Is a conversion therapy law necessary?

[highame]

www.spectator.co.uk/article/we-dont-need-a-new-law-against-conversion-therapy

It is unlikely that a conversion therapy law aimed at gagging psychologists is likely to succeed by stealth. My concern on banning gay conversion therapy has always been about the horror stories emerging (10 years ago?) of young people being subject to abuse because of being gay. My recent concern is that the Transdebate has become included in this debate, not from its initial intention but as a way of preventing genuine discussion with confused teenagers on their feelings about the issues they are facing. I hope there is a wider discussion before these issues come before parliament but sunlight is definitely required to ensure dodgy legislation doesn't cause further conflict

Even without the T I wish someone would explain what type of LGB specific practices should be made illegal.

The only answers I've seen are "We must ban, abhorrent, barbaric, outdated conversion therapy"

Yeah but what specifically?

I think Bev Jackson explains it well here - from 14.30. Most of us I think would imagine this being about Electro-shock therapy which has been banned obviously so as PPs say it depends on what you mean by 'conversion therapy'.

Sorry, meant to say Bev Jackson from LGB Alliance.

Unsurprisingly, Mumsnet GCs are in favour of trying to forcibly change people's sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

Apt username there.

People can’t be converted out of sexual orientation because it’s innate

Gender identity is a whole nother ball game! Discussing with a teenage girl why they feel like a boy and what they think would be better if they transitioned is entirely sensible but stonewall et al would say that was conversion therapy

@Biscuitsanddoombar

People can’t be converted out of sexual orientation because it’s innate

Gender identity is a whole nother ball game! Discussing with a teenage girl why they feel like a boy and what they think would be better if they transitioned is entirely sensible but stonewall et al would say that was conversion therapy

Firstly, you only think it's different because of your ideology.

Secondly, your assumption here is that teens just walk into a GID clinic and are handed blockers. That's not what happens. At all.

3+ years waiting for first appointment. Several appointments necessary to obtain any form of treatment.

Almost as if this is a non-issue.

@Zinco

As far as I'm concerned, adults should be allowed to try "gay conversion therapy" if they like.

But it doesn't work? Who cares? They can try to find new ways that might work for as long as they like.

Actually it's entirely plausible to me that it could work. I don't mean going from 100% gay to 100% straight. I mean some people may be able to successfully suppress some degree of homosexual feeling. Why couldn't that work in some cases?

No responsible therapist or psychologist would be involved in doing such a thing? Isn't there room for reasonable disagreement here? I have big questions about whether it's responsible for them to trans kids... people can disagree over whether this stuff is a good idea or not.

Anyway, it isn't just therapists and psychologists but religious counselling that could be involved, and that's a freedom of religion matter. You aren't allowed to follow your religion to try to suppress what are seen as sinful feelings?

Fucking hell, of course sexuality can't, and shouldn't, be changed.

Is biology an ideology?

Someone call David Attenborough!

I am pretty sure that what is usually thought of in terms of conversion therapy isn't allowed under professional regs for counsellors and psychologists, etc.

If there is a need for a law around it, there should probably be some kind of evidence presented about how often it is happening today, under what circumstances, who are the people involved. You aren't going to have good law without that kind of information.

It remains an open question whether or not a law like this would make any material difference to people's lives, without any data.

And then there are questions of how widely it would or should apply. There is really limited knowledge about gender identity in general, and however uncomfortable it makes people, the scientific understanding of sexuality is still a lot more rudimentary than we might like. So a law that is casting quite a wide net may actually impede further knowledge. We could also ask whether it would apply to people who themselves feel there is some kind of problem with their sexual expression, and whether the law should be telling people what their goals in that area should be.

I actually have so many issues with this article that I'm not sure where to start!

Leaving aside the issue of trans kids for a minute and just taking the LGB bits, as far as I can tell Douglas Murrays argument comes down to "if it can be done, and some people want it done, then they should have the choice of doing it. " I can't agree with him there. For me there are some things which have such a great potential to harm communities that they should be banned even if some might freely choose them on an individual level.

If there's one thing rad fems have taught me it's that the concept of choice is at best loaded, and at worst impossible, when made within a system of uneven power structures. Murrays thinking may be in line with that of libertarians for whom individual choice is paramount even if it harm other members of society and actively support oppressive systems, but I can't buy into that myself. The number of people who would seek conversion therapy out of a feeling of obligation to their families, religious guilt, internalised homophobia etc and be tremendously harmed by it, would almost certainly out weigh those making a truly free and neutral choice.

Murray says that coercive control is already illegal, but he fails to appreciate how hard it would be to prove that this had taken place and also ignores the fact that someone could feel coerced into that choice without the coersion ever coming close to levels deemed criminal (for example just knowing that your parents were upset to have a gay child would be a sufficient motivator for some to seek therapy even if it they didn't really want to). Also, saying "coercive control is already illegal" sounds awfully like "it's already illegal for people to attack you in a toilet". It just doesn't sit right with me. And yes I know that the other reason he raises this is to question what a new law would cover that existing laws wouldn't, but I'll come back to that in another post.

Just as I don't believe that women can make a truly free choice to sell sex in a mysogynistic society where they may be coerced by circumstances like poverty even if they aren't coerced by an actual person, so I don't believe LGB people can make a truly free choice to undergo conversion therapy in a homophobic society where they may be coerced by circumstances such as fears of job discrimination even if they aren't coerced by an actual person. Even if some people did freely choose it, just having the choice available (and presumably the evidence of some people who have been "converted" and are happy about it) would lead to immense pressure on others to at least try it. Just as industries that commodity women such as sex work and surrogacy harm all women even if the individuals who choose it are happy, so conversion therapy harms all LGB people even if the individuals who choose it are happy.

He also says "harmful practices" are already illegal and links this with electro shock therapy in a way that implies it is illegal. It isn't, it's actually a treatment for clinical depression that is referred to by webMD as "safe", "painless", and "harmless". Of course that's because there's a clear and well understood clinical mechanism for its efficacy, but if the bar for permitted conversion therapies is set at "not harmful" then I doubt it would take much for this to be used as evidence that it should be included. My point is that the definition of "harmful" is not static and can be easily changed to suit political agendas. We've seen this with the clinical pathways for children with GD and I absolutely believe that allowing conversion therapy to be promoted as a neutral choice consenting adults should be allowed to make would create a huge incentive to mangle the definition of "harm" even further.

OK, I don't remember the rest of tee article well enough to comment further and I have to get my kids ready for bed, but I'm going to reread it and try to post again because I have additional thoughts on this issue.

What a ridiculous sentiment - of course it’s necessary.

@Conniethesensible

What a ridiculous sentiment - of course it’s necessary.

Lots of treatments which aren't useful/desirable aren't illegal. It's a pretty unusual way of deal with something like this.

I think OP means, in this day and age, what gay conversion practices are not already illegal.

I think maybe the "pray the gay away" fundamental religious practices still go on within communities, but they would be illegal anyway if the person being "converted" flagged it up.

It couldn't be classed as "therapy".

The only thing I can think of that comes close is the chemical castration of sex offenders, which has been used in recent history in the UK.
I read (in the Metro so maybe not reliable) that in 2017 an "experimental ‘opt-in’ NHS programme saw some convicted paedophiles being treated this way, showing it still has weight in the medical and criminal world".

They use a prostate cancer drug, that effect the hormone releasing pituitary gland in the brain. This was the same as "organo-therapy" used on Alan Turing to chemically castrate/ remove his sex drive.

The morbid irony is, THEY ARE PUBERTY BLOCKERS. The same drugs we give off license to prepubescent children with gender dysphoria.

With gay conversion therapy, homosexuality, a totally normal sexual orientation shared by a stable minority of the population was treated as a pathology and medicalised.

With trans kids, we are taking perfectly physically normal, healthy kids, and medicalising them, and saying that not medicalising them/ doing nothing/ offering them non drug/non surgery interventions is conversion therapy.

I mean it isn't like the NHS, the government and multiple involved agencies have been endorsing untested, untried experimental anti homosexuality therapies to both groups, just the one that can't consent.

@yeahbutnaw

Unsurprisingly, Mumsnet GCs are in favour of trying to forcibly change people's sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

This comment is sneering, vile, dehumanising and slanderous.

I am not reporting it because it is useful to stand as a testament to your bigotry. Once again you have utterly failed to appreciate the point of view through you fog of self righteous zealotry.

Of course using gender reassignment surgery is super popular in Iran where homosexuality carries a death penalty but clerics accept the "trapped in the body of the opposite sex" narrative. Of course it's not an issue for gay women, since they will be forced into heterosexual relationships anyway but gay men in particular have been forced into gender reassignment surgery. If that isn't conversion therapy I don't know what is.

@yeahbutnaw

Unsurprisingly, Mumsnet GCs are in favour of trying to forcibly change people's sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

Are they? Is that a sweeping generalisation? How do we intend toe "forcibly" do this, pleas set out our cunning plans, I've missed them.

"It must be banned! There has to be a new law against it!"

"What, precisely, are you calling to be banned and what's your evidence that your proposed ban is going to solve the problem?"

"You are a bigot. You hate X people."

This seems to be the prevailing way these discussions go these days. Activists have become allergic to defining anything except that it is the worst thing imaginable. It is dispiriting.

This is the biggest Trojan horse I have seen since I was hanging out with Paris in Troy.

Some really interesting stuff and I certainly didn't mean to imply that there wasn't still a problem. Most people when they think about gay conversion therapy really do recall the awful stuff that went on. Certainly agree that there are issues with family, religion, personal guilt but how would this ever be found out. Perhaps via the shrink years later and if it was family, how would this be progressed to court, the victim would be unlikely to pursue. I guess my confusion is why now? and that makes me edgy.

@Scepticaltank

This is the biggest Trojan horse I have seen since I was hanging out with Paris in Troy.

Trojan horses are horses.....

Fucking hell, of course sexuality can't, and shouldn't, be changed.

But people can sometimes report their sexuality naturally changing over time. I don't believe it's correct that it can't change at all. Maybe a therapist could make a difference in some situations.

You also say:

"Of course sexuality shouldn't be changed"

And I really don't see the argument for that.

Imagine ideal circumstances where no one is under any pressure from other people, but (somehow) someone just feels a desire to have a different sexuality. Would it be immoral to act on that? (Imagine hypothetically you could just take a pill and switch.)

I can't see why it would be wrong to take such a treatment. I would just say if they are an adult, and they have thought about it, let them do it if they want.

Douglas Murrays argument comes down to "if it can be done, and some people want it done, then they should have the choice of doing it. " I can't agree with him there. For me there are some things which have such a great potential to harm communities that they should be banned even if some might freely choose them on an individual level.

But this isn't crack cocaine! It can't devastate communities.

If the occasional person chooses to go for gay conversion therapy, the worst that can happen is they end up regretting it, feel bitter at their therapist, feel they were under unfair social pressure and that kind of thing. Now that may be damaging to the individual, but it's not a real threat to society. Society can function just fine with the occasional person regretting their gay conversion therapy. I would say alcohol is far more dangerous to society than that!

But people need to be protected from bad decisions when they may be under social pressure?

That's just not how you treat adults imo. That's how you treat children.

So for anyone that tends to support maximizing individual liberty where it's reasonably possible, I think they would take the side of gay conversion therapy being legal.

No one has yet been clear what they want banned