Joanna Cherry does not speak for LGB people like me
Three weeks ago, Ms Cherry was seen on national TV celebrating outside the Supreme Court with the 'gender-critical' groups For Women Scotland and Sex Matters. Last week, Sex Matters published a letter they have just written to NHS England and the UK Government, which calls for all young trans people to be blocked from transitioning. This is proposed on the basis that their life as trans people will be much more difficult after the court's judgment. The letter says 'their future lives and freedoms will be seriously curtailed'. Hyperbole or fact?
READ MORE: Joanna Cherry slates Nicola Sturgeon response to Supreme Court ruling
Ms Sturgeon made clear that it is not the judgment itself, but the way it will be interpreted, that matters most. I hope, but doubt, that Ms Cherry will stand with those calling for an interpretation that minimises the harm caused. For example, that organisations that wish to make public that they will continue to include trans women in their facilities for women should be able to do so. But I suspect that Ms Cherry will align with those wanting a hardline interpretation that would ban trans people from any and all facilities matching their gender identity.
The effects of that are made clear in the heart-breaking website comment you published on Wednesday from Jessica McMartin. No hyperbole there, just the very real fears of a very real trans person.
Ms Cherry claims to speak for LGB people. YouGov research found that only 6% of lesbians agree with her. 84% support trans people, and 10% are neutral. Anyone doubting that could go to any one of the 20-plus Pride events around Scotland this summer, where they will see huge numbers of LGB people marching in solidarity with their trans siblings. Joanna Cherry certainly does not speak for them or for me.
Tim Hopkins
Edinburgh
WE are a group of gay men from across Scotland who form the Scotland arm of HumanGayMale (an organisation for gay men who reject gender identity ideology).
We are writing to urge the Scottish Government to withdraw from the Stonewall Diversity Champions initiative, to stop funding Stonewall, and for John Swinney to encourage all government departments, agencies, and public bodies in Scotland to do the same.
Following the UK Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010, it has become apparent that many organisations and institutions, including the Scottish Government, have previously been misled in their understanding of the Act.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon breaks silence on Supreme Court gender ruling
This is, in no small part, the result of the misinformation propagated by Stonewall, in particular through its various workplace schemes and training.
Since the ruling, Stonewall has continued to misrepresent the situation by suggesting that the outcome is not yet law and is encouraging Diversity Champion Scheme members to not make any changes to policies or practice in light of the ruling.
Stonewall continues to push an agenda of 'gender identity' being paramount to sex. This is an ideology that says how you feel is more important than the reality of biological sex. In doing so, it erases what it means to be same-sex-attracted. As gay men, Stonewall is telling us that being gay means being 'same gender' attracted, and that a heterosexual female who identifies as a gay man must be accepted as a gay man. Lesbians are also being told the same thing about heterosexual men who identify as women. This is the modern equivalent of conversion therapy.
It is a slap in the face that the Scottish Government is actively funding Stonewall (with public money) and participating in the ideological indoctrination scheme that effectively erases what it means to be gay. We urge John Swinney to stand up for and protect the rights of gay men and lesbians across Scotland.
READ MORE: LGBT+ Americans living in Scotland fear return to Trump's US
Much like women's rights groups, our HumanGayMale meetings in Scotland are forced to be held in secret, lest adherents of the 'LGBTQ+' lobby try to shut us down for refusing to believe 'transmen' can be gay men. The Supreme Court ruling has made clear that our meetings are legal and that we can legitimately exclude all women from our events, even those who call themselves gay men.
If John Swinney truly wants to help gay people and understand the perspectives of gay men on this topic, he would do well to read the report from the Gay Men's Conference 2025. Or he could send a representative to take part in the Scotland version of this conference in July this year.
HumanGayMale, Scotland Group
THE BBC are up to their tricks again with River City, trying to reduce the viewing figures. Once again they have stopped broadcasting the series, after potentially killing off one of the main characters. There is nothing they will replace this with that will have any relevance to Scotland, and its loss will destroy the futures of a lot of talented people.
It may only be another soap, but it mirrors Scotland and its people.
Norman Robertson
via email
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
29 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Justice Jackson warns Supreme Court is sending a 'troubling message'
"It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be "irreparably harmed" by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the "irreparable harm" factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson said the court `plainly botched' its evaluation of a Trump appeal Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. More Supreme Court wins for Trump In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices - Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices - Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.
Leader Live
44 minutes ago
- Leader Live
REVEALED: How much North Wales Police spends on drones
A Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request published on its website asked: "For each year between 2020 and 2024, how many drones has your police force operated?" and "How much money has been invested in your police forces drone program, for each year between 2020 and 2024?" That revealed that between 2020-2022, the force had four drones in their ranks, which cost £405,768 (Only started towards end of financial year 2020/21, so 2020/21 and 2021/22 costs included). In 2022/23, that moved up to seven drones at a cost of £398,784. In 2023/24, that figure was 11 drones at a cost of £488,229. And this year, the total now stands at 15 drones used by the force, at a cost of £581,725. The drones are used in a number of cases, for example, to track down missing people or to catch criminals red handed. The FOI further reveals that North Wales Police operates a dedicated team of drone operators and additional pilots who have other primary roles. It also adds that training a drone pilot costs around £1,000 with a course taking place over 13 days. The Police and Crime Commissioner for North Wales, Andy Dunbobbin, hailed the use of drones as an 'indispensable part of policing'. He added that there are plans in place to continue investing in such technology to deal with 'challenges' face within policing. READ MORE Mr Dunbobbin said: "In recent years, the use of drones has become an indispensable part of policing and fighting crime. "For example, they have proved effective in cases of missing persons, where drones are able to scan landscapes and reach remote locations faster and more effectively than traditional means. "Prior to becoming Police and Crime Commissioner, I had a professional background in IT and the digital sphere and so I recognise how important it is to keep pace with changes in technology. "My Police and Crime Plan for North Wales pledges to continue to invest in technology and digital skills to deal with the challenges we face in policing, both now and into the future. "I fully support North Wales Police and their drone unit in making the most of drones and other developing technologies for the benefit of the public and in fighting crime.'
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Supreme Court's sex ruling faces legal tests – will they succeed?
Starmer's view was echoed by Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson, who described the ruling as 'crystal clear' and stressed the need for 'services that are safe and appropriate and respect [everyone's] privacy and dignity'. But what was billed as legal clarity has created 'greater confusion as to what this now means in practice,' Dr Alexander Maine of City Law School, University of London, told the Sunday National. For example, guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) states that trans men must use women's toilets – from which they could be excluded for looking too much like a man. But they also cannot be left with nowhere to go. The question of which toilets trans people can use has become a battleground (Image: Pixabay) Dr Damian Gonzalez-Salzberg, an associate professor at the University of Birmingham Law School, said the guidance 'seems to go beyond what the Supreme Court has said, or at least it might not have taken the whole picture into consideration'. The guidance now faces multiple legal challenges, with allegations that it misreads the ruling, exceeds the law, and violates human rights. Rather than ending the debate on trans rights and single-sex spaces, it has triggered three court cases – pushing the issue back into litigation and the media spotlight. Challenge one: Good Law Project and human rights. THE first, a wide-reaching legal challenge, is being brought by the Good Law Project. The group has taken legal action against both the EHRC and Phillipson, the Equalities Minister, over allegations that the guidance on the Supreme Court case breaches the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Dr Maine explained that the core argument looked back to a crucial case for gender law in the UK: Goodwin 2002. This held that the 'UK was in breach of its obligations to uphold trans people's human rights, specifically the right to marry under Article 12 [of the ECHR], and the right to a private and family life,' he said. The case led directly to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA). Dr Maine said that, given the legalisation of gay marriage across the UK since 2002, the argument under Article 12 would no longer hold weight – but the right to privacy under Article 8 could prove crucial. READ MORE: Kelly Given: Defining women by our biology alone is chilling 'It may be that because trans people will effectively be outed if they have to use single-sex spaces that they do not appear to adhere to – for instance, a trans woman using a male space – that might go against their right to privacy,' Dr Maine said. Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said Good Law Project's argument was 'very careful' and relied on European jurisprudence. 'They suggest that it was the EHRC that misunderstood the court,' he explained. 'So that's the first ground that they're proposing – your guidance is or will be in breach of human rights if implemented because you're misreading what the law is. 'Then the second argument is, OK, if you are reading this correctly, it's still a breach of human rights, actually. They focus on what the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence has been regarding trans rights. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg'This is a very, very lengthy jurisprudence that goes from the early 1980s … That jurisprudence has got to a point which is very clear that trans people have the right to live their lives in their acquired gender, which this guidance does not seem to allow you to do when, well, you don't even know where you can pee.' Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg further argued that there could be a case under Article 14 of the ECHR, which prohibits discrimination 'on any ground'. He said: 'If you're taking certain measures, you are affecting this group quite heavily, and that's one of the problems with the EHRC guidance. They said, OK, if you have mixed toilets, this might be indirect discrimination against women because women might be put in a disadvantaged situation by this general policy. 'They're not saying the same regarding trans people, and that is worrying. If you have a policy that trans people cannot use their gender's toilets, well, this will put them in a disadvantaged situation.' He added that Article 8 and Article 14 therefore represented 'two strong arguments to be made as to human rights of trans people'. Challenge two: Liberty and the consultation period. NINE days after the Supreme Court's ruling on sex, the EHRC issued its 'interim guidance' telling firms and public bodies how it should be interpreted. At the same time, it opened a two-week consultation period to advise on permanent guidance which is due to follow later this year. After concerns were raised, the EHRC extended this to a six-week consultation. However, human rights group Liberty launched a legal action calling this 'wholly insufficient'. Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg pointed to case law from the High Court, which in January ruled that an eight-week consultation period for £3 billion cuts to incapacity benefits was too short for such major changes. The door to the UK Supreme Court in London (Image: Archive)The academic further said that the EHRC was in danger of making the same mistake as the Supreme Court and excluding the voices of those most impacted – trans people. 'If you only get six weeks, you're really restricting the possibility of people intervening," Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said. "Especially when you consider the claims about how trans people were not really listened to in the Supreme Court's case. For the EHRC now to repeat this sort of mistake seems quite serious.' However, on Friday the High Court dismissed Liberty's claim, with Mr Justice Swift saying: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important. 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair." Challenge three: The European Court of Human Rights. AS things stand, there is less information available about the third legal challenge against the UK's new rules on sex and gender. However, Dr Victoria McCloud, who was the first openly trans judge in the UK before stepping down in 2024, has made clear her intention to challenge the Supreme Court's decision at the European Court of Human Rights. In the wake of the ruling in April, Dr McCloud told the BBC that she felt it breached her human rights and left her with the legal "nonsense" of being "two sexes at once". Inset: Trans judge Dr Victoria McCloud (Image: NQ) Dr McCloud also raised concerns that trans people had not been heard during the Supreme Court's deliberations on the biological sex ruling. "Trans people were wholly excluded from this court case," she told the BBC. "I applied to be heard. Two of us did. We were refused.' Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said the ruling would 'have a very strong detrimental impact on trans people'. 'It's already having that and that is clearly problematic, and in many ways also because trans people were in a very definitive way excluded from properly being heard in the ruling, which makes the situation even, even worse.' There is a clear pattern behind the three legal cases – trans people believe they were not listened to in a ruling which directly impacted their lives. Instead, they will make themselves heard in court.
