17 Comments
User's avatar
Dennis Noel Kavanagh's avatar

Sarah this is a very welcome and essential piece, the reality of family proceedings (which you will know better than me) I would have thought extraordinary for any family involved.

Sarah Phillimore's avatar

Thank you for your instinctive and immediate concern about what this means for parents and children. I cannot see a LA will have any option once a parent is charged but to consider public law proceedings. It will destroy families for a delusion or for homophobic conversion, as you have noted.

The Dumb Ages's avatar

Thank you for this Sarah, have restacked it to people who listen to our podcast.

Dougie 4's avatar

Will persuading a teenage girl, just coming to the realisation that she is same-sex attracted, that she is really a boy who needs her breasts removed also be banned?

Sarah Phillimore's avatar

Hopefully! This bill is not without silver linings

Natalia's avatar

I like this. We can start a lot of private prosecutions. Why don’t we create a fund? Many of us parents brutalised by gender ideology have it in for these people. I bet we could cause a few headaches 😄

Sarah Phillimore's avatar

At this stage, of years of battling determined idiocy, why not? Their rules against them.

Natalia's avatar

It would help if we went on the attack very early. Lots of us parents of same sex attracted trans identifying children should teach teachers and social workers a lesson 😊

Alison's avatar

This draft appears to be very dangerous in its unintended consequences. I can see that simply too few MPs have the skills or interest to scrutinise the draft effectively (only 2 members of the current WESC, Rosie Duffield and Rebecca Paul, have the deep understanding needed for the genuine examination of equality issues and the rest, sadly including the Chair Sarah Owen, seem not to have read the Equality Act and some, like former Lib Dem equality spox, sound positively barking) and as it’s a Labour manifesto commitment I fear the House of Lords will feel unable to oppose it as rigorously as it deserves.

Sarah Phillimore's avatar

It’s a serious problem. There is an MP on X opining that ‘trans’ is a PC. They have no understanding of what they are doing, this will make the Dangerous Dogs Act look like a drafting masterclass.

Alison's avatar

Oh, crikey, not in the least surprised.🙄

Natalia's avatar
17hEdited

It’s so vague that lawyers will make millions. Gender identity isn’t even a measurable characteristic. But in essence anybody can prosecute anybody, if your friend misgenders you, if your parents don’t pay for your hormones, if your university teacher tells you to put your rainbow flag away…who knows all the evils that this will lead to. But then we too could come up with interesting solutions. For a start us gender criticals could declare ourselves to be included as part of the alphabet. If they can identify as a USB stick so can we. We could get really nasty with them.

Natalia's avatar

Maybe those of us who are estranged will be better off after all. Nothing can touch us anymore.

Utter's avatar

JM is an odd one - no doubt very clever, but naive as a babe when it comes to the unconscious, sexuality and deeper recesses of the mind - and so he is captured by them, without awareness. A not uncommon hazard of the legal profession.

Dusty Masterson's avatar

Great analysis, Sarah.

I also feel that this Bill is in itself incompatible with Article 8 of the HRA. We need to demolish it!

Have cross posted

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/women-do-not-consent

Dusty

Natalia's avatar
13hEdited

Why not do a bit of brainstorming at the next Battle of Ideas on how we could use this against the trans ideologues?