Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Times article about Age of Consent, Stonewall, Alba

230 replies

Wandawomble · 12/04/2021 09:23

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/48c9ae6e-9adf-11eb-8da6-6f8eecc82ac3?shareToken=1d6c72638a41d774b21c06787d90f6d3

I know there are other threads about this but a bit of sunlight and all that...

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 14/04/2021 15:12

He's also having lengthy arguments on his Twitter

twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/1381296917699780613?s=20

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 14/04/2021 14:54

It's amazing. I can't remember the last time I saw a journalist let off the leash to publish (effectively) the same article 3 times over 4 days to push a clearly disputed narrative and around that to seek to browbeat the readership into acquiescence.

His manic repeating of the same phrases again and again and again instead of answering the questions commentators put to him is disturbing

I've just gone and had a look at the comments and they really are odd. He just copies and pastes the same non-answer over and over again. I would have thought that as a journalist he'd have at least the tiniest bit of curiosity.

When this first broke (I was at the conference) I thought it was a concerning statement but that Margaret Lynch had got the wrong end of the stick a bit and was over-reacting in a way that would get picked up by the press and be bad for the party.

Having seen the bizarre responses from Stonewall and ILGA and now this Times journalist it is seeming like there may be more to this than clumsy phrasing.

StandUpStraight · 14/04/2021 14:41

Very interesting. Perhaps he shouldn’t have been in such a hurry to get those three consecutive articles out so fast. But somehow I don’t think that will bother him. Talking to him via the comments BTL is like asking someone “is it raining?” and having them reply “rain is water that falls in drops from clouds in the sky. Rain is different from snow and different again from hail...”

The Times rejected my comment suggesting that their writer was malfunctioning.

ANewCreation · 14/04/2021 14:35

From the Luxembourg guidelines the journalist is so fond of quoting, utterly fixated on the upper age limit. Surprise! They do not say what he thinks that they say:

"However, no child should ever, under any circumstances, be able to legally consent to her/his own exploitation or abuse. It is therefore important that States criminalise all forms of sexual exploitation of children up to the age of 18 years, and consider any presumed “consent” to exploitative or abusive acts as null and void.

A.3.v Adolescent
∅ Special attention should be paid to how this term is used.

While major dictionaries define adolescent as “[...] a young person in the process of developing from a child into an adult”, and thus in a non-numerical manner, a number of UN agencies have defined “adolescents”, both in English and in Spanish, as persons up to the age of 19 years of age, and adolescence as “the period in human growth and development that occurs after childhood and
before adulthood, from ages 10 to 19”.
However, the term “adolescent” is not a legal term, and it
is not referred to at all in the CRC or in the OPSC.
The term “adolescent” was included in the title of the World Congress III Against Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents because Spanish-speaking stakeholders explained that “child” in Spanish mainly refers to very young children and does not include adolescents.

The term “adolescent” could
be a way of defining the “in-between” phase between childhood and adulthood, thus recognising that adolescents (who legally are still children if under 18 years of age) are in a phase of evolving capacities in which they can take partial or full responsibility for certain actions (e.g. sexual consent or the regulated right to work), while also acknowledging their lack of full legal capacity and, importantly, lack of capability to consent to abuse or exploitation.

Conclusion: When this term is used in the context of child sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, it is important to distinguish between adolescents up to age 18 (who legally should be considered children) and adolescents aged 18 and above, and to ensure adolescents under the age of 18 are granted the rights and protection accorded to all children.

A.3.vi Teenager
∅ Special attention should be paid to how this term is used.
The term “teenager” is closely related to that of “adolescent”, and these two terms are often defined in an identical fashion, in particular with regard to the upper age limit of 19 years. The term “teenager” has, semantically speaking, a very clear definition: it means a person between 13 and 19 years of age—that is, a person in her/his “teens”—thus refers in the English language to the suffix “teen” in the words “thirteen”, fourteen”, and so forth.
Conclusion: While there is no particular indication against the use of this term, care should be taken when it is used in the context of child sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, so as to distinguish between teenagers up to age 18 and teenagers aged 18 and above, and to ensure teenagers under
the age of 18 are granted the rights and protection accorded to all children."

nauticant · 14/04/2021 14:03

This is how the power of Stonewall works in practice. I don't believe that Mark McLaughlin is doing Stonewall's bidding, that there's been any kind of instruction from them, it's just that for some reason he believes that the right thing to do is to take the Stonewall interpretation of disputed lobbying wording and to vigorously attack a reasonable and alternative interpretation even though on the face of it it is crying out for considered scrutiny. Presumably he's got support from more senior people at The Times nodding along that, yes, this is the right way to control this unfortunate situation.

RedDogsBeg · 14/04/2021 14:00

@nauticant

After a pause there are now about 20 new posts that have been published. Most of them are posts from Mark McLaughlin saying this:

The authors and signatories of the declaration drafted by the Women's Rights Caucus have not called for "the age of consent to be reduced to 10"

This is not good. But is, as StandUpStraight writes, fascinating.

His manic repeating of the same phrases again and again and again instead of answering the questions commentators put to him is disturbing, to me it means he either can't or won't answer. Very few in the comments which have been published are buying what he is selling.
RabbitOfCaerbannog · 14/04/2021 13:34

It's amazing. I can't remember the last time I saw a journalist let off the leash to publish (effectively) the same article 3 times over 4 days to push a clearly disputed narrative and around that to seek to browbeat the readership into acquiescence.

It's bizarre.

nauticant · 14/04/2021 13:31

After a pause there are now about 20 new posts that have been published. Most of them are posts from Mark McLaughlin saying this:

The authors and signatories of the declaration drafted by the Women's Rights Caucus have not called for "the age of consent to be reduced to 10"

This is not good. But is, as StandUpStraight writes, fascinating.

StandUpStraight · 14/04/2021 13:27

It has been most instructive to watch. I find his replies to comments fascinating. They’re mostly completely disconnected from the content of the comment. I imagine him sitting dead eyed at his laptop and pressing CTRL V over and over.

nauticant · 14/04/2021 13:21

It looks like the publishing of comments under the last two articles has paused, at least for the moment. I wonder whether there's some discussion at The Times about how best to handle this problem.

It's amazing. I can't remember the last time I saw a journalist let off the leash to publish (effectively) the same article 3 times over 4 days to push a clearly disputed narrative and around that to seek to browbeat the readership into acquiescence.

StandUpStraight · 14/04/2021 13:19

luggage I had the exact same experience on the surrogacy article on Sunday, and I emailed them to cancel my subscription, explaining why. I have only today had an email asking me to call as they can’t take written requests for cancellation. The way they treat surrogacy is shockingly biased - they only ever publish fluffy happy families pieces and never look into all of the issues around surrogacy. If you point that out you get deleted.

Janice Turner is really the reason I pay the subscription fee but - terrible to say it - I can read her articles here because they’re always linked with share tokens. I’m just not sure the current standard of general journalism justifies what is quite an expensive sub.

NiceGerbil · 14/04/2021 13:18

That latest article

'It signed a women’s rights declaration that seeks the global repeal of “laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex”, citing laws that impede “bodily autonomy” such as the criminalisation of same-sex intimacy, abortion or HIV non-disclosure. It does not mention age of consent.'

What am I missing? It literally says it right before he says it doesn't :/

Ereshkigalangcleg · 14/04/2021 13:13

I would tell them why, if you do.

nauticant · 14/04/2021 12:59

Yet another person tries to get Mark McLaughlin to think beyond Stonewall = good, critics of Stonewall = evil, but this time by asking an easily understood question that gets to the heart of the matter:

twitter.com/historywoman/status/1382281198031011841

But I'm now looking at my May subcription payment and really wondering whether it's time to cancel.

Theluggage15 · 14/04/2021 12:57

I posted a reasonable comment yesterday. After pending for about 14 hours it was rejected. I’ve tried to post a couple of comments today, still pending. I posted a critical comment on the surrogacy article on Sunday which was approved, rejected, approved, rejected. Only positive comments were allowed.

I phoned to complain and they said oh we’re having issues with our algorithms. I said it was difficult to believe that and the problem is your moderators who want to control the narrative. He just said yes I can see that is annoying! I cancelled my subscription.

StandUpStraight · 14/04/2021 12:06

nauticant it’s so strange. Yesterday’s moderation was ridiculous in the extreme. But on today’s article comments are getting through quite quickly. I haven’t had any rejected yet whereas yesterday it was taking several attempts. The Sunday Times is always weirdly more censorious, and I do think the Times is generally getting worse in that regard, but it is usually far better than it was yesterday.

nauticant · 14/04/2021 11:31

Yes, and the new moderation system is almost impossible to navigate. I am meditating on a formal complaint about this series of articles

It's making the site unusable for me. I tried to post pointing out that ILGA had had links with NAMBLA and was forbidden even to submit that post and so, later on, I posted suggesting that the journalist needed to look more deeply into the history of ILGA to understand the concerns over consent. After nearly a day in limbo that post was rejected. Either The Times have radically changed their moderation or they're circling the wagons to protect the line being pushed by this journalist in these articles.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 14/04/2021 11:23

Wow, third article in a row by the same “journalist” on this topic. I don’t think they’ve even bothered to change the photo. Something is going on at The Times.

Who is this guy? Does he have form? I can see he is answering the BTL posters while offering nothing to refute what they are saying, just repeating himself.

StandUpStraight · 14/04/2021 11:16

Thanks tibtom. As the writer is now piling in BTL on this article as well, complaint forthcoming.

Tibtom · 14/04/2021 11:15

@StandUpStraight

Yes, and the new moderation system is almost impossible to navigate. I am meditating on a formal complaint about this series of articles.
Useful link: www.thetimes.co.uk/static/the-times-editorial-complaints/
toffeebutterpopcorn · 14/04/2021 10:26

Attack is the best form of defence...

Ereshkigalangcleg · 14/04/2021 09:28

I also find it concerning that anyone pointing out it's on the face of it pretty awful, rather than being responded to or reassured is just labelled a baddie.

Same here.

RabbitOfCaerbannog · 14/04/2021 08:49

A professional flouncer!

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 14/04/2021 08:41

And he was a former SNP councillor.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 14/04/2021 08:34

Austin Sheridan flounced from AFI to join the Greens on the 18th of March. Less than a month a later he has left the Greens, joined ALBA, flounced from ALBA and joined the Greens. Not a huge loss.