Transgender people will be protected under plans to ban conversion therapy - says Truss

Oh, sorry, missed that. Here's an archive copy:

archive.is/hNc0X

They also have to be very careful about wording because whilst it would seem outrageous to provide psychological support or counselling to help people suppress their sexual feelings/urges, it becomes less outrageous when you consider paedophiles or people attracted to, say, animals.

There are some LGBT people who say 'all conversion therapy is bad so we must ban it immediately' but when the gov say 'it's complicated' it's because they know that badly worded laws (eg GRA) cause future problems.

I caught something on Times radio this morning and it seems that (I am assuming) Stonewall has been in talks the the GEO (or was it the Women and Equalities)and something is in draft but this has lots to go through and given that everyone is now aware of the mechanisms of stealth, I think, on the 'conversion' therapy for trans there will be an awful lot of amendments and discussions.

LGBT quite brazen about their 'we have been in discussions' and have something. well Crispin Blunt had rather a time of it when he tried that one. Also lobbying coming under a lot of scrutiny - hopefully sense will prevail and also the law prohibits under 18's from medication, so in the meantime would you not be allowed to assist - too much would be really wrong on all routes. So, are they all trying to move ahead of the Cass review (my goodness, they wouldn't do that would they). It's been an issue for LGB for years, so why the sudden rush - Cass again

What worries me is this attempt to create legislation for a subject that no one seems to be able to define.

Conversion ''therapy'' for gay people can be easily defined and described. As soon as anyone starts talking about gender issues, the language becomes confused and woolly. Thats not a basis for good law.

Tell the government? And stonewall?

Wikipedia, with numerous medical and scientific sources: "Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice of trying to change an individual's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual using psychological, physical, or spiritual interventions."

Nothing to do with gender

Article in the Spectator on the subject by Douglas Murray

We don’t need a new law against ‘conversion therapy’

Newstart bottom line goes something like this. (Not what I think but from all the stuff I've read).

A strongly felt internal sense of gender ID is present in pretty much everyone and is developed around age 2

It's an intrinsic fundamental component of humans that supercedes physical sex (which is currently under debate as to whether it is binary/ relevant in society/ etc)

As such if a person expresses/ articulates a certain gender ID then that is who they are

If their physical body does not accord then corrective drugs/ surgery should be implemented asap to help

Anything which delays or questions any of this is fundamentally wrong. Like questioning sexuality. Thinking there may be something else. Conversion therapy.

The details of the wording have not been disclosed.

Or possible identity?

That's the thing.

I felt forced into conforming to female sex role when I was a girl. I hated it. Is that banned?

Social enforcement of gender/ sex role is very strong in this country (and lots of others). It starts as a baby.

Dad taking his son out to kick a ball about aged 4 and telling him not to be such a girl when he trips over and cries...

That's gender indoctrination.

It's banned?

They really haven't thought this through.

It means not trying to convert anyone away from their declared identity.

I thought conversion therapy was about trying to change some ones sexual orientation (hetro, homo & bi). What has it got to do with gender?

Banning 'forced' attempts to change a persons sexual orientation would protect men, women, transmen and transwomen equally. Its that simple.

I think we need to see the detail.

This whole area needs good definitions.

That would help but our experience is that the gender identity ideology has made such incredible inroads by purposively distorting or destroying any definition that, by enabling people to understand what things are or what's happening, gets in its way.

It all comes back to definitions. I am still staggered at how much the badly-worded GRA affects this debate now (and was done deliberately due to homophobia) and how much more damage can be done if this new legislation is not thought through.

One part of me does think allowing affirmation and adding third spaces (or categories in sports) where the sex-exemption applies may be the most humane thing. It would stop the damage of puberty blockers for young people and allow anyone to quietly get counselling and transition with recourse to expensive surgery to "pass".

However, you would need to have boundaries of steel and a clear acknowledgement of biological sex for that to happen.

And what you see are nice people, deeply sympathetic to those suffering and being driven by deep emotional stress, who have no experience or training to know the necessity for boundaries and of supporting people living with this kind of stress to cope with them. Plus a powerful political agenda behind it which is actually quite good at making the best of opportunities in this.

As parents you quickly learn: you cannot child proof the world. All you can do is help world-proof your child.

the stressfulness of even hearing debate and other people's needs and views on the situation was regarded as intolerable to expect some participants to be exposed to. This is across the board: even tolerating the knowledge that a provision exists for others is too threatening.

This is one of the most eye opening aspects of the way this issue is panning out. Not just that this is the attitude, but that grown up people and institutions go along with this.

The legislation will have to be very carefully worded with lots of caveats so make sure it doesn't outlaw things which are genuinely helpful. Or to make sure it doesn't give the impression that it might have outlawed some things, which results in therapists having their hands tied by their professional bodies or their own fear. I agree no one should be trying to force anyone to stop identifying as trans or stop being gay.

This whole area needs good definitions.

What it comes down to is the extreme sensitivity to and discomfort with anything that questions or is uncomfortable to hear and think about alongside a chosen identity. As in the recent ONS debacle, the stressfulness of even hearing debate and other people's needs and views on the situation was regarded as intolerable to expect some participants to be exposed to. This is across the board: even tolerating the knowledge that a provision exists for others is too threatening.

However from a MH perspective, learning to tolerate some emotional discomfort and cope with it is a very key part of supporting people. Not every uncomfortable feeling is a full blown crisis requiring urgent accommodation and input. And other people have rights too and boundaries have to be respected, and stressful feelings cannot be a reason to try and whackamole all triggers out of existence: it's not a realistic goal and it continues to make the vulnerable person powerless and reliant on the rest of the world managing their environment for them. This emotional stress is something I don't doubt the severity of and I'm sympathetic to, but it cannot be the trump card to just prevent sorting out what are needs and what actually is not in everyone's best interests and creates a balanced, fact based situation that meets all needs. Other people have feelings and needs and rights too.

This is because the understandable revulsion at LGB conversion therapy is being used as a Trojan Horse

This seems to be the modus operandi, full stop. Piggy backing in on every other inter-sectionalist category and attempting to make itself indistinguishable or invisible as a discrete category. Every other grouping has its own organisations; its own specific services; its own integrity.

If this means conversion therapy in the sense of forced pressure to stop being trans or stop being gay or forcibly realign with what a church or family member sees as 'right' then good. Absolutely.

If on the other hand this takes no account of subtlety or allows for questioning, exploring and distinguishing other needs in a decision to transition (or be gay, I had a therapist help me look into this for myself as an L person and it was supportive, not at all 'don't be gay') then there's a problem. Keira Bell for example raises this as something she feels she should have been offered and was not.

As always, there's a risk of very black and white rigid thinking being pushed, and words warped out of normal shared meaning to accommodate a political agenda. I hope Truss is aware of the subtleties of this and the need to be responsible and careful not to accidentally throw the baby out with the bathwater.

From my link above (my bold):

“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.”

Have they clarified what qualifies as conversion therapy?

No, they don't, and they're keen not to. This is because the understandable revulsion at LGB conversion therapy is being used as a Trojan Horse to get a blanket ban of all "conversion therapy", aiming to get affirmation-only therapy to be put into UK law as the only permitted therapy for trans people, and also to make it illegal to provide assistance to detransitioners.

Here's some interesting background:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000sz1y

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

A queer BBC presenter discusses conversion therapy with a queer historian. The actual evidence of harm is about LGB. All the concern is about LGBT. To their credit towards the end of the programme they do briefly acknowledge that a broad ban on "conversion therapy" could be harmful to trans people and to their therapists.