Having had a look at some financial links with U.K. based charities, by the author of this document, let us look at the document itself.
Part One is here: 👇
Full document linked below.
The document was written by Gerison Landsdown who is named as the founder for a U.K. based charity as covered in part one.
From her linkedin she appears to have a sociology degree from Aston University. You can find YouTubes where she discusses the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) and child safeguarding. She talks about the impact of the CRC in terms of listening to the voices of children as individuals and as a collective. It is every child’s right to be heard but the weight attached to their testimonies must be assessed, by adults, having regard to the protection of children, as minors.
The document takes an international perspective noting that there is no international consensus on what rights and protections are needed and from what age.
Recent developments in thinking about children she describes as challenging the notion of “ownership” by the parent. One positive development could be the decline in acceptability of a parent using physical punishments as a form of chastisement.
The document has a lot to say about protecting the rights of parents to guide and educate the child but makes a crucial addition; this must be “consistent with the evolving capacities of the child”
As she points out this has a profound significance for the role of the parent because the State now establishes a direct relationship with the child independent of the child’s own family.
This has all sort of implications but foremost in my mind are the state enforced access to “transgender” health against the wishes of the parents. As I said, in part one, there is more than one jurisdiction who have forcibly removed children, from their parents care, to enable a child to access testosterone.
She talks about the need to foster the cultural change necessary and how this must be reflected in law and policy. Is it possible that this “cultural change” to protect children has contributed to the very political climate that has led to the sterilising of minors and the ruination of their sexual function?
The concept of “evolving capacities” has other ramifications. The age of criminal responsibility, marriage and sexual consent among others. Access to the media is a whole different ball game in the era of the internet. Those of us who are digital immigrants were wholly unprepared for the amount of grooming taken place by proponents of “Gender Identity Ideology”. Who knew your kids were getting spoon fed “trans kids” on BBC children’s programmes or via Childline’s YouTube channel?
This paragraph lays out the consequences for the role of parents. It is worded here as a transfer from the parent to the child and “age” was deliberately omitted from the amendment to article 5. I can think of another group of people, who have a vested interest in destabilising the boundaries between adults and children; paedophiles. There is overlap between gender ideologues, and paedophiles, via the vector of queer theory.
It opens the way to an adversarial relationship between parent and child but also allows bad faith actors to manipulate /groom the child to further an ideological mission. See the use of “trans” kids to desexualise /sanitise the actions of adult males in the grip of autogynephilia.
What is she driving at here? I think she is saying that some children mature early and then engage in behaviour (sexual?) that may attract the label “deviant”.
It is correct to see this as a hugely controversial issue.
Veiled attack on motherhood in the age of commercial surrogacy?
The paper then discusses competing theories of child development and notes that there is risk attached to decision making up to 16 years old. Yet we allow children as young as nine to take puberty blockers. A 16 year old won’t by aware of the need to have “trans” kids to prop up an ideology and the vested interests of #BIgPharma in getting a lifelong medical patient.
The author claims Piaget has been largely discredited but still concedes it is impossible to disregard the biological underpinnings to child maturation. In the U.K the courts have sentencing guidelines that allow leniency for criminals up to the age of 25 on the basis of lack of brain maturation. We protect criminals better than the teenagers who are getting double mastectomies.
I found this an odd argument to include, exposing a girl to prostitution aids maturity? My mum once looked after a pregnant thirteen year old whose sister was in prostitution and, allegedly, sold her baby sister to a man. First thing she did after giving birth was ask for her teddy. She was older than me but very childlike. Girls being sexually exploited have likely been groomed and this is the danger in taking their word for how they feel about paid rape.
In the age of the internet global corporations and charitable foundations, as I have discovered, can saturate immature minds with propaganda and persuade them to buy all sorts of ideologies. They bear no responsibility to our children and are unaccountable. Our children with a “trans” identity are an opportunity to mine profits from their bodies. In this environment removing the protective layer of the family is a human rights catastrophe.
British Columbia where a man profiting from “gender care” boasts about how many looked after children, over 500, he has on his books. BC is one of the most ferocious jurisdictions pushing this ideology and they need children to be able to legally consent so they can be put on a. experimental pathway. Toddlers can’t consent.
The paper examines different models for determining capacity. Some practitioners in the Children’s Rights field, she tells us, advocate for the removal of fixed age limits in favour of a blanket presumption of ability to consent which can be litigated in case of objections by the parent. Others don’t favour a blanket presumption of capacity but the child can make a legal case in terms of “consent”. They do recognise the need to make sure the child is not being manipulated by a bad faith actor when it involves sexual consent. What about the insidious grooming by global corporations /charitable foundations who have invented the “transgender” child?
In all I think this paper pays insufficient regard to the protective role of families and seems unaware of the emergence of an ideology which seeks to weaken family bonds and gain direct access to our children. You bet there’s resistance, this is radical social engineering by unelected and captured organisations.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. Don’t prioritise me above worthwhile legal cases.