What is a woman? The answer to this question has become a highly contentious political issue. It lies at the heart of a rights conflict that has turned toxic, between those who believe someone’s self-declared gender identity should override biological sex for the purposes of single-sex services and sports, and those who think biological sex remains a relevant concept in law and society. That conflict comes to a head this week in Scotland, where members of the Scottish Parliament are to vote on the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) reforms to require people to be legally treated as the opposite sex on the basis of self-identification.
The UK was one of the first countries to introduce important legal protections against discrimination for transgender people in 1999; these are today enshrined in the 2010 Equality Act under the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment.” It also protects women against sex discrimination, and sets out that it is lawful to provide female-only services and sports — excluding anyone male, regardless of gender identity — if they are a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. It is a sophisticated legal balancing act.
However, a small group of trans people — about 5,000 — have changed their sex for most legal purposes under provisions in the 2004 Gender Recognition Act. Obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC) requires a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and proof that someone has been living as the opposite sex for at least two years. However, it has been unclear whether a GRC changes someone’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.
The Scottish courts last week ruled that it does. This ruling might still be appealed against, but if it stands, it has huge implications for what Scottish First Ministr Nicola Sturgeon’s gender self-ID reforms mean for the rights of Scottish women and girls. This is why the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls have urged the Scottish government to pause on this legislation.
These reforms would grant a GRC to any male who declares that they intend to live as the opposite sex, despite Scottish ministers being unable to define what living as the opposite sex means in practice. The Scottish government has predicted that this would result in a 10-fold increase in the number of people who would be granted GRCs. It has improbably claimed this is an administrative change with no consequences for women’s rights, while at the same time arguing in court that a GRC changes someone’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.
These reforms would make it harder for women to access female-only services and spaces, such as prisons, hospital wards and intimate care. They make it more complex for providers to legally justify the provision of single-sex services and are likely to increase the number of public-sector providers who say privacy provisions for GRCs prevent them from granting requests for same-sex intimate care such as toileting and dressing.
That is wrong: Just as trans people have the right to access specialist services and gender-neutral spaces appropriate for their needs, women have the right on grounds of privacy and dignity to access female-only spaces where they are vulnerable, undressing or receiving intimate care. Female-only spaces are also an important form of safeguarding in a world where male violence makes up the overwhelming majority of societal violence, including sexual violence.
Sturgeon’s reforms would allow any man who signs a declaration to have enhanced legal rights to access spaces where women undress and are vulnerable. There are cases of male sex offenders identifying as women after their convictions. A Scottish male sex offender who identifies as a woman sexually assaulted a 10-year-old girl, but has now been placed in a women’s prison after violently attacking an inmate in a men’s prison.
The SNP would no doubt place stock in implausible claims from the UN expert on gender identity that its reforms pose no risk to women, but they directly contradict the evidence of his colleague who is an expert on violence against woman and girls. Self-ID is also likely to make it harder for some women to prove pay discrimination in court.
The other major issue with the reforms is that they introduce provisions to allow children aged 16 and 17 to change their legal sex through self-ID. This moves Scotland in the opposite direction to England, where an independent review by Hilary Cass, one of the country’s most senior pediatricians, has established that gender dysphoria often resolves itself after puberty, gender identities can remain in flux until a young person’s early-20s and treating a young person as though they are the opposite sex is an intervention with potentially significant impacts on psychological functioning, with insufficient evidence about outcomes.
Rather than grappling with these serious concerns, the SNP-Green governing partnership has variously dismissed them as transphobic, invalid and artificial. The reforms have prompted the biggest-ever SNP backbench rebellion, yet they look almost certain to pass with the support of Scottish Labour.
The respectful compromise would be to introduce a form of legal self-identification for gender identity for trans people while clarifying that this does not change someone’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. A clear distinction between gender identity and biological sex in law would balance the legitimate rights of trans people and those of women, protecting both groups against discrimination, but establishing beyond doubt that it is lawful to provide female-only services for women as a matter of privacy, dignity and safety.
However, in Scotland and Westminster, self-described progressive politicians have proved too gutless to advocate balance and compromise. It is marginalized women — in prison, in domestic abuse services and who require intimate care as a result of disability — who will bear the consequences of their cowardice.
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
Before the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) can blockade, invade, and destroy the democracy on Taiwan, the CCP seeks to make the world an accomplice to Taiwan’s subjugation by harassing any government that confers any degree of marginal recognition, or defies the CCP’s “One China Principle” diktat that there is no free nation of Taiwan. For United States President Donald Trump’s upcoming May 14, 2026 visit to China, the CCP’s top wish has nothing to do with Trump’s ongoing dismantling of the CCP’s Axis of Evil. The CCP’s first demand is for Trump to cease US
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly widespread in workplaces, some people stand to benefit from the technology while others face lower wages and fewer job opportunities. However, from a longer-term perspective, as AI is applied more extensively to business operations, the personnel issue is not just about changes in job opportunities, but also about a structural mismatch between skills and demand. This is precisely the most pressing issue in the current labor market. Tai Wei-chun (戴偉峻), director-general of the Institute of Artificial Intelligence Innovation at the Institute for Information Industry, said in a recent interview with the Chinese-language Liberty Times