So now it’s a ‘binder outreach service’ @LushLtd ? Does your head office have any idea what your Paddington store is doing? Well, the local children’s safeguarding boards soon will.
So your Paddington store is going to be cemented as an ‘ongoing’ service to children? I would be interested to see your risk and safeguarding assessments, which I am sure exist <cough>
As you claim to be the ‘only’ such service and have been providing binders to persons of age unspecified since at least June, then I assume your safeguarding assessment is a model of its kind that you can share for the benefit of others?
And where are the accounts please? As you aren’t doing any of this for free. How much money are you making and what are you doing with it?
So just exactly what risks to physical safety do you accept exist with use of binders? What is your process for assessment of child competence for any consumers under 16?
How many children using your service have experienced this?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In a truly shocking judgment in the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre para 57 stands out for me - the response to a warm, empathetic email looking for a way forward
“Your email was humiliating, so I feel humiliated. I don’t want to have
any conversations about this with you.”
We have given power to the thin skinned, the narcissistic and the actively dangerous. How many judgements like this will it take to restore sanity? It should not have required ANY.
4102236 - Judgment - 14.05.2024 (redacted).pdf - Google Drive
Para 75 - the point about giving primacy to one minority group inevitably means that others will suffer. Rights ARE a pie.
"There was a staff meeting on 7th July which the claimant attended which was about trans inclusion. There was no space for discussion about getting to the
heart of any of the issues but instead the meeting was essentially based on two questions around “how can we be better at being trans inclusive.” The meeting was very tightly controlled."
Again, para 114, those in charge of disciplinary proceedings did not know of the Forstater case, could not name it. WHO IS ADVISING THESE PEOPLE? Will they ever be held to account?
Gender identity ideology is a virus that eats the brain.
Nothing proves that assertion more neatly than this complaint and subsequent suspension from the @TheGreenParty of yet another member of @GreenPartyWomen.
Remember ladies - the Green Party denies that your sex exists. Any plea for protection of same sex female spaces is a ‘transphobic dog whistle’.
The Green Party encourages unlawful discrimination and defamatory, dehumanising slurs against those with protected belief.
This for me is the key quote from the GMN response to the proposed 'Conversion Practices' Bill, and why I think it such enormous folly to direct attention and vitriol to individual trans identifying men. This is an attempt to capture the entire criminal justice system.
I really hope people will use their finite energies and resources to tackle this, rather than just trade insults on line. This is most definitely not a drill.
"In requiring a court to embrace a politically contested concept where one side of the debate believes in the existence of that concept and one does not, the court becomes, in effect a religious court siding with those who have such a belief."
While some are frothing about 'perverts' THIS is what actual politicians want to see made LAW.
"By way of example, a private counsellor who told a young patient to their professional view was that they were suffering internalised homophobia and manifesting a transgender identity as a result could in theory be prosecuted for a single activity intended and having the purpose of supressing a transgender identity. Given the interim Cass report[15] emphasises the importance of multi-disciplinary intervention, counselling and therapy, it is surprising that such services are placed in jeopardy of criminal prosecution."
I have already criticised the legally illiterate approach to parental responsibility, which then slides into talking about 'treating the child's welfare as paramount concern' . As the GMN point out, this is borrowing the statutory compulsion on COURTS to make decisions with the child's welfare as paramount. It doesn't apply to parents. All they have to do is not subject the children to significant harm or the risk of it. Any higher obligation is impermissible social engineering. If this Bill is made law then the criminal and family courts will diverge in ways that are potentially irreconcilable.
Also, I fail to see why or how PR is relevant for a Gillick competent child. As GMN say
"As children get older, they become more and more competent at law to look after themselves and parental responsibility is thus exercised less. It follows from this that not all Defendants who have parental responsibility under the relevant legislation will necessarily be exercising it."
As I go further down the rabbit hole with regard to how children are treated by those who insist that gender identity is the preferred organising category, I come across this interesting book from 2017.
It’s basic premise is that trans children have always existed and denial of this is - of course - genocide. I had not realised this word had begun to misused as early as 2017, or that we could have such a thing as ‘procedural genocide’.
But what is fundamentally alarming is the constant repetition that to deny children agency is to ‘infantalise’ them, and to muddy the waters by including those over 18 as children. This points to a crucial misdirection that Mermaids also relied upon heavily - if a child says they are trans, they are trans - thus lumping together the 3 year old and the 17 year old who are worlds apart in their ability to process information and understand it.
A ratio for the ages. And a further interesting evolution of the word ‘transphobia’. It seems to be evolving from a word that could have ended a career even a year ago, to a word that now provokes mockery or proud declaration.
Can you think of any other self-identifying civil rights movement that followed this trajectory? I can’t.