Conversion Therapy and Cass

[RedToothBrush]

So Cass raised concerns about homosexual children and trans activism.

The Mens Gay Network (Dennis Noel Kavanagh) has been pretty vocal about this and concerns about 'transing away the gay'. A number of whistleblower at the Tavistock raised the concern too.

Then there's been the Conversion Therapy bill which stalled in parliament because many MPs stood up and stated how problematic it was.

Yet Labour in their manifesto have committed to effectively making it impossible for doctors to use non affirmation only approaches because of the threat of being accused of conversion therapy. Counter to the findings of the Cass Review. Dennis Kavanagh has had a full on rant about this today and how Keir Starmer saying today that he would implement Cass is totally at odds with Labour putting this in their manifesto.

He's right. The two are completely at odds and not mutually compatible policies. One will have to give at some point. It's definitely worth catching up with his thoughts on this.

Anyway, Tamara Sears wrote a thread about the following 3days ago (AT TamaraSearsUK). I found it slightly difficult to understand in places and it's not easy to copy&paste plus there's a significant update on a none linked post today, this is the jist of it rephrased:

There was this document drawn up by the Therapist sector against conversion therapy called Memorandum of Understanding Against Conversion Therapy (MoU2).

One group - the UK council for psychotherapy (UKCP) decided not to support the document citing safeguarding concerns.

You can read about it here
https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/news/ukcp-update-on-conversion-therapy/

A group (not sure of their actual mandate or purpose) - "Therapists against conversion therapy and transphobia' decided to create a petition to remove the entire UKCP Board as a result.

Turns out the MoU2 was written in no small part by some of this bunch. And they are unsurprisingly full on TRAs. Transgender trend have looked into this before
https://www.transgendertrend.com/product/captured-the-full-story-behind-the-memorandum-of-understanding-on-conversion-therapy/

Malcolm Clark appears to have done some digging on them in the past. They are big on shit bias research by the looks of it.

The chair of the UKCP went on record with the Telegraph saying

Dr Chris Buckland
I stand by my quote in the Telegraph today: “As chair, I will not allow the UKCP to be bullied into turning a blind eye to the safety of children.”

The safety of children has to be the number one priority to a regulator of child psychotherapy.

Now this afternoon Chris Buckland resigned and the attempt to remove the entire board is still going ahead as planned. Which is kinda worrying to say the least.

Tamara finishes this main thread saying

How serendipitous. The UKCP has just sent an email updating its members. Turns out that the MoU2 is a problematic document for the lawyers and the insurance costs for AT UKCPUpdates have now gone sky high. So that's our registration fees up next year. Thanks for nothing AT TACTT

To make it clearer the key point on the attached image is that MoU was cited in two claims against UKCP and this has affected its public liability insurance premiums. They've increased from £3k to £90k.

This is a good indication of how things are going to go over the next couple of years. Sky high premiums on anything or anyone who goes near gender identity in any way. Insurers see the whole field as a massive risk now.

How this is good for any child caught in the middle I have no idea.

What a total mess. And it's appalling that we are seeing intimidation for having different opinions and trying to listen to Cass being a feature of these events

(And yes all highly relevant to Rosie Duffield and whether she gets some support from within Labour like Diane Abbott did...)

Oh lawd. Back on the rollercoaster.
I was so hopeful when UKCP released their statement.
This is so worrying! And yes- as always, it will potentially be children losing access to ethical therapists that will be the cost of this on-going battle.
(Thank you for highlighting this Red)

Thanks for this OP. This is hugely important.

Pleased to see that their insurance premiums are through the roof. Every single professional involved in pushing this dangerous nonsense at children and failing to prioritise safeguarding them needs to be hit where it hurts - in their wallets.

I just don't understand why it's not conversion therapy the other way.

A patient presents with depression and negative thoughts about their body. Why isn't it conversion therapy for someone to say "well it's actually because you're really the opposite sex".

Just madness, the whole thing.

This was mentioned on another thread I think it seems hugely important in light of the slippery wording in the Labour manifesto. Because they do not say they'll implement Cass "in full". That'll be the carve out they're relying on to carry on harming children. I can't decide if I'm astonished or disgusted.

Anyway it's this we need to understand:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_Convention

"The Salisbury Convention (officially called the Salisbury Doctrine, the Salisbury-Addison Convention or the Salisbury/Addison Convention) is a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom under which the House of Lords should not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto. The origins of the convention date back to the late 19th century, at which time the Conservatives held a majority in the House of Lords and, with the support of the third Marquess of Salisbury, developed the "Referendal Theory", which applied solely to Liberal legislation, under which the House of Lords could obstruct legislation until it had received majority approval at a general election.[1] This was changed following the landslide Labour Party victory in the 1945 general election, which produced a Labour government seen as having a popular mandate for significant reform, while once again there was a Conservative majority in the House of Lords. The fifth Marquess of Salisbury (grandson of the third) announced that the Lords "would not seek to thwart the main lines of Labour's legislation provided it derived from the party's manifesto for the previous election". From this point, manifesto bills were only to be adjusted by the Lords; however, on non-manifesto bills, the Lords were able to act as they had before."

The risk I see is that the rational response would be for therapists to withdraw from treating children and young people with gender issues, but if they do this will create a vacuum that will pull in the irrational and the zealots.

Agreed. And there are lots of irrational zealots around desperate to influence children.

With fewer practitioners and higher indemnity insurance they'll be able to charge more and they will be more influential.

@RedToothBrush "Insurers see the whole field as a massive risk now."
So they're anticipating future civil cases?

I've got a ticket as a member of UKCP for a question and answer meeting with UKCP trustees on 17th June at 6.30pm about their withdrawal from MoU. Members will vote later in the week whether to remove the Board.

Needless to say there was no consultation with the membership when the UKCP (and virtually every other psychology and therapy-related organisation signed up to MoU) in the past. I complained last September whilst re-registering, when I was asked for my gender identity rather than my sex.

I really hope that those members frightened by the noisy activists..many of whom aren't even members of UKCP, will vote to support the Board.

That sounds to be an important meeting. Hopefully Cass now gives people the data and evidence to challenge the capture of services by trans activists. Time for safeguarding children to be our number one priority.

I was hopefull after the Cass report came out. It seems to have been generally suppressed. Apart from threats and abuse from TRAs, Dr Cass seems to have been largely ignored.

They should be. Prisha Mosley is suing her "gender affirming" doctors (health care providers in US so maybe not even actual Drs). Landmark case, if she wins it could open the floodgates.

Thanks OP. That’s shocking about the insurance premiums and I agree with others this will only lead to a lack of choice and risk of only the most biased of practitioners being in the field (assuming they can afford the insurance…). It’s frightening what that would mean for patients.

I have been very frustrated this week speaking to friends who are not steeped in this issue who are convinced that a ban on conversion therapy can only be a good thing, and that it will obviously be properly defined to avoid catching exploratory talking therapies. I think the headline policy sounds like a good thing to average people who aren’t closely following these issues. There’s quite a lot to explain to someone to catch them up on the potential issues. I’ll be sharing some of this info though, thank you.

I am hopeful there is or will be a shift among medical professionals as a result, even if it’s not obvious to wider society. The conversion therapy ban risks undermining Cass totally though.

On the Radio 4 religious programme just now they had on a range of people to talk about how they viewed the manifestos for the General Election in terms of morality. Bishop (of Manchester) David Walker said that he valued the Labour manifesto most because it had a ban on conversion therapy. From the way he was talking you'd imagine that was happening on a vast scale.

The capture of the C of E by the trans lobby has been awful They've handed over education policy to some very self interested adults and completely failed to appreciate the safeguarding aspects of gaslighting children to believe they can change sex. 😑
They're a menace.

Legal costs existing already due to two cases quoting MoU against UKCP have increased the risk and therefore the premium for future. This is regardless of whether they win, lose or settle these current cases.

I find it alarming that people are too stupid to see that affirmation only is potentially 'transing away the gay' and is basically gay conversion whilst condemning talking therapy as the conversion of trans people.

It's total homophobia to not be able to see the inherent problem. Especially post Cass which spells this out.

There have always been stupid people but what scares me is the current level of stupidity combined with power.

How are they ever going to apply the law though. TRAs all think talking therapy is conversion therapy, we all think affirmation is converson therapy so surely any legal case would be stuck between the two and thrown out.

The Salisbury Convention could be broken though, there are cases of dissent already. I think if there is obvious strong opposition, and it's widely seen as unworkable, then the Lords will at the very least still send the bill back to the lower house twice under the Salisbury Convention and possibly block altogether.

In terms of the Salisbury convention it did ultimately get challenged during Brexit legislation before eventually passing.

I also think that legal challenges and insurance issues are going to be relevant to what happens.

DH has been reflecting on how high this is as a priority too, and with all the other issues which are higher priority and more pressing how far down the agenda and parliamentary time this will get pushed.

I've also said before we also have the Canadian election incoming next year. I think what happens there is worth watching if Labour don't move fast on this.

Just because something is in a manifesto doesn't mean it will come to pass (recent history tells us this!)

So I don't think we should panic but I also think we need to keep watching.

Noting the ripple effect...

Wes Streeting was just on Times Radio and said that Labour would be fully implementing the Cass review. There was a distinction between holistic exploratory therapy and conversion abuse.
He sounded clear on this so I hope he really gets it.

The conversion therapy bill is an interesting one. It shows how (ironically) how something that claims to be one thing is actually exactly the opposite.
As others have mentioned, it seems unlikely that traditional conversion therapy - trying to turn gay people straight - is common. It may be in the US but here, I suspect it is very rare.
However, it has become common to tell gender non-conforming children (who would often grow up to be gay) that being gender non-conforming makes them the opposite sex and puts them onto a medical pathway to turn them 'straight'.
So the bill purporting to ban conversion therapy actually enforces it.
I want to vote for Labour. The Tories have made such a mess of the country and I'm sure AF not voting for them either, but how can I vote for Labour when their manifesto will end up supporting conversion therapy, as well as effectively watering down women's rights?
Add that Keir Starmer had the utter fucking cheek to tweet about Jo Cox while continuing to pretend he can't see the risks to Rosie Duffield.
I don't think I can actively vote for him. I've voted in every election- national and local- since I was 18 and this is the first time I'm tempted to spoil my vote.
It's one thing to want the Tories out and hold your nose and vote for the least worst party and another thing entirely to actively vote for a party that I know is going to bring in such damaging policies for women and children. There are simply no good options here.

I'd like to know how Labour can possibly quantify that. Exploratory approach is the basis of good therapy. Sitting there nodding along is not therapy its colluding. Asking questions, gently challenging narratives, is how therapists understand a client's window on the world. Presenting issues are sometimes not the cause of the distress but a symptom. Should all psychoanalytic therapists now hang up their hats for fear of working with the unconscious?

Will therapists now be at the mercy of bad faith actors who claim asking questions was tantamount to being given electric shock treatment? Activists claim words are literally violence 🙄. Anything other than complete adherence is seen as hate or pretending trans identified people "dont exist" - which are the kinds of hyperbolic responses you might expect from someone with a highly disordered sense of self.

What happens when a young person, exploring their identity (as they will), goes to a therapist saying they are trans. A decent therapist would ask "What does that mean to you?"

That could be a dangerous question for a therapist to ask in this climate. So they won't. As mentioned upstream, good, ethical therapists just won't work with this issue because they won't be allowed to work ethically and neutrally. Which will leave those needing support left with the not so good therapists and the true believers with their particular bias.

The membership bodies think therapists can only ask questions of those clients who are uncertain about their 'gender identity' (whatever that means). And yet it's the the clients, particularly young clients who are absolutely certain they are trans (whatever that means), that we should be most concerned about. We should be asking questions! Have these young clients hooked all their issues into one tidy catch all? Can they/have they thought about what it might mean to live with a potentially irreversible choice in their 30s? 40s? 50s? Beyond? (I don't believe any child is capable of making decisions that will impact their entire life). These young people, as evidenced by Cass, will most likely have experienced trauma, have an ASD diagnosis or be care experienced. On top of that, its cool! You get celebrated! It's an idea that's being promoted in schools and in media. Is it possible that a young gay or lesbian or GNC or abused child might mistake their anxieties about their developing sexed bodies with a desire to not be the sex they are or a sexed body at all? Well, yes. There's plenty of detransitioner stories to back that up (and you know, common sense) but that doesn't fit the saviour narrative beloved by the activists who seem to care an awful lot about "trans kids" and not a jot about the rising number of young people, many of them LGB, being medically harmed by this movement.

The professional therapy membership bodies have made a cultural/social/political phenomenon far worse by being totally captured by this ideology - thanks to a loud and influential activist minority. So much so that the therapeutic professional bodies claim a trans identity is, as an outcome for a client, no different or less preferable to an outcome where the client accepts their own bodies and/or sexuality - but that's obviously not true. How can it be? A person with a trans identity is trying to emulate the sex they are not and, in doing so, is living with the burden of incongruence, their's and everybody else's. If medicalised, this life choice carries a huge medical burden too which will likely shorten that person's life. Even if they dont medicalise, they will always be living with the tension of living out their internal fantasy in a world defined by a reality they cannot control. It seems to me this has a huge psychic burden, which, as we often see here, manifests in the policing of others responses and involves a lot of projection. It's not a healthy or happy way to navigate the world, IMO. I really do feel sorry for those caught up in this.

If an adult decides they want to go down this non reversible route, then they need to have space to seriously consider these factors and the burden of the compromises they are making (No, you can't force others to go along with it - or force laws through that compell lying). For a few, that is going to be a sacrifice worth making - but I very much doubt that's true of the majority. I think its painfully obvious it's not true for the majority from the discourse we see playing out in public.

There is no robust long term evidence to suggest a trans identity improves a person's long term well being (I seem to remember the only long study in this area came from Sweden, I think, and showed suicide ideation increased after ten years). I'd like to see what a long term study would look like now but the activists seem quite keen to not let that happen.

I think we can all hazard a guess as to why that is.