Latest news with #selfID
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
EUAN McCOLM: Harsh reality has failed to penetrate Swinney's armour, but it's time he reconnected with reality over gender turmoil
Anas Sarwar's U-turn on self-ID for trans people was humiliating but entirely necessary. Having whipped his MSPs to support the SNP Government's crackpot plan to dismantle women's rights and allow anyone to enter the single-sex spaces of their choosing, the Scottish Labour leader later came to his senses. Interviewed on the Holyrood Sources podcast in February, Mr Sarwar said that, had he known at the time of the gender reform vote in December 2022 what he later learned, he would not have backed a change in the law. The Labour's boss's volte face coincided with public outcry over the case of nurse Sandie Peggie, who was subjected to a disciplinary procedure by NHS Fife after she complained that she should not have to share a changing room with trans-identifying doctor, Beth Upton. After two weeks of tribunal hearings in February, Ms Peggie's claims of discrimination and harassment against the health board and Dr Upton will resume on July 16. Former Conservative Scottish Secretary, Alister Jack, has already saved MSPs from themselves on the issue of self-ID. In 2023, he blocked reform of the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland on the grounds that such a change in the law would negatively impact with the UK-wide Equality Act of 2010. But First Minister John Swinney remains solidly convinced that the failed law - which would have destroyed women's sex-based rights - was wise. Appearing last week on the Holyrood Sources podcast, Mr Swinney was asked about Mr Sarwar's U-turn. Would the First Minister have supported reform of the Gender Recognition Act in 2022 if he'd known what he does now? Harsh reality cannot penetrate the First Minister's armour. 'Yes, I would,' said Mr Swinney. And then he used a line favoured by weasels who reject the idea that allowing men to identify as women might bring with it come complications. The First Minister told the podcast that he was 'trying to improve the lives of a very small number of people in our society who I think have an incredibly hard time.' Gender activists have long focused on the relatively small number of trans-identifying individuals as if this fact makes their ideology any less dangerous. The fact is the demands of these activists impacts everyone, particularly women. Take women's sport, for example. The entry into a women's race or boxing tournament of a biological male disadvantages every female participant. Likewise, every time someone born male is permitted to take a woman's place on a protected short-list or to enter a single-sex space such as a changing room or a domestic violence shelter, others pay a heavy price. But the pernicious effect of gender ideology is felt far beyond 'flashpoints' such as arguments over single-sex spaces. In fact, it has seeped into every aspect of modern life. Organisations across the public and private sectors have ignored their legal responsibilities in order to permit self-ID, despite the law being quite clear that, when it comes so single-sex safe spaces, biology trumps all else. The publication, today, of a new report into the impact of gender ideology on the world of academia shows just how deeply the 'trans women are women' mantra of gender activists has penetrated universities across the country. Professor Alice Sullivan of University College London was commissioned by the UK Government to examine the effect of gender ideology on academic freedom. Her findings make for deeply disturbing reading. Professor Sullivan's report - 'Barriers to research on sex and gender' - was commissioned by the UK Government's Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The academic found that the last decade has seen the emergence of a culture of hostility towards anyone who shares so-called 'gender critical' views. Across 17 categories, including 'self-censorship' and 'bullying, harassment and ostracism', Professor Sullivan found academics had been silenced on issues of sex and gender. John Swinney may be able to content himself that to acquiesce to the demands of trans activists is to do no more than offer assistance to a few vulnerable people, but Professor Sullivan's report shatters that idea. In the course of her research, the academic - who previously published a report exposing the damage caused by inaccurate recording of sex by UK institutions - found that vital scientific research, including studies on the effects of medical interventions like puberty blockers, and data collection on sex - has been undermined by universities' failure to address coordinated campaigns to silence academics deemed guilty of such wrong-think as 'a woman is an adult human female.' Professor Sullivan says her research raises 'stark concerns' and highlights cases where researchers investigating vital issues have been subjected to sustained campaigns of intimidation simply for acknowledging the biological and social importance of sex. Among the many academics interviewed by Professor Sullivan was Sarah Pedersen, Professor of Communication and Media at Robert Gordon University, who was targeted by activists after expressing the perfect rational view that biological sex is real. Professor Pedersen says the 'cancellation' of high-profile gender-critical academics has damaged the entire higher education sector. 'My personal experiences of disruption, no-platforming and personal attacks,' she adds, 'have impacted not just my academic career but also my work for third-sector organisations, who were warned away from working with me, meaning they could no longer benefit from my expertise.' Professor Sullivan has made a list of 20 recommendations to the UK Government and to academic institution which she hopes will defend research and protect individual academics from both professional and personal attacks. These include such simple steps as agreeing to prioritise the search from truth over adherence to political agendas and enabling 'genuine' academic debate. The Scottish Government should pay attention. In a fortnight, Sandie Peggie's tribunal will recommence in Dundee. The devastating impact of gender ideology on the lives of ordinary people will, once again, dominate the news agenda. John Swinney is a fool if he thinks voters still buy the line that reforming gender laws will impact a tiny proportion of the population. Ms Peggie's case shows clearly the harms done to women by the removal of long-established boundaries. In workplaces across the country, the demands of trans activists have made the lives of women miserable. Those same campaigners have been allowed to destroy the careers of dedicated academic and wreck important research, all in the name of making life easier for 'a very small number of people.' It's time for John Swinney to reconnect with reality and stop pandering to activists whose demands do nothing but harm.
Daily Mail
27-05-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
EUAN McCOLM: In praise of JK Rowling - the one-woman crowdfunder backing women who told truth about sex and gender
For years, now, women have been losing jobs after daring to express the view that biology is real and important. Companies and public bodies, captured by the demands of extremist trans activists, have exacted cruel punishments on those expressing perfectly mainstream - and legal - views on sex and gender. Inevitably, tribunals have followed a number of these cases. During these, we've heard horrifying details of women treated abominably by employers in thrall to campaigners who urged and enforced the illegal adoption of self-ID policies when it came to single-sex spaces. We've heard of women bullied and shunned for questioning the right of those born male to self-identify into women's spaces, from changing rooms to domestic violence refuges. Equally inevitably, those women capable of fighting back have been winning legal actions. But even a rock solid case does not make it easy to retaliate. Good lawyers are expensive and the process is draining, both physically and emotionally. For every woman who has triumphed in court, there are many more for whom launching a legal case seemed impossible. The establishment by the novelist and philanthropist JK Rowling of a fund to support women's legal protection of their rights immediately removes any financial barriers to action for those with viable cases. The intervention of Ms Rowling should, right now, be concentrating minds in human resources departments across the country. Since the Supreme Court ruled, last month, that sex, in law, was a matter of biology rather than paperwork, a number of organisations - in both the public and private sectors - have issued statements announcing their decisions to 'consider' the implications for their policies. This widespread and reckless complacency stands to cost companies - and taxpayer-funded bodies - dear. The facts are simple. If a service is offered on a single sex basis that means biological sex, not personal identity. The law is the law and no further consideration is required in order for employers to meet their obligations under it. A number of past legal actions after women were unfairly dismissed or bullied out of jobs for refusing to agree with the mantra 'trans women are women' were possible thanks to the support of online crowd-funding campaigns. Ms Rowling frequently promoted - and donated to - such fundraisers. Now, she's a one-woman crowd-funder, ready to back the cases of every woman wronged at work for speaking the truth about sex. The JK Rowling Women's Fund will transform the battlefield when it comes to women discriminated against for their legitimate, reality-based views. At the heart of industrial tribunals there may be vulnerable people playing for high stakes but the human cost means nothing to the insurers underwriting employers' costs. For them, it's all about the bottom line and the prospect that every woman with a case now has access to the best lawyers in the business will, I suspect, encourage many to urge settlement rather than the humiliation, and inevitable cost, of more doomed defences. If one required proof that women's rights are in need of the fiercest protection, it came in the response to the launch of Ms Rowling's fund. With delicious pathos, one activist lawyer declared online that the Harry Potter creator had 'emerged from the shadows' as the funder of what he described as the 'anti feminist biology is destiny movement'. Ms Rowling has never been in the shadows when it comes to her views on women's rights, has she? Other responses were, predictably, more violent in tone. The ongoing tribunal involving nurse Sandie Peggie, claiming discrimination and harassment against NHS Fife and trans-identifying doctor Beth Upton, brought the issue of the way so called 'gender critical' women had been treated at work to wide attention. This is a case that 'cut through' with the public and forced some politicians to address an issue they preferred to avoid. Scottish Labour's leader Anas Sarwar and his deputy, Jackie Baillie, announced their support for Ms Peggie and declared their belief in the importance of biological sex. If they'd known what they know now, they added, they would not have voted in favour of the SNP's ultimately doomed plan to allow anyone to self-identify into the legally-recognised sex of their choosing. But while the Peggie case and the subsequent ruling on the legal meaning of sex by the Supreme Court may have forced a humiliating U-turn by the Labour leadership on the matter of biological reality, others remain stubbornly committed to defiance of the law. Naturally, the Scottish Greens - a great Wodehousian satire of a revolutionary cell - remain committed to the use of single-sex spaces by anyone who feels they belong to that sex. There have been recent statements of resistance from trade unions, too. Unison has permitted a trans woman to run for a women-only position on its national executive council. But every act of performative defiance by well-funded trade unions - or taxpayer-funded local authorities and health boards - is another costly legal action in the making. It should not have been necessary for JK Rowling to guarantee to underwrite the legal costs of women discriminated against for their views on sex and gender. Nobody should ever have lost a job, a promotion, or a contract on the basis of their view that sex is immutable and important. Nor should the novelist have felt it necessary to establish, in 2022, Beira's Place, a women-only support service for victims of sexual violence in the Lothian area. Ms Rowling's decisions to fund Beira's Place and to underwrite the legal costs of women discriminated against for believing in the reality of sex are acts of feminist philanthropy which, in a world not made batty by gender ideology, would have been hailed by our political leaders. I know that recognition is the last thing on the writer's mind but isn't it downright weird that, when he talks of the achievements of successful Scots, First Minister John Swinney never mentions the support Beira's Place has given to hundreds of women? Money is not the only thing women taking action to defend their rights need. Ask anyone who has been through the tribunal process and they'll tell you that the emotional support of friends and allies is essential. This comfort will not be in short supply for those women who receive backing for their cases from the JK Rowling Women's Fund. The writer is part of an international network of campaigners, fighting to protect women's rights against the demands of trans activists, and calls to action and support do not go unheeded. Let the nation's human resources departments brace themselves. A most remarkable plot twist has just been written.
Telegraph
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Nicola Sturgeon: I do not need to apologise to women after Supreme Court ruling
A defiant Nicola Sturgeon has refused to apologise for her gender policy after the Supreme Court ruled trans women are not women. The former first minister said she did not need to say sorry to women for legislation tabled by her government that would have allowed biological men to change legal gender by simply signing a declaration. In her first substantive comments on the April 16 ruling, Ms Sturgeon said feminists who took the Scottish Government to court did not represent 'every woman in the country'. She claimed women with concerns about self-ID were outnumbered two-to-one by those who 'have a different view' about the policy. 'Lives could become unliveable' Although she said she accepted the court's ruling, she warned the manner in which it will be 'translated into practice' could make 'the lives of trans people almost unliveable'. She said she would be 'very concerned' if interim advice issued by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) that only biological women can use female-only safe spaces 'became the final guidance'. But Joanna Cherry KC, a former SNP MP who opposed self-ID, accused Ms Sturgeon of branding women who opposed self-ID as 'bigots' and said her behaviour had been 'a disgrace'. Ms Sturgeon's intervention came during her first appearance at the Scottish Parliament since the ruling. The Glasgow Southside MSP has been accused of going into hiding and 'moral cowardice' for failing to respond to the judgment. Ms Sturgeon's only previous comments on the landmark ruling have been that that 'my views are well known', after she was tracked down at an SNP event in Glasgow. Her government's controversial Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill introducing gender self-ID was passed at Holyrood but vetoed by the UK Government over concerns it undermined women's safe spaces. But it has emerged that swathes of Scotland's public sector adopted self-ID all the same, allowing trans people access to female toilets and changing rooms. Experts have warned these practices will have to be scrapped following the Supreme Court's ruling that the definition of a woman is based on biological sex, and does not include trans women. Ms Sturgeon has previously claimed some opponents of the GRR Bill were transphobic. In January 2023, the month before she stepped down as first minister, she said: 'You'll also find that they're deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well.' 'I fundamentally disagree' Asked about calls for her to apologise to Ms Cherry and For Women Scotland, the group that brought the court case, Ms Sturgeon said: 'On both of those I fundamentally disagree, fundamentally and respectfully disagree.' Pressed why she should not say sorry, the former first minister insisted that 'all opinions' were taken into account before the GRR Bill was passed with the support of MSPs across all parties. She added: 'I've always actually recognised the different views on this, but I think it's important that respect runs in both directions. 'For every woman that I know or who contacts me, and I appreciate that that is not every woman in the country, for every one that contacts me or who I know personally with concerns about this, there are probably another two who have a different view. 'So for any group or any individual, me included, to say that their view is the only view that carries weight or the only view that has support, I just think is fundamentally (wrong).' Ms Sturgeon also claimed the court ruling was only 'purportedly' about women's rights, emphasising that she was using this 'word deliberately.' Although she said she accepted it was 'the law of the land', she denied her government had been acting unlawfully and said the question was whether it could be implemented in a manner that protected women while allowing 'trans people to live their lives with dignity'. 'I think that remains to be seen. I think some of the early indications would raise concerns, in my mind that we are at risk of making the lives of trans people almost unliveable,' she told reporters at Holyrood. 'I don't think the majority of people in the country would want to see that. It certainly doesn't make a single woman any safer to do that, because the threat to women, as I think we all know comes from predatory and abusive men.' The interim EHRC advice states that 'trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' and vice versa, 'as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities.' The equalities watchdog's final guidance is due to be published by the summer and Ms Sturgeon said she hoped this was not the same as the interim version because of the impact on trans people. 'Nicola Sturgeon betrayed women' Rachael Hamilton, the Scottish Tory deputy leader, said: 'Nicola Sturgeon betrayed women and divided Scotland with her reckless gender self-ID policy, yet she still can't bring herself to apologise. 'For years she arrogantly dismissed the concerns of women and girls that their rights and safety were being sacrificed, as she parroted the views of extremist gender activists and ensured they were adopted across Scotland's public sector. ' Gender self-ID was always nonsense – and now the Supreme Court has declared it unlawful too.' Ms Cherry, the former Edinburgh South West MP, tweeted: 'Nicola Sturgeon is trying to rewrite history (again) but I & all the women who fought to protect our rights haven't forgotten that she called our views 'not valid' and branded us bigots etc. Her behaviour was a disgrace & an existential threat to our democracy.' Susan Smith, a For Women Scotland director, asked whether Ms Sturgeon cared that 'self-ID policies made women's lives unliveable'. She said: 'Women's dignity, privacy, and safety were compromised daily and many self-excluded from hospitals and rape crisis centres, or withdrew from sports. 'Polling makes it very clear that most people support the ruling but we suppose that a woman who can't even bring herself to acknowledge that double rapist Isla Bryson is a man, is capable of any level of self-delusion.'
