Labour Manifesto

I’m guessing I’m not the only person wondering where you’re based and whether you’re taking clients

The conservative media I read overall lands on the side of sex segregated services simply being a normal part of a civilised culture, rather than a "protection" issue. A privacy and dignity issue which is equally as important.

That's pretty much where I am. I see the safety argument deployed, and it is paramount and very important but I wonder why it even has to be deployed. Isn't privacy and dignity enough?

A single sex space shouldn't even need defending but much of the political and managerial class seem to have colluded in forcing women to justify single sex spaces.

Im a therapist.
If Labour get in and go full throttle with the conversion therapy ban, ignoring all the important recommendations from Cass, I won't be working with this client group.
Which is a great shame because they'd get good, solid, exploratory support from me. I won't be trying to change their minds, but I would be looking at comorbidities such as autism and trauma. Asking questions,
the same way I do with clients who present with eating disorders and self
harm. It's poor practise not
to do this and goes against safe, ethical work.
I know a few gender affirming therapists and they adopt the nodding dog approach, just agreeing with everything said. Which goes against all safeguarding measures I've ever been taught. I won't do it. I'll have to refer these clients on.

I was going to also say something about the cohort responsible for the most criminal behaviour... but you do have a fair point. Don't think we can afford to raising taxing age!

I think 18 is fair enough. There is the whole 'no taxation without representation' thing.

I'm for raising the voting age - for when they're brains are fully mature at 25!

They don't experience the full range of empathy at 18. Most certainly wouldn't understand the needs of vulnerable or elderly people or parents.

I'm going to be accused of ageism now, because, you know - feelings - not science.

McMillan was PM in the early 60s and is long dead, having been born at the end of the 1800s. I don't think he embodies conservative patriarchy anymore!

In my experience conservative men who I have worked with all my life don't merit that sweeping generalisation any more, conservative social attitudes have changed.

The conservative media I read overall lands on the side of sex segregated services simply being a normal part of a civilised culture, rather than a "protection" issue. A privacy and dignity issue which is equally as important.

Yes. And so many women enthusiastically screwing over women too. The left seems to have an understanding of women’s economic rights, but to be frankly deeply ignorant about male. violence against women. I think this loss of knowledge about this is the problem. The issues around self-ID are so obvious and yet they seem to have no knowledge or analysis to enable them to see it.

...the Right want men to be able to control individual women (fathers their daughters, husbands their wives etc) and the Left want to control and own all women....

I'm not sure that this is a Left-Right thing or even a control thing: it's more like a form of victim-blaming.

Patriarchy (whether embodied by Harold Macmillan or Arthur Scargill) acknowledges biology and uses it to both oppress and protect women in varying proportions.

Modern left-liberal thought says women are equal now, so don't need protection at all. It's like a capitalist decrying labour laws on the basis that workers should all be able to stand on their own two feet.

I suspect certain people of getting a bit of a thrill from seeing those rights hoarding dinosaurs uppity women getting their comeuppance. But they don't want to control us so much as to throw us to the wolves.

Or, you know, maybe the oppression of women, being the size of a planet, is therefore, paradoxically, mostly invisible to the naked eye?

The most prolific and harmful perpetrators will be relentlessly targeted, using tactics normally reserved for terrorists and organised crime.

Confiscation of assets without even a conviction, secret trials with the accused not being able to know the evidence against them, poorly defined offences including mere possession of literature and other media, extended detention etc.

Only a party hell bent on totalitarian rule would want to see these measures extended further into the law.

I wonder if, when 16 and 17 year olds can't vote, it's only the idealistic, bleeding heart types who express political opinions. So we all get the feeling that they'll be voting for equity and peace.
But, when they actually have clout, something nastier is drawn out of those kids.

frankly anyone who votes Labour on July 4th is against women and against progress

Oh yes. Just boundaries being nibbled away at, all the time.

I’m aware of this history. This also isn’t evidence that lowering the voting age is a ploy to bring in child marriage for 12 year olds as the pp suggested.

Of all the comments about why lowering the age for voting could be detrimental - this is the one that has swayed me.

And in the original Scottish Assembly and Labour Party in Scotland.

It is NO surprise that the Unions and the Scottish Government and the Labour Party are all wrapped up in the current 'Culture Wars'...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Dunn_(activist)

Thank you. Always useful to revisit quite recent historical evidence when people attempt to dismiss the pro-safeguarding position as a 'ridiculous leap'.

This isn't their first tango at the old 'lowering the age' shenanigans.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/02/how-paedophiles-infiltrated-the-left-harriet-harman-patricia-hewitt

Lowering the voting age is a clear signal that these children (currently children in law) should be removed from the category of 'child'. It's very much the direction of travel queer theory wants.

Being a child places restrictions but also offers protections. Those protections will be removed.

I work with young people and a lot of them simply fall off the radar once they move from CAMHS into adult services. To say this is universally going to benefit children is somewhat shortsighted IMO. Everything will follow. I personally think it's better and safer for children to have a childhood that lasts a bit longer.

I am aware others disagree, but I think it is a debate that should be had with discussion of all the ramifications.

16 and 17 year olds are children - in law - in the UK. If they are allowed to vote, of course they should be allowed to marry too. It's ludicrous and nonsensical otherwise.

If 16 and 17 year olds are mature enough to vote they must also be mature enough to drive, marry, and decide whether or not they wish to stay in education. Also drink, get tattoos etc. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not 100% convinced on that.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/11/opinions/scary-results-from-16-year-olds-voting-first-time-germany-hockenos/index.html

Absolutely!

Not as far-fetched as being expected to refer to male rapists as she and her penis but look where we are.

Yet it's happened in California, that 'liberal' bastion.