Professor/Author Kathleen Stock on proposed "conversion therapy ban"

I don't think anyone chooses their sexuality (I never chose to be straight), so the bit about telling children they've got that wrong is appalling and straight out of s28 homophobia

I don't think anyone chooses their sexuality (I never chose to be straight), so the bit about telling children they've got that wrong is appalling and straight out of s28 homophobia

When did we reach the point where parents might need the state's permission to disagree with their own children? Speaking on Times Radio, Professor Kathleen Stock raises a fundamental question about the proposed Conversion Practices Bill: should a mother or father risk criminal prosecution simply for questioning their child's beliefs about their sex or sexuality? There is a world of difference between abuse and a parent saying, out of love and concern, "I don't think you're right." We can protect children from genuine abuse without criminalising ordinary parental disagreement. The family home should not become another place where free speech requires government approval.

It's closing a loophole in child abuse laws. No more or less.

Have you tried reporting a theft, burglary or vandalism recently? If the police turn up at all, it's to give you a crime number. Rape investigations take a year and usually don't result in a charge. Neglected, abused children are usually left in the home by overstretched Family Services. As if anyone's losing their kid or getting prosecuted over 'discussions'. I couldn't get a child removed with a photo showing he'd suffered a physical assault.

This Bill's being resisted by abusive homophobic and transphobic parents who don't want their behaviour challenged, full stop.

It's closing a loophole in child abuse laws. No more or less.

Have you tried reporting a theft, burglary or vandalism recently? If the police turn up at all, it's to give you a crime number. Rape investigations take a year and usually don't result in a charge. Neglected, abused children are usually left in the home by overstretched Family Services. As if anyone's losing their kid or getting prosecuted over 'discussions'. I couldn't get a child removed with a photo showing he'd suffered a physical assault.

This Bill's being resisted by abusive homophobic and transphobic parents who don't want their behaviour challenged, full stop.

When did we reach the point where parents might need the state's permission to disagree with their own children? Speaking on Times Radio, Professor Kathleen Stock raises a fundamental question about the proposed Conversion Practices Bill: should a mother or father risk criminal prosecution simply for questioning their child's beliefs about their sex or sexuality? There is a world of difference between abuse and a parent saying, out of love and concern, "I don't think you're right." We can protect children from genuine abuse without criminalising ordinary parental disagreement. The family home should not become another place where free speech requires government approval.

Depends how they disagree though doesn't it? The legislation concerns abusive conversion practices. Humiliation, intimidation, threats, coercion, psychological pressure and controlling behaviour intended to change somebody's sexuality or gender identity. The context is children being threatened with rejection, subjected to sustained emotional abuse or pressured into denying who they are.

And its not as if this principle isn't already accepted in law regarding forced marriages & honour based abuse. Hence we already recognise that parents can psychologically harm their children Would you seriously argue that legislation against forced marriage criminalises parents for discussing their children's romantic prospects?

Depends how they disagree though doesn't it? The legislation concerns abusive conversion practices. Humiliation, intimidation, threats, coercion, psychological pressure and controlling behaviour intended to change somebody's sexuality or gender identity. The context is children being threatened with rejection, subjected to sustained emotional abuse or pressured into denying who they are.

And its not as if this principle isn't already accepted in law regarding forced marriages & honour based abuse. Hence we already recognise that parents can psychologically harm their children Would you seriously argue that legislation against forced marriage criminalises parents for discussing their children's romantic prospects?

Throwing all sorts of irrelevant legal issues at concerns about undermining safeguarding with crude attempts to frame responsible parenting as abusive no longer works. As Helen Joyce pointed out to the parliamentary inquiry the other day:
"If my husband takes my phone away from me because he doesn't want me contacting people, that's coercive control. If I do that to my child, that may be responsible parenting".

Those who aren't parents often see parenting as oppressive and bad with the rainbow cults delighting in promoting parental alienation. Responsible society understands how difficult parenting is, especially as our children mature and start navigating the necessary move from teenage years to adulthood. We already have rigorous well established safeguarding procedures that protect children from significant harm.

That's why there's growing opposition to the adultification of children via the draft bill and the deliberate attempts to undermine parents ability to safeguard their children.

This thread has links to the parliamentary group looking at the bill - you can listen to both sides giving evidence:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5593223-draft-conversion-practices-bill-oral-evidence-291027-1215pm?page=1

The point you are missing is the legal bar is a lot higher than a simple disagreement. There's needs to be evidence of serious harmful abuse that's consistent with what's already established in law.

The point you are missing is the legal bar is a lot higher than a simple disagreement. There's needs to be evidence of serious harmful abuse that's consistent with what's already established in law.

Depends how they disagree though doesn't it? The legislation concerns abusive conversion practices. Humiliation, intimidation, threats, coercion, psychological pressure and controlling behaviour intended to change somebody's sexuality or gender identity. The context is children being threatened with rejection, subjected to sustained emotional abuse or pressured into denying who they are.

And its not as if this principle isn't already accepted in law regarding forced marriages & honour based abuse. Hence we already recognise that parents can psychologically harm their children Would you seriously argue that legislation against forced marriage criminalises parents for discussing their children's romantic prospects?

From the Bill:

2. Offence of carrying out an abusive conversion practice on an individual
(1) A person commits an offence if the person carries out an abusive conversion practice on an individual which causes—

• (a) serious harm to the individual’s physical or mental health, or
• (b) serious alarm or distress to the individual which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities.

Who is deciding what "serious" means? Hopefully not a member of the polycule, or Tristan.

I don't think anyone chooses their sexuality (I never chose to be straight), so the bit about telling children they've got that wrong is appalling and straight out of s28 homophobia

The point you are missing is the legal bar is a lot higher than a simple disagreement. There's needs to be evidence of serious harmful abuse that's consistent with what's already established in law.

“evidence of serious harmful abuse”

Will encouraging vulnerable teens to take cross sex hormones and lop of healthy body parts fit this definition?

I'm not missing any point. The draft lacks any definition of what harmful abuse is. The bill in fact lacks numerous definitions - not making any difference between children and adults. Not recognising parental responsibilities, the role of numerous professionals, etc. Not to mention trying to use the bill as a trojan horse to get contested terms such as gender identity, NB and a hundred fantasy identities onto the statute book without any demo=cratic debate.

Anyway - worth you educating yourself via that link I provided upthread. IANAL but have learnt a lot about the bill from all the lawyers who are currently exposing all the flaws.

If it's serious abuse which is already illegal under present laws, there's no need for a new law.

If you actually read the Bill:

the bar for “abuse” is very low (as low as causing ‘distress’)

the real abuses you list are already illegal

prosecutions will be in criminal, not in family court.

As proposed the bill will render the PC of belief moot.

A religious parent who says “I believe it’s wrong to be gay & I’ll pray for you” may be dragged through the courts. Remember, once an accusation of ‘abuse’ is made, ALL children in the family may be taken into care.

The law includes ‘attempts to change or deny “gender identity”’ That’s undefined, is a new concept in law, & many of us don't believe we have one.

Can i sue the TRAs who insist I have one?

How about the lesbians told they should shag transbians?

How about the women whose late-transing husbands inform them they’re lesbians now?