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

A definition might be: a ban on activity to forcibly prevent, through violence or other coercive practices, an adult seeking gender reassignment or social transition of their gender (their ‘gender expression) MTF or FTM.

I don't thin any sane person would object to that as a concept but why do we need a law against something which is already illiegal?

For example:

• For upskirting we needed a law because it wasn't actually illiegal.
• For FGM we needed a law because it was a significant problem which was wasn't being prosecuted under existing law (although the new law didn't fix that, so arguably, was it needed?)

What you describe is illiegal. I'm not aware of any evidence for it being a big problem in the UK.

The difficulty is that trying to persuade someone to dress differently (which definitely could amount to conversion bullying) is difficult to make sensible laws about, so unless there is a very compelling case of harmful practice existing a new law could do more harm than good.

Is the OP returning?

‘I don't thin any sane person would object to that as a concept but why do we need a law against something which is already illiegal?’

I fully agree actually. I’m more trying to make that point: nobody is trying to prevent anyone from transitioning.

What these proposed laws do is try to prevent others from disagreeing, and that goes against the freedom of belief and expression.

If the action is coercive, that’s already illegal. If it’s not (if it is speech expressing someone else’s feelings about the transition), I might think it’s not very nice (I might think it’s fine), but it’s not illegal and shouldn’t be.

@nepeta

This is the question in the survey:

"Do you think 'Conversion Therapy', where people seek to change someone's [sexual orientation / gender identity] should or should not be banned?"

But that is NOT what the current debate is about. Nobody seeks to change someone's gender identity; rather the demand is a) that possible other reasons for feelings of gender dysphoria should also be addressed (such as childhood sexual assault, other forms of trauma) because many detransitioners say that the real reason was in those and made them feel that their gender was wrong when it was not,

and b) mental health problems unrelated to gender dysphoria or gender questioning should also be addressed. Some on the other side seem to argue that this should not be happening.

If the survey has mixed up Conversion therapy for sexual orientation and gender identity then it’s worthless. I would answer yes to a ban for sexual orientation but ‘not yet’ to a ban for gender identity because I’ve followed the debate, read the Cass Review and understand the issues. Most people haven’t done this.

‘So any mother saying "you're not going out like that " or any school teacher saying " that's too short " is preventing someone expressing their gender ?’

If you banned this form of coercion against children, yes. But we call it parenting, so we don’t ban it for children.

OTOH adults can wear what they want.

For FGM we needed a law because it was a significant problem which was wasn't being prosecuted under existing law (although the new law didn't fix that, so arguably, was it needed?)

The new law in 2003 was specifically to stop children being taken abroad for such a procedure.

Generally, laws only cover their own territory - so a new specific law was needed to say "no, you can't take your child somewhere this is still legal to do this to them".

The new law in 2003 was specifically to stop children being taken abroad for such a procedure.

Thanks, I didn't realise that. I thought it also created a new offence in the UK in an attempt to simplify prosecutions.

What I would absolutely love to see banned is Stonewall, Mermaids, etc telling little boys that if they like pink and glitter and long hair then they are girls and should cut off their balls, and telling little girls that if they’re good at sports and like trousers they should hack off their hair and take drugs to make themselves infertile. That is conversion therapy. If you read up on the history of trans activism then you will se that its roots are in Victorian gender stereotypes and misogyny.

The government is unable to find a way to ban conversion therapy for trans issues without simultaneously banning the attempts by trans activists to transition little kids, because legally that’s the same activity: two sides of the same coin.

Ban conversion therapy for trans issues? Fine with me. Stonewall and Mermaids will find themselves facing a lot of lawsuits…

Thanks, I didn't realise that. I thought it also created a new offence in the UK in an attempt to simplify prosecutions.

Yes, I imagine there were tidy-ups, but my Googling suggests it had been a specific offence since 1985.

My personal memory of the 2003 law discussion is that the focus (of the discussion at least) was primarily on the children being taken abroad to circumvent UK law. (I don't recall the 1985 discussions.)

Anyway, those details are off-topic, but the core point is that in both 1985 and 2003 laws were created to specifically outlaw something very concrete and specific that was not already illegal, and was occurring enough to cause concern.

This proposed law is not remotely comparable.

Most people have been carefully briefed to avoid them realising this is a trojan horse, and are being useful idiots to the manipulation of a political lobby.

There should be another survey about if people think that we should "trans the gay away".

@tabbycatstripy

If we agreed there should be a ban aimed at violent or coercive practices to prevent adults transitioning, would that be a version the activists would accept?

A definition might be: a ban on activity to forcibly prevent, through violence or other coercive practices, an adult seeking gender reassignment or social transition of their gender (their ‘gender expression) MTF or FTM.

Can anyone (on either side of the debate) explain why that would be an issue, or why it wouldn’t be good enough?

This may not be a direct answer, but something I have thought with reagrd to this bill is that we really don't know all of the details of the origins of people who feel they have gender dysphoria or "are in the wrong body" and in fact it rather seems like there may be any number of different ones. Even with regard to homosexuality we don't know why some people are gay or lesbian, and more importantly in this context if there may be individuals who have a totally different set of circumstances than what we usually think of that have resulted in them seeing themselves as gay or lesbian. (I sometimes thin in relation to that about a profile I read of a young man who had been working from a young age as a male prostitute and there were questions about what affect that had on his sexual identity.)

Do we really know enough about these things to pass laws about them, in terms of actual therapy? What if a year from now there is new research that really changes how we think about some of these topics?

While the law should deal with abuse I am less sure it should be telling people what kinds of therapy are appropriate. It's far too blunt an instrument.

I repeat what I learned from reading about the survey:

This is the question in the survey:

"Do you think 'Conversion Therapy', where people seek to change someone's [sexual orientation / gender identity] should or should not be banned?"

That phrasing does not allow the situation to be more fuzzy, but simply stipulates that someone's true gender identity is already fully known to that person, and then others try to persuade or to force this identity to change.

But in reality the children we might be thinking of here often have troubling mental health problems, have suffered trauma, and have been influenced by their peers on social media. It's not impossible (given what detransitioners write) that their true gender identity is actually unknown and needs to be explored.

Had the survey phrased the question in that way the answers would have been different, I think.

(If there is such a thing as a gender identity. I seem not to have one, and dread this coming world where each of us must declare it and their pronouns at every possible point.)

@Artichokeleaves

Most people have been carefully briefed to avoid them realising this is a trojan horse, and are being useful idiots to the manipulation of a political lobby.

Yes. People understand when they're shown the difference between (a) "pray away the gay" conversion therapy, and (b) counselling for gender-confused young people while they still have a chance to avoid a lifetime of drugs and surgery.

But the trans lobby has made sure this difference isn't pointed out.

Do we really know enough about these things to pass laws about them, in terms of actual therapy?

I would say we know enough to know we shouldn't be passing laws about them.

The only justification for the "sexual orientation" version of the law is a claimed certainty that such therapy is always both (a) harmful and (b) ineffective, due to orientation being fixed.

(I'm personally a bit doubtful about the certainty, and whether that's even sufficient for a law in a liberal society - people should generally be allowed to participate in harmful and ineffective things if they want to, at least to some degree).

But we know that the above is definitely not true for the "gender identity" version. Looking at this Interim Cass Review infographic, the TRAs want to pretend the top 80% doesn't really exist.

The law appears to be directly intended to block investigation of where someone is coming from on this infographic and determination of which pathway is appropriate. Fast-tracking people to the bottom-right on the assumption they're coming from the bottom-left.

‘Do we really know enough about these things to pass laws about them, in terms of actual therapy? What if a year from now there is new research that really changes how we think about some of these topics?’

That’s perfectly possible but it would never justify forcing an adult to change their feelings about themselves or coercing them not to dress in a specific way.

That’s separable from what medics are prepared to do. We might find ourselves looking at a situation (in the future) where these surgeries don’t take place anymore. But still, an adult dressing in a sex-incongruent way and calling themselves by a sex-incongruent name is just what happens in a liberal society.

Given the horrendous treatment that Dr David Bell received when working at GIDS, I'm pretty sure that it is the kind of approach that he was taking that is the target of the proposed conversion therapy ban. "BBC Radio Ulster - Nolan Investigates, Episode 5 - A gender clinic insider speaks out"
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09yk7dh

D'oh, badly worded. That should have been "...the kind of approach that he was taking that TRAs would like to see targeted by the proposed conversion therapy ban".

@HalfShrunkMoreToGo

Conversion therapy should be banned.

What people dont understand is that the particular piece of legislation in question was very poorly written. Had it been passed it would have meant that therapists could be charged for trying to explore a child's gender identity rather than immediately affirm that they are correct in thinking they were born in the wrong body.

If they re-write the legislation so that actual conversion therapy is banned but children can still discuss openly their feelings and explore their identity with trained professionals then there won't be an issue.

Hmm. I am a highly qualified psychotherapist. I think in practice there will be a very fine and scary line for practitioners to tread between affirmative, exploratory and presumed conversion aspects of a thorough therapeutic process.

When I hear of 'conversion therapy' I think of religious pressuring, or laboratory control sessions. But from the POV of participants all therapy can potentially at times feel intrusive, pressuring and challenging. It's supposed to. Within a context of trust and respect.

But young trans identifying adolescents are not currently prepared for exploration and thinking. They often want action, insist on instant gender change and are encouraged to resent any questioning, however respectful, of their chosen, even if transient, identity.

I am sceptical that there has even been pressurising conversion therapy going on for trans people. But I do think that discussion and exploration can be experienced and decried as unwelcome.

In practice - banning conversion therapy for trans people probably means that there simply won't be any effective therapy for trans adolescents and children. It would be far too high risk for practitioners to do anything other than affirm and support. Which is not, in my view, what is needed.

Because I am gender critical I would not work with trans individuals. I do not feel that I could be helpful.

@tabbycatstripy

‘Do we really know enough about these things to pass laws about them, in terms of actual therapy? What if a year from now there is new research that really changes how we think about some of these topics?’

That’s perfectly possible but it would never justify forcing an adult to change their feelings about themselves or coercing them not to dress in a specific way.

That’s separable from what medics are prepared to do. We might find ourselves looking at a situation (in the future) where these surgeries don’t take place anymore. But still, an adult dressing in a sex-incongruent way and calling themselves by a sex-incongruent name is just what happens in a liberal society.

Therapy is often about people coming to see themselves in a different way, and not always the way they at first thought was right. That's not "forcing" people but there isn't much point to therapy of any kind of it's just about affirming people's immediate thoughts about their situation.

@HalfShrunkMoreToGo

Conversion therapy should be banned.

What people dont understand is that the particular piece of legislation in question was very poorly written. Had it been passed it would have meant that therapists could be charged for trying to explore a child's gender identity rather than immediately affirm that they are correct in thinking they were born in the wrong body.

If they re-write the legislation so that actual conversion therapy is banned but children can still discuss openly their feelings and explore their identity with trained professionals then there won't be an issue.

This!!

Mangy

Of course, but that’s therapy the person chooses and is paying for. They can just get up and walk out. No legislation needed there (and the government never proposed to legislate this). I’m talking about any coercive practices: literally people trying to force another adult not to transition.

What I’m trying to work out is whether a ban on actual coercive practices (which is what TRAs claim they want) would have any value for them if it focused on people trying to forcibly prevent reassignment/transition and not people saying they don’t believe in gender identity.

Also add

"What is transphobia" if you don't know what conversion therapy is.

Its bizarre that people protest the ban but don't actuallly know what is being banned

"Its bizarre that people protest the ban but don't actuallly know what is being banned."

It's bizarre that people are supporting the ban but don't actually know what is included in the terms of what is being banned.

It's bizarre that people raise 'transphobia' when they can't even explain what 'trans' is.