Readers Letters: Trans extremists shut down hopes of reasoned discussion

She goes on to say that “trans exclusionary” women can’t accept that trans women are not the same as men, so we should not fear them in our spaces. I counter that trans extremists can’t accept that trans women are not the same as biological women, hence the Supreme Court ruling.

The vandalism of Millicent Fawcett’s statue and the flagrantly aggressive nature of signs on the trans rights demos such as “Decapitate TERFS”, “The only good TERF is a dead TERF” and to burn certain women as witches, all feed in to a narrative of misogyny that compounds that difference all the more clearly.

It should never have needed the Supreme Court to define what a woman is, but the attempted wholesale cultural appropriation of women and womanhood by trans extremist ideology and the lack of those in authority to call it out, pushed ordinary women into that course of action.

Trans and non-binary people make up less than 0.5 per cent of the population and as such they completely deserve the protections they have under the Equality Act 2010. However, an ideology has been disproportionately pushed into schools, organisations and institutions, which is not trying to help people understand or reduce discrimination but actually attempting to change the common meaning and understanding of language and biology, dictating how people speak and behave and generally shut down public discourse. Cloaked as “social justice”, this is neither healthy, democratic or justifiable.

With the clarity of the Supreme Court ruling, hopefully extremist voices will quieten and we can have reasoned discussion about how to accommodate the distinct but differing needs of both women and those living as a gender different to their biology.

Rona McCall, Strath, Gairloch

Clueless

What an utter disgrace. We have a government which thinks it is sensible to give away the strategic British-owned Chagos Islands to people whose claim upon them is tenuous to say the least. Not only that; it endangers our (and the US) forces in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean.

Add to that a “deal” with the EU in which we held the ace of UK nuclear defence for which the EU was desperate and from which Keir Starmer could have demanded free trade at the very least. Oh, no. He has given up our fishing grounds to people who have no right to them. No wonder Ursula von der Leyen was grinning like a Cheshire cat at the meeting in London. She probably couldn't believe any leader of the UK could be quite so dim as to agree to 12 years of EU access to our fishing. And what do we get out of it? Oh, yes. We have to allow EU inspectors into our farms and follow EU rules. And maybe (but probably not), go through a different channel when we reach EU airports. Who cares?

Has anyone ever had a more inept, clueless national leader, apart from the various separatists in Scotland, of course? Except that they don't really count, of course.

Dave Anderson, Aberdeen

Brutal acts

According to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the criticism of his government's actions in Gaza by Sir Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney shows “they are on the wrong side of humanity”. However, former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert has described the Netanyahu government as “a gang of thugs”. What are the facts?

The Israeli air force has mercilessly bombed residences, hospitals and warehouses. Gaza has no anti-air defence and practically no military means to strike back. Israel has killed over 50,000 innocents, maimed and wounded thousands more and celebrates a terrorist act which used booby-trapped pagers to blind hundreds of people. The Netanyahu regime has starved the people of Gaza, withholding food and water – and medical supplies. It has forcibly evicted thousands of people from their homes, which have then been blown up. Israel is not “defending itself”, it's practising ethnic cleansing, or genocide.

Words of criticism from Nato leaders such as Sir Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy count for nothing. Stopping all arms supplies, sanctions, an economic blockade, and as a last resort, military action against Israel is what is required.

William Loneskie, Oxton, Lauder, Berwickshire

Only solution

The misguided words of Gerald Edwards and Lewis Finnie (Letters May 23) in defence of the extreme right-wing Israeli Government’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank are not helpful.

Of course the atrocious actions of Hamas terrorists on 7 October 2023 must be condemned but parroting the propaganda of an Israeli Prime Minister intent on employing totally overwhelming military force to annihilate the Palestinian people will not resolve decades of conflict arising from the forced creation of a legitimate Israeli state. Do either of these gentlemen truly believe that if the remaining Israeli hostages were handed over “tomorrow” Israel would not only hand over its thousands of Palestinian “hostages” (“detainees” held without trial) but would cease its decades of persecution of the Palestinian people and prevent Palestinian land from being forcibly taken by “illegal settlers”?

As in Northern Ireland where sensible voices thankfully prevailed (although some fanatics might have preferred the British Army to have adopted similar tactics to the IDF) the fighting will not cease until both parties are brought together to negotiate a lasting peace, preferably in the form of a two-state solution. Long-term peace will not be secured until Israel’s allies stop supplying weapons (it is not a serious argument to compare Iran-supplied rocket-launchers with Western-guided F-35 fighter jets) to the rabid regime that is the current Israeli government and maximise their combined political efforts to end the “carnage” of an out-of-control “Israeli Devastation Force”.

This is not a war between two regular armies and to criticise governments, including the UK Government, for belatedly moving in a morally necessitated and logically sound direction to end the conflict and mass-suffering is to effectively condone the genocidal slaughter of innocent women and children.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian

Action needed

Regarding The Scotsman’s editorial on the Scottish Government’s Just transition Commission report urging the need for a plan for oil and gas workers (23 May), the concerns raised by offshore workers highlight a challenge we absolutely must solve.

The skills gap is often cited, but equally critical is the readiness gap we are facing, with a lack of coordinated systems to support the move into new roles. Without visibility of future opportunities, adaptation of skills, and an aligned industry and government-wide strategy, we risk sidelining a highly experienced workforce who could be one of our strongest assets in a net-zero future. A just transition needs more than ambition. It needs action that matches the pace of change on the ground.

Alex Spencer COO, OPITO, Aberdeen

Squeeze rich

Keir Starmer and his cabinet, in particular Rachel Reeves, have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into a reluctant U-turn on the Winter Fuel Payment (your report, 23 May).

Significantly, most of the pressure has come from their own increasingly restless and disillusioned backbenchers.

To set an £11,500 threshold on this payment simply accentuates their reluctance and, quite frankly, is a sick joke, at which nobody is laughing. In my opinion, this payment should be open to all pensioners, as it was previously, irrespective of their means. Those who don't need it can always donate it to charity.

One crying out source of taxes, which is strangely ignored, is the ultra rich, among whom are the self-styled patriotic millionaires.

A wealth tax, more appropriate for a Labour government, would, at a stroke, solve any tax problem, and more than cover a universal Winter Fuel Payment. Whatever else it might achieve, it would go some way to restoring the so called “grey vote” to support Labour.

Ian Petrie, Edinburgh

Lesson learned?

The Scotsman carries an article on the reintroduction of lynx to the Scottish countryside, stating that they would be retained in a sealed area as allowing them to roam free would cause predation of sheep and lambs (23 May).

In that case why were sea eagles reintroduced and allowed to fly free? A popular meal for them is lambs, to the extent that some have taken to nesting close to farms for a quick easy meal.

C Lowson, Fareham, Hants

Making rules

Jill Stephenson speculates that Scotland, as an independent country in the EU, would be subject to the “demands” of the Common Fisheries Policy (Letters, 23 May). But an independent Scotland would, with its fellow EU members, write the EU rules. Scotland would no longer be a rule-taker, as it was when the UK was in the EU, but one of the EU rule-makers – including on the CFP.

E Campbell, Newton Mearns, East Renfrewshire

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.