LGBT Libdems demand puberty blockers for children, and no chemical castration

[ArabellaScott]

https://archive.ph/Uyjgl

Statement for Pride month. Under the auspices of bodily autonomy.

Oh gosh I missed that. 🤣🤣

I raised an eyebrow at one of the other people categories, 'the pregnant'.

It's the thing that seems most concerning, tbh.

This is the LBGT+ Libdems. What makes them lump paedophiles being chemically castrated in with children being given the same drugs?

I'm not supportive of chemical castration, fwiw. I suspect it's not a safe alternative to prison.

But I also think that children shouldn't be chemically castrated - even if they think they want to be. And even if the adults tasked with their care think they ought to be.

I'm rewriting this sentence for clarity, because the LibDems don't seem to be able to join the dots.

We strongly feel that the ban on chemical castration for children should be scrapped at once, as should plans for so-called ‘chemical castration’, which surely have no place in a civilised society.

Thanks for reminding me why I can never vote Lib Dem again.

Well said. And come to think of it, why is Harriet Harman still supporting changes to the law that will remove safeguarding and let male rapists back into female prisons?

I understand that she is one of the people mentioned by the Lib Dem group that apparently was involved in the original drafting of the EA and she now claims they always intended that TWAW.

SHE might have intended that, fresh from her support for PIE, but it was clear from reading the whole thing, the majority of her colleagues didn’t. What is it about HH that drives her to do this?

The position of LGBT+ Lib Dems is an issue and needs criticism.

However the BIG worry is how they influence the position of the Lib Dem leadership. Ed Davey's recent statement on June 1st for Pride was not great, and obviously he has been influenced and Lib Dem gender crits are pointing that out.

Zoe Hollowood 🔶 🇪🇺
https://x.com/hollowood_zoe/status/1929109116749795345

I just read your message about Pride and was hoping you could clear up two things 1) when you refer to 'divisive culture wars' are you referring to women advocating for their sex-based rights? 2) what do you mean by the 'roll back of trans rights' post SC clarification?

Lib Dem Voice for Women are fighting back. The Lib Dems now are allowing women to speak because of the legal requirement and Zoe's victorious court case. They have been at conference, they do get to speak at debates. That is NOT going to change. However the TA faction have MORE influence, they were heckling realist speakers etc.

The Lib Dems now know and accept women cannot be silenced altogether unlike the Greens, and their tradition of debate meant that this is more natural for them, but they are perhaps more dangerous because of that. They control more councils and have more MPs. They sound more reasonable. The battle inside the Lib Dems is going to be nasty.

The only way to stop them is via the pincer movement that changed the Tories, and even the SNP. Gender crits within speaking up, alongside heavy criticism from without. Threads like this help.

Fair and important questions.

It's a remarkable document. The line about chemical castration in particular is extraordinary. As PPs have pointed out, they seem to be opposed to chemical castration for nonces, but in favour of it for same-sex-attracted teenagers. And what is it doing there in the first place, unless you think that nonces are part of the LGBT+ rainbow? Are they really saying the quiet part out loud?

This sentence is also pretty bonkers and/or terrifying: "In the current climate, we think it's vital to fully protect medical and bodily autonomy for all, including LGBT+ folks, the disabled, the pregnant, kids, and prisoners."

Bodily autonomy for kids? Allowing them to have a tattoo aged 8, for example? Or start sexual relations aged 12? And why "kids", rather than "children"? It's very disturbing. And again, what are "prisoners" doing in there? Why would you want to lump prisoners in with LGBT people and disabled people?

The whole document is a mess. Those are just two of the standout bits.

Honestly it sounds like the whole thing was put together in a “yes and ho” session from the thick of it

it would be funny if they didnt have so many councillors, MPs and activists who genuinely believe this stuff

It's a coherent position if you have a particular understanding of consent: that children can meaningfully consent to this and child sex abusers can't. I disagree with this (and particularly strongly on the first) but I don't think it's fair to accuse them of hypocrisy.

I have always suspected "folks" arose as left-wing jargon in the US because it imitated the way lots of black people speak. It's fundamentally cultural appropriation.

Exactly. I think the lack of reaction/horror from the wider commentators/media illustrate some of the mismatch in understanding.

I think most of the less informed but generally sane people tend to overlay reasonable caveats or assumptions onto their demands that they assume are blindingly obvious eg:

“of course there would have to be limits to their proposed kids’ bodily autonomy for ‘trans healthcare’’

”of course if we update the EA with a trans inclusive definition of woman/man, it won’t mean that we place male rapists in female prisons”

“of course they don’t want to go as far as legalising paedophilia when they push for kids’ bodily autonomy”

But bodily autonomy, as they pointed out previously, is universal and absolute. Either kids can consent to puberty blockers for no medical reason AND consent to sex or they can’t consent to either.

It is important to note that at no point have any of the trans lobby and its champions in high places ever distanced the movement from or condemned these things. If asked, they just attack the person asking the questions. I think that says it all, doesn’t it?

Re “trans folk/folks/folx” it’s always REALLY grated on me. I’ve heard some, usually older, rural Scottish people use “folk” routinely just to mean people and of course it’s American usage as well. But the LGBTQ/trans usage seems designed to work like the use of “community” except more so, to make us envision a troupe of Quaker-esque happy friends sitting peacefully in a bucolic idyll who are all absolutely lovely and innocently well-meaning, and of course dreadfully marginalised and oppressed.

Lots of people who have been in the trans “community” talk about how it can be very toxic, hyper-sexualised and controlling, often prioritising male sexual desire at the expense of lesbians and trans men, and ostracising or turning on anyone who questions anything. It’s also not a unified community as there are trans people who disagree with gender ideology and deep schisms between different groups.

That’s before you even get to the elevated levels of sex offending, vicious threats and incitements to violence, no-platforming/cancelling/hounding etc etc etc. None of this means there aren’t some lovely, genuinely well-meaning and harmless “trans folx” but as a movement it’s far from folksy.

The Monster Raving Loony Party would consider this lot batshit crazy

And absolutely re talking about paedophiles under the LGBTQ++ and some extra + apparently. The lack of clear thinking and application of morality is worrying. I recon the thought process is something like “Everyone who the government/powers that be want to chemically castrate must be essentially Alan Turing, being oppressed for their sexuality. But if the government/powers that be don’t want to chemically castrate gay minors, that’s because they’re anti-LGBTQ+++ so they must be opposed!”

Or maybe it’s just an unconscious, traditional association of paedophilia with homosexuality, so therefore LGBTQ+, sacred and must get whatever they want.

People are terrified - or too stupid - to just sift through it all and ask what the evidence is, what the risks and harms are, what the justifications are and what actually makes sense, instead of just bleating the most “progressive” take they can find with 3 seconds thought.

(I also have doubts about chemical castration for various reasons so not saying I disagree with them on that front, but they haven’t thought it through at all… as is so typical of the woke - and the Lib Dem woke are up there with the Greens for extreme examples of this).

Coherent? I'd say it was a startling conflation of specific issues.

Ostensibly this statement is about 'bodily autonomy, Gillick competence, and medical consent'

But there are many issues that involve consent and bodily autonomy, and most of them are absent in this statement. No explicit mention of abortion, for example. Nor the assisted dying bill.

The issues they have specifically fixed on are IVF, plus: 'kids, and prisoners'.

'We strongly feel that the ban on puberty blockers should be scrapped at once, as should plans for so-called ‘chemical castration’, which surely have no place in a civilised society.'

This is a bugbear of mine as well. We have a perfectly serviceable gender neutral plural in widespread use in English. Whenever I hear someone use Folk, it sounds like compelled speech, because that's what it is - it's tied to academic and political spaces that see themselves as radical/leftist/progressive and is used by people who could perfectly happily be saying 'people' if it weren't for the fear of being publicly corrected.

Also “bodily autonomy” is a slippery one. It’s always wheeled out to suggest minors should be able to decide to take puberty blockers/hormones or have bits chopped off them but these calls never seem to include demanding that children are allowed to drive, smoke, drink vodka, get tattoos or wander across motorways if they want to.

Likewise, though I think chemical castration is a big can of worms that needs very detailed consideration and may not be right, we do put people in prison for crimes, and in secure hospitals if they are very dangerous. We do have sectioning, arrest, criminalisation or control of various drugs, and so on - with good reason. “Bodily autonomy” like “free speech” is not some unquestionable 100% freedom to do whatever you like and there is no reason it should automatically be awarded to minors just because it sounds righteous.

Good grief, who is it in the LD party who has an interest in children being held in pre-puberty past the age of consent; and in ensuring women and children in a state of undress are available to any man who wants to join them?

This question should be put to all LDs on socials, over and over again. And Davey should be made to answer it by the media.

They're an absolute disgrace.

I am ColourMystic's complete lack of surprise.

What is their obsession with the word ‘folks’? It always sounds quite juvenile to me, do they think it softens the blow of their obvious misogyny and homophobia?

This group are an affiliate group within the lib dem federation. They hold a lot of power as many of them hold executive positions within the central lid dem party and within influential LD cliques.

They have always been particularly batshit and extreme in their views.

It's worth saying that the LGBT lid Dems took Amy Challoner particularly under their wing after his suspension and defection from the Green Party for a lack of safeguarding.

Presumably because the cutesy word "folks" or "folx" conjures up images of people who are nice and vulnerable and a little bit quirky, rather than Sarah Jane Baker or Isla Bryson.

I'm delighted to be able to announce that my new inclusive dictionary will soon be in all the shops and is the hot contender for this year's must-have Christmas gift.

Unlike all existing dictionaries on the market - which are bigoted and prejudiced, every last one of them - it will contain pretty much all of the same words, except the approved definition for every single word will be "Whatever you want it to mean".

Every person in the English-speaking world will love and embrace it (except possibly Susie Dent) and there will be no losers at all anymore.