#I support a trans inclusive ban

[MaMaLa321]

Has anyone else seen the pictures of various MPs holding pink boards saying this?
a combination of smug idiocy, but also totally incomprehensible, to me, anyway. What they're trying to say is that trans should be included in the conversion therapy ban. But I do know a bit about this (thanks largely to MN) and I'm not sure that that is the message that will come across.

@Dinosauria is right. We can all get behind this banner. I for one support the Gregorian Calendar! The Julian Calendar 📅 is very threatening.

It's ridiculous and I'm shocked at Ed Miliband. (I bet David doesn't fall for it. Totally apropos of nothing, just love him...)

Maybe they gave them a sign because it's so hard to actually state the GI position without coming out with a load of self-contradictory wibble? Then they found it happens with signs too.

In what conceivable universe does Diane Abbott warrant such belief? Or is this sarcasm?

Glinner has just sent an email round with what the signs are actually saying.

Oh nailed it.....

Could someone tell me what it actually means. I can understand that with trying to convert homosexuals, it was to try to stop them being attracted to the same sex.Hence Alan Turing and chemical castration.

How does it affect transpeople?

Yeah i not get that the first time i read it

(not gonna lie I didn’t get it the next few times either!)

Did not

obvs 🤨

What is a trans inclusive ban? A ban on trans inclusive events? What? Why? My head hurts.

Did you?!

Conversion therapy ban doesn't include transgender "conversion" therapy because it's difficult to draw a line which allows for questioning if it's the right approach and talking therapy. These clueless useful idiots MPs want the ban to include this.

Weren't stonewall lobbying round Westminster yesterday?

Also that transitioning can sometimes be a type of gay conversion therapy in itself, as backed up by the BBC's Newsnight investigation on the Tavistock and Portman gender clinic.

Gosh. In the light of what the civil service must have been watching on the tweets that was rather unfortunate timing.

I read it as wanting to ban trans people on my first read of that - took me a couple of reads to work out what they were saying

Disappointing to see my MP in that thread. She's mostly good locally, but I'd hoped she'd got some common sense on this issue.

How can you put 'inclusive' and 'ban' together like that and expect it to make sense?

Liberal Democrats have published this viewpoint:

www.libdemvoice.org/queens-speech-conversion-therapy-ban-does-not-go-far-enough-70527.html

I sincerely hope so. They should know better and honestly if they haven't read about the issue before they held the sign they deserve what's coming to them and if they have read the Cass Report/Review and they are still holding the sign they REALLY deserve what's coming to them. I'm kind of glad we have the evidence so readily to hand now.

These are fantastic

It took me bloody ages to work out what they were on about. I knew from who was holding the signs that they weren't wanting a ban on, say, women's sports being trans inclusive.

I was proper puzzled. Got there in the end end, though.

That's what I thought when I read the thread title. What a bunch of numpties 😆

Someone needs to tell Mary Reid that her reasoned view is not what Jack was writing about!

I came onto this thread assuming it meant a ban on trans people having anything exclusive to trans people and was going to disagree as I feel any minority group should be able to have exclusive support groups. So even though I knew some of the background I was confused

I was disappointed to see Diane Abbott holding one. I thought she had more sense.

LMAO. Very good :-)

Sounds like they support a trans inclusive ban? Or they support a ban on being trans inclusive? It’s very confusing messaging