Urging change of gender to be criminalised - The Times article

The other problem is that this law would get ‘gender identity’ into the statue books. So it would concretise in law the idea that we all have an innate gender identity. That seems very bad to me.

Actually... I am not entirely sure of the status of the bill in Canada.. found some references to it being passed but it might need higher house ratification.. www.ctvnews.ca/politics/federal-election-2021/trudeau-vows-conversion-therapy-bill-his-government-failed-to-pass-will-be-priority-if-re-elected-1.5553760

@ChateauMargaux "cis" is a nonsense term

Thanks - was hoping for a thread and share token. Will read now ...

"Consenting adults should be able to undergo so-called conversion therapy, the government has recommended." Not sure this counts as balanced or sensible journalism from the Grauniad. If anything to do with therapy around gender dysphoria rather than instant affirmation is called "conversion therapy " in its eyes it is hardly unbiased

The narrative in other countries where conversion therapy has been banned includes the assumption that suggesting that a trans identifying person might be cis is conversion therapy.
www.noconversioncanada.com/what-is-conversion-therapy

That is a poorly written piece, the Guardian article seems pretty clear
www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/29/conversion-therapy-to-be-restricted-but-not-banned-in-proposed-bill

Not sure criminalising it is the right way. Creates a victim mentality - TRAs don't need any more help with that. Better to turn the conversation around so that nobody in their right mind would consider anything other than watchful waiting. And no surgery until at least 25 when adult brain development concludes

it used to mean not saying "yes you're definitely a boy if you say you are" but more like "I accept and understand that's how you feel right now and that's okay".

That makes a lot of sense!

The problem - as you say - is that the subtlety can get lost. Schools seem particularly vulnerable to misunderstanding and over-simplifying

Placemarking

This seems worryingly vague. Wouldn’t a better approach be to ensure that materials used in schools, the NHS and courts all had to present unbiased views? ‘Some people believe strongly in an innate gender identity, and others see biological sex as more important. Both views should be respected unless there is a clash of rights’?

I think maybe it's both

I read it to mean both

Ah okay, interesting. If that's the case maybe that's good? Interestingly I'm sure I read a comment ages ago from a therapist in the area of gender, saying that the meaning of the "affirmative approach" had changed and it used to mean not saying "yes you're definitely a boy if you say you are" but more like "I accept and understand that's how you feel right now and that's okay". I could have got that wrong though.

I wonder if it will be more clearly explained at some point. And will schools etc understand what it's saying? If some people interpret it as outlawing GC views, eg a teacher cannot say a male shouldn't be in the girls' changing room, that would be a bit worrying. I wonder if the government are trying to cleverly hedge their bets, but I think they're going to have to explain it clearly at some point to avoid causing more damage.

Bookmarking

I agree with those saying it is confusing. In its current form, this does appear to potentially strengthen stonewall.

E.g. If you're a therapist and a young woman comes to you and says I'm unhappy, I don't fit it and I don't like my body, you couldn't say I think this is because you're really a man so why don't you pick a new name and use he/him pronouns.

Equally if a young woman comes to you and says I'm unhappy and I think I identify as a man you can't say of course you're not a man and why don't we explore other reasons you might be unhappy.

I read that Times article three times and still didn't understand what it was saying so thought I'd better come on here to see if anyone else did! The mention of Keira Bell, Liz Truss and outlawing Mermaids sounds very positive but then it seems to be saying that all counselling of kids will be banned and there is no distinction between gender identity and gay conversion therapy which are completely different.

Yes totally confusing. Does it mean:

1. You mustn't encourage someone to think they may be a different gender to their biological sex

Or

2. You mustn't suggest someone isn't the gender they say they are?

I can't help hoping that the debate needed for a new law will look at all sides of the issue: all the possible good and all the possible harm, to all groups. I'm hoping that there's now enough awareness (eg with Liz Truss) that it really will be all sides.

And that's all I want: a solution that balances the needs of everyone in our society, without privileging one group over another.

I also like that this will focus on one specific part of the debate (where potentially the most harm is done). There are so many problems with Gender Ideology that it can get a bit "and another thing...". Biting off one chunk at at time and finding concrete solutions is definitely a way forward.

I suspect that I might not like every clause of the new law - but if we can reach something which minimises harm then that will be a very good thing.

It might make it easier for therapists to operate...

"I'm sorry we can't discuss your "gender" but we can talk about all the other things in your life that you are concerned about."

I'm.really confused.

Will this mean that schools etc will be told to keep out of the whole gender thing and be forced to leave things to actual medical professionals?

Or is this a badly written way if saying we are going the route of having families potentially prosecuted if they don't go along with it even if it's not what's vest for the child?

I'd love to see mermaids forced to close down as much as the next person but not until all the lives they have ruined are set straight. I've long been pissed at the fact they basically start something they have no ability to finish and if we do the same then we are no better.

www.gov.uk/government/news/government-progresses-ban-on-lgbt-conversion-therapy

The link, which presumably the article is about, is only about conversion therapy. That's it. Unfortunately the consultation doesn't go far enough in defining or giving examples of conversion therapy.

In this country, conversions therapy in its traditional sense- forcing a homosexual person to become straight, or at least stop being homosexual- is so very extremely rare- APART from in this modern day dystopia where pressurising lesbians to do dick if the fuck is on a TW is perfectly fine. I am not convinced that is defined as "conversion therapy".

I do not believe that is recognised as conversion therapy. That will be categorised as "allowing everyone to live as their full self and be free from discrimination" for the T, and saying TW can't find certain women attractive could be viewed as conversion therapy for TW.

I think this consultation if it goes the way it sets out to, will in fact be good news for Stonewall, and will lead to a continuation if not entrenchment of the current state of affairs.

My first thought was what @Elegaic describes, my issue is that I see parents posting in forums, not even gender identity ones, just normal parenting ones, and they absolutely believe their children are the opposite sex.

I mean, look at the CEO of mermaids.

So unless this is backed up with comprehensive guidance from Tavistock with clarity around diagnostic points and watchful waiting for the Gen Public (can't see how that's doable in reality) I can't see how this will work.

(Unfortunately when you've been involved in a discussion in the v well respected breastfeeding support group that you've been a member of for 8 years where several women you thought to be knowledgeable about biology, child development etc, where they were adamant about gender ideology being fact, and aggressively so, you develop a very jaded view)

I am wondering if this bill would make statements such as Nancy Ks from the BBC lesbian article would be classed as conversion therapy for lesbians.
Other than that I don't really understand what is being changed as I found the article rather confusing but I (probably naively) can't help thinking anything that puts mermaids out of business can't be all bad.