Fresh horrors for Scotland

2.1 'Conversion practices' refers to any treatment, practice or effort that aims to change, suppress and/or eliminate a person's sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression. A person cannot consent to conversion practices being carried out against them."

So trying to persuade your daughter that binders are harmful would be criminalised?

Absolutely terrifying.

@Chocchops72 100% Ireland too. We've changed, honest ! Liberal poster boy of Europe.

Please love us !

So, they'd see surgery or medications as changing one's body or 'gender expression' to suit that vague indefinable inner sense of 'gender identity'.

I'm sorry, I know it doesn't make sense.

According to that, any treatment, practice or effort that aims to change a person's gender identity cannot be consented to!

That's internally consistent within a framework of batshit.

The ideology says 'Gender identity' is innate, it's just a feeling.

Am I missing something here? One of the highlighted sections from the report states:

"2. Definitions

The Group recommends that the Scottish Government adopt these definitions:

2.1 'Conversion practices' refers to any treatment, practice or effort that aims to change, suppress and/or eliminate a person's sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression. A person cannot consent to conversion practices being carried out against them."

According to that, any treatment, practice or effort that aims to change a person's gender identity cannot be consented to!

Isn't that a massive problem for the Scottish government's direction of travel?

I read somewhere (might have been here) that countries that have a history of being particularly conservative tend to swing too far in the opposite direction when the brakes are taken off. A bit like Ireland. Also a bit like when a formerly meek person starts to develop their self-assertiveness and goes over the top into outright aggression.. before correcting back to a more

The Scotland that I grew up in (50 yrs old now) was deeply conservative, suspicious of difference and yes racist, homophobic, sexually repressed and all the rest. The feeling I get from people back there who support these bonkers ideas, it’s like they are so desperate to distinguish themselves from that repressed, judgemental past, so eager to demonstrate that things have really, honestly, changed and that they aren’t like that any more, that they go far too far in the opposite direction.

It's outlawing anything that the correct people wish to see outlawed.

No point looking for specifics or detail. The whole point is that it remain vague enough to be useful as 1. a punishment and 2. a deterrent.

there is no need for a new law to prevent waterboarding and all the clearly not allowed under various laws things they’ve thrown in to make it hard to challenge the everyday family interactions they want to police.

Which was why it was thrown into the long grass by Westminster.

It was made very clear to them that the TQ+ political juggernaut saw this simply as an opportunity to control, criminalise and dominate everyone and everything.

Thank you. It is, to put it mildly, fucking horrifying. Surely even people that believe in the ‘be kind’ bullshit must see how terrifying this is. I wonder though if those people don’t actually see stuff like this and just hear ‘conversion therapy’ - associate it with the abhorrent homophobic practice - and go along with it because of course ‘conversion therapy’ is bad!

It’s in neon lights to me that the conversion going on here is the trans one.

I sent my account of 'lived experience' as part of the 2nd Consultation on gender, along with 16,000 other people, all of which were ignored by the Scottish government.
Some 'lived experiences' matter more than others.

Yes, I have wondered this, too. I also don’t understand what a “lived” experience is.

Simply put - is this to outlaw counselling for children / people saying they’re trans? If not, what is it outlawing?

Well, or at least won't admit to reading it, if viewing figures are to be believed.

I have every respect for Wings' journalism, despite disagreeing fundamentally with him on various issues.

I'd suggest that parents restrict their comments entirely to the weather with their children, get a legal bod to phrase a very neutral response to all questions or comments or actions, and where a child wishes to dabble with identity in any form, it may turn out to be less damaging to the family now to simply make arrangements for them to move to the foster care system as soon as possible and be raised with the government as parent.

It's like living in a dystopian novel.

I'm not a nat but I admire Wings' work on this. Good to see him back on twitter and blogging.

New article updating on some issues:

wingsoverscotland.com/there-are-no-ships/

Quite!

That was exactly the 'mantra' I had in mind.

'There's no evidence!'

Despite various people offering evidence - women of faith talking about self excluding; survivors of rape asking (and being refused) a chance to offer evidence; the Irish politician talking about the unforeseen consequences; Reem Alsalem explaining that there was evidence but it hadn't been sought, collected and analysed.

I'm thinking of the furrowed brows and indignation and the sour faced response to Reem Asalem's very measured, informed and eloquent answers to why the reforms were fucking dangerous.

Oh yes, absolutely. She talked sense and it went nowhere. She might as well have talked to a brick wall, they didn't want to hear it so they didn't. No attempt to integrate what she said, to consider the dangers, to mitigate. They'd already committed themselves.

Plus ‘there’s no evidence’.

Sure, we’ve rigged it so that it’s impossible to produce quantitative evidence. And we don’t accept individual anecdotes as evidence.

No. The lived experiences of trans women are not anecdotes. They’re anecdotes when they don’t fit the narrative. trans experiences are lived experiences. That’s better than quantitative data.

We’ve even got a panel and one of our lives experience experts has a condition that means they can’t accurately recall lived experiences. That actually makes their account more powerful evidence, don’t you know?