Nicola Sturgeon Is Right On Trans Rights

Rishi is wrong

Braveheart is a great film (although if you’re after some anti-English propaganda then I much prefer The Patriot). Like lots of Mel Gibson’s films it’s problematic, riddled with historical inaccuracies, but still great fun to watch. Only time will tell if his sequel to the Passion of the Christ lays the blame entirely on the English for the death of Jesus, but I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Anyway, I bring this up because it looks as though we are going to have a legal battle between the UK and Scottish governments. I’m not a fan of the SNP as I think their obsession with independence at the expense of tackling issues such as drug deaths and education is pretty shameful. However, I have a lot of sympathy for the calls for another referendum in Scotland about independence given I believe in self-determination and the people of Scotland have undergone a material change since the last referendum due to Brexit.

For the first time ever, the UK government is going to use a Section 35 order to prevent a Scottish Bill from becoming law. The Bill in question is the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill which aims, among other things, to speed  and simplify the process of obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate. Not only are the actions of the UK government unprecedented, they are also wrong.

First, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what a Gender Recognition Certificate does and does not do. Tom Harwood has done a good job debunking this on his Substack, but in short it allows a trans person to do four things:

• update your birth or adoption certificate, if it was registered in the UK

• get married or form a civil partnership in your affirmed gender

• update your marriage or civil partnership certificate, if it was registered in the UK

• have your affirmed gender on your death certificate when you die

Moreover, the Gender Recognition Act would simplify this process. For example, it would lower the minimum age from 18 to 16 and reducing the length of time a trans person must have been living in the gender not assigned to them at birth from two years to three months.

That’s it! All pretty mundane stuff. Nothing whatsoever to do with male rapists being incarcerated in women’s prisons or access to public toilets. Those protesting who claim that it does are either misguided or deliberating trying to mislead the public.

Other objections have been raised. For example, Sir Keir Starmer has argued that 16 is too young to change gender. Sir Keir is wrong. We already let young people make very important decisions about their bodies and their lives at 16. For example, it is legal for them to consent to sex (including with people of the same sex). They make decisions about which subjects to study which will have big implications for their future careers. We deem them legally responsible for their actions so that they can be prosecuted and imprisoned if they commit a crime. We even let them sign up to join the armed forces. It was encouraging to see the Education Secretary Gillian Keegan acknowledge that we also let people work and pay tax at 16, and so there is no reason why they should not be able to change their gender. As such, the argument that 16 is too young simply does stand up to scrutiny.

There are, of course, concerns about the safety of women. These should not be dismissed but stirring up fear about trans people is an awful thing to do. It is true that women are at risk of violence or being preyed upon. However, cases involving men claiming to be trans women are incredibly rare. In fact, the vast majority of sexual violence against cis women, trans women, and men is by cis men. This is the case both in prison and the outside world. If we want to keep women safe then we need to make sure that our streets are safe, our prisons need to protect vulnerable people so that weaker or non-violent convicts are not housed with dangerous prisoners, and the rot in our police forces needs to be eradicated. 

This is the wrong battle for the UK government to pick. Our country is facing a number of pressing issues such as the cost of living crisis, industrial strife, public services on the brink of collapse, and war in Ukraine. This is what the government should be focussed on, not stoking up the culture war by making life more difficult for a minority of oppressed people.

As an important aside, I’d also argue that it strengthens the case for Scottish independence. I wouldn’t really call myself a Unionist and I do tend to identify more as English than British but I love Scotland, it’s a beautiful place and it has given the world some of history’s greatest thinkers such as Adam Smith and David Hume. As I pointed out in the introduction, I’m in favour of a second referendum but that’s ultimately an issue for the Scots themselves to decide. However, it is clearly a bad look for the UK government to be overruling the Scottish Parliament on this issue.

Ultimately, we should go even further than the reforms put forward by the Scottish government. We should move to a system of self identification for trans and non-binary people. We know ourselves and our bodies better than anyone, not least some bureaucrat who has never met us. As such, people are best placed to make that decision about themselves.

It’s also nobody else’s – especially not the State’s – business what your gender is. Now it’s obviously important for the State to know how many people with male and female bodies there are in the country for the purposes of providing adequate public services, but beyond that it should keep its nose out and not dictate to people how they live their life or make them go through a sometimes humiliating and lengthy medical and bureaucratic process for them to receive official recognition of who they really are.

I don’t say this very often, but the SNP have got this one right. The UK government should focus on the serious issues facing our country, not pandering to the faux outrage and downright lies of those who seek to trample the rights of trans people.