Conversion therapy? It must be banned. I should know - Times Article

Yeah I agree that she took a real risk there; lots of people who aren't straight (and I suppose lots who are) have had a complex journey to get where they are, and gone through a lot of painful processes that this kind of crap could easily re-fuck up.

That's not the point of a discussion forum though?

If everyone just posted random articles with no context or opinion as threads, this would be a very dull place. Why would you share an article you haven't even read?

Here's a Wikipedia link about Winnie the Pooh. I haven't read it but you might like it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh

@TipulophobiaIsReal
Point taken about the reason she kept going being her commitment to journalism.

However, I should reword - I meant the feeling of destabilisation could be due to her agreeing on some level that she was a lesbian because something had gone wrong. And as I said, I think it's sad, not blameworthy.

That's a dogs breakfast of an article. Most of the comments accurately point out the problems with so many conflations of different groups, ideological side swipes and the incoherence of someone going in to therapy under false pretences and then describing her subsequent feelings as unsettling.

Presumably she was doing it as investigative journalism — I don't think it's fair to imply that she kept going because part of her agreed with the therapist.

While I think that a ban on gay conversion therapy would be plastering over the cracks of our system, and that bans on trans conversion therapy run the risk of distorting therapy in ways that prevent exploration and risk causing harm, I do believe there should be major changes in regulation, and that people should not be able to operate the way the individual described in the article does. Although I disagree with the writer on bans, I think that going undercover to report on this unscrupulous "therapy" was a courageous, admirable and valuable thing to do.

And YY to TipulophobiaIsReal

I'd like to ask Emily Sargent if she would have been happy with a counsellor who invited her to explore whether her attraction to other women was because she was in fact a man. Homosexuality, though not typical, is normal and harmless. It doesn't need to be ascribed to some pathology.
Second question for the writer - why did you keep going to see this woman? There must have been a part of her which agreed with the "therapist" that there was something wrong with her. That was what the therapist uncovered. I think it's very sad.

I don't understand why specific conversion therapy bans are desirable to anyone anyway.

For the healthcare side of things (including legitimate psychotherapy), there are existing safeguards from professional standards, medical ethics, practice guidelines etc. that prevent the use of futile and/or harmful treatments. Actual gay conversion therapy from genuine registered therapists is in practice nonexistent in the UK.

I do think we need better regulation of the whole talking therapy field, with better transparency and protection for clients and patients. But the best and most responsive protection against useless and dangerous treatments would come from research and regulation from within the field, with recourse to the usual types of legal redress in case of harm, not slow national implementation of legislation against specific therapies and treatments.

Anything outside of that system isn't "therapy", really, and most would either come under abuse of some kind (including religious abuse), or should be covered by freedom of belief — if somebody had for example a religious belief that being gay was wrong, and freely sought out religious counsel or advice (not therapy from a licensed or professionally registered practitioner) from a cleric who believed likewise, surely that's allowed? I don't think I'd want to ban people from having opinions I disagree with and discussing them with others who share those opinions as part of a broader framework.

We do need better protections against all kinds of harmful and coercive acts, including bad healthcare and religious abuse. But I think a specific conversion therapy ban might be a tacit admission of failure to properly regulate psychological and psychotherapeutic aspects of healthcare and protect those who seek such care, and failure to protect vulnerable members of society or act on abuse of vulnerable people in the community.

she makes a glib comment that it should be easy to ban therapy where the therapist has an intended outcome from the outset. But that would then ban puberty blockers and cross sex hormones for all same sex attracted people, as the intention is, even if it not the only intention, to make that attraction “straight”.

Clearly, OP is graciously sharing the article for others who may have time and inclination to read it. What is your point with this comment?

Why are you posting an article you haven't even read? What's your point with this thread - do you have a comment about it?

It seems that any comments under the article explaining that transitioning potentially gay children IS conversion therapy, seem to get deleted.

Exactly.

Banning Trans "conversion therapy" = Implementing LGB conversion therapy

If I grew up in one of those oppressive communities and really struggled with my sexuality, I may go into therapy hoping to end up straight or come to terms with celibacy. Would I be able to access therapy if conversion therapy was banned?

Wouldn’t it be better to just ban appalling abusive practices of all kinds , and allow therapists to judge the best way to support people?

They seem to not understand sexuality and gender dysphoria! Terrible journalist

The approach is ridiculous and unprofessional and not really journalistic. But what she describes does sound like a really unhealthy approach for a mental health professional to take. Almost the opposite of the sort of exploratory therapy I’d expect for someone who was unhappy with their sexuality (or gender).

She makes a dismissive reference to Kemi Badenich being concerned that trans affirmation is conversion therapy for young LGB people, but either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that the evidence for that comes from ex-Tavistock staff.

I’m straight so of course might be missing the point. Surely going into therapy saying you are unhappy when you are actually content is going to be destabilising? You are there under false premises.

I found therapy destabilising, exhausting and upsetting but was in fact significantly better off as I processed it.

I disagree with conversion therapy, but people need to be able to explore their sexuality in therapy. Maybe the issue is therapy being offered by specific campaign groups.

Perhaps pregnancy counselling and sexuality counselling should never be offered by people with opinions.
In fact it obviously shouldn’t- why aren’t these people disbarred?