WHEN the university newspaper Edinburgh Student published a one-sided piece attacking the students’ own rector last week, I was drawn to the comment from the University itself.
Ann Henderson had simply retweeted details of a meeting at Westminster regarding the Gender Recognition Act, but because the groups promoting that meeting were judged by the article’s author to be phobic towards trans people, she was condemned.
The University’s comment was ambiguous. Ms Henderson was acting in a personal capacity, it said. Then it declared the university opposed to all kinds of prejudice and in particular transphobia.
I asked the University what it was saying, exactly. It told me there was nothing to be added to that statement. But it seemed to me that the University was dissociating itself from Ms Henderson and implying that her actions were transphobic. The University refused to elaborate. I said this was cowardly. If she had been transphobic, they should say so explicitly and clarify how.
To the university’s credit, they came back with a more even-handed statement, conceding the rector’s Tweet had attracted complaints, but also messages of support. The university declared itself committed to free speech, while also opposed to transphobia.
How has it come to this, where simply to acknowledge the validity of a debate is evidence of bravery on the part of an educational institution?
Updated legislation on gender recognition is progressing at both Holyrood and Westminster. Both our parliaments are moving towards a position whereby someone who wishes to live as the opposite gender can do so, simply by declaring their stated identity.
This addresses a long-standing problem for trans men and women who have until now had to engage with a bureaucracy they describe as dehumanising, required to live for two years as the gender the identify with and needing to gain a diagnosis of gender dysphoria – effectively classing them as having a psychological illness. Replacing this cumbersome process with simply recognising people as the gender they “feel” is clearly in the interests of people with gender dysphoria.
However it does raise questions, particularly for women. Men feel less concerned by self-ID, for good reason. They have not suffered generations of oppression on the basis of their biological sex. They have no need of sex-based protections such as those enshrined in the Equality Act of 2010. They have much less need for domestic violence refuges, segregation in sporting competition, restricted shortlists to encourage their participation in politics.
But gender self-ID is fatally flawed in principle. A London Labour activist David Lewis was suspended for claiming to be a “women on a Wednesday”. There have been multiple cases of male-bodied prisoners identifying as women then abusing fellow inmates in women’s jails. These may be outliers, but you can’t hold both that self-ID should be unquestioningly accepted and also acknowledge exceptions to that. Yet at the Scottish Parliament, MSPs in the SNP, Labour and the Green Party all say the principle of self-ID is not up for debate. I have been told this issue is trivial, affecting a tiny number of people. Transpeople are estimated to be just one per cent of the population.
But this also affects 51 per cent of the population. The Scottish Government has quietly passed a law about representation on public boards which redefines “woman”, stating saying that the term encompasses anyone who says they are a woman. Does this mean that “woman” – which previously referred specifically to a person born with a particularly biological sex, with the potential to conceive and gestate babies – is now, effectively meaningless? Does that matter?
Does it matter – given the small numbers involved – that people born as men will now be able to join all-women shortlists, win prizes previously on offer to biological women, distort statistics on pay discrimination? What about leading girl guides on camping trips, or completing against women and girls in their chosen sports? I don’t know. My concern here is that it has been enormously difficult to ask these questions without being accused of transphobia.
As a science fiction fan, I am conscious we may be moving towards a future where all concepts of sexuality and gender become more fluid and sex-based protections become less important, even irrelevant. But we are not there yet. From the White House to the BBC pay gap, you don’t have to look far to see that the protections won by women over generations of struggle remain precarious.
As a reporter I have spent my life writing in support of excluded minorities. I am not transphobic and believe trans people are a very vulnerable group in need of protection.
I may be wrong to be concerned about the impact of these social shifts on women. But I am not wrong to be alarmed by the closing down of debate. Instead of accusations of transphobia and hate, we need to find the space for a respectful discussion of these issues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here