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've always assumed Tea is male...

I always did.

Note also that tea has not claimed to be a cis gendered lesbian but a lesbian who is attracted to females. I don't normally use cis but tea used it earlier upthread and I think for the purpose of this it is illustrative.

Explains a lot.

It also explains why Tea is happy with the change of the meaning of the word lesbian and doesn't find it homophobic.

And entirely explains why Tea is so aghast by Kate Forbe's homophobia but diminishes the homophobia of the genderists who have Humza Yousaf's support.

She has repeatedly said she's not.

Well their first answer to me to the direct question I asked was well it could be no one on here is female, there’s no way to know. Which struck me as a deeply odd thing for an actual woman to say.

It doesn't really matter in the end though does it?

According to Tea

Lesbian can mean-

Exclusive same sex attraction (female attracted to female)
transwoman attracted to females (formerly known as heterosexual males)
Females attracted to both other females and transwomen -( bi sexual females)

The word is literally meaningless. It covers a whole range of sexualities.

The fact we can even question Tea's sex or sexuality when they define themselves as a lesbian entirely proves the point.

BTW some transwomen identify as female. See India Willoughby.

@lifeturnsonadime

Yes I absolutely agree

Yeah but I'm asking you specifically what section of the relevant Bill would actually erode my rights.

We all know that you have general objections to trans inclusive feminism. Fine. You're free to hold those views.

But this is a discussion about a specific piece of legislation that you claimed would reduce the rights of gay people. It's not much to ask that you specify what section of the Bill would do that and how?

Put it more bluntly - what legal rights do lesbians in Scotland have now that they would not have if the Bill received Royal Assent and which section of the Bill removes those rights?

Umm, yes, I have.

I remember saying I was a cisgender woman because one of your lot came back with the super original response of claiming there's no such thing as cisgender.

Well I stand corrected. This is a long thread.

Yeah but I'm asking you specifically what section of the relevant Bill would actually erode my rights.

None of them erode your rights. You are happy for sex not to matter. Gender is what is important. I get it.

You don't speak for other women or lesbians who are concerned that genderism removes rights of women and the language that lesibans have to describe themselves.

A good reason, perhaps, not to obsess over the personal characteristics of posters and instead deal with their arguments.

OK - specifically what rights do lesbians who only sleep with cisgender women have now that they would lose if the Bill achieved Royal Assent? And which section of the Bill removed those rights?

I have dealt with your arguments in great detail.

We disagree. That's OK.

We never had to obsess over what lesbian might mean before though did we? That's happened since we started including males within the definition of gender.

OFGS it's not specific sections. It is genderism.

If you vote for a candidate who supports the Gender Bill they support the amended (homophobic) definition of lesbianism.

You made a specific claim about a specific piece of legislation.

So what rights do lesbians have now that they will not have if the Bill becomes law?

It happened since an entire cult sprung up that obsesses about people’s genitals and sexual preferences.

Well if they don't erode @TeaKlaxon 's rights, I'm at a loss as to how you can argue they erode the rights of other lesbians.

It was me. And there isn’t any such thing as cisgender. The truth doesn’t need to be original.

‘Obsess’

Oh here we go with the homophobia.
Gay and lesbian people have genital fetishes according to @TeaKlaxon

Really?

You think there is no difference between exclusive same sex attraction, heterosexual relationships and bisexuality.

Interesting.

Apologies another typo.
Genital obsessions.

Isn't that the point?

India Willoughby claims to be a cis gender woman. www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3658538-India-Willoughby-identifying-as-a-cis-woman

You are missing the point entirely, and suggesting something that I have offered no opinion on.

@TeaKlaxon asked you to specify which aspects of the GRR bill erode her rights as a lesbians. You replied that there are none.

Given that rights are not determined by what an individual believes, it stands to reason that if the GRR bill does not erode @TeaKlaxon rights as a lesbian, then it does not erode the rights of any other lesbian

You appear to be arguing that rights are determined by what an individual believes, which is not only wholly incorrect, it's also absolutely bizarre.