Summary
"The Scotsman Newspaper Sarwar and Swinney must now accept the circle cannot be squared on gender debate - a response" argues that The Scotsman reinforces transphobic discourse by framing the gender debate as a conflict between trans rights and women's rights, employing moral panics and exclusionary rhetoric.
The Scotsman Sarwar and Swinney must now accept the circle cannot be squared on gender debate – a response.
OPINION by Steph.
The Scotsman article (Sarwar and Swinney must now accept the circle cannot be squared on gender debate – Euan McColm 23/2/25) discusses the political fallout faced by Scottish politicians regarding so-called “gender ideology” – a phrase considered as transphobic by many, that originated and is now propagated by the evangelical far-right and, worst still, openly transphobic journalists and publishers.
By applying the theoretical framework of the peer-reviewed Amery and Mondon study, which analyses how transphobia is spread in the UK, it becomes evident that the article, while ostensibly reporting on political missteps, reinforces elements of transphobic discourse.
Amery and Mondon highlight how transphobia operates through “othering,” particularly by journalists and gender-critical activists constructing trans people as a threat to societal norms and values.
This involves exaggerating their threat and naturalising it in the public consciousness. The truth is the exact opposite. Trans people are victims of crime at twice the rate of cisgender people, a fact probably not known by the journalist Euan McColm, who seems to make a practice in his articles of demeaning a tiny, vulnerable minority.
The Scotsman article, in its portrayal of the debate around the Gender Recognition Act and self-identification, frames the issue as a “chaos” caused by “crank activists” eroding the rights of women. This is, of course, nonsense, given some twenty countries with a total population of three-quarters of a billion people already operate a legal recognition by Self-ID, and I am damn sure I am not a “crank activist.” Indeed, well over a dozen European countries operate a self-id system, the latest being Germany.
Further, this language contributes to the construction of trans activists as a ‘dangerous out-group, undermining women’s rights and creating societal disorder.’ Strange, therefore, that I, just two years ago, a post-op trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate, received an award from my city for my feminism and is well known for my support and dedication to cisgender women, in particular to health inequality as well as the LGBT community.
The Amery and Mondon review links transphobia to populist discourse, where appeals to a perceived “people” are used to justify exclusionary policies. The Euan McColm article reinforces this by emphasising the unpopularity of self-identification, stating that “fewer than a third” are in favour. This rhetoric of popular opinion is then used as a justification for questioning the politicians’ support for gender law reform. This aligns with the populist strategy of claiming to represent the “silent majority” whose concerns have been ignored.
The Amery and Mondon review discusses how moral panics are strategically employed in transphobic discourse, particularly around the issue of single-sex spaces.
Euan McColm’s article heavily focuses on the case of nurse Sandie Peggie (an apparent gender-critical ideologist who admires Donald Trump), who felt discriminated against for having to share a changing room (with cubicles) with a trans woman. It should be noted Peggie has admitted to harassing the trans woman. It should also be noted that the case is ongoing, and not all the facts have emerged. Still, that does stop transphobic journalists from north and south of the border chipping in.
By highlighting this case, the article plays into the moral panic narrative that trans women in women’s spaces pose a threat to women’s safety and privacy. This reinforces the idea that the rights of trans people and women are inherently in conflict, a point of contention which will be discussed in an article on this website in the days ahead by barrister Robin Moira White.
According to Amery and Mondon, reactionary politics involves the essentialisation and homogenisation of groups. The Scotsman article does this when it speaks of “women’s rights”, implying that all women share the same concerns and perspectives on the issue of gender identity. This ignores the diversity of opinion among women and the fact that many feminists support trans rights and the right to self-identification, in particular, given that just 3% of trans people have a Gender Recognition Certificate because the process is so arduous.
In conclusion, The Scotsman article, through the framework provided by Amery and Mondon, reveals how media coverage can inadvertently reinforce elements of transphobic discourse.
By framing the issue as a conflict between trans rights and women’s rights, tapping into moral panics around single-sex spaces, and employing exclusionary rhetoric, the article contributes to the “othering” of trans people and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes.
Newspapers and journalists across the country have legitimised transphobia in the UK by conflating the Gender Recognition Act, The Equality Act and the Human Rights Act – the real victims are trans people who are clickbait for journalists like Euan.
