Conversion Therapy and Cass

How are they ever going to apply the law though. TRAs all think talking therapy is conversion therapy, we all think affirmation is converson therapy so surely any legal case would be stuck between the two and thrown out.

The Salisbury Convention could be broken though, there are cases of dissent already. I think if there is obvious strong opposition, and it's widely seen as unworkable, then the Lords will at the very least still send the bill back to the lower house twice under the Salisbury Convention and possibly block altogether.

There have always been stupid people but what scares me is the current level of stupidity combined with power.

The capture of the C of E by the trans lobby has been awful They've handed over education policy to some very self interested adults and completely failed to appreciate the safeguarding aspects of gaslighting children to believe they can change sex. 😑
They're a menace.

On the Radio 4 religious programme just now they had on a range of people to talk about how they viewed the manifestos for the General Election in terms of morality. Bishop (of Manchester) David Walker said that he valued the Labour manifesto most because it had a ban on conversion therapy. From the way he was talking you'd imagine that was happening on a vast scale.

I am hopeful there is or will be a shift among medical professionals as a result, even if it’s not obvious to wider society. The conversion therapy ban risks undermining Cass totally though.

Thanks OP. That’s shocking about the insurance premiums and I agree with others this will only lead to a lack of choice and risk of only the most biased of practitioners being in the field (assuming they can afford the insurance…). It’s frightening what that would mean for patients.

I have been very frustrated this week speaking to friends who are not steeped in this issue who are convinced that a ban on conversion therapy can only be a good thing, and that it will obviously be properly defined to avoid catching exploratory talking therapies. I think the headline policy sounds like a good thing to average people who aren’t closely following these issues. There’s quite a lot to explain to someone to catch them up on the potential issues. I’ll be sharing some of this info though, thank you.

They should be. Prisha Mosley is suing her "gender affirming" doctors (health care providers in US so maybe not even actual Drs). Landmark case, if she wins it could open the floodgates.

I was hopefull after the Cass report came out. It seems to have been generally suppressed. Apart from threats and abuse from TRAs, Dr Cass seems to have been largely ignored.

That sounds to be an important meeting. Hopefully Cass now gives people the data and evidence to challenge the capture of services by trans activists. Time for safeguarding children to be our number one priority.

I've got a ticket as a member of UKCP for a question and answer meeting with UKCP trustees on 17th June at 6.30pm about their withdrawal from MoU. Members will vote later in the week whether to remove the Board.

Needless to say there was no consultation with the membership when the UKCP (and virtually every other psychology and therapy-related organisation signed up to MoU) in the past. I complained last September whilst re-registering, when I was asked for my gender identity rather than my sex.

I really hope that those members frightened by the noisy activists..many of whom aren't even members of UKCP, will vote to support the Board.

@RedToothBrush "Insurers see the whole field as a massive risk now."
So they're anticipating future civil cases?

With fewer practitioners and higher indemnity insurance they'll be able to charge more and they will be more influential.

Agreed. And there are lots of irrational zealots around desperate to influence children.

The risk I see is that the rational response would be for therapists to withdraw from treating children and young people with gender issues, but if they do this will create a vacuum that will pull in the irrational and the zealots.

This was mentioned on another thread I think it seems hugely important in light of the slippery wording in the Labour manifesto. Because they do not say they'll implement Cass "in full". That'll be the carve out they're relying on to carry on harming children. I can't decide if I'm astonished or disgusted.

Anyway it's this we need to understand:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_Convention

"The Salisbury Convention (officially called the Salisbury Doctrine, the Salisbury-Addison Convention or the Salisbury/Addison Convention) is a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom under which the House of Lords should not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto. The origins of the convention date back to the late 19th century, at which time the Conservatives held a majority in the House of Lords and, with the support of the third Marquess of Salisbury, developed the "Referendal Theory", which applied solely to Liberal legislation, under which the House of Lords could obstruct legislation until it had received majority approval at a general election.[1] This was changed following the landslide Labour Party victory in the 1945 general election, which produced a Labour government seen as having a popular mandate for significant reform, while once again there was a Conservative majority in the House of Lords. The fifth Marquess of Salisbury (grandson of the third) announced that the Lords "would not seek to thwart the main lines of Labour's legislation provided it derived from the party's manifesto for the previous election". From this point, manifesto bills were only to be adjusted by the Lords; however, on non-manifesto bills, the Lords were able to act as they had before."

I just don't understand why it's not conversion therapy the other way.

A patient presents with depression and negative thoughts about their body. Why isn't it conversion therapy for someone to say "well it's actually because you're really the opposite sex".

Just madness, the whole thing.

Thanks for this OP. This is hugely important.

Pleased to see that their insurance premiums are through the roof. Every single professional involved in pushing this dangerous nonsense at children and failing to prioritise safeguarding them needs to be hit where it hurts - in their wallets.

Oh lawd. Back on the rollercoaster.
I was so hopeful when UKCP released their statement.
This is so worrying! And yes- as always, it will potentially be children losing access to ethical therapists that will be the cost of this on-going battle.
(Thank you for highlighting this Red)