Kate Forbes reported for 'transphobia'

[ArabellaScott]

www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23336504.kate-forbes-may-breached-snp-rules-transphobia/

'KATE Forbes looks set to be probed by the SNP's conduct committee after members of the party's LGBTQ+ wing accused her of breaking rules on transphobia.

In an interview with ITV Border, when asked if she believed a trans woman is a woman, the Finance Secretary replied: "I believe that a trans woman is a biological male who identifies as a woman."'

phrases or language to suggest their gender identity is not valid, for example referring to a trans woman as a 'biological man'."

this doesn’t mean the term biological male is problematic.

It’s a potential example of the transphobia they’ve defined as language that suggests gender identity is not valid.

Nothing she’s said suggest that the gender identity is not valid. But she’s been clear to accept that transwomen identify as women.

This kind of language policing such that no one is allowed to talk about reality is deeply, deeply problematic.

And it’s not what the majority of Scottish voters want from a political party.

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

But what if you don’t believe that woman is a gender. I think woman refers to sex. I couldn’t say the above in sincerity.

Woman / female - these words are about your biological sex.

Femininity is gender (I.e. the stereotypes associated with femaleness). Anyone can perform, reject, ignore or identify with femininity (I.e. gender), but it doesn’t change anyone’s sex.

This shouldn't be confused with biological genotype which is usually assigned at birth and can be different to someone gender identity

Biological genotype is not "assigned"at birth. FFS.

U R bonkers.

@hryllilegur it the use of biological male that's the issue and seen as transphobic, the way she phrased it is basically outing the transwoman as being biologically male which isn't okay. It's the same argument as saying someone of a different ethnic background is say British-Asian when they simply identify British that wouldn't be accepted so neither should misgendering or insisting on bringing genetics into what is an identity.

@ResisterRex she paid as a politician to abide by their beliefs and codes of ethics. If she choose to let her own beliefs come into that's she needs to face the consequences.

So for me I'm biologically female, identify as a female with a male husband. If I'm forced to give a gender I'm female but otherwise I'm simply grumpy. I don't use Mrs, Ms, Miss, Dr, Proff etc always select other where I can or leave it blank. As a gender identity doesn't define me as a person it just says which sex organs I was born with. It would be so much easier to end all this with right life is totally gender neutral no more woman, men, non-binary etc

Bring it on!

They are getting hammered on this issue but do not know when to give up.

If what she said is transphobic, then describing a woman as an adult human female - or even daring to refer to said person as 'she' - is grossly misogynist.

Anybody who refers to me as British must also be a nasty xenophobe - even though that is what I obviously am, and it is not a slur in any way.

I wonder which other neutral facts we are now going to be banned from acknowledging? If a trans person is too sensitive to even have basic facts about them confirmed in context, the issue is clearly with them and not with the person just responding to questions with basic facts.

she paid as a politician to abide by their beliefs and codes of ethics. If she choose to let her own beliefs come into that's she needs to face the consequences.

This is just wrong. And the tone is threatening ("needs to face the consequences"). There are some issues that transcend politics and party lines. This is one of them. The Lib Dems recently discovered they can't force definitions onto their party members and this looks almost like a carbon copy of what they tried and failed to do.

You can like or not like someone's views. Share or not share their beliefs. You can't force people to have certain views or beliefs. This is not British. It's not democratic. It's not progressive. It divides, causes unrest, creates social fissures. Surely we have learnt this from recent history, not too far from our shores.

the way she phrased it is basically outing the transwoman as being biologically male which isn't okay

How is that outing? By definition a transwoman is a biological male.

I think it's a nice, clear and succinct answer and perfectly correct. If tw weren't biologically male, what would they be transing from and to? Yet again the tras have completely failed to read the room. I hope her comments, and the public reaction to them, will help other politicians get to grips with this issue. There is nothing scary or transphobic about stating reality with compassion and understanding, which is what she did.

This is causing issues for the SNP

There were other comments which have also been said to be problematic but on that statement alone it is fact and that it can’t be said is disturbing

Good for Kate. Why should she (or anyone else) be required to deny facts and play at make-believe?

Let them probe - let's shine the brightest light possible on this nonsense and let them be seen for the out of touch fools they are.

the way she phrased it is basically outing the transwoman as being biologically male which isn't okay

there is no transwoman to be outed as biologically male. She hasn’t pointed across a room and said ‘that one there. Jemima is a biological male. Just identifies as a woman’.

it’s a general, factual statement given as a definition. In direct response to a question. Everyone KNOWS that transwomen are biologically male. It’s not outing anyone.

It all looks very much like an attempt to prevent people speaking basic truths about reality.

If transphobia is merely a concept for silencing people saying really bland, factual things, then the problem is with the people determined to use the concept to stop people talking.

That was a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

The SNPs failure to admit that transwomen are male is part of the reason they are in this mess.

They're also out of step with not only reality but the public belief on this.

If they are then going to try and discipline one of their MSPs for something that's fundamentally true and also a protected belief in uk law AND something the majority believe then they are going to look very foolish.

People seeing something as transphobic and it actually being transphobic are two different things though.

She's not "outing" anyone as biologically male because by definition, a trans woman can only be biologically male - otherwise it would simply be a woman.

She acknowledged that the person identifies as a woman. But your personal identification preferences do not erode biological fact. So rather refreshingly for a politician, she's answered clearly with actual, proven, scientific facts.

If people want to take offence, that's their choice but you can't deny the existence of biology, and it's ridiculous that biological fact can't be mentioned because "transphobia".

I don't see any correlation with the example you gave about a British-Asian only wanting to identify as British - that's nothing like the same thing at all. The "Asian" suffix is unnecessary because the person is still British regardless of their skin colour. A better example would be say, a French person, born in France and whose home is in France, saying they identify as British. Well, fine, no issue with that if that's where they feel ideologically at home - but they're still actually French.

I believe the song Agadoo is dreadful.

Many, many people agree with me even if they don't spend much time mentioning how dreadful it is.

I am ALLOWED to believe anything I want, including things other people don't want me to believe, or to not believe things they wish I did.

How can it be against the law to believe something (particularly when it's actually provably true & the basis for those people to demand a medical intervention to a physically healthy body with no physical need of treatment)?

A phobia is an irrational fear.
What is irrational about about not believing something just because someone else wishes you did?

Hebridean · Today 16:37

Biological genotype is not "assigned"at birth. FFS.

Quite, it's determined, typically 9 months before birth. It doesn't matter if she's signed some code or other - I don't know if that's correct - she has the legally protected right to state what she did. Punishing her for an entirely legal action is abominable.

The gender recognition panel used to refuse a GRC to people who believed they would actually change sex. So either that has quietly changed, or part of the agenda for 'updating the GRA' is to change the GRC out of all recognition, not just to allow self ID.

the ethnicity/nationality comparison doesn’t work either.

Because, unlike sex, race/ethnicity is not a biologically defined category. Even if people think it is. It’s all identity.

Sex IS a biological category. And it has meaningful effects in the world and on people’s experiences.

All transwomen are biologically male. That generalised statement does not, in itself, undermine, invalidate or ‘out’ any identity.

Without saying anything further, it doesn’t follow that this impacts on the validity of gender identity at all. If you and TRAs automatically assume that the statement itself means the identifying as a woman is not valid, then I’d suggest that you have a good long think about whether you do actually believe that self identity makes someone a woman.

Forbes didn’t say that there was anything invalid about the identifying as a woman part of it at all. Why do you assume that any acknowledgement of biology invalidates that?

They're really scared of her winning the leadership contest aren't they.

There's a religious flavour to these belief questions. As if someone asked "Do you believe that Jesus Christ is your saviour?"

I don't think there's much chance of her winning the leadership contest since such a light has been shone on her conservative beliefs in the last 24hrs.

I was just coming in to ask this- surely the "trans" bit just means that they identify as the opposite gender to their sex?

How else would you explain "trans"?

It seems that they’re really scared of many things.

I wonder if the problem is not that people are being transphobic, but actually that TRAs are themselves phobic about many things. They seem to be terrified of anyone being allowed to say or even think anything they haven’t sanctioned.