Kemi "to write to all Tory MPs to insist that a ban on trans conversion therapy must not criminalise parents"

[ResisterRex]

In the Telegraph. Front page lead story:

twitter.com/tmorrowspapers/status/1615481738884517890?s=46&t=0TXFOsdaPO7ObIDrJNgGgw

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/17/trans-conversion-therapy-ban-could-turn-parents-criminals/

"The equalities minister is to write to all Tory MPs to insist that a ban on trans conversion therapyy_ must not criminalise parents, as a backlash against the plans grew.

In a highly unusual move, it is understood that Kemi Badenochh_ intends to set out her concerns over the proposed legislation, announced in the Commons on Tuesday.
She will warn that legitimate conversations between parents and trans children must not be outlawedd_ and that freedom of religion must be protected.
The letter reflects concern in Downing Street that Tory MPs will rebell_ over the introduction of the conversion therapy ban"

And

"She is set to acknowledge that the draft version of the legislation will be imperfect, with issues around what constitutes conversion therapy, and how to protect faith leaders, counsellors and parents, not fully resolved.

A source close to Mrs Badenoch said: “The area of gender identity is much more complex than sexual orientation. We have said we will not inadvertently criminalise parents who are trying to support children.”"

appearing to be tough on strikers plays to exactly the same audience as she is playing to with these letters.

Can you explain what part she played in the legislation about strikers? And what connection does this have to wanting to stop legislation which might prevent vulnerable children and young people from obtaining appropriate psychological support?

As far as I know she is a member of the government, collective responsibility means that she is therefore responsible for and supports the legislation. It is a key principal of cabinet government in the UK.

You didn't answer my second question. What connection does this have to wanting to stop legislation which might prevent vulnerable children and young people from obtaining appropriate psychological support?

If you're that passionate about strikes, start a thread on it. This one is about protecting children from lifelong harm and damage.

Hugely concerned. It's totally anti-therapeutic.

If you read my post you would see I was pointing out that it is somewhat implausible that Kemi was writing these letters out of deep concern for vulnerable people, given the government which is a part of that has consistently tried to tread on the most vulnerable in society. One example of that is enacting legislation to further curtail the rights of people to strike. Would you like further examples. We could include the hoops the disabled have to jump through to claim miserly benefits if you like, or how defunding the police for the past 12 years has left us all more vulnerable. The chronic underfunding of the NHS leaving us all in danger if we are ill or hurt ourseves.

I suppose on the plus side there's a new market opportunity for a new type of therapist entirely that just makes affirming noises, never challenges, provides nice fluffy supportiveness and does what ever they're told. They won't need much training.

Joking aside, unless there's a radical set of protections in built, this will have the effect of making most therapists avoid TQ+ clients or TQ+ related work because of the enormous risks involved.

It also totally throws away the whole point of ending the Tavistock and the Cass report, because both identified that many TQ+ presenting teens and kids had needs going unmet, including trauma, Autism and mental health needs. This will effectively block those needs being unpacked properly and children given the time and space to reflect properly on whether they're TQ+ or whether this seemed like a good idea at the time while they were trying to cope with other issues. It just gallops kids down a channel of medication and surgery with no brakes, with the kind of 'oh well, it's your fault for believing us' response for the people like Keira Bell who later say 'you failed me'. Insanity.

If you read my post you would see I was pointing out that it is somewhat implausible that Kemi was writing these letters out of deep concern for vulnerable people

From the Telegraph article:

She will warn that legitimate conversations between parents and trans children must not be outlawed and that freedom of religion must be protected.

Campaigners and Conservative MPs are concerned that the ban could inadvertently criminalise parents, teachers and doctors who simply question whether children really want to change their gender.

Do you think she, and all the other campaigners and Tory MPs are lying? What do you think their real motivation is? Or are you going to do the usual TRA thing of saying what something isn't and never comment on what you think it is?

Derailing again too!

If you want to discuss any politician's motivations for anything start a thread about it.

But don't leap into a discussion in FWR and try and change the subject. You have the whole of Mumsnet for that. We have this small corner and we choose to keep discussions here on track!

Read the room...

You can ascribe whatever motive you like to my posts, that is your choice.

So, you deny that your posts are here to shame Kemi? You deny that you have posted what you have to portray her in a poor light that she should be ashamed of her actions?

Just to be clear, you don't think that your posts are to be read with that motivation in mind?

Any readers on this thread can see that your comments reveal your prejudiced view of Kemi and little else.

And why the fuck should any politician resign in protest of a bill? It might make some people feel good and supported. But in reality it just means that that politician is no longer in a position to work for their constituency on projects that the politician can represent their constituency on.

I would look at the motivation of any person who thinks that would be a good outcome.

And why the fuck should any politician resign in protest of a bill? It might make some people feel good and supported. But in reality it just means that that politician is no longer in a position to work for their constituency on projects that the politician can represent their constituency on.

I would look at the motivation of any person who thinks that would be a good outcome.

I think jgw thinks that everyone should have their own purity spiral about every issue all the time. It's obviously not how politics work in the real world.

Is this the title of this thread?

"Kemi "to write to all Tory MPs to insist that a ban on trans conversion therapy must not criminalise parents""

That is what I commented upon. I was not aware of many rules that forbade commenting on the title of a thread in a way that other posters disapprove of.

So you think that a law that would criminalise parents who were trying to help their children would be a good thing? Is that what you're saying? Why do you think that?

One example of that is enacting legislation to further curtail the rights of people to strike. Would you like further examples. We could include the hoops the disabled have to jump through to claim miserly benefits if you like, or how defunding the police for the past 12 years has left us all more vulnerable. The chronic underfunding of the NHS leaving us all in danger if we are ill or hurt ourseves.

These are issues that affect the whole of society, not simply the vulnerable. They are economic decisions that I happen to object to, but they are not about the sterilisation of gay or autistic teens, and you should be beating your drum elsewhere.

It’s very interesting the amount of projection that goes on in the trans movement. I would say that the person who is trying to tell us about KB’s motivations is revealing something about their own - that person is most certainly not motivated by concern for vulnerable people. But we all knew that anyway.

Where did I say that?

If our politicans had any principles then it would be how politics worked. See for example the resignations of Geoffrey Howe, Robin Cook and Iain Duncan-Smith.
That the current government does not have any principles and some people do not expect them to is I think rather sad.

"Kemi "to write to all Tory MPs to insist that a ban on trans conversion therapy must not criminalise parents""

That is what I commented upon.

Your comment was:

Oh look, a Tory MP on manouveres trying to position themselves with a particular section of the party ahead of the next leadership election. How cute.

What was your comment supposed to mean? Do you think KB is right to be concerned about parents being criminalised for trying to protect their children?

If our politicans had any principles then it would be how politics worked. See for example the resignations of Geoffrey Howe, Robin Cook and Iain Duncan-Smith.

You forgot the most recent example - Ash Regan.

It means that I think the reason that Kemi is writing all these letters is because she is positioning herself for a future leadership campaign in the Tory party and would like to have the votes of one particular part of the party.
Not really surprising as they seem to have them every few months, and Boris and Rishi spent months positioning themselves before recent leadership contests, so she has probably learnt from them.
If she was interested in protecting children then she would really struggle with many of the policies that the government of which she is a part have introduced over the past 12 years.

If our politicans had any principles then it would be how politics worked. See for example the resignations of Geoffrey Howe, Robin Cook and Iain Duncan-Smith.

Given your comments about the current government it's interesting that you view Iain Duncan-Smith as someone with principles.

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/30/iain-duncan-smith-sick-disabled-benefits

Iain Duncan-Smith resigned on what for him was a matter of principle.
That I disagree with pretty much all of his politics does not change that.

Shall we ask HQ to change the title of this thread to 'reasons to hate the Tories' and start a new one to actually discuss the letter we were originally trying to discuss?

Between this and the police-splainer on the other one, I was just thinking...well, how annoying it is to want to have a discussion only to find it's constantly derailed. That's the most polite way I could put it.

I genuinely think this might be a good idea if there are further derailing attempts.

This proposed legislation is so concerning, because I can’t envision a sane version of it once you bring “gender identity” in. If fecking Stonewall can’t define gender identity coherently (is it fixed or is it fluid?), how can the parliamentary drafters?

And while parents don’t deserve to be criminalised unless they’re actually torturing people as per the propaganda, neither do therapists. And what about teachers, social workers, and GPs - are they potentially at risk if they say the wrong thing to a vengeful teenager?

We already know that there is an angry hateful contingent which will abuse this law to the maximum extent possible, as has happened with the hate crime laws.

We also know that propaganda organisations will misrepresent the law to make people and organisations as frightened of them as they possibly can. I expect certain ever less credible organisations want this partly for a new training grift.

Is this really inevitable?