Channel 4 News last night - one sided report on excluding Trans from Conversion Therapy bill

[ScrollingLeaves]

I was shocked to see they never attempted to explain why there was a pause in including Trans in the Conversion therapy bill. The dry government statement they read out neither explained the reason adequately or mitigated the alarmist opening sequence of a middle aged trans woman describing harrowing electric conversion therapy at the advice of her vicar many years ago.

No one who could have explained the reason was brought on to speak - only Nancy Kelly of Stonewall.

Did anyone else see this?

Yes, I also thought it was one-sided.

Yes I did and I explained to dh that just talking to a child about whether they really felt they were trans would be considered conversion therapy

Not just the, quite obviously, repellant 'therapy' that would be rightly illegal

I was annoyed that the questioning of the woman about women's health, was not ALL about women and girls. So disappointing and so predictable.

Having said that the transwoman did make a comment which I felt was wrong but I can't remember for the life of me what it was...

Having said that the transwoman did make a comment which I felt was wrong but I can't remember for the life of me what it was...

This ??

"Unless you include trans issues as part of the conversation therapy ban, you will be condemning people to mental agony and torture, you possibly, and in my view likely, be condemning some people to take their own lives"

www.channel4.com/news/trans-woman-on-mental-agony-of-conversion-therapy-ban-exclusion

Yes, I thought it was a very biased, poor piece of journalism; disappointing from Channel 4 News.

There was a similar biased piece on Channel 5 news last week - lots of emoting about adults and zero mention of the issue of children. It was my first time watching their news - decided I would no longer bother if that was the state of their reporting

A lot of other countries who have recently banned conversion therapy have included trans and done it without any fuss. Why is it so difficult here in Britain?

MargaritaPie
Because the proposals would bar unbiased therapy for children struggling with puberty / growing up and could allow trans extremists to target any adult speaking with children about their feelings. Fortunately child safeguarding is still prioritised in the UK despite the attempts of certain groups of adults to prioritise their own ideological demands

Yes it was very one-sided and then for good measure they brought up trans women in the interview with Lesley Regan. They talked (rightly) first about how Black and Asian women are discriminated against and then moved straight on to men. Disabled women or trans men would have been more appropriate.

Yes, the law has been introduced without any fuss, but they won't publicise the consequences.

Under the proposals any teacher who doesn't immediately affirm a child's new gender, would be considered to be practising conversion therapy.

Professional therapists who don't immediately affirm someone's new gender, and perhaps would explore other issues (such as extreme emotional trauma, Autism etc) would be considered to be practising conversion therapy.

Why is it so difficult here in Britain?
Because we have better human rights + safeguarding legislation.

Has anyone contacted C4N about this?

Yes that was it thingy

The experience this woman went through (via her church?) is indeed abhorrent - what was known as aversion therapy which involved just what she describes. Mostly done to gay people. Of course that should be banned. No one needs to add that what she went through was mental and physical cruelty. Hats off to her for surviving and making a good life.

Where C4 went wrong in terms of proper journalism (the govt response was hardly illuminating) is to ask their interviewee whether young people should be submitted to drug conversion (eg Tavistock) without investigating and understanding their problems. Which is effectively what happened to her in a particularly brutal way. Or why, if trans was included in the bill, it might criminalise people trying to understand and advise young people wanting to trans.

However, despite the government's shilly shallying and the form all governments have of badly drafting bills, I cannot see why those investigating and counselling young people - now mostly female to male - would come under the umbrella of conversion therapy.

The admirable woman in the piece should be part of a documentary. She seems very strong and a great talker.

They never explained that the concern is that not instantly affirming the gender identity of a young person presenting as trans, but replacing that with exploratory psychological help - around possible past trauma, sexual abuse, autism, peer pressure, bullying, natural physical self loathing at the onset of puberty, internalised homophobia, or those who are simply gender non conforming - could leave parents and psychologists and doctors prey to the accusation of having practised conversion therapy.

Chikdren have been removed from their parents in some instances in other countries on this sort of basis.

They did not explain that the reason overall was to protect very young people whose lives are in flux from premature decisions and interventions.

No mention was made of the Cass report.
No doctors or other bodies who understand the concerns were interviewed.

Having opened with a horrific example of aversion therapy they did not explain that the reason for not including trans in the Conversion Therapy bill was NOT to condone the abhorrent practice experienced by the woman interviewed at the start. Neither did they did discuss whether existing laws would or would not be adequate to prevent this approach which was long ago generally discredited.

I was dismayed that so few steps were taken by Channel 4 to explain the issues and feel relieved others noticed. I would like to write in, though it seems clear they have made up their minds and questioning anything about their accepted line might be taboo.

Not sure if it's been the same for the whole of June but idefinitely for at least the last few days Channel 4's twitter profile has been giving a clear indication of their focus when it comes to Pride. I would post a pic but there seems to be another new-site glitch.

Thingybob · Today 11:41
Having said that the transwoman did make a comment which I felt was wrong but I can't remember for the life of me what it was...

This ??

"Unless you include trans issues as part of the conversation therapy ban, you will be condemning people to mental agony and torture, you possibly, and in my view likely, be condemning some people to take their own lives"

www.channel4.com/news/trans-woman-on-mental-agony-of-conversion-therapy-ban-exclusion

Thank you for that quote. This was the overall message that came across correlating with the horrific experience the middle aged trans woman at the start had undergone many years ago (early 1970s?) at the urging of her church.

There was no exploration of how prevalent this is in the U.K. NOW, what existing laws there may be against this or how effective the laws are.

This older trans woman’s story is important, but it is not more relevant than the many other issues being faced today where trans presenting or gender non conforming children are concerned. She was almost being used as a straw man because no one wary of the ambiguity around the Conversion therapy bill where trans is concerned thinks that this sort of horrible aversion therapy is acceptable.

The other concern, not mentioned by channel 4, is that the affirmation only model may create a pressure for possibly gay children to perceive their feeling of difference as being that they are the wrong gender. In other words, they may experience a form of conversion therapy to be trans instead of gay.

I wouldn't expect anything more from Channel 4 News. They have been almost silent on this issue over the past few years. Excellent at critical analysis of other issues; women's rights in the UK, especially in respect to transgender... it's tumbleweed... pathetic.

Having read the bill (I have a professional interest), that wasn't my interpretation. Conversion therapies are specific. Neither exploration during therapy or 'just talking' could be classed as conversion therapy. There is a middle ground between affirmation and conversion.

Yes, my jaw hit the floor at this very biased piece of reporting. I am glad you started this thread, @ScrollingLeaves , because it crossed my mind to do the same.

I’m really disappointed in Ch 4 and surprised that the female presenter (who I usually really admire and whose name totally escapes me right now - Jackie?) who introduced the piece could do so with a straight face. Then again, Cathy Newman’s book entitled Brilliant Women has a token TW featured as an example of a Brilliant Woman so perhaps the ideology is quite widespread at C4. Shame.

Neither exploration during therapy or 'just talking' could be classed as conversion therapy.

I'm touched by your confidence, but you need to tell that to people like the CEO of Stonewall, who are calling that conversion therapy. Did you miss Nancy Kelley's response to that Independent article about Az Hakeem?

The people calling for this law explicitly say they want to criminalise normal psychiatric therapy.

If this gets on the book they will be doing everything they can to use it as a weapon.

The whole purpose of the bill is to be that weapon.

Do you really want to give it to them, because you think it's been disarmed?

Please could you provide more information about the push to criminalise normal psychiatric therapy?

Certainly there are flaws in the ban, and inclusion of an absolutely clear definition of what conversion therapy in the accompanying guidance would be beneficial to all (including the CEO of stonewall if they think just talking qualifies).

anystropheus · Today 19:07
Please could you provide more information about the push to criminalise normal psychiatric therapy?

I may be wrong but I don’t think there is, as such, an overt push within the bill to criminalise normal psychiatric therapy. There may be an inherent one though.

The problem is that unless it is very carefully worded and defined, with no ambiguity, anything other than affirmation could be taken as seeking an outcome to convert the person from the gender they feel they are.

There needs to be a bill created separately around trans gender identity instead of conflating it with sexual orientation and putting them in one bill.

There have been cases in Australia and the US for example where parents have been prosecuted for disagreeing with schools affirming children and progressing them to hormones.

This post however, was about Channel 4 having given a one sided report by not mentioning any of the reasons why there is concern on the part if those who think trans should not be included in the present Conversion therapy bill. They simply presented the idea that trans identifying people would be harmed and tortured by it not being included in this bill.

Maybe, as you possibly think, those opposing the inclusion are wrong, but a good report would cite the reasons for the opposition and bring on someone who could explain them. Where was the counterpart to Stonewall’s spokesperson?

Here is one organisation’s reasoning. There were others many posted on this board.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/conversion-therapy/

Accordng to this there are now extremely few cases of the terrible conversion therapy experienced by the woman on Channel 4 News, and this could be covered by laws we already have against coercion and abuse. These are points Channel 4 could have looked into.