecology or obstetrics in an independent Scotland? Will scholars who suggest that the oppression of women throughout human history has something to do with the fact that most are females with a distinctive biological role in reproduction be hounded out of our universities? The threat to freedom of speech from these quarters is real. But all sides on this (and other) debates in the party need to acknowledge that differences of deeply felt opinion do not of themselves amount either to misogyny or transphobia.
It is true that which words we use matters. We can’t make “fenian” or “terf” neutral terms just by saying so, or just because they once were or are in certain contexts. The party is certainly justified in rooting out use of these terms. But we need to live with the fact that some terms, like “woman”, are contested. I have no problem with affirming transwomen are women. True at my age, it feels a bit strange to say, to put it in Scots, that some weemin huv tadgers. But words change meaning.
I can see how traditional feminists resist applying “woman” to biological males, particularly those who do not intend transitioning, just as I can see how some people of colour are unhappy with whites whose empathy with them extends to calling themselves black. I think, however, that traditional feminists should reflect more on why transwomen, whose disruption of deeply rooted traditional norms exposes them to so much hatred and danger, and many of whom place much more emphasis on behavioural and psychological characteristics than biological, should feel a deep need to categorise themselves as “women”. But we must not leap to the conclusion that the one side must therefore by transphobic.
We must debate these things openly and respectfully, and not shout down people who differ from us. My fear is that the current definition may be used to do the latter.
Professor Emeritus Alan Weir (writing in a personal capacity)
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel