At a meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research on science policy, federal research grants, DEI, and women in STEM, Conservative MP Vincent Neil Ho asked Canadian Chief Science Advisor Dr. Mona Nemer about her background as a molecular geneticist.
Nemer confirmed her credentials, and Ho asked, “So you know a thing or two about X and Y chromosomes. So, I want to ask you, what is the definition of a woman?”
Liberal MP John-Paul Danko immediately interrupted. “Point of order, Chair. Point of order! It is Pride Month and under Standing Order 18, which prohibits personal attacks, insults, and offensive language, the accusation — the question is highly offensive. Highly offensive. I ask the member to withdraw his comments.”
The chair told Ho to “be respectful of everybody,” and he tried again. “Thank you, Madam Chair. The census asked that question — you know, what is your gender, what is your sex — so I just want to understand what your view is on this.”
This time, Liberal MP Taleeb Noormohamed jumped in. “Point of order, Madam Chair. The witness is here in her capacity as the Chief Science Advisor. Her opinion on any matter as an individual is actually not relevant to her mandate.”
Nemer, to her credit, answered the question. “Genetically speaking, we define female as in the animal kingdom as someone with two X chromosomes.”
“When we had the NRC president here last week on this committee and he seemed to think that the definition of a woman is just a check box, so I just want to get some clarity on that,” Ho replied. “Thank you for that. And it’s important because we have events — like you had an event you were attending back in February about success of women in STEM — it’s important that we know what the definition of a woman would be because we’re celebrating the achievements of women in STEM.”
Ho’s question was condemned for three primary reasons. First, Danko was appalled that Ho would ask a question that inherently undermines the premises of transgender ideology during the (gasp!) Sacred Liturgical Month of Pride. Second, Liberals recognize that a discussion on the definition of a woman is lose-lose for them. Announcing their commitment to the LGBT movement is one thing — trying to explain the insanity of gender ideology to normie Canadian voters is another.
Finally, Danko was worried that the chief science advisor might say something along the lines of what she ended up saying. Thus, you have Liberal MPs, during a discussion about women in STEM, desperately trying to shut down a question that respectfully asks that perhaps it might be important to define the terms.
“Apart from the adolescent behaviour, what exactly were the Liberals doing?” Michael Higgins asked in the National Post. “Why do they find the mere question offensive and insulting? Are they trying to cancel half of the population? Matters continued outside the committee room with Danko tweeting, ‘Absolutely disgusting anti-trans behaviour by @vincentneilho during pridemonth – deliberately generating hatred, division and bigotry. And he’s proud of himself.’”
Well, yeah. By asking a simple definitional question, Danko had a complete meltdown. Apparently asking someone to define “woman” during a conversation about women is “disgusting anti-trans behavior.” Liberal MP Doug Eyolfson made the same accusation, posting on X: “@vincentneilho engaging in a disgraceful transphobic line of questioning during Science and Research Committee and then bragging about it. CPC. HQ seems to think that this is acceptable behaviour in its MP’s.”
Higgins noted that the UK High Court recently affirmed that the term “woman” does, in fact, mean “adult human female,” a ruling that was both a victory and also emphasized the extent to which gender ideology has corroded our collective grasp of reality to begin with.https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/2065085134273917116?s=20
The Conservative Party would do well to take note of this meltdown and should ask the Liberals to answer this question on every occasion. The Liberals want to be both the party of feminism and the party of transgenderism — and, as we saw on Monday, they cannot be both.
