Conversion Therapy and a Survey of 25,896 LGBTQ youth

I confess that I have a problem with statistics that are ambiguous being used around such important issues such as suicide.

The fact that this is a high risk category cannot be disputed. However, it is very important to be very clear about the facts, the causes, the timing even.

For instance, it states nowhere how many of those participants in the 57% had also medically transitioned. There is no clarity about WHY these participants, who are very human, feel this way.

These studies seem to be dangerous as they are not reliable explainers of the complex mental health conditions faced by these patients, vs those who are LGB, vs those who are heterosexual.

It is vital to get the right messages out and to communicate accurately.

midgedude:
No I think most people can see that trans identities exist

No, with regard to children, I think some people think they can see that trans identities exist. But they are wrong, because there is no such thing as a trans child.

We disagree. OK, so let us look at the case. First, we need to be clear about what we are talking about. What is a trans child, exactly?

( Please : try to avoid talk of stereotypes. And try to avoid circularity in explanation.)

No I think most people can see that trans identities exist

The questions are more ...what does that mean in practise ?

And

what is the best way of supporting people who are suffering because of the mismatch between their identity and their sex ?

To which , the first question , people should be allowed to express themselves freely, support should be made available if they suffer discrimination as a result of their identity, statistics and science could be used to see if gender identity affects anything in particular . But without evidence that transpeople behave like their chosen sex and unlike their actual sex , then there is no reason to treat gender as equivalent to sex

And to the second question, well For me, being supported , being helped to recognise that there is nothing wrong with me, that I am normal , that I don't need to live by anyone else's preconceptions , there is, no need for life changing medicalisation , this all has helped me live a happy and healthy life . Even if sometimes I still have bad spells of disgust with myself, I know now what causes that , how to handle that .

Of course it's about stereotypes. What else can it be about? How does a child look at A group and B group and say yep I'm definitely B group even though my parents said I was A? Because B group and A group dress and act in different ways on average. Because stereotypes. From reading many many stories of trans ID kids, it's always stereotypes. Often stereotypes heavily backed by parents trying to enforce them. It can work the other way though, fiercely anti-stereotype parents bringing up a child who then gets repeatedly labelled as opposite sex by sexist society until they internalise that message.

Maybe stereotypes about appearance, or skills and interests, or who you are attracted to, or how people treat you. That doesn't mean a child who identifies as trans will instantly adopt all stereotypes of the opposite sex - nobody is 100% one set of stereotypes or other.

But it doesn't matter if it is all or most. If even some trans identifying children are saying they are to run away from stereotyped expectations rather than any real dysphoria, is that not something that should be explored with them before medical intervention?

HPFA:
Well, someone saying "well, of course you're a girl/boy - go away and don't be so stupid" would be very harmful - I'm sure anyone on the board would agree with that.

This is way over the top. Sure enough, 'stupid' would not be a good word to use to a child. But there are obviously many circumstances in which the appropriate response to a child might be along the lines of, 'Don't be so silly, of course you are a boy/girl.' (You might follow this with, for instance, 'Let's see what Big Ted has to say ... Hmm, yes, Big Ted says ...')

Sometimes a little bit of common sense can go a long way. And sometimes it looks as though certain posters have only met children in books or on Twitter, if at all.

Oh, and there is no such thing as a 'trans child'. If you want real evidence for this claim, this very thread provides some:

The OP has been asked many times to say what one such might be, but has failed to do so (while rabbiting about 'it's not about stereoptypes ...'). That such an obviously committed person committed to the existence of 'trans' children is wholly unable clearly (and non-circularly) to explain what a trans child is , is really persuasive evidence that there is no such thing. If there were such a thing, such a person would surely be able to explain what it was. No?

What you will find is that any science that in anyway supports trans identities or affirmation of those identities will be dismissed on here - too foreign, too old, the trans people are lying, it's big pharma, etc etc,

Too Foreign- yes, it is important that we use UK data when discussing UK issues. I am not sure what is controversial about that because it is very apparent that the UK has a better record of rights compared to somewhere such as the USA, the culture is also quite different. I have also pointed out there are differences between the UK and Australia in relation to numbers etc.

Too old - in the UK there has been significant changes (and elsewhere in the world) regarding a) the demographics of those seeking treatment for this condition, there is a very high prevalence of young females, and a high proportion of those have underlying co-morbities. It really does make 'Too old' studies and data rather meaningless to be applied to the current cohort. And yes, 2017 publications may well be insignificant.

Trans people are lying - not really something I have seen much of here on this thread. We have pointed out the bias in the Trevor project data because it is self-selected AND that some terms are left undefined and are rather ambiguous for such an important study. No?

Also, it seems that clinicians with decades of experience are often discredited by trans people when those clinicians disagree with theories that are being erroneously pushed as fact.

Big Pharma - well, there is probably a whole lot of abiding suspicion around this considering which Pharma companies and their representatives have been heavily involved from the start. It certainly is not without foundation and these companies have not donated their drugs or research at all.

but never-the-less I am sure there are many lurkers here who have open minds or are trans supportive, so it's good to put the information out.

It is great to get the information out, and discussed robustly and critically. If data cannot be critically evaluated and still remain standing to support the point a poster is making, then it is not likely to be robust enough.

For instance, Dr Hilton and Tommy Lundberg's recent review of 11 studies into transwomen and the inclusion in sport, was just confirmed by another review done by Harper (a transwoman) and their associates. Those conclusions have also been supported by at least one other completely different and independent study in between these releases. That is what is great about very clearly stated data that has passed methodology reviews etc.

If being trans is all about gender stereotypes, how could trans girls who are tomboys exist? Why would Charlie Martin be a Racing Driver? Why would Fallon Fox be a martial artist? Why would a close trans friend of mine be a butch lesbian?

I am surprised that people would think being trans is just about stereotypes in a forum where trans people are discussed so extensively.

Your phrasing is somewhat confusing, but just in general, we know that early-onset transsexuals are not the same as late-onset transsexuals. The former present gender atypical in early childhood, while the latter are very gender typical in early childhood, as teenagers and often until middle age, typically chosing very stereotypical jobs, too.

That the latter do tend to choose to embody a whole range of feminine-coded stereotypes once they come out as trans is undeniable, but irrelevant to your chosen thread topic, which was children.

Children diagnosed with gender dysphoria in childhood are typically referred because they prefer to embody the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with the opposite sex. We object to any claim that this means a child is trans.

And if you're so upset about a connection being made between a person's preferences for the sex stereotypes of the opposite sex and a transgender identity, then you should take it up with trans rights organisations worldwide who teach people that there is such a connection. Who've written it into teaching materials used in schools.

It's not us making the claim that rejecting the stereotypes associated with one's own sex means a person is really the opposite sex and therefore trans. We reject that claim wholeheartedly.

I think the problem with the OP is it is more about proving feminists wrong than it is about caring about the medical and psychological trauma of young people.

Absolutely.

Again, children need a fully holistic care approach, giving them some pills and sending them on their way is not the answer. You say the children have suicidal ideation because of 'conversion therapy' but will not acknowledge that there might be a whole load of other stuff going on, a bottle of pills will not change other things they are dealing with.

It actually makes me sad and angry that so many think that a child saying they are the opposite gender means that they should just be given pills and surgery no questions asked. Pills which are being used off-label and known to have negative side effects. Why would you actively want this?

How many of this number were given 'conversion therapy' (as undefined by this study) and then subsequently attempted suicide with religion being a major factor?

Sadly, there is too little detail in this Trevor study to analyse it well enough considering it also was a self-selecting study and these also have a self-selection bias, if I remember my market research units at University correctly.

However, the OP

As the banning of conversion therapy is currently being debated, it might be useful for members of this group to see a survey of 25,896 LGBTQ youth which found that 57% of transgender and non-binary youth who have undergone conversion therapy report a suicide attempt in the last year

while is correct, is very misleading. For balance, as Awiltu states, it is 243 participants.

Still high, and should be looked into as to how to get this rate lower.

There are too many questions around the definitions though and the results then lose meaningfulness.

Gay conversion is about trying to change who you are attracted to, so transition cannot be gay conversion

Shizuku, if a parent brings their kid along to a gender clinic because they'd rather have a "straight" son than a lesbian daughter, it's gay conversion therapy. You ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

And please stop assuming that women on this forum haven't done their "research". This isn't some dry academic theorising to us here, or talking points. It's our lives. Many of us here have spent literally decades examining the interaction between how we are treated as girls and women in a misogynistic world, and how we view ourselves as a result. A number of us here have lived with dysphoria. Quite a few of us are lesbian or bi. Lots of us (most of us? all of us?) are gender nonconfomring in some way. Your assumption that we are new to this, or are coming into this as outsiders, is as offensive as it is wrong.

A trans person is typically attracted to the same people before and after transition, so there has been no conversion of their sexual orientation even if a different word is subsequently applied to that orientation.

Ah so a male attracted to women can call himself trans and allocate himself within the lesbian community (thus expecting lesbians to find him attractive in turn)? Nothing but narcissistic homophobia.

Frankly, I don't care what word or acronym you prescribe to this; gaslighting children that they can somehow change sex is, by far, the more harmful thing here. Encouraging children to mutilate healthy bodies is the same. As is following an affirmation-only approach for a diagnosible mental illness when no one would do the same for another illness that causes similar distress. Anyone experiencing such poor mental health needs appropriate care, not a flock of sheep desperate to affirm an un-truth.

The pressure on gender-nonconforming individuals to declare themselves trans and change their lives accordingly seems much more like conversion therapy than encouraging people to live their lives how they are while respecting sex-based protections.

That has nothing to with telling gay or lesbian people that there's something wrong or unnatural about the way they were born (unacceptable of course).

Sick of this shit.

By being legally female, and by being perceived as female by all the people she interacts with

So in the UK, a boy can't live as a girl, and a girl can't live as a boy, because the GRA is only available to those over 18. So anyone who says a child is living as the opposite sex is lying.

Once an adult has legal recognition as the opposite sex, do they cease to be 'living as' the opposite sex as soon as someone doesn't perceive them as the opposite sex?

By being legally female, and by being perceived as female by all the people she interacts with

Just one more question. If a transwomen presented like a male (smashing the gender stereotypes here like you said) then how would someone perceive them as a female when they interacted with them?

Just wondering how that works....

Totally agree that we shouldn't try to change someone's gender

We also should not change someone's body either

@Shizuku
You responded to my questions about the Newsweek article you linked.
The claim was made about boys living as girls and I asked how this is understood without resorting to stereotypes.

If you can’t answer, how are you satisfied that 3 yr olds can?

I think the problem with the OP is it is more about proving feminists wrong than it is about caring about the medical and psychological trauma of young people.

Because having invasive and damaging surgery is, to me, akin to putting leeches on or other medieval medical treatments. I don't think it will be long before society as a whole looks in horror at the removal of healthy body parts to support a feeling.

Much as we now think of the treatment of epileptics and those with mental illnesses by chaining and beating them.

They used to do tours of Bedlam so people could look at the poor people kept there. I am not sure the modern way in which these children are watched and damaged is all that different.

By being legally female, and by being perceived as female by all the people she interacts with.

So the following premises have to be met then:

1. If one is not perceived as female by someone, just one person even, then they're not female right?

2. And no one is a female unless they hold a GRC?

A trans person is typically attracted to the same people before and after transition, so there has been no conversion of their sexual orientation even if a different word is subsequently applied to that orientation.

But if you believe that TWAW, then if a gay man transitions to being a TW, then he is now a straight 'woman', so no longer gay.

This is how gay men are treated in Iran. It is illegal to be gay, but they can escape punishment if they have surgery to become transwomen. Are you in favour of this treatment?

You also seem to be suggesting that TW who are attracted to women are not lesbians (which is how some of them like to think of themselves), but are still straight men. This would be considered transphobic by some.

I provided a link to the key information for this thread - namely the Trevor Project survey into the effects of conversion attempts on trans kids.

And we have read it and found it is not very robust. And it also doesn't clearly define what falls into the definition of 'conversion attempts'.

And clinicians in the UK have stated clearly that the rate of suicide after transition may even be raised for many reasons. Including that underlying mental health issues are often left untreated. There is no dispute that the risk is high.

Is it higher than any other group of similarly aged individuals with significant mental health issues?

And do you have any robust research that proves that medically transitioning improves mental health?

(knowing that there was one that was recently found to be false in its methodology and in fact proved no such thing when the figures were reviewed properly).

So if just one person perceives them as male then they are not living as a woman

Attempting to change a child's gender identity is inherently harmful so trans people should be included in the ban on conversion therapy, unless you have some evidence that trans children are helped by someone trying to change their gender identity

What do you think is best

1. changing a child's body, potentially causing lifelong damage and early death / heart disease / brittle bones / stroke, so that their body fits their mind.

2. supporting a child with their feelings, careful watchful waiting, to ensure that medical tranistion is what they actually want to do, and that they are of an age / maturity that they are capable of weighing the irreversible consequences to their bodies?

Gay conversion therapy is wrong. And sexual preference harms no one.

I don't think the T can possibly be included in the 'ban conversion therapy' because of the serious physical harm it can cause individuals.

Although counseling someone and watchful waiting is hardly a conversion therapy anyway. But it sounds better right, (for the cause) when pushed up against and conflated with the gay conversion therapies of the past.