All NHS ‘diversity officers' must go – and this surreal trans row shows why

Telegraph

19-07-2025

For men, at least, one of the biggest mysteries about the rise of trans activism is this. Why have so many women – and in particular young women – eagerly embraced and helped to enforce an ideology that robs them of their own rights? Their rights to women-only changing rooms, public lavatories, sporting contests? Even their right to be placed in a prison that doesn't also contain convicted rapists?
It does seem rather a head-scratcher. One that we yet again had cause to ponder this week – when we read the mind-boggling words of a self-declared 'trans ally' in Scotland.
Isla Bumba, 29, is a senior 'diversity officer' at NHS Fife. At an employment tribunal on Wednesday, she was questioned about her advice that a trans woman – that is, a biological male – should be allowed to use a hospital's female changing room. And, during one extraordinary exchange, she told the tribunal that she doesn't know what sex she is.
'I would hazard a guess that I would be female,' she said, with all solemnity. 'But no one knows what their chromosomes are, or their hormonal composition, unless you've had that tested – and I at least have not.'
In which case, I very much hope that she will get her chromosomes tested. And that her husband will get his tested, too. Certainly if they ever decide to start a family. Otherwise, they will have absolutely no idea which of them, if either, is capable of getting pregnant. Mrs Bumba will be fretting about her sperm count, while Mr Bumba scurries anxiously to the bathroom with a little blue box from Boots. ('I think I must be pregnant, Isla. I haven't had my period this month. Or, in fact, ever.')
At any rate, I believe that Mrs Bumba's remarks have a significance that extends far beyond the trans debate. As we know, junior doctors are planning to go on strike over their pay. There are still hopes they'll back down. But imagine if a junior doctor on a salary of £38,831 finds out that a young 'diversity officer' like Mrs Bumba is getting almost £60,000. They'll be manning the pickets before you can say 'No LGB without the T'.
There's only one solution. Sack all these absurd NHS diversity officers, and give their money to the junior doctors. Two birds, one stone.
Why votes at 16 is a great idea after all
Have I done Sir Keir Starmer a dreadful disservice? I fear so. This is because, when he confirmed that he's going to give the vote to 16 year-olds, I assumed that it was a devious piece of gerrymandering, brazenly designed to boost Labour's prospects of re-election.
Now, though, I feel ashamed to have been so cynical. Because I can see that the Prime Minister's motives are in fact unimpeachably noble.
I realised this on Thursday after I heard him explain why the voting age must be lowered. Sixteen year-olds, he said, are 'old enough to go out to work, they're old enough to pay taxes, so [they] pay in. And I think if you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on.'
Disappointingly, Sir Keir did not reveal exactly how many 16 year-olds 'go out to work' and 'pay taxes'. It would have been interesting to hear a precise number, given that all children nowadays, in England at least, are required by law to remain in education or training until they turn 18. But let us set that quibble aside. Because there's a far more important issue at stake.
Sir Keir is arguing that the right to vote is earned by 'going out to work' and 'paying in'. So, following his own logic, those who don't 'go out to work' and 'pay in' will presumably now be having their right to vote removed.
If so, what a heroically selfless plan. Sir Keir must be well aware that this will disenfranchise a vast chunk of his own party's core support. Yet, purely for the sake of principle, it seems he's willing to end Labour's hopes of ever winning an election again.
And to think I took him for a conniving, opportunistic, hypocritical charlatan. The moment he confirms this courageous new policy, I'll offer him my most humble apologies.
Sadly, I suspect, not all Left-wing politicians are as principled as Sir Keir. Some, no doubt, will be rubbing their hands at the lowering of the voting age, and taking it for granted that children's votes are in the bag.
If I were them, however, I wouldn't be so complacent. Children's political views can be unpredictable – as I learnt just over a year ago, when my son, then aged 10, had a lesson at primary school about the general election.
He and his classmates were handed a list of the key election pledges from each manifesto, and asked to discuss which party they would vote for, if they could. Naturally I assumed that, in the sweet innocence of youth, they'd all choose Labour. But they didn't. According to my son, every single one of them said they'd vote for the Liberal Democrats.
Bemused, I asked him why. He informed me that it was because the Lib Dems 'have the best policies' – such as 'give more money to schools' and 'save the environment'.
Sir Ed Davey shouldn't celebrate too soon, however. Because, perhaps rather heartlessly, I then pointed out to my son that the Lib Dems also wanted to make milkshakes more expensive, by taxing them. He was aghast, and renounced his support on the spot.
Wait till he and his friends find out that Labour is now planning to tax milkshakes, too. When they turn 16, they'll all be voting Reform.