Lessons must be learned from ‘loss of rationality'

The National

6 days ago

She announced her resignation two weeks later, became a back-bench MSP the following month and has written a 480-page memoir, yet to this day she stumbles when asked if she believes the double rapist Isla Bryson is a man.
'What I would say now is that anyone who commits the most heinous male crime against women probably forfeits the right to be – you know – the gender of their choice,' she told ITV's Julie Etchingham in an interview broadcast last night.
Etchingham seemed a little startled, haltingly repeating back what Sturgeon had just said. 'That actually goes to the heart of the difficulty around this...' she pointed out. 'Sorry … no no … I meant … yeah,' said Sturgeon.
'That probably was not the best phrase to use.'
READ MORE: John Swinney interview: The FM on indyref2, Israel, energy and more
It's staggering that the former first minister still hasn't figured out what the best phrase to use might be. Indeed, her position remains so fluid that it apparently now differs from what she has set out in her book.
Asked why she had been unable to answer the question back in 2023, she began her answer with 'I think I was caught up in the...' before stopping herself, her lips still moving but no sound coming out. It's a shame that Etchingham quickly moved on, because this answer might provide the most useful learning for all of the MSPs who were involved in the debate about gender recognition reform, as well as those who seek election to Holyrood in the future.
There are many, many voters – of all leanings – who sorely wish this issue would just go away now, and can't understand why anyone acting in good faith would keep bringing it up. After all, Sturgeon is yesterday's woman and the Gender Recognition Reform Bill was killed off by Alister Jack. They point to all of the other policy issues in need of attention and despair at the broadcast minutes and column inches devoted to what they see as a niche matter. I won't repeat here why the legal identity of the fabled 'tiny minority of people' has far-reaching implications – Sandie Peggie's employment tribunal has surely provided a clear enough case study of the ripple effects of self-ID policies – but leaving that specific debate aside, there are vital lessons here for the future.
Everyone should want to know what Sturgeon believes she was 'caught up in', so that we can avoid our politicians being similarly caught up in the future, and losing sight of what they are supposed to be doing in parliament on our behalf.
Was she caught up in a 'culture war', as so many are fond of saying, often with a dismissive wave of the hand? If so, we should be very wary of any future policy issues that could be characterised as such becoming battle grounds, with two entrenched sides, ad hominem attacks flying around and little space for evidence-based analysis, nuance or respect.
Sturgeon now says that 'we'd lost all sense of rationality in this debate' and concedes 'I'm partly responsible for that', but it would be interesting to know how she would share out the blame. No doubt she would place some with those GRR Bill critics whom she asserted were 'transphobic, deeply misogynist, often homophobic, [and] possibly some of them racist as well'. Her absolute conviction that her stance was the 'progressive' one made her blind and deaf to all of the warnings about the bill, regardless of whether they came from right-wing MSPs, feminist academics, trade unionists, or the women within her own party.
Sturgeon's claim, in her memoir, that Alex Salmond tried to 'distort and weaponise genuine expressions of shock, in some cases trauma' from the women who accused him of sexual assault will stand out to those women whose opposition to gender self-ID was shaped by their own experience of sexual assault at the hands of men. These women are routinely accused by trans rights activists of 'weaponising their trauma' to advance transphobic positions. Sturgeon brushed their concerns aside.
'I fervently believe that the rights of women and the interests of trans people are not irreconcilable at all,' she says now. 'I should have taken a step back and said, 'How do we achieve this?'' Presumably she still doesn't actually know the answer, despite that fervent belief.
What she omits are the political reasons why she did not take a step back, despite knowing fine well that many of those raising concerns were not motivated by hatred at all. She simply must have known that if she conceded any ground whatsoever, the entire proposition of self-ID would unravel. If she stated that some people – any people – should have to 'forfeit' their right to the gender of their choice, then self-ID could not have become law, and the promises she had made to activists would be broken.
(Image: NQ)
In the end, she couldn't win. Mhairi Black now has the cheek to cite the SNP's 'capitulation' on trans rights as a reason for her leaving the party.
Sturgeon might now admit partial responsibility for an unedifying chapter of Holyrood's history but frankly, that's not enough. She should say sorry to the critics whose rational warnings she ignored.