To believe that Parents must have the right to tell their children they are not “in the wrong body” and children cant be “transgender”?

[DoubleMM]

The government wants to bring in a law that threatens anyone including parents with up to five years in prison for denying a child’s or an adult’s “transgender identity” -. The draft Bill is in Committee stage. Labour have committed to making it law. Surely this is just bringing back the Scottish Parliament’s vote that everyone has to agree? That men are women if they say they are? This time parents are in the firing line if they dont agree to their child being “transed” at school or elsewhere? The Bill proposes that the courts should be able to make an order to enforce compliance on parents. Surely this can’t be allowed to go through without a fight?

Hiding or destroying other people's possessions is I believe generally considered abusive. Especially if you then gaslight them by denying all knowledge.

Can you quote the piece of the legislation that confirms parents will NOT be prosecuted for failing to call their child their new name please.

Not about that at all. It's about conversion therapy which is abhorrent

If you are demanding evidence of something not happening, then you'll be waiting a good while.

Hiding or destroying other people's possessions is I believe generally considered abusive. Especially if you then gaslight them by denying all knowledge

Exactly.

The amount of newcomers to our church who were never raised in the faith suggests otherwise. People seek God all on their own.

I agree, telling an effeminate gay boy, he's probably a girl is indeed abhorrent

I don't need to quote anything.

The only things people are prosecuted for are criminal offences. There is nothing criminal about refusing to use a name.

This is just the "they'll prosecute you for mis-gendering" shite regurgitated. That was always total and utter nonsense, but that didn't prevent all the usual suspects claiming they were going to be frogmarched off to correction camps for referring to someone's biological sex.

.

How can you have a ban on conversion therapy for something which itself aims are to pretty close fit to the definition of conversion itself.

It doesn’t make sense.

If I have got this mixed up I apologise, but are you actually annoyed that parents won't be able to abuse and gaslight their own children?

Destroying and hiding possessions is not a healthy or constructive way to approach a disagreement.

Good thing this wasn’t the law when my DD started saying “I feel like a boy” when she was about 7. I told her she was having a funny feeling and she wasn’t a boy. I talked about how every cell of her body was a girl’s cell. I also told her that God had made her a girl.

It all started because a friend of hers had said at the same age that she was a boy and wanted to use a different name.

It was a passing phase, but it lasted quite a while. I shudder to think that I might not have been allowed to have those conversations with her.

You're missing the key word "abusive" and the definition of the offence.

Parents will not be prosecuted for opposing their children being trans. They will be prosecuted if their actions in that opposition amount to abusive behaviour which causes harm.

Ok but legally a trans man is still a woman and a trans woman is still a man. You cannot change sex. That legislation can't stop people from saying that. It's both legally and biologically true.

But people who identify as trans shouldn't necessarily be told not to. They should be told you can be/look/act the way you want but your sex remains the same.

Obviously nobody should encourage children to take hormones or have surgery. Whether it's because they're trans or not.

If I have got this mixed up I apologise, but are you actually annoyed that parents won't be able to abuse and gaslight their own children?

Or binning their puberty blocker hormones? Is that abusive? Or protection?

Were those conversations abusive? If not, then you're fine

@BillieWiper I ran some of this through AI

It does look as if MPs are also worried about this because the definition of harassment and causing alarm and distress… what you described, if you say that to your kids, it might be covered under harassment.

I really only posted here because I thought that OP made a valid point and people were giving her a hard time for no reason

And I don’t know why. Maybe if you just look at what’s in the headlines, you think it’s to protect gay kids, but there’s a lot more to it.

and can anyone keep count of the times the law did or didn’t do what was meant to happen

FFS we’ve got the NHS using “ non-evidence based medicine” as a defence - what the fuck.

Were those conversations abusive? If not, then you're fine

But we're debating the definition of abusive aren't we? The definition that might be in the bill.

No I don’t think a judge or jury would be likely to conclude that a gender critical parent expressing in a moderate fashion their own views about trans ideology and their child would be convicted ….

But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be prosecuted and have to face the misery and expense of the whole investigative and judicial process. There have been numerous examples of prosecutorial authorities that subscribe to gender ideology mounting such investigations and taking proceedings in other contexts. You may recall that at one point the Crown Prosecution Service had to be pressured by threat of judicial action to withdraw guidance suggesting that schoolgirls objecting to sharing a gym changing room with a boy who identified as a girl might be guilty of a hate crime.

The draft statute as currently worded allows for maximum prosecutorial discretion. it’s a difficult area. Since existing law already allows prosecution for violent and coercive conversion practices such as apparently happen elsewhere in the world ( little evidence happen in UK) then one has to assume that the new law is driven by political imperatives and/or to allow the authorities to decide that less harmful practices or opinions should be criminalised. But who gets to judge what’s harmful in the first instance? Schools? The police? Social work?

From commentary I’ve read, it seems that the law could also be used to prosecute a parent who engages in a course of conduct causing distress or harm because the parent doesn’t believe in homosexuality and believes that their child’s attraction to their own sex means that the child is transgender. Who decides what is and isn’t harmful?

And ‘distress’!? I caused my teens distress every time I disagreed with them about anything at some points or I stated that they move their lazy butts to eat, wash or go to school! It’s inherent in parenthood.

The legislation specifically says that if an individual feels "serious alarm or distress to the individual which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities."

So not using a new name can be easily declared to induce this and hence, parents can be prosecuted under this new law.

You keep saying it won't happen but nothing in it suggests this, hence asking you to quote where it says this, as you seem to know all about it.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0uNsrFvCO7XCbhFELfQn30

"The Conversion Practices Bill was formally announced in the King's Speech in July and confirmed Labour's Manifesto commitment to introduce into UK law a full, trans-inclusive ban on abusive "conversion practices" intended to change or suppress someone's sexual orientation as well as their transgender identity. The short, six-clause Bill was published in draft form on 25th June and is due to commence pre-legislative scrutiny later this month by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

The Bill creates new criminal offences based on three limbs: first, conduct intended to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; secondly, conduct that is abusive in line with other criminal law; and thirdly, conduct that causes serious harm, alarm or distress that has a substantial effect on the victim's day-to-day activities. To close what the Minister for Equalities Olivia Bailey said might be a loophole that pushes abuse abroad, the draft Bill also includes an offence of encouraging or assisting an abusive conversion practice outside England and Wales. In addition, the Bill creates a new "conversion practice protection order" as a civil injunctive measure designed to "support victims at risk of abuse".

To discuss the nature and implications of the Bill, Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC are joined in the Double Jeopardy studio by previous guest Sarah Vine KC. Are there really gaps in the criminal law that necessitate the creation of new offences in this complex area of human behaviour? Are clinical psychologists and psychotherapists right to argue that poorly defined terms in the Bill create widespread fear and uncertainty that standard, evidence-based exploratory therapy (which involves challenging a client's thoughts or exploring complex underlying issues regarding sex, gender or sexuality) could be misconstrued or legally targeted as "conversion practice"? And what does the experience of other countries tell us about the impact of this kind of legislation?

Ken and Tim finish by discussing the partial U-turn announced by Justice Secretary Alex Norris on the Government's plan to remove the right to jury trial in a wide range of cases. But by keeping the commitment to end a defendant's right to elect jury trial for offences triable in both the magistrates' court and the Crown Court, and doubling the sentencing powers of magistrates, will the backlog simply be transferred to an already clogged criminal justice system in the magistrates' courts?"

Children don't have "bits chopped off their bodies".
Are you using the word children to apply up to the age of 25 as well? As I've seen people on here argue before that people under the age of 25 shouldn't be allowed to "chop bits off" (I paraphrase.) Due to saying your brain isn't developed fully before then so shouldn't be allowed.

Even in those circumstances, yes. Hiding or destroying prescribed medication is abuse.

There are healthier and more constructive ways to approach this than hiding or destroying things.

Even in those circumstances, yes. Hiding or destroying prescribed medication is abuse.

There are healthier and more constructive ways to approach this than hiding or destroying things.

Puberty blockers are banned in the UK so they would be hiding medications bought on the internet. Still ok?