Transgender people will be protected under plans to ban conversion therapy - says Truss

[stumbledin]

" ... Transgender people will be protected under plans to ban conversion therapy, the equalities minister has said amid allegations that the government has created a “hostile environment” for LGBT+ people. ... "
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/transgender-conversion-therapy-ban-liz-truss-b1822138.html

I'm posting this because on another thread I said it had been reported that the delay in passing the ban on conversion therapy for lesbians and gay men, was because there was pressure to include in the ban, one on trans conversion.

I took from this that it was to allow for the fact that if you implement a ban on "conversion" therapy for trans people, you could be effectively blocking de-transitioning.

And also raises the question whether or not the affirmative approach to trans identity isn't itself a form of conversion therapy of children who may actually be lesbian or gay.

Just to be clear I am totally opposed to conversion therapy of lesbians and gay men.

But feel that saying conversion of trans people is banned could lead to a loss of much needed support for detransitioners.

It all comes back to definitions. I am still staggered at how much the badly-worded GRA affects this debate now (and was done deliberately due to homophobia) and how much more damage can be done if this new legislation is not thought through.

One part of me does think allowing affirmation and adding third spaces (or categories in sports) where the sex-exemption applies may be the most humane thing. It would stop the damage of puberty blockers for young people and allow anyone to quietly get counselling and transition with recourse to expensive surgery to "pass".

However, you would need to have boundaries of steel and a clear acknowledgement of biological sex for that to happen.

This whole area needs good definitions.

That would help but our experience is that the gender identity ideology has made such incredible inroads by purposively distorting or destroying any definition that, by enabling people to understand what things are or what's happening, gets in its way.

I think we need to see the detail.

Interesting to hear responses to this. I think part of the problem is that this is probably a response more to do with trying to make good the walk outs by the LGBTQI team (cant remember what it is actually called).

Dont forget they did after Truss had specifically said they would ban conversion therapy of Lesbians and Gay men. So the walk out can only have been about the fact that the original statement did not include any reverence to trans conversion - and how that is two sided. ie trans conversion of L&G and no help with detransitioning.

So it is a bit like Boris saying things off the top of his head. Other people will have to make this work. So Truss has gone for what she thinks is damage limitation, but hasn't thought through what it would mean in practice.

But once again the rainbow agenda has taken the innitiative.

Just out of interest does anyone have access to this article saying we dont need a new law re conversion www.spectator.co.uk/article/we-dont-need-a-new-law-against-conversion-therapy

I thought conversion therapy was about trying to change some ones sexual orientation (hetro, homo & bi). What has it got to do with gender?

Banning 'forced' attempts to change a persons sexual orientation would protect men, women, transmen and transwomen equally. Its that simple.

It means not trying to convert anyone away from their declared identity.

Or possible identity?

That's the thing.

I felt forced into conforming to female sex role when I was a girl. I hated it. Is that banned?

Social enforcement of gender/ sex role is very strong in this country (and lots of others). It starts as a baby.

Dad taking his son out to kick a ball about aged 4 and telling him not to be such a girl when he trips over and cries...

That's gender indoctrination.

It's banned?

They really haven't thought this through.

Newstart bottom line goes something like this. (Not what I think but from all the stuff I've read).

A strongly felt internal sense of gender ID is present in pretty much everyone and is developed around age 2

It's an intrinsic fundamental component of humans that supercedes physical sex (which is currently under debate as to whether it is binary/ relevant in society/ etc)

As such if a person expresses/ articulates a certain gender ID then that is who they are

If their physical body does not accord then corrective drugs/ surgery should be implemented asap to help

Anything which delays or questions any of this is fundamentally wrong. Like questioning sexuality. Thinking there may be something else. Conversion therapy.

The details of the wording have not been disclosed.

Article in the Spectator on the subject by Douglas Murray

We don’t need a new law against ‘conversion therapy’

Wikipedia, with numerous medical and scientific sources: "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."

Nothing to do with gender

Tell the government? And stonewall?

What worries me is this attempt to create legislation for a subject that no one seems to be able to define.

Conversion ''therapy'' for gay people can be easily defined and described. As soon as anyone starts talking about gender issues, the language becomes confused and woolly. Thats not a basis for good law.

I caught something on Times radio this morning and it seems that (I am assuming) Stonewall has been in talks the the GEO (or was it the Women and Equalities)and something is in draft but this has lots to go through and given that everyone is now aware of the mechanisms of stealth, I think, on the 'conversion' therapy for trans there will be an awful lot of amendments and discussions.

LGBT quite brazen about their 'we have been in discussions' and have something. well Crispin Blunt had rather a time of it when he tried that one. Also lobbying coming under a lot of scrutiny - hopefully sense will prevail and also the law prohibits under 18's from medication, so in the meantime would you not be allowed to assist - too much would be really wrong on all routes. So, are they all trying to move ahead of the Cass review (my goodness, they wouldn't do that would they). It's been an issue for LGB for years, so why the sudden rush - Cass again

They also have to be very careful about wording because whilst it would seem outrageous to provide psychological support or counselling to help people suppress their sexual feelings/urges, it becomes less outrageous when you consider paedophiles or people attracted to, say, animals.

There are some LGBT people who say 'all conversion therapy is bad so we must ban it immediately' but when the gov say 'it's complicated' it's because they know that badly worded laws (eg GRA) cause future problems.

NecessaryScene1 - yes I posted the link to the Spectator article but asked if anyone has a share token, so still haven't read it as it is behind a paywall.

Can you summarise?

Oh, sorry, missed that. Here's an archive copy:

archive.is/hNc0X

Thanks NecessaryScene for the archive link. Have only had time to skim read and seems to focus on the politics behind this move and certain pressure groups.

And I suppose like a lot of tory policy is going to be a make it up as you go along policy if it comes into law!