Parliamentary debate on Monday to ban gay conversion therapy

Sorry

I wasn't hearing 'sex-u-alidee' till you mentioned it and now I can't not hear it. Bad AbsintheFriends!

Doesn't this just expose the lack of logic and science and sense of gender ideology? They're underlining how hormones remove sexual desire. Isn't that what we're doing to 'trans' children who are given affirmative treatment?

The Nazis burned the "queer library of Alexandria"!

Queer people this, queer people that, here's the self-declared queer historian again!

Call me trivial but the way she says 'sex-u-alidee' is getting right on my nerves

Let's listen together!

Sorry nauticant cross posted the link

Apparently 7% of LGBTQI+ people have encountered conversion therapy practices. That goes up to 13% for trans people.

The first example of appalling conversion therapy is a gay bloke being forced to have hormone shots. Irony is dead.

Now up, the self-declared queer presenter interviews a self-declared queer historian.

Programme about this on Radio 4 right now.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_fourfm

What a surprise - presented by a 'trans queer person'.

This is about to be covered on Radio 4:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000sz1y

As conversion therapy facing a UK ban, Caitlin Benedict explores the heinous practices that LGBT+ people were subjected to with the guise of changing their sexuality.

Since they've investigated this for a 30 minute documentary, let's see if the BBC give examples of conversion therapy applied to gender identity.

The so-called 'gender identity conversion therapy' case that Elliot Colburn mentioned in the opening speech, concerning Carolyn, whilst horrifying, is from 1964. Rather disingenuous of him not to mention that:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49344152

Meanwhile, the delightful Crispin Blunt has a go at us and LGB Alliance. How dare we stand up for our rights!

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/5577ccbe-d3a1-4dd0-a1d6-81e81a3cea92?in=18:34:50&out=18:35:26

www.transgendertrend.com/memorandum-of-understanding-on-conversion-therapy-full-expose/

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4139466-CAPTURED-The-Full-Story-Behind-The-Memorandum-of-Understanding-on-Conversion-Therapy

"The core working party of 8 included Meg-John Barker, then working in academia with an interest in gender theory, polyamorous identities, kink and BDSM.
Barker has co-authored works with Christina Richards and Darren Langdridge, both also in the working party. Dr Christina Richards is currently Lead Consultant Psychologist, Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and a member of the BPS prescribing rights group. Richards, who is trans, openly uses activist language even when writing job specifications for the Tavistock clinic."

"James Caspian was also acting as a consultant to the wider group of organisations working on the MoU. He confirms that Stephanie Davies-Arai's letter was read out at the MOU review meeting in March when all the stakeholders were round the table, but that the atmosphere in meetings, dominated by activists, was toxic: " There are lots of activists within the LGBT community and I sensed that everyone was scared of them." Pressure to agree to the addition of gender identity was intense and he was subject to a long intimidating phone call by a member of Pink Therapy who demanded if Caspian was going to "block affirm."

*I am confused - the terrible treatment suffered by some gay people in the name of conversion therapy amounts to assault and torture - these are already against the law. The offence of common assault would presumably cover even mild ‘conversion therapy’ and harassment charges would cover the prayer and other verbal problems.

So why do we need legislation specifically for conversion therapy? (Genuine question- I know people on here have personal experience and I would’ve interested to hear their feelings about it*

The current situation relies on victim reporting. A good, strong legislative approach would outlaw advertising of services, discussion of CT as a 'good thing' by those who practice it (say on church blogs) and it would allow anyone to report, not just a victim. Plus, I'm not sure that a case has ever been brought/won using those mechanisms.

I prefer 'gay and lesbian people' as well becaise it does happen to women - I know a young woman who suffers PTSD as a result.

I am confused - the terrible treatment suffered by some gay people in the name of conversion therapy amounts to assault and torture - these are already against the law. The offence of common assault would presumably cover even mild ‘conversion therapy’ and harassment charges would cover the prayer and other verbal problems.

So why do we need legislation specifically for conversion therapy? (Genuine question- I know people on here have personal experience and I would’ve interested to hear their feelings about it).

Is the legislation being proposed completely unnecessary (because it is all covered by existing offences) and is it being pushed forward now for one reason only? The people pushing this forward don’t seem to have much interest in the lives and welfare of gay people in general so why are they do bothered about this? The BBC mention arcane tortures like being strapped into a chair and electrocuted - is that seriously still happening in the UK?

It has been suggested upthread that this legislation is a Trojan horse which I agree with but I’m beginning to wonder if that is literally all it is?

Mentioned on 5 Live this morning (which was the first I'd heard about it ) and my ears pricked up at the presenter saying 'conversion therapy for sexuality and gender identity'. Big. Red. Flag.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56284422 - reported on bbc

I hadn't realised this was a petition debate - that makes more sense now.

This sort of law has happened in other countries recently, but only because there's less awareness of what's going on.

The chances of passing it now with "gender identity" in there in the UK seem very slim to me (and I'm not naturally that optimistic).

Maybe Scotland might, given the state of the SNP... I guess maybe my optimism is founded on the Conservatives being in charge, rather than Labour.

We're going to have to hope - and try to make sure - that this stuff gets blown apart sufficiently in the next few years that Labour do not feel any remaining desire go all Biden/Sturgeon by the time they next get their turn at the wheel.

I think this debate is going nowhere. It's now an also ran, the only reason it is being debated is because of numbers as treats says. We all know that wait and see will produce positive results eventually for gay kids. TRA's don't want this, they want affirmation.

Parliament need to hear the stories of de-transitioners. I hope de-transitioners ask for support on here and with the groups. crowdfund. write letters. campaign. petition. whatever it takes.

Crispin et al want the Australian Victoria ‘conversion practices’ bill, which:

• makes it an offence for all but a narrow range of medical practitioners to refuse to support or affirm a person's claimed gender identity

• 10 years in prison and could be fined as much as $200,000 (£110,000)

Holly Lawford-Smith has warned the UK about this

It’s a petition debate. You can set up a petition on the Parliament website and if you get 100,000+ signatures, it will be considered for a Parliamentary debate. It doesn’t mean that there’s going to be a Bill. Eliot Colburn is a member of the Petitions Committee which is why he opened the debate. The Petitions committee selects the Petitions that will be debated.

I assume a Bill is going to come out of this. It's going to be a load of apparent sense with a great big Trojan Horse bolted onto it.

Yes.

And there'll be a lot of people and organisations including the HoL going ooh look at that great big Trojan Horse. Let's unpack that shall we? Ooh look at the issues there.

And how telling someone who is gay, that they are the opposite sex, and therefore they are not gay, isn't conversion therapy. As testified by people at the absolute coalface in the Tavistock.

Sorry, I know I'm quoting my own post.

But this hypothetical person, will still be attracted to people of the same sex.

But now they have lost the words for, and the protection of, sexual orientation.

Is the baroness on the case, does anyone know?

Including the House of Lords.

Yes, of course. I forgot that.