A Conversion Therapy Ban Would Be A Paedophile Charter
A Conversion Therapy Ban would prevent parents protecting their children. That's no surprise The idea at its heart- gender identity- emerged out of dodgy research used to justify paedophilia.
Our politicians want to make our lives better, or so they say. And get re-elected. What they don’t have the time to do is to trace the origins of the ideas they espouse. If they did they might be shocked.
I thought of this last week when I watched Scotland’s Equalities Minister, Emma Roddick, announce the consultation on a so-called Conversion Therapy Ban. Forget for a moment there is no evidence ‘gender identity’ exists, and we are having a consultation on whether it should be illegal to try to change this non-existent phenomenon.
To give Roddick her due she was willing to engage on social media with critics, which is how she ended up posting this zinger where she confidently explained that “everyone has a gender identity, even if it is none”.
I hope that’s cleared up any doubts you had.
I try to remind myself regularly that Roddick and the vast majority of people advocating for the Ban genuinely think they are doing the right thing. Even if they aren’t. One of the things that’s most pernicious about the proposed Bill is that it could criminalise therapists or parents advocating for the single best cure for gender dysphoria. The vast majority of kids with dysphoria find it disappears, or at least reduces significantly, once they go through puberty.
If a parent knows this surely they would be duty-bound to move heaven and earth to ensure their child goes through puberty and avoids taking puberty blockers? Not least because research the Tavistock GIDS clinic was eventually forced to release showed puberty blockers made gender dysphoria worse. Why would anyone want to stop children maturing naturally?
I wrote a thread yesterday on Twitter/X that suggested there might be one group of people in particular who would want to keep children’s minds and bodies child-like. I hate banging on about paedophiles. I only go on about them so much because of what seems wilful carelessness on the part of LGBTQ+ groups and much of the media who, for example, cheerfully interview Peter Tatchell. Our working assumption should be that there will always be dangerous creeps who want to normalise their sexual attraction to kids. And they’ll always be testing the waters to see if we have noticed them.
Remember the Balenciaga campaign featuring kids with strategically placed fetish objects?
Creepier still it was revealed that a few months before that campaign the same design team had produced ads for one of the brand’s handbags featuring a Supreme Court ruling on child porn and a book by an artist who “depicted children running around naked, covered in blood, and holding severed body parts”.
Talk about hiding in plain sight.
It was only because the Balenciaga ads with the children were so disturbing that people went back to look more carefully at their other ads and found the red flags fluttering.
Balenciaga are hardly the first brand to be infiltrated by guys who should be on a register. In the 1990s Calvin Klein had to pull a campaign that took paedo-creep to the next level. Believe it or not this really was a Jeans ad they ran as part of that campaign in which a gruff-voiced ‘director’, who sounds like he sports a serial killer tattoo, issues instructions to an actor who looks underage. In a basement.
If the creeps try regularly to infiltrate fashion they’d certainly do the same in LGBTQ+ policy-making which often gives the impression of happening in a dingy basement run by gruff-voiced men (sorry transwomen). So let’s look a little more carefully at the proposed Conversion Therapy Ban and the ideas that inspired it. Who knows…maybe there will be a trace of you know who’s influence.
At the centre of the policy is the assertion that a child can consent to serious, medical interventions and a parent should not be able to over-rule them. The child knows best. That a child can consent also just happens to be the most insistent claim of paedophiles. This may be a complete coincidence. On the other hand it may not.
Once we say a child is capable of assessing the life-long consequences of an existential change, what are we saying about the boundaries of consent?
Then there is the idea of ‘gender identity’ itself, which Emma Roddick seems so exercised about. I’ve mentioned before that Robert Stoller, one of the men responsible for creating so-called “gender affirmation healthcare” and the inventor of the term gender identity believed his expedition to Papua New Guinea helped prove his theories were correct. If anyone is to blame for Emma Roddick’s assertion that “everyone has some kind of gender identity” Stoller can lay claim.
That’s why I want to trace his steps again and explore exactly what went on during that journey into the rainforest when he and the paedophilia advocate Gilbert Herdt very scientifically observed naked Simbari men abusing young boys. To what extent was this child abuse incidental to Stoller’s key contribution, the notion of gender identity? Or was his complacence, at the least, about sexual exploitation baked into it?
It turns out there are spooky parallels between the arguments Stoller made to justify the abusive behaviour of the child-abusing Simbari and those employed by advocates of the Conversion Therapy Ban.
Is Emma Roddick unwittingly promoting a policy based on ideas inspired by child exploitation? And might that policy enable the same kind of abusive behaviour Stoller was so shockingly relaxed about?
Apologies for the reminder.
If you can encourage other people to become free subscribers I’d be very grateful. If you are able to become a paid subscriber that would be wonderful. I hope you agree it’s important to flush out the facts the mainstream media too often ignores.
For my paid subscribers…heartfelt thanks. You make this possible