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...)

In the case of the Anglican church it's total homophobia. Without a doubt. At least, with less hubris, that's my opinion as someone who was raised in the church the child of a minister.

Historically , when I've seen conversion therapy mentioned in the press it was always in the context of a religious group, usually at the more nutty end, trying to "cure" someone of the sin of homosexuality.

If I don't miss my guess the definition and scope has been stretched somewhat.

I was really hopefully after the Cass Review came out and we now seem to be taking some steps back. I have a child with gender dysphoria and parents are forced to quietly swap the names of holisitc therapists if they don't want to their child to be automatically affirmed and their co-morbidities to be ignored. I really don't trust Labour to get this right.

I suppose at least, after Cass, no-one can hide behind the "I didn't know" excuse as law suits start rolling in.

Absolutely Pepe.
Same here. It's such a difficult process trying to explain the issues to people, and that's if they are even open to wanting to understand or question it themselves. It can feel like having to open and go through several doors difficult doors before you can get into the room.

Yes that’s a good description. It’s really tough. Especially when some people don’t want to listen or think you’re some kind of conspiracy theorist for not believing it’ll be a well defined law that enables talking therapy etc.

In some ways it’s similar to the Scottish hate crime law. Some friends/ colleagues thought my concerns about it criminalising people who were honest about biological sex were down to me being dramatic. But I didn’t think the courts would uphold that, just that the process would be punishment and therefore deterrent enough.

Similarly, even if a therapist wouldn’t actually be found guilty of carrying out conversion therapy for talking therapy, the risk of being hauled through an investigation and trial will act as a serious deterrent, and will be a significant punishment in itself.

Yes. I'm trying to imagine in what way it could possibly be defined to protect exploratory therapists from the perception of, and accusation of, practicing conversion therapy.
It worries me that people can't seem to think this through to logical conclusions about what this actually means in practice.
Is it the case I wonder, that some of the exploratory therapists who worked at GIDS would be at risk of this under the new ban?

So many exploratory therapists are already avoiding working in this area. This will surely exacerbate the issue- for the reasons you outlined, Pepe.

Assurances about exploratory therapy regards the bill from proponents, as I understand it, is that exploratory therapy is protected because the issue is only about therapists (and parents/others?) who have a predetermined outcome or goal- ie; to suppress a gender identity or persuade someone not to transition.
But there is so much scope for subjectivity here.
And what if someone desists through healing a root cause of distress, or just by moving into a different identity phase in the therapeutic process? Could someone else accuse a therapist of conversion?

It's an absolute minefield and yet it seems to be being looked at through such a simplistic yet vague lens.

The tensions with Cass are striking and as others are saying, a circle that is difficult to imagine being squared.

From another thread is an archived link to the interview with the mother and desisted daughter with Evan Davis on radio 4 that someone kindly provided today.

What would have happened in this case under the ban?

https://www.bayswatersupport.org.uk/mother-and-daughter-evan-davis-radio4/

It's a good example to illustrate the complexities not being recognised I think.

It's all so deeply frustrating really.

Just posting this link from another thread as highly relevant here and could be missed by those specifically interested in this topic:
https://criticaltherapyantidote.org/2024/05/18/why-exploratory-therapy-is-mainstream-therapy-and-not-conversion-therapy/

Also c/p from another thread as relevant here:

Anyway going back to that thread about Conversion Therapy I mentioned earlier:

https://x.com/BayswaterSG/status/1801341658568511932
Full thread with sources / examples.

Text only below:

The potential for conversion practices legislation to undermine implementation of the Cass Review is poorly understood by many policymakers, so here is a summary of questions to ask parliamentary candidates who are pledging support for legislation in this area. 1/10

Since Cass found that false allegations of conversion are ALREADY harming clinical best practice, how will this not be exacerbated by introducing the threat of criminal prosecution? 2/10

Have there been discussions with the new NHS gender services to understand the existing difficulties in recruiting staff due to fears of false allegations? See Cass quote in this Guardian interview. 3/10

How will legislation avoid further polarising debate about the best way to support patients with gender dysphoria, particularly since exploratory therapy is sometimes falsely framed as 'conversion'? 4/10

What evidence is there to support making this a legislative matter rather than an issue for professional regulators, as suggested by Dr Cass when addressing MSPs? 5/10

What evidence is there to show the need for this legislation at all, bearing in mind the definitional & statistical flaws in previous surveys used to support a ban? 6/10 A detailed evidence review is on our website.

What specific protection will any proposed legislation include for clinicians? What about teachers and other professionals working with children and young people? 7/10

What specific protection will there be for parents, siblings and other family members of trans-identified children and young people? 8/10

Given the lack of clarity over what is meant by the term 'conversion practice' what is an example of conduct that would be covered by the proposed legislation and that is not already illegal? 9/10

In the absence of clear answers to these questions, is it acceptable to pledge to proceed with legislation given the risks for a particularly vulnerable group of children and young people and the prospect of undermining NHS clinical practice? END

Support for a ban on trans conversion sounds good and in theory, I think the idea is noble. In practice it is unworkable and will harm more than it will be benefical.

The intent of the legislation is to protect trans identifying people.

The idea of the ban starts with the premise that everyone who is trans identifying belongs to the same group and has the same needs. Cass emphasised what many of us have been saying for some time: there are multiple interest groups within those who are trans identifying and they have multiple complex needs. It is not a homogenus group.

Firstly the assumption that older males have the same interests as young people and children is misguided. Young people are still trying to work out who they are. Numerous studies have found that desistance rates are upwards of 50%. That begs massive questions - the levels of comorbid issues give huge cause for concern.

Example:
A teen (who perhaps has parents on different sides of this) goes to a therapist with a head full of ideas that talking is transphobic. They have extensive mental health issues. The therapist isn't bothered about the trans aspect and respects it, but asks a sensitive question which the teen takes the wrong way and goes loopy and makes an allegation of attempting to convert. This is a false allegation. This raises insurance premiums to a level which makes it uneconomic for private practice (given we know that access to NHS services is poor anyway). Or private practisioners won't touch any client who identifies as trans as its too much of a risk for their business. Either way it means that access to services that are much needed is restricted further for a group that is particularly vulnerable.

It is important to note that the Bayswater Group stress that they believe there are ample protections already in law which should protect without this unintended side effect anyway.

This is about 'do-goers' and allies who have heard an idea and like it on principle but don't think any further than this even though they are lobbying and applying pressure for the new law. Its catastrophic ignorance with huge implications.

TRAs believe that anything other than affirmation is conversion therapy, as illustrated by the case study linked by @DameMaud . I've been told the same thing, in all seriousness, by trans friends.

Streeting will have more difficulty than he thinks in crafting a coherent conversion therapy ban that pleases everybody (or anybody).

Full implementation of Cass, and retention of any sort of GRC process other than self-ID, both rely on a diagnosis. If the only acceptable diagnosis is one of 'trans', the diagnostic process is pointless.

(Trans friends agree with this btw. They see it as a state of being, like, for instance, pregnancy or the menopause. It requires early medical intervention but isn't an illness. Dysphoria, if present, is caused by society failing to treat them like their true sex. Every person is the final arbiter of their own true sex. Its madder than you even thought.)

I've said it before on a thread far away a long time ago.
I can't see any compromise position or resolution that can be reached on this, as it boils down to fundamentally different core beliefs on what gender dysphoria and transition is about. The battle around it is between those who believe Trans is an immutable quality and identity that must not be subject to any questioning or idea of 'cure', and equate it to homosexuality. And those who see that it is this vast and messy umbrella of multiple causes and potential outcomes etc.
While this is the case I just can't see that any workable definition of conversion in legislation as possible.
I don't trust that people involved in supporting the legislation really see this fundamental problem. It's not being named as the issue.

The battle around it is between those who believe Trans is an immutable quality and identity that must not be subject to any questioning or idea of 'cure', and equate it to homosexuality. And those who see that it is this vast and messy umbrella of multiple causes and potential outcomes etc.

If they are going to insist that it's an immutable quality similar to homosexuality they should be able to define it. Homosexuality is being attracted to people of the same sex. There is no equivalent simple and universal definition of 'being trans'. All the definitions are circular, nonsensical or full of other terms with no clearly defined meaning such as 'gender identity'. And none of them can be universally applied to all groups from AGP males to ROGD teenagers.

Let's start with a definition of trans to see what we're actually dealing with.

@OldCrone

Let's start with a definition of trans to see what we're actually dealing with.

'A transgender person is one who persistently expresses, and acts on, a belief that their sex is the opposite of what it is in reality.'

Wow, I thought this would be easy, but I've already managed to exclude the transient consumerist gender-bending of an Andrea Long Chu, and the erotic cross-dressing-taken-to-the-next-step of a Debbie Hayton.

Obviously the definition doesn't need to say anything about how society should react.

They are either naive or they are actively planning to screw one side over in the future.

Whichever the explanation its not particularly reassuring.

We are recognising there is either active misleading or that due diligence isn't being done problem when making election/manifesto pledges.

Thats pretty depressing/scary.

How can you trust anyone in that?

I honestly think the biggest fight is yet to come.

It makes writing any law, very interesting indeed.

How does a judge rule?

If some can define as whatever they say they are, this undermines all protections in law laid out in the Equality Act. (And above and beyond that, within the ECHR which is a 'higher' law than a potential conversion law would be).

Without clear definitions which are practical and coherent, other laws collaspe.

I could well see if they try a shitty attempt at doing this, finding themselves taken to the European Court by the likes of the Mens Gay Network who are VERY much on the case about this as being a homophobic law.

Posted this on another thread earlier today and Dennis Noel Kavanagh (amongst others) is reposting it:
The Herectical Liberal AT Rob_ThaBuilder
Sure, I'll bite. In several ways, actually. First, you understand that trans activism seeks to erase "sex" as a definable category right?

After all, if any male can simply identify into the female sex simply by saying "I identify as a woman" than "sex" has no real meaning as a definable identity group. And then you understand that the ONLY defining trait of homosexuals is same-SEX attraction, yes? By definition, if we eliminate 'sex' we eliminate 'same-sex attraction ', and by extension, homosexuals. We don't ACTUALLY eliminate them, of course, the real life homosexuals who actually exist would still exist. We've just forced them back in the closet by removing their only way to define themselves.

And if they can't legally define themselves, they cannot legally protect themselves as a group. I'm surprised this needs to be said, but yes, rolling back the legal rights of homosexuals is homophobic. As if that wasn't bad enough, trans activism is a primary driver of medical gay conversion therapy, by attempting to surgically convert gender non-conforming gay teens into their "straight" counterpart. Confused feminine gay boys and butch lesbians get brainwashed with the pseudo religious belief that all humans have a metaphysical , innate "gendered soul" that is separate and distinct from the body, and that this metaphysical "gender soul" is sometimes a different sex than someone's physical sexed body.

Once they fill their head with that poison, they convince these gay kids the dangerous lie that their gender non conformity means that they're ACTUALLY the opposite sex (and thus, "straight"). So a masculine butch lesbian is told she's ACTUALLY a man. And since she's now a man attracted to women - voila! - through the magic of trans alchemy, we have successfully converted a butch lesbian into a "straight" man.

Again, I'm surprised this needs to be said, but medically converting young gay teens into their "straight" counterpart is hella homophobic. To sum up: Gender ideology seeks to roll back LGB rights by making it impossible for homosexuals to define themselves, and then it sterilizes and mutilates gender non-conforming gay teens in an impossible attempt at medically converting them to their straight counterpart. Humans cannot change sex, we ALL know this (even the ones pretending that they don't) and we are destroying thousands of people's lives when we pretend to believe these hateful lies. A better question is, how can you NOT see this ideology as homophobic to its core?

This is VERY MUCH in the minds of a group of Gay Activists and they are not going to let this go, because they see Affirmation only as Gay Conversion by another name. Mainly because it is - Cass has actually identified it as such too.

@RedToothBrush This is VERY MUCH in the minds of a group of Gay Activists and they are not going to let this go, because they see Affirmation only as Gay Conversion by another name. Mainly because it is - Cass has actually identified it as such too.

So the introduction of a conversion therapy ban could be followed immediately by a lawsuit by lgb groups? Good.

It would not surprise me in the slightest.

Exactly. This is my point, but perhaps I'm not articulating it well.

Linking back to my first post on this thread; when I try to talk to people who see no issue with the conversion therapy ban, it's like having to go through several tricky doors before even getting into the room.
The first door, for me, is naming the reality of the situation re the two totally different understandings at play and why we have the conflict in the first place. The reality we are starting from is that people DO come from a particular belief set about gender identity ( and so are pushing for the inclusive ban) and others recognise the inherent flaws- re definitions as you outline.

Many people, who haven't dived deeply on this- don't even really get what the arguments are. The focus is on the HOWs and WHATs and just see an end point they construe as 'some people don't want people to be trans and that's wrong'.

They automatically link trans and LGB in their minds and have never even questioned that.

Like this, from MIND:

"LGBTQIA+ people don't need to be ‘cured’"

https://www.mind.org.uk/about-us/our-policy-work/conversion-therapy-ban/

And as per pp post I was responding to:

Trans friends agree with this btw. They see it as a state of being, like, for instance, pregnancy or the menopause. It requires early medical intervention but isn't an illness. Dysphoria, if present, is caused by society failing to treat them like their true sex. Every person is the final arbiter of their own true sex. Its madder than you even thought.

Until people can see clearly that this absolutely fundamental difference in world view is the root of the debate, and address this- they won't see why there is a need to hold off on legislation.

If there was a focus on pegging people down on the definitions (or lack of) people might begin to question for the assumption about what gender identity and trans actually is-until they do, they can't see the rest that follows on from there.

It's even confusing and unclear in Cass, I think.

So yes. The definition issue is crucial to highlight- and that this is where people challenging the ban are coming from.

I'm really struggling to articulate this as my mind gets overwhelmed by the hall of mirrors nature of it all. So any help appreciated as I don't want to be misunderstood!

To add. Honestly. Talking to people it's amazing how much they don't understand/are not aware of on this issue. How things are just taken as read and from a total surface level

Thank you for this thread; I had been puzzling over their manifesto.

It's so so so important to get clarity over what they mean.

So many organisations are now directly working with children in schools, counselling them.

Such as Kooth who are now not complying with kcsie as of September.

www.transgendertrend.com/kooth-online-mental-health-platform-gender-ideology/

Presumably schools will be in the position of having to abandon using Kooth if they don't comply with KCSIE? I've had quite a lot of experience over the years of helping schools navigate interagency safeguarding responsibilities / boundaries with vulnerable children. If a counsellors in a school are they bound by the school's safeguarding policies or their own "professional" policies? This matters and links in to protocols about confidentiality and the boundaries in working together.
An organisation effectively saying "KCSIE is not for us" would render themselves "unemployable" in schools I'd imagine. Given the appalling betrayal of children and their welfare in pursuit of transgenderism, there are now far more people aware and ready to whistleblow if captured organisations try to push this at children and abandon safeguarding as a priority.

There was a bait and switch. Transsexuals were badly treated. They could be fired without cause, ID was a headache, and the Dr Frankenstein types who came up with genital surgery techniques also liked to try out things like emetics and electric shocks to cure them (it didn't work). In the public mind, this is what it was all about, at least until the impact on children became impossible to ignore.

Presumably schools will be in the position of having to abandon using Kooth if they don't comply with KCSIE?

I hope so. They really fly under the radar, don't they

Yes. I can see this is all I'm the mix