Trans conversion therapy must be outlawed, Theresa May tells Johnson

I'm confused by this sentence:

"In March Johnson dropped plans to ban so-called conversion therapy, a practice that tries to suppress someone’s sexuality or gender identity, but U-turned within hours after a backlash."

The article is about trans therapy but I thought the government proposal to ban conversion therapy didn't apply to trans in the first place. (We know there are two separate categories or groups here, not to be conflated.) If he did change it after a backlash that would mean he would now ban trans therapy but I understood he does not intend that.

As I wrestled with this awkward sentence, the more obscure it became. Did he really drop plans to ban conversion therapy? Backlash from where? Has he actually changed his policy? Have I got it wrong? I did say I'm confused!

If anyone has that definitive list of what will and will not be banned, I would be very assured to read it here.

Otherwise, it will be just more empty assurances. Particularly considering the legislation introduced in other countries.

@anystropheus what would be banned then?

OT and a personal petition: I wish to outlaw major figures like Theresa May speaking out on topics on which they've been inadequately briefed.

As for Alan Turing, there are some people out there who have rewritten history to make him gay and trans with the drugs as part of his transition.

Details: williamaferguson.substack.com/p/trans-out-your-dead?s=r

Ok that's excellent.

What is it they actually want banned then?

@anystropheus fantastic. Please explain to us how its not going to ban talking therapies?
I would love to have my mind put at ease.

Anystropheus won’t be able to provide that list because the Government didn’t end up providing one themselves. The only text that was released about trans conversion “therapy:”

‘contains no clear definition of what will amount to “conversion therapy” caught by its proposals, nor of the meaning of “transgender” – a term which has no clear legal meaning, is potentially wider than the concept of gender reassignment in current UK law, and is understood by different people in different ways.’ (The EHRC).

Ill defined concepts make for very bad law. The Government was right to pause and consider the issue properly, rather than rush out bad legislation that risked being put through on the nod without proper scrutiny. I just wish they, and previous Governments, had applied such caution more routinely, to all sorts of existing laws.

OK, let’s have a list of what would be regarded as conversion therapy, and what wouldn’t, with sources for that.

Talking therapies would not be at risk from banning conversion therapies.

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone else has actually read into this.

The conversion “therapies” that were applied to some gay men (up to about the late 70s) are already illegal, under laws which protect everyone in this country, and rightly so.

I’ve not seen evidence presented to date that suggests churches, or any other organised group in this country, are running programs to pressure trans identifying people into compliance. On the contrary, if you look to the States, there are indications that some deeply homophobic parents and church elders would rather see a transitioned (magically becoming “straight”) child in their congregation than a homosexual one.

Structured talking therapy is vital and can’t be put at risk of well meaning, but misguided and rushed, legislation. It’s madness that people should be able to access hormones that come with massive long term consequences to health and fertility, or be able to access surgeries with irreversible consequences, before they’ve been guided through the alternatives and before HCPs can satisfy themselves that the patient truly understands the risks.

We don’t push cancer patients through chemo or other toxic therapies without sitting them down and talking through the risks - and those are ACTUALLY life saving, or at least life prolonging, treatments. Puberty blockers, opposite sex hormones and/or top and bottom surgeries are very much not.

"To that end, the government must keep to its commitment to consider the issue of transgender conversion therapy. If it is not to be in the upcoming Bill, then the matter must not be allowed to slide." is what May apparently said.

I agree if this means the sort of the awful and intolerable conversion therapies that homosexuals endured through centuries - no trans person should go through this. But the legislation should not cover advice to young people about the consequences of transing pharmaceutically or surgically and May should be fighting instead for more support for psychiatric services and the training of medics.

Unfortunately (a) there's little money for the NHS to so provide and (b) the quality of legislation drafting by the civil service is notoriously bad so they would have to be fast on their feet to stop conflating psychological advice with conversion and (c) including longitudinal studies about the consequences of drugs and surgery - not helped by the lack of follow up by those that have done it or had it done.

No, that's not the case.

There was an extended item about Pride month on Channel 4 this evening. It was shocking in its dishonesty, particularly on so called trans conversion therapy.

The Guardian probably saved it up in response to this

www.harthanbarrister.com/blog/files/44eca404b30952053e28c53829866deb-5.html

i.e. the litigation wave that's now, predictably, coming hard down the river.

As @Babdoc says, Theresa May is lost in her own tangle of guilt. I also think there is witting and unwitting homophobia at play and she need to face up to this PDQ. She's so far behind the curve on this it's bloody pathetic.

Has The Times just not bothered to mod the comments on this at all? Someone has written a long fantasy novel on there, and someone else is basically replying "Nuh-UUUUUH! 😛" to every single critical post. I normally think their modding is far too restrictive, but this is playground-level free for all.

I don't think what she's actually said is wrong in the sense that it is something that many people want discussed, and so it should be discussed.

I think the idea of trans conversion therapy only makes sense if someone has a misunderstanding of what gender ideology really is, and the whole public discourse is difficult because of that kind of misunderstanding.

But I think it's actually pretty clear that it's a contentious issue and needs to keep being discussed.

Evidence: www.ft.com/content/d742bcfe-86f2-11e6-ad89-ba2f348161fb

Ok is there any point in me posting on this forum. Is other people's religious propensities and how it might affect their view of homosexual relationships out of bounds?

The issue is the lack of clarity about what is meant by conversion therapy. Some practices like have been seen in gay conversion are abusive and should not be allowed. But just discussing identity and exploring any issues around that, can be helpful and in the case of being trans, is IMO necessary before any surgical steps are taken. The concern is that counselling will be subsumed under the banner of conversion, as some try to vilify anything but absolute immediate affirmation.

This is from the Wikipedia entry on Alan Turing.

Turing was 39 when he started a relationship with Arnold Murray, a 19-year-old unemployed man.

Turing was convicted [of gross indecency] and given a choice between imprisonment and probation. His probation would be conditional on his agreement to undergo hormonal physical changes designed to reduce libido. He accepted the option of injections of what was then called stilboestrol (now known as diethylstilbestrol or DES), a synthetic oestrogen; this feminization of his body was continued for the course of one year. The treatment rendered Turing impotent and caused breast tissue to form

The problem with this survey that May references is that there’s no way of knowing whether the “verbal abuse” or “indignities or prejudice” that transpeople are reporting is actual, reprehensible transphobia or whether it’s being correctly sexed (accidentally or otherwise) or not having someone submit to their every demand, however unreasonable. Unfortunately there are so many examples of hyperbolic shrieks of “hate” and “transphobia” that are objectively nothing of the sort that it has become meaningless.

I'm sorry but detailing the forms of conversion therapy that have been performed on gay people (such as the use of synthetic hormones and castration) needs to be heard, not deleted.

It’s absolutely backwards isn’t it? It’s horrifying that actively exploring feelings and thoughts before going down the medical route is discouraged. There will be so many people messed up by this shit for the rest of their lives - and I hope we’ll get to a point where the NHS is held to account 😔

If she's quoting uncle pete, she is getting bad advice.