Thread by @SVPhillimore

I did hestitate to engage with what I considered to be an obvious bad faith interjection - but then I thought I need to put my money where my mouth is and show that discussion is nothing to be scared of. So let’s go.

https://twitter.com/thecriticmag/status/1460529323945996292

First, the obvious false equivalence. The debate was not about an existing criminal practice, such as FGM, that has no evidence at all to support it as something that is for the benefit of the children subjected to it. The debate was about 'conversion therapy'.

This is interesting as yet another example of 'forced teaming' which has served the TQ+ pretty well over the years. The Government seeks to ban attempts to 'convert' gay people but also attempts to 'convert' people away from a certain gender identity.

These two things are not remotely the same. A sexual orientation, as I understand it, is something that is identifiable and fixed for life. Belief in a 'gender identity' however appears to be a relatively new philosophy which is inherently incoherent and not defined.

Many of us are very worried that to criminalise 'conversion therapy' when applied to gender identity, would mean that legitimate efforts by experts to talk to distressed gender non conforming children would become impossible, due to fear of potential criminal liability.

This would be a very grave situation as it would mean that large numbers of children would not get the help they need, before making decisions to take cross sex hormones which are irreversible and carry very serious and life long consequences. Not least a risk to fertility.

So that's a very long answer to explain the false equivalence in the question. But if someone wanted to organise a debate about why FGM was great and should be decriminalised, would I try to stop them? No.

If they invited me to join the debate and put the arguments for why FGM was criminalised and why it should remain so, I would be happy to do so. I am very confident that my arguments would be clear and compelling.

It would be for the people listening, to hear what was said and form their own views. I am both baffled and alarmed by this apparent belief in the 'magic' of words - that all someone has to do is hear the Wicked Opinion and they will be immediately captured by it.

I hope I give (the majority of) our species a little more credit than that. We should not shy away from uncomfortable or difficult topics because we find them uncomfortable or difficult. I would be interested to know why anyone would want to argue FGM was a 'good thing'.

It might help me understand better which children were more likely to be at risk, why criminal prosecutions for FGM are almost non-existent. Debate and discussion are the life blood of democracy. They shd only be denied when they involve incitement to violence or other crime.