Kemi "to write to all Tory MPs to insist that a ban on trans conversion therapy must not criminalise parents"

Oh right. I was confused. I am pleased that you are happy with a discussion of Kemi's motivation for these letters.

AlisonDonut · Today 07:51

You can't say 'oh joy, you are just a straight person in the wrong body, I'll refer you' as that would be conversion therapy under the other side of the conversion therapy law

I think you could say that.

Someone pointed out on this thread or another, yesterday, that the wording is asymmetrical.

Again. Read the room. Nobody is forbidding anything. But you seem to like being centre of attention. Play on...

So a gay kid comes to you for advice as they think they are the opposite sex due to being confused.

You can't say 'are you sure you aren't just gay' as that would be conversion therapy under one side of the conversation therapy law

You can't say 'oh joy, you are just a straight person in the wrong body, I'll refer you' as that would be conversion therapy under the other side of the conversion therapy law

So you say nothing. And the point of this law is to what exactly?

There needs to be no limit on age.

A parent would want to talk to their adult child and question as much as they would their under 18.

That sounds sensible.

It also potentially helps schools; informing parents and simply being more able to discuss view points than one narrative.

Yep.

Regarding the op though, I do (hopefully) feel that by the time labour comes in, that the evidence for watchful waiting and better exploration will be greater - enough professionals see the issues and parents too. Stramer seemed to indicate caution the other day. Litigation will only increase. Labour won't want blood their hands.

Thank god for Cates and Bandenoch. And Duffield and more.

Pokemon is such low quality trash, isn't it? Kids love it. 🙄

That still doesn't make sense. Bloody Pokémon

... should not be prosecuted for wanting thorough investigations for their child

(that should say.) argument about pikachu had to be dealt with.

This is an exceptionally important move by Kemi, and we all know Rosie Duffield would do the same if labour in power.

A teen who is same sex attracted isn't going to be hurting themselves or others.

A teen intent on medically transitioning it going to be doing life long permanent damage to their body.

Parents (rightly) questioning the processes involved in this decision, given that there is evidence of faulty/ zero peer reviewed evidence that GD in teens is best treated with medical transition.

Though, It's certainly honed my debate skills a bit and the ability to spot a derail which I've applied to real life situations too 😎

True, and sometimes it's great fun joining in with daft derails of the derails, and seeing where the thread goes. Wouldn't get that on a tightly-run forum...

As a result I think Mumsnet is one of the worst traditional forums I've seen for topic derailing.

Though, It's certainly honed my debate skills a bit and the ability to spot a derail which I've applied to real life situations too 😎

Between this and the police-splainer on the other one, I was just thinking...well, how annoying it is to want to have a discussion only to find it's constantly derailed. That's the most polite way I could put it.

This is down to the moderators, and partly the forum software. A topic based forum is designed to separate topics, and it's up to moderators how much they want to enforce on-topic posting.

Some forum software makes it easy to issue "thread bans", and moderators on sites using that find it easy to give a quick warning to derailers then just cut them off from the thread, without having to impinge on their wider posting ability.

I've not seen anything to suggest that Mumsnet's software permits thread bans, which means that the moderators may not be able to enforce on-topic posting so easily - the lightest penalty possible is a "three strike" warning, I think, and that's overkill for just derailing.

As a result I think Mumsnet is one of the worst traditional forums I've seen for topic derailing.

Yes, that there is a lot of evidence that there are those following TQ+ politics who will use this as a means to abuse people is undeniable.

As said above: in practical terms, it will become a serious job risk to engage with anyone with TQ+ words anywhere in their potential needs. Which does nothing to help those kids at all.

Serves the adults with the political agenda quite nicely though in terms of power and control.

I genuinely think this might be a good idea if there are further derailing attempts.

This proposed legislation is so concerning, because I can’t envision a sane version of it once you bring “gender identity” in. If fecking Stonewall can’t define gender identity coherently (is it fixed or is it fluid?), how can the parliamentary drafters?

And while parents don’t deserve to be criminalised unless they’re actually torturing people as per the propaganda, neither do therapists. And what about teachers, social workers, and GPs - are they potentially at risk if they say the wrong thing to a vengeful teenager?

We already know that there is an angry hateful contingent which will abuse this law to the maximum extent possible, as has happened with the hate crime laws.

We also know that propaganda organisations will misrepresent the law to make people and organisations as frightened of them as they possibly can. I expect certain ever less credible organisations want this partly for a new training grift.

Is this really inevitable?

Shall we ask HQ to change the title of this thread to 'reasons to hate the Tories' and start a new one to actually discuss the letter we were originally trying to discuss?

Iain Duncan-Smith resigned on what for him was a matter of principle.
That I disagree with pretty much all of his politics does not change that.

If our politicans had any principles then it would be how politics worked. See for example the resignations of Geoffrey Howe, Robin Cook and Iain Duncan-Smith.

Given your comments about the current government it's interesting that you view Iain Duncan-Smith as someone with principles.

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/30/iain-duncan-smith-sick-disabled-benefits

It means that I think the reason that Kemi is writing all these letters is because she is positioning herself for a future leadership campaign in the Tory party and would like to have the votes of one particular part of the party.
Not really surprising as they seem to have them every few months, and Boris and Rishi spent months positioning themselves before recent leadership contests, so she has probably learnt from them.
If she was interested in protecting children then she would really struggle with many of the policies that the government of which she is a part have introduced over the past 12 years.

If our politicans had any principles then it would be how politics worked. See for example the resignations of Geoffrey Howe, Robin Cook and Iain Duncan-Smith.

You forgot the most recent example - Ash Regan.

"Kemi "to write to all Tory MPs to insist that a ban on trans conversion therapy must not criminalise parents""

That is what I commented upon.

Your comment was:

Oh look, a Tory MP on manouveres trying to position themselves with a particular section of the party ahead of the next leadership election. How cute.

What was your comment supposed to mean? Do you think KB is right to be concerned about parents being criminalised for trying to protect their children?