Labour gender therapy plans ‘risk criminalising parents who don’t want children to transition’

It is an important letter with important signatories. Part of its importance is how the government responded:

A UK Government spokesman said: “We will bring forward a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We are clear that any ban must not cover legitimate psychological support, treatment, or non-directive counselling.
“It must also respect the important role that teachers, religious leaders, parents and carers can have in supporting those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

A law on these lines is obviously incoherent, because it is seeking to do something near impossible keep realists, religious people and TAs all happy. It has very real dangers, BUT if it legally defines ways to prevents gender distress as legitimate it also could be useful as well. It may allow the many medical professionals who see gender distress accurately to carry on as normal and even potentially use the law to defend themselves against genderist fanatics.

Remember too Labour is dependent on religious voters especially Muslims. My suspicion is the bill will be terrified of offending anyone so it will in practice define illegal conversion therapy so narrowly that it will be meaningless. However we need to watch it like a hawk.

We need to wait and see what the bill actually says. Gender realists/critics are a powerful well organised block now with some of the best lawyers and medics in the UK. This is a warning shot before the Bill is drafted. If it has major flaws we attack it, demand amendments etc. While we can't trust Labour to do the right thing, TAs can't trust them either to give them much either. There is going to be a big battle and it is one we might be able to win at least in part. Because all we need is the ability to speak, the TA side need to silence people because in open discussion their position disintegrates

Hear! Hear!

Here's the letter with all the signatures

x.com/jamesesses/status/1847924438303465752?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Once again I think, in an alternate universe where Brexit didn't happen, the EU now would be a better place with the UK in it.

Presumably if Tony Blair says it, Keir Starmer will happily u-turn while pretending he hasn't. And to be fair, he probably hasn't fully u-turned because he clearly still won't settle on what "woman" and "man" mean if he's allowing a Bill like this to be put forward.

I really do wish someone would ask him on camera if he would date a woman with a penis if he and his wife ever split up.

As for his doubling down, we've already seen how he snakes around when he does this. For example, the Tony/Rosie situation above where Tony Blair repeated what Rosie Duffield was saying about biological sex and suddenly it was all OK - the doubling down here was on Rosie (he refused to acknowledge she was right), not on the facts about biological sex. Also how he spun the situation in parliament when Rishi Sunak mocked him for multiple u-turns in multiple policies (that his changing position on the definition of a woman was only 99% of a u-turn... where previously KS had said 99.9% of women don't have penises) by saying that Rishi Sunak had disrespected Brianna Ghey's mum with that comment. That was a real low from KS to use the awful tragedy of a murdered child as a weapon in that way. It was clear that Rishi Sunak's dig was at Keir Starmer, not at children or young people who felt that they had a gender identity that differed from their sex.

As for "light years away" we only have to look at Germany, which is about to go live with its new law on 1st November that anyone from the age of 14 can change their "gender" (which replaces their sex in legal terms) and anyone who "misgenders" them faces a fine of up to €10k. Clearly any parents who were concerned about their gender questioning child doesn't stand a chance advocating for a neutral therapeutic approach to unpick what might be causing the distress. It would simply be seen as a parent attempting conversion therapy. Presumably all EU countries will need to recognise children's self-ID from 14 years old too, after the recent case in Romania.

Maybe intelligent and politically astute people aren't going into politics these days.

We’ve gone from Johnson who changed his mind every second to Starmer who isn’t going to change his mind. Period. Except when it comes to filling the £22b £40b black hole. Then it’s to correct us in our misunderstanding that all along he and Reeves didn’t mean employees, just employers.

Why oh why is it so impossible to get intelligent and politically astute politicians? Is it us? Would we not elect them?

How is it "light years away" given that 'conversion', when it comes to the concept of 'trans' can be a simple matter of questioning the existence of an innate gender identity, or refusing to go along with new names and pronouns etc?

There is already form for this type of persecution of parents in Canada, for one. It is not so far fetched at all.

Criminalising parents is already happening in other countries, There's no arguing about that. Every reason to be vigilant that it doesn't happen in the UK.

The problem with Starmer, and which is already more than evident, is that he sees any criticism or questioning of his proposals and promises as a threat - and so tends to double down instead. He seems to see being open to changing one's stance as being indicative of a lack of integrity.

Is that you, Iain? 🙃

I'm no Tory. But I can recognise a massive risk to parents of gender questioning children when I see one, regardless of which paper writes about it.

It saddens me no end that my natural political home (Lib Dems) seems to be even further in than Labour when it comes to pushing gender identity belief as truth. Obviously it must be pure coincidence that Ferring Pharmaceuticals donate to them.

Banning conversion therapy is light years away from criminalising parents who resist their child transitioning. I am not aware of a reversal to the pubity blocker laws, so this is just the Torygraph having a song and dance about nothing.

Each to their own but getting a particular party out (or being loyal to any party) would never matter more to me than child safeguarding.

Edited to add point about party loyalty. I’m just not loyal to any party any more. I can’t see I ever will be either

Thinking out loud, Iain Anderson is remarkably quiet at the moment publicly. I haven't necessarily got these in chronological order but it all looks pretty relevant to me.

Here he is in 2022 re conversion therapy:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60993881.amp

Here he is switching to Labour....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-conservative-iain-anderson-election-business-b2430302.html

Iain Anderson, who quit the Conservatives in February in protest at the party’s alleged “f* business” attitude, has been tasked with helping the party give small businesses a stronger voice in a Labour government.
(My bold)

And also resigning from Stonewall as chair...
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/news/catherine-dixon-appointed-stonewall-chair#:~:text=Iain%20Anderson%20(he%2Fhim),Stonewall%20with%20excellent%20organisational%20leadership.

Iain Anderson (he/him) said:
“I am proud to have served as Stonewall’s Chair over the last year and will continue to support as a Stonewall Ambassador for the charity which has made such a huge difference in my life. I am confident Cat will continue to provide Stonewall with excellent organisational leadership. I am proud to stand for and with all lesbian, gay, bi and trans people and will continue to champion our communities’ rights and potential in everything I do.”
(My bold)

Here he is having a breakfast meeting with Keir Starmer, Anneliese Dodds and others:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12304879/With-Keir-Starmer-unable-define-woman-no-wonder-Stonewall-targeting-Labour.html

Here's what he's currently doing as LGBT Business Champion & Executive Chairman, Cicero Group....
He currently serves on the Advisory Board of the Institute of Business Ethics from what I can see (it seems to be current):
https://www.speakersforschools.org/speakers/iain-anderson/

"Speakers for schools" seems rather ominous, given how useless Bridget Phillipson is currently being on addressing the school to gender clinic pipeline. We've got movement from Wes Streeting on health and crickets from Bridget Phillipson, on what should be a joined up approach utilising existing frameworks and guidance within schools e.g. KCSIE, Gender Questioning Children guidance and EHCPs for autistic children (35-48% of GIDS referrals between 2010 and 2019 were autistic).

It's concerning that schools and conversion therapy seem to have Iain Anderson as a (quiet) common denominator. How much influence is he having on policy in this whole area, I wonder?

This is his pinned tweet:
https://x.com/iain_w_anderson/status/1752257619681554930?t=0FwQQdkuM9kwvHjpOoOKmg&s=19

(And for some light relief, here's his comedy facial expressions when he's trying to work out what his own opinions actually are 😄)

To be fair, we all suspected this before the election, but getting the Tories out mattered more.

The new cross-departmental body will be spearheaded by Annelise Dodds, the equalities minister, who has previously vowed to make it easier to change gender.

Christ almighty. We are all doomed.

Edited to add that I had held faint hopes that Labour wouldn’t be this bad, but those hopes have faded fast. Corbynista knee jerk acritical thinking I use that word lightly runs through many of the policy statements so far in areas of so-calked liberal topics. Yet, budget cuts and repatriation of asylum seekers are every bit of Tory as the Tories. Political schizophrenia or as someone suggested pre election how Labour will virtue signal in some areas as sleight of hand to hide their more ruthless acts?

If Labour is prioritising this and retains its stance on removing the whip for dissent (perhaps the fuel allowance and the previous one were just the practice rounds to flex muscle?), a terrible Bill could get pushed through based on Labour MP volume alone.

I presume abstention or being ill on the day wouldn't involve whip removal but I'm guessing there are pats on the back and talk of career progression within the inner circle if you demonstrate you're doing as you've been told - even if you don't agree with it (but you've eased your conscience and gaslight yourself into thinking it's not that big a deal because it's just a tiny, "marginalised" population and anyway, it's "important to be nice" - to borrow a Tim Davie quote).

Another reason this lacks hope is that, under the Tories, this thread would've lit up. Under Labour, it's tumbleweeds.

The second half of the article is a piece from James Esses. A brief extract.

“However, a new battleground has emerged in the fight for child safeguarding. The Labour government has pledged a “trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices”.
^^
To outsiders, this may sound compassionate, even sensible. It is anything but.
^^
There is no robust evidence to suggest that harmful practices are taking place throughout the UK. When people think of “conversion”, their minds often jump to horrendous acts of torture, such as corrective rape, or electric shock treatment. Thankfully, such tortuous acts have long been criminalised in this country.
^^
In reality, this legislation will prohibit and criminalise forms of talking therapy; the very same therapy that Dr Hilary Cass said should be at the forefront of treatment for children with gender dysphoria in her final report.
^^
Dr Cass reported the fact that activists seek to portray explorative therapy as conversion therapy. If this legislation is passed, clinicians will essentially be forced to affirm children to transition, thereby denying them the opportunity to settle into their bodies. Many clinicians from countries in which legislation has been passed now refuse to work with children suffering from gender dysphoria, for fear of being struck off, or put behind bars.”

It says that the letter has been organised by James Esses.

“The letter, organised by James Esses, a campaigner, states that: “Whistleblowers in this field have been vindicated by recent events, such as the final report of the independent Cass Review, the NHS decision to halt the prescription of puberty blockers, the closure of the GIDS gender clinic at the Tavistock, and the revelations contained within the WPATH files, amongst other things.
^^
“Many confused and vulnerable children who medically transitioned through puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have suffered irreversible developmental issues, physiological damage (such as loss of bone density, infertility and sexual dysfunction) and significant social and relational harms. Those most at risk are children who do not conform to traditional sex stereotypes.”
^^
Last month, a United Nations expert warned that a trans-inclusive bans on conversion therapy could backfire by putting girls and boys at risk of harm if governments rush their implementation.

Reem Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, warned governments considering such a ban that there was a danger it could make it easier to “fast track” lesbian and autistic girls on the path of irreversible medical gender transition.”

(name change inspired by her gorgeous majesty arabella)

This is going to look a particularly poor reference point if challenged in court by the gay mens network.

Hmm.

It feels more poll tax to me.

I wish I had that faith, Red.

I felt this too. Potentially you have two departments dug in against each other (notwithstanding the glaring loopholes of the "ethical" PBs trial in Cass Review). Might just need one of them to get there first.

But any government that thinks criminalising parents who are protecting their children is a good move, might well find they end up having to confront the depth of feeling on this.

This is Labour’s “Section 28”