BRIAN Forsyth’s claim (Letters, Jan 23) that trans-inclusion campaigners wish “gender identity to be determinative” in all contexts is a straw man. No serious policy position argues for universal primacy of gender identity any more than it argues for the erasure of sex.
What is being sought is recognition that gender identity is a significant factor whose relevance varies by context – sometimes determinative, sometimes informative, sometimes secondary.
That is how law and policy already function across countless domains: factors are weighed, not absolutised. The real harm arises when campaigners insist on the absolute primacy of sex in every setting, regardless of purpose, risk, proportionality, or lived reality. That approach collapses nuance just as surely as the caricature it claims to oppose.
READ MORE: Scottish Greens rekindle ties with Zack Polanski’s party after split
Safeguarding, sport, healthcare, data collection, privacy, and social participation all require different balances. Treating sex as always decisive is not neutrality; it is an ideological shortcut that prevents context-sensitive solutions.
Mature policy-making accepts that more than one characteristic can matter – and that which matters most depends on what problem is actually being solved.
Mr Forsyth is correct about one thing: disagreement about policy is not harassment. Where his argument falters is in repeatedly conflating three quite different domains – sexual consent, personal compatibility, and public policy – and then treating any call for reflection as an attempt to coerce desire.
Most adults already navigate this terrain instinctively, even if they have never articulated it.
A simple decision process makes clear what is being misunderstood. If you are attracted to someone but discover a bodily incompatibility that makes intimacy unworkable for you, declining is not prejudice – it is a boundary. If you are unsure, not ready, or need time to process how you feel, that is also legitimate, provided it is handled respectfully.
READ MORE: Anas Sarwar fails to explain why Pam Duncan-Glancy retains Labour whip
If a behavioural trait, lifestyle, or social context would predictably cause ongoing distress for one or both parties, taking responsibility for that limitation is mature, not discriminatory. None of this requires justification to third parties. Nobody is owed attraction. Reflection becomes relevant only when the sole objection to an otherwise acceptable partner is a personal characteristic with no practical or relational consequence. At that point, no-one is demanding that feelings be overridden; the suggestion is merely that it may be worth asking where those feelings came from – for one’s own sake as much as anyone else’s.
This is not “conversion therapy”, nor the policing of desire. It is the difference between private boundaries and public declarations.
You can decline intimacy quietly and respectfully without announcing exclusions as moral principles or political warnings. Indeed, broadcasting such exclusions is often what reveals prejudice, not the private preference itself.
This distinction rests on durable principles – consent, proportionality, personal agency, respect for privacy, and responsibility for one’s own limits – which is precisely what makes it applicable beyond any single issue or identity category.
It also has a pragmatic dimension: indifference to how one’s expressed prejudices are received is a reliable way to narrow the pool of people willing to consider intimacy, often without ever being told why.
That, too, is a consequence adults are entitled to choose – but not to resent.
If we taught these principles more clearly, in age-appropriate ways, they would remain robust even as social contexts evolve, generating far less heat and considerably more light in public debate.
Ron Lumiere
via email
Share