Latest news with #UKEqualityAct2010
The Herald Scotland
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Have our MSPs got nothing better to talk about than toilets?
How long before we have an urgent question on the lack of paper clips in Mr Harvie's office? Jane Lax, Aberlour. • One may be forgiven for wondering why it's supposed to be "exclusionary", "transphobic" and a "breach of human rights" when employers or public organisations provide gender-neutral toilets on their premises. Of course it's not. Yet this idea lives in the minds of Scottish Greens MSP Patrick Harvie and 16 other MSPs (out of 129) who have signed a letter in protest of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body's decision to clarify that, in line with the recent Supreme Court judgement, men's and women's toilets at Holyrood are defined as single-sex spaces with additional gender-neutral facilities provided for the needs of everyone. On behalf of Patrick Harvie, elected representatives then had to spend precious debating time on this topic. While this may seem trivial compared to bread-and-butter issues such as the cost of living, health or education, it does matter. Loos have become the latest battleground in the pushback, driven by some trans activists, against the Supreme Court's clarification that "men", "women" and "sex" are defined by biology in the UK Equality Act 2010. For them, it seems, provision of gender-neutral facilities alongside female and male ones isn't enough and the ultimate prize appears to be the general abolition of single-sex spaces. By forcing his loo debate on Holyrood Patrick Harvie, a fierce champion of this idea, has made sure that the topic stays in the public eye. Regina Erich, Stonehaven. Read more letters UK must restore dignity Andrew Learmonth asks why public bodies are waiting for the new code of practice on equality law from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), before changing their policies on things like the use of toilets by trans people ("Why is government waiting for the EHRC after ruling?", The Herald, May 27). The answer is surely that both John Swinney and Keir Starmer were mistaken when they suggested that the recent Supreme Court judgement on this brought clarity. It has, so far, done nothing of the sort. On the one hand we have the EHRC suggesting that the judgement means that trans people will be barred from using facilities that match their gender identity. On the other hand, we have some very senior lawyers, including a former Supreme Court judge, disagreeing that that is what the judgement requires. And there is already legal action under way to challenge the EHRC's interpretation. If the EHRC's view is correct, however, two things are clear. Firstly, trans people's rights to privacy and safety will be seriously undermined – more so than in any other western European country. Cases about this will be taken through the courts, if necessary to the European Court of Human Rights. Secondly, the Supreme Court will have completely reversed the clear intention of the UK Parliament in passing the Gender Recognition Bill in 2004. The then government minister, David Lammy, and the opposition's Andrew Selous, explicitly agreed during the Commons debate on the bill that a gender recognition certificate would change a person's sex for the purposes of equality law (which includes the law governing the use of separate-sex services). The bill was passed on that basis. If the Supreme Court has decided the opposite, it has overturned the will of MPs, based on a detailed analysis of the wording of the legislation. That demonstrates that the law was, in the relevant parts, too loosely drafted to properly implement what was intended by government and Parliament. Equality law is reserved to Westminster, so the Scottish Parliament cannot fix this mess. If the EHRC is correct, the UK Government should act promptly to amend the legislation to restore the will of Parliament as agreed in 2004. Surely Keir Starmer's Government cannot intend that the UK's respect for equality and human rights should be so much poorer now than it was 21 years ago? Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh. Are the .04% more important? Following Nicola Sturgeon's recent statement in which she proposes the legalising of transgender rights to use ladies' toilets and changing facilities ("'Trans law may require a change,' says Sturgeon", The Herald, May 26), I wish to share the following facts and statistics. These are 2021figures: UK female population 35 million, an estimated 280,000 identify as transgender; 0.08% of female population. Scotland's female population of 2.9m, an estimated 19,900 identify as transgender; 0.07% of the female population. UK total population male and female 69m. These figures show the transgender population to be .04% of the UK – yet Ms Sturgeon and other politicians believe the transgender community has a status and influence, and therefore rights, higher than 99.96% of the UK population. Professor Tony Meehan, Glasgow. Farage not a true unionist Those of us who are "old lags" in Ukip Scotland remember the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary elections. Our slogan was "Sack the MSPs". We desired then, as now, the abolition of the Holyrood so-called parliament. Our national leader was a fellow called Nigel Farage and he enthusiastically embraced this message. Today of course Nigel has undergone a dramatic conversion and now presumably regards the so-called Scottish Government as a good thing. The Reform candidate in the forthcoming Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse Scottish by-election claims that he would not be standing for a parliament he does not believe in. That is exactly what Nigel and Ukip did from 1999 to 2019 as we stood for the European Parliament from which we wished to be disentangled. Nigel may have walked away from his firm unionist credentials but his legacy lives on as the true unionists in this election seek to resurrect the place of Scotland as an integral part of the United Kingdom governed by the House of Commons – the only Parliament. Donald MacKay, Blackwood. Nigel Farage (Image: Newsquest) Frigates not a valid comparison Stan Grodynski (Letters, May 27) in his own attempt at "whitabootery", intends to distract from the Scottish ferry scandal by trying to compare Glens Sannox and Rosa to cost overruns on the Type 26 Frigate contract. He unfortunately makes the rather basic mistake of not checking his facts first. The award of the Type 26 contract to BAe Systems was valued at £4.2 billion and is for extremely complex ships of 8,000 tonnes and with high levels of intricate technology. There have been cost overruns acknowledged of £233 million – equating to around 5% – with a delay of 12 months. By contrast, the Ferguson Marine ferries contract was valued at £97m, and is for two straightforward car ferries. Cost overruns amount to £650m to date – being 670%. The first ferry was delayed seven years and the second's date of active duty is not yet known; both have had their capacity cut due to design flaws, and the one that is running was planned on a scale that means she cannot fit her usual home port. Steph Johnson, Glasgow. Why should Israel surrender? What would Eric Melvin (Letters, May 29) have Israel do to defend itself against the Islamists bent on destroying it? Surrender? Cut Israel in half, hoping to placate the terrorists? Did we surrender to Germany in the Second World? No. We fought until the Nazis had enough and quit. Then we cut Germany in four, tried and hung their leaders and occupied it until we felt they had expunged the evil from their society. Only after the war did we send in aid. Israel was savagely attacked on October 7, 2023. On October 8, the Jew-haters swung into action. 40,000 dormant social media sites spewed antisemitic propaganda. Posters and flags were delivered to campuses all over the world. Hezbollah, Iran and Houthis fired into Israel. Zionism means Jews fight back. Mr Melvin should work to save the hostages, not their aggressors. Len Bennett, Ottawa, Canada.
Scotsman
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: Women won't forget Sturgeon's role in gender controversy
Nicola Sturgeon's response to last week's Supreme Court judgment around sex and gender continues to provoke discussion Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Speaking to the media last Tuesday Nicola Sturgeon, SNP MSP and a former first minister, voiced her disagreement with the recent Supreme Court ruling that the legal meaning of 'sex', 'woman' and 'man' is defined by biology in the UK Equality Act 2010. Of course she disagrees. After all, she is part of a wider crusade for changing the meaning of these words in law, language and policy, stripping them of their biological definition. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad True to form Ms Sturgeon used stark, dark, yet unspecific rhetoric. The lives of trans persons might become 'impossibly difficult', even 'unliveable', she warned. She didn't provide any examples as to what this could involve. She also lamented that the planned Misogyny Bill might be shelved and insinuated that For Women Scotland, who had brought about the court judgment, only 'purported' to have women's interests at heart. Nicola Sturgeon remains defiant on the trans controversy (Picture: Robert Perry/PA) As ever, her comments were selective. Firstly, the Supreme Court judgment didn't change the law. It clarified the legal meaning of certain terms, no more, no less. It didn't alter existing protections for anyone. Secondly, Ms Sturgeon omits the fact that her own government in 2022 offered a separate Misogyny Bill because they stubbornly refused to include 'sex' as a protected characteristic in the Hate Crime Bill. Now, three years later, this will be reversed and 'sex', presumably in its biological definition, will be added to the list. Thirdly, her notion that For Women Scotland 'purport' to support women is downright offensive. These are women who – in a David and Goliath fight and despite normal everyday life pressures like family and job commitments – put their time, energy and resources into taking the Scottish Government to the Supreme Court, and won. Their efforts have put the brakes on distorting the legal meaning of what a woman is and saved us from being deleted as a sex class. Insinuating that they are mere pretenders is shameful. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Sturgeon's words have been heard and I can reassure her that women won't forget. Regina Erich, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire Both-ways Harry There are many ordinary people in our country who have genuine ongoing fears for their safety and yet have no right to 24-hour police protection, not least many victims of domestic abuse. It is therefore astonishing that the Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, as a wealthy non-UK resident, thinks he should have automatic entitlement to police protection every time he rocks up in town. The Prince's security woes stem largely from him foolishly (and disrespectfully) admitting killing Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, in a 2013 television interview, while wearing a British Army uniform. It was his mistake, and over a decade on he is wealthy enough to pay for his own security to mitigate that mistake. Particularly as he further antagonised things through more needless disclosures on this in his 2023 book, Spare. Admitting killing insurgents (in a one-sided fight from the relative safety of a hi-tech helicopter) is evidently easier than living with the long-term personal security consequences. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Yes, I get it, he wants armed protection in the UK, and argues, wrongly, that it can only come from the police. But the police have never said he wouldn't get armed protection, just that it would be on a case-by-case basis. In return, he needs to recognise that a couple of armed police officers walking alongside him, as he wanders central London at will, aren't going to protect either him (or them!) against the sort of threat to his safety that the Taliban represent. If he were genuinely concerned about that threat, it would be easily mitigated by living a low-profile life on a country estate (Frogmore Cottage?). With plenty of gamekeepers around, as gamekeepers are allowed to be armed in the UK, unlike private security guards. But there we get to the crux of the matter – the Prince complains about his personal security, but isn't willing to make the lifestyle sacrifices necessary to minimise the risk. He wants it both ways. And for UK taxpayers to foot the bill. Mark Campbell-Roddis, Dunblane, Perthshire Pure madness I couldn't agree more with Alexander McKay when he describes Ed Miliband's actions as 'blind zealotry' (Letters, 8 May). The idea that our mines are being concreted in is an example of total and complete imbecility in pursuit of what Reform's Richard Tice calls (rather engagingly) 'net stupid zero'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad When we are trying to retain our one and only steelworks in Scunthorpe which needs that British coke, and when we have two totally inept governments who have now lost Grangemouth, I despair at how gullible people can be. How can anyone who claims to be a First Minister at Holyrood, or a minister at Westminster, not do a minimum of research to find out that the Chinese and Indians are putting CO2 into the same atmosphere that we all breathe? Do they think it is acceptable that it should be said of us by a US negotiator that 'you don't make anything anymore' when our nation once called itself 'the workshop of the world'? These people should hang their heads in shame! An example of the sort of nonsense Mr Miliband probably believes is the claim that the UK hit 40 degrees C (105 Fahrenheit) for the first time in 2022, for example. A casual glance at historic records shows that temperature being hit several times in the past: 1906 in Morpeth; 1909 in Bristol; 1921 in London (110F, in fact!) and so on. This climate madness plays into the hands of extremists like the SNP and the Greens who wish to destroy our country. It is politically motivated against the West. The East just laughs and thumbs its nose at us. Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh Ethnic cleansing Just when you think things couldn't get worse in Gaza, they do. The latest ruse by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his fellow war criminals is to invade Gaza and stay there, as an occupying force. The far from cunning plan is to press the local Palestinian population to look for accommodation elsewhere. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If that's not ethnic cleansing, I'm not sure what is. The only spoke in this lethal wheel is that this occupation would require reservist forces to be recruited to boost the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) numbers. Thankfully, only a small reluctant minority are answering the call, as more and more Israelis are appalled by the atrocities being carried out in Gaza in their name. Ironically, despite appearances, there are no clear winners in this war. In an increasingly dangerous Middle East, Iran is edging steadily to a closer involvement. Israel is becoming more and more isolated as a pariah state, whose 'best friend' Donald Trump is steadily becoming its only friend, and even his patience is wearing thin. The major sticking block to peace is Netanyahu himself and his deeply unpopular government. The sooner they're voted out of office in the 'only democracy in the Middle East', the better. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh Slippery slope Murdo Fraser MSP is right to be concerned about the strength of the safeguards included in the proposed Assisted Dying Bill being considered in the Scottish Parliament next week ('Why Scotland's assisted dying bill would make death an acceptable substitute for care', Perspective, 6 May). Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Not only would assisted dying slowly mutate, as he suggests, from being a right to a perceived duty, but the legalisation of assisted suicide (where individuals take their own lives with assistance) will inevitably lead to euthanasia (where other persons end the lives of the individuals). For example, some people with advanced neurological conditions may have significant physical impairments, making them unable to take the assisted suicide drugs themselves to end their lives, making the legislation discriminatory. Because of such limitations it has already been suggested that healthcare professionals should be able to administer the drug in certain circumstances, thus transforming assisted suicide into an act of euthanasia. It is striking to note the speed in which Canada has moved from legislation similar to the proposed Scottish Assisted Dying Bill to legislation which allows euthanasia by lethal injection for individuals irrespective of capacity and irrespective of terminal illness. All this means that, if ever the Bill becomes law, it seems inevitable that further demands to liberalise the legislation in Scotland will take place through the courts and judicial systems which may even include euthanasia of children, as in The Netherlands! Nobody can, as yet, predict where all this will end. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad (Dr) Calum MacKellar, Director of Research, Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, Edinburgh Dark irony When I see the famous photograph of the women at Trafalgar Square on VE Day 1945, one of whom was my mother-in-law, I am struck that we are celebrating VE Day when Europe is facing another tyrant who clearly wishes to conquer a European nation which is free and democratic. We are beholden to ensure that the Ukraine remains so, despite the lies which Putin's Russia spins about them being 'Nazis'. The only state in the conflict which meets the criteria of emulating Hitler's attacks on its neighbours using such false flags is Putin's Russia. Yet, amazingly, the men who are shown, putting up the Soviet flag over the Reichstag in 1945 were a Ukrainian, assisted by a Georgian! Those two nations are both victims of post-war Russian aggression. Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh Write to The Scotsman Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
The Independent
07-02-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Third of people believe asexuality can be cured, study suggests
A third of people believe asexuality can be 'cured' by therapy, a new study that examines misconceptions of the sexual orientation suggests. Asexual people experience little or no sexual attraction to others and, according to the 2021 Census, there are around 28,000 people who identify as asexual in England and Wales. New research from Kings College London has examined misconceptions around asexuality and found that many asexual people face ignorance about or intolerance of their orientation. In a snap-shot study of 400 people, a third - 31 per cent - of respondents said they believed that asexuality could be cured through therapy. A quarter - 26 per cent - said that asexual people just haven't met the right person yet, and one in nine - 11 per cent - said they did not believe that asexual people exist. Yasmin Benoit, an asexual activist and model who is also a co-author of the study, said she wasn't surprised by the findings as she comes across these views regularly. 'It's kind of like a rite of passage. I've been hearing things like this since I was 14, and now sometimes 300 times a month or so on social media. 'A lot of people don't know what asexuality is and we still have the issue of medicalisation to deal with. You hopefully wouldn't say to a gay person that their sexuality must be a side effect of trauma, or a medical condition, but people will happily say that to asexual people.' Ms Benoit, who first realised she was asexual in her early teenage years, said people wouldn't believe her when she first told them about it. 'People just said immediately, no you're not,' she explained. 'People didn't believe it was a thing, and they didn't see it for me in particular.' She called for asexuality to be included in school's sex education so that young people can learn about it in a supportive environment, rather than researching it online. Michael Sanders, professor of public policy at Kings College London, said: 'The findings are troubling, both in that many people hold misconceptions about asexuality, and that they are happy voicing discriminatory views - at a greater rate than for other groups'. Two in five people surveyed also said they thought people couldn't be asexual if they had sex. Between one in five and one in four people also said that they thought asexuality was a mental health problem. Study authors said that while society is broadly accepting of asexual people it was worrying that 'as many as one in four interactions are with people who believe that their sexual orientation is a mental illness, or something that can be cured'. Unlike other sexual orientations, asexuality is not recognised under the UK Equality Act 2010 - meaning it is not protected under hate crime laws. The research also found that people who identify as asexual have lower levels of wellbeing than others.
