Kate Forbes reported for 'transphobia'

Fakecrazy · 21/02/2023 16:03

It's not even believe is it? It's knowledge/fact. That's what pisses me off.

RoseslnTheHospital · 21/02/2023 16:03

The ongoing madness of this never ceases to amaze. She said nothing that isn't a simple fact.

StephanieSuperpowers · 21/02/2023 16:04

Well if it goes to court, it could be interesting. Not that it will, but it's always fascinating to see what happens when they try to defend their antiscience beliefs.

MarshaBradyo · 21/02/2023 16:07

The statement is fact

It’s crazy.

randomusername2020 · 21/02/2023 16:08

This reply has been withdrawn

This post has been withdrawn at the poster's request due to privacy concerns.

WorkingItOutAsIGo · 21/02/2023 16:09

I think this stuff is hugely valuable: it brings daylight. Am sorry for Kate with the stress of it, but most people will see that if you can be accused of transphobia for saying what everyone knows to be true, then transphobia is a meaningless word.

This sort of ridiculous claim is damaging for those who truly do suffer transphobia.

MissLawls · 21/02/2023 16:10

I hope Forbes sticks to what she said which is factually correct. She can maybe use her religion to fall back on but I hope she doesn't do that. However be interesting if she does. For aren't religious beliefs also protected? And what if someone of another faith said what Forbes did!? And claimed it was a protected belief. Would they too be subject to a conduct committee hearing?

cobblers123 · 21/02/2023 16:10

Bloody hell, this is just madness! She's totally right. What's up with people!

bellinisurge · 21/02/2023 16:11

You don't need to be a Baptist or whatever she is to believe that. It's like "believing the sky is blue because of the particular way white light refracts in our atmosphere" rather than "believing it's the eyes of smiling angels".

PennyFarthings · 21/02/2023 16:13

A trans woman is a biological male. I will not be told that this is an expression of hate. It's just a bloody fact.

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 21/02/2023 16:13

Let them do their probe. I'd like to hear them try to articulate exactly what is wrong with what said. Bring it on!

MissLawls · 21/02/2023 16:13

transphobia is a meaningless word.

In fact it originally meant fear of public transport! A sentiment I suspect many of us have felt at one time! Also the word phobia means fear, not hate! To fear something irrationally. It could however be argued that since some activists try to get people fired, arrested, and otherwise harassed then this phobia isn't a phobia since it isn't irrational. Isn't it perfectly rational to fear activists who are extremists desperate to find and prosecute offence wherever they can?

BettyFilous · 21/02/2023 16:13

MissLawls · 21/02/2023 16:10

I hope Forbes sticks to what she said which is factually correct. She can maybe use her religion to fall back on but I hope she doesn't do that. However be interesting if she does. For aren't religious beliefs also protected? And what if someone of another faith said what Forbes did!? And claimed it was a protected belief. Would they too be subject to a conduct committee hearing?

Is it not a protected belief following the Forstater ruling? The fact Forbes framed it as her belief surely strengthens her EA2010 protections under the religion & belief PC. (I am not a lawyer.)

KohlaParasaurus · 21/02/2023 16:15

Not only is it fact, it is also a belief she, just like anyone else, is legally entitled to hold.

MissLawls · 21/02/2023 16:15

Is it not a protected belief following the Forstater ruling? The fact Forbes framed it as her belief surely strengthens her EA2010 protections under the religion & belief PC. (I am not a lawyer.)

IANAL either but yes I believe so!

ditalini · 21/02/2023 16:15

I'm really confused by this - surely the number of people in Scotland who would agree with the statement "I believe that a trans woman is a biological male who identifies as a woman." is practically 100% and would include a swathe of people who "identify as" very socially liberal and definitely on the right side of history?

What are they trying to gain here? It feels like too much sunlight to be real surely?

hryllilegur · 21/02/2023 16:16

I suspect whoever thought this was a clever move within the SNP l has gravely miscalculated.

They’re basically trying to cancel one of the leadership contenders who has made a pretty neutral and factual statement that most Scots agree with.

It’s not a good look for the SNP.

Justforlaffs · 21/02/2023 16:16

So she basically hurt their feelings by speaking the truth (in a very kind, non-aggressive way)?

I didn’t think you could be punished for stating a medical fact?

Don’t we teach children “sticks and stones”? They really need to get a thicker skin if they’re going to go through life expecting everyone else on the planet who doesn’t agree with them that twaw - so a lot of people - should be “probed” and face trial. What happens if she refuses to be probed?

Grumpybutfunny · 21/02/2023 16:18

Very sloppy reply for a politician she should have either declined to answer or answer it properly. As it's stands her answer is transphobic by the code she signed up to represent. It should have been phrased to acknowledge gender identity even if she wanted to rock the boat and add biology to the end of it.

Something like I do believe a trans woman is a woman as an individual has the right to identify as whichever or non gender they wish, this principle is the corner stone of gender identity. This shouldn't be confused with biological genotype which is usually assigned at birth and can be different to someone gender identity

Rainbowshit · 21/02/2023 16:18

Good. More sunlight on this issue is a good thing.

ditalini · 21/02/2023 16:19

hryllilegur · 21/02/2023 16:16

I suspect whoever thought this was a clever move within the SNP l has gravely miscalculated.

They’re basically trying to cancel one of the leadership contenders who has made a pretty neutral and factual statement that most Scots agree with.

It’s not a good look for the SNP.

I think they're going to find that Scotland is a LOT more socially conservative than they reckoned and the anti-religion thing is going to go over less well than anticipated.

I have no idea how socially conservative the SNP membership is in general and how it will affect the leadership vote, but it may be remembered at the polls.

They're saying the quiet bit out loud. The whole point (a la Denton) is to stay under the radar folks.

SirSamVimesCityWatch · 21/02/2023 16:20

This level of stupidity if going to tear political parties apart.

Now, I don't particularly like the SNP so I wouldn't be too sorry to see them wreck their ship with this, but the wider picture is we need multiple functioning political parties to make democracy work.

hryllilegur · 21/02/2023 16:24

Grumpybutfunny · 21/02/2023 16:18

Very sloppy reply for a politician she should have either declined to answer or answer it properly. As it's stands her answer is transphobic by the code she signed up to represent. It should have been phrased to acknowledge gender identity even if she wanted to rock the boat and add biology to the end of it.

Something like I do believe a trans woman is a woman as an individual has the right to identify as whichever or non gender they wish, this principle is the corner stone of gender identity. This shouldn't be confused with biological genotype which is usually assigned at birth and can be different to someone gender identity

She hasn’t contravened that code though. She’s not used the phrase ‘biological male’ to undermine a person’s gender identity. She’s said that they identify as a woman.

So insisting that she ties herself in knots to avoid using the words biologically male is just absurd.

even in that (problematic) statement, you’d need to intend to undermine the gender identity to be transphobic.

ResisterRex · 21/02/2023 16:26

Grumpybutfunny · 21/02/2023 16:18

Very sloppy reply for a politician she should have either declined to answer or answer it properly. As it's stands her answer is transphobic by the code she signed up to represent. It should have been phrased to acknowledge gender identity even if she wanted to rock the boat and add biology to the end of it.

Something like I do believe a trans woman is a woman as an individual has the right to identify as whichever or non gender they wish, this principle is the corner stone of gender identity. This shouldn't be confused with biological genotype which is usually assigned at birth and can be different to someone gender identity

She doesn't believe it. Why should she be forced to hide her beliefs and to lie?

Next it'll be OK to force her to recant

Tallisker · 21/02/2023 16:28

But she doesn't believe that a man is a woman. Why should she lie? Why should any of us lie?

And I think she's been good saying she believes this, not 'this is a fact'. Can't prove she doesn't believe something.