A pathway advisor
That’s…interesting.
And by “supporting” they of course mean “encouraging in the trans ideation.”
In #6 he means “unlikely to be able to consent” [with full understanding]. They’re all too likely to consent, all the more so if urged on by a “Kathryn” Bigelow.
This is truly horror movie stuff.
I get so annoyed with the Green party, who I would normally support, getting involved in this kind of thing.
By getting rid of the idea of ‘transsexuals’ (by deeming the term ‘transphobic’) and opening up the new ‘trans umbrella’ to cover transvestites, autogynephiles, and anyone with a paraphilia of any kind, MRAs turned the whole ‘trans’ thing into a juggernaut; and pædophiles have happily taken over the steering.
That is why the Bell and Mrs A court case is so important – it re-instates boundaries which had been inexcusably trampled over. If they had, instead, allowed that children are competent to make life-changing decisions over future health, fertility, and sexual function, then that would have led to a drive to lower the age at which they can consent to sexual intercourse. That is almost certainly why the movement is so angry about the judgement. If they were truly thinking of the children’s well-being, they would welcome the findings; which were, after all, based on the evidence of clinical outcomes.