Public consultation on conversion therapy

[everythingthelighttouches]

The government have announced a new consultation before implementing a ban on conversion therapy that attempts to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Does anyone know:
a) what is considered conversion therapy? Are there good and clear definitions? Would it include a safe space for professionals to apply a watch and wait approach, rather than no questions asked affirmation in children?

b) who is being consulted? If it is the public will a gender critical group provide us with a standard form we can all use?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57059459.amp

'conversion therapy means trying to stop or suppress someone from being gay, or from living as a different gender to their sex recorded at birth, NHS England says.'

I understand it in relation to sexuality, and have heard of instances of it.

They'll need to define what 'living as a different gender to their sex' actually means, though.

I've been discussing this with a friend today who posted a link to the article on her FB. I feel that the public will focus on the sexual orientation aspect of conversion therapy and not get the implications when it comes to gender identity.

I sent her a private message with information on the rapid rise of children being referred with gender dysphoria and treatments and their side-effects and included links to Transgender Trend and Billboard Chris. She hadn't considered any of that at all and is now looking at it with fresh eyes.

IMO it is yet another Trojan horse trick to prevent anyone raising objections to children being encouraged to believe they are in the wrong body. Etc.

They'll need to define what 'living as a different gender to their sex' actually means, though.

My daughter put my son's long hair in a ponytail today - who does she need to report to?

Link to this - links within may help with submissions.

Is a conversion therapy law necessary? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4206985-Is-a-conversion-therapy-law-necessary

'conversion therapy means trying to stop or suppress someone from being gay, or from living as a different gender to their sex recorded at birth, NHS England says.'

Aside from questioning what exactly that means, why is that not symmetrical?

Is trying to stop or suppress someone from being straight, or from living as the same gender as their sex recorded at birth not "conversion therapy"?

It's almost as if it's engineered to exempt one group and catch another group.

Does that cover automatic continuation of a marriage post-transition? That would be an attempt to convert a straight woman to live as a lesbian, surely?

this is a great example if where yoking the T to the LGB means that people wont understand

anyone who has not really thought through the issue will immediately think "OMG it's going to be dreadful people trying to force people to be straight, sexuality is innate, how dare they,!!"

and not consider that what it will do is also ban therapists from even exploring with young people whether they are truly gender dysphoric or whether there might be other issues at play

What about the "spousal veto" when getting a GRC? Would the removal of this provision be considered conversion? Because under gender ideology your sexuality actually depends on how your partner identifies. So if you're a gay man and married, your partner transitioning and especially getting a GRC, makes you straight.

Exactly kit19! They need to unyoke the T from the LGB in this instance.

@NecessaryScene1

'conversion therapy means trying to stop or suppress someone from being gay, or from living as a different gender to their sex recorded at birth, NHS England says.'

Aside from questioning what exactly that means, why is that not symmetrical?

Is trying to stop or suppress someone from being straight, or from living as the same gender as their sex recorded at birth not "conversion therapy"?

It's almost as if it's engineered to exempt one group and catch another group.

The law is aimed at letting people be themselves, whether that is straight or gay or trans or none of the above. Conversion therapy is specifically intended to force a person to be straight and conform to the gender roles associated with their sex. Do you really think those two things are the same?

The law is aimed at letting people be themselves

It doesn't matter what it's "aimed at". It matters what it says.

conform to the gender roles associated with their sex.

You seems to be saying something quite different to the text I quoted. Some definitions are clearly needed.

Do you really think those two things are the same?

What two things?

You're defining a term "conversion therapy", and trying to ban people from doing this thing. Why? If it's bad to force a person to be straight, why is it not bad to force a person to be gay?

If you think the "forcing" is the problem, why limit it to one direction? Why do you want to let people be forced to be gay or trans?

If the argument is "no-one is doing that", then I'd say the same about the other direction. Maybe we should scrap the whole idea?

This feels like a massive Trojan horse to smuggle through affirmation only models and not allowing any probing whatsoever as to WHY a person feels they are trans - horror at a changing body, unwanted male attention, prior sexual abuse, undiagnosed autism etc

If a lesbian wants to be a boy instead does that class as conversion therapy no matter what you do? You are either denying the sexuality or denying the gender identity.

The law is aimed at letting people be themselves, whether that is straight or gay or trans or none of the above.

I don’t think “none of the above” is included though??

Conversion therapy is specifically intended to force a person to be straight and conform to the gender roles associated with their sex.

Is it? How do you know what is “intended to force” ?? Trans activists have already shown there can be radically different interpretations of this.

Do you really think those two things are the same?

I don’t think calmly exploring possibilities and, particularly for children, not immediately affirming transgender identity is the same as “forcing”. That is why very clear definitions are needed.

I'm a 60-year-old lesbian who's been involved for the last 40 years in women's and lesbians and LGB groups and services — everything from Lesbian Line and women's centres to women's and lesbian festivals, Pride in its early incarnation and so on. In all my years and contacts I've only every met a handful of people who've been subjected to conversion therapy. There were two or three people who'd grown up in small, cult-like religious groups which had attempted to talk them and pray them out of being LGB. More recently I've encountered several asylum seekers who've had to flee their own countries because of the threat of more forceful action to make them straight or kill them. Back in the 90s I was aware of some gay men going to specific therapists or church groups that they hoped would turn them straight. There was one man who went to the US seeking help. But they sought the conversion out. So I would suggest that there's very little conversion therapy going on for LGB people. Which leaves the T-people...

Since the Keira Bell hearing it's clear that a lot of young people are being sent to the Tavi by homophobic parents who want their LGB children transed away. Or that people with a bundle of issues such as depression, autism, self-harm etc are presenting as transgender in the hope that gender reassignment treatment will make everything else better. Plenty of accounts from senior Tavi figures supporting this.

Stonewall, knowing they've lost ground as a result of the evidence in the Keira Bell case, is fighting back by reframing 'conversion therapy' as anything that doesn't totally affirm a child or adult's assertion that they are transgender. Even if that child or adult has mental health issues or is from a troubled background (as Keira Bell was), Stonewall objects to anything other than affirmation.

It's Stonewall's incredibly cynical and dangerous way of trying to pursue its transgender agenda, come what may.

*Since the Keira Bell hearing it's clear that a lot of young people are being sent to the Tavi by homophobic parents who want their LGB children transed away. Or that people with a bundle of issues such as depression, autism, self-harm etc are presenting as transgender in the hope that gender reassignment treatment will make everything else better. Plenty of accounts from senior Tavi figures supporting this.

Stonewall, knowing they've lost ground as a result of the evidence in the Keira Bell case, is fighting back by reframing 'conversion therapy' as anything that doesn't totally affirm a child or adult's assertion that they are transgender. Even if that child or adult has mental health issues or is from a troubled background (as Keira Bell was), Stonewall objects to anything other than affirmation.

It's Stonewall's incredibly cynical and dangerous way of trying to pursue its transgender agenda, come what may*

so worth repeating - it is exactly this!

So we shoild be banning 'women into stem' initiatives or other attempts to break down sex stereotypes as that would be converting people to be transgender? Given the BPS decided leadership roles were gendered we have better ban any females, or whp identifies as female, from leadership roles?

The idea by some that lesbians who won't contemplate penis in their sex lives is transphobic is an example of trying to coerce into being straight.

What I'm interested in is how this plays out with the fact that an enormous amount of people feel unable to live as they wish due to the massive enforcement of gender norms from birth.

What we are supposed to wear, like, feel, behave are all controlled massively by societal expectations.

Would a 14 yo girl who prefers a practical mode of living but does not have s trans ID be able to use this if their parents force them to wear dresses and skirts, won't let them have short hair etc? Won't let them play rugby? That sort of thing. Because that is really common for both sexes and can be massively stressful upsetting etc.

It's also true that in some religious groups these roles are extreme, what about the clash with religious beliefs? EG women not being allowed to cut hair, having to cover hair, dressing modestly etc. Expected to do house home kids.

I have not seen the evidence that gay conversion therapy is widespread/ is it happening in certain groups etc? Would it be better to target them? And again there's going to be a religion clash I'd imagine.

Oops deleted comment!

My sole issue with this law is that the base assumption is that everyone has a gender identity that can be forcibly converted in the first place.

Good point, McPancreas.

My issue with this is that they are trying to make law while the terms involved are not clear, have not been properly and definitively defined.

I can't access this article, but when medical professionals note concern, I tend to listen.

Agreeing, too, that this is somehow front page news and so important it has to be in the Queen's speech - yet by all accounts it affects an absolutely tiny fraction of the population - I imagine we are talking dozens of people who have been exposed to actual conversion therapy.

So why would it be so major? The whole thing stinks of lobbyists trying to sneak in laws unexamined.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/01/psychotherapists-avoid-questioning-children-want-transgender/

Ah the BBC

www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-56496423

'It's difficult to know exactly how widespread the practice is. The government has not defined exactly what it counts as conversion therapy, and victims may be reluctant to share their experiences.

About 5% of the 108,000 people who responded to a 2018 LGBT government survey said they had been offered some form of conversion therapy, while 2% had undergone it.

Those from an ethnic minority background were twice as likely to be affected. About 10% of Christian respondents and 20% of Muslims said they had undergone or been offered conversion therapy, compared to 6% with no religion.

More than half said it was conducted by a faith group, while one in five received it from healthcare professionals.

The figure is higher among transgender respondents. Almost one in 10 trans men said they had been offered conversion therapy, and one in 25 said they had undergone it.

But the survey did not define what it meant by conversion therapy, and did not ask when it had happened, or whether it was in the UK.'

Anyone who thinks the Conservatives have suddenly come out in favour of rights for gay people, lesbians, or women, give your head a wobble.

The Government is pushing through some extremely questionable laws shrouded in woke language. Anyone who isn't concerned hasn't understood the problem.

What if the consultations are part of the problem. What if they aren't listening to us, they are harvesting the info they need to see what language is used around each issue, and how much pushback they can expect?
We know they didnt listen to us over the Self ID fiasco, they had already made their minds up to change the law and labelled women who disagreed as bigots.

A cynical Trojan horse to undermine the Bell verdict.
Stonewall actually make me feel ill, this isn't aimed at protecting gay people, it's aimed at making 'affirmation' therapy the law.
It's going to need a massive fight back as of course EVERYONE is against conversion therapy as portrayed in 'Call the Midwife' on Sunday night. The usual cynical muddling of language to make bad law.