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...

The moderation has been relaxed considerably. There are now posts being published that would not have had a hope yesterday or earlier today. Something is happening behind the scenes.

Mark McLaughlin (the "journalist")

Has just posted this in the comments:

The signatories of the declaration are calling for the repeal of laws that limit adolescents' legal capacity to consent to sex.

For example, if you set the age of consent at 16 [the legal capacity] do not forbid them from buying condoms, or visiting a sexual health clinic, or seeking an abortion, until they are 18 [laws that limit the legal capacity].

I must be stupid because I genuinely do not understand what he is trying to say. Can someone smarter than me translate?

"Clause14.ais very obviously about eliminating the criminalisation and punishment of young people for engaging in sexual activity" (transsafety.network/posts/alba-whrc-conspiracy). Or "it's quite clearly referring to access to sex/sexual/reproductive health services" (yeahbutnaw). Take your pick.

Only a homophobic bigot would deliberately misconstrue it as meaning what it says.

Clause14.ais very obviously about eliminating the criminalisation and punishment of young people for engaging in sexual activity

So you don't believe a 19 year old should be criminalised for engaging in sexual activity with a 10 year old? Interesting.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Mark McLaughlin (the "journalist")

Has just posted this in the comments:

The signatories of the declaration are calling for the repeal of laws that limit adolescents' legal capacity to consent to sex.

For example, if you set the age of consent at 16 [the legal capacity] do not forbid them from buying condoms, or visiting a sexual health clinic, or seeking an abortion, until they are 18 [laws that limit the legal capacity].

I must be stupid because I genuinely do not understand what he is trying to say. Can someone smarter than me translate?

I don’t understand it either not being allowed to buy condoms does not limit their legal capacity to consent to sex neither does not being able to visit a sexual health clinic. And he keeps saying that the guidelines define adolescence in a non-numerical way. They do say that is the definition you would find in a dictionary but the UN uses age 10-19. To me it seems he is trying very hard to misinterpret the words that are written in the guidelines. It’s perplexing.

I think he's focussing on a very narrow interpretation when the wording is broad:

"Article 4g seeks an end to "the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality, and ensure and promote a positive approach to young people's and adolescents’ sexuality that enables, recognizes, and respects their agency to make informed and independent decisions on matters concerning their bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms."

Not all adolescents should have "agency" to consent to sex. As people attempted to point out, the WHO defines adolescence as 10-19. They need to draw the lines more clearly.

A: "I will let the zoo animals into your field to play with your sheep."
B: "Are you mad? The lions and tigers and hyenas and polar bears and cheetahs and alligators and crocodiles would tear my poor sheep apart!"
A: "Why are you going to be so mean to the antelopes and zebras and giraffes and kangaroos and lemurs and meerkats and especially the quokkas?"

@yeahbutnaw

Gay people deserve much better than being constantly being the target of misinformation campaigns related to pedophilia.

If we lived in a remotely tolerant society:

1. People would have interpreted the document as intended (it's quite clearly referring to access to sex/sexual/reproductive health services)
2. People would have targeted concerns to the Women's Caucus rather than at gay organisations.
3. People would have listened to the clarifications and moved on.

But instead, here we are. 161 messages in and you're still blaming gay organisations for something that they didn't do. Because you believed some rando Alba candidate.

More background.

This is the page explaining what the document under discussion is:

ilga.org/CSW64-Womens-Rights-Caucus-feminist-declaration-Beijing25

'New York, March 9, 2020 —Twenty five years after the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the foundational global document on gender equality, governments at an abbreviated session of the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) have reaffirmed a commitment to gender equality but, according to leading feminist groups and activists, fell short of committing to the transformative steps necessary to achieve this vision.

To address the gaps in the political declaration adopted at the CSW by governments, the Women’s Rights Caucus—a global coalition of more than 200 feminist organizations, networks and collectives that advocates for gender equality at the United Nations—has published an alternative, feminist declaration.'

This is the original document that was felt had 'gaps'. It reads much more as I would redirect a document of this type to read.

www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/news%20and%20events/stories/2020/csw64-politicaldeclaration.pdf?la=en&vs=1220

Comparing the original and the 'improved' version is worth doing- I would urge anyone who has time to read both or at least have a decent skim.

Note the original document uses the term gender in the sense the UN define it :

'Gender: refers to the social attributes and opportunities associated with being male and female and the relationships between women and men and girls and boys, as well as the relations between women and those between men. These attributes, opportunities and relationships are socially constructed and are learned through socialization processes. They are context/ time-specific and changeable. Gender determines what is expected, allowed and valued in a women or a man in a given context. In most societies there are differences and inequalities between women and men in responsibilities assigned, activities undertaken, access to and control over resources, as well as decision-making opportunities. Gender is part of the broader socio-cultural context. Other important criteria for socio-cultural analysis include class, race, poverty level, ethnic group and age.'

More info here:

www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/conceptsandefinitions.htm#:~:text=Gender%3A%20refers%20to%20the%20social,women%20and%20those%20between%20men.&text=Gender%20determines%20what%20is%20expected,man%20in%20a%20given%20context.

@nauticant

A: "I will let the zoo animals into your field to play with your sheep." B: "Are you mad? The lions and tigers and hyenas and polar bears and cheetahs and alligators and crocodiles would tear my poor sheep apart!" A: "Why are you going to be so mean to the antelopes and zebras and giraffes and kangaroos and lemurs and meerkats and especially the quokkas?"

No FWR thread is complete without a quokka. to Nauticant.

Note that this is a document around women and girls globally.

The original that had 'gaps' that I linked in my pp is entitled:

'Political declaration on the occasion of the twenty-fifth
anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women
The Commission on the Status of Women
Adopts the political declaration annexed to the present resolution.'

Back in s bit got to play a board game...

Stopped playing a board game.

1. Why the idea that any concerns about this are due to homophobia? The document is about women and girls. I suppose the idea is even if it was totally brilliant then women would have concerns because of the signatories etc?

The question used to be, why would a bunch women of whom many are nicey lefties and have been for years, including lesbian and bisexual women, women activist for years around issues surrounding women and girls, sexuality, race etc ... Suddenly turn into raging bigots when it comes to some transgender issues

And into. Why would women like that deliberately express concerns about a document for women and girls that is not anything to do with gay people or trans people. So now these evil (previously labour supporting, anti discrimination marching, bleeding heart lefty) women are going through stuff for women and girls which is brilliant and lying about what's in it because some of the signatories are groups for certain minority groups?

Okaaaayyyy....

I've got so much to say about all this.

I was going to look for the 200 signatories but a PP who thinks anyone with concerns is evil can't find it. Why on earth not? How peculiar.

I would strongly recommended anyone who is actually interested reads the links to the two documents. Or at least gives them a good skim. The difference is so stark.

If I had time I would go through the one that is concerning, see what the differences are from the original, and thus find out exactly what 'gaps' the recent one seeks to address.

The difference between the documents is massive.

And thinking about it, to find anything DROPPED from the original would also be extremely interesting.

'The signatories of the declaration are calling for the repeal of laws that limit adolescents' legal capacity to consent to sex.

For example, if you set the age of consent at 16 [the legal capacity] do not forbid them from buying condoms, or visiting a sexual health clinic, or seeking an abortion, until they are 18 [laws that limit the legal capacity].'

That's not what it says though is it. At all.
Guessing at what it really means is totally random.
When a document like this is produced and people say hold on this is open to interpretation. You rewrite the sodding thing to clear up the ambiguity

I simply cannot understand why that was not the immediate response.

The argument is that being keen to maintain safeguarding of children is homophobic. Just stop for a moment and think what that means.

Compare and contrast.

Original document with 'gaps':

'Having gathered at the sixty-fourth session of the Commission on the Status of
Women, in New York, on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Fourth
World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995, to undertake a review and
appraisal of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action 1
and the outcome documents of the twenty-third special session of the General
Assembly, entitled “Women 2000: gender equality, development and peace for the
twenty-first century”,2
including an assessment of current challenges and gaps that
affect the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the
achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls and the
full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all women
and girls throughout their life course and its contribution towards the gender-
responsive implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,3
as well
as to ensure the acceleration of the implementation of the Platform for Action, with a
commitment to ensuring the mainstreaming of a gender perspective into the
preparations for and the integrated and coordinated implementation of and follow-up
to all the major United Nations conferences and summits in the development,
economic, social, environmental, humanitarian and related fields so that they
effectively contribute to the realization of gender equality and the empowerment of
all women and girls,'

The document under discussion:

'Expressing grave concern at the rise of authoritarianism, fascism, nationalism,
xenophobia, supremacist ideologies, and fundamentalism worldwide, which is
creating deep fractures in systems of democracy and multilateralism, and
recognizing that these and other forms of oppression, including patriarchy,
heteronormativity, cisgenderism, ableism, classism, racism, casteism, religious
discrimination, corporate power, capitalism, militarism, imperialism and
neocolonialism, reinforce one another and entrench structural barriers to equality,
with negative implications on the lives of women and girls in all their diversity and
their ability to exercise and enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms;'

Sorry all this is so long but I think if you're going to discuss these things you need to read what you're talking about.

The preamble of the document we're looking at starts out by saying they're worried about rise in facism etc then essentially lists a long list of things they disagree with. Women and girls are mentioned at the very end. Also equality is an interesting choice of word. On its way out.

The original document has women and girls front and centre.

Yes there's quite a difference. Thank you for laying them side by side like this, NiceGerbil.

The original document has women and girls front and centre.

YY.

The more I look into this the more I'm ???!!! TBH.

Document under discussion:

'While recommitting to the Beijing Declaration and Platform For Action and its
ambitious and visionary commitments across its twelve critical areas of concern, and
to the women, peace and security agenda, we recognize that these historic
commitments, as well as the more recent 2030 Agenda, will remain unachievable
unless structural barriers are addressed'.

Soooo. All the stuff listed and that the caucus doesn't think is good eg capitalism needs to be addressed BEFORE there's even any point in trying to improve things for women and girls.

Err. Has anyone read the whole thing end to end? The more I look at it the more I think wow well this a. Has a massive agenda and it's b. Fuck all to do with women and girls.

Note yet more lack of specificity.

They note that capitalism (amongst other things) is oppressive. Ok that's an opinion held by many. What are they proposing in its place? How do they want to achieve that? What will the global impact be of somehow dismantling the capitalist structure/ economies across the world?

How far do they want to go? Which system do they want to move to? How will they realistically approach this goal in eg China, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, USA... And most of the rest of the world?

And that's just one in a long long list.

And THEN we can think about women's and girls rights

People are defending this shit?

How many people have read the fucking thing?

'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'

Section 14.

It says what it says.

That's from the full doc.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine, of course I do - I'd like to think the author of the quote does too, and is just clutching at straws with that strained interpretation. As is McLaughlin. To be fair, different people might understand
"adolescents" to encompass somewhat different age ranges, but "laws limiting the capacity of adolescents [...] to consent to sex" isn't otherwise ambiguous.

Adolescent means the growing up bit. Not children but not yet adult.

A PP was kind enough to post a doc from the UN on a document that gave the following caution:

'
A.3.v Adolescent
∅ Special attention should be paid to how this term is used.

While major dictionaries define adolescent as “[...] a young person in the process of developing from a child into an adult”, and thus in a non-numerical manner, a number of UN agencies have defined “adolescents”, both in English and in Spanish, as persons up to the age of 19 years of age, and adolescence as “the period in human growth and development that occurs after childhood and
before adulthood, from ages 10 to 19”.
However, the term “adolescent” is not a legal term, and it
is not referred to at all in the CRC or in the OPSC.
The term “adolescent” was included in the title of the World Congress III Against Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents because Spanish-speaking stakeholders explained that “child” in Spanish mainly refers to very young children and does not include adolescents.'

The Times journalist kept on referring to the Luxembourg guidelines BTL as the Ur-text for the definition of 'adolescent' - and then didn't even have the decency to complete the definition as given by the Luxembourg guidelines, only referring to the dictionary definition and the upper age limit, rather than the 10-19 part of the guidelines.

The Luxembourg guidelines recognise that different countries have different ages of consent.

Even within Europe, countries such as Austria, Italy, Germany have the age of consent at 14. In the Philippines it is 12, though there are moves to raise it. In some places in Japan it is 13.

From a cursory read, the guidelines seem to be an attempt to provide far, far more than a style guide or glossary but rather a framework of language in order for discussion around sexual exploitation to be accurate.

The guidance is crystal clear that a child is anyone under the age of 18 (which is why there is hesitancy to use vague words like adolescent or young person) and that no child can ever, under any circumstances, be able to legally consent to his/her exploitation or abuse. It is therefore important that States criminalise all forms of sexual exploitation of children up to the age of 18 years, and consider any presumed "consent" to exploitative or abusive acts as null and void.

This is in spite of the varying ages of consent set by states around the world.

This previous urge to criminalise the sexual exploitation of children seems entirely at odds with the most recent document's desire to eliminate so many safeguards designed to protect them.

For example, in the UK, although the age of consent is 16, if someone in a position of authority (a doctor say or teacher) has sex with a 17 year old child that would be a criminal offence. The child's presumed consent would be null and void.

Safeguarding frameworks are designed to protect children and vulnerable adults from exploitation so it is NOT any kind of "phobic" to protest when any group tries to weaken them.

at any group who thinks that is a problem

Which vulnerable groups should have their protections removed and why?

luxembourgguidelines.org/

Even if you accept the tortured interpretation of 14a put forward by McLaughlin on behalf of Stonewall, what do you do with 14g?

End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality, and ensure and promote a positive approach to young people's and adolescents’ sexuality that enables, recognizes, and respects their agency to make informed and independent decisions on matters concerning their bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms.

The only thing criminal about adolescent sexuality is having sex with them, no? And I think we all know the sorts of things “bodily autonomy” is intended to facilitate.