To worry about Kate Forbes becoming first minister

[Creatine11]

Abortion and LGBT rights have been something that have largely not been part of political debate for at least the last 10 years. Gay marriage was enacted in 2014 and was broadly supported. The last serious challenge to abortion rights was at the start of the coalition government with Nadine Dorries et all. However, broadly gay rights and abortion rights have been settled issues- it has almost been taboo for politicians to oppose them. Certainly, there hasn’t been any serious possibility over the last decade (at least) of any rowing back on abortion, gay marriage, gay adoption, divorce law etc.

However, it is clear that in the heart of hearts of Forbes she disagrees with all these things due to her beliefs as an evangelical Christian. By all accounts she was very competent as a minister and has been a good MSP. However, as first minister she will be a figurehead for Scotland as well as setting the tone for policy and political discourse. Also, unlike Rees-Mogg and DUP types, Kate Forbes seems like an otherwise sensible, competent, ‘normal’ politician.

My concern is Forbes being the leader of Scotland could normalise her views on these issues. While I don’t believe abortion or gay marriage face immediate threat, if it’s brought into mainstream politics it will become a party political issue and may well shift public opinion, especially given the current culture war. Politicians, journalists, activists and others who have held these views quietly may be emboldened to launch a new campaign against abortion, LGBT rights or some other issue. I don’t know this would necessarily just be limited to Scotland as Nicola Sturgeon and her policies had a very high profile in the rest of the UK and influenced policy.

Aibu to worry about Kate Forbes becoming SNP leader and first minister?

I have said so

It was debated pages ago

The definition of homophobia isn't really up for debate

Discrimination against gay people is homophobia

It obviously bears repeating but if you don't want to hear it, don't read my comments?

The definition of homophobia isn't really up for debate

It appears to be when the definition of gay and lesbian is being changed without consent by the Gender Act to mean something other than exclusively same sex attracted.

https://www.equality-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/141216SSA--_Same-Sex-Marriage-Brief.pdf

In 2014 when it was legalised 33% were against gay marriage, neither agreed/disagreed or didn't answer.

(Although I'd take into account the bias of this source)

It's democracy for those third of voters to be represented in Parliament.

it's all a smokescreen anyway. Kate Forbes has repeatedly said she will not take steps to ban gay marriage.

The definition of homophobic isn't "opposed to gay marriage", FYI.

The definition of homophobia includes opposed to gay marriage
It's literally discrimination on basis of sexuality

Except that the gender recognition legislation has absolutely no effect whatsoever on lesbians who only sleep with cisgender women. Or indeed on any lesbians. It has absolutely no effect on how people define sexual orientation.

Literally everything in your post is just a list of anti-trans talking points with absolutely no bearing on the actual legislation in question.

No - it’s prejudice against gay people.

Opposition to equal civil marriage rights absolutely constitutes prejudice against gay couples.

Kate Forbes believes my relationship is worthy of less status and protection than hers. If that’s not prejudice, what is?

It’s also democratic for the rest of us to point out that they are homophobic.

Which provisions of the Act define ‘gay and lesbian’?

“Except that the gender recognition legislation has absolutely no effect whatsoever on lesbians who only sleep with cisgender women”

all my lesbian friends say that self ID has destroyed a lot of their social life. They are not allowed to have women only social events and their dating websites have been taken over by trabsbians who want validated.

gay friends have told me how upset they are when woke dudes tell them that they are hateful bigots for standing up for the rights of women and children to safe spaces.

abused women are scared to go to rape crisis in case there are men in their self help group or male counsellors

lesbian kids in high school are not allowed to have female only support groups

disabled women who rely on carers are scared that their agency will send a man to do intimate care and they won’t be allowed to object.

it affects women and girls all the time . And like other forms of discrimination, it’s had a disproportionate effect on women who are already marginalised .

so don’t tell me it has no affect on lesbians, it bloody well does.

so don’t tell me it has no affect on lesbians, it bloody well does.

Of course it does, much more than a candidate who has stated that whilst they don't believe in gay marriage they would uphold the current law.

She would not prevent anyone from being marriage based on their sexual orientation.

@lifeturnsonadime

She says...

And which parts of the Scottish Act that’s being discussed make all those things happen?

Maybe you can help then. Which specific sections of the Scottish Act would impact on me as a lesbian?

Unlike Humza Yousaf she doesn't appear to be economical with the truth.

Not to mention that there is absolutely no political appetite for banning gay marriage.

There is plenty of political appetite for bashing women, removing safe spaces and calling single sex attracted gays and lesbians sexual racists.

Stonewall is the largest LGBT organisation in the UK and Europe. I asked the charity about these issues but it was unable to provide anyone for interview. However, in a statement, chief executive Nancy Kelley likened not wanting to date trans people to not wanting to date people of colour, fat people, or disabled people.

She said: "Sexuality is personal and something which is unique to each of us. There is no 'right' way to be a lesbian, and only we can know who we're attracted to.

"Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions.

"We know that prejudice is still common in the LGBT+ community, and it's important that we can talk about that openly and honestly."

This is an extract from this article www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385

Stonewall has been actively campaigning on Scotlands Gender Bill -

www.stonewall.org.uk/our-work/campaigns/support-gender-recognition-reform-bill-scotland

The Gender Bill is not good news for lesbians and gay people (using the old fashioned definition of single sex attracted).

Which Scottish Act?

You haven't been polite enough to answer any of my questions about how you define lesbians so I'm not inclined to answer yours.

Tea what kind of lesbian are you? I don't know if you are single sex attracted or something else ?

That's what happens when words change without consent.

I mean you’re the one that claimed that people were concerned that ‘the Gender Bill supported by Humza Yousaf , will mean that the single sex attracted gay people will have less rights‘.

But you can’t actually tell us which sections of the Bill will reduce these rights.

I’m a lesbian who is attracted to women. Now perhaps you can back up your claims about how the Gender Bill would reduce the rights of gay people.

We've been through this before if we cannot see sex we cannot define sexuality. You have no problem with this many many do.

It is about the erosion of sex in favour of gender, the impact on women's spaces and the impact on the definition of lesbian.

You have no issue with this but you have no right to say that you speak for all lesbians. You don't.

I've worked with Humza Yousaf. He's the most idiotic politician I've ever met. And I've met Liam Fox...

@lifeturnsonadime

I don't support HY either

And I don't think there is public appetite for the grr.

Most polls are against.

I know it's not great either way @Botw1 , it's the implication that HY is better for lesbians that I object to.

I mean it's illustrated on this thread how genderism has changed meanings. We all knew what a lesbian was until it was appropriated by people who are not female exclusively same sex attracted. Now we have to ask what someone means when they say lesbian. It's crazy. They may mean a heterosexual male or a woman who doesn't mind sleeping with a person of the opposite sex.

Grrr it just get's to me that this is supposedly absolutely fine and it's anti trans to point it out! It's not it's about women. We matter.

I’m glad to have it confirmed as he does seem to me to be q thick, so much so in fact I am bewildered a lot of people don’t seem to see it