Holyrood MSPs can't hide behind their parties in gender reform vote

First off, the ruling from Lady Haldane that sex “is not limited to ­biological or birth sex” but that those holding a gender recognition ­certificate can also, for legal purposes, change their sex to their acquired gender.

Fact is, sex is a biological construct. Gender is the preferred identity of the 0.5% of Scots profoundly unhappy with their born one.

Secondly, the successful protest by ­Edinburgh University students which stopped academics screening and then ­debating the film Adult Human Female – a title echoing the long standing ­dictionary definition of a woman.

A university is the traditional forum for debate and ­testing opinion. It’s not supposed to be a pallid echo of the Tories outlawing ­dissent. And in the birthplace of the Scottish ­Enlightenment forbye.

And then the personal. An activist ­writing that it was now clear that those ­opposing the current GRA legislation were being funded by right-wing sources.

That unevidenced assertion will come as something of a surprise to all my left-leaning feminist friends who have ­criticised the ­proposed legislation, as currently ­worded, and who would rather consume their ­toenail clippings than accept funding from the dark side. Really – either show workings, or haud yer wheest.

Every time a feminist journalist expresses opinions in this debate which deviates from the trans activists’ “holy writ” they are the subject of an orchestrated pile on. Which is why so many adult female humans have been bludgeoned into silence.

But these three items, coming as they did before this week’s vote on the ­contentious legislation, have tipped me back into ­rediscovering my feminist voice – and, ­arguably, my spine.

Let’s be quite clear. The fact of having concerns about this legislation does not confer transphobia on those expressing them. In fact very many of the latter have a lifelong attachment to equality for all. Of course trans rights are human rights. So are all minority rights – not even to mention majority rights in the case of women.

Nobody, NOBODY, is accusing trans women of being a danger to others born female. I think we can agree on all sides that the problem is predatory men. And the problem with predatory men is that they are adept at finding ways to target their victims, some of whom may be trans.

Once before, when I ventured into this minefield, I suggested predatory men groomed victims, whereupon I was ­accused of suggesting the trans ­community were latent paedophiles. What kind of twisted mentality would leap to that absurd conclusion?

It’s this kind of hysterical response to expressing an opinion contrary to their own which has raised the toxicity level and stifled honest discussion.

Trans-generational concerns 

ANOTHER vexed question is that of a ­supposed generational divide on this issue. I have one acquaintance who told me she and her daughter can no longer converse on the subject. How sad.

Without being ageist, might I venture to suggest that those of us who fought the good fight for women’s rights over many years and many campaigns are appalled to see those historical rights newly endangered.

The government’s consultation exercise, on its own admission, found “a small ­majority” of organisations supported the proposed legislation. In fact five out of 10 plus one ambivalent. Four were ­opposed. The conclusions of the ­individual ­responses are not recorded.

Now you might wonder, as I certainly have, how such a once fringe issue as this travelled to the top of the Scottish Government’s agenda. And why organisations as disparate as some police forces, the BBC, some public health related bodies and the Scottish Government, became paranoid about the language they deployed.

One reason is that Stonewall, once a much respected organisation promoting gay rights, morphed into one obsessed with trans rights, which persuaded all manner of public bodies to sign up to its Workplace Equality Index.

After which, for a fee, they could improve their ranking via a Diversity Champions Programme. A podcaster called Stephen Nolan ­produced a 10-part investigation into all this after which the BBC departed the index.

I am also indebted to the research ­undertaken by journalist James Kirkcup who wrote about the lobbying playbook in The Spectator three years ago, when the current legislation was but a gleam in certain ministerial eyes.

On the legal website Roll on Friday, James unearthed a guide as to how trans lobbyists could ­proceed in advance of society’s views on the subject chiming (or not) with theirs.

Rather chillingly it purports to explain how to ensure parents don’t get in the way of young people’s wishes. “It is ­recognised that the requirement for parental consent or of a legal guardian can be restrictive and problematic for minors.”

Well yes! Caring parents and ­guardians are usually keen to protect their ­youngsters from taking any premature decisions about their future, not least ­during that period of hormonal confusion we all recall.

The idea that having 16-year-olds live in their preferred identity for six months rather than the paltry three months ­proposed for 18 and above is surely the flimsiest of safeguards – not least in a world where we have organisations ­prepared to supply unknown supplicants with chest bindings.

Activists are fond of telling you that similar legislation has resulted in no ­problems elsewhere.

They’re less keen to observe the differences in the laws passed in these jurisdictions or that, in the words of the lobbying guidance unearthed by Mr Kirkcup: “In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender ­recognition were put through at the same time as more popular reforms such as marriage equality … this provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland where marriage equality was strongly ­supported, but gender identity remained a more ­difficult issue to win public ­support for.”

Red (and Green) lines

IT is beyond doubt that trans people have been forced to traverse an unsuitably rocky road to gain recognition in the gender they wish to acquire. Nobody could gainsay that change was needed, to prevent unwarranted medical intrusion.

What so-called gender-critical feminists object to, and, for that matter, the UN’s special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, is that the legislation, as currently framed, will be subject to the laws of unintended consequences.

That in enshrining some new rights, we’ll lose some very important existing ones.

It is said that the passing of this bill is a red line for the Greens, now of course partners in government.

That would be the same Greens who censured one of their own, much respected MSPs, for having the temerity to go to a meeting to gain some fresh insights into the debate.

I speak as someone who has often given her second vote to them but would need a lot of persuasion to do so again after the defenestration of Andy Wightman (below).

Here is a news flash. Voters have red lines too.

Surely it is not beyond the wit of ­government to devise a law which is much more equitable for our trans community without ditching every and any safeguard.

For instance, reducing the need to stay in your preferred gender from two years to three months is one hell of a leap of faith.

So come on you MSPs who have very real doubts about this bill too. Come out from under your party hats. Have the courage of your inner convictions. Don’t get bullied into complicity.

Those of us who have popped our heads above this parapet know about bullying. Also about the importance of free speech.