Conversion Therapy and a Survey of 25,896 LGBTQ youth

It crosses the line when you are trying to change a person's gender identity, so you can be as supportive as you like, help them deal with any and all comorbidities, help them come to terms with any and all the traumas they may or may not have suffered, but don't try to change their gender identity.

But we still don't have a definition of what a gender identity is, how it can be changed or what would change in a person's life if they did change their gender identity.

@Shizuku, can you explain clearly what conversion therapy to change someone's 'gender identity' would look like? There is one part of the description which you posted which I really don't understand.

"Conversion therapy refers to any of several dangerous and discredited practices aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. For example, that could mean attempting to change someone’s sexual orientation from lesbian, gay, or bisexual to straight or their gender identity from transgender or nonbinary to cisgender. And it could include efforts to change a person’s gender expression (to make a person act more stereotypically masculine or feminine, for example), or to reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward a person of the same gender."

What does it mean to "change someone’s gender identity from transgender or nonbinary to cisgender"? This is listed separately from their gender expression (which is a term I do understand - although I wish there were no such thing and we could all wear/do what we wanted to without having such a label), so it's not about outward appearance.

There seems to be no distinction in the vague definition of conversion therapy here, though.

Do you think it would have been criminal for an adult to try to talk Keira Bell out of transitioning when she was a teenager?

In the absence of a definitive test (ideally medical based since much of the 'treatment' for trans identification is medically based), to establish exactly what has caused a particular child to settle on a particular 'gender identity' I think we have to assume it is totally subjective and also possible to influence and therefore can't legislate one way or another re. gender identity.

Some are more blatant than others - a little boy who likes dolls but his parents take them away and say that those toys are for girls could apply child logic and think he is really a girl. If a trusted parent continually tells a child that if they do x then it means they are an xyz, then that child may well believe them.

That is why we are encouraged not to label children by behaviour - I have never labelled my kids as 'the bright one' 'the grumpy one' etc because these labels inform the child's view of themselves and they can feel internal pressure to live up to that image.

We have specific examples of parents so determined that their child will not grow up gay or lesbian that they end up influencing them to be trans. Do we have any specific examples of parents influencing children in any other direction?

Unlike feelings of sexual attraction which are objectively measurable (pupil dilation, heart rate etc), feelings of having a gender are not measurable. One's gender identity is more like one's religious creed it seems to me.

Some people change religion (or become atheist). Not many but it definitely happens. I am sure we all know a few people who converted from one religion to another, or lost faith, or maybe left their childhood religion then bounced around lots of different faiths, some quite obscure.

Changing religion is big deal to adherents of a faith. There are special negative words like apostate and heretic. Some religions refuse to acknowledge conversion, you are only lapsed not lost.

Adherents to the faith react badly to apostates and heretics, including ones they don't know personally. Odd given that there is no way to objectively know which faith, if any, is true.

Why such negativity then? Often a disciple's life is built around their faith being The Truth. When someone who is in the faith, who understands the faith, decides it is not The Truth, well that can be dreadfully destabilising to the disciples. They may feel anger. They may feel unsafe in their own belief. Others may start to question. All faiths are inherently unprovable which is why they require faith, why they are beliefs not facts. Questioning is dangerous to the religion. There is no guarantee that the questioner will decide that this unprovable faith is the right one for them once they start to think about it.

In some countries it is a serious criminal offence to encourage someone to change religion. A person who does convert will face very serious consequences.

In this country we made a choice to step away from that approach. The bloodshed and burnings weren't what we wanted.

As a person who left a religion (for atheism via another religion first) I feel a tremendous sense of familiarity in how some trans activists talk about conversion and gender identity.

I don't want to see missionaries banned. I don't want to see groups offering introduction to faith for the questioning to be banned. Force and threats: bad. Talking, questioning, thinking: good.

However it is still problematic, to the point where it is still not possible to draw the conclusion that conversion therapy, as defined by the Trevor Project, causes an increase in suicide attempts.

Data on suicide attempts was time-limited, based on the following survey question:
“During the past 12 months, how many times did you actually attempt suicide?”

Data on conversion therapy had no such time limitations, but referred to lifetime experience, based on the following survey question:
“Have you ever undergone reparative therapy or conversion therapy?”

From these data, there is no way of distinguishing from these data WHEN the suicide attempt occurred relative to the conversion therapy. For all we know, some of those participants attempted suicide BEFORE undergoing conversion therapy. There is simply no way of knowing from the data collected.

(That's even before we get to other problematic issues, e.g.:

• there is no indication in the paper that the terms "reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy" were defined in the survey, or that the difference between the terms was explained at all
• LGBTQ participants were only considered as a single group, with no separation between LGB conversion therapy and T conversion therapy)

I'm not here to debate your definitions, or do your additional research for you

Bet you a dollar, Shizuku that every single woman on this thread has done a ton more research than you. We don't need you to do "additional research" - though we are always interested in proper data. Which you have not yet provided.

And definitions are important, especially when you are trying to analyse data. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the problems.

So many therapists at the Tavistock have said that transitioning is the behaviour of someone trying to address an underlying problem or issue.

What Shizuku appears to be proposing is that you can address the underlying problem, but must try and retain the symptom, for ideological reasons.

Transition is not a sexual orientation. There are numerous reasons for people to transition, from AGP, to sexual trauma, to internalised or imposed homophobia.

This determination to couple it to LGB is wearing rather thin.

The reason the T issue is so very different from the LGB issue is that homosexuality was finally (thankfully) deemed not to be a medical or mental health issue - so medicalising it stopped.

The absolute opposite of true of the T. It is completely medicalised whether or not it should be. And no one seems to be allowed to look for a different solution.

We are told the gender identity is exactly like homosexuality. It is not an illness, it is a fact.

So why the medicine to treat it? And why would you not want the best medicine possible? What if the medical community discovered that no one needs to go through these procedures - it actually is exactly like being gay and you don't need to be 'fixed' medically. You can just be yourself and be accepted. Isn't that the best outcome?

It was for the gay community.

It crosses the line when you are trying to change a person's gender identity, so you can be as supportive as you like, help them deal with any and all comorbidities, help them come to terms with any and all the traumas they may or may not have suffered, but don't try to change their gender identity.

Well. This is better. But it still has some issues. However, it is also much more nuanced than the other statements of definition that you have posted. Can you see that?

So, how do you then address an instance where treatment for that comorbidity then inadvertently means that person no longer identifies as the other sex? And the patient is happy with their progress and no longer feels the degree of poor mental health they had.

Is that good therapy, or conversion therapy?

Trying to find a cure for crippling gender dysphoria? Also 'conversion therapy'.

Research into detransitioning? Also 'conversion therapy'.

Not giving experimental drugs to legally unconsenting minors? I'm guessing that might also be construed as 'conversion therapy'.

Utterly transparent.

Conversion therapy" refers to any form of treatment or psychotherapy which aims to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

Shizuku

It's well documented that young women who have suffered from sexual trauma will sometimes identify as male, in order to avoid more trauma in the future.

One such woman came out as a transman. It was patently obvious to her therapist why, since she had been raped by her father for years. She spoke of imagining that if she could remove her vagina, she would remove the abuse.

After therapy, she concluded, as had the therapist, that her reason for transitioning was trauma. And so she stopped. And started talking about it to other young women.

This comes under your definition of 'conversion therapy'.

A woman whose husband is AGP, and wants him to stop, also comes under your definition of 'conversion therapy'.

Pretending it's the same as trying to persuade a homosexual that they are heterosexual, is pushing an agenda that is fairly obvious for everyone to see.

Can research into gender identity, or research into correlations of characteristics or events with gender identity, ever properly be called scientific if there is no such thing as gender identity?

OK, some people claim to have a gender identity, but as far as I can see no-one has yet managed an informative (non-circular) explanation of what 'gender identity' means. Likewise, there seems to be no scientific way of determining gender identity.

Some deny the existence of gender identity, indeed. Is there any evidence they are mistaken?

There are those who claim to possess a gender identity, just as though there are those who claim to possess an immortal soul or a human energy field (an 'aura'). And, indeed, it may be worth considering traumas suffered by those who are told their auras are mythical, perhaps particularly young people so advised. But assimilating that to (so-called) 'conversion 'therapy'' inflicted on gay people would be unconscionable, would it not?

Ok. I'm reading your definition and trying to see how it works in real life scenarios. There is no situation where trying to change someone's sexuality would be appropriate.

However, say a child comes to an adult saying they feel they are really a boy, having been born a girl.

The adult asks why they believe this (is that question allowed, or is it conversion therapy? We don't know. There is no clear definition).

The child says that don't want to have their hair long. They want it short like the boys. They want to play football and all of their friends are boys. They feel like a boy.

The adult says that girls can do and be all of those things and talks to the peer group about how girls and boys can do and be whatever they want and no bullying or mean comments will be tolerated.

Child feels happier and accepted as a girl who likes to play with the boys.

Has this child been converted? We're does exploring the root causes of the wish to change sex become an attempt to dissuade?

How should these situations play out?

It crosses the line when you are trying to change a person's gender identity,

I doubt many here are concerned about people's gender identities. It's up to the individual isn't it how they present /feel. It crosses a line when laws/safeguards/ logic and common sense are pushed aside for this.

Could you please stop ascribing opinions and statements that seem to imply 'transphobia' to me that I am not saying.

Goodness you don't answer any of the questions do you op. Smoke and mirrors all the way. Shadows and subterfuge.

What do you think conversion therapy is? I think all people that want to medically transition need emotional support / counselling, and a watchful waiting approach to make sure they have enough time to make a decision about something that is not reversible and potentially extremely damaging to health.

This is evident from the people who thought they needed to transition, and later, when it was too late, realised the decision was wrong for them.

I further believe that to push someone down the road of medical tranistion without exploring why, is in itself conversion therapy. Medically/surgically altering people's bodies without exploring why this is the right option is dangerous, poor practice, without any consideration to legal safeguards and statutory duty. So conversion therapy in this sense is wrong.
Emotional support / counselling is however good practice.

Gay conversion therapy and T conversion therapy are not the same thing. Stop conflating the two to legitimise the cause.

At this point, the only evidence you have is that conversion therapy is harmful.

This is either incredibly naive, or disingenuous. It is known that certain conversion therapies are incredibly harmful.

Please stop with the all or nothing style of debate.

If you want to ignore it and campaign to allow the practice to continue for LGB people or trans people or both, then that's on you.

This post is incredibly offensive and it shows that you are not actually reading with any sense of an open mind. You are coming across as intractably pushing an agenda with the constant 'all or nothing' statements and no actual discussion.

I am NOT ignoring the needs of LGB or T people by stating that this very study is an awareness campaign study and it is not fit for basing UK policy around this very complex issue on. IT IS NOT ON ME!

If you want people to take you seriously, you need to post evidence that conversion therapy on trans people is either harmful or beneficial.

I don't think that I am the poster on this thread that has a credibility issue. At all.

"Trans conversion therapy would be any "therapy" that attempts to change a trans person's gender identity to match the sex they were assigned at birth."

And I commented, and others too, that this is too broad and can and HAS been misused in the context of in-depth psychotherapy that treats underlying co-morbidities. Where is the line where it crosses? And I even posted twice, clinician's opinions to how this impacts on the quality of care for trans people.

Or take this one from yesterday's BBC article:

""Conversion therapy" refers to any form of treatment or psychotherapy which aims to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity."

This too too, is too broad and can and HAS been misused in the context of in-depth psychotherapy that treats underlying co-morbidities. Where is the line where it crosses? And I even posted twice, clinician's opinions to how this impacts on the quality of care for trans people.

Here's another from Stonewall:

"Conversion therapy (or ‘cure’ therapy or reparative therapy) refers to any form of treatment or psychotherapy which aims to change a person’s sexual orientation or to suppress a person’s gender identity. It is based on an assumption that being lesbian, gay, bi or trans is a mental illness that can be ‘cured’. These therapies are both unethical and harmful."

And again. This does not address what is allowable as pyschotherapy. There is a whole lot of nuance that cannot be condensed into statements that are as simplistic as you want them to be.

There are many therapies that are intentional conversion therapies and are unethical and harmful. We know this. We have regular posters on this very thread that experienced them first hand.

But, what is a conversion therapy and what is a positive psychotherapy that allows a person to be comfortable with their body as it is or with changes, but to have their underlying mental health issues resolved enough to be no longer suicidal.

None of this also acknowledges the needs of the female children or teenagers that have complex mental health needs.

DO YOU have a solution to propose?

Meanwhile, you are also completely ignoring your whole point of your other posts.

This questionnaire is NOT good evidence.

Are you in favour of banning conversion therapy? If so would you only ban doing it to LGB people, or would you want to ban doing it to trans people too?

Please stop with the all or nothing simplistic arguments.

If you cannot read nuance, if you cannot actually go and read the posts people are posting, maybe this style of forum is not for you.

Or.....

you could go back and answer some of the many question asked including some from me asking YOU to clarify what conversion therapy is in relation to LGB and what conversion therapy is in relation to T.