How many victims is an acceptable price to pay for the SNP’s gender reform proposals?

THE hitherto-unknown phenomenon of backbench revolt against the SNP Government has been in evidence (“First Minister to face new SNP internal revolt on controversial Gender Recognition Reform Bill”, November 6). Perhaps the MSPs were concerned by, among other things, the recent findings that there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of corrupt police officers working in England and Wales including those with convictions for indecent exposure and domestic violence.

I recollect previously having read of sexual offences committed against female inmates in prison, again, I think, in England and Wales, by trans women – that is, persons with male bodies who had opted to be treated as women in relation to their incarceration. There is also the infamous case of Wayne Couzens, the police officer who murdered Sarah Everard.

We need to accept that there are those among us who will go to great lengths to put themselves into positions from which they can give vent to odious sexual and other predilections, that the proposed reforms present them with an opportunity to do so, and that society at large and vulnerable women and girls in particular require to be protected against the practice of these predilections.

Can there be any doubt whatsoever that the proposed reforms present at least a degree of risk to vulnerable women and girls? The more pertinent question may concern the number of victims that would be an acceptable price for the implementation of these reforms. I have not seen evidence of any modelling or other study having been carried out to establish the probable or possible nature and frequency of any such offending that is likely to ensue from these reforms. It seems foolhardy to proceed with the reforms without the opposing concerns being tested in this way and without the public being given the insight that such testing would provide.

One group, apart from immediate victims, which is likely to suffer from either untested reforms or from any consequent offending that might take place is, of course, those who are subject to gender dysphoria or similar conditions and who are likely to meet with a public reaction that is even less acceptable than that which currently causes distress to at least some of their number.

There seems to be common consent that the present legal position should be reformed to reduce the adverse consequences of gender dysphoria and suchlike but these proposed reforms seem likely to be a step in the opposite direction.

Michael Sheridan, Glasgow.