Most Britons want conversion therapy banned, including that aimed at transgender people

I think these are the votes of a breezy, uninformed, ‘sure why not #bekind’ variety who don’t understand the complexities behind this issue. Like when Owen Jones says ‘most people support self ID’. On the surface it looks like a simple question to answer, sure why not let people be who they want? However once the actual consequences of self ID are explained the support drops…

OTOH adults can wear what they want.

Not always. Is it conversion therapy if you identify as a furry and your employer won't let you wear a cat onesie to work? Or if you identify as a woman and your employer won't let you wear stilettos and fishnets? Just what are adults allowed to declare to be necessary aspects of expressing their gender and what aren't? Given gender is yet to be defined in law, I don't think it's all that clear. What about if you're in prison and can't demand new clothes and wigs at will? Or in the police and and you're not allowed purple hair and green fingernails?

Oh poo! I lost my Tumbleweed meme!

💤💤

My sincere apologies for all the typos. Arthritic fingers have got cold again!

Well, seeing as OP turned out to be a Plopper (no surprise there) maybe you could explain it @DisgustedofManchester

You see, as you very well know, haveing been round trhese parts a while, it isn't posters here who have no idea. It's those that demand things.

So for anyone inetrested in protecting trans individuals from harmful therapies in law a few things are required.

A definition of transgender, for the law to presume upon. Or do we just take the Stonewall Umbrella dn presume that it means anybody and everybody, changing daily?

You know we ask the question not because we are clueless but because there is no actual answer, let alone one that could be used in law.

And the the term 'conversion therapy' Again, what would that include doesn't mean people don't know what conversion therapy is but the law would require specifics. As many therapists and GPs, teacher etc have said, the law as proposed by Stonewall et al would have included the mere act of asking a bloody question? That can't be right, not in any world.

So what is meant by 'conversion therapy'? And don't come back with the ECT mess. Because some of us here know what thatactually is and how it is used these days. The horrors of the last century, 50 years ago, have notr existed for a long, long time.

So no, if left to the Stionewal et al defintion of conversion therepay nobody has the foggiest idea what it means. Which is why it was leftout of the bill.

The same people who helped draft that bill, had the changes made, many posters here and elsewhere ALL know what conversion therapy is for homosexuality. We know who is likely to carry it out and upon whom and what it is likely to include.

Because we are neither stupid, ill informed or deliberately misleading!

Your turn...

You are right that this law could potentially backfire on the likes of Mermaids and Stonewall and all the internet influencers, and schools pushing Queer Theory and transing children without the knowledge of parents, and therapists affirming gender identity in young people who have been bullied for being same sex attracted, and parents who admonish their boy children for playing with dolls or girl children for wanting to wear their hair short. I'm not sure why these people can't see that this law may apply to them as much as anyone else trying to harm or manipulate a vulnerable young person.

Maybe you can tell us while you are here Disgusted, what are the protections in the currently proposed legislation that protects therapists and parents from being charged with 'conversion therapy' when it is exploratory therapy that has been used?

Since you are so very well versed in this topic, and all. Well, enough to try to shame people who are discussing it anyway.

We will happily wait for your answer.

It's bizarre that people raise 'transphobia' when they can't even explain what 'trans' is.

"Its bizarre that people protest the ban but don't actuallly know what is being banned."

It's bizarre that people are supporting the ban but don't actually know what is included in the terms of what is being banned.

Also add

"What is transphobia" if you don't know what conversion therapy is.

Its bizarre that people protest the ban but don't actuallly know what is being banned

Mangy

Of course, but that’s therapy the person chooses and is paying for. They can just get up and walk out. No legislation needed there (and the government never proposed to legislate this). I’m talking about any coercive practices: literally people trying to force another adult not to transition.

What I’m trying to work out is whether a ban on actual coercive practices (which is what TRAs claim they want) would have any value for them if it focused on people trying to forcibly prevent reassignment/transition and not people saying they don’t believe in gender identity.

When I hear of 'conversion therapy' I think of religious pressuring, or laboratory control sessions. But from the POV of participants all therapy can potentially at times feel intrusive, pressuring and challenging. It's supposed to. Within a context of trust and respect.

But young trans identifying adolescents are not currently prepared for exploration and thinking. They often want action, insist on instant gender change and are encouraged to resent any questioning, however respectful, of their chosen, even if transient, identity.

I am sceptical that there has even been pressurising conversion therapy going on for trans people. But I do think that discussion and exploration can be experienced and decried as unwelcome.

In practice - banning conversion therapy for trans people probably means that there simply won't be any effective therapy for trans adolescents and children. It would be far too high risk for practitioners to do anything other than affirm and support. Which is not, in my view, what is needed.

Because I am gender critical I would not work with trans individuals. I do not feel that I could be helpful.

D'oh, badly worded. That should have been "...the kind of approach that he was taking that TRAs would like to see targeted by the proposed conversion therapy ban".

Given the horrendous treatment that Dr David Bell received when working at GIDS, I'm pretty sure that it is the kind of approach that he was taking that is the target of the proposed conversion therapy ban. "BBC Radio Ulster - Nolan Investigates, Episode 5 - A gender clinic insider speaks out"
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09yk7dh

‘Do we really know enough about these things to pass laws about them, in terms of actual therapy? What if a year from now there is new research that really changes how we think about some of these topics?’

That’s perfectly possible but it would never justify forcing an adult to change their feelings about themselves or coercing them not to dress in a specific way.

That’s separable from what medics are prepared to do. We might find ourselves looking at a situation (in the future) where these surgeries don’t take place anymore. But still, an adult dressing in a sex-incongruent way and calling themselves by a sex-incongruent name is just what happens in a liberal society.

Do we really know enough about these things to pass laws about them, in terms of actual therapy?

I would say we know enough to know we shouldn't be passing laws about them.

The only justification for the "sexual orientation" version of the law is a claimed certainty that such therapy is always both (a) harmful and (b) ineffective, due to orientation being fixed.

(I'm personally a bit doubtful about the certainty, and whether that's even sufficient for a law in a liberal society - people should generally be allowed to participate in harmful and ineffective things if they want to, at least to some degree).

But we know that the above is definitely not true for the "gender identity" version. Looking at this Interim Cass Review infographic, the TRAs want to pretend the top 80% doesn't really exist.

The law appears to be directly intended to block investigation of where someone is coming from on this infographic and determination of which pathway is appropriate. Fast-tracking people to the bottom-right on the assumption they're coming from the bottom-left.

But the trans lobby has made sure this difference isn't pointed out.

I repeat what I learned from reading about the survey:

This is the question in the survey:

"Do you think 'Conversion Therapy', where people seek to change someone's [sexual orientation / gender identity] should or should not be banned?"

That phrasing does not allow the situation to be more fuzzy, but simply stipulates that someone's true gender identity is already fully known to that person, and then others try to persuade or to force this identity to change.

But in reality the children we might be thinking of here often have troubling mental health problems, have suffered trauma, and have been influenced by their peers on social media. It's not impossible (given what detransitioners write) that their true gender identity is actually unknown and needs to be explored.

Had the survey phrased the question in that way the answers would have been different, I think.

(If there is such a thing as a gender identity. I seem not to have one, and dread this coming world where each of us must declare it and their pronouns at every possible point.)

Do we really know enough about these things to pass laws about them, in terms of actual therapy? What if a year from now there is new research that really changes how we think about some of these topics?

While the law should deal with abuse I am less sure it should be telling people what kinds of therapy are appropriate. It's far too blunt an instrument.

There should be another survey about if people think that we should "trans the gay away".

Most people have been carefully briefed to avoid them realising this is a trojan horse, and are being useful idiots to the manipulation of a political lobby.

Thanks, I didn't realise that. I thought it also created a new offence in the UK in an attempt to simplify prosecutions.

Yes, I imagine there were tidy-ups, but my Googling suggests it had been a specific offence since 1985.

My personal memory of the 2003 law discussion is that the focus (of the discussion at least) was primarily on the children being taken abroad to circumvent UK law. (I don't recall the 1985 discussions.)

Anyway, those details are off-topic, but the core point is that in both 1985 and 2003 laws were created to specifically outlaw something very concrete and specific that was not already illegal, and was occurring enough to cause concern.

This proposed law is not remotely comparable.

What I would absolutely love to see banned is Stonewall, Mermaids, etc telling little boys that if they like pink and glitter and long hair then they are girls and should cut off their balls, and telling little girls that if they’re good at sports and like trousers they should hack off their hair and take drugs to make themselves infertile. That is conversion therapy. If you read up on the history of trans activism then you will se that its roots are in Victorian gender stereotypes and misogyny.

The government is unable to find a way to ban conversion therapy for trans issues without simultaneously banning the attempts by trans activists to transition little kids, because legally that’s the same activity: two sides of the same coin.

Ban conversion therapy for trans issues? Fine with me. Stonewall and Mermaids will find themselves facing a lot of lawsuits…