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

Yes, I love Call the Midwife but this week’s episode irritated me. As someone says on it, male homosexuality was illegal at that time. You can’t tell me that a GP, nurse, and GP receptionist all of late middle age then would be instantly accepting and tell the poor guy it’s how he’s made. Let alone that his mother would go from screaming homophobia to hoping he found someone “to love him for a very long time” - in a relationship that would have been illegal - in just a few days. And that everyone would view the psychiatrist doing conversion therapy as well as the NHS-offered treatment of chemical castration, as evil.

I think it was a rare (for the programme) failure of historical imagination. Dr Turner and the rest have to be seen as ‘good’ characters and therefore they can’t possibly have had the normal attitudes and prejudices of their time. It’s made me question some of the other stories too. Basically the Sisters and other medical characters are always gentle and accepting to their patients, whatever those patients have done, and I do wonder how historically accurate this could possibly be. I think the historians will view the whole show, and especially the later seasons not based on the original books, as betraying far more about the 21st century than the mid-20th.

Is there much conversion treatment (of gays) going on these days? The sudden enthusiasm for banning it seems suspicious at least.

From the BBC article above:

"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."

The missing question is how many of those 2% were "forced"? Because we're talking about banning only forcing here, right? Right?

The opening part of the "Gay" section of Douglas Murray's "The Madness of Crowds" was devoted to his attending the screening of a film by someone who offers "conversion therapy" - a Michael Davidson, involved with a Christian organisation.

The circumstances around the event sounds a bit like a Woman's Place UK one - cancelled venue due to outrage, scrambling to find a new one on the day.

Murray (who is gay) is firmly of the view that if someone wants to seek out support groups to deal with unwanted same-sex attraction, for whatever reason (maybe to keep a heterosexual marriage together?), that's up to them.

But here, this evening, they are the losers. And aware of the thrill that can occur when the boot is on the other foot, I feel a reluctance to treat them in victory as some of their ideological confrères might have treated me if we had met before, in different circumstances. The manner in which people and movements behave at the point of victory can be the most revealing thing about them. Do you allow arguments that worked for you to work for others? Are reciprocity and tolerance principles or fig-leaves? Do those who have been censored go on to censor others when the ability is in their own hands? Today the Vue Cinema is on one side. A few decades ago they might have been on the other. And Pink News and others who celebrate their victory in chasing Voices of the Silenced a mile down the road one February night seem very ready to wield such power over a private event. In doing so they contradict the claims made by gay rights activists from the start of the battle for gay equality, which is that it should be no business of anyone else what consenting adults get up to in private. If that goes for the rights of gay groups then surely it ought to apply to the rights of Christian fundamentalists and other groups too.

[...]

Yet one prerequisite for avoiding perpetual confrontation is an ability to listen to people's words and hold some trust in them. True, in borderline cases, when alerted that something strange maybe going on, it may be necessary to dig behind the words to ensure that nothing else is happening. But if that has been done and nothing found then the words must be trusted. None of the press which had sought to silence Voices of the Silenced had shown that Davidson or his colleagues were forcing unwilling participants to submit to a regime of heterosexual conversion. None had even enquired into what details the film included or how his 'counselling' was being done. And so a set of assumptions had been made about his group and words assigned different interpretations because of their speaker. In this calibration 'voluntary' meant 'forced', 'counselling' meant 'persecution' and everybody who went to him was irrevocably and unalterably gay.

So, is the proposal that offering conversion therapy be banned? Or is it only forcing? We've located people offering it, but we have yet to locate anyone forcing, right?

Are you wanting to ban the group above?

At least there is a public consultation before the Law is drafted.

Not so long ago I have the feeling Stonewall, Mermaids etc would have been “consulted” and nobody else would have had a look in.

I do support the banning of conversion therapy as traditionally defined: trying to ‘convert’ homosexual people to heterosexual. Largely because it simply doesn’t work but almost always causes harm. Look up the history of Christian ‘ex-gay’ ministries like Exodus International, which almost always collapsed amid allegations of sexual abuse and often with the leaders getting caught cruising in gay bars, running off with each other, and so on. Several prominent leaders of that movement (which was mostly active from about the 1980s to about 10 years ago) have since apologised for the harm they caused and have quietly gone off to live as gay men.

Gay people brought up in Christian fundamentalist families don’t have a free choice about engaging in such forms of ‘counselling’ since the choice is lose your family, friends, faith and the only support structure you’ve ever known, or engage with it. Even those who fall into such groups as adults are generally vulnerable and easily coerced. I’m not a libertarian and the arguments I’ve seen from that perspective simply don’t add up to me: they either presume that the therapy ‘works’ and can therefore at some level be a valid choice (when we know it doesn’t: at best it can get bisexual people to suppress their same-sex attraction for a while), and it assumes that those who choose it are making a free, uncoerced choice, which seems rarely if ever to be the case.

Disclaimer: I’m a lesbian brought up by evangelical Christians. While nobody thankfully ever forced me into one of these ‘conversion’ ministries that’s only because I successfully hid my sexuality long enough to be able to break free. That said, I do think that the moment for such ‘ministries’ has largely passed, though I’m aware of one ‘healing ministry’ group in the UK which still aims to ‘cure’ homosexuals by prayer and exorcism, and there are probably others. I do think this should be banned. None of the mainstream Christian denominations in the UK, by the way, supports conversion therapy any more.

I also agree, however, that this is sadly being used as a Trojan horse for an attempt to ban any form of therapy or support for GNC young people and to rush them straight into medicalised treatment. That’s why I think it’s very important that the law specifies conversion therapy aimed at sexuality, not gender.

From the Standard

“ Polling released on Tuesday by YouGov shows that almost two-thirds (64%) of British adults believe conversion therapy should be banned.”

“ Dr Adrian James, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said the organisation “fully supports” calls to ban conversion therapy.

He added: “We will be taking part in the consultation to highlight why conversion therapy is both unacceptable and harmful and to ensure clinicians can still help people fully explore their gender identity where appropriate.”

“ There is no specific timeframe for the consultation but the Government wants it to be “short and prompt”, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said.

Asked about a warning from former LGBTQ adviser to the Government Jayne Ozanne, who warned it “risks creating a highly dangerous loophole if it chooses to focus purely on ‘coercive’ practices”, the Downing Street spokesman said: “I disagree.”

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/uk-government-government-liz-truss-support-lgbtq-b934449.html%3famp

I wonder how many people will say in few years time "oh we didn't mean that!" when detransitioning adults are trying to sue the government.

At least there is a public consultation before the Law is drafted.

Late for work as usual so I harvey time for detail but the way the consultations for the GRC and new surrogacy law do not fill me with confidence.

*haven't time.

Stonewall's played a blinder on this one, hasn't it?

'Do you support conversion therapy?'
'What's conversion therapy?'
'Well, traditionally it's been when gay and lesbian and other people are forcibly converted to straight, and now it's happening to transgender people too.'
'What, you mean things like corrective rape and being forced into marriage?'
'Well, yes, that and other things.'
'No, if course I don't support that! What kind of person do you think I am?'
'So you think it should be banned?'
'Of course, definitely.'

Ta-da!

Gay people brought up in Christian fundamentalist families don’t have a free choice about engaging in such forms of ‘counselling’ since the choice is lose your family, friends, faith and the only support structure you’ve ever known, or engage with it.

These sorts of organisations offering "therapy" for religious motivations is pretty damned icky, and I certainly don't approve. People should be getting help from proper professionals, not those with ideological motivations.

But what's the difference between such groups and Mermaids? That's just another group offering support based on their own particular religious ideology. It's just not an established religion.

But I wouldn't want to ban Mermaids either - I just don't want to see them getting taxpayer funding.

If there was to be any such "conversion therapy" law I would want to make sure groups like Mermaids weren't exempt simply by the fiat of the law only applying in one direction of "conversion". That would then maybe help sharpen people's minds about where the "forcing" cut-out is.

If that person above is saying "it risks creating a highly dangerous loophole if it chooses to focus purely on ‘coercive’ practices", then absolutely we need to ensure Mermaid's non-coercive practices are also covered, not exempt.

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/new-research-gender-diverse-people-severely-harmed-conversion-therapy. There's a link to the survey results here. Most of the participant quotes are from T

Most of the participant quotes are from T

A population famously renowned for their aversion to hyperbole and reluctance to make unsupported claims about themselves.

(Link doesn't actually work - "connection is untrusted" )

@Janie143

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/new-research-gender-diverse-people-severely-harmed-conversion-therapy. There's a link to the survey results here. Most of the participant quotes are from T

The research involved 450 respondents who stated that their gender identity did not match the sex assigned to them at birth. This included 170 respondents who identified as non- binary. In total 64 people had been offered Gender Identity “Conversion Therapy” and 39 had undergone it. Of those, nearly half had been forced through it.

Have we had a clear and objective definition of 'gender identity' yet? And a clear explanation of how it might be expected to 'match the sex assigned to them at birth'?

Commenting on the results, Eloise Stonborough, Associate Director of Policy and Research at Stonewall said: “The survey findings are eye-opening and heart-breaking. Those who had gone through Gender Identity Conversion Therapy experienced a range of harmful practices, including isolation, forced feeding, beatings, and sexual violence. This is happening to both children and adults, with over half being under-18 at the time they underwent so-called ‘conversion therapy’.

I think we can all agree that 'harmful practices, including isolation, forced feeding, beatings, and sexual violence' should be banned, whatever the reason they are carried out. But who has been doing this? It's obviously not therapists.

think we can all agree that 'harmful practices, including isolation, forced feeding, beatings, and sexual violence' should be banned

I might be out of touch, but I believe everything listed there is already banned.

Aren't force feedings, beatings and sexual violence already crimes (aggravated no doubt by discrimination?).

@NecessaryScene1

Crossed post!

It appears that Stonewall have edited out responses that they didn't like deeming them 'transphobic'. As well as liberally declaring others to be based on misunderstanding. This is not science. It's fudging facts to match what you want the data to say.

Which is not to say that some of the reported experiences are not concerning and presumably illegal anyway. But there's a distinct perception filter going on. Who knows what talk therapy was labelled as CT? What about "my parents tried to persuade me not to wear a binder" or "my parents wanted to take a watchful waiting approach not social transition", would some young people perceive those as CT?

Who knows what talk therapy was labelled as CT? What about "my parents tried to persuade me not to wear a binder" or "my parents wanted to take a watchful waiting approach not social transition", would some young people perceive those as CT?

Probably. In the Stonewall report, an 'asexual, gender diverse man' is quoted as saying "two private psychotherapists tried to make me feel more comfortable with being a woman and blamed my gender on depression and autism.”

So it seems that any exploration to find out whether someone's identification as transgender is actually due to other conditions could be viewed as 'conversion therapy'. This is what we are all concerned about.

yeahbutnaw said yesterday:

Do you believe that a ban on conversion therapy means that medical professionals will need to forego all assessment and just hand medication and surgery out to anyone?

Because that's not at all what it means. It's never meant that.

If any exploration around the reasons for someone identifying as transgender is classed as conversion therapy, this is exactly what the ban would mean.

Another quote from the Stonewall report.

"Having gone through Gender Identity Conversion Therapy when I was younger, I can confidently say that it doesn't work. It just resulted in 23 years of depression, alcoholism and suicidal thoughts, until I transitioned in 2011” Bi, gender diverse woman, 45 -54

So this person is talking about conversion therapy which took place in the 1980s. The report does say that they don't know how many of the experiences being reported are 'historical'. If you're going to make a case for banning something, surely you need to find out what is happening now, not what was happening over 30 years ago. And also take into account how much of it is already illegal due to other laws.

This is two separate things with two totally different approaches being grouped together.

Conversion Therapy relating to sexual preferences, 'pray away the gay' as I read on one site but it also had and has much more sinister and harmful aspects to it.

When the phrase conversion therapy is used in relation to transgender treatment is is usually used by those who believe that affirmation, hormone blockers and surgery is the right treatment and it is applied to watchful waiting and explorative therapy before medication. This treatment pathway, adhering to the primary principle of medicine, 'first do no harm'. It does not rule out medication or transitioning, but is evidence based and first explores non invasive, non surgical approaches.

The argument (in the link below) that seeks to say that sexual orientation is not an illness and does not need to be cured and therefore being trans is also not an illness falls down the moment people seeking to transition need medical intervention which moves them onto a medical pathway which must look at all possible treatment options and must first, do no harm.

“Variation in sexual orientation and gender identity is not a disease or disorder. Health professionals, therefore, have no role in diagnosing it or treating it. The provision of any intervention purporting to treat something that is not a disease or disorder is wholly unethical.” – IFEG, Statement on Conversion Therapy.

The whole article in interesting.. irct.org/media-and-resources/latest-news/article/1027. but it is very difficult to square the propositions in the article with the reality of the interpretation of 'banning converstion therapy' meaning in the context of transgender treatment in the UK that professionals should not offer therapy to explore the reasons for these feelings... and this is the crux of the matter... before literally converting a person from one sex to another.

In my early twenties, I was exploring my sexuality and sought counselling from a service that was dedicated to supporting young people, I cannot imagine how that would have played out if those sessions were not allowed to explore the reasons for my feelings.

I feel like the wrong term is being used.

This is a quote from 'No Conversion Canada'.

'Conversion therapy is the false belief that diverse sexual orientations, gender identities or gender expressions are illnesses that can be cured through “treatment”. '

Yet, we are being asked to accept that people presenting with gender dysphoria or increasingly . .people who are transgender which we are asked to accept, is not an illness.. and in order to be their authentic selves, they must received medical treatment.

What we are not allowed to do is to offer them psychological treatment, it can only be medical or surgical.

More quotes from that site..

"Conversion therapy or reparative therapy is any treatment, including individual talk therapy, behavioural or aversion therapy, group therapy treatments, medical or drug-induced treatments, which attempt to change someone’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Simply put, it is abuse.
CONVERSION THERAPY IS HARMFUL.
Conversion therapy is the false belief that diverse sexual orientations, gender identities or gender expressions are illnesses that can be cured through “treatment”. This backwards belief is an abusive and harmful practice that preys on the LGBTQ2+ community, and in particular LGBTQ2+ children and youth. Conversion therapy does not change sexual orientation or gender identity, it is not effective. It has devastating impacts on its victims: anxiety, depression, self-hatred, suicide or suicidal thoughts and many other psychological and social issues.

Because these queer-eugenics programs do serious and often irreversible damage to people everyday, conversion therapy has been denounced for being harmful by dozens of medical and human rights organizations around the world including the World Health Organization, the Canadian Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, Human Rights Campaign, Amnesty International and many, many more. "

One could easily reword some of that..

^Transgender therapy, medical or drug-induced treatments, which attempt to change someone’s sex. Simply put, it is abuse.
Transgender THERAPY IS HARMFUL.
Transgender therapy is the false belief that diverse gender identities or gender expressions are illnesses that can be cured through “treatment”. This backwards belief is an abusive and harmful practice that preys on the LGBTQ2+ community, and in particular LGBTQ2+ children and youth. Transgender therapy does not change sex,, it is not effective. It has devastating impacts on its victims: infertility, loss of bone density, loss of sexual function, long term drug dependance,^

It is interesting that this site uses the term Eugenics ... breeding out undesirably characteristics .. this is exactly the effect of transgender treatment, using cross sex hormones and surgically removing sex organs, young people who do not conform to gender stereotypes are being made infertile, therefore not capable of reproducing.

I cannot understand why the term conversion therapy is being used in respect of psychological therapy which aims to reduce harmful interventions and instead, encourages people to accept how they feel, accept how they are.

Just been watching a Benjamin Boyce interview about the similar proposed law in Canada with Debra Soh and James Cantor:

The wording of that law looks dodgy as fuck - also limited to one direction: "change a person's sexuality to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender".

Their views:

Boyce: Is conversion therapy even prevalent enough to warrant a law or is that being resurrected in order to push this newfangled tacking gender onto it?

Cantor: The latter. It hasn't been talked about, hasn't been published, really, in almost a generation. The phrase has been, you know, reused in this new context, as i said, with people using any care other than immediate affirmation on demand and just labelling it "conversion therapy", when, you know, the great majority of people who come into clinics are unsure, they don't know. They don't know what they'd be converting from or to. So again from the point of view of both therapists and client, how is this conversion? We don't know where it is that we're going. But from the point of view of an activist with a very definite idea of where things could be going - sorry that's close enough and we ban it.

Soh: My sense is there are people who are still practicing conversion therapy for sexual orientation, so I get that side of the concern, but this more aggressive push and to shut down any dissenting voices, even those coming from legitimate scientific experts, I think it's that same mindset of the activists bullying people because they have a very specific goal that they want to meet, and so they're basically trying to shut down everybody, just knock down everyone who stands in the way of that.

Sounds like a great idea so long as anything to encourage people that they are transgender is as severely punished as anyone doing the reverse.

Sounds like a great idea so long as anything to encourage people that they are transgender is as severely punished as anyone doing the reverse.

Tell you what would be funny.
If they tried to smuggle in a ban on being gender critical in the presence of others in by talking about gay conversion therapy in the 60s and trying to make sure people didn't look too hard at the wording...
and accidentally banned Stonewall in the process: trying to coerce lesbians into considering sleeping with penis people on threat of excommunication, it's pretty clear cut isn't it.