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.”"

Yes, that there is a lot of evidence that there are those following TQ+ politics who will use this as a means to abuse people is undeniable.

As said above: in practical terms, it will become a serious job risk to engage with anyone with TQ+ words anywhere in their potential needs. Which does nothing to help those kids at all.

Serves the adults with the political agenda quite nicely though in terms of power and control.

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.

This is down to the moderators, and partly the forum software. A topic based forum is designed to separate topics, and it's up to moderators how much they want to enforce on-topic posting.

Some forum software makes it easy to issue "thread bans", and moderators on sites using that find it easy to give a quick warning to derailers then just cut them off from the thread, without having to impinge on their wider posting ability.

I've not seen anything to suggest that Mumsnet's software permits thread bans, which means that the moderators may not be able to enforce on-topic posting so easily - the lightest penalty possible is a "three strike" warning, I think, and that's overkill for just derailing.

As a result I think Mumsnet is one of the worst traditional forums I've seen for topic derailing.

Some really good points but this one:

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?

Made me think it'll be GRA V2.0 😖 and I forget which thread it was on now, but someone fairly recently said she was working in government when the EQA was being passed and they commented they'd rarely seen worse drafted law. (I guess apart from the GRA!)

And I agree about who will suffer, the fact it'll be pushed and pushed like "hate crimes", and used for grifting purposes.

This all needs to come out in the pre-legislative process.

Also I've no clue about forum software and derails. I suppose ultimately it's up to posters to ignore it here.

As a result I think Mumsnet is one of the worst traditional forums I've seen for topic derailing.

Though, It's certainly honed my debate skills a bit and the ability to spot a derail which I've applied to real life situations too 😎

Though, It's certainly honed my debate skills a bit and the ability to spot a derail which I've applied to real life situations too 😎

True, and sometimes it's great fun joining in with daft derails of the derails, and seeing where the thread goes. Wouldn't get that on a tightly-run forum...

This is an exceptionally important move by Kemi, and we all know Rosie Duffield would do the same if labour in power.

A teen who is same sex attracted isn't going to be hurting themselves or others.

A teen intent on medically transitioning it going to be doing life long permanent damage to their body.

Parents (rightly) questioning the processes involved in this decision, given that there is evidence of faulty/ zero peer reviewed evidence that GD in teens is best treated with medical transition.

... should not be prosecuted for wanting thorough investigations for their child

(that should say.) argument about pikachu had to be dealt with.

That still doesn't make sense. Bloody Pokémon

Pokemon is such low quality trash, isn't it? Kids love it. 🙄

Yep.

Regarding the op though, I do (hopefully) feel that by the time labour comes in, that the evidence for watchful waiting and better exploration will be greater - enough professionals see the issues and parents too. Stramer seemed to indicate caution the other day. Litigation will only increase. Labour won't want blood their hands.

Thank god for Cates and Bandenoch. And Duffield and more.

Legal protection for parents discussing gender with children

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dc24e850-9771-11ed-91ab-4070465550ba?shareToken=f6be73b0c64c75f44d7720d201626e58

That sounds sensible.

It also potentially helps schools; informing parents and simply being more able to discuss view points than one narrative.

There needs to be no limit on age.

A parent would want to talk to their adult child and question as much as they would their under 18.

So a gay kid comes to you for advice as they think they are the opposite sex due to being confused.

You can't say 'are you sure you aren't just gay' as that would be conversion therapy under one side of the conversation therapy law

You can't say 'oh joy, you are just a straight person in the wrong body, I'll refer you' as that would be conversion therapy under the other side of the conversion therapy law

So you say nothing. And the point of this law is to what exactly?

Again. Read the room. Nobody is forbidding anything. But you seem to like being centre of attention. Play on...

AlisonDonut · Today 07:51

You can't say 'oh joy, you are just a straight person in the wrong body, I'll refer you' as that would be conversion therapy under the other side of the conversion therapy law

I think you could say that.

Someone pointed out on this thread or another, yesterday, that the wording is asymmetrical.

Oh right. I was confused. I am pleased that you are happy with a discussion of Kemi's motivation for these letters.