For an image of the ‘progressive nationalism’ that has disfigured Scottish public life over the past decade, look no further than the Scottish Green party MSP Maggie Chapman. She was one of the driving forces behind the SNP-Green government’s attempts to make Scotland a testing ground for transgender ideology. Along with her Green party colleagues, Chapman is a major reason why Scottish voters are turning against the coalition government.
During the row over the SNP’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill, Chapman called for the Scottish government to ‘explore’ the possibility of allowing children to change legal sex from age 8. She also scolded textbooks that suggested sex is binary, and said that we can’t be sure what sex people are unless they had their chromosomes tested. No-nonsense Scottish women on Mumsnet suggested that Chapman should head for a ladies’ loo – if she can still find one – and take a look at herself.
But self-awareness is not one of her strong points. After the Cass Review was published, the Scottish Greens said they would ‘oppose any moves to increase the age of accessing gender-affirming care to 25’. Chapman is their equalities spokesperson.
This intervention has been yet another embarrassment for Humza Yousaf, who’d been hoping that Scottish voters had begun to forget all about gender reforms and the stalled Gender Recognition Reform Bill.
Before losing the battle over the GRR, Chapman and the Greens had campaigned for banning conversion therapy, which she defines as ‘acts that aim to change or suppress someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity’. On matters of gender, this is firmly the ‘affirmative’ approach, which, as we have seen this week, often leads to young people being fast-tracked onto puberty blockers.
Cass calls for a ‘holistic approach’ that looks to the possible causes of gender dysphoria, and one that delays major medical interventions until they are old enough. How long before this is defined as ‘conversion therapy’ by Ms Chapman?
SNP members increasingly regard Chapman and her Green colleagues as an electoral liability they can ill afford. The green tail has been allowed to wag the SNP dog too often: over issues like gender reform, the disastrous deposit return recycling scheme, banning inshore fishing in some Highland communities and most recently banning wood-burning stoves in rural new builds. Many wonder why a party that returns less than 10 per cent of the popular vote in elections is allowed to dictate policy in so many sensitive areas. It’s a mystery that will probably remain unsolved until polling day, when the full cost to the SNP of its alliance with Ms Chapman and her chums becomes obvious.
Comments