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!

Crispin Blunt saying trans under siege by conservative groups stopping GRA reform

Fifteen minutes in, and already it’s onto trans rather than gay people, who have been the real targets of conversion therapy throughout history 🙄

Trans people are 'far and away' the most vulnerable in LGBT, then he goes on to state that 'identity around gender dysphoria is much more challenging to meet than a minority sexuality'.

Did he forget that you don't have to have dysphoria to be trans under the umbrella?

proposing a framework drawn up by all the major LGBTQ groups

"conversion therapy falls disproportionately on the trans community"

I could not tell exactly what that lady meant...... They are all raising the trans issue but seem reticent to elaborate and clarify for anyone who might not realise there is a huge chasm between the LGB and the T when it comes to this debate....

It's a sober reminder that when MPs debate things, even matters they've put themselves forward to debate, they actually often have only a superficial understanding of the facts, and even less understanding of the consequences of what they're proposing.

very true nauticant which is terrifying considering who's advising them

@nauticant

It's a sober reminder that when MPs debate things, even matters they've put themselves forward to debate, they actually often have only a superficial understanding of the facts, and even less understanding of the consequences of what they're proposing.

Exactly. It’s all #bekind with little discussed around specifics.

Still no clarity on the differences..... Sheesh, they must be rubbing their hands with glee. Who?, whoever it is that gets £150000 every time a young person becomes hooked on cross sex hormones for life....

It's interesting to see how the speeches have a schizophrenic character, when the talk is about concrete practices and actual harm it's about what happened and happens to gay people, but when the talk is about those affected, much of the focus is on trans people.

Hur hur, the honourable member for Livingstone said #superpowers. Mind, her speech was reality-based and not about #genderwoowoo.

when MPs debate things, even matters they've put themselves forward to debate, they actually often have only a superficial understanding of the facts, and even less understanding of the consequences of what they're proposing.

I was reading about this recently, though, and the argument was roughly that MPs aren't really supposed to or don't need to have in-depth knowledge - that is what expert witnesses, advisers etc do. MPs are more of a sort of conduit between constituents and the govt.

Wish I could remember where I read it, now!

Haven't any of these people done their research!? Haven't any of them heard of The Tavistock?

Too fucking angry to speak.

It's interesting to see how the speeches have a schizophrenic character, when the talk is about concrete practices and actual harm it's about what happened and happens to gay people, but when the talk is about those affected, much of the focus is on trans people.

Absolutely. It's so telling.

It's also very frustrating, but unsurprising, that there is no recognition that watchful waiting, and counselling before a child is set on a medicalised pathway for life, are being thrown in with bodily harm and torture by those claiming that trans people are more highly impacted.

Who are all these people doing the conversion therapy that need to be stopped? Can they point to some organisations? Who, specifically, is being criminalised here?

GenderGP? (Lol)

Anyway, even if it's happening, surely if it's consenting adults, how can we stop them? I don't think we've managed to ban homeopathy yet have we?

We really don't normally regulate ineffective treatments beyond stopping them making unsupported efficacy claims, right?

I was reading about this recently, though, and the argument was roughly that MPs aren't really supposed to or don't need to have in-depth knowledge - that is what expert witnesses, advisers etc do. MPs are more of a sort of conduit between constituents and the govt.

Precisely. Showing that the input of the experts etc must be made highly transparent.

I'm just leaving this link here for any lurkers interested in how this all took hold in the way it did. A few years old now, but a good read. And the fact that the T is attached to the LGB, deliberately, lends much weight to how this has all come about so quickly.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/amp?__twitter_impression=true&s=08

Apparently there's twice as much conversion therapy being offered to trans people than to gay people. Like NecessaryScene1 says, what is this? Why can they give examples that relate to gay people but no one seems to be able to do the same for trans people?

stop pray away the gay. and stop trans away the gay. gay people exist and trans people exist. This legislation must not inadvertently stop a therapist from exploring the background for same-sex attracted youth presenting as trans. if this legislation enforces the affirmation model it will lead to more Keira Bells ...... So what is the Australia / Madrid model? what safeguards for gay kids?

"There is no need for more research. We've already waited 3 years."

Said in the context of no one in the stream understanding that conversion therapy for gays and conversion therapy for trans people are very different in some respects.

I assume a Bill is going to come out of this. It's going to be a load of apparent sense with a great big Trojan Horse bolted onto it.

We really don't normally regulate ineffective treatments beyond stopping them making unsupported efficacy claims, right?

Professional organisations often deal with this stuff - ether by banning it among registered practitioners, or by best practice approaches. Those can be quite powerful, after all they are how affirmative therapy came to largely dominate although often it is evidence based.

This is why this is all hanging on the gay conversion therapy thing, I think. It's not really a normal way to deal with an already out of favour treatment model. They are relying on people not questioning it because it's not ok to question supporting gay rights causes in the minds of many, even in very specific/detailed ways. If people object they will call them, not only transphobic but homophobic.

Mind you I think a lot of it is performative too. It's legislation that looks like the government is interested in social justice but actually does nothing and costs nothing.

A suggestion that social media companies should ban discussion of conversion therapy on their platforms. Interesting.

A suggestion that social media companies should ban discussion of conversion therapy on their platforms. Interesting.

That is interesting. And whose best interests would that serve I wonder? Certainly not the public or those seeking to increase their knowledge and understanding for a child.