Conversion Therapy Definitions?

[WitchyWitcherson]

I'm hearing a lot about conversion therapy lately and, as far as I can tell, there are now three definitions;

1. Conversion therapy meaning a homosexual individual receiving some form of therapy (willingly or unwillingly) to "convert" them into being heterosexual.
2. Conversion therapy meaning a homosexual individual medically transitioning with the idea that they become a heterosexual individual (because they now present as the opposite sex).
3. Conversion therapy meaning a person with gender dysphoria receiving psychological support rather than medicalising their dysphoria and medically transitioning.

I can see how 2 is an extrapolation of 1, as in the end the aim is to create a heterosexual individual; and the core reasoning behind why gender ideology is homophobic.

I fail to understand why 3 counts as conversion therapy, or is it because people think people are 'born trans'? Or is 3 not called conversion therapy? I've found these mixed definitions confusing and hard to follow at times!

It's the use of the word "loop-hope" that worries me.

I see that as them saying it would be conversion therapy to suggest to someone thinking they want to transition that in fact that might be gay / lesbian.

As usual it is all weasal words.

From where I'm sitting:

a) TRAS have cynically grabbed the phrase as a gotcha, because of its obvious association with awful bigoted nutters in the US who want to 'cure' homosexuality, and applied it to any therapy aimed at helping confused kids not to rush into decisions that would have serious and life-changing effects, and

b) Labour have lazily or cynically (take your pick) gone along with this. Fuck em.

Do labour actually want to win? Honestly they are idiots who don't understand reality how on earth will they run the treasury?

Do labour actually want to win?

They know they are going to win because the Tories are going to lose, irrespective of policies.

That's what is so depressing. Because baring some totally unexpected event they are going to win, and they dont even have the integrity to offer some vaguely socialist politics, but talk about being more Tory. And building Georgian style houses.

They certainly are not very interested in the working class vote despite losing the red wall it seems.

Well they lost some of it, but I expect they'll get a fair bit back that they did lose, especially with Brexit not turning out to be any kind of bonanza. But they DGAS about the working class, no. They are only interested in swing seats in the Midlands. They figure, as they always do, that the working class will vote for them anyway. But women may well not.

TRAS have cynically grabbed the phrase as a gotcha, because of its obvious association with awful bigoted nutters in the US who want to 'cure' homosexuality...

Righto! We should have just burned them at the stake like our British forebears did. That would have been the civilised thing to do. <obvious sarcasm alert>

https://www.attitude.co.uk/news/labour-anneliese-dodds-conversion-therapy-449281/

“We will deliver where the Conservatives have failed by bringing in a full no loopholes, trans-inclusive ban on ‘conversion therapy’,”
“So-called conversion therapy is abuse”She promised to tackle all this, promising tougher sentences for those carrying our anti-LGBTQ hate crime.

What does this mean in practice?
Will we slide backwards into the 'affirmation only' model for gender dysphoric teenagers and will misgendering be a hate crime?
It seems like Labour is still determined to plough on with all this stuff regardless of it's unpopularity.

I find it hard to tell if they know what they're doing, or if they are stumbling around in the dark, having only read the first couple of sentences of their briefings. Either way, it's no credit to them.

It feels more stumbling around in the dark with a few loud voices calling them in various directions.

Agree with PPs... the "loop-hole" thing is scary... seems like a way of banning anyone that might want to explore someone's gender dysphoria wider than just nod-along-with-it affirmative care. Yikes!