I don't believe she doesn't know what she is doing. This is her party politics and she follows through. Don't forget that those who are in the government are loyal to specific political fraction and serve its needs. If they don't do it they will lose their jobs.
I have no idea how they think this bill can be implemented in real life. How do they get evidence if it is the word of the child against the word of the parents? What if the child and the parents don't get along and the child decides to use this to send them to prison? What if the child had special needs or mental health problems? Plenty of 'what ifs'.
There are many risks that this bill is opening up. Criminalising parents and medical practioners acting in good faith is obviously the most serious, in terms of the safety of children. But I suspect the ideologues have a wider aim - to ban the expression of gender critical or sceptical speech wherever and whenever it occurs. The argument would be that any gender questioning child who hears or reads such ‘oppressive’ views could feel unsafe, pressured and abused. Bollocks of course, but that’s the wacky world of gender politics. And there’s no guarantee that the courts wouldn’t interpret the law in that way.
This will be a re-run of Maoist China, with people self-righteously snitching on others for ‘points’ and kids becoming a sort of ‘Red Army’, reporting on parents. Anyone not toeing the line on government ideology is at risk of prosecution under this bill and it leaves the door wide open for vexatious & malicious reporting. The likes of ‘Lynsey’ Watson, ex-police officer with a penchant for reporting any perceived anti-trans speech & constantly seeking judicial reviews, will have a field day.
Philipson is a disgrace. I appreciate that social media and the internet are seething with emotive ill-informed and psychopathic comments. They are also sources of information, and there is plenty of perfectly rational discussion around, which people in influential positions should be competent enough to pay some attention to. What is so disgraceful is that this one single post from Mr Doyle can contain more reasoning, and reasonableness, and decent views on psychology, biology and society, than an entire career in politics. She has problems relating to being properly fully informed, e.g. about the whole concept of transgender, including statistics, ideology, and mental illness; and problems relating to her own psychology (emotional resistance to opposition, rather than engagement with any of its intellectual content). We have insufficient personal qualities in a substantial percentage of our political representatives. (Which may have been the case even before the rise of post-modernist etc thinking, which has only made it exponentially worse.)
"Coercive control" and "emotional abuse" were the words used to describe parenting by the "experts" at a UK gender clinic. Parenting that refused to use pronouns and new name. Those "experts" could easily be called on in a trial to give evidence and there is no defence.
Phillipson is not stupid. She's a trans activist who repeats the mantras.
I don't believe she doesn't know what she is doing. This is her party politics and she follows through. Don't forget that those who are in the government are loyal to specific political fraction and serve its needs. If they don't do it they will lose their jobs.
I have no idea how they think this bill can be implemented in real life. How do they get evidence if it is the word of the child against the word of the parents? What if the child and the parents don't get along and the child decides to use this to send them to prison? What if the child had special needs or mental health problems? Plenty of 'what ifs'.
There are many risks that this bill is opening up. Criminalising parents and medical practioners acting in good faith is obviously the most serious, in terms of the safety of children. But I suspect the ideologues have a wider aim - to ban the expression of gender critical or sceptical speech wherever and whenever it occurs. The argument would be that any gender questioning child who hears or reads such ‘oppressive’ views could feel unsafe, pressured and abused. Bollocks of course, but that’s the wacky world of gender politics. And there’s no guarantee that the courts wouldn’t interpret the law in that way.
This will be a re-run of Maoist China, with people self-righteously snitching on others for ‘points’ and kids becoming a sort of ‘Red Army’, reporting on parents. Anyone not toeing the line on government ideology is at risk of prosecution under this bill and it leaves the door wide open for vexatious & malicious reporting. The likes of ‘Lynsey’ Watson, ex-police officer with a penchant for reporting any perceived anti-trans speech & constantly seeking judicial reviews, will have a field day.
And the process, as ever, will be the punishment.
It really is very scary.
Philipson is a disgrace. I appreciate that social media and the internet are seething with emotive ill-informed and psychopathic comments. They are also sources of information, and there is plenty of perfectly rational discussion around, which people in influential positions should be competent enough to pay some attention to. What is so disgraceful is that this one single post from Mr Doyle can contain more reasoning, and reasonableness, and decent views on psychology, biology and society, than an entire career in politics. She has problems relating to being properly fully informed, e.g. about the whole concept of transgender, including statistics, ideology, and mental illness; and problems relating to her own psychology (emotional resistance to opposition, rather than engagement with any of its intellectual content). We have insufficient personal qualities in a substantial percentage of our political representatives. (Which may have been the case even before the rise of post-modernist etc thinking, which has only made it exponentially worse.)
"Coercive control" and "emotional abuse" were the words used to describe parenting by the "experts" at a UK gender clinic. Parenting that refused to use pronouns and new name. Those "experts" could easily be called on in a trial to give evidence and there is no defence.
Phillipson is not stupid. She's a trans activist who repeats the mantras.