Conversion therapy ban - axed or not?

[ResisterRex]

Two conflicting reports.

From 09 April: x.com/guidofawkes/status/1777670735139332343?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

order-order.com/2024/04/09/exclusive-sunak-completely-kills-off-gay-conversion-therapy-ban/

From today, 11 April:
Cass review: allow therapy for children suffering gender distress

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bc3e6e35-abaa-480a-82ae-5c67efe9c247?shareToken=646156c9381d2801261300f3f3553df1

The Guido story says "MPs raised their concerns with the bill in Autumn, worried that it could lead teachers and parents facing criminal sanctions if they advise children against changing their gender. Guido hears Sunak met with Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch over Easter to tell her the bill has been killed, the government hoping the matter will quietly go away"

The Times report says:

"Kemi Badenoch, the women and equalities minister, is drawing up legislation to ban conversion therapy which is due to be published in draft form this summer. The legislation, which has been repeatedly delayed amid splits in the Conservative Party, is expected to include protections to avoid inadvertently criminalising parents, teachers or doctors.

A government source said: “The Cass review shows again how important it is that the government takes its time to get this right. Cass found that doctors have been too scared to have those critical conversations with gender-questioning children, with disastrous results. So we need to make sure any ban on conversion practices has no unintended consequences, and that is the work that’s being done.”"

Which is it? Was GF wrong? Or passed a dud story, which is now being corrected in The Paper Of Record?

I suspect the Times is correct.
It's so annoying - I don't know what KB I playing at. We've managed so far to avoid putting "gender identity" onto the statute book, a development which I believe to be the aim of this conversion therapy ban.
Once GI is a recognised concept in law, there will be a move to put it into a "updated" Equality Act instead of GR, and from there it can be conflated with sex, or replace sex altogether, which is the ultimate aim.

*what KB is playing at

I agree Snowy. The only thing I have wondered, is if Kemi wants to make it clear in law using the corresponding language ie GR not GI. And to make clear all the right things about this.

The Times does say "a government source" and not "a source close to KB", and that seemed a little strange. Could be that Guido was right and it's dead, and The Times has a mischief making source. But not sure.

The whole thing has no evidence. But there are some very determined people manoeuvring to get GI into law somehow.

Also quite concerning that Alicia Kearns is persisting - and ignoring a range of views on her Bill

x.com/jebadoo2/status/1778562980709302607?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Bizarre. Seems strange that Cass - who's been so careful not to become embroiled in politics and has been at pains to point out the problems with that - would have "warned" Kemi.

Source is the Graun.

www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/11/hilary-cass-warns-kemi-badenoch-over-risks-of-conversion-practices-ban

The sources for this are all over the place. Guido, The Times, the Graun. There's no logic to the leaking and briefing.

Well I'd rather have a sensible bill from Badenoch now than one with 'no loopholes' from Dodds after the election.

KB has the perfect excuse to dump the whole thing but she is putting party unity ahead of doing the right thing by women. Let's not forget that nobody has been able to produce any evidence of widespread gay conversion therapy in the UK and affirmation only therapy has been torpedoed by Cass.

A law with sensible exceptions would gut the idea of talking therapy as conversion therapy, which would be good.
A "no exceptions" law would simply be unworkable, probably have to be amended slowly and painfully over time.
Both versions would add gender identity as a legal concept and that would be the beginning of the end of all the gains we have made and the final unravelling of the web of women's rights.

A "no exceptions" law might actually be better from a women's rights point of view because there might be a chance to question the validity of the legal concept of gender identity each time the law had to be amended because it had resulted in an unjust prosecution.

In reality, if Labour accept Cass, as they have promised, the two versions of the law would be pretty similar anyway, but would be marketed differently.

So I don't want a conversion therapy ban at all because of the danger having gender identity as a recognised concept in law would pose. As I said earlier:
Once GI is a recognised concept in law, there will be a move to put it into a "updated" Equality Act instead of GR, and from there it can be conflated with sex, or replace sex altogether, which is the ultimate aim.

The GRA2004 was a "compassionate" measure to fulfil international obligations, supposedly only affecting a tiny number of men who had had or desperately wanted to have gender reassignment surgery. The "prize" was putting into law the concept of a man turning into a woman by legal instrument. Look at what has happened to women's rights because of that concept.

"In reality, if Labour accept Cass, as they have promised, the two versions of the law would be pretty similar anyway, but would be marketed differently."

I think it's likely to be the other way round in fact. Labour's bill will use an alarmingly broad definition of conversion therapy, but we'll be asked to accept the government's assurances that it's not intended to outlaw any therapy that isn't positively 'gender-affirming'.

Sorry, don't understand what you're saying here.

I mean I think a Labour government would come up with a more restrictive law, one which at least will be unclear enough to worry clinicians who aren't taking an exploratory rather than an affirmative approach, as Cass warned about. But that they'd try to tell us that it's only directed at quacks and zealots.

I see. The way you are using "broad definition of conversion therapy" is what I meant by "a no exceptions law".

I think in the wake of the Cass report they'd try to blur the issue. From Badenoch and the Tories I'd expect clearer definitions of what doesn't count as conversion.

(And I meant to write clinicians who are taking an exploratory approach)

I think in the wake of the Cass report they'd try to blur the issue. From Badenoch and the Tories I'd expect clearer definitions of what doesn't count as conversion.

(And I meant to write clinicians who are taking an exploratory approach)