Feel free to use this letter as a template to write to Victorian MP’s. Please adapt it to send to your state MP if you are in Victoria and share it with others.
——————————
Dear
I write to you to express my concerns with the Change and Suppression (Conversion) Practices Bill in its current form and to ask for your advocacy in the Lower House for urgent amendments.
The sections of the Bill relating to conversion practices that attempt to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation are warranted and appreciated, and I am sure you will continue to denounce such harmful practices in public debate.
However, the traumatic experiences of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who have been subjected to historic and contemporary conversion practices have been inexplicably applied to gender expression and identity without demonstrated examples of the impacts of such practices in this context, demonstrating a significant overreach and generalisation within this Bill.
The 2018 inquiry by the Health Complaints Commissioner and the 2019 consultation by the Department of Justice and Community Safety which prompted the drafting of this bill only contains examples of ‘conversion therapy’ aimed at same sex attracted people, so it is unclear why conversion therapy based on gender identy has been inserted into this bill.
It is highly concerning that the Bill states that a ‘change or suppression practice’ can include psychiatry or psychotherapy consultation as stated in section 5(3). The law should not prohibit therapeutic approaches and alternatives to support individuals suffering from gender dysphoria. The Bill appears to suggest, by omission, that the only legally accepted response to anyone questioning gender identity is to affirm the gender identity, potentially through largely experimental medical interventions.
The recent UK High Court judgement in Bell v Tavistock (www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55144148) should give Australian governments pause before careful consideration of any proposed legislation enforcing affirmation-only models of gender dysphoria treatment, particularly in children.
Studies have repeatedly shown over many decades that a substantial majority (65-94%) of children presenting with gender dysphoria or questioning their gender identity and expression will eventually ‘desist’, ceasing to identify with the transgender identity. Current inquiries into gender clinics for children and young people also demonstrate an over-representation of young autistic girls which requires complex consideration.
I am further concerned by the proposed changes to the definitions in the Equal Opportunity Act regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. These definitions are circular, ideological and nebulous. The Bill removes the definition of sexual orientation as ‘homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality’ and replaces it with a definition referring to gender. This means that, as gender can be changed, a person’s sexual orientation can be changed or suppressed by a change in their partner’s gender identity: i.e. a lesbian woman whose partner starts to identify as a transman becomes a heterosexual woman. This defies common understandings of sexuality.
Moreover, the new definition of gender identity no longer even requires that gender identity may be deeply held, which means that person’s identity could legitimately change from day to day. This makes anti-discrimination unenforceable, as the grounds on which discrimination may be prohibited or allowed change as a person’s identity shifts.
I believe the Bill therefore currently contradicts itself by exclusively supporting affirmation model treatment for gender conversion in individuals who would otherwise potentially present as healthy, same-sex-attracted adults, therefore essentially acting as a form of sexual orientation conversion therapy by legally transitioning lesbian girls into ‘straight boys’, and so forth.
I am concerned that the focus on affirmation approaches neglects to consider the impact on gender non-conforming patterns of expression seen in homosexual individuals, for example a young gay boy who wears dresses, an expression which doesn’t adhere to gender norms and may be targeted.
I ask you to represent my support of a ban on conversion therapy practices targeting same-sex-attracted people which have a demonstrated harm and inefficacy, but to take the necessary time to appropriately amend the bill to avoid conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity, and more clearly consider the implications of the wording around affirmation models and interventions.
As it is, the Bill should only be passed with amendments which remove all references to gender identity. There is no evidence that there is a need for a ban on conversion therapy in relation to gender identity and there is strong evidence that an affirmation model, rather than a wait and watch model, will cause harm to children.
Yours sincerely