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

Such nuanced thinking displayed here! Not sure we can cope with coming up with arguments to overcome such valid, accurate and profound points.

It must be so hard to function knowing that the reality is that when terms are well defined and accurate background given, the majority of the UK actually do agree with MN.

And you only have to look at the dramatic decrease in support when the question around toilets and changing rooms is asked about when males still retain their penis!

Gosh, however will you get over that fishy?

@BasicBinaryBltch - why would you assume we all know anything at all about trans. Its ridiculous to say we all know that quote about literal violence. I think only MN regulars would recognise it, possibly twitter users if they followed that kind of thing. Most of my friends and relatives dont use social media at all. They do things like 'take The Times on a Sunday'

Its a survey result. I wouldnt think about it very much at all. I wouldnt ask myself if the legislation was needed, if things were covered elsewhere, if there were better ways of doing it. The survey would say should conversion therapy be banned and id go 'yes' because I heard bad things about conversion therapy.

Of course I know violence is already illegal. But there are instances where things that are already illegal are given a stiffer penalty due to the motivation.

rabbitwoman

In Australia, this is state based legislation as yet. Not all states have passed this ambiguous type of law around conversion therapy, I believe.

I'm lost.
So a church group pressurising a young lesbian and telling her that she isn't a lesbian but is in fact straight, is conversion therapy,
but a social group pressurising a young lesbian and telling her that she isn't a lesbian but is in fact a boy, isn't conversion therapy.
Have I got that right?

What we can do is look at other countries where there has been a complete blanket ban (I think Australia and New Zealand and parts of the US.)

We can see what is actually banned in practice (therapists are losing their licences for not following an immediate affirmation model and using talking therapies to ensure that transition is actually the most effective treatment for a child).

We don't want that happening here.

When children go down the path of transition we know it's a gruelling process with lots of complications. We know there are side effects to the puberty blockers and cross sex hormones that are irreversible. We know the surgery has a very high complication rate.

We also know that there may well be a small number of children, or very young adults, who may benefit from these treatments, but we know that most children grow out of their gender dysphoria by the time they finish puberty.

For some reason TRAs and organisations like Stonewall etc are absolutely adament that a lot of the above just is not true. I don't know why. When the shit hits the fan - which it will - someone is going to get the blame. I know who I will be pointing the finger at!!

I’m a therapist. If a gender non conforming young person came to me saying they were trans, it is my ethical and moral duty to explore the full background to those feelings-what does that mean to them? How long have they identified as trans? Are any life events that might be connected in any way to their trans identity? Statistically (according to WPATH and others), the result of this self exploration would leave ~20% of young people growing into trans-identifying adults and the rest growing into gnc, often gay /lesbian adults.
If the “conversion therapy” legislation had passed, it would have explicitly forbidden me from exploring ANY aspect of the yp’s trans identity other than to unquestioningly affirm that they are trans. In my opinion, this would be unethical and actively harmful.

Did they not come back to define the term? I'm shocked

I'm so confused about this one because I don't think I've seen its meaning clarified anywhere.

Is conversion therapy the type of thing you read about with electric shocks, forced vomiting etc? Because I'm 100% against that. It's barbaric.

Or is it a therapist exploring options with a person before they set off on an incredibly long and difficult path? Because if it's only talking then I think we owe it to trans people to provide them with that option.

I'd like to see the figures for the opposite framing (courtesy of Helen Joyce the other day)

Do you think gender-distressed kids should be fast-tracked to sterilisation?

I see it as some sort of thing done against peoples will very intensly with possible violence.

Things done to people against their will with possible violence are already illegal - you do know that, right? So this legislation can logically only be newly addressing things done with someone's consent. The question is what?

goodness, how astonishing that the OP couldn't come back to define their terms. I'm done with people who are unable to hold a discussion and yet expect me to take their views seriously

Why would you assume that, since we all know that is 'literal violence' and transphobia? Implying someone isn't really trans and has other problems to be addressed etc. Is definitely going to be under the ' conversions' umbrella for some people.

Of course anything under force or involving violence should be banned, pretty sure it is already

So - the ban is for all ‘talking therapy’ so a gay teen can’t speak to a therapist about their confusion about their sexuality - to work out why they may feel unsteady or insecure?

These people do realise that therapists aren’t Svengalis? Getting a young person to feel comfortable with their sexuality is a good thing right? Rather than saying ‘we can’t discuss this’ and then getting onto social media (where of course everyone has your best interests at heart).

‘I would want to ban it for both gay and trans because I see it as some sort of thing done against peoples will very intensly with possible violence.’

Do you accept that violence is already illegal? Do you accept that abusive behaviour is already illegal?

Serious question: separately, in the cases of trans-identifying adults, and minors, what should this proposed legislation criminalise that is not already illegal?

I think 22% not sure is quite high for a survey result - so I think a lot of people might not know exactly what it entails.

I would want to ban it for both gay and trans because I see it as some sort of thing done against peoples will very intensly with possible violence.

I would assume it wouldnt include saying things like biological facts or explaining the consequences of decisions and using evidence based medicine.

I think most people don’t have a clue what puberty blockers do, or how rickety the processes are by which some children access them. Or the fact that most of the kids who do so are autistic, or gay.

If the question was “do you think doctors should be forced to give out puberty blockers to children without first checking whether the patients has thoroughly explored all issues?” The answers would be very different

No one should attempt to change someone's sexual orientation.

Trans widows are not lesbians, it's awful to think that their husbands want to 'turn' them into lesbians when they are only attracted to men

‘Heaven forbid a poll that shows Mumsnet opinions might not be in the majority. Either way it shows that the government seem to be doing women a favour by going against public opinion, heaven knows why they won't get much credit for it on here.’

Johnson’s refusal to pass the ban on trans conversion therapy is for the benefit of children. If the majority are in support of a ban on ‘trans conversion therapy’ for children, it is because they don’t understand what the legislation proposed.

The proposed law was never going to ban talking-form ‘conversion therapy’ for trans-identifying adults, because placing an adult in therapy against their will is already illegal. They can just stand up and walk out if they are uncomfortable with what a therapist says.

Heaven forbid a poll that shows Mumsnet opinions might not be in the majority. Either way it shows that the government seem to be doing women a favour by going against public opinion, heaven knows why they won't get much credit for it on here.

Comparing ourselves, or imagining ourselves, similar to the USA is bonkers. There is so much more extreme religious beliefs (eg banning of abortion for any reason) there that it is a different world entirely. Not saying all the US is like this before anyone moans.

Yes, there is clearly a risk of people being caught up in this ban trying to make their child trans.

And for me this shows up the central issue.

‘Trying to convert’ your child from a correct view of their sex to an incorrect view, is NOT comparable to explaining human biology to your child and telling them you don’t believe in gender.

Trans activists want to make the latter illegal, and pretend the former doesn’t happen.

But facts matter. Something is driving the increase in female children identifying as male, and that something needs analysis.

Facts matter. Puberty blockers are a high risk intervention.

Facts matter. People detransition, so there is no comprehensible meaning behind ‘innate gender identity’.

Children need evidence-based care, not ideological sloganising and laws that put them at risk.

Illegal - but kid is ‘child of they year’ and all over the press (acting too I think).

(I know you were making a slightly different point, Kitten.)

‘So a religious US mother beating her son every day because he liked ‘girl things’ and ‘she couldn’t let him be gay’ - until the son announced he is a girl (and the bearings stopped).’

It’s child abuse. Entirely illegal already. And yes, I’d be happy to see such ‘practices’ included in any legitimate ban, but is it necessary when it is already against the law?

So a religious US mother beating her son every day because he liked ‘girl things’ and ‘she couldn’t let him be gay’ - until the son announced he is a girl (and the bearings stopped).

So that’s not conversion?