Right-wing press perpetuating hate over Widdecombe

No one has adequately explained why it's not hateful or homophobic in a way that has genuinely changed my assessment of it.

Fair enough, if you can look at the actual words she said and the comments from many gay people that knew her and still stick with your opinion, that’s your prerogative. It seems that you are somewhat resistant to diversity of opinion and are happy to ignore context and are determined to attach a negative label nevertheless.

You didn’t answer this question.

Do you criticise Muslims as harshly for the anti homosexual elements in their faith?

As more than half of Muslims in the UK report that they are against homosexuality and think it should be re-criminalised, if you are worried about homophobia and political power, the increasing political influence of said Muslims would concern you, no?

I’m trying to determine how deep your principles on perceived and/or real homophobia are.

Ann just had differing opinion to many young people. The left have written horrid things about Ann.
She was conservative but supportive of families and free speech.
Terrible that a woman who gave her life for public service is attacked.

I respectfully disagree with your post.

I agreed that she appears to believe that therapy could be effective to help someone who is same-sex attracted to lead a heterosexual life. She believed people should be able to access that type of therapy if they want. She disagress with the decision made about this therapist.

You seem to think this means she harbours "gay conversion fantasies" and you doubt the sincerity of her (or my?) claims. The words you have used suggest that you think her carefully described views are merely a cover for malevolent intent/more extreme views.

I also think it's worth digging into what "conversion therapy" actually means. Because it's a bit of a buzzword .

One thing that I think is really notable is that the desire to ban it is usually more ideological, than medical. In general, most medical practitioners will say it's unlikely to be effective. But that's not why people don't want to allow it, really, they wouldn't feel differently if someone discovered a way to make it effective.

The reasons people want it outlawed are usually - they think it will be used abusively against people who don't want it, or relatedly will imply people should want to get it rather than being contented with their sexual orientation, and secondly, because they don't want to challenge the truism that a homosexual orientation is inherent and unchangable.

the first of those is by far the stronger argument, but not a slam dunk - it can be possible to regulate things that could be abusive to be only used when they are not. So that would come down to what would in many cases be a pragmatic discussion. The question of whether it would make people feel they ought to have the therapy is more complex and becomes to some extent a question of competing rights and harms.

But the desire to support a particular "scientific" view of homosexuality is far more fraught. Largely because there is no really robust, well evidenced, single scientific account. The truism is not the product of science, it was and is mainly a n assumption that was socially driven to support civil rights discussions. There was a major pivot on this, including in the gay community, in the late 70s, early 80s. But it doesn't come out of any kind of research.

The evidence points to a multi-factorial picture that human sexuality is very complex, that probably also varies for individuals. Which is to say their experience of their own sexuality can be very differernt from another person's experience, and could be affected or a reflection of completely different things.

This tends to suggest though that people might have varying reasons to want to address their sexuality with a professional, and even modify their behaviour. Simply disallowing it begins to edge in on the "right" of people to assess their own situation and respond to it as they feel is appropriate, and to get help if they feel there are problems in their lives.

Which I think is where AW was coming from on this.

And if you think you can exploit trans hate to distract from her homophobia you be very mistaken as well as deeply ignorant.

So you are very keen to call out what you perceive to be homophobia in one individual but will totally ignore the blatant and well evidenced homophobia within your cause of choice.

As I mentioned to PP, this is the issue that will inevitably arise when your opinions are not backed by clearly thought through principles. Your position is now inconsistent.

I understand why you feel that way. The sexual abuse scandals and the failures of some Church leaders to protect victims are horrific, and Catholics should never minimise them. Those crimes deserve condemnation, justice, and accountability.

That said, I don't think it's fair to conclude that because members of the Church committed grave sins, the Church therefore has no right to teach on moral issues. If that were the case, no individual or institution that had failed morally could ever speak about ethics again.

Catholic teaching on sex doesn't derive from the moral perfection of priests or bishops. It rests on what Catholics believe is revealed by God through Scripture and Tradition. The fact that some clergy violated those teachings in the most appalling way is an argument against their hypocrisy, not necessarily against the teachings themselves.

You don't have to accept Catholic teaching, of course, but I don't think victims of abuse are served by suggesting that the Church should simply stop expressing its beliefs. A pluralistic society means religious people and non-religious people alike are free to express their moral convictions, provided they do so respectfully.

The law and behind that, the philosophy of human rights is really quite complex and not as easy and obvious as a lot of people seem to think. It's a huge area with a lot of competing schools of thought and also really difficult problems.

There are even people who argue pretty persuasively that it's not really a very good model for talking about societal obligations to people. Because that's really what it is, a kind of model that we use to talk about something deeper in a way that we can, we hope, systematise.

If disagreement on this stuff means people hate you, we are pretty fucked.

What is the right to 'identity?'

What is the right 'not to be othered?'.

Could you refer to the relevant legislation?

(Edited) There is a 'right to health' but in the UK at least the courts can decide what healthcare can be provided and drugs can be banned if it is believed they are harmful.

There is a right to privacy, but it is qualified.

the right to be in public without the very real risk of being abused for starters.

Yes, we all have protection from harassment and abuse.

The campaigning for women's private spaces has gone hand in hand with the routine denigrating & slandering of trans women as just degenerate men

Single sex spaces exclude all people of the opposite sex. There is no distinction between particular types of men.

Where do you get that idea? The nature of marriage is discussed all the time in Christian settings, and it's been pretty robustly challenged and argued within congregations for a few decades now.

That's not the same as saying they, or anyone else, can't come to a conclusion. It is however possible to understand why people come to differernt conclusions and respect that, even while disagreeing.

You seem to be missing this all through the thread - we can have very robust discussions of things lile rights, and we have to. Is marriage an institution for anyone, or only certain people? Should 16 year olds have the right to vote? Can a 13 year old access an abortion without informing the parents she's been raped? Is the right of a woman to make medical decisions more important than the right of a 35 weeks gestation human not to be killed in utero? Do dolphins have human rights? Is the right of a 10 year old to refuse medical treatment more weighty than the right of a parent to insist on a flu vaccination? A polio vaccination. Can humans eat meat, ethically?

All of these things can be discussed and people can come to different conclusions. And "but you are taking away x rights" is not an effective argument in any of these scenarios, it'a logical fallacy really, assuming the consequent, which is to say just assuming that the answer thing you are discussing is what you think it is.

I've said I find those who obsessed over others lives being against their religion or morality to be hateful and homophobic in a way I find sad for them.

So are you saying that this remark wasn't made with reference to Ann Widdecombe?

It's pretty evident in this thread that you don't understand Catholic teaching on sex or marriage.

No one is asking you to agree with it either.

However, it's not some random set of pronouncements by "a man in the sky" as you suggested (also a silly thing to say and not reflective of Christian belief.)

It's a pretty coherent approach to controlling and limiting one of the most powerful, and troublesome, natural human drives, as well as making sure the people most often vulnerable to its excesses (mothers and children) are provided for materially and emotionally and socially. And it does that largely by defining the appropriate limit for sexuality as, how many babies are you willing and able to take care of.

That's not random, and it's not an attempt to strip away "rights" it's something else entirely. I've met gay men who believe this, as it happens - that marriage exists to protect women from men, and it's not appropriate for them to try and move in on that. They didn't see it as a "right" but as something quite irrelevant to them as two male people in a sexual relationship.

There is no virtue in deliberately not understanding why people believe what they believe, what their argument and logic is, so that you can call them hateful. It's a cop out ,is what it is. Everyone who thinks differently than me is evil.

How it is the modern left thinks they are tolerant and into "diversity" I have no idea, they are the exact opposite.

You are conveniently ignoring the context of her self written admission which was in support of Lesley Pilkington providing conversion therapy.

"Lesley Pilkington was found to have broken the ethical code of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy when she agreed to a request from Patrick Strudwick to help him become a heterosexual."

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/ann-widdecombe/299271/Helping-those-who-aren-t-glad-to-be-gay

By virtue of being in support of Pilkington to conduct conversion therapy is an admission of its efficacy. And no amount of framing this into an issue about the right to self determination will change this particularly because WE KNOW conversion therapy not only doesn't work but is psychologically harmful.

And don't think this shrewd cynical so & so didn't know exactly what she was doing by exploiting the right to self determination to indulge her gay conversion fantasies.

What's particularly galling is how long standing anti rights proponents suddenly are all about liberty & social justice when convenient. But one only needs to review their track record to comprehend the sincerity of their claims.

My posts are all there. It is clear that is not what I have said Please stop misrepresenting me.

You've been welcome to, but haven't, adequately explain why it's inaccurate for a gay person to perceive homophobia as hateful though not did you adequately explain how the word hateful is an extremist as blatant homophobia..

Yes it was very clear when you lectured that I mustn't use these words as they're extremist and adding to division and I'll never change people's minds. Which I explained to you I wasn't on a mission to change these people's minds. You said you were upset at society. Unclear what I've misrepresented there? But flounce if you wish.

As a general, societal comment, I just realised (and probably should have done before) how the accusation of "policing language" can be used to deflect a challenge of accuracy.

No, it means she thinks people should be able to access therapy if they would prefer to lead a heterosexual life than a homosexual life. I agree that the inplication is that she thinks it is possible to (happily) lead a heterosexual life even if one is same-sex attracted. She is clear that it would only be possible if the person seeking the therapy actually wanted it.

Please stop misrepresenting my posts.

It's clear what I have said. It's all there. It is not what you are claiming. If you do not see why, pleae re-read them.

I will not bother replying to you again.

No doubt you will reply and have the last word so you can again misrepresent me. Nevertheless, my posts will stand for what I actually said.

Where have I note accepted this...? I assume you skimmed past multiple posts I've made where I don't wish to restrict or limit these people's ability to practice their beliefs. I simply wish to share my opinion as freely as they do?

It's really not talking in good faith for you to continually try to assign an emotional status to me that isn't there so that you can avoid engaging with my point. I don't feel emotional and my posts aren't emotional. If anything, you keep saying how upset and distraught you are about society so perhaps this is projection on your part? you didn't want to police my language you wouldn't have repeated multiple times now your reasons why you wish me to stop using those words, because they upset you.

Regardless of what Christians in general believe, it is clear that AW took the doctrine very seriously. She became a Catholic because she didn't believe in the ordination of women, but she also clearly believed that women should have political power outside the church.

I think you have to accept that some people just take religion seriously and religious beliefs aren't always clear to other people. The orthodox jewish concept of an eruv doesn't make sense to everyone.

She lost on the issue of gay marriage, largely because for most people marriage is now a secular, not a religious concept. That did not stop her from being friends with people who disagreed with her.

I appreciate this is very emotional for you, for very understandable reasons. I am not criticising you for that. You have to live with the knowledge and fear of homophobia and I mostly don't, for myself at least. (I have loved ones who I care and fear for though).

But please stop accusing me of things I haven't said or done. It's not ok to do that.

My point is, as it has been all along, that "hate" is a strong, visceral emotion and to assume that every divisive opinion, or indeed every reactionary one, must be because the person holding it is driven by feeling actual "hate" is simply wrong.

So for those who want to find a way forward, it's not a helpful way to think and certainly not a helpful public stance for advocacy groups to take.

It's not "policing your language" to explain that, it's just noting that language has impact. You can still say whatever you want. It's your choice.

My previous posts explain this in more detail so I won't repeat it again.

They’ve tried to make one more than once. Predictably those efforts were unconvincing because they always concentrate on “TERFs” rather than people who genuinely wish them harm. So all the receipts were people being mean about their photos rather than telling them they wanted to kerb stomp them, rape them, punch their ovaries out, kill their children in front of them etc, like the entirely unhinged ones GC women get.

It really isn’t.

Very.