This posturing politician has done trans people no favours

The Herald Scotland

24-04-2025

Feelings about the judgment understandably run high, but there is a chasm of difference between expressing regret about it and stating without a shred of evidence that the judges themselves are motivated by hatred. This from an MSP and deputy convener of the equalities, human rights and civil justice committee who has an explicit duty to uphold the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
If she were on the hard right rather than the hard left, her attack on judges for doing their job would be called Trumpian, but Chapman seems to imagine herself entitled to say whatever she likes from deep inside her bubble of self-righteousness.
Read more by Rebecca McQuillan
​Is it that she just has poor judgment? Does she really see every political issue in terms of moral absolutes? Is she hopelessly clumsy or, forgive me Maggie, not very bright? I claim no insider perspective on that, but struggle to understand what she imagines she is achieving by behaving in this way.
Maggie Chapman seems to be deeply challenged when recognising the limits of acceptable political discourse. This is the person who shared a social media message from another account a few days after the Hamas massacre of 1,300 people in October 2023 which stated the attack was not terrorism but rather an act of 'decolonisation'. It was met with a wave of revulsion, forcing her to delete the tweet and apologise. Even her fellow Greens disavowed it.
Now she is attacking the judiciary. There is such a thing as standards. If Holyrood is going to accept this conduct, we might as well festoon the place in red and white bunting and call it a circus.
Attacking the Supreme Court like this is extraordinary. The judges were not assessing the rights and wrongs of restricting women-only spaces to biological women, their task was to judge what MPs meant by 'sex' in the Equality Act of 2010, legislation which gives protection against discrimination on the basis of sex as well as other characteristics. They ruled, unanimously, that the only interpretation that made sense was biological sex, though added that the legislation continued to give transgender people protections against discrimination and the ruling should not be seen as a triumph by one side over the other.
Even if you are disappointed with the outcome, it is evidently a reasoned legal judgment on a highly contentious subject, handled with care. Except not to Chapman: to her, it must be motivated by bigotry.
Roddy Dunlop KC, representing the Faculty of Advocates, calls Chapman's comments on the Supreme Court 'irresponsible and reprehensible' and has warned they 'create a risk of danger' to the members of the court.
Dunlop said that the Faculty didn't normally involve itself in politics but had a 'duty to speak out in defence of the judiciary when it comes under attack' as it did when the Daily Mail branded judges 'enemies of the people' during the Brexit era and when the previous UK government attacked so-called 'activist lawyers'.
He added: 'It really should not require to be said, but the Supreme Court – indeed, all judges – are in post to apply the law. They do not take sides. They decide without fear or favour, consistently with the judicial oath.
'For Ms Chapman to claim that they were swayed by 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred' is outrageous.' The Faculty has called on her to apologise and argued, quite reasonably, that she should consider her position as deputy convener of the equalities committee.
Roddy Dunlop KC (Image: PA) Chapman is refusing to apologise and refusing to budge.
One wonders how on earth she imagines all this can possibly help trans people. For them, this is a frightening and dispiriting moment. They are waiting anxiously to discover how this ruling will affect what changing rooms they may use or what hospital beds they can access, and feel worried that the ruling will be misrepresented as a way to challenge the legitimacy of their identity.
Trans people report feeling afraid of what will come next. What has never helped their cause one iota, however, has been intolerant, abusive rhetoric from their self-appointed spokespeople. For a long time now, there has been a powerful reluctance among the most vocal trans activists to acknowledge that any concerns raised by women about their rights and safeguards might be legitimate, as if this were a zero-sum game in which trans rights can only be advanced if women's concerns are ignored. Infamously the tactic has been to imply that those who raise such concerns are transphobic – even Nicola Sturgeon did that. The charge of bigotry has been hurled about almost indiscriminately. Chapman's attack on the Supreme Court is very much in that vein. Does she not understand that her behaviour makes it all too easy for opponents to dismiss her as an extremist?
If Chapman believes that women-only spaces should be open to anyone who feels themselves to be female, she is entitled to express that view and push for changes to make that explicit.
What she is not entitled to do is make politically motivated attacks on the judiciary, or wage a campaign to smear and misrepresent anyone she regards as an impediment to her campaign.
When the dust settles on this episode, trans people will have an opportunity to reflect on the way those who have led the trans rights campaign have conducted themselves. They may well conclude that some, like Maggie Chapman, have done more harm than good.
Rebecca McQuillan is a journalist specialising in politics and Scottish affairs. She can be found on X at @BecMcQ and on Bluesky at @becmcq.bsky.social