Boris Speaks!

[AndAsIfByMagic]

Sky News.

He thinks it's unfair for biological men to compete in women's sports.

He says it's important to preserve women's spaces.

Says he has a lot to learn about the issue but we have to be sensible.

Is it really though? As I see a possible threat to my bodily autonomy a much bigger danger.

It is a grave threat. Once we go down this road, there's either no coming back or the coming back could take decades and decades. Just look what's happened elsewhere in terms of physical safety and free speech:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10093737/Father-daughter-raped-gender-fluid-bathroom-sues-Loudoun-County-Title-IX.html

thepostmillennial.com/canadian-transphobia-gender-critical-feminism

In fact, once free speech has gone, how would anyone even be allowed to talk, to undo the damage? Or maybe that's the idea.

Do you want that to happen to you? Your mum? Your sister? Your daughter?
What on earth do you think I'm going to say to this?!
Of course I don't, what a stupid fucking question.

But you’re going on about Gillick competence, which is a legal precedent for children and their ability to consent
Should a 15 year old be forced to have a baby then?
I'm '' going on '' about gillick competence because stuff like that is relevant.

So that is why this IS the issue. We are not allowed to protect ourselves from predators. No I am not saying all trans people are predators. Just as not all men are predators. Safeguarding is about thinking of the worst case scenario NOT hoping for the best

@GoodJanetBadJanet

But you’re going on about Gillick competence, which is a legal precedent for children and their ability to consent Should a 15 year old be forced to have a baby then? I'm '' going on '' about gillick competence because stuff like that is relevant.

No, a 15 year old should not be forced to have a baby.

In what way is that remotely relevant to the maintenance of single sex spaces?

Should a 15 year old be forced to have a baby then?

Maybe?

It's a debate worth having IMO.

The TRAs are trying to argue that reflecting on the extent of Gillick competence means no under age pregnant girl can access abortion. Desperate stuff really

I'm astonished that we're all shaken to the core that any politician has actually said what Boris Johnson said, in such straightforward terms. What a world we find ourselves in when we are so used to obfuscation that straight talking comes as a shock.

This is the first time I can recall having agreed with Boris Johnson about anything and I find the Conservative party's stance on the majority of issues facing our country to be totally at odds with what I believe would be the right way forward.

But I'm still pleased he's taken this step. Others will surely have to follow, making more definitive statements and recognising that the debate needs to be had - without heat to the fullest extent possible, but definitely with light.

Arising from this I have to hope that another party, one with values more closely aligned to my own, will similarly recognise the importance of speaking up for womens' rights. Until that happens, I'm still politically homeless.

But at least the debate is beginning to happen.

People are misunderstanding what Gillick competence means. It’s not a blanket Yes/No that covers every possible medical treatment. A child can be deemed Gillick competent to consent to one particular treatment but not competent to consent to another treatment. For example a child can be deemed competent to consent to abortion if the doctor feels they are able to understand the full implications of that, but not competent to consent to gender treatment because it’s a more complex situation and they aren’t able to understand the full implications of that.

In other words: no, children being unable to consent to gender treatment does not prevent them consenting to abortion.

Should a 15 year old be forced to have a baby then?

Maybe?

See, that's where we differ.
Nobody should ever be forced to have a baby.

@Arianya

People are misunderstanding what Gillick competence means. It’s not a blanket Yes/No that covers every possible medical treatment. A child can be deemed Gillick competent to consent to one particular treatment but not competent to consent to another treatment. For example a child can be deemed competent to consent to abortion if the doctor feels they are able to understand the full implications of that, but not competent to consent to gender treatment because it’s a more complex situation and they aren’t able to understand the full implications of that.

In other words: no, children being unable to consent to gender treatment does not prevent them consenting to abortion.

You are absolutely correct apart from your first sentence. People are not misunderstanding, TRAs are deliberately misrepresenting Gillick in this way to make it sound like an assessment of capacity for children to decide at 11 to give up their future sexual function is the same as denying them abortion. It’s not misunderstanding, it’s deliberate. The Fox Killer has done this.

And Gillick and whether 15 year olds should be forced to have babies have absolutely no bearing on people like Johnson believing in single sex sports and single sex spaces.

Yes, this. ^^

Janet, Gillick competence is about assessing the child's ability to consent, given the consequences of the proposed course of action. It is always about balancing advantages and disadvantages, and safeguarding the child. You appear to think that saying children cannot consent to some specific things is an attack on all bodily autonomy. Does that mean you think children should be able to consent to everything, or do you in fact agree that the law's job is to work out as where the line should be drawn, and that the fact that there is and must be a line is not inherently an attack on human rights? We can disagree about where the line should be, of course - but invoking and discussing Gillick competence really isn't sinister in and off itself.

Whereas the consequences of Stonelaw quoted above are appalling, and are not hypothetical, either.

(Extra "as" there, sorry.)

Plus an extra "f". Ha ha, serves me right for being catty about other people's speling.

@GoodJanetBadJanet

If you mean birth control, its unlikely Unlikely, yes. Not impossible though. Is it really a risk people want to take? I don't. I'd rather know abortion and birth control were definitely safe, and we can't say they definitely would always be if we start attacking bodily autonomy.

There is no point having a measure like this if it just means treating 14 year olds as if they were 16, no matter what the issue. The whole point is that they are under age so there needs to be more care taken to make sure the medical issue in question is one they can understand. Otherwise you might as well just lower the age of medical - and presumably sexual - consent.

It's possible right now, if fact certain, that there are some 14 years olds who don't have that intellectual capacity. And they need someone, like their parents, to give them guidance and to watch out for their interests. They can potentially still access contraception and abortion, but not without the involvement of their guardians.

But in the general case, it's seen as standard that girls can access these things without anyone watching over them. The fact that entering "gender affirmation" treatment paths is seen as a different medical decision doesn't impact that. Every different medical issue - cancer treatment, amputation of a crushed leg, etc, would all be looked at on their own merits.

That's the whole point.

The abortion "argument" is another US import we could do without.

Abortion law here happened because of campaigns and reasoning to change hearts and minds. It's in public law, it's not a private right like in the US.

If any of the US parties or establishment really cared about women, they'd have done something a long time ago instead of having this to dangle over women at elections.

Perhaps something along the lines of Biden's Executive Order on his first day in office. The day he erased women, he could've maybe protected them instead.

Just an idea.

@GoodJanetBadJanet

But you’re going on about Gillick competence, which is a legal precedent for children and their ability to consent Should a 15 year old be forced to have a baby then? I'm '' going on '' about gillick competence because stuff like that is relevant.

You don't understand what Gillick competence is. Even if a given 15 year old was assessed as being not able to make the decision and understand the risks and implication, it does not mean she wouldn't have access to an abortion.

It means that because she cannot understand what is involved, she can't give consent without someone, normally parents or legal guardians, to make the final decision.

Are you really suggesting that it is a good idea for children who don't have the capacity to understand the nature of a medical procedure to make decisions about it alone?

It should be up to the parents of a 15 year old child to consent to an abortion, the same as if they wish to have puberty blockers.

It should be up to the parents of a 15 year old child to consent to an abortion

No, the 15 year old should get to decide whether they kee the baby.
Not the parent!
Then people say '' oh, but it doesnt mean for abortion. ''
It's made perfectly clear on this thread that once you've rolled back rights for trans people, there's people out there who are more than happy to roll back other rights affecting all women.
Fuck.
That.

@GoodJanetBadJanet

But you’re going on about Gillick competence, which is a legal precedent for children and their ability to consent Should a 15 year old be forced to have a baby then? I'm '' going on '' about gillick competence because stuff like that is relevant.

A 15 year old what?

Girl I will assume.
When there are no longer girls how will we know if one is pregnant?
What will happen to maternity care when there is no longer a need for it?
I mean I can go on with this but I think you can figure it out.
When words no longer mean what they used to or are a shifting constellation of meanings how will we know?

@bellinisurge

The TRAs are trying to argue that reflecting on the extent of Gillick competence means no under age pregnant girl can access abortion. Desperate stuff really

Makes you wonder how Ireland managed all this time eh? Even women fully competent and over gillick age couldn't legally access abortion, yet mostly they managed to get one.

Oh for goodness sake.
You're going to pretend you don't know what I'm talking about and ''a 15 year old what?' ' just because you don't like the way I said it?
Come off it.

@GoodJanetBadJanet

It should be up to the parents of a 15 year old child to consent to an abortion

No, the 15 year old should get to decide whether they kee the baby.
Not the parent!
Then people say '' oh, but it doesnt mean for abortion. ''
It's made perfectly clear on this thread that once you've rolled back rights for trans people, there's people out there who are more than happy to roll back other rights affecting all women.
Fuck.
That.

This is mind blowing. How is anyone “rolling back rights for trans people”? And how does that fiction lead to 15 year olds being forced to have or not have a baby?

It’s desperate, desperate stuff indeed.

Ireland is an abject lesson for what happens when self ID is brought in by stealth. Google Barbie Kardashian if you can stomach it. Then support @TheCountessIE on Twitter because she is rallying a fight back

@GoodJanetBadJanet

Oh for goodness sake. You're going to pretend you don't know what I'm talking about and ''a 15 year old what?' ' just because you don't like the way I said it? Come off it.

I know just fine which sex has the baby, but in current year its anyones guess what words mean.

You keep bringing up gillick and 15 year olds.
I dont think you understand gillick.
Birth control for under 16s has been a thing since I was a child. It would take a lot of undoing. Also just because a child can easily access birth control doesn't automatically mean they have the ability to also have breast reduction or double mastectomy.
Both these things are not like the other.
Birth control is not permanent
Double mastectomy is permanent

If we go to other stuff that invokes gillick.
Minor operations like tonsils. If child is capable of understanding why they are being removed, and that its permanent but theres a good reason for it (mostly these days it's really difficult to get tonsils removed so yes theres a good reason) then great, if not a parent/guardian has to step up and decide.
Leg removed because cancer, if child capable etc
Heart transplant, if child capable etc.
And on.

Even were gillick to be somehow removed? That doesn't effect adults.
No fear of women losing birth control or abortion rights, not to mention we can simply go and get these things elsewhere, because adult.