Most Britons want conversion therapy banned, including that aimed at transgender people

[JC544D]

Two-thirds of Britons (65%) say conversion therapy where people seek to change someone’s sexual orientation should be banned, while 62% say conversion therapy to change someone’s gender identity should be banned. Only 14% say each practice should not be banned, while 22-23% are unsure.

yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2022/04/12/most-britons-want-conversion-therapy-banned-includ

‘ Slightly tangential but all the language around ‘affirmation’ is difficult too - that’s not what any therapy should be, therapy is hard under most circumstances and the job of the therapist is not to avoid challenging or asking difficult questions if their client/patient. Only in the transgender conversation do we see the ‘everything must be affirmative’ ‘#nodebate’ ‘literal violence’ demands.’

Trans activists will assert that ‘exploratory therapy’ is fine as long as the one thing it doesn’t explore is the basis for the dysphoria.

Now my position is that no adult has to go to therapy. It’s also my position that they can guide their therapist on what they want to explore and not explore - ie even if the therapist feels the root of the problem is (say) internalised homophobia, nobody can force the subject of therapy to discuss that.

But they mustn’t be able to direct the therapist towards ‘affirmation’ either. That could be harmful.

So adults have the right to walk away from a therapist who doesn’t agree with their values.

With children the situation is far more complicated. Children can’t transition. They are incredibly vulnerable to peer pressure and to forms of social contagion. If they approach a therapist demanding to be ‘affirmed’ in a new identity, that could not only be harmful, but grossly negligent.

So I believe children should be left out of the ban.

Whereas for trans activists, who know that coercive therapies for adults are illegal already, forcing an ‘affirmative’ approach to children’s interactions with medical professionals and psychologists was the whole purpose of the ban.

No wonder they have no interest in it when you take confused children out.

I had a suspicion this would come up - I had an 'invitation' to take part in that poll, and it was a single or two question job with absolutely no definitions or depth.
Of course most people would want to ban 'cinversion practices', but I doubt most people will have read the content and wording of the draft bill that was available during the consultation period.
It's an absolute crock of a 'survey'.

Statistics are a beautiful thing.

Stonewall, for example, are very keen we all know Trans people are nearly twice as likely to be targeted by conversion practices - but make no mention of what they are including under the “conversion practices” umbrella. I assume the stats they are referring to are that 2% of gay and lesbian respondents said they [had] undergone conversion therapy, with 5% reporting they had been offered it. In comparison, 4% of transgender respondents said they had received it, and 8% said they had been offered it.*

It might be terribly cynical of me, but I have a sneaking suspicion that** “conversion practices” here [almost always] = “anything other than instant & absolute affirmation”. Certainly the way the survey was designed means respondents were using their own definitions - & we all know about how “literal violence” works, for example hmm

It also seems hugely counter-intuitive that more trans people would be offered &/or receive conversion therapy when transitioning is considered an acceptable “cure” for homosexuality by multiple demographics who utilise LGB conversion therapy hmm

There are some pretty big issues with the data - or rather, lack thereof - on the prevalence of conversion therapy in the UK. Including, crucially, the fact nobody asked if people were being offered conversion therapy for their gender identity or their sexual orientation. So it’s - genuinely, seriously - entirely possible that nobody has ever been offered trans conversion therapy in the UK at all; & it’s simply the case the higher visibility (as it were) of trans people has made them obvious targets for LGB conversion therapy, hence the way the stats skew.

The Bill as it stood was inherently contradictory: the affirmation-only approach IS conversion therapy for some people. I’m not sure which option is more worrying: that the people protesting cannot see/understand this; that they think homosexual people (including children) permanently changing their bodies as a result of affirmation-only therapy functioning as conversion therapy is totally acceptable collateral damage; or that they are simply ignorant of the facts of the matter, dancing about like little puppets as Stonewall & social media [influencers] pull the strings.

• Data from 2017 National LGBT Survey. ** Where the T is concerned.

Conversion therapy to me is a bullying, brow beating treatment of gay men, a member of the Catholic church or a Muslim, not to be gay.

I'd like to see figures for the number of others being forcibly conversed - I suspect it is very small, and though significant to any affected, too small and varied to make generalised rules about.

@SScoobiedoo

Conversion therapy to me is a bullying, brow beating treatment of gay men, a member of the Catholic church or a Muslim, not to be gay.

I'd like to see figures for the number of others being forcibly conversed - I suspect it is very small, and though significant to any affected, too small and varied to make generalised rules about.

It also includes corrective rape. Which is, indeed, horrific. Surely that's not what Stonewall means with those stats?

"Conversion therapy to me is a bullying, brow beating treatment of gay men, a member of the Catholic church or a Muslim, not to be gay."

Exactly. Which is why I'm dismayed that the numbers are actually lower than 100% here.

‘It might be terribly cynical of me, but I have a sneaking suspicion that** “conversion practices” here [almost always] = “anything other than instant & absolute affirmation”. Certainly the way the survey was designed means respondents were using their own definitions - & we all know about how “literal violence” works, for example hmm’

Yes. They included verbal bullying and homelessness. Those things are negative, but they are in no way “therapy”.

Galop use the following description:

‘ So-called conversion therapy can take lots of forms. This can include verbal, psychological, physical, and sexual abuse. It might look like being prayed over or exorcised, being made to eat or drink something to ‘cleanse’ or ‘purify’ you, or it might look like someone controlling you to limit your movement or contact with others. It could come from a therapist, community leader, or family member who wants to change your identity. It might include being threatened with or experiencing a forced marriage or sexual assault to ‘correct’ you. It might happen in your own home, someone else’s home, or in a community, religious, or therapeutic space.’

So here, we see things I would count as incredibly serious examples of “conversion therapy” (exorcism!) alongside someone trying to control your contact with others.

The latter sounds bad, sure. But bear with me. The proposed ban was aimed at under-18s. It’s (often) a parent’s job to limit their child’s contact with others. To take their phone off them. To stop them talking to adults online who call themselves the child’s “chosen family”. In other words, people grooming their kids.

It includes things that are blatantly already illegal: forced marriage, sexual assault, force feeding someone.

So we end up in a situation where it’s obvious that the ‘targets’ of this ban are:

• things that are illegal already
• things that shouldn’t be illegal

End.

So a religious US mother beating her son every day because he liked ‘girl things’ and ‘she couldn’t let him be gay’ - until the son announced he is a girl (and the bearings stopped).

So that’s not conversion?

‘So a religious US mother beating her son every day because he liked ‘girl things’ and ‘she couldn’t let him be gay’ - until the son announced he is a girl (and the bearings stopped).’

It’s child abuse. Entirely illegal already. And yes, I’d be happy to see such ‘practices’ included in any legitimate ban, but is it necessary when it is already against the law?

(I know you were making a slightly different point, Kitten.)

Illegal - but kid is ‘child of they year’ and all over the press (acting too I think).

Yes, there is clearly a risk of people being caught up in this ban trying to make their child trans.

And for me this shows up the central issue.

‘Trying to convert’ your child from a correct view of their sex to an incorrect view, is NOT comparable to explaining human biology to your child and telling them you don’t believe in gender.

Trans activists want to make the latter illegal, and pretend the former doesn’t happen.

But facts matter. Something is driving the increase in female children identifying as male, and that something needs analysis.

Facts matter. Puberty blockers are a high risk intervention.

Facts matter. People detransition, so there is no comprehensible meaning behind ‘innate gender identity’.

Children need evidence-based care, not ideological sloganising and laws that put them at risk.

Comparing ourselves, or imagining ourselves, similar to the USA is bonkers. There is so much more extreme religious beliefs (eg banning of abortion for any reason) there that it is a different world entirely. Not saying all the US is like this before anyone moans.

Heaven forbid a poll that shows Mumsnet opinions might not be in the majority. Either way it shows that the government seem to be doing women a favour by going against public opinion, heaven knows why they won't get much credit for it on here.

‘Heaven forbid a poll that shows Mumsnet opinions might not be in the majority. Either way it shows that the government seem to be doing women a favour by going against public opinion, heaven knows why they won't get much credit for it on here.’

Johnson’s refusal to pass the ban on trans conversion therapy is for the benefit of children. If the majority are in support of a ban on ‘trans conversion therapy’ for children, it is because they don’t understand what the legislation proposed.

The proposed law was never going to ban talking-form ‘conversion therapy’ for trans-identifying adults, because placing an adult in therapy against their will is already illegal. They can just stand up and walk out if they are uncomfortable with what a therapist says.

No one should attempt to change someone's sexual orientation.

Trans widows are not lesbians, it's awful to think that their husbands want to 'turn' them into lesbians when they are only attracted to men

If the question was “do you think doctors should be forced to give out puberty blockers to children without first checking whether the patients has thoroughly explored all issues?” The answers would be very different

I think most people don’t have a clue what puberty blockers do, or how rickety the processes are by which some children access them. Or the fact that most of the kids who do so are autistic, or gay.

I think 22% not sure is quite high for a survey result - so I think a lot of people might not know exactly what it entails.

I would want to ban it for both gay and trans because I see it as some sort of thing done against peoples will very intensly with possible violence.

I would assume it wouldnt include saying things like biological facts or explaining the consequences of decisions and using evidence based medicine.

‘I would want to ban it for both gay and trans because I see it as some sort of thing done against peoples will very intensly with possible violence.’

Do you accept that violence is already illegal? Do you accept that abusive behaviour is already illegal?

Serious question: separately, in the cases of trans-identifying adults, and minors, what should this proposed legislation criminalise that is not already illegal?

So - the ban is for all ‘talking therapy’ so a gay teen can’t speak to a therapist about their confusion about their sexuality - to work out why they may feel unsteady or insecure?

These people do realise that therapists aren’t Svengalis? Getting a young person to feel comfortable with their sexuality is a good thing right? Rather than saying ‘we can’t discuss this’ and then getting onto social media (where of course everyone has your best interests at heart).

@Onionpatch

I think 22% not sure is quite high for a survey result - so I think a lot of people might not know exactly what it entails.

I would want to ban it for both gay and trans because I see it as some sort of thing done against peoples will very intensly with possible violence.

I would assume it wouldnt include saying things like biological facts or explaining the consequences of decisions and using evidence based medicine.

Why would you assume that, since we all know that is 'literal violence' and transphobia? Implying someone isn't really trans and has other problems to be addressed etc. Is definitely going to be under the ' conversions' umbrella for some people.

Of course anything under force or involving violence should be banned, pretty sure it is already

goodness, how astonishing that the OP couldn't come back to define their terms. I'm done with people who are unable to hold a discussion and yet expect me to take their views seriously

I'd like to see the figures for the opposite framing (courtesy of Helen Joyce the other day)

Do you think gender-distressed kids should be fast-tracked to sterilisation?

I see it as some sort of thing done against peoples will very intensly with possible violence.

Things done to people against their will with possible violence are already illegal - you do know that, right? So this legislation can logically only be newly addressing things done with someone's consent. The question is what?

I'm so confused about this one because I don't think I've seen its meaning clarified anywhere.

Is conversion therapy the type of thing you read about with electric shocks, forced vomiting etc? Because I'm 100% against that. It's barbaric.

Or is it a therapist exploring options with a person before they set off on an incredibly long and difficult path? Because if it's only talking then I think we owe it to trans people to provide them with that option.