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

There's a brilliant overview of the potential problems of including gender identity in this legislation from the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM). link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01844-2

Their conclusion:
Turban et al.’s (2020) singular endorsement of “affirmative” therapies, which their data failed to substantiate, contributes to the alarming trend to frame any non-“affirming” approaches as harmful. We are deeply concerned that this false dichotomy, reinforced by Turban et al.’s unproven claims of the harms of GICE, will have a chilling effect on the ethical psychotherapists’ willingness to take on complex GD patients, which will make it much harder for GD individuals to access quality mental health care. We maintain that availability of a broad range of non-coercive, ethical psychotherapies for individuals with GD is essential to meaningful informed consent, which requires consideration of the full range of treatment options, from highly invasive to non-invasive. Further, given the potential of agenda-free psychotherapy to ameliorate GD non-invasively among young people with GD, withholding this type of intervention, while promoting “affirmation” approaches that pave the way to medical transition, is ethically questionable.

They are the experts here. Hope they are listened to.

I would also mention: what about sex offenders with out of control fetishes or whatever?

Surely we would try to use therapy on such people, not just that they don't act on their sexual desires, but that they try to suppress those types of thoughts if they are troubling to the individual, (or getting them in trouble), or a problem for society.

I don't know how successful such therapy attempts would be, but it's worth experimenting with it right? You don't just dogmatically declare that it can't possibly work; not for anyone; and not for any type of therapy you try.

Now obviously I'm not saying homosexuality is equivalent to being a sex offender. I'm rather saying don't be dogmatic about what can or can't be achieved by some type of therapy.

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.

I disagree and I think I gave quite comprehensive reasons why in my earlier post. The worst that can happen at an individual level is that the person who underwent conversion therapy experiences long term trauma from it and it sets their personal journey to self acceptance back by a long way. At a community level (and I'm not talking about "society" here but specifically thr LGB community) the worst case scenario is that the normalisation of conversion therapy and attempts to market it as a harmless and neutral choice will create a culture where many LGB people feel obligated to "just try" in order to maintain family relationships, acceptance within religious communities etc. If sexuality becomes seen as a choice rather than something innate and unchangeable then I can see that having an incredibly damaging effect on the already tenuous acceptance of LGB people in many areas of society.

Society can function just fine with the occasional person regretting their gay conversion therapy.

"Society" is mainly made up of straight people who benefit from a system that sees being straight as a synonym for "normal". Will "society" continue to function if a few LGB people regret conversion therapy? Sure. It'll keep functioning even if lots of LGB people regret conversion therapy. It'll keep functioning even if every single member of the LGB community ends up traumatised for life by conversion therapy. The ability of human societies to keep functioning even if some minoritiy groups are harmed and marginalised is frankly one of the worst things about us.

I would say alcohol is far more dangerous to society than that!

Alcohol is dangerous and does damage societies, that's why so many people have at various points and in various ways attempted to ban or at least moderate it. We haven't succeeded but that doesn't mean we should never try to prohibit any damaging choices.

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.

Yes, as I said in my post supporting conversion therapy is absolutely consistent with a libertarian world view. Which is why I think it's interesting that lib fems and TRAs are so pro things like prostitution/ pornography/ surrogacy where the promotion of individual choice and the right of the individual to take actions even if they are extremely harmful at an individual and community level is held highest, but are anti conversion therapy which rests on exactly the same argument. It's not a logically consistent position unless you are making a distinction between the groups experiencing the harm (in this case it seems that its fine for women to harm themselves and other women as an expression of "choice" but not OK for LGB people to harm themselves and other LGB people as an expression of "choice"). However I am not a libertarian. I believe that opportunities for people to harm themselves should be limited, that the concept of harm should be analysed at a community level not just at an individual level, and that where the potential for harm is significant then protecting communities is more important that promoting individual freedom.

As for your later post about sex offenders, I don't really see what this has to do with it as being a sex offender isn't a sexual orientation. But either way their have been many attempts to change sexual behaviours in this group ranging from talking therapy to chemical castration. Is there any evidence that this has changed those behaviours? I've never heard of any.

A better question in my opinion is why is the conversation always about gay conversion therapy? Why not just sexuality conversion therapy? Where are the queues of straight people waiting to try and become same sex attracted? If I had a pound for every time I heard a straight woman say she wished she was a lesbian I'd be rich, and yet funnily enough we never see articles arguing for the right of straight people to become gay. When we see equal number of straight men going to see therapists to help them become gay then I'll believe that conversion therapy for LGB people is a truly free and neutral choice that has no potential to harm individuals or the LGB community.

I think Murray would take the view that we don't get to tell individuals what their personal goals or values should be with regard to their personal sexuality.

Which was why it was argued that laws and even strong social condemnation of homosexuality was wrong.

FWIW I've tried googling various combinations of words like 'sexuality' 'gay' 'lesbian' 'conversion' 'therapy' 'find' 'uk' therapist' 'counsellor' 'help' 'suppress' '

But I'll be buggered if I can find anyone that is offering such a service

@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

Which of course it isn't! Stonewall should get real, their attitude is very disappointing.

At a community level (and I'm not talking about "society" here but specifically thr LGB community) the worst case scenario is that the normalisation of conversion therapy and attempts to market it as a harmless and neutral choice will create a culture where many LGB people feel obligated to "just try" in order to maintain family relationships, acceptance within religious communities etc. If sexuality becomes seen as a choice rather than something innate and unchangeable then I can see that having an incredibly damaging effect on the already tenuous acceptance of LGB people in many areas of society.

OK, I would accept that, but only as a speculative worst case scenario. That we can imagine the scenario, doesn't make it likely to happen in practice.

Gay conversion therapy is still apparently legal at the moment, and it's not apparently having the effect that you worry about. I doubt that the mere existence of some people doing it, can really roll back social attitudes at this point.

I would also question whether you can ban things, not because of any proven problem, but just because you can imagine a worst case scenario where it causes such and such a harm.

Actually, if you are worrying about social attitudes becoming less accepting of gay sexuality, then one thing that could (hypothetically) do that, would be a revival of conservative Christianity in the UK. Should that be prevented by law? What about letting in large numbers of immigrants with conservative religious beliefs? Should that be prevented in case it leads to less acceptance of the gay community?

As for your later post about sex offenders, I don't really see what this has to do with it as being a sex offender isn't a sexual orientation.

But I'm guessing that a ban on gay conversion therapy would cover any attempt to suppress gay sexuality.

Imagine someone in a heterosexual marriage, that was being troubled by homosexual feelings at times. They don't necessarily need to switch orientation exactly, but they might want to suppress that side of their sexuality.

And I think that's roughly comparable to trying to suppress deviant sexuality of whatever type.

I don't of course mean that they are morally equivalent or homosexual feelings are bad.

I mean, that if it's possible to "cure" for one case, you could likely "cure" it for the other also.

Very interesting. The lead chap, Dominic Davies, refers to "the TERFs". Maybe not the best person to get balanced counselling from.

As ever in the absence of making clear what "conversion therapy" means in relation to trans people, this doesn't come across as a meaningful discussion.

Of course sexuality can’t be changed, people who say they were always straight and they’re now gay/bisexual were probably always bisexual/gay and just suppressed it. Can’t believe people on here are arguing for gay conversion therapy. No the worst that can happen isn’t they feel disappointed, the worst that can happen is they commit suicide because they’ve been wrongfully told they can choose to be straight if they just tried hard enough.

Going back to the video, things Pink Therapy love:
early application of puberty blockers
Stonewall
asexual people (who they see as being highly effective to deploy in arguments)

It looks like asexual people are to conversion therapy what people with a DSD condition are to sex is a spectrum.

@Zinco

As for your later post about sex offenders, I don't really see what this has to do with it as being a sex offender isn't a sexual orientation.

But I'm guessing that a ban on gay conversion therapy would cover any attempt to suppress gay sexuality.

Imagine someone in a heterosexual marriage, that was being troubled by homosexual feelings at times. They don't necessarily need to switch orientation exactly, but they might want to suppress that side of their sexuality.

And I think that's roughly comparable to trying to suppress deviant sexuality of whatever type.

I don't of course mean that they are morally equivalent or homosexual feelings are bad.

I mean, that if it's possible to "cure" for one case, you could likely "cure" it for the other also.

The thing is, if we are going to be honest about the state of the science, and we are demanding that in relation to gender, the fact is that we don't really have a great idea what the origins of human sexuality are, or what it even encompasses, or whether or not orientation to males or females is in some significant way similar to orientation towards children or teenagers, or what.

We know how people feel about it, which is not all the same for everyone, we know that people don't seem to think about it or experience it in the same way in every culture, we have some data around behaviour but it's difficult to separate it from cultural context. We don't know that sexuality is really just one thing or refers to a few different things we tend to lump together.

don't think it's ever a good thing to tell ourselves we know more than we do about things like this.

[quote OhHolyJesus]I share without comment - I believe this was from at some point last summer.

(It says it's confidential but I was able to get access)

[[https://vimeo.com/453348242/9aadce0903]][/quote]
I wont write what I'm thinking but that bunch made me {{{Shudder}}}.

At around 36 mins in

"If paedophillia is a sexual orientation, which personally I think it is, it's not mutable. Like any treatment that tries to eradicate any sexual orientation, therapy doesn't work on changing it. What does work is supporting people to not act on impulses"

I'm not a therapist or a behavioural psychologist but I could read the body language of those participants and it spoke volumes.

I hope someone has saved that video

Yes, it was only later that I managed to watch to the end and I was going to comment on Dominic Davies of Pink Therapy talk about how in his view paedophilia is a sexual orientation.

I'll end with one final comment on the video. If you watch it, ask yourself this:

Did they suggest anything that, were it to be followed, would mean fewer girls would find themselves in the position of Keira Bell?

Yeah I'm not sure.

It's a big problem in the USA. They are a totally different culture.

Is there any evidence about gay conversion here?
My guess is, and it's a guess, that it's in certain religious groups/ communities mainly. And in them, it's not conversion. It's just not an option.

We have closed religious communities in my area. Christian and Jewish. Where there have been things flagged in the past. No appetite to address.

It feels like a USA imported issue? To me.

I've not seen any info/ stats about gay conversion therapy in the UK.

Does anyone else have some?

@Scepticaltank has it right. This proposed bill is nothing but a smokescreen for trying to stop the 'watchful waiting' which is the best proven treatment for youngsters with ROGD.

The whole purpose of this Trojan Horse bill is to try to stop the 'watchful waiting' and councilling, which should be offered to ROGD children.

Their dysphoria is almost always cured by puberty.

The 'wrapper' of the bill, the gay conversion therapy bit, is just a diversion. It's a non- issue.

Oh blimey, spelling!! Counselling, counselling, counselling...

I think thr proposed ban is on shaky ground if it doesn't define "conversion therapy" and doesn't distinguish between forced and voluntary. Of course any forced coverdion therapy should be banned, along with snything painful of harmful such as drugs or rlecttic shock. These are dangerous. But if you ban voluntary counselling, you are possibly removing a service from some people who might want it.
Based on my reading of the science, neither gender identity nor sexuality are immutable or biologically determined from birth.
With regard to gender identity, there are serious long term consequences in an unquestioningly affirmational approach which bans counsellors from questioning a person (often a child) who proposes to go through invasive and untested medical interventions. If the patient changes their mind later on, there's no going back.
With regard to sexual orientation, no such permanent danger exists. However, the idea that sexual orientation is fixed is questionable and can often change over the course of someone's lifetime. Some people may wish to change their orientation for whatever reason, and I'm not convinced that it's fair to remove this option from them because of an assumption that we know best, i.e their desire to change is wrong. All of us will have things we like about ourselves snd things we would like to change, and I think the state should be very wary about banning things unless there is evidence of clear harm. So forced or coerced conversion therapy should be banned along with anything involving physical harm, but let people have counselling if that's what they really want.

Trojan horse is a excellent way of putting it. The Dentons document on which much strategy to obtain policy change has been based, suggested that gender recognition should be tied to “more popular reform” such as same-sex marriage, or perhaps gay conversion therapy laws. To create “a veil of protection”

I kind of agree about the Trojan Horse. And usually I don't agree with a lot of that kid of theory, I just think people are kind of thick about making good laws.

But I think that this is pretty clearly really directed at trans children and youth, not what we think of as gay conversion therapy. If it were, we would be seeing something concrete about what that is involving, how many people, who is doing it, and none of that is really forthcoming. There are anecdotes, and some aren't all that recent either.

But there have been indications that there may be a real change of direction with the affirmation approach, as more research comes in and we begin to see the results of it over time. Sweden is already heading in that direction it seems and they are ahead of many other countries on this. The characterisation of non-affirmation approaches as conversion therapy seems to be very much about making that rethinking dangerous for practitioners.

This is the brilliant interview with Bev and Kate from LGB Alliance, it has been shared on another thread but I'm posting it here as it goes into some discussion around gay conversion therapy as one of their next actions now they are officially a charity.

All of it is brilliant but the gay conversion therapy bit starts around 45 mins in.

From the surprisingly robust Observer article today:

The current campaign to ban so-called gay conversion therapy is, [David Bell] believes, likely to become a Trojan horse for trans activists who will use it to put pressure on any clinician who does not immediately affirm a young person’s statement about their identity, decrying this, too, as a form of “conversion”.

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/02/tavistock-trust-whistleblower-david-bell-transgender-children-gids

There are conversion 'therapies' offered by churches. I know of young gay and lesbian people who have been subject to them in recent years.

With the short government consultation being announced I wanted to bump this thread by sharing this.

Here Glinner speaks to Thoughtful Therapists, opening with some background on the guide for Therapists that conflates sex and gender identity.