Conversion therapy ban. Update.

Trans ideologists often see conversion therapy as any suggestion, or counselling, around the idea that there might something wrong with them - so exploration regarding past traumas, homophobia, difficulties with fitting in perhaps because autism, coming from care, peer pressure, could be construed as conversion therapy erasing their given that they feel they were born the way they are and there is nothing wrong with them.

Kathleen Stock in the Telegraph:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/children-who-will-pay-surrender-stonewall-trans-agenda/

It’s children who will pay for this surrender to the Stonewall trans agenda

"Doubtless Sunak is under pressure from trans activists, whose influence on the UK establishment remains regrettably strong despite a number of recent blows to their credibility. Perhaps the goal is to offer a sop to appease them in light of the UK government’s controversial proposed intervention in the Scottish Gender Recognition Bill row.
There’s no good reason for the Government to give one inch. Since 2015, trans activists have pushed unrelentingly for policies that affirm any and all trans identity claims – whether it’s on gender recognition certificates, in prisons, hospital wards, classrooms, nurseries, or in the therapy room. Their continued obstinate deafness to obvious safeguarding concerns, whether for women or children, is frankly cult-like and not the behaviour of responsible public organisations. Sunak needs to think again, and fast."

It seems obvious to me, given the focus on orthodox Jewish communities in several of those stories, that labour in particular should think very carefully and engage proper with communities to understand their positions - not jump on the right side of history bandwagon without thinking through the complexities here.

Stonewalls stories are:

Carolyn: happened in the 1950s.
George: seems to have joined one of those cults masquerading as churches at 17; no indication of how recent this was.
Jeremy: didn’t actually experience conversion therapy; sought support in homophobic society through religion.
Maya: The therapy in Israel (so nothing to do with UK law); her problem with UK rabbis is more a lack of support and affirmation not conversion.
Eli: appears to from an ultra orthodox Jewish background and had an obviously very abusive experience. Bad therapy then sent to a camp. Interestingly the details of where he was sent are very vague - may or may not have been the UK. What he describes is clearly already illegal.
Joe: sought out conversion therapy. Therapist based in the USA. Decided to
stop it himself (no coercion)
Justin: brought up in a homophobic religious atmosphere. Chose to leave the family church to join the church where he experienced conversion therapy. (Much?) more than a decade ago.
Emily: I’m struggling to even see this as ‘conversion’ anything. The pastor told her there was nothing wrong with being gay and encouraged her to come out to her parents. She’s clearly had a struggle with religion and sexuality in her life, but I’m not sure why stonewall are telling her story as a horrors of conversion therapy tale.
Ibrahim: Muslim background this time. Voluntarily attended a single appointment with a really bad ‘therapist’.
Liam: raised in a homophobic religious community. Had a bad experience with openly homophobic (and anti-trans) pastors at church. Mother stepped in and confronted the pastors -whole family left the church.

Now, the stories are generally not great and quite clearly indicate the damage that homophobia and internalised homophobia can do in someone’s life. (Hint Stonewall: that is where your activism should be directed!)

But as a compelling set of stories to illustrate the need to ‘end conversion practice’… it’s not a strong evidence base.

I’m not convinced that a bill outlawing ‘conversion practices’ could possibly be the right way to tackle issues where people brought up in deeply homophobic religious communities (and these stories are not of mainstream religious practice at all) who seek out support and even conversion from religious groups they know to be extremely homophobic.

I think too that, in part, you are starting to bump up against some real difficulties in reconciling different rights that potentially
impact upon the equalities act. There are tensions between freedom of (some) religious belief and freedoms around sexuality that the stories clearly indicate. And, potentially, tensions around race and ethnicity.

Stonewall might not need to to consider nuance or tread sensitively in their activism. But the UK government does need to think through the implications and tread very carefully before they start legislating against cultural and religious views in (ultra) Orthodox Judaism, or Islam, or a range of churches (many of which are may well be heavily associated with black African or African American communities).

This is the site linked to by Stonewall as evidence that conversion therapy is currently widespread.

www.banconversiontherapy.com/stories

The first story on there is about a 'transwoman' who was subjected to horrific electric shock treatment in the 1950s. The others are all religious, and in some cases requested conversion therapy.

I really don't understand why anyone thinks this law is necessary.

^^ What she said.

It's quite interesting reading the response to this from some of the gay organisations (NOT the TQ+ centric ones, the homosexual focused ones).

They pointed out very early on:

• where is the evidence that any of this awful physical violence and coercion is happening now?
• Much of this draws on evidence of historic violence against homosexual people and could be seen as being used as a useful lever by other groups, rather than actually being an issue for those groups.
• Limited evidence it's ever been an issue for some of the groups who may benefit most from achieving this going through, not as a protection from violent coercion but as part of achieving a political agenda to control others' speech and enforce affirmation of TQ+ by threat of legal punishment.
• Homosexual people at this point rather sick of being broken down for useful parts to enable TQ+ political finagling, when said TQ+ political lobby would really like to reintroduce conversion therapy for homosexuals who won't do straight sex on demand to validate a gender identity.

I wouldn’t have a big problem with banning conversion therapy if it was well defined as being physical violence and coercion, but NOT discussion or exploration.

But you don’t need new law to prosecute physically violent and coercive practice. This stuff is already illegal - whatever the intended purpose is. It’s not ok to physically harm people or torture them or to scare and coerce them into things, whether that’s presented as ‘therapy’ or ‘education’ or just straight up mistreatment.

It’s important to ask what the actual problem this kind of policy is trying to solve. The problem is not that there’s no current mechanism uk address physical violence and coercion.

So what is the intention? The intention that’s being obscured behind images of beating and torturing children to try to stop them being gay. That’s already not legal. So what is it that the proponents want to achieve by getting people to focus on solving a problem that is already addressed by other means?

Society and parliament are full of people who not only don’t want to ask searching questions about anything presented to them as saving the vulnerable, but vilifying anyone who tries to.

I wouldn’t have a big problem with banning conversion therapy if it was well defined as being physical violence and coercion, but NOT discussion or exploration. The legal bar for a conviction must be high enough that, for example, my son and I can have an honest and open discussion about his pro-trans views and my GC views. I should be able to point out the logical issues with his point of view (and vice versa, at least in theory!) and the bad effects on women and women’s rights of trans activism.

I should not be free to try to coerce him out of his trans identification with impunity, but I should be free to say to him that he is not, and can never be, a woman. I should also be free to say that getting a GRC should not make him legally a woman (the ‘legal fiction’) and that he will never have a moral right to enter women’s spaces. I can’t imagine him having that sort of entitled attitude, but then I’m astonished he’s not in huge distress at the cognitive dissonance of his current ‘transgender’ presentation. And I should be free to express my concerns about hormone treatment.

Two sets of victims here: children and parents. Children for not having talk therapy and parents being penalised for for wanting their children to try therapy first.

It's never ending. 8000 kids on GIDS waiting list and obvious social contagion on display. Kids are being used as political pawns to appease activists and lobby groups. There's a lot invested in this.

This is going to be like the NHS A&E now, avoid it if you can.

Why does R4 keep saying that this was ‘widely debated’. It wasn’t at all and the people mostly don’t want this.

The Times has a sort of roundup of issues. This Paul Brand "exclusive" isn't in it:

Keir Starmer critical of changing gender at 16 amid row over Scottish law

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9aae9162-94f8-11ed-91ab-4070465550ba?shareToken=6d83d72d87ec3a48b154dedbd64740e5

This! It’s a common tactic - get Brand to put out that sunak has already decided to do x (when he hasn’t made a decision) to pressure him to do x

if he doesn’t do x Brand will then post stories asking why sunaks changed his mind about x & start on with the hysterical ‘you want all trans people to die don’t you!!!!’ putting more pressure on sunak to agree to do x

brand is typical of the smug self righteous no skin in the game woke bro who needs to fuck right off

Please fix the text editing box on mobile. This is painful

If i were sunak, I'd announce a ban including covering those with a grc and leave the rest. Political points to score without alienating half the population. I winner how messed up this message will be as i can't see most of it any more.

Ah. This batshit attempt of an amendment to the Online Safety Bill might be linked to this story:

twitter.com/cforwomenuk/status/1613963690797039621?s=46&t=SQ8mYzRr-3LwKmXGWnpEow

It's rather like the whole building on a green belt land site isn't it?

The contractors only ever have to win once. Those resisting it and trying to protect that land have to win every single time, as the attack comes back... and back.... and back... and back... with all the wheeling and dealing and greased palms in the background.

If Sunak turns out to be as weak as Starmer, and that's how he's starting to look to me, then that is the end of any party being electable. I am not going to pick between blue, green or yellow woman-hating, homophobic lunacy based on my favourite colour.

Agreed. Brand is well known for his views and he loves to stir. The consultation results on the CT bill are well overdue to be published so news could be imminent. Think the govt will want to get the GRR announcement out of the way before anything else is announced. He’s just shit stirring.

We've seen how underhand the TRAs can be. This could even be a total lie because it's not going to happen, as a last ditch attempt to manipulate the process. We just don't know with such general wording and no detail.

Perhaps they are starting this as a way of balancing squishing the Scottish legislation?

It is frightening that this is back on the agenda again. There’s clearly some very strong lobbying going on.

Seems that Rishi has decided to override the Equalities department and force it through, I don't have much hope for the Cass review either now.

Yet again Brand's husband (who works inside No. 10) has helped.

Seriously if you have a gender questioning child, keep them away from all professionals, they will be led down one path.

I’m holding my breath on him using section 35 to block the GRR. Fingers crossed.

Odd. Sunak is standing up to Sturgeon and her efforts to impose self-ID, isn’t he? Why isn’t he clear about ‘trans away the gay’?

It's very unclear what it means. And the notion that it will go against the prevailing direction of Cass seems unlikely. There's just not enough detail to know what to think

Daily mail article is concerning. Suggests that it is being run by no 10 not Kemi and her equalities brief.