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 didn’t say anything about gay and lesbian people.

I’m referring to the transphobic cult that mostly does not consist of gay and lesbian people who have a weird obsession with what genitals people have and what types of sex they’re into.

But keep on running away from your claim that the Gender Bill removes gay people’s rights. Any time you want to back up that claim, feel free. But you can’t can you?

And you are entirely, and I suspect deliberately, mine.

It is genderism and the creep that comes with the Gender Bill which harms lesbians and all women and gay men.

Lesbian used to have a meaning - female exclusive single sex attraction.

It no longer has that meaning. That harms lesbians who are single sex attracted.

Tea might not be concerned about this but she can't speak for all lesbians, as you should well know.

It is well recorded that there are lesbian groups who oppose the gender bill. It is not specific sections that are concerning but the impact of genderism. If sex no longer exists then nor does same sex attraction.

My point, in reference to this thread, is supporting a politician who supports the gender bill is a vote in favour of the removal of women's rights and the removal of the original meaning of lesbianism.

posted too soon which is blatantly homophobic if you consider homosexuality to be exclusive same sex attraction.

Much more concerning , and homophobic, than a prospective First Minister who will not take action to remove rights in gay marriage.

Let me try one more time.

What right does a lesbian in Scotland have now that she would not have if the Bill becomes law?

It’s a really simple question. You’re the one who made the claim. Why are you so unable to back it up?

I’m referring to the transphobic cult

TeaKlaxon is a TRA.

women who want rights for women and want to retain meanings of words are not in a cult.

I've explained loads of times, it is not specific sections it is the impact on women and lesbians of increased number of people recognised at law as being the opposite sex on their say so.

I'm not sure what you do not comprehend about this. It's very simple.

Why are you harping on about individual sections when I haven't said they exist in the first place?

Still not able to provide evidence to back up your claim that the Gender Bill removes rights for gay people.

You can admit you were wrong. Or you could tell us what rights exist now that will be removed if the Bill becomes law?

‘Transphobic cult’ = 95% of humanity.
The sex of humans isn’t limited to their genitals of course. It’s imprinted in every cell of our bodies and shows in our skeletons.

Ok so you can’t name the specific sections.

Let’s focus on the specific rights.

What rights do gay people have now that they will not have if the Bill becomes law? It’s a super straightforward question.

You are not engaging in this in a reasonable manner.

I have explained several times.

I have never said individual sections you have literally made up.

We are allowed to disagree about the impact on lesbians. My opinion on this is not wrong.

You don't want to support Kate because she doesn't approve of gay marriage even though she won't change the law on this.

I don't want to support Humza Yousaf because he supports the Gender Bill. This indicates that he doesn't believe that lesbians are exclusively single sex attracted females.

This harms lesbians.

Is that clear enough for you? .

We are both entitled to our opinions. Having an opinion is not wrong.

You don't want to support Kate because she doesn't approve of gay marriage even though she won't change the law on this.

I don't want to support Humza Yousaf because he supports the Gender Bill. This indicates that he doesn't believe that lesbians are exclusively single sex attracted females.

This harms lesbians.

Is that clear enough for you? .

We are both entitled to our opinions. Having an opinion is not wrong.

By the way @TeaKlaxon I don't care if it isn't clear enough for you. I don't think, when you purport to speak for all lesbians at the same time as claiming a meaning that many lesbians do not adopt, you are arguing in good faith.

You keep hanging on to this issue of sections.

Ive asked you what right you are claiming that gay people have that they will not have if the Bill becomes law.

I genuinely can’t ask the question in a more straightforward way.

But you were wrong when you said the Bill would remove rights from lesbians.

Thats not an opinion. It is an assertion of fact.

And facts are either right or wrong. And your assertion was wrong.

Tea is just pissed off that it looks increasingly likely that a candidate she doesn’t want to win will win. That’s down to the other two being breathtakingly awful. Just staggeringly bad. Just mind blowingly terrible. A bigoted first minister is the least of our worries, and the bonus is she’s likely to kick the deeply unpopular GRA and DRS into the long grass and tell the greens to get lost.

But if the deeply incompetent HY wins that’s good with me too, as he will plunder any SNP popularity to zero in record time. It’s win-win for UK fans everywhere.

Ok @TeaKlaxon
In the interests of an honest debate I'll deal with what you are moaning about.

The Gender Act does not specifically change the meaning of :Gay and Lesbian.

It is 'genderism' which does that.

Prior to genderism it was clear that a gay or a lesbian person was some one exclusively same sex attracted. Now it can mean a whole host of different sexes or sexualities.

What I was paraphrasing (for want of a better expression) was that 'gender' changes the meaning of lots of things. An ;Act' and what I mean by that is the gender bill supports replacing SEX with gender. It supports the modified definition of homosexuality to include people who are not homosexual.

So I was wrong , if it pleases you, when I typed quickly the 'Gender Act' rather than Genderism.

However my opinion that the meaning of homosexuality has been changed 'without consent' and that the new meaning will be supported by those who try to advance the gender bill remains.

Now please tell me why it is worse for lesbians that someone who disagrees with gay marriage but won't remove the right to it is standing to lead the SNP?

Because you have grilled me and I really want to know why 'wrong think' is worse than changing the meaning of gay and lesbian?

By your logic then the meaning of gay and lesbian has been changed for nearly twenty years, since the Gender Recognition Act.

I think perhaps you should stop telling gay people what they are and are not. If a gay person only wants to sleep with cisgender people they are entirely free to do that. There is absolutely nothing about supporting trans rights that compels anyone to sleep with anyone they don’t want to.

As to your question - I’ve already explained. I don’t but your claim that what you call ‘genderism’ is damaging to lesbians or that Humza Yousaf would be harmful to lesbians because he supports trans people’s rights.

On the other hand it is naive to think that Kate Forbes will never have to make decisions where her religious belief will put her on the wrong side of gay people’s well-being.

I agree that marriage equality is unlikely to be repealed any time soon, but there are lots of other issues facing gay people. There are growing moves to try and push section 28 style laws, there is a growing problem of homophobic hate crime, lesbian mothers have certain complications with getting legal status for their children.

On all of these issues, someone who believes I am not worthy of the same rights as she is herself cannot be trusted to act in a way that supports gay people when it comes to any of those issues.

Ha. Agree with this!

You're right. Some of them are non-religious homophobes.