carpetmonster Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 2 hours ago, Jedi2 said: Meanwhile, the Humza's latest 'priority' for govt: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/09/parents-refuse-child-gender-change-jail-snp-conversion-ban/ What a thoroughly disingenuous way of framing ‘Scottish government seeks to ban long discredited practice of.conversion therapy’. While I wouldn’t have expected any better from the Telegraph, I might have from you, especially now as the gender moonhowlers have decided glorious leader Kieth has a trans kid and want him removed as a result. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 2 hours ago, Jedi2 said: Meanwhile, the Humza's latest 'priority' for govt: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/09/parents-refuse-child-gender-change-jail-snp-conversion-ban/ The article is behind a paywall, and I'm not going to pay the Telegraph for access. Any chance of posting the full article? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said: The article is behind a paywall, and I'm not going to pay the Telegraph for access. Any chance of posting the full article? MSN ran the article in full, works for me in the US but not sure if it will in Blighty. Spaywall.com if not https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/parents-who-refuse-children-gender-change-face-seven-years-in-jail-in-scotland/ar-AA1mHusw 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 9 minutes ago, carpetmonster said: MSN ran the article in full, works for me in the US but not sure if it will in Blighty. Spaywall.com if not https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/parents-who-refuse-children-gender-change-face-seven-years-in-jail-in-scotland/ar-AA1mHusw Cheers. At first glance, it looks to be a consultation rather than new legislation. I wonder whether @Jedi2 undertands the difference? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) 2 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: Cheers. At first glance, it looks to be a consultation rather than new legislation. I wonder whether @Jedi2 undertands the difference? It is a consultation. It’s probably why the Telegraph (and the BBC) are trying to frame it as trans folks first because if the headline was ‘Religious Weirdos Claim It’s Their Sacred Right To Terrify Gay Teenagers’ then most people might think that probably it’s a bad thing to terrify gay teenagers. They may well have thought it isn’t a thing anymore given South Park were taking aim at ‘pray the gay away’ camps 20 odd years ago. Edited January 10 by carpetmonster 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 9 hours ago, lichtgilphead said: Cheers. At first glance, it looks to be a consultation rather than new legislation. I wonder whether @Jedi2 undertands the difference? Of course he does but as with incarnation number 1, that won't stop him howling at the moon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 'Howling at the moon' = wondering about the merits of proposing to introduce prison sentences for parents who take part (not in conversion therapy btw) but in not necessarily being 100% on board with their child's decision to transition...so in summary to not fully support this proposal at Consultation stage in the hope that it soon becomes legislation equates to howling at the moon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 It's always so easy to twist things to make it seem like you are sincere with genuine concerns and the opposite opinion sound unhinged From the article: A consultation stated that parents or religious leaders would not be criminalised for “expressing concerns”, “advising a child against medical interventions” or “not actively supporting” a child’s decision to dress as a member of the opposite sex. However, it stated that when actions became “coercive” or “controlling” then the law would apply, even in cases where they were motivated by “a desire to help or protect the person”. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Its 'unhinged' to have concerns about this becoming legislation? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 14 minutes ago, Jedi2 said: Its 'unhinged' to have concerns about this becoming legislation? Well it would seem to be a popular policy - https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/42061-most-britons-want-conversion-therapy-banned-includ?redirect_from=%2Ftopics%2Flifestyle%2Farticles-reports%2F2022%2F04%2F12%2Fmost-britons-want-conversion-therapy-banned-includ - and the folks shouting against it include The Telegraph and your woman from the Tele article who pals about with the Scottish Family Party so it would certainly seem it’s the hingedly challenged who are in opposition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 hour ago, Jedi2 said: Its 'unhinged' to have concerns about this becoming legislation? Not necesarily. You could set out your concerns publicly by confirming that you are going to respond to the consultation, and by providing your answers to the consultation questions here. However, any refusal to do so will raise suspicions that you were just parroting your usual "SNP baaaaad" schtick. Fair enough? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) Can we possibly stop referring to this as 'Conversion Therapy'. Conversion Therapy is not 'parents expressing concern/not necessarily being on board with/showing some opposition to, their child wishing to transition....and then potentially sending them to prison for doing so. I'm glad pretty much the whole country is on board with te above though..should make your consultation so much smoother and we should see legislation passed resounded by Holyrod in the next few months. Edited January 10 by Jedi2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 19 hours ago, Jedi2 said: Meanwhile, the Humza's latest 'priority' for govt: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/09/parents-refuse-child-gender-change-jail-snp-conversion-ban/ "Gender ideology cult" f**k me, there are some mightily entrenched nut jobs out there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Kelly Isley III Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 19 hours ago, Jedi2 said: Meanwhile, the Humza's latest 'priority' for govt: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/09/parents-refuse-child-gender-change-jail-snp-conversion-ban/ Take a look at the Comments section and please let us know if you are in agreement. Spoiler Alert Spoiler There's some wild stuff in there 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 37 minutes ago, Jedi2 said: Can we possibly stop referring to this as 'Conversion Therapy'. Conversion Therapy is not 'parents expressing concern/not necessarily being on board with/showing some opposition to, their child wishing to transition....and then potentially sending them to prison for doing so. I'm glad pretty much the whole country is on board with te above though..should make your consultation so much smoother and we should see legislation passed resounded by Holyrod in the next few months. No, because what they’re consulting on is a ban on conversion therapy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 hour ago, carpetmonster said: No, because what they’re consulting on is a ban on conversion therapy. 'Stopping someone from “dressing in a way that reflects their sexual orientation or gender identity” was put forward as an example of an action that would become illegal, even if a parent believed they were acting in a child’s best interests' Yeah, parent saying to their child 'you're not going out dressed like that' sounds like 'Conversion Therapy' right enough 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 I told my daughter yesterday in no way was she 'going out dressed like that' when she attempted to go to the shops in her pajamas. See you all in 7 years I guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 44 minutes ago, Jedi2 said: 'Stopping someone from “dressing in a way that reflects their sexual orientation or gender identity” was put forward as an example of an action that would become illegal, even if a parent believed they were acting in a child’s best interests' Yeah, parent saying to their child 'you're not going out dressed like that' sounds like 'Conversion Therapy' right enough Other examples would include religious conversion therapies and potentially worse. Tell me, for a Labour voter, why have you got such a hardon for slavishly taking the Telegraph at face value? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 38 minutes ago, D Angelo Barksdale said: I told my daughter yesterday in no way was she 'going out dressed like that' when she attempted to go to the shops in her pajamas. See you all in 7 years I guess. My wife went to pick my daughter up in her pajama bottoms yesterday and I called her a schemie b*****d. Illinois banned conversion therapy in 2015 although I’m unsure as to the rules around wife-insulting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Where am I either taking the Telegraph at 'face value' or indeed which part of the article do you believe to be disingenuous or dishonest? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.