Hadley Freeman skewers conversion bill

“Queer kids”? Why are you insistent on sexualising children and using homophobic slurs whilst doing so?
The current laws that are in existence serve exactly the purpose to deal with the situation you’ve written. Just a quick reminder though, the proposed Bill in its current state could lead to parents complaining to police that their adult children who insist they’re now the opposite sex and that they’re now a daughter not a son is abusive. Same with partners of trans identifying adults who now want their partner to describe themselves as same sex attracted.
Transwidows are delighted about this avenue!

Transwidows are delighted about this avenue!

Has also been suggested that the bill might cover those who pressurise lesbians into having sex/romantic relationships with men on dating apps.

Hadley Freeman who's repeatedly defended Woody Allen and called the woman who accused him of child abuse a fabulist, right.

That Hadley Freeman.

Anyway, she's spectacularly inaccurate and knows it. This Bill closes a loophole in child abuse law which allows 'Christian' groups to cause kids lifelong cPTSD by offering fake cures for being LGBTQIA+.

And makes sure abusive parents can't call harming their queer kids a 'belief '. While reminding those kids that all child abuse is illegal and can never be excused.

It is already illegal to verbally terrorise your child and harm them.

Anyone opposing this, is part of the grifting, abusive 'cure' scene (i.e. rich Christian groups) or an abusive parent. Or a terf whose conscience about how they treat trans children is being pricked.

It does not criminalise parents for conversation. Police and social services will still only turn up when a child is being terrorised - and still likely do absolutely nothing.

They will still look stern, fill in forms and do absolutely f*ck-all to remove children from abusive homes in the vast majority of cases, because they prioritise keeping families together.

Terf parents on here are being reminded that treating their trans child like s*it for being trans is a form of abuse. And that they were meant to respect, protect and nurture the kids they rejected and now furiously post about for clicks. Good.

This legislation won't stop that - it's an irrelevant distraction.

It is already illegal to verbally terrorise your child and harm them.

So what is the loophole that needs to be closed?

There’s some potentially massive unintended consequences with the proposed bill, that I doubt it’s vociferous supporters, busy dreaming of ways they can weaponise it, haven’t considered. A glaring one is discussed on the most recent This Isn’t Working podcast, which relates to the section on corporate responsibility. Sounds great to the short sighted, but there’s a very real possibility that it’ll make trans people and their more obnoxious allies virtually unemployable.
No sensible company would want to risk potential trouble, especially as the proposed bill in its current form creates a clash between the recent single sex space legal clarification and the new bill. How do you balance, for instance, telling a trans employee they can’t use the opposite sex changing room as per the Equality Act clarification, with the same employee’s new ability to report their employer to the police because the exchange made them feel like it denied their gender identity?
HR nightmare. Best to shuffle them out in the next wave of redundancies or just not take them on the first place with a nice, bland, boilerplate rejection letter that provides no potential ammunition, or go with the awful new trend of just ghosting them altogether.
In light of recent studies showing CVs with declared pronouns are already more likely to be filed into the bin, it could be a big own goal for trans activists.

There’s some potentially massive unintended consequences with the proposed bill, that I doubt it’s vociferous supporters, busy dreaming of ways they can weaponise it, haven’t considered. A glaring one is discussed on the most recent This Isn’t Working podcast, which relates to the section on corporate responsibility. Sounds great to the short sighted, but there’s a very real possibility that it’ll make trans people and their more obnoxious allies virtually unemployable.
No sensible company would want to risk potential trouble, especially as the proposed bill in its current form creates a clash between the recent single sex space legal clarification and the new bill. How do you balance, for instance, telling a trans employee they can’t use the opposite sex changing room as per the Equality Act clarification, with the same employee’s new ability to report their employer to the police because the exchange made them feel like it denied their gender identity?
HR nightmare. Best to shuffle them out in the next wave of redundancies or just not take them on the first place with a nice, bland, boilerplate rejection letter that provides no potential ammunition, or go with the awful new trend of just ghosting them altogether.
In light of recent studies showing CVs with declared pronouns are already more likely to be filed into the bin, it could be a big own goal for trans activists.

The phrase "driving a coach and horses thru things" comes to mind.
It's as if the activist lawyers writing the Bill thought they could take the most sensitive issues of parenting, teaching, therapy, and bludgeon this into an effectively hugely partisan political piece of lawmaking.

This is not an exaggeration: the bill defines conversion therapy as “any conduct carried out by a person towards an individual” which questions their “transgender identity”

But Stonewall, Mermaids etc are allowed to question the identity of other kids ?

Why aren't their 'gender identities' being protected?

There is a basic problem of equality here, with transgender identities given a protected status

This exactly. In fact, if the Bill does become law, I think I might decide to pursue legal action on the NHS every time they force me to declare a gender identity (on their paper and online forms that I do not have). That would be a conversion attempt, surely?

This could get complicated for the NHS...

This exactly. In fact, if the Bill does become law, I think I might decide to pursue legal action on the NHS every time they force me to declare a gender identity (on their paper and online forms that I do not have). That would be a conversion attempt, surely?

This could get complicated for the NHS...

How do you balance, for instance, telling a trans employee they can’t use the opposite sex changing room as per the Equality Act clarification, with the same employee’s new ability to report their employer to the police because the exchange made them feel like it denied their gender identity?

What's missing from the bill is the word "reasonably", in the sensible place:

(1) A person commits an offence if the person carries out an abusive conversion practice on an individual which reasonably causes—

• (a) serious harm to the individual’s physical or mental health, or...

That would answer the question because complying with the law would never be considered reasonably causing harm.

Indeed.
Its current draft form is wide open to being weaponised out of sheer spite and vindictiveness on the part of the complainant. Giving a small group of constantly aggrieved people, who have a well documented history of turning process into punishment, that level or arbitrary power makes them somebody a potential employer would sensibly steer well clear of.

My mind is boggling at the moment too many badly defined words and flawed logic.

Usually equality legislation would talk about protecting everyone.

Racial equality laws do not specify that black people need protecting. Racial harassment is illegal whether it is white on black, black on white or whatever

Yet here 'transgender identity' is used when 'gender identity' would have been the more universal option.

Hadley Freeman who's repeatedly defended Woody Allen and called the woman who accused him of child abuse a fabulist, right.

That Hadley Freeman.

Anyway, she's spectacularly inaccurate and knows it. This Bill closes a loophole in child abuse law which allows 'Christian' groups to cause kids lifelong cPTSD by offering fake cures for being LGBTQIA+.

And makes sure abusive parents can't call harming their queer kids a 'belief '. While reminding those kids that all child abuse is illegal and can never be excused.

It is already illegal to verbally terrorise your child and harm them.

Anyone opposing this, is part of the grifting, abusive 'cure' scene (i.e. rich Christian groups) or an abusive parent. Or a terf whose conscience about how they treat trans children is being pricked.

It does not criminalise parents for conversation. Police and social services will still only turn up when a child is being terrorised - and still likely do absolutely nothing.

They will still look stern, fill in forms and do absolutely f*ck-all to remove children from abusive homes in the vast majority of cases, because they prioritise keeping families together.

Terf parents on here are being reminded that treating their trans child like s*it for being trans is a form of abuse. And that they were meant to respect, protect and nurture the kids they rejected and now furiously post about for clicks. Good.

Indeed.
Its current draft form is wide open to being weaponised out of sheer spite and vindictiveness on the part of the complainant. Giving a small group of constantly aggrieved people, who have a well documented history of turning process into punishment, that level or arbitrary power makes them somebody a potential employer would sensibly steer well clear of.

Is trans kids (and I'm talking about adults here) treating their parents like shit abusive, in your opinion?

Interesting point. We'll undoubtedly have parents taking their children to court, as well, won't we? Stranger things have happened. I believe the age of criminal responsibility is 10?

from https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility

Children over 10
Children between 10 and 17 can be arrested and taken to court if they commit a crime.
They are treated differently from adults and are:

• dealt with by youth courts
• given different sentences
• sent to special secure centres for young people, not adult prisons