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."'

“Transphobia may manifest in a range of ways including, but not limited to, deliberately misgendering someone or using phrases or language to suggest their gender identity is not valid, for example referring to a trans woman as a "biological man".
This is hogwash, isn't it? Gender identity is different from biological sex, otherwise what are people transing from and to?
Particularly in Forbes' case, she explicitly says a TW is BOTH.
This is one of the many objections I have to the language around this issue; it's used to deliberately manipulate and obfuscate.

“Transphobia” describes discriminatory or prejudiced language or actions, relating to actual or perceived gender identity or gender expression, including denying or refusing to accept gender identity”

This is so confusing. I fully believe that there are individuals who believe that they possess an abstract gender identity, and in some cases it differs from their biological sex.

But I do not possess a gender identity of that kind at all.

So am I forced to accept this concept for myself, too? And then to accept that it might override biological sex in laws etc, possibly severely reducing the rights and freedoms of the female sex?

And if I refuse to accept something which I do not believe in myself (abstract gender identity), I am then a transphobe?

This is why 'valid' is now one of those words which makes me get hives. It's mostly used to declare the majority of people invalid.

and she shouldn’t be disciplined by the snp for making inoffensive to almost everyone statements of fact.

Yes I agree with that, certainly.

I agree that she shouldn't be disciplined. Wasn't very clear.

It forcing the term man and woman to be about genotype when society increasingly sees them as a phenotype.

Can anyone translate that for me please? I would like to know whether its worth trying to understand Grumpy or not. I highly suspect its not.

It's an Emperor's New Clothes situation - everyone knows he's stark bollock naked but they're too afraid to say anything!

No @Grumpybutfunny, she should definitely not have said what you wrote. For one thing, I think she'd be lying if she said it and also it contains other things which are inaccurate, like 'assigned' used in the context of birth.

@Grumpybutfunny

Very sloppy reply for a politician she should have either declined to answer or answer it properly..

I see you don't know much about Scottish politics. 

First, she was asked the question that Nicola Sturgeon refused to answer; a refusal which was the final nail in NS career as First Minister. So, EVERY contender for the FM job knows they will be asked that million dollar question and has a carefully worded response ready. I'm no fan of KF; but in fact she did answer properly. She told her truth.

As it's stands her answer is transphobic by the code she signed up to represent.

Well, no, she did NOT sign up to represent GRA or Self ID. The exact opposite; she has challenged both.

She didn't vote because she was on maternity leave. She has publically said, she would not have voted in support of GRA or Self ID.

GrouchyKiwi · Today 17:04

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

To be honest, all Scots folk should be, she's not the sort you want to be at the top of the power structure. Her strict religious beliefs would certainly influence her actions and if she were FM, people would want to be onboard with her. Nicola Sturgeon, like all leaders, has had things done on the quiet, with little or no scrutiny.

Like Blair, Cameron, Johnson.

It forcing the term man and woman to be about genotype when society increasingly sees them as a phenotype

How do you define phenotype?

ResisterRex · Today 17:13

I don't agree with her on things like abortion. But if her private prayers are being monitored and weaponised, we are in a dark place:

Were they truly private, though? She voiced her thoughts in front of an audience, she didn't say them in her head, or out loud, in a private room.

It means they think definitions are now gender based rather than sex based.

That woman is a mixed sex word and Transwomen are women.

Which is obviously a lie.

It forcing the term man and woman to be about genotype when society increasingly sees them as a phenotype.

This is just wishful thinking on your part. You need to get out of your bubble. No society does not on the whole see the words 'man' and 'woman' as denoting gender instead of sex.
If such a survey were ever to be carried out, I would be willing to bet that about 90% of people agree that these words mean 'person of the male / female sex'.

It forcing the term man and woman to be about genotype when society increasingly sees them as a phenotype.

Phenotype is the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of genes and environment - so if we're increasingly seeing people as phneoypes we are increasingly acknowledging genetically determined cock and balls or the (environmental) effect of surgically created neo-vaginas. That sentence doesn't mean, if you intended it to, that society is increasingly accepting gender identity as overriding biology

No. It was a Brian Souter event. 😑

Boobs. She means boobs.

Mastectomy and beard = man
Silicone and lipstick = woman

But phenotype sounds more sciencey.

She responded to the question in a factual manner.

I cannot imagine how in a month of Sundays this could or would ever land her in court!

This is maddening.

Ah thank you. That sentence is just bollocks then. Metaphorically and literally.

Do you seriously think the fact a transwomen is biologically male is some kind of big surprise to the world.

no but it is an inconvenient truth many people would like to avoid admitting exists. Bit like when Forbes said a woman cannot be a rapist…

the way she phrased it is basically outing the transwoman as being biologically male

Ffs. 'Outing' someone means revealing something aboutthem against their will. Outing a transwoman as being biologically male is not a thing, since it's literally impossible to be a transwoman unless you are a biological male. Every single transwoman who has ever existed has been a biological male. No outing necessary, no concealment possible.

The "phenotype" thing wrt sex is another theft from people with DSDs - it's usually used to talk about how someone with, for e.g, XY chromosomes might have a phenotypically female appearance because of CAIS.

Has fuck all to do with people changing their physical appearance via surgery and medication.

Is anyone bothered by being labelled transphobic, given that as far as I can see the word is meaningless.

Nope. I couldn't give a shit.

I am no longer bothered by it online, as it's used so often its shock or scold value is zero. The same is true of fascist etc. The most common context for them is when the person can't argue against your point or can't produce any evidence for an argument etc.

But I am bothered by the widespread use of 'transphobe' leaving us with no words to describe true hatred of transgender people etc.

It's immaterial whether others could "hear" her prayers. There's no way that monitoring someone's prayers is acceptable. And it sounds like someone must've gone to the private event with the express purpose of monitoring her back in 2018. That purpose being, to use it against her now.

I don't agree with her on many things but there's no way I'd ever use someone's prayers against them. Where will that end? Answer: nowhere we want to be as a society.

It's sinister, as @hryllilegur says.

The woman has even had the grace to say she's a servant of democracy and wouldn't seek to overturn the law. That's a position which is a damn sight more honest than the shadowy Stonewall devotees have taken.