Well, seeing as OP turned out to be a Plopper (no surprise there) maybe you could explain it @DisgustedofManchester
You see, as you very well know, haveing been round trhese parts a while, it isn't posters here who have no idea. It's those that demand things.
So for anyone inetrested in protecting trans individuals from harmful therapies in law a few things are required.
A definition of transgender, for the law to presume upon. Or do we just take the Stonewall Umbrella dn presume that it means anybody and everybody, changing daily?
You know we ask the question not because we are clueless but because there is no actual answer, let alone one that could be used in law.
And the the term 'conversion therapy' Again, what would that include doesn't mean people don't know what conversion therapy is but the law would require specifics. As many therapists and GPs, teacher etc have said, the law as proposed by Stonewall et al would have included the mere act of asking a bloody question? That can't be right, not in any world.
So what is meant by 'conversion therapy'? And don't come back with the ECT mess. Because some of us here know what thatactually is and how it is used these days. The horrors of the last century, 50 years ago, have notr existed for a long, long time.
So no, if left to the Stionewal et al defintion of conversion therepay nobody has the foggiest idea what it means. Which is why it was leftout of the bill.
The same people who helped draft that bill, had the changes made, many posters here and elsewhere ALL know what conversion therapy is for homosexuality. We know who is likely to carry it out and upon whom and what it is likely to include.
Because we are neither stupid, ill informed or deliberately misleading!
Your turn...