Today: HoL Conversion Therapy Bill - second reading

[Signalbox]

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/ba53cd1c-1543-4c80-9574-4768ed2247c8

Bump.

Chakrabati doesn't sound too sure of her position. As well as not telling us in precise terms, what that position is.

Altrincham made an excellent point about the effect of this if there's a downward trajectory of professionals able to help children with their mental health problems.

Was it just me or did Ruth Hunt sound almost reasonable?
Certainly not the Stonewall line.

Nah. Still pushing the old lines:

• it's not a problem around the world
• government has been considering it for years
• mixing of sexual orientation and gender ID (I definitely don't recall affirmation ever being a thing for sexual orientation. It's for transing gay children!)

Plenty of MPs fully aware it's a trojan horse, mine included. They may not raise their heads above parapet and say so but will vote so.

https://twitter.com/Jebadoo2

Dennis is doing a really useful summary

It's seems like the HoL have a far better grip on these issues than the commons.

I'll say this, the Lords have certainly done their homework.

Do they read Mumsnet?

Excellent point from Lord Jackson that this might be self-ID by stealth. Because if we are all silenced into not questioning, then whatever anyone says, goes.

Thanks for sharing. Is there a way to see Dennis' thread if not on X?

They don't worry about vote-chasing.

I'm not sure, but the debate is already in hansard

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2024-02-09/debates/DB690A34-D945-4EDA-9178-DD6357498F45/ConversionTherapyProhibition(SexualOrientationAndGenderIdentity)Bill(HL)

I've only seen extracts on X, including that actor from Eastenders. The HoL were justifiably on fire.

Who on earth drafted that Bill?

That debate was fantastic. Thoughtful, informed, intelligent comments everywhere. And representing the views of the population far more accurately that most MPs (with the exception of the "safeguarding is bigotry" Cashman ).

It seems to be a private member's bill sponsored by Baroness Burt of Solihull.
I don't know if that means she also drafted it.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2024-0004/

Overall the debate seemed to be comprised of evidence and the desire to uphold freedom of speech and belief on one side v emotion and personal experience of having been discriminated on the other.

I've started several dotgov petitions and they have to be passed as fit for purpose before they are published.
Is there any due diligence with new bills?

It’s interesting, is there a sort of ‘agreed social story’? What would that be called? It seems as if the agreed narrative of life has shifted so much. The HoL has a refreshingly in touch outlook and the integrity to stick to it.

The HoC who are elected and should be representative are not.

The HoC is made of people who can afford to be career politicians- people who can accept their job being up for renewal every 4 years, living across two cities, lack of privacy and quite a high threat exposure. They aren’t that ordinary at all.

I think the fact the HoL are unelected gives them more freedom to be honest, because there isn't a risk they will lose their job.

But I also think the HoL are generally more well read on this issue, MPs in the HoC, with a few exceptions are dreadfully ill informed and possibly influenced by lobbyists and family members. There does seem to be an usually high proportion of MPs with trans family members.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3512

Extract:
"In this Act, “conversion therapy” is any practice aimed at a person or group
of people which demonstrates an assumption that any sexual orientation or
gender identity is inherently preferable to another, and which has the intended
purpose of attempting to—
(a)change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or
(b)suppress a person’s expression of sexual orientation or gender identity"

I'd like to talk about this "assumption that any gender identity is preferable to another".

Of /course/ it's preferable to be comfortable in your own body and not wish to be the other sex. The proponents of gender theory itself are advocating for people with gender dysphoria to undergo gruelling medical treatments, sterilisation, medicalisation for life because they say themselves that the alternative is a huge risk of self harm.

It is not an equal value outcome to "be trans" and not "be trans" in the same way it's a equal value outcome to be gay and not be gay. It's like saying it's equally good to have cancer and not have cancer. Of course it's better if people don't have gender dysphoria. Of course parents should be happier if their kids can come to terms with their sex.

Never understood the celebratory response to people "coming out" as having the supposedly devastating condition of gender dysphoria. Congratulations you have cancer.

• Apologies to cancer sufferers for my choice of comparison; unfortunately the scale of proposed treatments for gender dysphoria is sufficiently grave that really only potentially life threatening conditions have proposed interventions of comparable seriousness.

HoL debate was excellent.

As for the rest, Parson's egg. I can't avoid thinking of Michelle Mone nor the recent appointments from BJ's office.

I did especially enjoy whichever lord it was who had though Ruth Hunt is a trans man.

Baroness Burt looked mightily put out by their lordships who weren't in favour of her bill.

I agree it was the usual mix of appeals to emotion vs facts & evidence.

I did especially enjoy whichever lord it was who had though Ruth Hunt is a trans man.

That was a weird exchange. Did they really think she was, did they mis-speak for L, or were they making a subtle dig at her inability to separate the letters LGBT? And her response - "I am not trans, although I like accessorising". What does she think accessorising has to do with being trans?

Ruth Hunt's response was somewhat puzzling. I can't imagine the 'trans community' being overly happy with it.

I haven't watched it all yet, I saw Barry Wall's 'EDI Jester' commentary on the parts he showed and then I started to watch the whole thing today, so no doubt more treats are in store.

But the conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity was grating.

'Accessorise' reminded me of this article which was discussed on several threads on here at the time.

I’m part of a wonderful Facebook group of older women celebrating confidence in our “hot girl years”, AKA the menopause. Trans women are not only welcome, they are cherished — we have all learned from their stories and world class ability to accessorise.

Did the Lord who thought Ruth Hunt was trans think she was a transman or a transwoman?

Did the Lord who thought Ruth Hunt was trans think she was a transman or a transwoman?
Ha, perhaps that explains the accessorising. Whatever he thought, she thought he meant she was a TW, and she associates accessorising with TW. Not that trans is anything to do with stereotypes eh.