There never was a right for a man to enter a woman's changing room

The Herald Scotland

5 days ago

Of course, Equality Network was itself free to intervene but chose not to. Mr Hopkins is in a better position to explain this failure but I'd suggest its unwillingness to accept that self-declaration of sex was firmly off the table at the outset hampered any legal argument its members were prepared to accept.
Finally, there was no human rights breach. Had there been so, the Supreme Court would have been obliged to issue a declaration of incompatibility. It was never a 'right' for any man to enter women's changing rooms or other spaces and the absurdity of such an argument was laid bare in the court's painstakingly detailed judgment. Anyone now asking the UK Government to amend the Equality Act has the hopefully-impossible task of explaining exactly why basic human rights for women should be removed.
In the meantime, women such as Sandie Peggie and Fiona McDonald ("Activist sues own union over gender beliefs",The Herald, July 26) will bravely keep holding employers and unions to account, despite unwarranted and ridiculous 'anti-trans' slurs. All power to their elbow.
Trina Budge, Director, For Women Scotland, Edinburgh.
Read more letters
Blame the activists
Tim Hopkins took over a third of a page on Tuesday to spout utter drivel.
He talks utter nonsense about the Supreme Court judges not being properly informed, ignoring the wishes of Parliament (and, God forbid, Hansard), about them knowing better what the wording of various pieces of legislation mean, about ignoring other pieces of legislative interpretation, and, almost unbelievably, stating that their judgment contained a "staggeringly naive claim".
I suppose we should all be glad that we have the likes of Mr Hopkins, who is clearly a much better-read and learned man than any of our highly skilled judges, to interpret the law.
As far as I am aware the trans population in this country is tiny. They should of course have the same and equal rights as the rest of us, that is not in question. They do however appear to be disproportionately represented by a large number of very loud activists. I'm sure Mr Hopkins will know many of them from his past life.
Without them the trans community would probably not be in this predicament.
Finally, he wants Parliament to "urgently amend the Equality Act... to allow trans people to continue to live their lives in peace and privacy".
Where will that leave women, Mr Hopkins?
Gregor McKenzie, East Kilbride.
Privacy is theirs to own
Tim Hopkins pleads for "Parliament to allow trans people to continue to live their lives in peace and (where they wish) privacy".
There is nothing and never was anything to stop them doing just that. An issue has been raised that never needed to see the light of day. All it has done is create division and dissension. That was all it was intended to do and the trans community were the chosen vehicle. Politicians, in attempts to unravel the Gordian knot that is humanity, find themselves entangled within it.
The learned gentlemen of the bench attempted to offer clarity on what was established in law and on the statute books. In contrast to incoherent interpretations delivered by the political class, the Supreme Court judgment was concise, almost simplistic. However, the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 grants provision to the transgender community and the Equality Act of 2010 protection, thus logic supports a claim that it "would not be disadvantageous to trans people".
Mr Hopkins claims: "It is fundamentally changing the situation for trans people across Britain, potentially affecting their access to services from healthcare to toilets." "Potentially" is not reality and the reality is that nothing has changed. Transgender people are perfectly free to live in peace and privacy is theirs to own.
Maureen McGarry-O'Hanlon, Jamestown.
Ignore this deflection
Sandie Peggie, a veteran nurse who was suspended by NHS Fife for objecting to a young, male-born, trans-identifying doctor being in a female changing room while she was undressing, has enjoyed a groundswell of public support. However, NHS Fife's defence lawyer, Jane Russell KC, came up with two witnesses, both former colleagues and friends, who portrayed Ms Peggie in a supposedly new light ("Nurse Peggie recalled after claim she called trans doctor a 'weirdo'", The Herald, July 29). Their evidence mainly consisted of personal characterisations of Ms Peggie based on some politically incorrect banter at some point in the past. Ms Peggie actually didn't deny this and admits that it was in bad taste. Arguably Ms Russell's detailed questions about Sandie Peggie's menstrual flow and who is paying for her case weren't exactly tasteful either.
Yet nothing of this should deflect from the matter at hand. What Employment Judge Sandy Kemp will have to decide is not whether Ms Peggie deserved to be suspended due to a supposedly flawed character. He will decide whether NHS Fife acted fairly and lawfully when suspending a nurse for insisting on her sex-based rights, no more, no less. His conclusion will ultimately guide public perception of the case.
Regina Erich, Stonehaven.
Nurse Sandie Peggie arriving at the employment tribunal in Dundee (Image: PA)
End No 10 veto over Scotland
I feel that we Scots are now like mushrooms over the constitution: kept in the dark and fed manure, by both politicians and the media.
The concept of governance by consent seems to have been discarded by a simplistic numbers game. Labour claims an overwhelming 'mandate' on a third of the votes, while the SNP asserts only an elected majority of them can deliver on independence. Unionist governments lose support in Scotland when they are perceived to have failed and the [[SNP]] suffers the entropy of longevity in office when more things go wrong or are reported as such by an overwhelmingly unionist media.
Ireland has the legal right to hold a border poll, when a polling majority is considered in favour of a united Ireland. This should also be the situation in Scotland, and when polling suggests a stable majority in favour of independence, it should happen. An impartial constitutional commission should be set up, by the UK and Scottish governments, to advise whoever is Secretary of State for Scotland on the constitutional etiquette.
The days when incumbents of No 10 (especially one who boasts of being leader of the self-proclaimed 'England's Patriotic Party'), hold a veto over Scotland should be consigned to the bin of history.
GR Weir, Ochiltree.
Let's unite to oust the SNP
First Minister Swinney has decided that he has an updated strategy for achieving Scottish independence.
More fool him. He may have forgotten that the UK Supreme Court's ruling was quite clear in that there can only be another referendum on such a matter if the UK Government agrees.
If the efforts of Alex Salmond and his prodigy Nicola Sturgeon failed to convince the people of Scotland that independence would be to their advantage, then obviously John Swinney is on a hiding to nothing.
The Holyrood elections in May 2026 will hopefully see off the [[SNP]] for a very long period. Let us hope that after whatever alliance of political parties is needed to achieve this objective that we will see radical changes put into effect at [[Holyrood]], and also at local council levels.
Fellow Scots, let us all be fully supportive of whatever alliance of political parties is needed to oust the SNP. Unless radical changes are put into effect at Holyrood, then the only answer to Scotland's dilemma is to return all political powers to Westminster.
Hopefully that will not be the only option.
Robert I G Scott, Ceres, Fife.