Conversion Therapy and a Survey of 25,896 LGBTQ youth

[Shizuku]

Trigger Warning - this post discusses suicidal feelings.

As the banning of conversion therapy is currently being debated, it might be useful for members of this group to see a survey of 25,896 LGBTQ youth which found that 57% of transgender and non-binary youth who have undergone conversion therapy report a suicide attempt in the last year:

www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2019/?section=Conversion-Therapy-Change-Attempts

If anyone reading this is experiencing suicidal thoughts, please know that suicide is preventable, and that support is available. Here is a link to the Samaritans:

www.samaritans.org/

Not only does it seem so, the implication is clear that posters are phobic for saying “Your birth gender is female so you’re a female.”

I want to add that I think it has been has already asked of the poster stating that claim to clarify if the statement references ‘gender’ or ‘sex’.

Because sex cannot be changed and is very reliably determined at birth now. Despite some posts in this thread.

While sex and gender has been used interchangeably in the past, since the rise of consciousness that some people have a gender identity, it cannot be asked to respect someone’s gender if it remains interchangeable with sex.

So, I read this statement as

“Your birth (sex) is female so you’re a female.”

But I am happy to be corrected by the poster when they come back with the links.

I am grateful to Evarish for giving actual examples of what constitutes conversion therapy as that is what has been asked for for pages and pages of discussion.

Absolutely, if this is what is meant by conversion therapy then no. It's not right. It is harmful and should be banned entirely.

However, I also question the 'remove support and isolate' claim in that many parents are very concerned about the grooming of young people online and can entirely see why a parent may choose to limit or supervise online access in those cases. If that is what is meant by 'isolating' then I think it needs further definition.

Also binding. I would be quite horrified if my DD wanted to bind her breasts as it can cause quite serious bodily harm in the long term and I would have major worries if she wanted to do this. Of course, there would be no question of denying her food, that is horrific, but I would want a serious conversation and would express my concerns and try to persuade her not to do it. Is that conversion therapy? Or just parenting?

@stuckinatrap

I am grateful to Evarish for giving actual examples of what constitutes conversion therapy as that is what has been asked for for pages and pages of discussion.

Absolutely, if this is what is meant by conversion therapy then no. It's not right. It is harmful and should be banned entirely.

However, I also question the 'remove support and isolate' claim in that many parents are very concerned about the grooming of young people online and can entirely see why a parent may choose to limit or supervise online access in those cases. If that is what is meant by 'isolating' then I think it needs further definition.

Also binding. I would be quite horrified if my DD wanted to bind her breasts as it can cause quite serious bodily harm in the long term and I would have major worries if she wanted to do this. Of course, there would be no question of denying her food, that is horrific, but I would want a serious conversation and would express my concerns and try to persuade her not to do it. Is that conversion therapy? Or just parenting?

If you're worried about binding, you should be even more worried about trans boys not being able to use binders:

www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2020/?section=Supporting-Transgender-Nonbinary-Youth

I've had a quick skim. Still don't see any science being posted that suggests that conversion therapy is either harmless or beneficial to trans people rather than harmful, so I'm going to conclude that we are all in agreement that the best science we have suggests it is harmful and that a ban on conversion therapy for trans people should be included in upcoming legislation.

@Shizuku

I've had a quick skim. Still don't see any science being posted that suggests that conversion therapy is either harmless or beneficial to trans people rather than harmful, so I'm going to conclude that we are all in agreement that the best science we have suggests it is harmful and that a ban on conversion therapy for trans people should be included in upcoming legislation.

Still not addressing the harmful gender identity of people like Julia Serano then shiz?

Shock.

I'm not Julia Serano. Why don't you ask her?

Didn't you post a rebuttal from Serrano? Or have you realised that person has a pretty problematic view of what it is to be a woman.

@Shizuku

I'm not Julia Serano. Why don't you ask her?

I thought Julia Serano was the expert's expert?

What about Jacob Tobia, another trans author, who says women around the world are treated as sex objects, and if it's so awful, 'why do I want that so badly' ?

Or are you now saying we have to ask everyone individually? We can't just take their word for it?

Why can't we take their word for it suddenly?

If you're worried about binding, you should be even more worried about trans boys not being able to use binders:

www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2020/?section=Supporting-Transgender-Nonbinary-Youth

As was pointed out to you on a previous thread about pronoun use, that survey report does not provide enough data to make it possible to conclude that there is a direct causal link between a lack of gender-affirming actions by others and adverse psychological effects for trans young people.

@Shizuku

I've had a quick skim. Still don't see any science being posted that suggests that conversion therapy is either harmless or beneficial to trans people rather than harmful, so I'm going to conclude that we are all in agreement that the best science we have suggests it is harmful and that a ban on conversion therapy for trans people should be included in upcoming legislation.

And you still have not read the posts with anything other than the agenda you seem keen to progress at any cost.

Despite numerous people, many people, even lurkers, coming out to point out what has now become obvious.

a ban on conversion therapy for trans people should be included in upcoming legislation

Woah, massive logic leap failure. Laws can have unintended consequences.

Given that we have failed to establish that any "conversion therapy for trans people" is even happening, there does not seem to be any obvious benefit to such a law. But there could be a cost.

But we do know - lots of examples in the thread above - that there are people who will stretch the definition of "conversion therapy" to "treating gender dysphoria as a mental health condition".

So given that one of the key ways to avoid people like Keira Bell undergoing unnecessary physical harm is addressing mental health, we need to be absolutely clear that such a law would in no way preclude normal therapy for people to overcome their gender dysphoria. Which will mean them potentially deciding they're not trans.

We have to be absolutely clear that "people deciding they're not trans" due to therapy is a potentially desirable outcome for many individuals. (And by genderology logic it's not "conversion" anyway because as they often claim about Keira - "she was never really trans", just as trans people were always trans.)

Now, if the law was specific like "no electroshock treatment", and other specific things, then maybe I could be persuaded. But you'd have to work pretty hard to convince me that the potential downside from blocking potentially-good treatments outweighed the upside of blocking bad ones no-one is doing anyway.

There is a massive existing problem of psychiatrists feeling themselves constrained to be affirmation-only, to the detriment of their patients. It's a very common view among detransitioners that they were not challenged enough, and that's why they made the mistake of thinking they were trans. That's a real problem, which extra constraints can only make worse.

Personally, I believe such laws are intended to make that problem worse and further constrain psychiatrists from good treatment, and this is not just an "unintended side-effect" - it's the religious trying to impose their world view on the scientific. Others can draw their own conclusions.

Despite numerous people, many people, even lurkers, coming out to point out what has now become obvious.

There is never any coherence to any of this. Gender identity is a meaningless phrase.

It can mean a male born individual walking around under the impression that the global degradation of women and girls is sexually arousing. And that's not meant to be harmful to the person holding that in their head??

and that a ban on conversion therapy for trans people should be included in upcoming legislation.

Well the Australian Medical Association Queensland successfully campaigned for clarification and changed to the bill that was passed, to clear up some of the many, exhaustive queries made on this thread.

healthlegal.com.au/current-news/conversion-therapy-banned-queensland/

Conversion therapy is a practice that attempts to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Examples include a practice attempting to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity by:

• inducing nausea, vomiting or paralysis while showing the person same-sex images;
• using shame or coercion to give the person an aversion to same-sex attractions or to encourage gender-conforming behaviour;
• using other techniques on the person encouraging the person to believe being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex is a defect or disorder.

[to which every single poster on Mumsnet would say “hear, hear!”]

Notably, conversion therapy does not include a practice by a health service provider that, in the provider’s reasonable professional judgement:

• is part of the clinically appropriate assessment, diagnosis or treatment of a person, or clinically appropriate support for a person; or
• enables or facilitates the provision of a health service for a person in a manner that is safe and appropriate; or
• is necessary to comply with the provider’s legal or professional obligations.

The following are examples of the types of practices to which conversion therapy does not include:

• assisting a person who is undergoing a gender transition; or
• assisting a person who is considering undergoing a gender transition; or
• assisting a person to express their gender identity; or
• providing acceptance, support and understanding of a person; or
• facilitating a person’s coping skills, social support and identity exploration and development.

In addition, the above exclusions will protect practitioners who, acting reasonably, in good faith and in accordance with professional standards, treat a patient in a manner that could be perceived as not affirming or supporting their sexual orientation or gender identity, for example by advising a patient of risks of having surgery when they have a pre-exiting medical condition. [My bold]

I think this is pretty reasonable overall.

Is this what you have in mind?

@Shizuku

I'm not Julia Serano. Why don't you ask her?

Shizuku

If you don't feel is that you can take Serano's or anyone's word for it, let's be more general.

Do you think that the gender identity which relies on the oppression of women, is healthy to the person who has it? (I've got loads of examples if you need them).

If you're worried about binding, you should be even more worried about trans boys not being able to use binders:

I'm not sure doing harm to prevent harm is a good way to go about things. I don't know the answers, but this still doesn't sit right.

Funny thing is that I was bullied because I had no boobs, (later puberty) perhaps as society we need to stop being so obsessed with them.

I’m not sure “La la la, I can’t hear you” has ever really taken off as a way of convincing people that you’re right. People can make their own minds up, it’s all laid out here. I find it very beneficial when people discuss what can and can’t be shown by particular studies, and when someone can’t discuss what they actually show, won’t acknowledge flaws and limitations, but just shouts IM RIGHT NER NER NER, then I draw conclusions from that.

@NotBadConsidering

and that a ban on conversion therapy for trans people should be included in upcoming legislation.

Well the Australian Medical Association Queensland successfully campaigned for clarification and changed to the bill that was passed, to clear up some of the many, exhaustive queries made on this thread.

healthlegal.com.au/current-news/conversion-therapy-banned-queensland/

Conversion therapy is a practice that attempts to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Examples include a practice attempting to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity by:

• inducing nausea, vomiting or paralysis while showing the person same-sex images;
• using shame or coercion to give the person an aversion to same-sex attractions or to encourage gender-conforming behaviour;
• using other techniques on the person encouraging the person to believe being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex is a defect or disorder.

[to which every single poster on Mumsnet would say “hear, hear!”]

Notably, conversion therapy does not include a practice by a health service provider that, in the provider’s reasonable professional judgement:

• is part of the clinically appropriate assessment, diagnosis or treatment of a person, or clinically appropriate support for a person; or
• enables or facilitates the provision of a health service for a person in a manner that is safe and appropriate; or
• is necessary to comply with the provider’s legal or professional obligations.

The following are examples of the types of practices to which conversion therapy does not include:

• assisting a person who is undergoing a gender transition; or
• assisting a person who is considering undergoing a gender transition; or
• assisting a person to express their gender identity; or
• providing acceptance, support and understanding of a person; or
• facilitating a person’s coping skills, social support and identity exploration and development.

In addition, the above exclusions will protect practitioners who, acting reasonably, in good faith and in accordance with professional standards, treat a patient in a manner that could be perceived as not affirming or supporting their sexual orientation or gender identity, for example by advising a patient of risks of having surgery when they have a pre-exiting medical condition. [My bold]

I think this is pretty reasonable overall.

Is this what you have in mind?

This is incredibly helpful. This is a clear definition of both what conversion therapy includes and excludes.

I think we could all get on board with that.

Is this the consensus you would like to see Shiz?

NotBadConsidering - as such things go, that seems reasonably constrained, but notable omissions from the examples seem to be "helping someone to come to terms with their sex", "investigating why someone is not comfortable with their sex" and so on. The only example for "not affirming" is the bland "pointing out surgery risks", not something deeper like digging into "what do you think 'woman' means - why do you think it doesn't apply to you"?

And "encouraging the person to believe being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex is a defect or disorder" is a bit too open-ended for my taste.

"Being transgender" isn't a disorder any more than "being a goth" is a disorder. But being uncomfortable with your sex to the point you're seeking treatment (either psychiatric or physical) is.

The total lack of the word "sex" in that document is remarkable. It only occurs in "sexual orientation" and "intersex".

It looks like the law did have a good attempt at tightening it up, but I fear there may still be a bit too much wiggle-room for activists there.

You know when somebody says things that suggest a tenuous grip on reality? I am coming to realise it is often a sign that the person has indeed only a tenuous grip on reality.

Like when someone tells you Bill Gates is microchipping people through covid vaccinations. You might spend ages pointing out the flaws in their frankly ridiculous statements. They call you a sheeple. Then they go to the next person and tell them Bill Gates is microchipping people through covid vaccinations.

So long as they are not in a position of influence it is OK.

Ideally social media would put fact check warnings on such theories. They don't currently but I am confident they will one day, quite likely due to regulatory enforcement in the not too distant future.

Must do some gardening today. Green shoots are coming up all over the place. I shall help them.

@NecessaryScene1

NotBadConsidering - as such things go, that seems reasonably constrained, but notable omissions from the examples seem to be "helping someone to come to terms with their sex", "investigating why someone is not comfortable with their sex" and so on. The only example for "not affirming" is the bland "pointing out surgery risks", not something deeper like digging into "what do you think 'woman' means - why do you think it doesn't apply to you"?

And "encouraging the person to believe being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex is a defect or disorder" is a bit too open-ended for my taste.

"Being transgender" isn't a disorder any more than "being a goth" is a disorder. But being uncomfortable with your sex to the point you're seeking treatment (either psychiatric or physical) is.

The total lack of the word "sex" in that document is remarkable. It only occurs in "sexual orientation" and "intersex".

It looks like the law did have a good attempt at tightening it up, but I fear there may still be a bit too much wiggle-room for activists there.

You are right that it's not perfect, but it does seem a far better jumping off point for discussion than: 'Conversion therapy is harmful, and no I won't define it beyond the most vague and general of terms that could mean absolutely anything' which is what has been asked of us so far.

This was on yesterday - worth a listen as an example of how some of the issues are being conflated.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000sz1y

it does seem a far better jumping off point for discussion

Absolutely. If someone wants to propose a specific law, then I can point out specific objections. We can't really respond to vague hand-waving - and it's up to the people wanting the law to make the specific proposal.

The answer to "would you agree to a law banning X?" is always going to be "depends on the exact wording of the law". For any X.

The answer to "would you agree to a law banning X?" is always going to be "depends on the exact wording of the law". For any X.

Actually, the answer could of course be a straight "no". But I don't see how it could ever be "yes".

This is interesting.
Brandon Boulware. A homophobic dad who tried to abusively force his gay child into rigid male gender steroetypes, could not accept him as a gender non conforming boy, but was just fine with having a trans daughter.
twitter.com/ACLU/status/1371497868268212227

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1371713528869060610.html

The ACLU thinks this proves their point. All I can see is the inflexible narrow remit of what is acceptible for a boy.
Trans the gay away. Like in Iran where it is illegal to be gay but acceptible to transition.

Also recommend.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08yr4dk

Lily. A Trangender story on BBC3. Lily is really sweet young adult who has fully transitioned. More power to her, but as a boy, Lily was expected to follow her father into the harsh, physically demanding outdoor life of a Welsh hill farmer. As a girl Lily was free to stay indoors and focus on feminine things. I wonder how things would have been without the weight of gendered expectation from a young age.