October 28, 2022 - 10:30am
Far from being a rabid bunch of far-Right ideologues, the Tories at Westminster are blinded by a reflex liberalism in which moral questions are treated as a matter for individual conscience.
The latest evidence of these political tendencies came on Thursday, as — unimpeded by even the faintest opposition from Westminster — Scotland moved a step closer to allowing people to ‘self-declare’ their gender with Holyrood’s vote on the Gender Recognition Act ‘reform’. This is a measure that would effectively render the sex marker on a birth certificate a matter for individual preference and some minimal paperwork.
Nine SNP MSPs defied the whip to vote against the Bill, with the SNP’s community safety minister, Ash Regan, resigning from her post at the last minute to do so. Away from the corridors of power, the policy has prompted fierce opposition by campaign groups. But still more than the SNP’s apparent disregard for the voices of ordinary women, what should concern us is Westminster’s myopia in allowing this legislation to proceed.
The history of ‘gender identity’ legislation is one of political short-sightedness about its far-reaching implications. When the Gender Recognition Act was debated in 2004, many at the time viewed it as a trivial and politically cost-free step on the golden path of social progress. Little regard was given to (for example) the ways in which it would interact with the Equality Act, or with safeguarding measures across bodies such as schools, hospitals and prisons. As a result, feminists have spent the best part of two decades in an uphill battle over the legal fiction that someone can change sex.
Should Scotland pass these measures, the knock-on effects will be even more chaotic. For example, it’s not difficult to imagine males circumventing medical gatekeeping on legal changes — the sex marker on a birth certificate — by doing the paperwork in Scotland. How will this interact with service provision in England? The potential for chaos is near-limitless.
More troubling still, the UK will then in effect be operating two distinct legal definitions of personhood simultaneously within a borderless political union. Scotland will have enshrined in law a conception of personhood for which biological sex is officially irrelevant. Meanwhile, in England sex will remain both legally and politically significant — not least, as a protected characteristic — and thus still inseparable from what a person is.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSurely this is the perfect issue for Kemi Badenoch’s new Equalities Ministry. In one move she could strike a blow for both anti-Woke Traditionalism and the Union. I suspect it would be worth 10 percentage points in the polls for the Conservatives.
kemi is very smart. So it would be surprising if she missed the opportunity.
“Traditionalism” ? I think ‘biology’ is probably enough !
Good point, Graeme.
And imagine the thrill this would give Little Jimmy Krankie. She’d be in her element over ruled my Westminster.
It is starting to pull the SNP apart..the first minister, albeit a junior one, resigns, and it is thought the budget minister Katie Forbles, presently away on doubtless wonderful, but also convenient , pregnancy leave.
The SNP have been able to shrug off all manner of scandals and incompetence, partly because Westminister looks even worse, and partly because *the cause*, has been allowwed to trump ordinary political realities.
But the GRA act has been one pill to big to swallow..Sturgeon is almost silent on it, as she often is when a piece of opportunistic leaping aboard a bandwago, turns out to be the worst sort of rackety carriage heading in the entirely opposite direction.
Silence is how Sturgeon shows she wants to reverse ferret out of a situation. This one was a lovely, wokey, bonus point festival issue, now it’s toxic and damaging expect large changes to the bill as it is presently written.
In a sane world, anyone changing (or attempting to change) a vital record to indicate a sex other than the true biological sex at birth would be prosecuted for fraud. This is dangerous lunacy.
“Dangerous lunacy”. Could not agree more.
Indeed.
Mary states…..”A political union cannot remain internally divided on such a fundamental question.”
I would argue that if a society cannot agree on the basic question as to whether one is a man or a woman, it is doomed as a society. Is there any question more basic?
If someone wants to retroactively falsify government records to accord with their delusions, the answer should be a resounding ‘No’. This shouldn’t be a discussion and yet here we are..
I was going to say that you wouldn’t be able to self identify as belonging to another race in case it interfered with diversity statistics but actually such is the value of minority status that large numbers of individuals who are at best of mixed ethnic origin identify as black despite their actual skin tone being no darker than that of a lightly tanned Caucasian.
I suppose the next self-identity scam may centre on age. The young self-identifying as of pensionable age for all the free things the old are granted for having paid their dues.
There are many such cases in academia: Elizabeth Warren, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, etc. So many more are getting away with it, especially in Canada and Australia where I met many pale poseurs. Given that maths – like grammar – is now ‘racist’, I would say that the groundwork is already in place for age self-identification.
I agree! Unfortunately it is a devolved matter and Westminster cannot impose its will. One can only hope that sense prevails.
If one of “Them” arrives in a Moslem country and is not what he/she claims then when they come out of prison they will be a much chastened person. If called upon to take action the UK Foreign Office should just pass the problem to Wee Krankie. Lets see how she gets on in that situation.
Such differences between England and Scotland pre-date the SNP hegemony in the Scottish Parliament. For example, homosexual acts were legalized in England in 1967 (Sexual Offences Act, 1967), but not until 1981 in Scotland (Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980).
When trying to understand SNP policy, bear in mind that you only have to be 16 to vote in Scottish Parliament elections. The SNP realised that gender self-ID would be a great way of garnering votes from the otherwise politically apathetic Scottish youth. Scottish youth may not care about the deteriorating health service and education system or the poor job prospects, but they get really hot under the collar about so-called “transphobia”.
I have never understood the SNP or the independence movement in general – they want to leave the UK union (a perfectly respectable belief) just to hand over that new found independence to Brussels? I personally think England should start considering its exit from this union. It would remove the SNP’s favourite go to bogeyman and victimhood quest at a stroke, would force the SNP (eventually) to be honest with the people about what an independent Scotland can afford. Regrettable but i think this union has run its course.
For me the explanation is clear: resentment and envy against the old enemy. Unable or unwilling to see beyond their own blinkered small minded nationalistic prejudice, they refuse to see themselves as an integral part of one country: the UK. Consequently, they pursue fantasy politics in which they opt for the EU as new benefactors as opposed to England. Reverting to type, of course, they will soon learn to hate the new hand that feeds, but at least it will be preferable to being dependent on handouts from their imagined betters south of the border. Like you, I think England should get rid of these SNP profligate reprobates. Call their bluff. If at some time in the future, they wish to re-join the UK, Westminster needs to make it clear that there will be no more devolution and no more preferable and unfair treatment for Scots at the expense of the English taxpayers. Enough is enough.
Please don’t conflate the SNP with Scotland, they are not the same.
Also, you are being played by the separatists if you think the best answer to the constant whining from Ms Sturgeon, is to succumb to the very division she is trying to promote.
Some of us, in fact a lot more than you appreciate, are proud to be Scottish and British.
Try telling the SNP that they’re wasting their time in trying to break up OUR country, that’s the best message you can send to Holyrood.
Thanks for a thoughtful and reasonable comment – and good luck. Those ranged against us appear neither thoughtful nor reasonable and I anticipate an uphill struggle as we try to regain common sense in public discourse. It’s always good to hear other sensible voices though: gives you hope.
Yes, thank you for your comment. You do make a reasonable and valid point. I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I don’t mean to conflate the SNP with Scotland and just as you are proud to be both Scottish and British, I am proud to be English and British. What I would like to see is this sense of pride being voiced more loudly in Scotland. It is different in England, given that for most of my life, the terms England and Britain were pretty much synonymous…. at least up until recently. Despite my fury at the SNP types sneering at anything deemed English, I would still unquestionably support the Scotland football team if they were playing anyone other than England. I would do so even if they were playing Ireland, and I am of Irish decent. I do not want OUR country broken up, but the time must surely come when you have to say the battle is probably already lost in hearts and minds. I truly hope to be proven wrong, I hope the Unionist voice in Scotland can rise to the challenge and drown out the petty minded and narcissistic nationalists, but the evidence for this is patchy at best. The English have probably much more to lose than the Scots if Scotland leaves the Union, but if the marriage isn’t working anymore, then perhaps a trial separation is best for all. We can always get back together again, but if we ever do, no more devolution. We are four nations but one state, represented by one elected government. May Blair’s soul burn in Purgatory an extra million years for the crimes he committed against OUR country.
But Kevin – you have contempt for the Scots – it’s dripping off your comment. Have you ever stopped to think why they’d wish to be associated with people who so obviously look down their noses at them? English contempt is the virus at the heart of the union.
But even had the “union” been voluntary to begin with, it still would be deeply problematic for its smaller constituent members. Just as you can’t have a realistic “joint venture” between (1) Joe Bloggs & Nephew Keyboard Repair Services Limited and (2) Apple Inc; neither can you have a culturally functioning union between a mid-ranking global power such as England and 3 pipsqueak countries. Even when the English are well disposed towards the shrimps, which isn’t invariable might I add, the Celtic fringe countries will never amount to more than pimples on a large English backside. Culturally, England is always going to dominate. Unionism merely is a narrowly-English project, intent on eradicating cultural divergence from English mores. Inevitably, the middles classes in the smaller countries seek to ape the socially dominant classes in the culturally dominant country. Which is why middle class folk in Edinburgh speak with strangulated faux Home Counties accents and read only right-wing English newspapers. By contrast, inside the EU, there is much greater diversity of culture and more room for tiny countries to retain a distinct cultural identity. That is, while the gorillas of France, Germany, Spain and Italy etc are busy jostling each other, the small fry nations are left alone. This is the bit you miss. No such dynamic would hold (or does hold) in an inherently-asymmetrical “union” between a large backside and 3 pimples.
Then persuade enough of your fellow Scots, inclined to think as you do, to vote for independence, and we will part company. No one forced you into the Union, and no one is forcing you to stay. Despite what you think of me (perhaps all English people) I wish you well. I may even come to visit on holiday…..if safe to do so.
Unfortunately, there are still so many of us that have held our heads low enough to continue to fear independence. Many are present in these comments, dying for approval (“Honestly, I’m not one of those awful agitators! I’m one of you!”) I am as much for English independence as for Scottish. The UK just needs to be dismantled as a perversely united/yet devolved/yet unequal political entity. Who is it serving? Is it really serving the members? Is it even serving London as a whole (as so often troped!)? The “…” at the end of your comment doesn’t support the preceding claim to ‘wish us well’ as particularly genuine. My personal experience with anyone from England when addressing the Scottish independence issue has always been met with a sense of bitterness, as if we are ‘ungrateful’ for everything provided to us (spoken as true imperialists!). The whole “no one forced you into the union” assertion is at worst deceptive or at best, ignorant. Surely a rudimentary understanding of the history of the Union cannot lead you to believe that? The “if it is safe to do so” snark displays commonly evidenced ignorance to why many in Scotland hold British overlordship (no exaggeration) in such contempt: when we are politically free, there will be no contempt..why are some in England so bothered about holding on to Scotland? Is it to punish a disobedient, ungrateful child? Regardless, it reeks of overlordship.
Some deep thinking there Roddy lol
Unfortunately, the defence implications of independence are very severe for England and Wales. Scottish airspace and waters are essential for defence in depth against Russian intrusion and worse.
It would also be hugely expensive to relocate the Trident facilities from Faslane and politically impossible to find anywhere south of the border that would accept them.
If what you say is true then why should the Scots be left as a target for Russian IBMs and Cruise missiles. As a Welshman who has served in Faslane boats I can remember the arguements for and against Milford Haven. We aleady had an airfield (RNAS Brawdy) and space for torpedo and missile handling (the mining depot at Newton Noyes.
There was a S/M Depot Ship at Faslane (Ausonia?) which could have been steamed around with boats and tugs in company). The nain arguement against seems to have been “It would become a Target”, well, look what’s there now. The main reason for a new base at Faslane was to give jobs to Glasgow. For many years afterwards some people at Faslane got paid when they got on the bus at 0600 and were paid until they got off the bus again in the evening.
Have some pity on us – the level-headed Scots who voted 55 to 45 to stay within the Union only 8 years ago.
Legislation – like that being proposed here – highlights the fact that the Scottish parliament is totally out-of-touch with the majority of Scots who would not endorse such legislation.
What is next? Choosing to be a dog, so you can defecate on the street? Or perhaps choosing your race in order to get a scholarship?
The Scots are idiots. Sorry, it just needs to be said.
I’m Scottish and I agree.
Met plenty of Uncle Toms like you in Edinburgh Ian
This place is vile, is it not? Just passing through but suitably disgusted by the ignorance and contempt displayed. I just hope this is not representative of widely held views.
Ugh, have some self respect! At least you have gained some ‘thumbs up’ from other people who don’t like Scottish people.
Plenty of prats both sides of the border, good people too, and I’ve spent enough time in both countries to know that obvious truth. Time for common sense to speak up though.
Meantime let’s not waste energy on self flagellation when there are more deserving candidates!
But we’re world leaders at self flagellation, as described by Orwell so lucidly, so why stop?
“It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true, that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than stealing from a poor box”
Why would they want to be in a union with people who think they’re “idiots”?
Perfectly illustrates why many of us would want to be away from you…as do the supportive ‘thumbs up’ for such a straightforward hateful comment…but you’re the good guys, right? We’re just the idiots. This surely illustrates why you would want to be rid of us, unless there was something in it for you? Perhaps you are merely one of these ‘trolls’ I have heard so much about. However, I do respect your forthrightness though, as most here have tried to mask their contempt for us through some long winded statement with snarky Scot-bashing threaded throughout. At least you are transparent!
“Thus I predict that if the Bill becomes Scottish law, it will have one of the following consequences. Either Westminster will step in to halt this Holyrood overreach: a prospect that seems vanishingly slight given the Tories’ reflex libertarianism. Or the Scottish tail will end up wagging the UK dog, as Westminster legislates to align with Scotland. Or, if neither of these is politically possible, the Union will come apart.”
Or, departing from your catastrophism, the chaos created by such cases will hit with greater frequency the English and Scottish courts, as well as various services that rely on binary definitions (health, sport, education) as is happening right now with cases about the clashing of women and trans rights, with many of these cases foundering on the rocks of sheer logic and tending to favour women’s rights.
So bring the legal change on in Scotland I say, as it will precipitate the resolution of this nonsense U.K. wide; and with a side benefit of revealing the true stupidity of the SNP for supporting it to their daft voters.
According to a number of headlines today, Scotland is now seen as a safe haven for Trans people and by extension, I suspect s3x pests too. Good luck Scotland!
“by extension?” Wow – I hope no one in your family runs the risk of being deemed a sex pest (spelled with a 3) because of their instinct to present in a way you don’t like. It sounds like you wouldn’t be particularly supportive, or worse, report them to the police for being some kind of deviant. You sound nice.
I don’t think that Lindsay was insinuating that non-binary and transgender people are more likely to be sexual predators, but rather observing that many policies that empower non-binary and transgender people collaterally empower sexual predators.
Daft voters…just like that you reveal so much. Every voter who has voted SNP (there are many!) are just daft…let us not consider any reason why so many vote SNP, because it is not worth considering. They are just daft. Why would anyone so far beneath us merit any consideration? I just don’t understand why you would do that: completely undermine any point you are trying to make with the juvenile ignorant tail at the end. It’s very disappointing! Seeing how much contempt there is for Scottish people (sorry, to clarify: ‘Scottish people who don’t think the way you want them to’) is quite sickening. I think I actually preferred when it seemed that people outside Scotland were genuinely dumbfounded by the notion of Scottish independence, because of their lack of understanding. Unfortunately, there has now been enough time passed to develop a focused (yet equally ignorant) hatred of anyone wanting out of the Westminster shitshow. If that concept is beyond the capacity of some here: this is contempt for the system of government we are stuck in…a dream of wiping the political slate clean…not a hatred of England – as much as many would love for it to be that simple! (Wouldn’t you want to wipe the political slate clean too through an independent England?). However, let’s ignore all of that, for they are all just ‘their daft voters’. Ugh – just keep in your lane!
If someone can change their sex, and I assume therefore, name on their birth certificate how does this interface with DBS checks that are undertaken when someone applies to work with children or vulnerable adults? Genuine question to which I don’t know the answer. Surely Scottish Government must have thought it through ?
Here’s another thing I trust they have thought through – what exactly does the requirement to have ‘lived as a woman’ (I think for three months) actually mean?
If those who voted for devolution could have foreseen being led by two such asinine and narcissistic leaders in the two countries, would they still have voted for it?
I suspect the Holyrood Bill will become law with barely a whimper from Westminster Conservatives. Labour will then win the next election in 2024 or 2025 and adopt something similar for the rest of Great Britain.
Seeing that Democrats have been paying for ads to get more extreme Republicans get elected to be able to claim GOP is dangerous, it makes me wonder if it’s a political move to wait for Scots to take even more extreme positions to damage SNP.
But then it’s a lot more likely to be ignorance of Scotland than anything else.
Here’s the problem with sex-change recognition acts passed in different jurisdictions. Imagine this scenario, a sheriff in Oklahoma responds to a call from a local MacDonalds that there’s a man with a beard refusing to leave the women’s restroom. The man shows the sheriff his New York driver’s license whose sex is marked “female.” He says this proves he has a legal right to be there. The sheriff, taking the path of least resistance, agrees with the bearded man that as legally female, albeit by another state’s law, he is entitled to use the women’s restroom. Maybe the Tories need some reminding about consequences.
A man who lives in Annan but works in Carlisle (as many do) could announce that he is a woman in Scotland but, every time he crosses the border to work, he legally reverts to being a man.
If he commits a crime in Carlisle, it will be a male crime; if he commits a crime in Annan (including rape) it will be a female crime.
Yes and it would be possible to stand astride the border and have one male testicle and one female testicle.
I don’t understand why people who are concerned about gender always bring up toilets. Where are these toilets where admission is enforced according to legal status? I’ve been to public toilets and I’ve never seen anyone stopped at door and asked for proof of their sex.
Promoting policies that advance separation from the Union is at the heart of practically everything Nicola Sturgeon does.
Gathering population statistics, health and welfare statistics, educational attainment statistics, etc, etc. The list goes on. Scottish government statistics are mostly incompatible with the rest of the UK data… intentionally so.
However, despite her abysmal record the Scots keep voting for her so she must be doing what they want.
Perhaps in appropriate cases we should just put “Scottish” in the gender box on birth certificates.
Perhaps that was the SNP’s intention all along.
Tried so hard to resist but…. I suppose if any part of the UK was going to turn a blind eye to men in skirts, it stands to reason it would be Scotland. Lol
I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with Mary, but I tend to disagree with her on this occasion. It’s just as possible that the SNP’s ill-advised foray into woke nonsense will diminish their vote. The SNP attracts a Scottish nationalist vote. Plenty of them are socially middle-of-the-road and will be put off by this stuff. To be successful in its aims, the SNP needs to be clear on one policy only, namely Scottish independence. As for everything else, a centrist, pragmatic, boring approach is best. They should avoid trendy crap like this. I think it will diminish the Scottish nationalist vote, and thereby inadvertently strengthen the union.
But who will Scottish voters place their vote with? Labour are not clear on this issue either.
In the 29 comments so far, no SNP supporter has come along with a defence of The Sturgeons. Why is that?
Could it be that no SNP voter worth his/her/their salt would dream of subscribing to Unherd? Is he/her/they/them/it afraid of ridicule?
Unfortunately, my question implies that Unherd is right-wing and biased. Otherwise, we would have a range of views.
What’s wrong with the range we’ve got – slightly to the right of Genghis Kahn and slightly to the left?
That’s the first time that I’ve ended with a down vote – have you no sense of humour? Must be a Wee Free or perhaps an American from the US ( most Canadians have a sense of humour and understand irony.)
So? The UK culture and Establishment are both overwhelmingly left-leaning when it comes to social issues, and don’t seem to consider themselves poorer for the lack of viewpoint diversity. Doesn’t that suggest that your criticism is biased?
Also, what makes the SNP left-leaning? Support for trans people is associated with the left, but support for nationalism is associated with the right. Those are the only two things I associate with the SNP, despite getting my news from a variety of sources.