Debate on Parliament TV now on trans conversion therapy

[chilling19]

On now. Already had hate from both sides comment.

www.parliamentlive.tv/Commons

No definition of conversion therapy yet.

Some concerns brought forward - mainly unintended consequences. Need tightly worded legislation.

Still no definition of conversion therapy.

Real life example
Twins - one gay and one trans
Exorcism
Unable to seek out accredited therapy
About harmful practices

Still no definition of conversion therapy or (now) harmful practices

Back to the twins. The law would only cover the gay twin.

Coercive and abhorrent practices do not work

Another speaker - What are these abhorrent practices?

Still no explanation

I agree (clearly) that you can’t consent to violence being done to you. But what this guy is arguing for is for defining something as harmful that some people regard as beneficial to them, ie being reconciled with their biological sex through talking therapies they choose themselves.

We’re on to ‘love is love’ - what does this have to do with the debate?

Pollard

Trans people identity not up for debate

Stonewall etc supporting

Folding in of LGBT

Artificial distinction between LGB and T

Another speaker - smacks of the Soviet Union

Bit of ageism - most won't understand the Soviet reference

Mention of intersectionality

So far, only one female speaker

Alicia Kearns bringing the whole gamut of hyperbole.

Lots of virtual signalling

Now a woman - deep set harm to T community

Conversion therapy is one direction talking therapy delivered by quacks

What is your ‘trans self’? It is not okay to make laws based on acceptance of widely contested terms like this.

Bit confused now - are they saying that this is all about unregulated therapy? (Like, for instance Mermaids etc?)

They are not clear at all. Who does Kearns define as a ‘quack’ or a ‘charlatan’? And if gender identity isn’t proposed to be defined (as Kearns just said it won’t be) which group (‘transgender’ has no definition in law) is proposed for protection?

Quacks and charlatans - who are these people?

What and who are they talking about?

I have no idea. If you as an adult person who regards yourself as being confused about sex and gender want to pick a therapist and therapeutic approach of your choice, and this law prevents you doing this, that’s harm.

So Elliot colburn says people shouldn't be able to consent to things that might be harmful to themselves.

Like, oh, I don't know... cutting off healthy body parts??!! FFS

All the speakers so far seem to be arguing from an undefined definition of conversion therapy and harmful practices.

There seems to be a group of charlatans/quacks (witches) practicing harmful practices.

Again, who are these people?

100s and 1000s suffering.

Why don't we watch and wait - people who say this are frightened.

Quackery - people who set themselves up in business doing this. What?

I’d like to see case studies about people who have been proved (with evidence) to have carried out actual (well, ‘actual’) exorcisms on people with gender dysphoria. This is all based on a study that defined ‘conversion practices’ as broadly as it possibly good, so they could effect a ban on something that almost certainly isn’t happening in anything like significant numbers.

I would support a ban on anyone being forced to undergo an exorcism, btw. But where? Who did this? And isn’t it already against the law?

Too many suffering and waiting.

Potential of exclusion imply trans don't count.

Debate premature - only in draft.

Still no definition of conversion therapy and harmful practices.

Just lots of references to quacks and charlatans.

Yes