The furore around the election of Dr Manivannan to the Scottish Parliament is deeply troubling. There is no argument whatsoever that they were eligible to stand for election. The law was changed specifically in order for those on temporary visas to be able to stand in Scottish parliamentary elections.

I confess I am not sure that is altogether a good idea. I can see arguments both ways. There are far too many people amongst our neighbours who have to manage their lives through the Home Office’s discriminatory, hostile and prohibitively expensive immigration application systems. It is good to see such people given a voice.

On the other hand, there is a reasonable expectation of legislators having a fixed stake in the country for which they legislate.

I suspect like most people, the question had never even occurred to me until the current furore over Dr Manivannan and I have to give it some thought.

But whatever view one takes on what the law ought to be, the law as it stands is clear. Dr Manivannan was eligible, stood, and was duly elected.

That Scotland has subsequently been rocked by shrill calls for Dr Manivannan to be deported by the immigration authorities, I therefore find appalling. It is not only a denial of democracy, it is without doubt motivated by the most basic hatred and bigotry, both racist and anti-trans. To see such sentiments so openly espoused in Scotland I find deeply disturbing.

Almost amusing is the argument that, while it was perfectly legal for Dr Manivannan to stand for election, it is illegal for them to be elected.

This argument was first adopted by the radical anti-trans campaigning group For Women Scotland. This group was founded in order to oppose self-ID for trans people. 99% of its output is anti-trans rights argument. They would, however, have us believe that their objection to Dr Manivannan is nothing to do with their being trans, but a longstanding, though hitherto silent, interest in the minutiae of immigration legislation.

The practical reality is straightforward. The Scottish elections happened to fall just after Dr Manivannan completed their PhD.

There is the usual short gap between finishing the thesis and the formal end of the academic year. They are therefore still on their student visa.

They are in the process of applying for the next graduate visa. This would be the position whether or not they had been elected.

A new visa will be needed. It seems highly improbable that the Home Office would refuse one.

A seat in the Scottish Parliament is hardly unrelated to a PhD in Political Science. Quite apart from that, the democratic mandate ought to carry considerable weight.

I know Reform UK has coarsened political discourse across the UK. But to hear gleeful demands for an elected immigrant to be thrown out is dispiriting. Some of these voices even come from within the Scottish independence movement.

I also find the extreme anti-trans positions being put forward in relation to this case downright depressing. The Workers Party of Britain simply tweeted “Trans women are men”, while their lead candidate for Edinburgh argued directly that gender dysphoria is a mental illness and mentally ill people should be banned from parliament.

I have frequently complained that the gender identity question is dominated by such extreme and unreasonable positions. The complete denial of the validity of any trans people is an extreme position. It also rolls back 40 years of broad societal acceptance.

I first met Jan Morris in the 1980s, and have known several other trans people since. For decades, there was little open intolerance. I can’t recall anybody ever suggesting Jan Morris should not use women’s bathrooms – least of all the feminist movement of those times.

Feminism then was about breaking down sexual barriers, not erecting them.

The extraordinary attempt of the US-originated movement to erect differing gender identities into a compulsory and strange ideology transformed the situation. Attempting to introduce compelled speech is not something I support – I try to use people’s preferred pronouns out of politeness, for example, but it is not a matter for the state. The purpose of a pronoun is to specify an individual, not to signal political correctness.

The issue of self-ID led to a real political fracture. Personally I favour treating people as they wish to be treated, which favours self-ID. That is polite, tolerant and kind. But most people find the idea of people self-identifying themselves into women’s elite sports, or reserved women’s positions on boards, to be not obviously desirable.

Personally, I have always specifically opposed the idea that those who have used violence, including but not only sexual violence, against women should be able to self-identify into women’s prisons. That seems to me a blindingly practical exclusion.

The problem is the pro-trans lobby is equally dominated by extremists. They argue that any restriction on the ability of the individual to immediately self-identify is unacceptable, and any restriction on their being treated as their gender of choice is discrimination.

The problem with this position is that it assumes nobody ever lies. The problems for the trans movement has been caused by their inability to accept the existence of fake trans people. You cannot deny by ideology the existence of human criminal behaviour.

In practice, there are a number of men who pretend to be trans, but are not really trans, in order to gain access to women in various situations. I took the position that these were extremely rare and wrongly used to introduce smears against trans people as criminal into the debate.

But then, a succession of shocking cases in Scotland made me realise that my initial views had given insufficient weight to the need for protection of women from fake trans people.

I have had arguments with trans advocates who simply refuse to accept that such people exist. The cases of Isla Bryson, Serenity Francis Johnston, Katie Dolatowski and Alexandra Stewart are notorious and they do exist. They cannot simply be wished away.

They are certainly not representative of trans people in any way, but the debate could helpfully be shifted from the deliberate confusion of trans people with sexual perverts, if only the trans lobby would recognise that men falsely pretending to be trans do actually exist and this needs to be guarded against.

My own position is that anybody guilty of a sexual or violent offence should lose their right to change gender. I believe changing gender should be a right, but some rights are normally lost when you commit a serious crime. It seems to me that is the coherent basis for policy.

However I also believe that nobody should have their rights circumscribed before they have committed any crime, and the mantra of “you can’t tell which man is a rapist” is deeply wrong. It is as offensive and dangerous as racial or other profiling.

The “gender-critical” faction in Scotland have, as usual, reacted to my defending Dr Manivannan on social media by accusing me of adopting all kinds of positions I have never held – like allowing convicted rapists to self-identify into women’s prison, supporting medical intervention in children, or trans women boxers to compete in the Olympics.

Neither side of the debate seems able to comprehend for a moment that people of good will might be trying, in good faith, to find compromises to balance rights so that trans people may lead full and happy lives while hard-won feminine rights – and safety – might not be endangered by faux opportunists.

But it is difficult to explain anything when everybody is screaming at you.

Here is a truth. Scottish people are not stupid. It is extremely well known by now that the Scottish Greens have a very strong line indeed on supporting trans rights and gender self- ID. The Scottish Greens regard my own position outlined above as extremely reactionary. They are fully signed up to the ideology of gender fluidity and its compulsory acceptance.

In the last two Scottish parliamentary elections, alternative pro-Independence parties have stood, noisily, on the very specific and openly stated position that “Trans women are men” and that they oppose trans rights. Most notably Alba in 2021, but also the Independence for Scotland Party and the Workers’ Party of Britain. Famous Independent candidates like Fergus Ewing and Ash Regan also made this a major plank of their platforms.

The party I stood for, Alliance to Liberate Scotland, while having no formal position on the issue, featured mostly candidates who are vocally anti-trans.

Next to nobody voted for them.

A lot of people voted Green.

All of the pro-Independence parties which adopted extreme anti-trans positions got derisory votes, fractions of one per cent. The Greens got many times as many votes. That is how democracy works.

Nicola Sturgeon derailed the SNP when she shifted its emphasis from Independence to identity politics. There is no doubt she shifted the emphasis on purpose. The toxicity of the trans issue in Scottish politics is her legacy – she approached it in the most abrasive and divisive way possible, and used it to force out of her party those not loyal to her. The single most important cause of hatred towards trans people in Scotland is Nicola Sturgeon.

None of which was the fault of Dr Manivannan, but they are the current lightning rod for the resultant hatred. Which is entirely unfair.

It is par for the course that the Tories and Reform are attacking Dr Manivannan. Bigotry is what they do. But for alleged socialists and Independence supporters to join in is deeply dispiriting,

Dr Manivannan has done nothing wrong and is by all accounts a very pleasant and gentle soul. They were elected. Please stop the hate. This member of the Scottish parliament, elected by the Scottish people, must be defended against any attack from the London-based UK Home Office.

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a