When it comes to trans people, we've forgotten our manners

Independent

16-02-2025

Regarding Jill Stephenson's letter (' Letters,' Friday 14 February), the 'trouble with trans' arises from an earlier era, where both the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act were largely designed around that small group she refers to, who wish to live their lives as members of the sex opposite to that into which they were born. However, in order to qualify for a Gender Recognition Certificate, one must live as a member of the new gender for two years. Excluding those people on this 'real life test' from women's spaces would effectively create a Catch 22 for such people.
I'm pretty certain that most trans people with GRCs, or seeking one, are deeply concerned about their existing rights being threatened by recent developments after two decades of peace. There have always been people who refute the existence of trans people, even in this category, by virtue of some principle such as religion, politics, or just out of prejudice, but should such people be allowed to determine the lives of those who do want to cross the sex divide? Is being attacked by a man in the past sufficient justification to exclude trans women? What if you'd been attacked by a black man, abused by a priest, a female thug or such like? Could you expect to exclude such people or anyone like them from your working environment?
I don't personally believe that one can change one's physical sex, whatever changes are wrought to one's body, but I do feel there must be room to consider one's mental affiliation with one's gender. The brain remains the most complex and least understood organ in the human body, and we have much to learn about it. What governs sexual orientation, for example, or whether you believe in any religion, why you like or hate reading, music or cucumber, let alone about how you feel about your gender? No one has the answers to these questions.
The current case of the nurse and the doctor sadly appears to be whipping up a storm of anti-transgender comments on social media that is often extremely unpleasant, no doubt defined as free speech by some. There is a danger that this could lead to unfortunate consequences for some poor trans people, just seeking to go about their lives.
There also seems to be an insistence on deliberately disrespecting transgender people's feelings, however hard they try to fit in, for example, calling the person 'he' when they identify as 'she'. It might be old fashioned, but this seems to me just plain rude, like attending a church ceremony as an atheist and then insistently calling the other attendees idiots for believing in such nonsense. Why can't we just have a bit more tolerance and respect for each other's beliefs and feelings?
Name and address supplied
The road (much more) travelled
After reading Simon Calder's article (' Rail strikes, fare rises and broken signals: Why train passengers nationwide are facing continued misery this year,' Saturday 15 February) and your editorial on the cost of railways (' A tough test for Heidi Alexander: just make our railway services reliable,' Saturday 15 February), can we now have a similar investigation into the cost of road transport, highlighting that the payments made by road users do not come anywhere near the cost of highway maintenance?
For instance, VED and excise duty on fuel have not increased for something like 12 years, and the cost of the emergency services attending road traffic incidents is not met, nor hospital costs.
Both rail and road transport are necessary to the country and both are heavily subsidised. I won't mention excise duty on aircraft fuel.
Doug Flack
Derby, Derbyshire
Are prisons fit for purpose?
Amy-Clare Martin's piece on the failure to provide adequate healthcare for prisoners being linked to 40 per cent of all suicides in prison is shocking ("Nearly half of suicides in prisons follow healthcare failures noted by watchdog", 15 February).
It does beg the question: is there any care in prisons?
Kartar Uppal
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands
Otherwise occupied
Casting my mind back to the late naughties and the financial crash, HBOS was one of the banking institutions that required a huge state bailout to survive. The picture emerging concerning Rachel Reeves is one of chaos (' Reeves says she was 'never questioned' over HBOS expenses,' Friday 14 February). A senior management incompetently led such that their expenses were subject to supine policy and procedures that permitted individual interpretation without the usual ethical and moral filters.
It is no wonder that HBOS was reluctant to sustain an effective investigation into their employee's use of credit cards, etc, as it was likely that such practices were commonplace throughout the organisation, such that no-one could see harm inflating semi-official perks. It was also likely not in the bank's interest (and certainly not their benighted customers') to highlight dirty laundry while negotiating a rescue plan.
One can only speculate whether had these expenses investigations occurred in normal times, Rachel Reeves would now be languishing on the back benches.
Bradford on Tone, Taunton
A gulf of empathy
Donald Trump has several times reminded Europeans, including its islanders, that there is an ocean between North America and the European war as a possible justification for reducing or removing military support. But, there are arguably two oceans between the USA and the Levant, yet there has been no suggestion of reducing support for Israel.
A lack of consistency has become a hallmark of the American administration's outbursts and this does not bode well for the next four years.