Times article about Age of Consent, Stonewall, Alba

[Wandawomble]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/48c9ae6e-9adf-11eb-8da6-6f8eecc82ac3?shareToken=1d6c72638a41d774b21c06787d90f6d3

I know there are other threads about this but a bit of sunlight and all that...

I had to read it twice.

Absolute disbelief.

I keep having to check which bloody thread I'm in here.

They're all merging into one.

*on

If you think this is bad you want to see what the Rainbow Greens (the LGBT brank of the Scottish Greens) get up to

Ironically individual freedom is a right wing stance.

There are left wing and right wing libertarians, and left wing and right wing communitarians, and left wing and right wing authoritarians.

Traditional leftism in the first half of the 20th century was collectivist, but so was traditional conservatism. Both at one time were opposed to liberalism.

Here's the Times journalist defending his article on twitter:

twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/1381296917699780613

There would appear to be some wilfull misunderstanding going on. This focus on "the bad people have said bad words" rather than thinking about the words and asking Stonewall whether they agree or disagree with them is noticeably odd. This "attack but don't explain" strategy by many involved in this fiasco doesn't appear to be accidental.

Bodily Autonomy is a biggie in progressive thought

Yep. It was also.an argument used by paedophiles in the past.

It's really interesting the way ILGA, Stonewall, LGBTYS have all made statements saying they do not promote or condone paedophilia, yet none of them have addressed what in the document that ILGA signed up.to

@WarriorN

Who the hell in an official position is investigating this stuff?

Who looks at safeguarding within stonewall et al?

Good point, although it seems journalists are onto it.

I've re-read that article and my goodness the journalist is doing a lot of heavy lifting for Stonewall. Even without the WHO definition adolescent is a word that refers to children transitioning to adulthood via puberty which can start at 10/11. Anyone with an understanding of the English language would surely look at the use of that word in this context and highlight how wide ranging that could be and how it could be used to interpret that children as young as ten are included.

The thing that leaps out at me is what many have said. We have this massive convoluted mess and the solution would appear to be simple, for the relevant Stonewall entities to declare that they disagree with the contentious wording in the Feminist Declaration because, instead, their position is "X" (whatever X might be).

Obviously they don't want to do this because for years they've been pushing hard on the LGBTQI+ united front approach and it's served them very well indeed. They view any possible fracturing as a threat which is why they are so aggressive towards the LGB Alliance.

I find the claim that all that stuff is meant to be about kids in other countries a little suspect, on the face of it.

this blog here has traced the "lowering the age of consent" back to its origin

transsafety.network/posts/alba-whrc-conspiracy/

It seems the original claim did some selective editing of the original declaration.

It seems the original claim did some selective editing of the original declaration

It really didn't. I have read that piece and it is really interesting to see who first picked up on this, and how it spread. However, the contentious phrases are in the original document and haven't been misleadingly edited.
The original document is here iwhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Beijing-25-Feminist-declaration.pdf (triggers download) if you'd like to check

I liked this comment on the Wings site:

The Greens should be concerning themselves with ozone not the twilight zone.

@CatherinaJTV

this blog here has traced the "lowering the age of consent" back to its origin

transsafety.network/posts/alba-whrc-conspiracy/

It seems the original claim did some selective editing of the original declaration.

But it still reads:

"including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex"

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

It seems the original claim did some selective editing of the original declaration

It really didn't. I have read that piece and it is really interesting to see who first picked up on this, and how it spread. However, the contentious phrases are in the original document and haven't been misleadingly edited.
The original document is here iwhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Beijing-25-Feminist-declaration.pdf (triggers download) if you'd like to check

They did edit - they write

"eliminate ....laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents... to provide consent to sex",

where the actual segment reads

"Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use;"

it is pretty clear, I think, that the original seeks to empower and the edited version distorts that intended meaning.

ILGA world response

ilga.org/statement-responding-false-allegations-about-ILGA-World

Very clear response - especially this

These spurious claims, as old as homophobia itself, are dangerous and irresponsible, and we urge those making or sharing them, to stop.

Applying this:

"Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use;"

would have many consequences, one of which would be to eliminate laws and policies, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents to provide consent to sex. This is just straightforward parsing of the words. Do you actually disagree with this CatherinaJTV?

[quote ArabellaScott]ILGA world response

ilga.org/statement-responding-false-allegations-about-ILGA-World[/quote]
Again, they have said nothing about the document in question

ILGA World categorically, and in no uncertain terms, does not advocate to eliminate or lower the general age of consent, nor supports paedophilia in any way, shape or form - and never has.

This part of their statement is disputed
According to a statement made in the US Congress www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-1994-02-01/html/CREC-1994-02-01-pt1-PgS18.htm

"in 1985 ILGA officially resolved that young people have
the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of
consent laws often operate to oppress and not protect"

Again it's that problematic phrasing around bodily autonomy for children, seems progressive, but a very useful phrase for paedophiles.
twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/991258039511670784?s=19

@CatherinaJTV

Very clear response - especially this

These spurious claims, as old as homophobia itself, are dangerous and irresponsible, and we urge those making or sharing them, to stop.

This is what I'm reading:

"including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex" it still says what I thought it said and how many have interpreted it.

I can see that and maybe the ILGA could have included a better definition of what they understand as "adolescent", but I have read the whole statement to paragraph 14 and it is crystal clear that this is about empowering young people and NOT about pedophilia.

Bodily autonomy? So ok for 10 year olds to smoke, drink alcohol, have tattoos? Presumably also ok to decide on medical treatment beyond their ability to give informed consent? As well as have sex with middle aged men? And in this case - middle aged men who are also knowingly infecting them with HIV where drugs to treat HIV are either unobtainable or unaffordable.

Yay. Tots progressive.

@nauticant

Applying this:

"Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use;"

would have many consequences, one of which would be to eliminate laws and policies, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents to provide consent to sex. This is just straightforward parsing of the words. Do you actually disagree with this CatherinaJTV?

unsurprisingly, I do not.

I don't know how often I can reiterate that I read this statement as a declaration intended to empower young people and not to leave them vulnerable to exploitation.