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

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.
That the current government does not have any principles and some people do not expect them to is I think rather sad.

Where did I say that?

It’s very interesting the amount of projection that goes on in the trans movement. I would say that the person who is trying to tell us about KB’s motivations is revealing something about their own - that person is most certainly not motivated by concern for vulnerable people. But we all knew that anyway.

One example of that is enacting legislation to further curtail the rights of people to strike. Would you like further examples. We could include the hoops the disabled have to jump through to claim miserly benefits if you like, or how defunding the police for the past 12 years has left us all more vulnerable. The chronic underfunding of the NHS leaving us all in danger if we are ill or hurt ourseves.

These are issues that affect the whole of society, not simply the vulnerable. They are economic decisions that I happen to object to, but they are not about the sterilisation of gay or autistic teens, and you should be beating your drum elsewhere.

So you think that a law that would criminalise parents who were trying to help their children would be a good thing? Is that what you're saying? Why do you think that?

Is this the title of this thread?

"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. I was not aware of many rules that forbade commenting on the title of a thread in a way that other posters disapprove of.

And why the fuck should any politician resign in protest of a bill? It might make some people feel good and supported. But in reality it just means that that politician is no longer in a position to work for their constituency on projects that the politician can represent their constituency on.

I would look at the motivation of any person who thinks that would be a good outcome.

I think jgw thinks that everyone should have their own purity spiral about every issue all the time. It's obviously not how politics work in the real world.

You can ascribe whatever motive you like to my posts, that is your choice.

So, you deny that your posts are here to shame Kemi? You deny that you have posted what you have to portray her in a poor light that she should be ashamed of her actions?

Just to be clear, you don't think that your posts are to be read with that motivation in mind?

Any readers on this thread can see that your comments reveal your prejudiced view of Kemi and little else.

And why the fuck should any politician resign in protest of a bill? It might make some people feel good and supported. But in reality it just means that that politician is no longer in a position to work for their constituency on projects that the politician can represent their constituency on.

I would look at the motivation of any person who thinks that would be a good outcome.

Derailing again too!

If you want to discuss any politician's motivations for anything start a thread about it.

But don't leap into a discussion in FWR and try and change the subject. You have the whole of Mumsnet for that. We have this small corner and we choose to keep discussions here on track!

Read the room...

If you read my post you would see I was pointing out that it is somewhat implausible that Kemi was writing these letters out of deep concern for vulnerable people

From the Telegraph article:

She will warn that legitimate conversations between parents and trans children must not be outlawed and that freedom of religion must be protected.

Campaigners and Conservative MPs are concerned that the ban could inadvertently criminalise parents, teachers and doctors who simply question whether children really want to change their gender.

Do you think she, and all the other campaigners and Tory MPs are lying? What do you think their real motivation is? Or are you going to do the usual TRA thing of saying what something isn't and never comment on what you think it is?

I suppose on the plus side there's a new market opportunity for a new type of therapist entirely that just makes affirming noises, never challenges, provides nice fluffy supportiveness and does what ever they're told. They won't need much training.

Joking aside, unless there's a radical set of protections in built, this will have the effect of making most therapists avoid TQ+ clients or TQ+ related work because of the enormous risks involved.

It also totally throws away the whole point of ending the Tavistock and the Cass report, because both identified that many TQ+ presenting teens and kids had needs going unmet, including trauma, Autism and mental health needs. This will effectively block those needs being unpacked properly and children given the time and space to reflect properly on whether they're TQ+ or whether this seemed like a good idea at the time while they were trying to cope with other issues. It just gallops kids down a channel of medication and surgery with no brakes, with the kind of 'oh well, it's your fault for believing us' response for the people like Keira Bell who later say 'you failed me'. Insanity.

If you read my post you would see I was pointing out that it is somewhat implausible that Kemi was writing these letters out of deep concern for vulnerable people, given the government which is a part of that has consistently tried to tread on the most vulnerable in society. One example of that is enacting legislation to further curtail the rights of people to strike. Would you like further examples. We could include the hoops the disabled have to jump through to claim miserly benefits if you like, or how defunding the police for the past 12 years has left us all more vulnerable. The chronic underfunding of the NHS leaving us all in danger if we are ill or hurt ourseves.

Hugely concerned. It's totally anti-therapeutic.

You didn't answer my second question. What connection does this have to wanting to stop legislation which might prevent vulnerable children and young people from obtaining appropriate psychological support?

As far as I know she is a member of the government, collective responsibility means that she is therefore responsible for and supports the legislation. It is a key principal of cabinet government in the UK.

appearing to be tough on strikers plays to exactly the same audience as she is playing to with these letters.

Can you explain what part she played in the legislation about strikers? And what connection does this have to wanting to stop legislation which might prevent vulnerable children and young people from obtaining appropriate psychological support?

If Kemi was interested in protecting all of our rights then she would not be part of a government that has consistently for the past 12 years eroded those rights, particularly those whom you say she is trying to protect.
Did she resign in protest when legislation was introduced this week to further curtail the very limited occassions when UK workers are legally permitted to go on strike? Of course not, because appearing to be tough on strikers plays to exactly the same audience as she is playing to with these letters.

You can ascribe whatever motive you like to my posts, that is your choice.

And which, realistically, would end with a polite brush off that boils down to 'if that word is involved, my diary will be permanently too full and I will avoid taking you as a client because I'm not willing to engage with the risk of being punished with losing my job, license, being prosecuted and pilloried, because I managed to say something you perceived as unacceptable'.

Particularly when you consider that successful therapy is not mindless indulging and enabling and sympathy, it involves challenge. It involves pushing buttons and teaching the client to deal with it. Therapy is rarely a nice, fluffy, sweet experience all about affirming a client's perceptions, it's about helping people to change them. It's often painful.

Providing a person who is not in a stable position (if they were they would not need therapy) with such a massive stick to beat you with? Who is going to willingly sign up for that?

The public who aren’t affected by their children saying they are transgender most likely have no idea of the complexities either.

This is very true Scrolling

BellaAmorosa· Today 12:39
What I hope is the result of pre-legislative scrutiny is that there is no need for a conversion therapy ban. This could happen in a few ways.

They already found out last year that there is no need for a ban on conversion therapy.
There are already protections under the law.

The LGB was always just the Trojan Horse for the T I’m the Ban Conversion Therapy bill, but no one could say that officially. And when T was excluded last year, it possibly made it look as though trans were being cynically abandoned through transphobia - trans activists could certainly exploit it to make it seem that way.

The public who aren’t affected by their children saying they are transgender most likely have no idea of the complexities either.

It seems Kemi Badenoch does understand the complexities of squaring this circle but may be putting this through including T so as to prevent trans ideologists using ‘exclusion’ from the ban to prove their martyrdom.

Last year, for example, in an extraordinary piece of propagandised reporting on Trans martyrdom, Channel 4 dragged in a poor transwoman who was badly abused by conversion therapy in the early 1960s though the date was not made clear in the report. They added sensationalist language, and left viewers in no doubt that, due to being excluded from the ban, the future for trans people would be torture and suicide.

No one is 'scared' of that idea. Why are you so determined though to force that as the reason why she is doing so? That she isn't actually motivated by the reasons of making any leglislation passed better and clearer.

Isn't that part of her portfolio? To make sure that all the UK population get proper consideration when laws are made. And that trans people need to have the very best health care that this country can provide?

Why are you so scared of her doing this that you cannot stop attempting to shame her by making out that her actions are all about getting her elected and not actually about ensuring that clarity and precision is given to this legislation?

I am glad though, that you are not denying that that was the intention of your initial post. That your first post on this thread was about framing her actions in the worst possible light for whatever reasons you have.

How is commenting the motivations of the MP whose name is in the title of this thread, irrelevant to the discussion?