[Draft] Against Abusive Families

[Sierra Lyricalia]

But your not protecting them from abuse. You're simply defining beliefs as abuse.

OOC: This is regarding legality only, on the GAR #38 question.

If we take "belief" as broadly as some here have advocated, then it becomes nearly impossible to enforce any child safety laws at all. Surely a law against hitting children with a cane is aimed at eliminating the use of canes as a tool of discipline; but it's being framed as causing the destruction of Caners, a people deserving of protection from genocide on the basis of their belief in canes as a tool of raising children. The proposal at hand does not seek to criminalize belief; what it criminalizes is behavior, specifically the behavior of insisting that a child is lying or incorrect about their gender, and pretending that said child is someone different. (Ninja'd by Auralia, it would indeed do to tighten the definition up, a bit - what was obvious to me may be slightly less so to others).

But if you are going to characterize a mother who insists her transgender son is nevertheless a girl or woman as a passive member of a belief system, which is protected by GAR #38, then you are committed to that principle, and the state is not allowed to remove victims of (say) incest child rape from their abusive fathers, because that would be destroying the belief system of families who subscribe to the old primitive paterfamilias ethic, in which the patriarch has every imaginable right and power over his family.

To be sure, if it were the beliefs being prohibited, the objectors would have a point. But they are not - transphobia and bigoted thoughts are not at issue here any more than they are in GAR #35. What is being discussed here is the actions of parents toward their children. And on that score, it's beyond the scope of anything related to this discussion to bring in concerns about GAR #38.

Elaborating, it's the gaslighting and the "You'll never be anything but my daughter" and the insistence on constantly misgendering that is being prohibited here, not the "belief" that transgender status doesn't exist or is delusional. You can believe whatever you want in silence - it's the active treatment of one's children that is the proposal's concern. If you honestly see no difference between silently believing that your child is going to hell, and telling them every day that they are going to hell, I don't know what else to tell you except that that's wrong.

Suffice to say there is no GAR #38 implication here.

- 1/6 GenSec
(ninja'd by, but mostly in agreement with, Bears)

[United States of Americanas]

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation.

OOC:
Transphobes simply do not count as an identifiable group of persons for the purposes of genocide. That is an utterly unreasonable interpretation.

I'll also note that nothing in this draft is about wiping out transphobes. It's about protecting children from them. Removing children from abusive homes is not genocide. Child abusers aren't an identifiable group of persons for the purposes of genocide either.

And, again, the shallow understanding provided by a dictionary definition of a word, is useless.

Ffs will you guys quit saying genocide?

Removing a child from a home by government rule is not a form of genocide.

Genocide would require killings to occur. So please can it with the genocide argument.

[Tinfect]

Ffs will you guys quit saying genocide?
Removing a child from a home by government rule is not a form of genocide.
Genocide would require killings to occur. So please can it with the genocide argument.

OOC:
You do not understand what Genocide is. Look up historical examples, specifically how Native Americans and Australian Aborigine's were treated.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Ffs will you guys quit saying genocide?

Removing a child from a home by government rule is not a form of genocide.

Genocide would require killings to occur. So please can it with the genocide argument.

This is false - removal of children from their families can absolutely be a component of genocide (start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act#History and go from there). The reason it doesn't make sense to bring it up in the context of this proposal is that family abuse is a valid reason to remove children from their families, not because removal isn't a component of genocide (it absolutely can be).

Can we get back to the actual proposal, please?

[Aclion]

The reason it doesn't make sense to bring it up in the context of this proposal is that family abuse is a valid reason to remove children from their families

The proposal doesn't deal with abuse, it just defines a belief as abuse.

If you honestly see no difference between silently believing that your child is going to hell, and telling them every day that they are going to hell, I don't know what else to tell you except that that's wrong.

The proposal simply does not make any such distinction between gaslighting/misgendering and silent rejection.

[Tinfect]

But your not protecting them from abuse. You're simply defining beliefs as abuse.

OOC:
First of all, other people have already explained why that isn't the case.

But, you know what, fuck it, here, I'll do it again, since you clearly weren't listening.

First of all, refusing a fundamental aspect of your child's identity is pretty fucked up; I sure as hell hope you understand that parents are generally expected to support their children, and that withholding that kind of support can be really harmful.

Second; this has nothing to do with that anyway. the definition of child abuse per WA legislation, is as follows:

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:
Child abuse as any and/or all of the following:
i. the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child,
ii. the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer-to-peer bullying,
iii. any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child,
iv. when a guardian deprives, intentionally or otherwise, a child of necessities such as care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis, if that guardian is capable of providing such;

Admittedly this is not expressly repeated in this legislation; I can add a clause that defines Child Abuse in accordance with prior legislation, if that's what you want. The potential HoC violation, is on you though.
The third point of the definition (bolded) is the one in question here, and the only actual legal issue with this draft outside of its category.
I bring it up, because it's what we're dealing with here. Not 'beliefs'. Even if you don't agree with me that refusing to support your child emotionally is uh, really fucked up and practically abusive on its own, actions taken as a part of this rejection, are plainly and clearly abuse.

Here's the article that motivated me to draft this. It's written from the perspective of a 'concerned' (read, controlling and abusive,) parent of a trans kid.
Together, we're going to go step by step, making the dubious assumption that she's not lying out her ass, and cover what exactly this legislation is meant to prevent.
Also, I'm going to edit quotes to properly gender the kid. Deal with it.

Throughout my [son's] childhood, there were no signs that [he] wanted to be a boy. [He] loved stuffed animals, Pocahontas and wearing colorful bathing suits. I can’t recall a single interest that seemed unusually masculine, or any evidence that [he] was uncomfortable as a girl.

First of all, this is a common refrain; it's wrong, both in likely case and in the framing of gender, but not necessarily abuse. In this case, contextualized by the rest of the article, it's gaslighting, which is abuse.

We later learned why: [he] was on the autism spectrum.

More gaslighting; this can be taken to say "my child isn't neurotypical and thus is too stupid to understand themselves and make decisions!!!".
I hope you can see why that is a problem.

[He] first came out as transgender to [his] school, and when [he] announced that [he] was a boy, the faculty and staff — who had full knowledge of her mental health challenges — affirmed [him]. Without telling me or my wife, they referred to [him] by [his] new name. They treated my [son] as if [he] were a boy, using male pronouns and giving [him] access to a gender neutral restroom.

This is classic controlling behavior. The parent here feels entitled to control every aspect of their child's life, straight down to how others treat them.

When [his] mother and I first found out, our feelings of helplessness and astonishment made it difficult to get through each day. But I feel my [son] is a victim more than anything else.

Again, more gaslighting. Her son made the decision to come out at school first, presumably because he felt safer there. It is his right to make that decision. Her son discussed the matter with another transgender kid at the school, and came to the conclusion that he was also transgender. His parents frame this, effectively, as being stolen and brainwashed by transpeople. This is plainly wrong and absurd.

In an IEP meeting just after [he] told us about being a boy, I told the school that our wishes are to call [him] by [his] legal name at all times.

This is, again, controlling behavior. This parent does not believe that their child has the right to make decisions for their own life; indeed, they are going directly and intentionally contrary to the wishes of the child. This isn't some trivial matter like not wanting to take a bath, this is rejection of their son's identity, and attempting to enforce that belief on their son's entire life, including on other people, contrary to the wishes of their son.
Oh, and for reference, this kid was 14 at the time.

My [son] told me that the school social worker was advising [him] about halfway houses because he thought we did not support [him]. The social worker confirmed this when I scheduled a meeting with him to discuss it. This felt like a horrifying attempt to encourage our [son] to run away from home.

Yet more controlling behavior. She frames the fact that a social worker is advising the kid that they may be able to find help elsewhere if he doesn't wish to remain with an unsupportive, controlling family, as trying to steal their son away from them. It is worth noting that nothing in even this surely incredibly biased article says that it was anything more than an advisement; an option being presented to their son.

The National Education Association has partnered with the Human Rights Campaign and other groups to produce materials advocating automatic affirmation of identities, name changes and pronouns, regardless of parents’ concerns. In 18 states and the District of Columbia, including in my home state of Illinois, there are “conversion therapy” bans, which prevent therapists from questioning a child’s gender identity. No wonder my daughter’s therapist would only speak to me off the record.

This is the parent directly admitting to violating the law, and implicating their son's therapist in also doing so.

When our [son] returned to high school to finish [his] senior year, I contacted the principal to let him know I expected [his] legal name to be used at graduation. Once again, the school refused to honor my request.

More controlling behavior. More attempting to force schools to break the law.

Now, thanks in large part to my [son's] school, my [son] is more convinced than ever that [he] is a boy, and that testosterone may be necessary for [him] to become [his] authentic self.

Gaslighting. Rather than accepting that their son is becoming more understanding of their identity and what they want as they continue to explore it and age, they are, again, pinning the blame on the school, rejecting the idea of any agency of their son.

[he] turned 18 in late June and life-altering [misinformation removed] testosterone injections are just one “informed consent form” away. [He] can turn to any one of Illinois’s 17 Planned Parenthood clinics for [misinformation removed] access. No extensive mental health assessment will be required, and there will be nothing I can do to stop [him].

Do note that this parent still expects to be able to control their now adult son.
I shouldn't have to explain what's wrong with this.

Even if we assume that the parent is 100% truthful, and that there is nothing being left unsaid here, the parent is quite demonstrably and clearly abusive. This is what the resolution is meant to prevent. It has nothing to do with the 'beliefs' of the parent.

[Kranostav]

Just for the record, I am for the concept of this proposal. Looking forward to seeing it in its final form however it manages to serve its purpose.

[Drystar]

If you really must put this out there, I would suggest you include systematic to the deliberate line. Parents have off days, and it would be a shame to penalize them for a momentary slip. I’ve deliberately called my kids fools when they’ve grabbed the hot wire on an electric fence, or ran through the bulls pasture. And yes, I realize it’s not quite the same, but it’s an example of how frustrating it can be on occasion raising children.

[Aclion]

Second; this has nothing to do with that anyway. the definition of child abuse per WA legislation, is as follows:

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:
Child abuse as any and/or all of the following:
i. the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child,
ii. the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer-to-peer bullying,
iii. any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child,
iv. when a guardian deprives, intentionally or otherwise, a child of necessities such as care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis, if that guardian is capable of providing such;

Admittedly this is not expressly repeated in this legislation; I can add a clause that defines Child Abuse in accordance with prior legislation, if that's what you want. The potential HoC violation, is on you though.
The third point of the definition (bolded) is the one in question here, and the only actual legal issue with this draft outside of its category.
I bring it up, because it's what we're dealing with here. Not 'beliefs'. Even if you don't agree with me that refusing to support your child emotionally is uh, really fucked up and practically abusive on its own, actions taken as a part of this rejection, are plainly and clearly abuse.

If your goal is to prevent abusive actions, then define abuse in terms of actions. I don't see what the problem with that is. You can still do your test of 222 and you neatly sidestep BA's point about Free Expression. Definitions matter; to paraphrase RBG, "Whether a hot dog is a sandwich depends most of all on how one defines a sandwich, not what I want a sandwich to be."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Re: GAR#436. See section 3: "Prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting the restrictions established in section 2, and restrictions required to fulfill the mandates of WA legislation, or restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation". Effectively no restriction of expression in a proposal can ever contradict GAR#436.

[WayNeacTia]

"I fail to comprehend why this cannot be legislated at the national level where it should be. This is more of a law enforcement matter, than an international issue. Thumbs down from me."

Wayne

[Bears Armed]

OOC:
Auralia, I have handled each and every one of those bigoted lies a million times. You should know better than to start shit by posting them in my thread.

OOC
You really can't grasp the idea that somebody disagreeing with you doesn't automatically make their remarks count as "lies"?
You have your opinions, but -- unless the rules are being drastically changed -- Auralia has as much right to their beliefs as you do to yours and your dismissal of Auralia's views would be more credible if you actually bothered to try explaining why they're wrong instead of just throwing insults around.
I look at Auralia's [politely worded] post, I look at your reply, and would you care to guess which out of the two of you you looks the most bigoted? (Clue: It isn't Auralia...)

OOC: Re: GAR#436. See section 3: "Prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting the restrictions established in section 2, and restrictions required to fulfill the mandates of WA legislation, or restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation". Effectively no restriction of expression in a proposal can ever contradict GAR#436.

Oops! And this is one of the reasons why we have a committee, rather than just a single person, as GenSec: I overlooked that point, maybe partly due to subconscious memories of the previous resolution about such matters (which lasted for much longer than this one has done so far).

[Losthaven]

In our opinion, this is not duplicative of GAR #222. As relevant here, GAR #222 defines (and prohibits) child abuse which consists of "any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child." This law would go considerably beyond that by defining (and prohibiting) a form of child abuse consisting of "deliberate rejection of a child's gender identity" regardless of whether doing so results in serious emotional and mental trauma to the child.

We do believe there are serious conceptual problems with what is proposed here based on the fact that a "deliberate rejection" of a child's gender identity could consist of a mere thought or a belief. As Auralia correctly points out, such beliefs could be motivated by a variety of factors, some pernicious but also some innocent, reasoned, and well-intentioned. It would be a hard thing indeed to define a parent as an abuser and remove their children from them because, despite remaining as supportive as possible in their actual deeds, they have internally deliberately rejected their child's gender identity because they believe the child is likely experiencing transient confusion related to the hormonal changes of puberty rather than a fundamental realignment of their gender identity.

(Edit: Since We mentioned Auralia's post above, we do wish to point out that while we agree that holding certain beliefs about gender and passing those beliefs on to your children is not abuse, "to require children to act in accordance with [those beliefs] while subject to parental authority" certainly could be abuse, depending on the circumstances.)

We decline to join others who have suggested that this would somehow violate the convention against genocide...

We believe this would be legal insofar as GAR #222 is concerned because it does not duplicate GAR #222's provisions regarding conduct which actually causes harm and in fact goes radically beyond that resolution in its conception of child abuse.

We believe this may possibly violate GAR #35 by discriminating against individuals based solely on their subjective beliefs. Whether or not you consider individuals who deliberately reject the gender identity of their children to be a "group," and whether or not you agree with their outlook, it is a dark proposal to target those individuals for different treatment under the law simply because of the beliefs they hold.

[Tinfect]

OOC
You really can't grasp the idea that somebody disagreeing with you doesn't automatically make their remarks count as "lies"?

OOC:
In the case of Auralia, who vocally supports conversion therapy and policies that would otherwise lead to the needless suffering and death of transpeople, I am inclined to call it like it is, yes.

You have your opinions, but -- unless the rules are being drastically changed -- Auralia has as much right to their beliefs as you do to yours and your dismissal of Auralia's views would be more credible if you actually bothered to try explaining why they're wrong instead of just throwing insults around.

I have. On several occasions. To several people. I have done it so often, that I actually have Auralia on my foes list so that I don't have to engage with him when not necessary.
He continues to uncritically post the exact same nonsense.
At this point, he's either deliberately lying, or he's little more than a bigot who doesn't care about the reality of the situation, and is merely leveraging his religion as a weapon against trans people.

I look at Auralia's [politely worded] post, I look at your reply, and would you care to guess which out of the two of you you looks the most bigoted? (Clue: It isn't Auralia...)

Ooh, weaponizing 'civility'. Haven't heard that one before. I care much less for the tone in which an argument is delivered than the content of it; and for fuck's sake, anger is justifiable in the face bigoted lies.

[Farnhamia]

OOC
You really can't grasp the idea that somebody disagreeing with you doesn't automatically make their remarks count as "lies"?

OOC:
In the case of Auralia, who vocally supports conversion therapy and policies that would otherwise lead to the needless suffering and death of transpeople, I am inclined to call it like it is, yes.

You have your opinions, but -- unless the rules are being drastically changed -- Auralia has as much right to their beliefs as you do to yours and your dismissal of Auralia's views would be more credible if you actually bothered to try explaining why they're wrong instead of just throwing insults around.

I have. On several occasions. To several people. I have done it so often, that I actually have Auralia on my foes list so that I don't have to engage with him when not necessary.
He continues to uncritically post the exact same nonsense.
At this point, he's either deliberately lying, or he's little more than a bigot who doesn't care about the reality of the situation, and is merely leveraging his religion as a weapon against trans people.

I look at Auralia's [politely worded] post, I look at your reply, and would you care to guess which out of the two of you you looks the most bigoted? (Clue: It isn't Auralia...)

Ooh, weaponizing 'civility'. Haven't heard that one before. I care much less for the tone in which an argument is delivered than the content of it; and for fuck's sake, anger is justifiable in the face bigoted lies.

Apparently your ban in June for just this sort of incivility made no impression on you whatsoever. Perhaps a *** 7 day ban for flaming *** will enlighten you. There are ways to debate with people without calling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot or a liar or both. There are ways to express your anger that do not come down to insulting and flaming people. You need to think about your behavior here, and think about it seriously. More of this sort of thing and you will need to find somewhere else to play.

[Servilis]

OOC: I would argue prepubescent children don’t have a “sexual orientation”. Recalling my childhood I thought girls were icky at one point, but that definitely changed.

I would argue they do, your experience does not trump others, I had sexual orientation before puberty, a classmate as well who still keeps this identity, there are a lot of children who had non-hetero orientations.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I would argue prepubescent children don’t have a “sexual orientation”. Recalling my childhood I thought girls were icky at one point, but that definitely changed.

I would argue they do, your experience does not trump others, I had sexual orientation before puberty, a classmate as well who still keeps this identity, there are a lot of children who had non-hetero orientations.

OOC: I certainly had my gender identity and sexual orientation fairly clear in my mind before starting on puberty. I just didn't have words for them back then.

[Losthaven]

*snip*

*snip*

We would agree with both the writers above that, for most people, gender identity is something that develops during childhood. For some, it solidifies there comfortably. Others experiment with gender identity (with or without distress) before ultimately accepting on one or another as what is right for them. Still others remain gender fluid (which can itself be considered a gender identity) well into adulthood and beyond.

We remain concerned that several here seem to have imbued the broad, general language of this proposal with with more specificity than is actually there. The law defines "deliberate rejection of a child's gender identity or sexual orientation" as child abuse. Some have suggested that the phrase is not to be taken literally to mean that any rejection of a child's gender identity is abuse. Rather, they say, the proposal refers instead to "the actions of parents toward their children" by "gaslighting" or "insistence on constantly misgendering." Perhaps the proposal should limit itself to those harmful things but by its plain terms it does not. The action prohibited is "deliberate rejection" and rejection, and one can certainly reject a child's gender identity (through though, word, or deed) in ways that do not amount to the harmful actions set forth above. Rejection just means that a thought, idea, etc. is not accepted.

This proposal is presently way overbroad. It would require termination of the parent-child relationship because a parent has rejected a child's gender identity, regardless of the degree of that rejection or the harm (if any) to the child. We may agree that prohibiting certain parenting practices is appropriate and we may even agree that you could prohibit those practices even if they did not actually cause harm in a given case, but to label someone an abuser and take away their children because they rejected the child's gender identity (and nothing more) is a bit of a level jump.

Edits: spelling and grammar

[Araraukar]

OOC: Perhaps best to leave further poking of this proposal until later, as Tinfect's currently on a time-out and can't reply.

[Tinfect]

So, let's begin this with an apology. My hostility here was uncalled for and unreasonable; I'm sorry.

Moving on, let's get back to work here. The legality question stands, - and not the one about genocide, let's not continue that threadjack, - and I'd quite like an answer.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The legality question stands,... and I'd quite like an answer.

OOC: OK, so what's left? We disposed of #38 and #436. #222? OK:

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:
...
Child abuse as any and/or all of the following:

i. the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child,

ii. the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer-to-peer bullying,

iii. any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child,

iv. when a guardian deprives, intentionally or otherwise, a child of necessities such as care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis, if that guardian is capable of providing such;

Obviously we're not concerned here with i, ii, or iv. Does this duplicate iii?

Defines:
1. The deliberate rejection of a child's gender identity or sexual orientation by their parents or guardians as child abuse

My sense is that it's quite easy for member states or terrible doctors therein to define the dysphoria or orientation itself as the problem, and the patient/victim as being delusional/dissociative/aggressive in the face of "care" and "treatment." In such a case, it is not the parent's actions that are being found to cause the trauma, but the tragic "mental illness" of the victim, which is so bad that s/he can't even respond to a parent's loving but firm corrections and attempts to "bring the child back to reality."

It's always been acceptable for a subsequent resolution to cast more detail on some part of an existing resolution (the classic example being marriage and gender rights laws being legal even though COCR exists).

Therefore I would say that this proposal is NOT duplicative of GAR #222, and thus legal in its current state.

-1/6 GenSec

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: I would have thought it's covered by #222, and I don't quite buy SL's explanation of the mental gymnastics necessary to change that, but if that is the eventual GenSec ruling, I'm in favour of covering this specific instance of child abuse.

[Losthaven]

Moving on, let's get back to work here. The legality question stands, - and not the one about genocide, let's not continue that threadjack, - and I'd quite like an answer.

As mentioned above, Losthaven does not think this would duplicate or conflict with GAR #222 because the relevant part of that law prohibits any deliberate act "which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child." The proposal here would regulate FAR FAR more than that because it does not limit itself to acts, much less acts which actually result in harm of one sort or another. At least conceptually, a child could be perfectly happy and unharmed despite a parent's deliberate rejection of their gender identity, and still this proposal would deem the parent an abuser and require removal of the child.

I remain concerned that this proposal in its current form conflicts with Article 1, sec 3 of GAR #35, the Charter of Civil Rights, which prohibits discrimination based on "religion or belief system." I disagree with those who have imbued the phrase "deliberate rejection" with some specialized meaning that omits a person's thoughts, beliefs or convictions. Deliberate rejection of gender identity means only that, after some amount of thought or consideration, the gender identity held by another has been dismissed as invalid. The concept of deliberate rejection does not have some technical meaning that somehow constrains it to describing only overt harmful acts like gaslighting or emotional manipulation. To the extent that it does have such a restricted meaning, then this proposal ought to be illegal for duplicating the provision of GAR #222 prohibiting emotionally or mentally harmful acts against children.

In its current form, this proposal would render a parent an abuser and steal their kids away simply because of the parent's internal resolution to reject a stated gender identity, regardless of what actual actions the parent takes. Indeed, a parent might deliberately reject their child's gender identity but still act in a loving and supportive manner. To use a weak analogy, a parent may deliberately reject the idea that their child will ever be a competent gymnast, but may support the child's pursuit of that ambition fully nonetheless, because they love them and want them to be happy.

It is indisputable (or at least highly likely) that most parents who reject their child's gender identity will have done so because they adhere to religious or cultural belief systems holding that a person's gender identity should conform to that associated with their biological sex. To the extent that this proposal would discriminate against parents under the law merely because of their beliefs and convictions - by rendering them abusers and taking away their children based only on rejection of the child's gender identity - it violates both the text and the spirit of the charter of civil rights.

[Araraukar]

this proposal in its current form

OOC: You know that it has already been stated the work will continue on the contents (that is, the bits you're objecting to as being contradictory), if the idea (that Child Abuse Ban doesn't cover it) is workable. There's no reason to do a lot of work on something with unworkable premise, after all.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
We've dealt with most of the duplication or contradiction questions adequately, I think... but I still think that the definition clause here should call the parental rejection of their child's gender identity or sexual orientation "a form of child abuse", rather than just "child abuse" as at present, to make it clear that you aren't trying to replace the earlier legislation's definition by making this the only form of 'child abuse' now recognized as such by the WA.

There's the question of whether the extra rights given to children in this situation are outweighed by the requirement that all child abusers (not just ones involved in this situation) forfeit custodial rights to the extent that the proper category should be 'Moral Decency' instead, which I'm still inclined to think should be the case.... and whether the balance between those two factors justifies actually an overall strength of 'Strong', rather than 'Significant' instead.