Reader TTS

Kemi Badenoch was accused of hating trans people (Image: GETTY) The trans debate in this country is endlessly on the brink of spinning out of control. Activists on one side protest against

speakers, disrupt meetings, and generally harass and bully anyone with a public platform. Meanwhile, the actual work of government must go on. Rules must be assessed, laws must be passed,

and the country must be run. RELATED ARTICLES The trans debate brought down one of the most effective politicians in Scotland’s history: Nicola Sturgeon. The public just could not accept

that violent men, now claiming to be women, must be sent to women’s prisons. A break was necessary. And that is what has been provided. Westminster and the Scotland Secretary intervened,

using rare legislative powers to overrule Holyrood. It was a choice of last resort. But it was necessary. The rush over, the public did not like what it saw. And the debate has been brought

into new light. Nationally, the same conversation must be had. It must be done based on evidence rather than feelings and political fashion. That is why it’s good we have the gutsy Kemi

Badenoch as minister of equalities. She's prepared to ask disarming questions of ideologues and bureaucrats, and has a steely sense, fundamentally, of what the public will actually

tolerate and wave through. Recently, Badenoch sent a letter to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission on proposed changes to the 2010 Equalities Act, simply asking the commission of ‘the

benefits or otherwise of an amendment to the 2010 Act on the current definition of “sex”’. In this case, ‘sex’ is a protected characteristic in the Equalities Act. But as we know, now the

word has come under assault. Can someone ‘change sex’? The law is quiet. What is the difference between sex and gender? The law claims to know, but not universally. Should we replace the

word ‘sex’ in the act with something more specific: the sex someone is born with, or ‘ biological sex’? These are valid questions, vital to ask. This caused madness and pandemonium in some

quarters. Badenoch was accused, as is the fashion, not only of hating trans people, but wishing them dead. She, a black woman, was called a Nazi. And so on and so on. But now the evidence is

in. Her simple enquiry has produced the following statement from the commission: ‘‘if “sex” is defined as biological sex for the purposes of [the Equality Act], this would bring greater

legal clarity in eight areas’, it said. Those areas are: pregnancy and maternity services, the rights of lesbians and gay men, the rights of women and men, positive discrimination in favour

of women (which trans women, ‘biological males’, might benefit from), workplace rules, single sex services, sport, and data collection – which is at the moment quite a tricky thing. The

letter also suggests three disadvantages: it would not solve issues of equal pay law – which is still a Horlicks. It couldn’t do much for questions of ‘direct sex discrimination’; and

indirect sex discrimination, too. But crucially, the clarity of Badenoch’s question is refreshing and vital. This response is much needed. We desperately need to remove all of ambiguity in

this debate. It is confusing enough without more self-imposed confusion. We also need to remember how much this debate has become like pulling teeth or extracting blood from a series of

stones. Many organisations thrive in ambiguity when it suits them. They can collect money from donations for nebulous causes. Some people benefit from their exact status being in doubt. Many

campaigners would rather no one precisely knew where things stood. But the public at large benefits greatly from knowing. This is the very beginning of a slow process of understanding our

laws. But the alternative is worse. Things were set to speed up without much thought and consideration. Badenoch has ended this. And not only will her questions clarify the law. Hers is an

intervention which is a much-needed, brave, and bold defence of women across the country. But nowhere is the effect of these questions felt more than in Scotland. in Scotland, the governing

SNP and the Greens, along with Labour,  were pushing a major change to self-identification – contrary to biological sex -- without the appropriate safeguards. They were caught up in speed.

And they pressed ahead too fast, with too much ambiguity. The result was rapist men in women’s prisons, and the collapse of Nicola Sturgeon’s government. Sometimes, these things need to be

investigated slowly, led by ministers who are careful rather than cheerleaders. That is what Kemi Badenoch is now addressing. Good luck to her, I say.