If we stopped enforcing gender roles from birth, we wouldn't be having this debate

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Campaigners for LGBT rights wave the rainbow flag (EPA)

If children were treated equally and not driven into stereotypical pigeonholes from birth, there would not be the problem of “identifying” with a gender. Children treated with true equality could be allowed to grow up as balanced individuals and their sexual orientation and identity would emerge gradually as they reached sexual maturity.

D Shore
Cumbria

The Grosvenor family does pay tax

Your economics editor, Ben Chu, might have checked his facts by calling me or reading my blog on the Grosvenor website before writing his article on the tax treatment of family trusts.

The article states that “the super-rich can bypass inheritance tax with their trusts”. This is completely wrong. UK resident trusts pay a rate of 6 per cent every 10 years, which over a full lifetime means that trusts pay this inheritance tax many times over, with the added advantage to the UK taxpayer of its regular, effectively in-advance payment schedule.

The reason that the Grosvenor Estate, like many other family-owned enterprises, holds assets via trusts is to ensure continuity of the collective ownership, administration and management of the estate across the generations. It is not to avoid the payment of taxes.

One other very important point. Grosvenor family members are all UK residents – they have been so for nearly 1,000 years – and they pay UK taxes in the same way as the rest of us and are also entitled to the same exemptions. Accordingly, and as one would expect, the assets left by the 6th Duke to his widow are exempt from inheritance tax. On her death, inheritance tax will be due in the usual manner.

Mark Preston, executive trustee, Grosvenor Estate

The Christmas ad dispute

Well done Tesco, says 70-year-old white male. I may start shopping with you.

Stuart Morris
Address supplied

A timely poem

“First the EU ignored the Croats, Muslims and Serbs, and I did not speak out

Because I was not a Croat, a Muslim or a Serb.

Then they ignored the refugees, and I did not speak out

Because I was not a refugee.

Then they ignored the Catalans, and I did not speak out

Because I was not a Catalan.

Then they ignored me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Martin Niemöller’s words about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis’ rise to power and subsequent purges should not be forgotten.

Gemma Roda
Barcelona, Spain

No more comment sections

Please could you stop including comments on online articles? The “discussions” tend to degenerate into abuse, and many of the comments are likely to be from fake accounts. People can write letters if they wish to comment.

Julie Davies
Address supplied

Stop talking on “quiet” train carriages

There is a sad force at play in Britain today, and it is not, as you might suppose, the polarisation of the population over the Brexit vote. This is a malaise that runs much deeper.

“Rights belong to me, obligations to everyone else.”

This seems to be the attitude of many: I am allowed to think, say and do what I believe is right, but you had better not say or do anything that makes me feel challenged or uncomfortable.

We see this in microcosm on the nation’s railways: In “quiet” carriages across the land, people are merrily chattering away, blithely ignoring the fact that their fellow passengers have chosen to travel in that coach precisely to avoid the noise of other people’s chatter.

When challenged and asked to show some consideration for their fellow passengers (and why do so few of us do this? Why must Britons be passive-aggressive, tutting to themselves and quietly seething, rather than calling out bad behaviour – thereby condoning it?) they often retort: “It doesn’t say ‘no talking’,” or “It’s a quiet carriage, not a silent carriage.”

A couple of points about that: in libraries we are taught to be quiet to allow others to study or to read in peace. Those who infringe against this stricture are invited to be quiet or to leave. It is this sense in which “quiet” in quiet carriages is intended to be understood. “Excuse me, please”, “sorry” – these are acceptable levels of conversation. Anything more than that is inappropriate.

Secondly, and here I’ll make a list:

• What is the difference between forcing me to listen to one side of your conversation on a phone – an act which is specifically prohibited – and forcing me to listen to both sides of your conversation in person? Clearly if one is not appropriate, neither is the other
• There are several other carriages on the train – usually all of them – in which it is perfectly allowable to have a conversation. Most people don’t, out of respect for their fellow travellers, but it is allowed
• By insisting on your right to talk, you are ignorantly denying your fellow passengers their right to quiet. Your rights do not trump those of everyone else. Society is a game of shared trade-offs. Not to observe our shared rules is to invite anarchy
• Lastly, if everyone were to talk, it wouldn’t be a quiet carriage now, would it? 

If we can address issues like this, perhaps we stand a chance of pulling together again. I’d like to think it’s possible.

Matthew Swainson
Surrey

May should step down sooner rather than later

Over recent days I have read many epithets on Theresa May, including beleaguered, weak, lacking authority, not in control. I then read that apparently her husband regularly advises her in these difficult times.

Well, I must say in that case he should promptly advise her to leave office while she still retains a few crumbs of credibility and dignity!

The alternative, I fear, is to live with the ignominy of being the worst prime minister since Frederick North.

Robert Boston
Kingshill