Fresh horrors for Scotland

It is exactly the same logic that enabled people who were parents themselves to implement the mass removal of indigenous children from their families, or to remove babies from the influence of their dreadful and immoral unwedded mothers, and so on.

The removal of indigenous children from their parents is something that's been uncovered to an extent in Canada recently. It's very upsetting if you go to find it and read about it. The stories from Ireland are as well, but ones that have been covered more in the UK. There was also the migration of children from the UK to parts of the Empire - often under the pretence their parents had died. They hadn't.

I agree with this, but just to state the blindingly obvious, any girl or woman who prefers to have short hair and to wear trousers, flat shoes etc is still female

My daughter is autistic and is often mistaken for being a boy.

Autistic girls are vulnerable. It is easy to see how they can be manipulated to believe the opposite of the blindingly obvious.

It is wholly wrong that parents who point out the blindingly obvious, that there is no wrong way to be a girl, can be guilty of conversion therapy in Scotland and have their daughters taken away from them.

I know 3 girls who are very similar in their presentations of autism who are now proudly transboys or non- binary. In Sturgeons Scotland they are the girls who will go on to be sterilised. It's just so fucking awful.

But, like all those who want to take children away from their dreadful
parental influences, they believe they are guardian angels, saving poor children from
the wrong kinds of parents.

There’s always an othering at work. Their children would never be at risk because the whole project is to stop those dreadful, uncivilised, unenlightened parents from endangering their children’s bodies and souls. None of this could apply to them because they are enlightened and properly educated. Their own parenting is always driven by the best interests of the child because they simply know better than these inferior types. It’s absolutely right to intervene, because it would never happen to you (until, of course, you find yourself on the ‘wrong side of history’ as the ideology grows more extreme - but you won’t speak up or challenge it because they might fail to recognise that you are not the wrong type of parent).

It is exactly the same logic that enabled people who were parents themselves to implement the mass removal of indigenous children from their families, or to remove babies from the influence of their dreadful and immoral unwedded mothers, and so on. And then to use the results if trauma inflicted on individuals and communities as evidence that you did the right thing by taking the children out of the awful environments they might otherwise have her raised in.

You don’t have to go on a long historical detour to find this stuff. It’s all happened within living memory.

I agree with this, but just to state the blindingly obvious, any girl or woman who prefers to have short hair and to wear trousers, flat shoes etc is still female. It's like Richard Feynman's marvellous concept, cargo science. Adopting the outward trappings of a thing doesn't change the substance or perform a magical transformation. Who would have thought 10 years ago that this would need spelling out in relation to see and clothes?

I actually think parents are not well represented in the SNP. The average age must be much lower than other parties and there seems to be quite a lot of gay men.

I suspect that the Scottish government’s determination to lower the voting age as far as possible is caught up in all this.

Alienate children from their parents. Encourage the idea that older generations are harmful to their well-being. Give young people increasing political and personal power. Fetishise the concept of ‘participation’. Demonise the concept of safeguarding - except where it’s useful in removing children from the influence of their parents.

And, at the same time, ensure that Scottish young people are increasingly poorly equipped by the Scottish education system. Shout about how wonderful and progressive your curriculum is and brush the successive international comparisons that suggest the outcomes do not match the claims being made.

Thing is, I don’t think this is some clever conspiracy by the SNP or even those dangerous fools the Greens to use children and academic ideas around the social construction of childhood to enact a grand strategy. It’s a set of different effects that emerge from a confluence of problematic ideas and practices and an easily manipulated political system full of people determined to be seen as the most progressive and enlightened (so they do not want to look too closely at anything).

It’s incompetence more than anything else. Gross bloody incompetence. Dangerous incompetence.

And the dreadful state of Scottish politics, plus the ways in which it’s structured (both internally and in relation to Westminster), just makes this stuff worse.

I really really feel sorry for the parents of autistic girls in Scotland.

Autistic girls who feel more comfortable with short hair and boys clothes for sensory reasons are not boys.

Makes me sick.

I wouldn't normally feel this was relevant in looking at a politician's views and policies, but NS has no children, I believe. Surely, however, a good many of her colleagues must have? Is it a case of nodding this stuff through because they are confident that they won't be affected by it, just the plebs?

Yes… you are right.

This is so fucked up.

'To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink'

'It’s both a ridiculously rigid ideology and extremely flexible to fit the argument at any given point. Which is, actually, a common feature of ideologies'

Yes. The absence of internal logic is a useful way of keeping everyone in a state of fearful confusion.

'The Group recommends that the Scottish Government establish a
Commission or task a relevant body or bodies to be responsible for
various civil measures and other functions relating to conversion
practices. The Commission ought to have a role as the interface
between the criminal justice system and survivors, potential victims or
those reporting conversion practices'

Hm, gosh, I wonder what they could call this Commission? It's like a sort of Revolution in the Culture of Scotland, isnt it? Presumably they'd ask questions, or make Inquiries in an Inquisitory way.

It also just does not make sense in relation to the rest of the ideology.

either it’s not medical at all and nothing to do with your physiology or it requires immediate medical and surgical intervention. Similarly, the weird ambivalence around mental health which results in suicide being used rhetorically to prevent discussion or scrutiny while claiming it’s discriminatory to treat it as a mental health issue or explore the gaps between an individual’s perception and reality (that’s conversion therapy you evil people!)

It’s both a ridiculously rigid ideology and extremely flexible to fit the argument at any given point. Which is, actually, a common feature of ideologies. The bible is literal truth unless you’re talking about an inconsistency or something that seems at odds with the behavioural norms you want to promote. All animals are equal, but some are more equal (when it suits those in power to modify the narrative).

I agree with this. The continued and determined efforts from Scotgov to cast parents as villains is deeply, deeply troubling.

This latest move isn't a surprise but it's shocking to see it written down. There aren't enough of these to go round:

🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

I’m not in Scotland but I think NS allowed herself to be walked down this path and had NO IDEA what a Pandora’s box she was opening up. I honestly believe she is now being swept along as she has no way of stopping it now.

Removing someone from Scotland to be subject to conversion practices
anywhere else in the world should be considered a criminal offence.

Shopping trip to Paris a no-no, then.

'The inability to consent to conversion practices should form part of the
definition of conversion practices by not requiring an absence of consent
or providing an exception for consent, including people who experience
coercion, which can lead to a perception of consent to conversion
practices.'

So even if someone consents, that can still count as non-consent. Gotcha.

Scotgov makes sure dreadful legislation. The lack of a second chamber means it ends up in a court.

The SNP only listen to yes men, even within their ranks they don't listen to any dissent. In fact they have actively prohibited any dissent.

And any criticism from outside is shouted down as anti Scottish by the nat cultists.

I've really had enough.

At a time when NHS is experiencing the highest pressure on services! Waiting times for imaging, surgery etc are through the roof. But this is a priority?? I am ashamed of my country right now!

Sturgeon pardoned all the witches from 400 years ago, a few years ago, so now they need more to fill the gap on the "persecute" shelf.

Parents and women it it, it seems.

Helleofabore, worth remembering in this context that the Scotgov have explicitly said they will be ignoring the Cass Report.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/14/nhs-scotland-plans-fast-track-irreversible-surgery-trans-patients/

'The Group recommends that the definition of conversion practices must
apply equally to sexual orientation, expression of sexual orientation,
gender identity and gender expression, must be wide enough to
encompass any treatment, practice or effort that aims to change,
suppress, and/or eliminate a person's sexual orientation, expression of
sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression'

While the Wings article uses an example of a child wearing fetish gear to describe the issue with 'gender expression', I'd say the issue is that virtually any mundane or prosaic everyday act - wearing any item of clothing or accessory or haircut or make up and pretty much any type of behaviour could (according to this document) be claimed to be 'gender expression'. So any parent who tries to change any aspect of their child's 'gender expression' could be guilty of a crime.

And the accusation doesn't need to come from the child. As with the Hate Crime Bill, and the wider UK Non-crime Hate legislation, anyone can make an accusation.

So your neighbour could feasibly claim that you told your child to wear a different jacket, or refused to allow them to wear a miniskirt, and this would be a crime of attempting to change their gender expression.

1. Exceptions

The Group has decided not to include exceptions in the definition of conversion practices. Exceptions carry the danger of limiting the protective scope of the definition and of facilitating the addition of grounds that permit conversion practices. The Group therefore recommends that exceptions do not form part of the law against conversion practices and that this is possible through using an appropriate definition.

In this regard, the Group notes that it is not necessary to provide an exception for affirmative care, as defined below (i.e., approaches to healthcare delivery in which the providers recognise, validate and/or support a person's gender identity, sexual orientation and/or gender expression).

These approaches would not fall within the definition of conversion practices because they do not seek to change, suppress and/or eliminate a person's sexual orientation, expression of sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression.

Background Note: Considerations regarding healthcare provision and other care and support

In considering and developing the definition of conversion practices, the Group discussed the question of ‘affirmative care’ and how this would relate to the definition.

“Affirmative care” within health care refers to an approach that validates and supports the identity and lived experience expressed and stated by an individual. It is non-directive – a healthcare professional will take an unobtrusive role so that free expression is encouraged.

The Group recognises the value and important role of affirmative support, healthcare provision and familial or pastoral care.

Facilitating, enabling or encouraging efforts which take place in a supportive and affirmative environment, and are led by the other person’s autonomous decisions, are not conversion practices in accordance with our definition as they do not seek to change, suppress or inhibit that person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

This would include, for example, providing a safe space for someone to explore their sexual orientation, expression of sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression in a safe and non-judgmental way; providing support and understanding in helping with self-acceptance; facilitating coping skills and social support or assisting someone who was undergoing or considering undergoing gender reassignment.

my bold

——. ——- —-

I am just pulling this out.

It is clear isn’t it? No exceptions. No clarity. Just a blanket policy demand.

And so, I also read it that any clinician that says… “mmm, I think you don’t suffer from gender dysphoria but are [insert medical condition].” Could be taken to court.

Basically, the demand is only full affirmation with no exceptions . Unless a patient “leads” the treatment it could be that clinicians are exposed.

When can a clinician say - no this person is clearly very vulnerable and needs significant help here but I don’t believe their situation will be assisted by medical transition ?

It’s notable - and troublesome - how the Scottish government seems to be determined to alienate children from their parents. Parental influence seems to be something they’ve made attempts from multiple directions to control and curtail - and remove.

All while claiming this is all ‘progressive’ and ‘on the right side of history’.

Thing is, if you look historically at this kind of behaviour… erm… it’s right out of the imperialist handbook. Removing children from their ‘savage’ parents (and communities) to be raised by the state is a truly lamentable feature of how the British empire dealt with many indigenous communities - with long lasting effects. As was couching this in claims that this was in the children’s best interests.

The specific virtues have shifted from a language of ‘civilising’ and such like. But the logic that parental rights must be severed to protect children from the harmful cultures and practices of their parents are very similar indeed.

Apparently, the Scottish government needs to correct the cultural problems of indigenous Scots to fit with what’s popular on twitter, and sees taking their children away as the best means of controlling the population. There’s a great deal of irony there. Tragically.

It's quite a head-scratcher, isn't it?