Parliamentary debate on Monday to ban gay conversion therapy

[rabbitwoman]

Morning!

I have been keeping an eye out for a thread about this but can't see one....

Banning conversion therapy was a key manesfesto pledge by this government. Of course, gay conversion therapy is appalling and archaic and I am amazed its still legal in this country so of course I am all for a ban. The government have been slow off the mark, though.

A petition to ban conversion therapy reached 250000 so it is being raised in parliament on Monday. Great! I signed it myself.....

But then closer inspection of the wording of the petition raised alarm bells - it doesn't say gay conversion therapy, but LGBT therapy......

The recent decision to re evaluate the use of puberty blockers for children has caused a lot of anger and debate amongst many trans rights advocates, and I presume that the main thrust of the debate will be around the treatment of gender dysphoric children.

The Keira Bell case very much highlighted the problems with the Stonewall advocated approach of complete and immediate affirmation of transgender children and it would appear that actually, a range of treatments may be appropriate, including therapy and counselling that may question a child's gender distress and explore alternative causes, helping a child to successful outcomes that may not include transitioning.

In many places this has been reframed as 'conversion therapy'. I am very concerned that the thrust of the argument in parliament will be much less about the abhorrent practice of using psychological and physical torture to supress same sexual attraction, and more about outlawing a range of therapies for children presenting with gender dysphoria.

This has happened in Australia and the USA, and it looks like a call to folow suit here, which would raise concerns from a safeguarding viewpoint, as well as directly contradicting the findings of the recent Tavistock review. Making it illeagle to explore what could be alternative causes of gender dysphoria and heading straight to transition is a worrying treatment model.

There is also a lot of compelling evidence from the Tavistock review that gay children had been pushed into transition by homophobic parents - Marcus Evans, Susan Evans and Dr David Bell have all said this in public interviews.

The wording of this petition, though, seems to be a deliberate tactic to lump together perfectly reasonable and watchful therapies with abhorrent and sickening practises. I am concerned that the nuance will be missed by some and the progress that has been made since the review will be lost.

It is possible to believe that gay conversion therapy is wrong on every level, but also to think that hormones and surgery is not an appropriate pathway for many children currently identifying out of womanhood. Providing alternative treatments for gender dysphoric children should not be lumped in with gay conversion therapy.

I have tried to raise this on twitter and the replies I got seemed to be willfully refusing to see the difference.

I will be following the debate with interest, though!

This is going to be very interesting, I have a vague memory of Liz Truss being expressly clear in a previous debate about this being about same-sexual attraction only.

Am I dreaming?

Maybe the T on the end was just a mistake, force of habit?

Out of curiosity, what does 'conversion therapy' mean? Do we still have the practice of hooking people up to electrodes and giving them electric shocks? I thought that went out in the '60s. I think that practice should be outlawed, if it isn't already.

On the other hand, what if someone has homosexual feelings that they don't want? What if they ask a pastor to pray for them to make their feelings change? Now, you can argue that this is unlikely to be effective. You can make the case it would be better for that person to accept their sexuality. However, in a free country, where we are allowed to practise our own religion, should it be illegal to prevent someone from asking another person to pray with them about this? Should it be illegal for another person to agree?

Getting a bit more controversial... What if you have a man who is sexually attracted to underage boys. He is troubled by his feelings and wishes to seek help to reduce or quash them. He would prefer to be attracted to adult women. Can he get help for his feelings towards children, but not for his feelings towards males? What sort of help can he get?

The transgender issue is important (it effectively sanctions the affirmation-only approach, which is very worrying) but I think there are wider implications too.

@EdgeOfACoin

Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice of trying to change an individual's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual using psychological, physical, or spiritual interventions.

There you go. I have had friends who in the past have been forced, emotionally, physically, into this by parents, sometimes their peers at churches.
It’s to ‘de-gay’ people to make them normal.
Lots of evangelical preacher types still offer conversion therapy because it’s a sin blah blah blah...

Spoiler - it doesn’t work. But it can cause a lot of damage, particularly for younger people.

I think no government would ever legislate to prevent a person who wanted to seek out help, for what that individual sees as issues. We are entitled to seek counselling etc for any of our problems. I think organisations that believe homosexuality can be 'cured' is the issue. Some religions for example teach how wrong homosexuality is and therefore someone in their congregation, or a parent, might be channelled to a quasi-scientific therapy. Therefore, I think any organisation that seeks to 'convert' would be acting unlawfully, or at least I think that's what the original intention was.

Doesn't the trans argument do the opposite? If someone even suggested they might be trans, they must not be questioned at all.

Gay conversion therapy is abhorrent. Im not quite sure how the law should be written, but I do think a ban is appropriate for any situation that claims any kind of pseudo-professional authority.

However, helping people, be they children or adults, feel better about the sexed bodies they actually have, and be comfortable with their own clothing preferences, personality traits, and life ambitions is not conversion therapy and if anything is likely to scupper legislation to ban actual conversion therapy, it's the fucking arseholes trying to trojan horse this absolute bullshit in.

Sadly, many things make me angry, but as someone who endured and survived conversion therapy, it makes me apoplectic with rage at the despicable appropriation of my suffering to assist the further suffering of others.

Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice of trying to change an individual's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual using psychological, physical, or spiritual interventions.

Yes - but how do you define 'spiritual intervention'? Is praying for someone on this matter going to be illegal, even if that person has requested it?

Look, I understand the rationale behind wanting something like this in place. I am just incredibly wary about how such a law would be drafted and where the lines are drawn between 'counselling', 'support' and 'conversion'.

I still don't see how surgery isn't considered a type of conversion

whatson.parliament.uk/event/cal34164

As rabbitwoman says: e-petition 300976 relating to LGBT conversion therapy

Starts at 18.15 on Monday.

@OhHolyJesus

This is going to be very interesting, I have a vague memory of Liz Truss being expressly clear in a previous debate about this being about same-sexual attraction only.

Am I dreaming?

Maybe the T on the end was just a mistake, force of habit?

I hope you're right. It does seem that it's impossible to just say 'LGB' without tacking on the T now, even in cases where it's all about sexuality or the T is anachronistic. It's noticeable on the BBC it's usually 'LGBTplus'. Just saying LGB would probably be pounced on. Better to use words than a string of disparate letters.

It's interesting to see Elliot Colburn's announcement on twitter and people already making this all about trans:

twitter.com/ElliotColburn/status/1367525873478488066

With this being in the evening it might attract a group of zealots to the debate and not so many reasonable voices.

see, already there are some interesting, thoughtful and qualified voices here that have managed to shed a light on my ideas of what gay conversion therapy is and what it is for.

I will hold my hands up and say that the actual issue of gay conversion therapy is not specifically my issue. Not because i don't care - but because i have always just thought of it as horrible experiments on people, so have always thought of it as wrong and horrendous. i have not done a lot of research.

But the damage currently being done to children is absolutely my issue and that is where i have done a lot of research and have a personal vested interest. the concern that we have come so far in exposing this, with the Travistock review and scrutiny of Mermaids and Stonewall, but that this sneaky wording of this petition and any action that comes out of it may set us back even more is what is consuming me at the moment.

The USA and Australia have banned conversion therapy and that has included offering alternative therapies to children with gender dysphoria. it is now complete and unquestioning affirmation from day 1, or risk fines, losing your licence or even jail........ is that at risk of happening here?

Surely not?!

@nauticant

It's interesting to see Elliot Colburn's announcement on twitter and people already making this all about trans:

twitter.com/ElliotColburn/status/1367525873478488066

With this being in the evening it might attract a group of zealots to the debate and not so many reasonable voices.

on that twitter thread, mermaids have chimed in - they've joined the call to ban conversion therapy.

I know what their specific focus is going to be......

What bunting said with big shiny knobs on! It’s absolutely a Trojan horse to ensure the affirmation only for ‘Trans’ children & teenagers

Conversion therapy is utterly abhorrent & lesbian, gay & bisexual people have suffered appallingly from being told they’re ‘wrong’, need ‘fixing’ and can be ‘fixed’

The affirmation approach with trans is the exact opposite. It says ‘yes your body is ‘wrong’, yes you need ‘fixing’ and yes you can be ‘fixed’

But surely saying there is something wrong with you that can be fixed is exactly what conversion therapy is?

Mermaids are urging people to write to their MP to ban conversion therapy. Apparently 10% of Asexual people and 13% of trans people have been offered or undergone some form of ‘conversion therapy’.

This is worrying in two ways a) the obvious issue of lumping of perfectly legitimate psychological treatment for gender dysphoria in with gay conversion therapy and b) why have only 13% of people with gender dysphoria been offered any kind of therapy?

Tbf I don’t trust those figures at all. Looking at the survey they are supposed to be from. There is no overall figure for trans people being offered conversion therapy. The only relevant reference to 13% is that out of self selected survey response of 108,000, 13% identified as trans. They mention that 9% of transmen have been offered ‘conversion therapy’ but only 4% took up the offer.

Very bizarre.

www.banconversiontherapy.com/

It’s like everything else. Who you are sexually attracted to do is nothing to do with how you choose to present to the outside world. The T does not belong in a debate about banning conversion therapy for LGB but I bet it dominates the entire discussion.

This is a really good paper exploring a lot of the issues, and noting where there could a problem with false equivalence: www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-bulletin/article/sex-gender-and-gender-identity-a-reevaluation-of-the-evidence/76A3DC54F3BD91E8D631B93397698B1A

yes, Biscuits!!! Two completely opposite concepts being lumped in together .....

i did email my MP by the way with pretty much the exact wording of my original post - her reply didn't answer any of my concerns about the gender dysphoria issue, but concentrated solely on the ban on gay conversion therapy. I have not been ambiguous, i have put my point across well, you guys who have replied to me have seen what i meant and addressed it, but she didn't.

was this done willfully? or was she just in a hurry and maybe only read the subject heading and first paragraph?

so much about this on Twitter without actually acknowledging that there are two completely separate and distinct issues that are literally the opposite of each other, and blanket legislation will not be appropriate.

is this deliberate? And if so, where is it coming from?

Or i wonder if anyone is actually going to stand up and say yes, i completely agree gay conversion therapy is abhorrent and wrong and we will outlaw it immediately, including preventing homophobic parents from compelling their gay children onto an irreversible medical pathway as advocated by Mermaids and Stonewall, Is the motion passed, the ayes have it........ and before anyone can blink and think too hard the motion is passed and we have protection for our gay children after all......

Agree it is a Trojan horse. Conversion therapy though abhorrent isn't widespread. It's about protecting people from quacks and religious zealots. Where trans is concerned it's about doing the opposite.

@Biscuitsanddoombar

It’s like everything else. Who you are sexually attracted to do is nothing to do with how you choose to present to the outside world. The T does not belong in a debate about banning conversion therapy for LGB but I bet it dominates the entire discussion.

And that fucks me off even more!

"Oh, you had all night 'deliverance', accountability partners who you had to tell every time you fancied another woman, and you were eventually raped?
I'm sure we could reference it in a dry consultation document, but would you mind standing to the side so we can have a chat to the Mermaids people with their big eyed children and all those people with the lovely flags?"

“Is this deliberate”

Yes it is. It’s straight out of the Dentons manual. Self ID in Ireland was Trojan horsed through on the back of gay marriage. All the focus was on that and no one noticed what else went through.

If those goes through, I can’t see how any therapist would be able to question any teenager presenting as trans and explore the issues around it

And I’m long past ascribing any good faith to the likes of Mermaids

The survey that generated this data asked a question about conversion therapy but didn’t define what they meant. Is that normal in this sort of exercise?

They say that 2% (of 108,000) of gay people had undergone something they would consider conversion therapy but mentioned that 4% of the trans respondents (4% of the 13% trans identified of 108,000), specifically transmen. They are not presenting the figures across the categories in a consistent way.

Yes - but how do you define 'spiritual intervention'? Is praying for someone on this matter going to be illegal, even if that person has requested it?

Spiritual intervention can mean praying over (laying on of hands). It can also mean full-on exorcism. It can mean 'counselling'. No matter whether it is violent (and exorcisms can be - the devil is beaten away) the underlying psychic torment for the person (usually young) is debilitating. They are told they are wrong, will go to hell and need fixing. This is the underlying issue - so yes even praying is conversion therapy and should be banned and the 'consent' of the person concerned is highly manufactured. Of course they want to be 'cured'. The alternative is ostracisation and burning in hell.