Be wary of blithely dismissing criticisms based on identity

The present leadership contest seems to have declared open season on only the Christian candidate. Kate Forbes may oppose gay marriage but has publicly stated she will not change the law. She supports democratic decisions, which is why she could not support the recent gender reform. Promoted by Sturgeon and the Greens, it was opposed by most of Scotland, then considered by a committee highly biased in favour of gender reform without safeguarding. Perfectly reasonable opposing voices were shouted down as “transphobes” or “just wrong”. More than 150 proposed amendments were summarily dismissed by the same committee. Don’t forget this was such a fantastic piece of legislation that the SNP had to whip their own members to vote for it.

But back to the leadership election. The differing treatment of candidates by the media should worry all parties. If Humza (the “continuity” candidate) wins, we can look forward to the revival of the Hate Crime Bill (with no protection for women) and possibly to the Misogyny Bill being quietly forgotten. If Forbes or Regan win, women’s single-sex spaces are protected, but each has differing economic outlooks.

Does it matter if a leader personally believes in everything a party proposes? His or her job is to promote a legislative package agreed by that party’s membership. It may even be better for a leader to be at a distance from it. But how ironic that you cannot be a Christian party leader when the present SNP leader promoted the gender identity ideology religion against the wishes of most of Scotland. For religion is what it is. Gender identity became central to the leadership campaign because the present leader made it central, abandoning independence in favour of an ideology based on feelings.

Kate Forbes will not reverse abortion legislation, and it is doubtful she could even if she wanted to. She will not abolish trans rights, but like many of us, she is vehemently against trans rights usurping women’s rights. There is no threat to equal trans access to society, but women will not let our rights be taken. No one in the leadership contest is threatening gay marriage or abortion rights. I can only believe that Kelly thinks abortion rights are under threat due to America striking down “Roe vs Wade”, but abortion laws in Britain were never based on just one case, but on statute decided by parliament. The right could not be similarly struck down here.

The present debate over gender reform and the relentless attacks on Kate Forbes’s faith have shown the privilege of those who will not tolerate dissent from their own rigid views. It has culminated in the ridiculous demand for her to state whether she will work on Sundays. Has Kate Forbes not been working all the Sundays she has been Finance Minister?

And it’s always amusing when those who object to the misgendering of trans people see no contradiction in misgendering half the population by calling us “cis women” – a title women did not choose and which most women reject.

Kelly blames any disagreement with her as “privilege”. She rejects any idea that opponents may have a valid yet opposing viewpoint. It is depressingly familiar to see another young woman who did not have to fight for women’s rights now throwing those rights aside, not realising why single-sex spaces must be kept.

Before blithely dismissing opponents as privileged, white, middle-class, cis men, it may be worth remembering how many disparate groups gender identity ideology has managed to unite against itself. Conservatives and socialists, Unionists and independence supporters, Christian evangelicals and atheists, lesbians and straight men and women. One thing uniting everyone against you. Quite the political feat.
Julia Pannell
Friockheim, Tayside