Conversion therapy ban. Update.

[KatMcBundleFace]

www.itv.com/news/2023-01-15/government-to-announce-law-banning-conversion-therapy

Interesting piece from ITV on government legislation on gay and trans conversion therapy. Seems the government is moving towards legislation and will include gender identity (if they can define it), it remains to be seen what form this will take.

Metro's take is triumphant but I think we should watch this space.
metro.co.uk/2023/01/15/uk-to-announce-law-banning-gay-and-transgender-conversion-therapy-18103466/

Surely the Cass Report needs to be taken into account here? The parts about gender being often fluid under 25? The parts about social transitioning not being without consequence?

This feels never ending.

It’s understood that Downing Street has been surprised by the level of cross-party support - including from within the Conservative Party - for a total ban.

Ffs. I can only assume they think this is a quick win on TRSOH and they haven't looked into it properly.

I cannot believe we are just watching this scandal unfold.

Johnson and co put the brakes on and seemed to realise the issues.

Wtf is the matter with Sunak?

By Paul Brand eh? Does he have a hotline to No.10 in the same way Iain Anderson does? Yea, ok then. Watch this space indeed.

Daily mail article is concerning. Suggests that it is being run by no 10 not Kemi and her equalities brief.

It's very unclear what it means. And the notion that it will go against the prevailing direction of Cass seems unlikely. There's just not enough detail to know what to think

Odd. Sunak is standing up to Sturgeon and her efforts to impose self-ID, isn’t he? Why isn’t he clear about ‘trans away the gay’?

I’m holding my breath on him using section 35 to block the GRR. Fingers crossed.

Seems that Rishi has decided to override the Equalities department and force it through, I don't have much hope for the Cass review either now.

Yet again Brand's husband (who works inside No. 10) has helped.

Seriously if you have a gender questioning child, keep them away from all professionals, they will be led down one path.

Perhaps they are starting this as a way of balancing squishing the Scottish legislation?

It is frightening that this is back on the agenda again. There’s clearly some very strong lobbying going on.

We've seen how underhand the TRAs can be. This could even be a total lie because it's not going to happen, as a last ditch attempt to manipulate the process. We just don't know with such general wording and no detail.

Agreed. Brand is well known for his views and he loves to stir. The consultation results on the CT bill are well overdue to be published so news could be imminent. Think the govt will want to get the GRR announcement out of the way before anything else is announced. He’s just shit stirring.

It's rather like the whole building on a green belt land site isn't it?

The contractors only ever have to win once. Those resisting it and trying to protect that land have to win every single time, as the attack comes back... and back.... and back... and back... with all the wheeling and dealing and greased palms in the background.

If Sunak turns out to be as weak as Starmer, and that's how he's starting to look to me, then that is the end of any party being electable. I am not going to pick between blue, green or yellow woman-hating, homophobic lunacy based on my favourite colour.

Ah. This batshit attempt of an amendment to the Online Safety Bill might be linked to this story:

twitter.com/cforwomenuk/status/1613963690797039621?s=46&t=SQ8mYzRr-3LwKmXGWnpEow

If i were sunak, I'd announce a ban including covering those with a grc and leave the rest. Political points to score without alienating half the population. I winner how messed up this message will be as i can't see most of it any more.

Please fix the text editing box on mobile. This is painful

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-problem-with-alicia-kearnss-lgbtq-conversion-therapy-amendment/

Insidious ideology

This! It’s a common tactic - get Brand to put out that sunak has already decided to do x (when he hasn’t made a decision) to pressure him to do x

if he doesn’t do x Brand will then post stories asking why sunaks changed his mind about x & start on with the hysterical ‘you want all trans people to die don’t you!!!!’ putting more pressure on sunak to agree to do x

brand is typical of the smug self righteous no skin in the game woke bro who needs to fuck right off

The Times has a sort of roundup of issues. This Paul Brand "exclusive" isn't in it:

Keir Starmer critical of changing gender at 16 amid row over Scottish law

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9aae9162-94f8-11ed-91ab-4070465550ba?shareToken=6d83d72d87ec3a48b154dedbd64740e5

Why does R4 keep saying that this was ‘widely debated’. It wasn’t at all and the people mostly don’t want this.

Two sets of victims here: children and parents. Children for not having talk therapy and parents being penalised for for wanting their children to try therapy first.

It's never ending. 8000 kids on GIDS waiting list and obvious social contagion on display. Kids are being used as political pawns to appease activists and lobby groups. There's a lot invested in this.

This is going to be like the NHS A&E now, avoid it if you can.

I wouldn’t have a big problem with banning conversion therapy if it was well defined as being physical violence and coercion, but NOT discussion or exploration. The legal bar for a conviction must be high enough that, for example, my son and I can have an honest and open discussion about his pro-trans views and my GC views. I should be able to point out the logical issues with his point of view (and vice versa, at least in theory!) and the bad effects on women and women’s rights of trans activism.

I should not be free to try to coerce him out of his trans identification with impunity, but I should be free to say to him that he is not, and can never be, a woman. I should also be free to say that getting a GRC should not make him legally a woman (the ‘legal fiction’) and that he will never have a moral right to enter women’s spaces. I can’t imagine him having that sort of entitled attitude, but then I’m astonished he’s not in huge distress at the cognitive dissonance of his current ‘transgender’ presentation. And I should be free to express my concerns about hormone treatment.

I wouldn’t have a big problem with banning conversion therapy if it was well defined as being physical violence and coercion, but NOT discussion or exploration.

But you don’t need new law to prosecute physically violent and coercive practice. This stuff is already illegal - whatever the intended purpose is. It’s not ok to physically harm people or torture them or to scare and coerce them into things, whether that’s presented as ‘therapy’ or ‘education’ or just straight up mistreatment.

It’s important to ask what the actual problem this kind of policy is trying to solve. The problem is not that there’s no current mechanism uk address physical violence and coercion.

So what is the intention? The intention that’s being obscured behind images of beating and torturing children to try to stop them being gay. That’s already not legal. So what is it that the proponents want to achieve by getting people to focus on solving a problem that is already addressed by other means?

Society and parliament are full of people who not only don’t want to ask searching questions about anything presented to them as saving the vulnerable, but vilifying anyone who tries to.

^^ What she said.

It's quite interesting reading the response to this from some of the gay organisations (NOT the TQ+ centric ones, the homosexual focused ones).

They pointed out very early on:

• where is the evidence that any of this awful physical violence and coercion is happening now?
• Much of this draws on evidence of historic violence against homosexual people and could be seen as being used as a useful lever by other groups, rather than actually being an issue for those groups.
• Limited evidence it's ever been an issue for some of the groups who may benefit most from achieving this going through, not as a protection from violent coercion but as part of achieving a political agenda to control others' speech and enforce affirmation of TQ+ by threat of legal punishment.
• Homosexual people at this point rather sick of being broken down for useful parts to enable TQ+ political finagling, when said TQ+ political lobby would really like to reintroduce conversion therapy for homosexuals who won't do straight sex on demand to validate a gender identity.

This is the site linked to by Stonewall as evidence that conversion therapy is currently widespread.

www.banconversiontherapy.com/stories

The first story on there is about a 'transwoman' who was subjected to horrific electric shock treatment in the 1950s. The others are all religious, and in some cases requested conversion therapy.

I really don't understand why anyone thinks this law is necessary.