Letters in The Guardian

[MadameKali]

A couple of good responses in the Guardian to the articles by Zoe Williams and Susanna Rustin at the weekend. Apologies if there is already a thread, I couldn't see one.
www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/12/protecting-the-rights-of-women-and-trans-people?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

This document initially only covered sexual orientation. When it was updated to include gender identity, we worked with other signatories to ensure that the memorandum was clear that being opposed to conversion therapy did not mean opposing appropriate clinical interventions for trans and gender-questioning people. This demonstrated that it is possible to deliver a ban on conversion therapy that protects all LGBT people. It is critical that the government comes to this same position.

Unless I misunderstand Prof Martin Marshall, he doesn't seem to understand the issue and has been duped by the conflation of conversion therapy. Marshall had plenty of people he might have spoken with, even GPs he represents so this is profoundly disappointing.

Jane Hamlin is chair of the Beaumont Society I think.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

This document initially only covered sexual orientation. When it was updated to include gender identity, we worked with other signatories to ensure that the memorandum was clear that being opposed to conversion therapy did not mean opposing appropriate clinical interventions for trans and gender-questioning people. This demonstrated that it is possible to deliver a ban on conversion therapy that protects all LGBT people. It is critical that the government comes to this same position.

Unless I misunderstand Prof Martin Marshall, he doesn't seem to understand the issue and has been duped by the conflation of conversion therapy. Marshall had plenty of people he might have spoken with, even GPs he represents so this is profoundly disappointing.

Doesn't he mean that clinical intervention may go ahead if/once deemed appropriate only after adequate investigation/assessment/talk therapy? Which is what I think the Cass Review advocates, and which seems correct to me. A small number of gender-questioning people WILL, after all, always be deemed to be good candidates for clinical intervention.

Well at least they are coming round to the idea of a debate

Doesn't he mean that clinical intervention may go ahead if/once deemed appropriate only after adequate investigation/assessment/talk therapy?

I'm open to the possibility that I've misinterpreted Marshall's letter and the way it's presented. However, I doubt that I'm alone in falling foul of the implied double negatives myself and the MoU is of little value if it wasn't being practiced at the main referral centre (GIDS).

This document supports therapists to provide appropriately informed and ethical practice when working with a client who wishes to explore, experiences conflict with or is in distress regarding, their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Nor is it intended to stop psychological and medical professionals who work with trans and gender questioning clients from performing a clinical assessment of suitability prior to medical intervention. Nor is it intended to stop medical professionals from prescribing hormone treatments and other medications to trans patients and people experiencing gender dysphoria.

www.rcgp.org.uk/policy/rcgp-policy-areas/lgbt.aspx

iirc, what was protested in the consultation was the absence of the talking therapies and counselling. If I'm wrong about this then I confess that I'm truly baffled.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission was also concerned that the proposed legislation lacked a sound evidence base, and that it risked preventing “legitimate and appropriate counselling, therapy or support which enables a person to explore their sexual orientation or gender dysphoria” and “criminalising mainstream religious practice such as preaching, teaching and praying about sexual ethics”.

sex-matters.org/posts/sex/sex-matters-statement-on-conversion-therapy/

www.bacp.co.uk/news/news-from-bacp/2022/1-april-disappointment-on-conversion-therapy-ban-proposals-latest/

This was two clicks away from the link in Martin Marshall's letter, which went to a BACP webpage.

Sexual orientations and gender identities are not mental health disorders.

That's the problem, isn't it? If a "gender identity" isn't a mental health disorder then what the hell is it? It's certainly nothing like a sexual orientation.

Gender identity isn't real; it has no explanatory power and if you assume that gender identity is real you'll make terrible predictions about the world (for example, you might predict that transwomen are likely to be feminine, or that detransition is going to be rare, or that children who assert an opposite-sex identity in childhood are unlikely to desist.)

It's concerning that the Government are being pressured to enshrine the concept of "gender identity" in law when it's not a real fucking thing. Even some watered-down version of a "conversion therapy" ban like that endorsed by Prof Martin is going to have awful knock-on effects if it makes "gender identity" into a legal concept.

He's mistaken that the proposal was clearly written, it wasn't, and that was half the problem with it.
The conversion 'therapy' ban looked to me like an attempt to sneak self ID in by the back door after the failure of the self ID consultation.

Banning trans 'conversion therapy' could fast track transitioning. It could have led to the current system of a two year cooling off period and therapy being challenged.