Conversion Therapy and a Survey of 25,896 LGBTQ youth

If you're worried about binding, you should be even more worried about trans boys not being able to use binders:

I'm not sure doing harm to prevent harm is a good way to go about things. I don't know the answers, but this still doesn't sit right.

Funny thing is that I was bullied because I had no boobs, (later puberty) perhaps as society we need to stop being so obsessed with them.

If you don't feel is that you can take Serano's or anyone's word for it, let's be more general.

Do you think that the gender identity which relies on the oppression of women, is healthy to the person who has it? (I've got loads of examples if you need them).

and that a ban on conversion therapy for trans people should be included in upcoming legislation.

Well the Australian Medical Association Queensland successfully campaigned for clarification and changed to the bill that was passed, to clear up some of the many, exhaustive queries made on this thread.

healthlegal.com.au/current-news/conversion-therapy-banned-queensland/

Conversion therapy is a practice that attempts to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Examples include a practice attempting to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity by:

• inducing nausea, vomiting or paralysis while showing the person same-sex images;
• using shame or coercion to give the person an aversion to same-sex attractions or to encourage gender-conforming behaviour;
• using other techniques on the person encouraging the person to believe being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex is a defect or disorder.

[to which every single poster on Mumsnet would say “hear, hear!”]

Notably, conversion therapy does not include a practice by a health service provider that, in the provider’s reasonable professional judgement:

• is part of the clinically appropriate assessment, diagnosis or treatment of a person, or clinically appropriate support for a person; or
• enables or facilitates the provision of a health service for a person in a manner that is safe and appropriate; or
• is necessary to comply with the provider’s legal or professional obligations.

The following are examples of the types of practices to which conversion therapy does not include:

• assisting a person who is undergoing a gender transition; or
• assisting a person who is considering undergoing a gender transition; or
• assisting a person to express their gender identity; or
• providing acceptance, support and understanding of a person; or
• facilitating a person’s coping skills, social support and identity exploration and development.

In addition, the above exclusions will protect practitioners who, acting reasonably, in good faith and in accordance with professional standards, treat a patient in a manner that could be perceived as not affirming or supporting their sexual orientation or gender identity, for example by advising a patient of risks of having surgery when they have a pre-exiting medical condition. [My bold]

I think this is pretty reasonable overall.

Is this what you have in mind?

Despite numerous people, many people, even lurkers, coming out to point out what has now become obvious.

There is never any coherence to any of this. Gender identity is a meaningless phrase.

It can mean a male born individual walking around under the impression that the global degradation of women and girls is sexually arousing. And that's not meant to be harmful to the person holding that in their head??

a ban on conversion therapy for trans people should be included in upcoming legislation

Woah, massive logic leap failure. Laws can have unintended consequences.

Given that we have failed to establish that any "conversion therapy for trans people" is even happening, there does not seem to be any obvious benefit to such a law. But there could be a cost.

But we do know - lots of examples in the thread above - that there are people who will stretch the definition of "conversion therapy" to "treating gender dysphoria as a mental health condition".

So given that one of the key ways to avoid people like Keira Bell undergoing unnecessary physical harm is addressing mental health, we need to be absolutely clear that such a law would in no way preclude normal therapy for people to overcome their gender dysphoria. Which will mean them potentially deciding they're not trans.

We have to be absolutely clear that "people deciding they're not trans" due to therapy is a potentially desirable outcome for many individuals. (And by genderology logic it's not "conversion" anyway because as they often claim about Keira - "she was never really trans", just as trans people were always trans.)

Now, if the law was specific like "no electroshock treatment", and other specific things, then maybe I could be persuaded. But you'd have to work pretty hard to convince me that the potential downside from blocking potentially-good treatments outweighed the upside of blocking bad ones no-one is doing anyway.

There is a massive existing problem of psychiatrists feeling themselves constrained to be affirmation-only, to the detriment of their patients. It's a very common view among detransitioners that they were not challenged enough, and that's why they made the mistake of thinking they were trans. That's a real problem, which extra constraints can only make worse.

Personally, I believe such laws are intended to make that problem worse and further constrain psychiatrists from good treatment, and this is not just an "unintended side-effect" - it's the religious trying to impose their world view on the scientific. Others can draw their own conclusions.

Despite numerous people, many people, even lurkers, coming out to point out what has now become obvious.

If you're worried about binding, you should be even more worried about trans boys not being able to use binders:

www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2020/?section=Supporting-Transgender-Nonbinary-Youth

As was pointed out to you on a previous thread about pronoun use, that survey report does not provide enough data to make it possible to conclude that there is a direct causal link between a lack of gender-affirming actions by others and adverse psychological effects for trans young people.

What about Jacob Tobia, another trans author, who says women around the world are treated as sex objects, and if it's so awful, 'why do I want that so badly' ?

Or are you now saying we have to ask everyone individually? We can't just take their word for it?

Why can't we take their word for it suddenly?

Didn't you post a rebuttal from Serrano? Or have you realised that person has a pretty problematic view of what it is to be a woman.

Shock.

I am grateful to Evarish for giving actual examples of what constitutes conversion therapy as that is what has been asked for for pages and pages of discussion.

Absolutely, if this is what is meant by conversion therapy then no. It's not right. It is harmful and should be banned entirely.

However, I also question the 'remove support and isolate' claim in that many parents are very concerned about the grooming of young people online and can entirely see why a parent may choose to limit or supervise online access in those cases. If that is what is meant by 'isolating' then I think it needs further definition.

Also binding. I would be quite horrified if my DD wanted to bind her breasts as it can cause quite serious bodily harm in the long term and I would have major worries if she wanted to do this. Of course, there would be no question of denying her food, that is horrific, but I would want a serious conversation and would express my concerns and try to persuade her not to do it. Is that conversion therapy? Or just parenting?

Not only does it seem so, the implication is clear that posters are phobic for saying “Your birth gender is female so you’re a female.”

I want to add that I think it has been has already asked of the poster stating that claim to clarify if the statement references ‘gender’ or ‘sex’.

Because sex cannot be changed and is very reliably determined at birth now. Despite some posts in this thread.

While sex and gender has been used interchangeably in the past, since the rise of consciousness that some people have a gender identity, it cannot be asked to respect someone’s gender if it remains interchangeable with sex.

So, I read this statement as

“Your birth (sex) is female so you’re a female.”

But I am happy to be corrected by the poster when they come back with the links.

I think the pp may have been liberally reinterpreting things they heard said. For example
“You’re claiming to be trans because you like girls.”
Could be the fact that with watchful waiting, many trans identifying children desist and instead grow up into gay or lesbian adults. For a poster who thinks gender identity is innate, that person would only have been "claiming to be trans"; for gender critical posters that person's dysphoria was just as real as any other person's dysphoria, as dysphoria /is/ the feeling of discomfort with your body, rather than being a mismatch between sex and some internal gender switch of which discomfort is only a symptom.

I have been thinking more on this group of quotes from Evarish.

“Your birth gender is female so you’re a female.”
“You’re just saying this because you think it makes it easier to pick up women.”
“Going by different pronouns isn’t allowed here.”
"You're insecure because you're fat."
“You’re claiming to be trans because you like girls.”

Is this where someone alludes a statement that is reasonable and incontrovertible is not because of the statements around it?

Not only does it seem so, the implication is clear that posters are phobic for saying “Your birth gender is female so you’re a female.” .

It also is not hard to find statements that you cannot change sex all over Mumsnet, so the implication that the others are also common so the reader who has not spent a lot of time on Mumsnet needs to look no further?

Personally, I don’t agree with the last three statements, but neither have I seen them used on MN.

We already have one poster on this thread making up statements for others, I look forward to Evarish coming back to show us where those last three statements are made (with links so we can see the context) .

@Evarish

Your two posts about conversion therapy are very interesting. I’d like to break them down if possible.

Firstly you’ve given examples of what conversion therapy might entail. Let’s look at those in reverse:

To wilderness programs in which LGBTQ+ youth are dubbed to be "troublesome", forced to physically straining activities under constant badgering until they relinquish the "troublesome behaviour" of existing as an LGBTQ+ person

Electrocutive torture, involving electrocuting someone while displaying 'unwanted' images or narrating 'unwanted' behaviour to them so they'll associate any thoughts regarding their sexuality or gender with trauma.

There is not a single poster here who would agree that either of these are anything other than barbaric practices that shouldn’t happen.

using any negative experience a person had in the past, and any diagnosis they have, as the 'reason' someone is trans or gay (such as fabrications that someone diagnosed with BPD only claiming to be trans because they want attention, or someone diagnosed with autism only being convinced they're gay because they're confused about friendship and relationships), and how recovering from trauma (even if the person wasn't or is no longer traumatized or the trauma is irrelevant to their orientation or gender) will 'cure' them from being trans or gay

Can you expand on this? Many detransitioners report their actions being in direct response to trauma or abuse. So while no one should force someone into the belief that the reason is definitely due to this, do you think it is ok to discuss trauma and the role it might be playing in the presentation of a teenage girl or young woman? Because experience tells us it does play a role.

cutting them off from support, isolating them, denying them any thought that they are their sexuality/gender, forcing them through stereotypical activities to reinforce their sexuality/gender, otherwise attacking the 'delusion' that they are their sexuality/gender.

What does “cutting off support” mean? Of course people should be supported, but if a teenager told the Trevor Project that “my parents stopped me going on Tumblr” and perceived that as “cutting off support” and hence “conversion therapy” is that a reasonable complaint? Does “cutting off support” only apply to cutting off those who are affirming everything?

I would agree that “forcing them through stereotypical activities” would be wrong, so by that measure doesn’t it also follow that forcibly viewing a child’s interest in opposite sex stereotypical activities as a sign they’re trans, even being part of the diagnostic criteria, also count as reinforcement? If a girl plays with trucks, isn’t the idea they’re a boy being reinforced by health professionals?

I would also wait to see your examples of what posters on Mumsnet have advocated. Withholding food to stop someone binding? That’s a pretty awful accusation, I hope you reported it or have a link to it. You have also used plenty of “you’re” in your examples, as if people here are directly addressing a trans person and as such are partaking in “conversion therapy” by a) engaging with them directly and b) posting the examples you gave.

If a person points out Eddie Izzard’s sex on Twitter and uses sex-based pronouns, are they partaking in conversion therapy?

Look forward to your replies and links.

I've ploughed through a lot of the pages I'd missed, and amongst all Shizuku's repetitive guff, one sentence stood out:

Trans people are not deluded about their sex characteristics

And that's partly right: the old-school transexxuals many of us have known for years are not in the slightest bit deluded about the fact that they are male, and have male bodies and male genitals. For almost all of these, this is what triggers their dysphoria and leads them to seek to try and reject their masculinity.

However, Shizuku seems to be a bit sheltered from the current state of affairs, which has countless mainstream trans activists insisting that, for example, their male genitals are female, that they are "simply an enlarged clitoris" or "it's a woman's penis - completely different from a man's penis". For the tiny minority who have had bottom surgery, an alarming number are insisting that their surgically-contructed orifices are exactly the same in every biological aspect as a woman's vagina. If these trans activists truly believe this, then it is hard to find another word to describe this apart from "deluded".

Interesting programme on conversion therapy just finished now on BBC Radio 4.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000sz1y

Reasonably balanced, including some experts urging caution and the need to be very clear on what is included in the definition of "conversion therapy" means before legislating against it.

Very interesting thread, and I’m basically place marking here as there are some posts I’d like to read again.

I’ve found this thread to be excellent, and very educational. Many thanks to patient posters - there are lurkers reading your well reasoned posts even if the OP isn’t.

Also place marking for when Evarish comes back with those links. That post on conversion therapy was very worrying. I would be very interested to learn more and to know what action Evarish has taken against such awful practices.

Gah rogue apostrophe! "Mums talking" of course.

Could not agree more Datun.

Sexist people do seem to hear "mum's talking" and think coffee morning for a nice but dim dinner lady and laundry provider, who can only be interested in discussing prams, recipes and lipstick with other mums and even then they probably need some guidance from men and 22yo lib-fems to avoid being a dreadful "Karen" or a plain old silly billy.

One thing this thread has highlighted to me is the lack of research into outcomes for gender non-conforming children in later life.

There would be a plenty of evidence. Lots of different levels of acceptance and / or treatments in different families in different decades. What a great source!

There are many adults alive today who were gender non-conforming as children. Depending on the age of the person today they may have grown up in a time period when homosexuality was illegal, or when it had become much more acceptable in the UK to be gay or lesbian. Recognition of bisexuality has evolved too, when I was a youngster there was a popular belief that people claiming to be bi were actually gays in denial.

Even decades ago some people became transsexuals. For decades a minority of people have presented as extreme butch or femme (sometimes in line with society's expectations sometimes opposite). Androgyny has been a thing for years.

Some gnc kids turned out to be homosexual, some straight. Some became gc later, some never did. Some feel repressed, some don't.

Some people socially "transitioned" to present as the opposite sex and reject their sex back when it wasn't called transition and wasn't assumed to be permanent (every child understood George from The Famous Five getting on for a hundred years ago).

The treatment pathways official and unofficial were different in the past.

There is such a potential wealth of data on outcomes for British gender non-conforming people that it is shocking there hasn't been large scale research that spanned the time of George Famous Five through Martina Navratilova up to Buck Angel and Elliot Page.

I wonder why not? Surely it would be a great help for differential diagnosis and treatment selection?