The author of the National Post
story opinion piece may have read the SC decision and on isolating the one instance that the phrase "person with a vagina" was used, decided to make it the basis for "click bait". Totally understandable when viewed in the light of the current lack of journalism standards, especially in some publications. But that doesn't make it the focus of the court's decision.
In the
SC's decision, "woman" was used 26 other times without any suggestion that it be replaced by the other descriptive phrase. Similarly, "vagina" was used 40 other times also without making it part of that phrase. Penis, anal and penetration are also liberally used in the court's written decision. So one can reasonably assume what the referenced cases were about.
If one can't be bothered to read the decision, my unlearned take on it is, the Court of Appeal overturned two convictions because they decided that two judges erred by making assumptions that had not been presented as evidence by the Crown or in the testimony of the victim. In what was probably the reference to "unfortunate" use of the word "woman", the trial judge (a man) had concluded it was unlikely that a "woman" would be mistaken about the feeling of penile-vaginal penetration. The Court of Appeal had focused on that assumption and decided since no evidence had been provided on "how" that specific victim, when she testified, had known the
slimy piece of shit who raped her (my personal opinion) was inside her, then the trial judge had engaged in speculative reasoning not based on the evidence and thus new trials had been ordered. The Supreme Court basically said the Appeals Court was wrong and ordered the convictions restored.
The only one who is suggesting that "person with a vagina" will be the new term in law is the idiot who wrote the drivel in the NP.