Fresh horrors for Scotland

[HirplesWithHaggis]

wingsoverscotland.com/raise-all-of-the-flags/#more-134015

"Gender expression, of course, is simply how a person presents themselves in terms of dress and general appearance. So under this law, if your 13-year-old son is meeting some friends for a movie and comes down the stairs wearing only a nappy, a ball gag and an adult bib with “CUM SLUT” printed on it, and you say “You’re not bloody going out dressed like that!”, you’ll be committing a crime for which he can have you arrested as long as he claims it’s part of his gender expression."

There's more, so much more.
😥

Also I think they a lot of them have fallen for the "this is gay marriage mark II" line and don't want to be seen to be "on the wrong side of history"

Sadly they are not bright enough to see that it's the opposite.

I would also like to have seen hi Labour voted unwhipped.

I’m actually tempted to say that it’s a very interesting example of how the framing around an international agreement can quite easily be shifted such that it significantly differs from the intentions of the states that agreed it, but in such a way that they don’t notice because - crucially - no one has sought to look again at the agreement itself.

The environment in which you put a picture can fundamentally shift the colour people perceive it as…

I also think that the term ‘rights’ functions largely to prevent or impede discussion in most arenas. It’s a rhetorical move to position something as unquestionable.

People are wary of denying basic rights, so they don’t want to look too closely. And mistrust those who are cast as doing so.

That’s why the Scottish government are so keen on using the uncrc as a retest for al sorts of stuff. And why they steer any discussion of gender ideology on to ‘rights’.

How many people have actually read the UNCRC? How many students with childhood studies degrees do you think actually bother to read the document? Depressingly few. Same with key developmental texts. Indeed, university leadership will tell you off for any expectation that final year undergraduates who are waxing lyrical about children’s rights or child development should be expected to have read the texts they’re writing essays about. Apparently it’s unreasonable to expect someone whose entire essay is based on ‘vygotsky states’ to have actually read any of what vygotsky wrote. Or an argument all about children’s rights premised on the utterly unquestionable UNCRC (which, like all such documents, is deeply flawed and full of difficult compromises) should be made by people who’ve actually read it.

Nope. Just take other people’s word for it. And, as the reports of it get ever further away from people who’ve read it, see how it flexes to be whatever you need it to be.

In this thread’s example, we find that children’s participation and self expression rights (proponents of this stuff love to lump articles 12 and 13 together) become the central focus of the UNCRC. And it’s is vital to remove children from families who do not properly affirm gender expression. Meanwhile, the very carefully worded preamble’s positioning of the family as especially important gets forgotten. That’s not what the UNCRC is about!

*“Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,”

That’s in the preamble.

I’m not convinced that the Scottish government are on board with that.*

To be fair, I have noticed in the past couple of years schools started talking about how parents are a child's 1st and most important teachers, which is something I hadn't heard before.

I don't know if it's about being thick, so much as lacking critical thinking skills. One can be clever and highly educated and still have huge gaps in ability to see the overall picture and make connections and draw inferences.

davidrobson.me/books/the-intelligence-trap/

I don't know if it's about being thick, so much as lacking critical thinking skills.

Plus the element of believing what you want to believe and the things that fit with what you already believe, and dismissing all the rest. Sometimes you have to make yourself very stupid so as not to see that some of your existing beliefs were mistaken.

And as CS Lewis said, the trouble with trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you quite often succeed.

And as CS Lewis said, the trouble with trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you quite often succeed.

Yes, I believe I've watched that play out in real time while observing the GRR consultation and debate.

Yes, I believe I've watched that play out in real time while observing the GRR consultation and debate.

I watched them too, and yes it played out. All those lovely clear presentations, and all dismissed because of how uncomfortable it would have been to take them seriously.

I'm thinking of the furrowed brows and indignation and the sour faced response to Reem Asalem's very measured, informed and eloquent answers to why the reforms were fucking dangerous.

<frown not listening>
<smirk they're just waffling>
<how dare they not agree when I keep repeating my trite wee mantra>

It needs to be challenged in court, the same way as Named Persons. It's effectively an extension of that.

Plus ‘there’s no evidence’.

Sure, we’ve rigged it so that it’s impossible to produce quantitative evidence. And we don’t accept individual anecdotes as evidence.

No. The lived experiences of trans women are not anecdotes. They’re anecdotes when they don’t fit the narrative. trans experiences are lived experiences. That’s better than quantitative data.

We’ve even got a panel and one of our lives experience experts has a condition that means they can’t accurately recall lived experiences. That actually makes their account more powerful evidence, don’t you know?

I'm thinking of the furrowed brows and indignation and the sour faced response to Reem Asalem's very measured, informed and eloquent answers to why the reforms were fucking dangerous.

Oh yes, absolutely. She talked sense and it went nowhere. She might as well have talked to a brick wall, they didn't want to hear it so they didn't. No attempt to integrate what she said, to consider the dangers, to mitigate. They'd already committed themselves.

That was exactly the 'mantra' I had in mind.

'There's no evidence!'

Despite various people offering evidence - women of faith talking about self excluding; survivors of rape asking (and being refused) a chance to offer evidence; the Irish politician talking about the unforeseen consequences; Reem Alsalem explaining that there was evidence but it hadn't been sought, collected and analysed.

Quite!

New article updating on some issues:

wingsoverscotland.com/there-are-no-ships/

I'm not a nat but I admire Wings' work on this. Good to see him back on twitter and blogging.

I'd suggest that parents restrict their comments entirely to the weather with their children, get a legal bod to phrase a very neutral response to all questions or comments or actions, and where a child wishes to dabble with identity in any form, it may turn out to be less damaging to the family now to simply make arrangements for them to move to the foster care system as soon as possible and be raised with the government as parent.

It's like living in a dystopian novel.

Stu is a bloody brilliant journalist, though I'm aware he's marmite. Ironically many (on both sides of the indy debate) won't read his work because he's a bit sweary on Twitter.

Well, or at least won't admit to reading it, if viewing figures are to be believed.

I have every respect for Wings' journalism, despite disagreeing fundamentally with him on various issues.

Simply put - is this to outlaw counselling for children / people saying they’re trans? If not, what is it outlawing?

Yes, I have wondered this, too. I also don’t understand what a “lived” experience is.

It criminalises anyone who responds with anything other than complete affirmation. Parents, teachers, doctors, psychologists... parents may have the child removed from their care, professionals may lose their jobs and right to work in Scotland.

I sent my account of 'lived experience' as part of the 2nd Consultation on gender, along with 16,000 other people, all of which were ignored by the Scottish government.
Some 'lived experiences' matter more than others.

Thank you. It is, to put it mildly, fucking horrifying. Surely even people that believe in the ‘be kind’ bullshit must see how terrifying this is. I wonder though if those people don’t actually see stuff like this and just hear ‘conversion therapy’ - associate it with the abhorrent homophobic practice - and go along with it because of course ‘conversion therapy’ is bad!

It’s in neon lights to me that the conversion going on here is the trans one.

They describe conversion therapy in terms of water boarding, lobotomy etc, and of course those are horrific. But the devil is in the detail, as ever.