Gender ID: Apologies from political leaders really are in order this time, writes Euan McColm

Rightly, those being asked to apologise for being a lying git do not rise to the bait. Requests for contrition fall on deaf ears.

But sometimes an apology from a politician is justified, even necessary.

It’s now more than two weeks since the Supreme Court ruled, in a case brought by the campaign group For Women Scotland, that a woman should be defined, in law, by biological sex. Since then, we’ve seen some spectacular backside covering from political leaders who, right up until the justices delivered their unanimous view, struggled to say what a woman was.

There has been much welcoming of “clarity”. First Minister John Swinney has spoken of being a supporter of the rule of law, while Scottish Labour’s Anas Sarwar has gone full gaslighter, claiming he’s always been in favour of women’s spaces being restricted on the basis of biological sex despite previously supporting gender reforms that would have removed that protection.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has been no less weak, leaving a spokesman to clarify his current view that a trans woman is not a woman. This contradicts Starmer’s previously held position, expressed during an interview with The Times in March of 2022, that “trans women are women, and that is not just my view – that is actually the law”.

The question of whether an apology was due to feminist campaigners proved right by the Supreme Court, arose immediately after its decision was announced. Political leaders came back with the usual “the important thing, Laura” type of answers and shifted the conversation.

But neither attempts to change the subject nor time have made the need for an apology go away. In fact, I would argue that it becomes more pressing with every passing day.

When the Supreme Court ruled in favour of For Women Scotland, social media was quickly awash with photographs of celebrations.

Naturally, the women who dared to share their moments of happiness were soon being asked to justify their cruelty. Wouldn’t they think of the males they’d prevented from entering female spaces?

But those feelings of jubilation, genuine and entirely justified though they were, did not last long.

A day after the Supreme Court ruling, I spoke to several women who have been involved in the fight to protect women’s rights against the pernicious effect of gender ideology. Elation had been replaced by anger or depression or an especially unsettling mix of both.

They were angry because none of them should have had to devote every waking hour for almost a decade to building an effective campaign to secure rights that had taken so long to win and which were in danger of vanishing in a fog of half-baked trans ideology. Who wouldn’t feel fury in those circumstances?

As for the feelings of depression – shared by household names and anonymous activists – well, those were equally understandable. Every woman who has involved herself in the campaign against self-ID has paid a real and substantial price for her courage.

While the “progressive” political class congratulated itself on the wisdom and compassion of its plan to allow anyone to self-ID into the legally-recognised sex of their choosing, women who saw the danger inherent in the idea faced intolerable abuse for speaking up.

For pointing out that the emperor was naked, women lost work and friendship groups and, in some cases, faced threats of rape and death. Organised groups of trans activists targeted women with so called “gender critical” views, threatening violence and attempting to have them sacked, while foolish politicians lined up to be photographed alongside protestors holding banners calling for violent retribution against trans exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs).

The women who stood up against the might of the Scottish Government have been through a frightening experience. It may take some time for them to shake those feelings of anger and depression.

What would certainly help would be genuine recognition by political leaders that they got things wrong when it came to the question of gender identity.

In the days following the Supreme Court verdict, I formed the view that Swinney, Sarwar, and other former supporters of gender reform had missed the opportunity to apologise. The moment had passed, I reckoned, and they’d all have to pay the price for that at the ballot box.

I’ve changed my mind. So deep and profound is the pain suffered by women forced to fight a political establishment bent on throwing away their rights and dismantling the fundamentals of safeguarding that leaders simply must acknowledge the damage they caused, no matter how long it takes for them to do so

For Women Scotland – and every woman who stood with them – needs to hear not only an apology but some evidence that Swinney, Sarwar, Starmer and all the rest actually understand the consequences of their past decisions.

Terrified of a backlash from trans activists in their party ranks, the First Minister and Labour’s leaders in Scotland and the UK all hope to navigate this issue without touching the sides. This will not be possible.

There is no grey area between women’s rights and the demands of trans activists; there is no balance to be struck.

This issue is going nowhere. The tribunal involving nurse Sandie Peggie, suing NHS Fife and trans-identifying doctor Beth Upton for discrimination and harassment after she was subjected to a disciplinary procedure for complaining she shouldn’t have to share changing facilities with a biological male, will resume in July. Public interest will be huge.

If John Swinney, Anas Sarwar and others who let women down think legitimate demands for apologies are going to subside, they are woefully mistaken.