Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word
Mark Smith uses his column in The Herald to say what John Swinney should be saying on behalf of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament:
"So let me do it for him because men like me, men like us, men like him, absolutely owe an apology to the women who questioned and fought what was going on with trans rights and women’s rights.
"Lots of politicians and activists and people with newspaper columns – me included – suggested that the women who first raised the alarm were prejudiced or transphobic or misguided and their concerns were misplaced, and here they are years later, often vilified but now vindicated, victorious and rightly so.
"Which is lots of words when one will do: sorry."
Mark Smith: Men like me need to say sorry
By Mark Smith - The Herald
Campaigners celebrate outside the Supreme Court in London after the ruling on the terms "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act
John Swinney was asked this week if he wished to apologise to women after the court ruling on what’s meant by the word women and he said this: “We’ve acted in good faith. We’ve tried to navigate our way through two pieces of legislation, during which our position has been supported twice by courts in Scotland in this particular case, so the debate has been around very uncertain areas of definition and the Supreme Court has concluded on that, and that is an end to the matter.” Lots of words. But notice the one that isn’t there: sorry.
So let me do it for him because men like me, men like us, men like him, absolutely owe an apology to the women who questioned and fought what was going on with trans rights and women’s rights. Lots of politicians and activists and people with newspaper columns – me included – suggested that the women who first raised the alarm were prejudiced or transphobic or misguided and their concerns were misplaced, and here they are years later, often vilified but now vindicated, victorious and rightly so. Which is lots of words when one will do: sorry.
I’m aware, by the way, that it’s not just men who need to apologise here, and that women were involved in the vilification too (most notably Nicola Sturgeon). But men like me who waded in displayed a particular lack of humility. I remember a conversation I had with one of the campaigners against self-ID who explained to me why sex rather than gender mattered to women, and why single-sex spaces were important, and why letting in people who are physically male was a problem. And if a man, a man like me, was going to tell her she was wrong, he’d better have a bloody good argument on his side, and I was starting to realise I really didn’t. That conversation was part of the process, from about 2021 onwards, of me starting to change my mind.
There were other important points along the way, such as speaking to trans activists and hearing stuff that was often incoherent and sometimes alarming. For example, I remember one activist telling me sex was only a “loose category” and not being able to explain what they meant. I remember another telling me it was fine for people to have gender-critical opinions as long as they only expressed them in private. The activists also told me trans people were able to access single-sex spaces because that’s what the Equality Act said they could do, but did it really? And I went to some of the protests and events where the trans activists said they could see hate and bigotry and threats to their safety but I spoke to the gender-critical women and none of it was really there.
Seeing the Scottish Government’s self-ID legislation being pushed, or bull-dozed, through parliament was also an important moment in the process. I was there on the day it passed (it was later blocked by the UK Government) and the protesters outside were clear and intelligent and reasonable but angry that they were being ignored and labelled bigots. And that’s why John Swinney can’t get away with saying, when asked if he would like to apologise, that he was just trying to navigate his way through the legislation as if it had nothing to do with him. The SNP came up with the bill, they refused to properly engage with its critics, and they pushed it through regardless. Say sorry for that.
And while you’re at it, say sorry too for refusing to back down even when the protesters outside Holyrood were proved right by the case of a prisoner called Isla Bryson, the Scots-born male who started transitioning after being charged with rape and was remanded to a woman’s jail. You’ll remember the picture of Bryson in a blonde wig and tight leggings and it was that picture, surely, that really started to turn things around for a lot of people. We also had the bizarre sight, remember, of Nicola Sturgeon tying herself in knots about what Bryson was and appearing to suggest that there were three categories of human: female, male, and rapist. And don’t forget the bewildering stories of lesbians fighting to keep men out of their spaces and off their apps. People started to take notice of it all and thought: this defies common sense.
By that point in the process – early 2023 – you could feel what was starting to happen and that the common sense was starting to win, and the Cass Review on gender services for children the following year only underlined it. That period also started to give us some perspective on why people – people like me, me again – were initially so supportive of the concept of self-ID. A lot of us felt I suppose, instinctively, that there was a parallel between trans rights and gay rights. But I remember one gender-critical feminist telling me the analogy was a false one because gay men were never asking to come into women’s spaces and she was right. You could also see that the central ideas of the trans movement, especially that trans women are women, took hold before there was a chance to properly examine them.
And so now that the Supreme Court has changed the landscape with its ruling, we have the genuine prospect that we can move on from the most troubling aspects of the last few years. Such as the anti-factual language of the Scottish Greens (although Maggie Chapman was still giving it a good go after the ruling by calling for the self-ID bill to be resubmitted for royal assent). And the tribunal involving Sandie Peggie, the nurse who objected to a doctor who was born a man being in the female changing room and was suspended for it; NHS Fife will have to admit defeat. We’ll also need to work on a solution for public places, probably a third space alongside single-sex spaces.
We must also be prepared to cross our arms and wait for apologies that may never come and probably will never come from Mr Swinney and Ms Sturgeon. We know it’s hard for politicians to use the sorry word – it’s easier to accuse than admit. But it will be better for them in the long run to say sorry than try to hold to absurd positions such as “we always supported single-sex spaces” (Labour) or “we were just trying to navigate the legislation” (SNP). The Supreme Court has spoken with impressive clarity; it’d be nice if politicians did the same.
So let me give the First Minister a helping hand. Instead of saying, Mr Swinney, that you always acted in good faith and tried to navigate your way through two pieces of legislation and that your position was supported twice by courts in Scotland, try talking instead about what you got wrong, and about the way your government treated its critics, and about what you’re going to do, and when, to revise the policies guiding prisons and hospitals and so on. No one is impressed by you trying to hold to a position that no longer exists, but we might be impressed by you admitting that we’re heading for a different destination now. And we might give you credit for using the word that doesn’t come easy to men like you, like me, like a lot of us. The word is sorry.
