Andrew

Oh, for fuck's sake. I'm addressing precisely the issue. You're the one trying to reduce it to an imaginary parent being dragged off in handcuffs for asking a perfectly innocent question. The legislation concerns abusive conversion practices. Humiliation, intimidation, threats, coercion, psychological pressure and controlling behaviour intended to change somebody's sexuality or gender identity. We're talking about children being threatened with rejection, subjected to sustained emotional abuse, or pressured into denying who they are by the very people responsible for their welfare. A fourteen-year-old being relentlessly bullied into renouncing their sexuality is experiencing something rather more serious than a spirited family disagreement over the Sunday roast. And here's a principle our legal system already recognises. We have laws against forced marriage. We prosecute honour-based abuse. We recognise that parents can inflict terrible harm on their children while sincerely believing they're acting in their best interests. Would you seriously argue that legislation against forced marriage criminalises parents for discussing their children's romantic prospects? Of course you fucking wouldn't. The distinction is between discussion and coercion. Between parental responsibility and parental domination. The proposed offence requires serious harm or distress substantially affecting everyday life. Nobody is facing five years in prison because little Timothy announced he was gay and his mother asked whether he was sure. So enough of this theatrical hand-wringing about innocent parents being persecuted for expressing doubts. Children are human beings, not the ideological property of their parents. And parental love is not a legal exemption from accountability for abuse.

Oh, calling her Joanne absolutely is a power move. Just perhaps not the one she's imagined. Joanne is her name. She holds no public office, possesses no constitutional authority and enjoys no hereditary entitlement to intellectual deference. She is an extraordinarily wealthy and successful novelist. Splendid for her. But literary celebrity confers neither legislative authority nor the divine right to be correct. I call her Joanne because, beneath the accumulated wealth, fame, adulation and ceremonial upholstery, she remains another person participating in a public argument. Her opinions are entitled to precisely the same scrutiny as mine or yours. The difference is that she possesses the resources to broadcast hers to millions. A fortune is not a peerage. A bestseller is not a royal charter. And a pen name is not a crown. I am perfectly happy to acknowledge her achievements. I simply decline to kneel before them.

With no respect whatsoever; get in the fucking bin. Are we seriously going to pretend Kathleen Stock has wandered innocently into this debate, clutching a philosophy textbook and expressing a few modest concerns about parental freedom? She's been on the ideological front line of this dispute for years. She knows perfectly well the difference between asking a child a question and subjecting them to coercive attempts to change their identity. The Government has explicitly stated that ordinary parental conversations remain lawful. Yet here she is, dressing up a campaign against conversion-practices legislation as a heroic defence of parents asking little Timothy whether he's quite certain he fancies boys. And we're expected to swallow this entire pantomime as an exercise in dispassionate philosophical enquiry? Christ alive. You might as well invite the Grand Inquisitor to explain that the Spanish Inquisition was principally concerned with encouraging healthy theological dialogue.