What’s a ‘Real’ Woman?

by Les May

IN recent days the ‘Twitterati’ have been busy tearing into each other about this question after an author of books for children ‘tweated’ a comment on the subject.

As anyone who reads NV will know I am a critic of the ‘Cocks in Frocks’ brigade who expect to declare they are ‘trans-gender’ and insist that everyone else accept it without question. But, as I have made clear previously, I am happy to treat any ‘trans-sexual’ person who has had gender reassignment surgery and the hormone treatment entailed, as a woman. For me the bottom line is whether they have shown the level of commitment to being a woman which is needed if they are required to lose their wedding tackle.

Is a trans-sexual woman a ‘real’ woman? Take a blood sample, send it to a cytologist, and he or she will tell you it came from someone with a Y chromosome, indicating the person was born a male. So as a biologist I must answer ‘No’ to this question. But that does not mean I cannot choose to treat the person as a woman both legally and socially, ‘real’ or not. I choose to do so because such a person would pass the ‘duck test’. (If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.) In this I differ from people like the author Germaine Greer and some of my friends.

This is a situation for which there is already at least one precedent.

Between 1965 and 1967 someone I have known all my life adopted three small children, all under 4 months of age. Three times he stood in court whilst the judge made it very clear that from the moment the Adoption Order was made he was responsible for every aspect of that child’s welfare and well being.

Is he the ‘real’ father? A DNA test would show that he is not related to any of the children, nor they to each other. So as a biologist I must answer ‘No’ to this question. (He simply says he’s their Dad.)

From the moment the adoption order was made he was treated by the state, and the organs of the state, as that child’s father. Legally that is what he now was and still is. The child acquired a new identity, its birth certificate was changed and it took his surname.

Not only is he considered for all legal purposes as the children’s father, socially he passes the ‘duck test’. For 50+ years his family and his friends have accepted that he is the children’s ‘father’, not withstanding the DNA evidence to the contrary. His children and grandchildren accept it too.

So what has this got to do with trans-sexual people? A Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) is the legal equivalent of an ‘Adoption Order’. Discriminate against people with a GRC and, to be consistent, you should declare your willingness to discriminate against people who adopt children and the children themselves.

But there is a wider lesson to be learned here. Some children are ‘difficult’ to place for adoption, wrong age, wrong abilities, wrong colour, spring to mind. Demands for amendment of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to allow ‘self certification’ centre around the stringency of the procedure and the time it takes. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever suggested that adoption law be changed to allow the procedure to be made less stringent and permit potential parents to ‘self certify’. This would no doubt make placing ‘difficult’ children much easier. It won’t happen because we recognise the potential for abuse of the system. The fear is that changes to the GRA would lead to similar abuses of the system.

If you are an adoptive parent and anything I have written above about ‘real’ parents has made you a little uncomfortable, that was not my intention. There’s more to being a mum or dad than sharing a few thousand base pairs of DNA. Families are made not born.

****************