EHRC calls for ban on conversion therapy

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67139533

'Baroness Kishwer Falkner, who chairs the commission, has now written to Women and Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch insisting the legislation "is needed".

The letter states: "Legislation to ban harmful conversion practices is needed, and... thorough and detailed scrutiny remains imperative to ensure that any ban is fully effective in protecting people with the protected characteristics of sexual orientation and gender reassignment from harm, while avoiding any unintended consequences.
"As such, I hope to see this legislation in the forthcoming King's Speech."'

About time is it not?

Only if it's pinned down in extremely watertight detail exactly what is meant by conversion therapy.

So it's not, ooh just for an example, a whacking great trojan horse enforcing affirmation only approaches for professionals working with children, under cover of a useful phrase borrowed from LGB people so it sounds all innocent and naive people will gullibly nod it through without realising the harms. And it needs to also mean pressuring a homosexual person to 'unlearn their genital prejudices' and 'learn to cope' with straight sex, ie be equally and impartially applied.

Odd how I've learned to be deeply, deeply suspicious. By bitter experience.

'As you will be aware, however, this is a complex and sensitive area with the potential to have wide-ranging impacts. Any legislation should be carefully considered to ensure it uses clear terminology and definitions, and is proportionate and evidence-based.
That is why we recommended that a draft Bill should be published for pre-legislative scrutiny by both Houses, and I was pleased to see the Government’s public commitment in January 2023 to bring such draft legislation forward.
The Commission’s position remains that legislation to ban harmful conversion practices is needed, and that thorough and detailed scrutiny remains imperative to ensure that any ban is fully effective in protecting people with the protected characteristics of sexual orientation and gender reassignment from harm while avoiding any unintended consequences'

If they want it to be clear, they're going to have to define 'gender'.

Yes of course it should - if conversion therapy is clearly defined and doesn’t end up including “discussing with upset & angry teenagers whether the issue is really identifying as the opposite sex and not a whole host of other issues eg being sane sex attracted/abuse/bullying/being ND etc”

My issues with this...

It's wrong in principle, because we should be trying to cure more children of gender dysphoria. That's the best outcome in theory. Neither do I think we know enough to say, "it can't work".

It violates religious freedom to try to stop adults from getting counselling in their religious community.

It's just an unnecessary violation of liberty for adults. Consenting adults can do what they like in the privacy of the bedroom? Great, then consenting adults can also choose to work with a therapist to try to change their sexual feelings.

It doesn't work? Then you make sure the therapist gets them to sign something that says they understand the lack of evidence, or evidence against, that the therapy will work.

Conversion therapy for LGB is a very different animal to what they’re calling Conversion therapy for T.

And surely LGB consenting adults should be allowed the choice to partake if they choose. Not everything can be legislated in this heavy handed way. I’m not suggesting forcing conversion therapy on LGB people at all.

Now what’s called conversion therapy for the T is really allowing people to explore their possible gender dysphoria before jumping straight to medication and surgery.

"Legislation to ban harmful conversion practices is needed, and... thorough and detailed scrutiny remains imperative to ensure that any ban is fully effective in protecting people with the protected characteristics of sexual orientation and gender reassignment from harm, while avoiding any unintended consequences.

Well that's about as clear as mud.

the EHRC previously recommended that any legislation should initially focus on practices that aimed to change a person's sexual orientation, rather than gender identity, due to what it called a "lack of evidence" and concerns that it could prevent people accessing "appropriate support".

But what if gender identity even with "appropriate support" is effectively conversion therapy for same sex attracted people?

And this recent comment doesn't clarify this, as how you understand "unintendted consequences" will be influenced by how "appropriate support" is offered.

Is this KF trying to placate the trans ideologues at EHRC?

Is she still being investigated?

So are you still arguing that trans people don’t exist? We know that you can’t ‘make’ people feel they are their birth sex, just like you can’t make people change their sex. Conversion therapy is wrong.

Different to discussing how to actually support trans people without eroding the rights of women. These posts questioning the banning of conversion therapy are scary…

They’re not saying that can’t be discussed

Conversion therapy is wrong.

As is the "affirmative" path that leads to transition, so that when the young person becomes an adult they suffer transition regret and the difficult and painful road to de-transition.

And in most instance these are people who are same sex attracted but have not been able to explore that because of those obsessed by trans ideology.

However stupid most of us might think MPs are, even they have realised that it isn't as simplistic as your post suggests.

I think it's a good idea to get this properly sorted before labour get in. Failure to deal with it now will not make the trojan horse trot off back from whence it came.

Anneleise Dodds: We will deliver where the Conservatives have failed by bringing in a full, no-loopholes, trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy.

https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/anneliese-dodds-speech-at-labour-party-conference/

I haven't read EHRC's letter in detail though. Are they backtracking?

So are you still arguing that trans people don’t exist?

It depends what you mean by "trans people".

People who wish they were the opposite sex obviously exist.

People who change their bodies to resemble the opposite sex obviously exist.

But nobody was literally born in the wrong body.

We know that you can’t ‘make’ people feel they are their birth sex, just like you can’t make people change their sex.

You obviously can't make people change their sex because it's not possible to change sex.

What does it mean to feel you are or are not your birth sex? Your sex isn't a feeling or a choice, it's just a fact which can't be changed.

I wonder what has caused her to change her mind. That would be a very interesting discussion.

I’d also be interested to see the evidence that this law is essential. The article says the evidence that it is needed is based on a survey of LGBT people, of whom 2% had undergone conversion therapy and 5% had been offered it.

They didn’t define conversion therapy, nor do they appear to have asked whether it was undergone voluntarily. There is some breakdown of figures, which says that a higher percentage of those who are “trans” experienced it, including “9% of trans men”. No breakdown of the age of those who said they had been offered or had undergone such therapy either.

The current situation unfortunately makes me highly skeptical about whether the demands made by mainstream LGBT groups are actually particularly beneficial, or are the most pressing needs for that “community” given the intense skewing of the political landscape. The push for “self-ID” for example, is (in my opinion) doing more harm than good as it is widely seen as an unreasonable demand, rather than a justifiable means to help those transitioning.

So I would question, in terms of human rights abuses, whether this demand is actually the most pressing problem facing the wider LGB community or whether, like self-ID, this is mostly based on the demands of an unreliable trans lobby, who do not want rights so much as they want everything to revolve around what they believe benefits them, even if that is damaging.

K, so the three posts in favour of this illustrate the concerns of all the rest really.

It's all and only about trans people. No relevance to anything else on the alphabet. (Although in the original case made for it, huge amounts used about very historic practices almost entirely on homosexuals with no evidence any of these are current issues. Several LGB groups have made this point to government: their historic and awful experience appears to be being used as useful but not for/with any relevance to or interest in them.)

If you have doubts then it's the usual bizarre thing about 'you're saying trans people who clearly exist and you are talking about don't exist' so it would seem it is a validation issue, and seems to be exclusively as no other points addressed or mentioned

Emotive bull and distortion of facts to try and push the idea that good people would have no questions and just be all hearts and clasped hands.

I don't think we need Ben Cooper to work out what that evidence shows really.

The 'people questioning this are scary' line is a particularly silly one.

If there is no doubt in a trans person identity how does the argument that puberty blockers are harmless and just allows the trans child to think, if no therapy other than gender affirmation this would be a nail in the coffin in children’s treatment.

@Ididivfama

We know that you can’t ‘make’ people feel they are their birth sex

I don't think it's "known" that you can't help a higher percentage of children recover from gender dysphoria and accept their biological sex.

And it's quite possible that an "affirmation" approach will harm many children by preventing them from naturally recovering.

We should be researching these issues, especially with the modern explosion of cases, not deciding we already know everything and just give kids the drugs.

And I have seen a trans person complaining about how their antipsychotic had made them start to doubt their trans identity. So it's not impossible that drugs could help some people, but unfortunately antipsychotics have significant side effects.

It may be that they want this sorted before Labour come in. EHRC were also pressing for schools guidance to get done, I believe.

However, they have washed their hands of the question of whether a male can be a woman, so I'm unsure of quite how much integrity and commitment they have on these issues.

Don’t worry, I have no doubt that women and feminists will vote in the next Labour government who will deliver this quickly as one of their top priorities. Just please don’t complain about it after they do. I don’t wanna be reading a thread on this site in four or five years time complaining about it from the very people who voted to make it to happen.

LGB Alliance UK

At Conference, Stephanie Davies-Arai will discuss the confused campaign to ban “conversion therapy”, and how the real conversion therapy is one that convinces gender dysphoric youth they were born in the wrong body.

Get your tickets for October 27th

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/lgb-alliance-annual-conference-2023-tickets-682122164757

I’d also be interested to see the evidence that this law is essential. The article says the evidence that it is needed is based on a survey of LGBT people, of whom 2% had undergone conversion therapy and 5% had been offered it.

They didn’t define conversion therapy, nor do they appear to have asked whether it was undergone voluntarily.

I think this whole thing is actually bogus, which should immediately raise suspicions.

When people hear "conversion therapy" the image they have is of some kind of Clockwork Orange type kidnapping scenario, or some of the more horrible and bizarre stuff described from the past. But these bills seem to have a much broader definition.

Looking at those numbers it seems clear that some of it is probably something quite different than "conversion therapy" and so the numbers who have had any exposure to that kind of thing are even smaller.

It's also the case that the professional associations that doctors and psychologists belong to do not consider these therapies legitimate, and generally speaking ban them among their members, and it's already illegal to do stuff like kidnap people or give them treatments against their will, or physically abusing them.

These laws were never about gay conversion therapy. They were about associating that with treating gender dysphoria and outlawing it.

I think she might have been got at. EHRC was deeply captured by the Kool Aide.

Basically, this.

There is nothing wrong with being gay. Even if you lived in a country where being gay was illegal and so it would be much easier for you if you could be straight, there is no form of therapy which can actually make you straight. So at best, gay conversion therapy is a pointless exercise, and at worst, it is incredibly traumatic, as people who have been subjected to it can attest to.

But gay people aren't harming their healthy bodies with hormones and surgery. Gay people aren't demanding access to single sex spaces and sports for the opposite sex. All that is really needed for gay people to live full and happy lives in society is for everyone to accept that some people have sexual relationships with members of their own sex and that this is none of anyone else's business.

Being trans is problematic wherever you live, even if you're in a country like Canada where everything is festooned with the trans flag and everyone has pronouns in their email signature. Even if you live in a country where everyone is willing to pretend to their last dying breath that you really are the opposite sex, you will never be the opposite sex. There are legitimate arguments against you using single sex spaces for the opposite sex and competing in sports for the opposite sex. There are legitimate arguments against you getting the kind of medical interventions you may believe you need. If you are prescribed hormones you will be on them for life and you may suffer devastating consequences such as early onset osteoporosis or the inability to ever orgasm. And that's before we even get on to surgery, which causes even more devastating and irreversible consequences. If you detransition after even a short time on hormones, your body will permanently bear the marks of this treatment, in the form of an altered voice, hair where it shouldn't be, a lack of hair where it should be, different fat distribution, an enlarged clitoris. You will most likely never "pass" as the opposite sex. Your dating pool will be drastically reduced, because as much as people might pretend they are open minded, the vast majority of them have a clear preference for a partner who both is and presents as a particular biological sex. Even people who identify as "pansexual" are unlikely to be interested in a serious relationship if they want children and you are sterile as a result of your treatment.

With all that in mind, who on earth would choose to transition unless it really were the only option to make your life bearable?

So it makes sense that people claiming to have a transgender identity should be having extensive therapy to rule out literally every other possible cause of their dysphoria and every other possible solution before the idea of transitioning is even entertained.

That's not happening now, and it certainly won't happen if it is banned.