Conversion therapy: Affirmative care is not about saying yes, and we've been saying that all along

[ResisterRex]

Did anyone catch this? Around 28 minutes.

Apparently children or people accessing therapy "need to be challenged, they need to be in a safe space. That is what affirmative care is about. It's not about saying 'yes'. It's about creating a safe space where people can be affirmed but also then challenged. And that is what we've been proposing all along"

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001s8n5/politics-live-07112023

Is it?

This woman is part of the 'trans rights' conference coming up.

https://translucent.org.uk/conference

Very impressed with Sonia Sodha in that discussion, she needs to be platformed on TV more!

I've read lots of her columns but she was extremely articulate and calmly got all the important points across in the face of hostility. Would love to see her take on Actual Owen Jones or similar where he can't control the narrative of the conversation, there were some issues with cyber bullying from him to women and I think it's possible she was one of them.

Interesting, it's obvious that they're on the back foot. They're responsible for it being complex because of their attacks on language and meaning itself. You can't even be clear what 'woman ' means now so how can you possibly claim a clear understanding of 'affirmation'.

' Self-affirmation theory posits that people are motivated to maintain a positive self-view and that threats to perceived self-competence are met with resistance.'

The word affirmation should be ditched. Surely therapy is about self exploration and reflection.

Liz Kendall, meanwhile, seems barely able to string a sentence together. But she says that Labour will ban Conversion therapy. How many times does she use the phrase 'normal' and 'proper' therapy, but can't actually describe what this means, or how it will differ from the Wrong Sort?

Chinny reckon!

(this was all totally predictable though, the transing doctors and therapists can’t publicly admit being wrong because then they’ll be open to lawsuits. Instead they will just pretend that ‘affirmation’ wasn’t ever about firming up the new gender identity with physical intervention, it just meant ‘be kind’ while normal, bog standard therapy happened)

51 MPs have tabled an amendment to the King's Speech:

commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/82757/Html?subType=Standard

"At end add ‘but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech fails to include measures to ban conversion practices for LGBT+ people, fails to acknowledge the profound and devastating consequences of so-called conversion therapy, and fails to note that conversion practices, including on trans people, are abhorrent; and therefore call on the Government to bring forward legislative proposals for a no-loopholes ban on so-called conversion therapy that protects all LGBT+ people from these reprehensible practices while maintaining the right to explore their identity.’"

The MPs are:

Kate Osborne
Dawn Butler
Dame Angela Eagle
Elliot Colburn
Carolyn Harris
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Cat Smith
Nadia Whittome
Rebecca Long Bailey
Charlotte Nichols
Ian Byrne
John McDonnell
Ian Lavery
Zarah Sultana
Apsana Begum
Claudia Webbe
Kim Johnson
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Richard Burgon
Angela Crawley
Mr Ben Bradshaw
Mr Rob Roberts
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Caroline Lucas
Stephen Farry
Layla Moran
Geraint Davies
Wendy Chamberlain
Beth Winter
Sarah Edwards
Hannah Bardell
Kirsten Oswald
Jeremy Corbyn
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Jon Trickett
Christine Jardine
Valerie Vaz
Caroline Nokes
Sarah Champion
Paul Blomfield
Mr William Wragg
Clive Lewis
John Nicolson
Tony Lloyd
Ian Mearns
Daisy Cooper
Claire Hanna
Sir George Howarth
Liz Saville Roberts
Hywel Williams
Ben Lake

' a no-loopholes ban on so-called conversion therapy'

What are they counting as 'loopholes'?

The usual suspects then?

Minus Crispin Blunt.

She sounded irritable, as if shes at the end of her tether that someone else cant write an act that both affirms and allows questioning of gender, when she obviously hasnt the first clue how to do it herself.

Do they not already know the law? surely conversion therapy IS banned!

No we never said that.

And if we did say that, the words meant something different to what you thought.

So it's your fault you didn't understand that when we said x we actually meant y.

Another day, same old desperate tactics.

affirmed but also then challenged

Challenged in what way?

"What makes you think that?" "What other issues might be at work here?"

Or

"Prove that you're trans."?

Yes. This really angers me. They need to explain exactly what practices are currently being carried out on "trans people" within the law that they think are so "abhorrent" and "reprehensible".

Make them define terms or shut the hell up.

They need to be asked and made to answer the simple question of what it is they want banned and present evidence it is happening. Clearly. Without obfuscation.

Otherwise, this is nothing but emotional blackmail, and given what's at stake, and given we're talking about the law, it's completely outrageous that supposedly serious people are putting their names to this. How dare they?

This is a great example of why we HAVE to try to split the LGB from the TQI.

Are exorcisms a big problem for the trans community in the uk?

This is nonsense. No child is challenged. They’re affirmed the second they walk in the door because they’re asked their preferred pronouns by reception staff. To challenge a child is to acknowledge that some - anyone - who says they’re trans might not be.

If you acknowledge that a child - or anyone - might not actually be trans based on their own say so, it unravels the entire ideology.

So they never challenge a child. The only therapists I’ve seen express concern over whether a child’s declared trans identity might be a sign of other issues are the ones who have come out publicly to express their concerns that this is never considered during the assessment or treatment process.

Yes, we see this fury quite often when people are struggling with cognitive dissonance.

'Why the bloody hell won't people do this perfectly reasonable thing that I can't describe!'

https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/safeguarding-e-manual/safeguarding-children-young-people-and-vulnerable-adults/4-1

'4.1.5 For the avoidance of any doubt, and in line with the decision of the General Synod of the Church of England in July 2017, it is made clear that nobody, whether a member of a Diocesan Deliverance Ministry Team or otherwise, is permitted to use any form of deliverance ministry in pursuit of changing or influencing somebody’s sexual orientation. This applies whether or not the individual concerned wishes to receive such ministry. Individuals asking for such ministry must be treated with compassion and understanding, and should be referred both to pastoral support and to links to appropriate resources
'

The desperate get out clause phrase that often follows is 'it's complicated'.

It's one of a number of phrases that essentially means shutupshutupshutuplalalalahelllllp

Bit more on exorcism here:

https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2023/08/the-church-of-england-is-legitimising-spiritual-abuse

I've fallen down a rabbithole. This is fascinating.

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/10/31/london-exorcist-all-of-society-is-subject-to-a-demonic-deception/

There's an exorcism boom, apparently. I wonder if they could do anything for my sinus trouble.

https://catholicherald.co.uk/driving-out-the-devil-whats-behind-the-exorcism-boom/

Perhaps exorcism is a nice little side hustle, now that religious weddings are increasingly unfashionable?

As the kids are won’t to say nowadays, man gotta make dolla (& church not hot).