Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Debate on Parliament TV now on trans conversion therapy

133 replies

chilling19 · 13/06/2022 16:34

On now. Already had hate from both sides comment.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
AnotherDayAnotherView · 13/06/2022 20:02

Datun · 13/06/2022 19:27

Judging by past performance, I suspect they want to get something banned, like exorcism, in terms of conversion therapy, as a wedge.

So yes, banning exorcism in general, and not specifically connected to conversion, would be the way forward.

Datun, that is just cruel - now I have the image of that scene from the Exorcist with the head spinning and green vomit in my head! Gah!!!

achillestoes · 13/06/2022 19:33

Yes. You won’t find one Parliamentarian willing to stand up and say kids should be dragged off to be exorcised.

But that’s not what it’s about.

Datun · 13/06/2022 19:27

Judging by past performance, I suspect they want to get something banned, like exorcism, in terms of conversion therapy, as a wedge.

So yes, banning exorcism in general, and not specifically connected to conversion, would be the way forward.

achillestoes · 13/06/2022 19:23

But really. If you want to protect children from psychological interventions carried out by people without qualifications, just do that. It would be uncontroversial, surely? No worries about unintended consequences, no worries about criminalising ordinary psychological work by qualified people.

I’m prepared to bet the house on it that it wouldn’t satisfy the people demanding this ban.

Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 19:18

achillestoes · 13/06/2022 19:16

Surely no kids should be taken to charlatans and quacks? Why not just ban charlatans and quacks? It would make as much sense legislatively.

😂

OP posts:
achillestoes · 13/06/2022 19:16

Surely no kids should be taken to charlatans and quacks? Why not just ban charlatans and quacks? It would make as much sense legislatively.

Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 19:14

That was interesting, and apologies for the scrappy notes.

As a PP said, debating petitions like this has no weight in terms of decision making.

However, i am reassured that conversations with clinicians, teachers and parents should be recognised as 'non conversion' practices. So that is a positive.

Still confused by the charlatans and quacks though.

OP posts:
achillestoes · 13/06/2022 19:09

The only things I could ascertain would definitely be in the ‘ban’ are things like exorcisms and quack therapy.

BUT how do you define a quack? And I don’t believe for a second that they mean only coercive ‘practices’.

But more importantly, how can you ban something you can’t define?

It would be perfectly possible to just make a ban on forced exorcisms and quack therapy for minors, and achieve the same outcome. I’d have no problem with that.

AnotherDayAnotherView · 13/06/2022 19:06

chilling19 · 13/06/2022 19:03

Winding up the debate

Shooting a bit in dark, still in draft, minister used conversion practices rather than therapy

Do you think it is fair to say that the only "conversion practices" they are referring to is so-called "exorcisms" by dubious "pastors"? I couldn't hear any references to other so-called practices.

MaudeYoung · 13/06/2022 19:06

All credit to Jackie Doyle-Price for sitting through all that hyperbole, falsehoods and emotional drivel. It must have been very difficult to exercise the discipline required to avoid engaging in eyerolling throughout.

Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 19:03

Winding up the debate

Shooting a bit in dark, still in draft, minister used conversion practices rather than therapy

OP posts:
achillestoes · 13/06/2022 19:01

Got to feel a bit sorry for Freer. He’s getting it from both sides.

TullyApplebottom · 13/06/2022 19:01

I think the safest thing we can say about this is that the quality of parliamentary debate - and of parliamentarians - is not what it used to be.

Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 19:00

Someone else - narrow scope not have the chance to vote - parliamentary draftsmanship - not reopen equality act and GRA = out of scope.

Narrow, limited to conversion practices and not get hijacked

Ensuring legitimate therapists clinician are protected - parents can have conversations = not a conversion practice

Clinician, teachers, therapists protected to mitigate chilling effect

(He likes 'at pace' as a term)

Not unreasonable to take extra time to build consensus - not wrong to spend the time to do this

Trans healthcare - Cass interim - reform healthcare system for trans - anyone spent any time knows that trans journey cumbersome, doesn't work, people buy things on internet, Wild West.

Cass report complementary, so legislation not dependent on it

Victim support service, gallop is running this, fully inclusive,

OP posts:
achillestoes · 13/06/2022 18:57

He said that’s not a conversion practice.

achillestoes · 13/06/2022 18:56

Freer just said there’s nothing wrong with a parent disagreeing with their child’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

achillestoes · 13/06/2022 18:53

JDP is asking what the timetable is for a draft bill. Relevant.

achillestoes · 13/06/2022 18:52

Freer still hasn’t given up on an amendment, then.

Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 18:51

Someone - debate saddens me that we are yet to achieve consensus

(real regret that my explanations haven't been accepted unconditionally)

Hurtful, survivors, utter nonsense, suicide, children taken abroad, married off (?) pernicious, rape as corrective control (?), informed bill passage, ensure

Need cast iron clarity that clinicians are protected

OP posts:
achillestoes · 13/06/2022 18:49

‘A position of ignorance...’ The cheek of him. Every MP is elected and in the same position to comment as him.

achillestoes · 13/06/2022 18:47

‘Excellent point, are they talking about one or two malign actors who prey on anyone stupid enough to pay for "quakery"?’

100% don’t know.

achillestoes · 13/06/2022 18:47

Here’s Freer.

AnotherDayAnotherView · 13/06/2022 18:46

achillestoes · 13/06/2022 18:42

So a ban must not cover psychological services, discussion in families, discussions with religious leaders or worshippers or teachers.

Who the hell is covered?

Excellent point, are they talking about one or two malign actors who prey on anyone stupid enough to pay for "quakery"?

Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 18:45

achillestoes · 13/06/2022 18:42

So a ban must not cover psychological services, discussion in families, discussions with religious leaders or worshippers or teachers.

Who the hell is covered?

The quacks and charlatans? 🤔

OP posts:
Datun · 13/06/2022 18:44

Where are all the actual facts and figures? Where is all the proof of conversion therapy? Where are the actual anecdotes of the people who have been subjected to it, and the details of the people who did it to them?

Swipe left for the next trending thread