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:
Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:17

About half trans attempt suicide

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:17

Transphobes!

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:16

Corbyn - agrees that the ban should include the T

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:14

Most marginalised.

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:13

Which side of history? Alluding back to the fight for gay/lesbian rights.

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:12

Trans people already experience more discrimination than LGB.

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:11

They seem to be arguing that conversion therapy should be outlawed . Which it is for LBT.

This is not about LGB.

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:10

More virtual signalling.

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:09

achillestoes · 13/06/2022 17:09

I’d like to see case studies about people who have been proved (with evidence) to have carried out actual (well, ‘actual’) exorcisms on people with gender dysphoria. This is all based on a study that defined ‘conversion practices’ as broadly as it possibly good, so they could effect a ban on something that almost certainly isn’t happening in anything like significant numbers.

I would support a ban on anyone being forced to undergo an exorcism, btw. But where? Who did this? And isn’t it already against the law?

Yes

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:09

Too many suffering and waiting.

Potential of exclusion imply trans don't count.

Debate premature - only in draft.

Still no definition of conversion therapy and harmful practices.

Just lots of references to quacks and charlatans.

OP posts:
achillestoes · 13/06/2022 17:09

I’d like to see case studies about people who have been proved (with evidence) to have carried out actual (well, ‘actual’) exorcisms on people with gender dysphoria. This is all based on a study that defined ‘conversion practices’ as broadly as it possibly good, so they could effect a ban on something that almost certainly isn’t happening in anything like significant numbers.

I would support a ban on anyone being forced to undergo an exorcism, btw. But where? Who did this? And isn’t it already against the law?

Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:05

Quackery - people who set themselves up in business doing this. What?

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:04

Why don't we watch and wait - people who say this are frightened.

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:04

100s and 1000s suffering.

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:03

All the speakers so far seem to be arguing from an undefined definition of conversion therapy and harmful practices.

There seems to be a group of charlatans/quacks (witches) practicing harmful practices.

Again, who are these people?

OP posts:
poshme · 13/06/2022 17:02

So Elliot colburn says people shouldn't be able to consent to things that might be harmful to themselves.

Like, oh, I don't know... cutting off healthy body parts??!! FFS

achillestoes · 13/06/2022 17:02

I have no idea. If you as an adult person who regards yourself as being confused about sex and gender want to pick a therapist and therapeutic approach of your choice, and this law prevents you doing this, that’s harm.

Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 17:00

achillestoes · 13/06/2022 16:59

They are not clear at all. Who does Kearns define as a ‘quack’ or a ‘charlatan’? And if gender identity isn’t proposed to be defined (as Kearns just said it won’t be) which group (‘transgender’ has no definition in law) is proposed for protection?

What and who are they talking about?

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 16:59

Quacks and charlatans - who are these people?

OP posts:
achillestoes · 13/06/2022 16:59

They are not clear at all. Who does Kearns define as a ‘quack’ or a ‘charlatan’? And if gender identity isn’t proposed to be defined (as Kearns just said it won’t be) which group (‘transgender’ has no definition in law) is proposed for protection?

Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 16:57

Bit confused now - are they saying that this is all about unregulated therapy? (Like, for instance Mermaids etc?)

OP posts:
achillestoes · 13/06/2022 16:55

What is your ‘trans self’? It is not okay to make laws based on acceptance of widely contested terms like this.

Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 16:55

Lots of virtual signalling

Now a woman - deep set harm to T community

Conversion therapy is one direction talking therapy delivered by quacks

OP posts:
achillestoes · 13/06/2022 16:54

Alicia Kearns bringing the whole gamut of hyperbole.

Original poster
chilling19 · 13/06/2022 16:52

Pollard

Trans people identity not up for debate

Stonewall etc supporting

Folding in of LGBT

Artificial distinction between LGB and T

Another speaker - smacks of the Soviet Union

Bit of ageism - most won't understand the Soviet reference

Mention of intersectionality

So far, only one female speaker

OP posts: