Trans conversion therapy must be outlawed, Theresa May tells Johnson

[Igneococcus]

In the Times, don't see this shared yet. I don't think she knows what she is talking about:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/381ab74a-f914-11ec-84c1-32e852e780b0?shareToken=9d3434c8f499c3151797b914e726e073

No, that's not the case.

"To that end, the government must keep to its commitment to consider the issue of transgender conversion therapy. If it is not to be in the upcoming Bill, then the matter must not be allowed to slide." is what May apparently said.

I agree if this means the sort of the awful and intolerable conversion therapies that homosexuals endured through centuries - no trans person should go through this. But the legislation should not cover advice to young people about the consequences of transing pharmaceutically or surgically and May should be fighting instead for more support for psychiatric services and the training of medics.

Unfortunately (a) there's little money for the NHS to so provide and (b) the quality of legislation drafting by the civil service is notoriously bad so they would have to be fast on their feet to stop conflating psychological advice with conversion and (c) including longitudinal studies about the consequences of drugs and surgery - not helped by the lack of follow up by those that have done it or had it done.

The conversion “therapies” that were applied to some gay men (up to about the late 70s) are already illegal, under laws which protect everyone in this country, and rightly so.

I’ve not seen evidence presented to date that suggests churches, or any other organised group in this country, are running programs to pressure trans identifying people into compliance. On the contrary, if you look to the States, there are indications that some deeply homophobic parents and church elders would rather see a transitioned (magically becoming “straight”) child in their congregation than a homosexual one.

Structured talking therapy is vital and can’t be put at risk of well meaning, but misguided and rushed, legislation. It’s madness that people should be able to access hormones that come with massive long term consequences to health and fertility, or be able to access surgeries with irreversible consequences, before they’ve been guided through the alternatives and before HCPs can satisfy themselves that the patient truly understands the risks.

We don’t push cancer patients through chemo or other toxic therapies without sitting them down and talking through the risks - and those are ACTUALLY life saving, or at least life prolonging, treatments. Puberty blockers, opposite sex hormones and/or top and bottom surgeries are very much not.

Talking therapies would not be at risk from banning conversion therapies.

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone else has actually read into this.

OK, let’s have a list of what would be regarded as conversion therapy, and what wouldn’t, with sources for that.

Anystropheus won’t be able to provide that list because the Government didn’t end up providing one themselves. The only text that was released about trans conversion “therapy:”

‘contains no clear definition of what will amount to “conversion therapy” caught by its proposals, nor of the meaning of “transgender” – a term which has no clear legal meaning, is potentially wider than the concept of gender reassignment in current UK law, and is understood by different people in different ways.’ (The EHRC).

Ill defined concepts make for very bad law. The Government was right to pause and consider the issue properly, rather than rush out bad legislation that risked being put through on the nod without proper scrutiny. I just wish they, and previous Governments, had applied such caution more routinely, to all sorts of existing laws.

@anystropheus fantastic. Please explain to us how its not going to ban talking therapies?
I would love to have my mind put at ease.

Ok that's excellent.

What is it they actually want banned then?

OT and a personal petition: I wish to outlaw major figures like Theresa May speaking out on topics on which they've been inadequately briefed.

As for Alan Turing, there are some people out there who have rewritten history to make him gay and trans with the drugs as part of his transition.

Details: williamaferguson.substack.com/p/trans-out-your-dead?s=r

@anystropheus what would be banned then?

If anyone has that definitive list of what will and will not be banned, I would be very assured to read it here.

Otherwise, it will be just more empty assurances. Particularly considering the legislation introduced in other countries.

I'm confused by this sentence:

"In March Johnson dropped plans to ban so-called conversion therapy, a practice that tries to suppress someone’s sexuality or gender identity, but U-turned within hours after a backlash."

The article is about trans therapy but I thought the government proposal to ban conversion therapy didn't apply to trans in the first place. (We know there are two separate categories or groups here, not to be conflated.) If he did change it after a backlash that would mean he would now ban trans therapy but I understood he does not intend that.

As I wrestled with this awkward sentence, the more obscure it became. Did he really drop plans to ban conversion therapy? Backlash from where? Has he actually changed his policy? Have I got it wrong? I did say I'm confused!