Conversion therapy uproar- can anyone explain this article for me?

[TeaSoakedDisasterMagnet]

I know very little about the current trans debates/arguments/ whatever but I’m really confused this morning. I’ve just read this BBC article this morning and I feel like I’m massively missing out on all sorts of nuances.

Can anyone explain this situation to me simply please? As in I thought TRA would be pleased that conversion therapy is in line for being stopped, but I’m getting the impression they’re not happy about it.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56353313

People also misunderstand that when a person becomes a Christian, they often talk about being "converted". This doesn't relate to sexuality at all but their standing before God. Some people will say they have left their gay lifestyle behind but are still gay. This is not conversion therapy, some Christians choose celibacy whether they are gay or not. The media has picked up some stories where gay individuals have talked about their conversion, but it is to Christ, not to becoming straight.

It seems to be a given on this board, and elsewhere, that 'LGB conversation therapy' (not T) is wrong but I'm confused as to what it is and why LGB specific legislation is required.

Are I right that it covers 3 things?

Barbaric psychological practices like aversion therapy. I'm not sure that these would be permitted in the UK but if they are surely it should be illegal to perform these practices on anyone? Or is the inference that it is ok if someone is seeking psychological support for something like depression or an eating disorder?

Religious practices including weird exorcisms and others that are less extreme. Again I would question why this needs to be an LGB issue. I have known people that have been severally damaged by such practices but these were people presenting with things such as Schizophrenia, ASDs and even paraplegia.

Talking therapies denying someones sexual identity. Would any good Counsellor deny anything about someones lived experience? If they do they shouldn't but where is the line. Can there be any talking through of the implications if for instance a previously heterosexual married woman presented with angst caused be the realisation that she had strong feelings of attraction towards a female work colleague. Would this be treated in a different way to the same person presenting with strong feelings of attraction towards a male colleague?

I'm afraid I don't quite get it so would be grateful if anyone could explain what is being proposed and why?

Make a huge fuss about conversion therapy, argue on the basis of horrible practices against LGB which everyone understand, bolt T onto this but don't discuss any details beyond Most Oppressed Ever™, hurry a law through Parliament having a vague and broad scope, and hey presto! anything other than afffirmation only is illegal and the Keira Bell decision is set aside as being overrruled by (new) statute law.

In other words, the approach as laid out Dentons.

The collective wisdom on these boards is immense. I just want to say thank you to all previous posters for your thought provoking comments on this topic. I learn so much here.

In other words, the approach as laid out Dentons.

Exactly. I'm not even on Twitter, and even I know that Stonewall have been hyping it for weeks.

Yes! Trojan horse - Stonewall sticky fingerprints all over it. Stonewall members of the advisory panel saying go on you three, take one for the team (ahem, 2 weeks before we're all due to go anyway). Plant story with ITV - media brouhaha - everyone talking about gay conversion therapy etc What's to oppose?! Oh...

All of the above.

Put it this way: If it was LGB only requesting this, it would never have even reached parliament. This and the hate crimes bill are all about suppressing heretics and very little else.