Times article about Age of Consent, Stonewall, Alba

I mean, really.

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

Today's comments will be pre-moderated too by the looks of it.

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.

I am not sure I trust The Times reporting on this matter. (or rather, I don't)

Now someone has left Alba because of this:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4485938e-9ca8-11eb-a908-ec96e110073e?shareToken=f59d7073d8cf56bc1f28b6620c06507e

I cant believe stonewall and IGLA won't give the definite age they mean or define these other groups themself.

Do they honestly think this is going away? Or their lack of transparency doesn't make them look dodgy?

From the comments BTL today, I found an answer to who the 'other groups' were in UK law who might be affected. Not good, I'm afraid

"The "groups" affected by laws limiting legal capacity to provide consent to sexual activity are children, family members (incest), persons who have sex with a person in a position of trust, persons with a mental disorder and 16 and 17 year olds engaged in prostitution.

Which of those laws does Stonewall or ILGA think should be repealed or eliminated?"

Ah cool.
They haven't made it easy to find! I found it easier a few days ago.
Not linking it from the statement is odd as well.

ilga.org/CSW64-Womens-Rights-Caucus-feminist-declaration-Beijing25

I have even looked on the search docs bit on their site for the document.

I can't find it anywhere.

Can anyone else?

If they've removed the doc they're defending from the site that's just.. ???!!!???

transbager

Yes, there is a whole group of people who don't seem capable of understanding that there is a qualitative difference in the way not yet mature children and teens think compared to adults. And they do seem to be these liberal progressives, typically, who themselves seem not that mature.

I've wondered what the link is as well.

This goes hand in hand with calling children "young adults"

Nice and vague with ever-shifting age ranges.

And the age of consent thing. Again. What situations are they hoping to improve? Where? Why not give an actual age?

WHO etc have 18 as the age for consent to sex. What ages do they mean? Why no context or examples it's all just ??

Adolescence means from puberty up. The bit where you mature from a child to an adult. I mean that's just what it means.

I would have expected them stonewall etc to say oh yeah, well we didn't mean that obviously. We'll update it to be clearer.

Why the hell would they not do that?

I find that really concerning.

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.

Yeah the document and the response is really concerning.

Maybe there was a third thread as I'm sure I posted and put a link to the doc.

I can't actually find the doc on the site, can anyone else?

Why put a statement defending it if the actual subject of the defence is not easily found? I would have expected a link to the doc in the statement. That is really weird.

There was another thread on this.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4215949-ILGA-Feminist-Declaration-Stonewall-Lowering-the-age-of-consent-to-10

I thought I posted on it but looks like I didn't

I thought that eg the HIV thing they may be thinking of countries if it's used as a tool by the police etc to harass/ threaten/ coerce women and girls in prostitution.

However, and this is the big however, it's not specific enough. As with other items, there needs to be context. Which issues are they addressing with this and why, where. Will their proposal work in practice in the context of the place it's aimed at etc

Without that it's just no use at all.

Oh yes definitely. I mean in schools.

Young and foolish trying to educate the older and wiser, quite often.

Is there's something to the thought that some people never really grew up, never properly developed past a certain age, and therefore still associate with and think of themselves as adults like their younger selves?

I've met individuals who strike me as being like this. All very progressive, very woke. They all have a similar manner about them that just hasn't embraced adulthood in any traditional sense. And they all parrot the same opinions and have weird ideas about what children should be exposed to.

Does this leave the door wide open to people speaking for children and children's rights who are not equipped to do so? It feels to me like they assume children are more capable and better equipped to deal with adult themes than they actually are- because they themselves never developed past their teenage years.

Not the only reason, I'm sure. But a pet theory of mine. Some recent efforts at "debate" on these threads has cemented this opinion for me.

Young and foolish, trying to educate the young and foolish.

🦡🌈🤍

I once had a conversation with an individual who works for a large uk media outfit who said "Stonewall said self-Id is fine, it's not going to cause any issues" and they viewed that as the final say on the matter. Nothing to see here. No curiosity as to why women were against it. Taking Stonewall's word as sacrosanct.

The person who wrote that article is absolutely going to town in the comments section, reposting the same thing over and over like a malfunctioning bot. Apparently he asked Stonewall and they said “nothing to see here”, so he stopped looking. Top class journalism.

Posted too soon, meant to say YY to that

It's a good example of progressive Establishment thinking that means there needs to be firm push-back if Stonewall is perceived to be under attack.