Government ban on conversion therapy dropped

[DERFDogmaExlusionary]

Breaking news

Leaked briefing "The PM has agreed we should not move forward with legislation to ban LGBT conversion therapy"

Yes, if you frame any doubt or "are you sure" as conversion therapy, or parents simply understanding the possibility that it's social contagion, confusion over being GNC, etc - then of course you can claim a high "rate". Much like the "high" rates of "anti-trans hate speech" and "transphobia" which include things like saying women should have same-sex spaces.

There are lots of detransitioners now saying "no one questioned me, no one worked it through with me and checked it wasn't the result of other issues, no one even told me I could just be a different kind of woman and it was OK not to conform to gender stereotypes." We need to listen to them.

“If you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it’s worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions.”

Is shaming same sex attracted people into considering relationships with the opposite sex an example of conversion practices? Nancy is on thin ice I feel

@AnnieLou12

I have complained about that BBC news article only quoting religious groups as opposing a ban. I asked why no quotes from LGB Alliance etc, no mention of Cass report and why no explanation of why there are concerns over definitions of conversion therapy. Thanks for radicalising me Mumsnet! I don’t post here as not articulate enough but I do donate to the crowdfunders and give any political canvassers a grilling about sex based rights.

I am glad you did that and I shall try to write too later today.

That BBC article was shamefully not the ‘analysis’ it purported to be. Probably some people in charge do not know enough about the issues to realise their LGBT Analyst does not write unbiased reports.

It looks to me like Kiera Bell's case, the Gender GP case, and the Cass Review have alerted the Government to what in the future will be a dreadful scandal which will see court cases and claims for compensation hence the row back on the T conversation therapy part of the Bill.

The Government should look to other scandals that are brewing particularly in the NHS, we've just had the appalling details of what went on at Telford and Shrewsbury hospitals which has been seen as being ideologically driven the next scandal to hit the NHS will be the rape and sexual assault of women which is again down to ideologues prioritising that above the safety, dignity and privacy of women.

@PronounssheRa

“If you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it’s worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions.”

Is shaming same sex attracted people into considering relationships with the opposite sex an example of conversion practices? Nancy is on thin ice I feel

And when you create a lot of word salad to dress up that as the head of an LGBT+ foundation you actually now believe homosexuality is a form of prejudice and a source of shame?

In order to push a male supremacist agenda that tries to force homosexual female people to 'get used to' providing sexual access to males because it's a social duty? (Female person should not selfishly expect to enjoy sex or even want it, they have responsibilities to the happiness and pleasure of the male)

And you are saying conversion therapy is awful while pushing this at the same time?

Your agenda is fucked up beyond belief.

And when you create a lot of word salad to dress up that as the head of an LGBT+ foundation you actually now believe homosexuality is a form of prejudice and a source of shame?

And don't make the same amount of fuss about straight people, even though the exact same "prejudices" apply.

And outright lie that it's about rejecting trans people, when it's actually about rejecting the sex you're not attracted to.

I hadn't realised that the LGB Alliance met with the CT team in Jan. This thread is excellent. It is disgraceful the the BBC are ignoring them. twitter.com/ALLIANCELGB/status/1484350823291179018?t=FSdidSPO70-m4-N_aF2uGQ&s=19

This was always about the T.

Wanting to make it discriminatory to challenge it. And they force teamed to the LGB, as the normal Trojan horse way to access legislation.

Did they really think that people would not be able to see the huge contradiction? Did they not remember that the Tavistock thought they were 'transing away the gay'?

This has to be the worst possible outcome for places like Stonewall. Separating the T from the LGB in no uncertain terms. And given that three out of the four 'initials' have been dealt with in the way they were asking, it forces them to reveal their agenda with the massive overreaction about the last initial.

Have they realised yet most people understand that claiming children are transgender is a form of gay conversion therapy?

It shouldn't have taken this long. It's the work of a few seconds to understand how the T denies the very existence of LGB.

If it wasn't for this Trojan Horse strategy, surely people who want to campaign for trans rights would want their own separate organisations and campaigns, focused on the particular and unique needs of trans people. If the trans experience is special and trans people are uniquely persecuted as they claim, that needs its own bodies, laws and rights.

Stonewall is not fit for purpose as an "LGBT+" organisation when its leader says it's wrong to be same-sex attracted. Massive overhaul and clear separation needed.

Stonewall is not fit for purpose as an "LGBT+" organisation breaking the law when its leader says it's wrong to be same-sex attracted.

Today I'm being optimistic that this could be the path we're going to head down:

TRAs: There is no LGB without the T! Time for all laws to treat them as the same.

GCs: That's an interesting position. Let's have a debate about it, and then feed the output of that debate into government decision-making.

There are effective trans activists who aren't stupid. They know that doing this in public would be far too risky and so there's going to be a very great deal of behind-the-scenes lobbying going on. Will any of that be revealed?

No matter how that goes, there will be a number of attempts to amend any Conversion Therapy Bill to include gender identity. Labour, the Lib Dems, and the SNP will be on board and there are a surprising number of new Tory MPs who think their duty is to push the gender identity ideology.

@VestofAbsurdity

It looks to me like Kiera Bell's case, the Gender GP case, and the Cass Review have alerted the Government to what in the future will be a dreadful scandal which will see court cases and claims for compensation hence the row back on the T conversation therapy part of the Bill.

The Government should look to other scandals that are brewing particularly in the NHS, we've just had the appalling details of what went on at Telford and Shrewsbury hospitals which has been seen as being ideologically driven the next scandal to hit the NHS will be the rape and sexual assault of women which is again down to ideologues prioritising that above the safety, dignity and privacy of women.

I don’t know if this government will be too bothered about scandals in the NHS. They want to privatise it.

Nikki da Costa 3hours ago
Nancy Kelley 1hour ago

The irony.

I apologise my timing are slightly out but you get my point about which was made first.

According to this, Truss was not told about the plans to drop the CT ban bill:

order-order.com/2022/04/01/malthouse-defends-police-horse-rainbow-crossing-training/

This, however, pales in comparison to the overnight farce of the government’s gay conversion therapy policy. Yesterday afternoon ITV News published a leaked document that outlined plans to u-turn on the government’s previously stated policy of banning the practice, noting that there would be outrage from LGBT groups, ministers could resign, and Liz Truss both hadn’t been told and would find it near-impossible to climb down given her previous public support. The plan was to use the Queen’s speech to claim it as a reevaluating of the PM’s priorities.

Stonewall is not fit for purpose as an "LGBT+" organisation breaking the law when its leader says it's wrong to be same-sex attracted.

Well, both really!

Not totally related but I see that Stonewalls challenge against the EHRC has been dismissed by the UN.

That is great news to hear Justme!

@Justme56

Not totally related but I see that Stonewalls challenge against the EHRC has been dismissed by the UN.

That (stonewalls challenge) was backed by the good law project wasn't it?

Yes here:

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/ehrc-urges-fresh-start-critics-after-un-body-rejects-requests-review-its-status

I've noticed that most of the reporting ignores the concerns of the trans conversion therapy and instead goes on about homosexuality conversion therapy. So all the coverage is biased.

They fail to state that the EHRC raised a lot of concerns about it and instead go on about GC. Gender critical is a term only known within the debate, so therefore I would argue that the reporters have all probably had Stonewall "training".

It sounds like the government WILL ban CT for homosexuals.

Which might be interesting in its own right for Stonewall...

Trans ideology is a type of conversion therapy imho

Mermaids condemns the government’s u-turn, again using interesting language: the ban on ‘conversion abuse’.

They really don’t want to say therapy, do they? That would imply the target of the legislation was what happened in therapy sessions.

And here’s Peter Tatchell: [without the ban] [trans people will be at risk of exorcisms, beatings, emotional blackmail & psychological brow-beating.]

And so we see what they were actually trying to position as “conversion therapy”.

Emotional blackmail? Browbeating?

Good grief. They really thought they were going to make family disputes illegal.