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...)

It is interesting when you do open up a conversation about any aspect of the trans debate with someone properly.

People inherently want to be nice. When they start to realise the complexity and practicalities of it, they do start to go 'oh'.

Definitions are the be all and end all of the entire debate and thats exactly what politicians have avoided. It really is quite remarkable.

You CAN NOT make a fully functional working law WITHOUT clearly definited boxed off and limited definitions. You HAVE TO HAVE definitions with boundaries which are not open to interpretions by different people.

The Thread That Got Deleted, was an excellent illustration of this problem in action. Can you imagine trying to enforce justice and the law if every police officer and every judge had a different idea in their head about what 'being a woman' was and was not?

Communication relies on universally understood and accepted concepts and definitions. And whilst politics are not a science and there are differing opinions of the truth, legal language has to be precise as it is how we understand things. Call it a 'material reality of linguistics' into which we all share the same understandings. Otherwise no one would know if they had broken Judge Bob's law because they were understanding the law as Judge Carol had previously understood it.

Open ended law is a dangerous concern - it allows abuses of power beyond the remit of the initial intention of the law (see the history of the use of anti-terrorism laws for an example) and because it leaves individuals and organisations vulnerable in situations where they haven't done anything that a reasonable person would be critical of. Worse still it leaves the law open to be used as a tool to be used by vexatious individuals for nefarious reasons to suit their personal agendas. It put the public sector at risks of chancers out for a good grift payout (there are already examples out there of this. There's definitely one in Spain that springs to mind atm).

Law making therefore has to be about precision. It has to consider what its ultimate intention is in terms of outcomes and consider whether proposals will have the desired outcomes WITHOUT unintended consequences.

A failure to understand the Law of Unintended Consquences is where most people's understanding of issues falls down.

You have to know these subjects to a sufficient level and there are plenty of politicians who demonstrate they are either 'too lazy or too frit' to do so. And I don't mean Rosie.

Definitions are the be all and end all of the entire debate and thats exactly what politicians have avoided. It really is quite remarkable.

Yes. Thank you. This is exactly what I'm trying to get at!

It's so frustrating not seeing this happening.

Law making therefore has to be about precision. It has to consider what its ultimate intention is in terms of outcomes and consider whether proposals will have the desired outcomes WITHOUT unintended consequences.

And this is an excellent point to be able to raise.

It's being able to take the conversation right to the nub of the issue that is outside of the emotive and convoluted aspects of the debate.

Reality, definitions, clarity, precision, consequences.

Thank you. * *

It is perfectly possible to be 'on the same side' and want the same desired outcome but see problems with the intented laws.

Assisted dying is another subject with similar themes.

For example it is possible to want more dignity and better treatment of a particular group (the dying or trans people) and be very much focused on their well being.

But to also realise that unless the law is robust, it could have the greatest negative impact on some of the groups that you want to help most (for example assisted dying could mean less effort and emphasis is placed on dignity in care particular pallative - this may have particular consquences for some - for example Muslims who believe they are not permitted by their religion to have assisted dying or the disabled particularly those with degenerative diseases).

Or for example in terms of mental health support for trans people - It may mean that ANY mental health support for unrelated issues may be more difficult to access thus adding another layer of inequality of care for trans people.

Or far from being LGBT allies, it could mean we lose a whole generation of lesbians and gay young people who are going through the process of working out who they are and don't realise that they are simply gay until it is too late.

This is really really important to nail down and GET RIGHT.

In recent years the political trend has been for 'The Fudge'. Unfortunately this is why we've got into a bloody mess and this is an area where a fudge just won't work.

I don't know. My children's school
just signed up and I have penned a letter that I'm sitting on for a few days to review before unleashing.

My main premise is what's in the TT article and the fact it's at odds with Cass/ kcsie. I have seen a response on their website though, which seems to be relating to a telegraph article (that im guessing probably came from the TT article- I've not read it yet.)

Also, kooth's own data says it's mostly girls who access it.

I suppose ideally these set ups may/ will change their training and content but I can't see that being the case by September.

Especially as it probably means the practitioners entirely changing their practices and opinions about it all

I am sure that the law has been interpreted exactly as intended by its architects. They wanted to be able to conceal their birth sex, and to be admitted to (wo)men's private spaces, and that is what they got.

Some unintended/unanticipated developments were:

the rise of puberty blockers

ROGD in teens (social contagion?)

case law delinking trans status and fertility-damaging treatment, introducing far more penises into the picture

CFs being CFs (okay that was predictable)

women cottoning on. And not just sportswomen, prisoners, religious women, and victims of VAWG. It seems obvious now, doesn't it? I mean, women are puny! Why wasn't this mentioned? Anybody?

I should add that the above is part of basic principles of management and managing people and change.

The number one rule of this, is you don't start by deciding the solution.

You go through the process of

1. Identifying what the problem is (and also by definition - what the problem is not. How big the problem is, is also highly relevant to this).
2. You identity what you want your outcome to be (what is desirable and by definition - what would also be undesirable)
3. You come up with a range of proposals and examine whether they would be effective and they would work and what problems there might be. You discuss this with various interest groups so that you limit the possibility of missing important issues. This also helps you bring people along with change at a later stage.
4. You make a decision about what is the best option and you look for ways to mitigate problems. You discuss these problems with all parties at this stage and ask them to come with with ideas for solutions to those issues. (People who say there's no problem in the face of evidence or concerns are then to be treated as problems in their own right - they should not be allowed to brush problems under the carpet because in management this is bad practice as it will come back to haunt you)
5. Only at this point do you make a decision about the course of action you are going to take armed with the information and with bringing people along for change.

A lot of people have been on management courses which do similar breakdowns and will understand the principles.

The problem is that modern politics is rather arse about face with this entire process and does breaks the golden rule of deciding your plan before you have even examined the problem and carried out a proper public consultation!

Because it's ideologically driven it lends itself to bad decision making and poor management of issues and people.

In recent years the political trend has been for 'The Fudge'. Unfortunately this is why we've got into a bloody mess and this is an area where a fudge just won't work.

Yes. Awareness of the extent of The Fudge has been one of the most shocking and destabilising for me.
Maybe I was just naive before and this issue has opened my eyes.
Or maybe, it has been a recent trend.
Just the level of it is mind-blowing.
That's why the successful court cases are so enthralling and re-grounding; giving a sense of relief that some sanity still exists.

This one is we are discussing here really is a worry though. Watching closely and talking to people about it. The thread and discussion is very helpful for clarifying thoughts.

1. Identifying what the problem is (and also by definition - what the problem is not. How big the problem is, is also highly relevant to this).

No management/training experience here- but this is again what I was trying point to.in my waffley post!

The 'first door'.

Interesting.
Feels instinctive.

Change of career in order maybe...

Will ease off posting for a whole as in danger of hogging.

And lots of other important posts re KCSIE I see to be read.

Thanks again to OP for starting this thread

The church of England no longer seems to be a religious organisation but a self-styled 'progressive' social movement/ lobby organisation.

I'm not surprised their numbers are in terminal decline. You don't need to attend the CoE to do your political lobbying or social justice work, so why bother joining them at all?

People who go to church nowadays do want the God bit. That's why they go. That's why evangelicals are increasing in number - they do the God bit unashamedly and forefront.

A lot of it was. These concerns were ultimately dismissed as 'irrelevant' but have turned out to be very relevant indeed.

Also as one person pointed out on another thread the other day, one of the purposes of the GRA was to enable the concealment of a same sex relationship before same sex marriages were legal whilst also allowing heterosexual marriages to continue. (Noting that transitioners were overwhelming older and male at this point).

So by design it had homophobic and sexist issues. Ones that persist today but it's hailed as 'inclusive'.

I do think it is always useful to look at the history and development of laws and why things have been done in a particular way. It's useful to reflect on and to understand where future law might go and should go too.

Again a complex subject.

There are lots of questions about the calibre of MPs we are getting. I think there's a few points worthy of reflection here.

Firstly theres the sticky subject of pay. Whilst MPs do get paid a lot there's certain industries where you could get paid a lot more by doing that - but not enough to earn enough money and then switch to being an MP. IT is the best example of this tbh. It is notable that we still have a critical lack of MPs who come from an IT background despite it being a really crucial industry in 2024.

Then there's the lack of real knowledge of how parliament works and how you make good law.

In the past whilst we had very limited diversity and representation in Parliament, stuffy private school educated men were taught these ideas and principles of the building blocks of lawmaking. But this also, perversely, meant you had a bunch of people who knew about the relationship between the public, the justice system and the state (or the press, the courts and the government). They knew and understood the principles of checks and balances because it was drummed into them.

Now I think there's a whole bunch of MPs that don't know this, they've learnt how to spin and deflect so that there isn't accountability and they are very good at using the checks and balances to hold to account either.

Ask all 650 MPs what a Nolan Principle is and I think you'd get a piss poor response too. They are relatively new principles but this actually does matter.

The rise of career politicians has also affected the concept of country first, party second, personal last.

I am definitely not proposing we return to an era of bad old days and I certainly don't look through rose tinted glasses about the past. But in terms of understanding how we make law and for what purposes and what is the right process we could do a hell of a lot better in educating everyone.

This really does matter - every scandal out there ends up with really important individuals having to learn and navigate their way through these. It's about empowerment and participation in politics and public life and how valuable it is.

These aren't old fuddy duddy notions of a bygone era. They are as relevant and as important as they ever were because they are the principles of good democracy.

/Rant

@RedToothBrush

Yes, this is what makes me respect Badenoch for once.

Usual politician's approach isn't even to come up with a plan (whilst ignoring the problem), but to come up with a soundbite that points vaguely in the right direction eg 'Cass good, electric shocks for minorities bad, women's spaces good, bureaucracy bad'. Worry about the detail (and what 'women' means, later).

Badenoch did the rather shocking thing of understanding the problem in detail and thinking really hard about how to fix it. Almost like she's not just fishing for votes (I'm informed by certain people that this is because she is a Christian fundamentalist and transphobe, but....whatever 🤷‍♂️)

ETA Due to my slow typing, this was a reply to your post before last, in true Two Ronnies style

Hog away. It's important and relevant.

Sometimes it helps with clarity of your own understanding and of others to go on a posting frenzy (not as if I'm not guilty of it).

This particular issue about conversion therapy needs to be seen through these lens to help people understand that opposition to the law, isn't necessarily because someone is anti-trans or anti-gay which is the simple no brain accusation that gets thrown about by it's advocates.

It's not as simple as that.

The mere fact that some of the most vocal opposition to it is coming from gay activist lawyers should give pause for thought.

Why? Why would gay men oppose an attempt to bring in a law criminalising conversion therapy?

The problem is not what the law says, its how the risk is perceived by therapists. We all have the right to have GC views but this has not stopped the continue persecution of women at work, even after Forstater. And women continue to be scared to speak out at work as we see what still happens. Therapists will want to avoid risk of possible prosecution, even if they believe they are likely to win. The costs and fall out of having to fight a court case are too high.

The Trans lobby know this. This is why they are pushing so hard for this law. They don't want 'exploratory therapy' and they know this law will deter it.

One of the ways you can make really good law is through cross party support and coming at a problem from very different positions.

There are some long standing close friendships between political opponents.

It frustrates me no end when I have seen comments about not being able to be friends with 'the enemy'. And this without exception has come from left wing quarters. It's so damaging.

You don't have to agree on everything but understanding issues need not be a party political thing.

I should add the crucial word Respect into that post above too.

I agree with this.

Its the same with people who say trans people's rights and women's rights can both be protected. Not as long as the current gender identity ideology holds sway, they can't.

On one hand you have people saying TWAW literally and in all and every circumstance, and you are a TW if you say you are. On the other hand you have people (us) who say TW are not W.

Those two positions cannot be reconciled.

Exactly this. No one will want to be the guinea pig who has to run a case to court (and possibly appeal courts) to find out their approach isn’t conversion therapy.

Even if you win, the costs, personally, professionally and financially, are just too great.

Yes, I agree with @DameMaud too. If you believe identifying as trans has all different root causes (rather than being a simple fact of your existence, like being tall or blonde, or to a GC person - being male/female!), some of which might mean you don’t actually long term identify as trans, then the idea of ‘conversion therapy’ in relation to it seems absurd, because it’s obvious you absolutely should challenge the potential underlying causes.

But if you believe trans-ness is an innate quality then of course it seems outrageous for people to challenge/ question that rather than accept it.

Also absolutely agree with @RedToothBrush about the importance of well drafted and properly defined laws. If we can’t define a concept in an objective, clear and succinct way, we can’t properly legislate in relation to that concept.

I will come back to this thread (Thanks Red) Just going to marinate in the lovely clarity for a while. (In my mind right now, and in the discussion here- not in parliament/society. Obvs)

In the UKCP meeting about the efforts to remove the Board by trans and queer ideology activists. Lots of furious comments from a very small number of TRAs on the Q&A board but we're all muted and Board members are doing a good job in explaining their position and responding to questions. Given the dominance of T+ etc of so many organisations, lots of talk here of it as a marginalised community and how hurt they are and not a word about the legality of gender critical views.

It sounds so frustrating to be muted while that goes on, but pleased to hear the board are responding well. Will you / others also get a chance to ask questions from a GC perspective?

I don't know how I missed this excellent and completely thorough post first time round!
But I'm very glad I found this.
What you say about the professional bodies is spot on too.
This aspect has been so disturbing (and without too much disclosure- affected my career).
Thank you for detailing the issues as they are in practice so much more clearly than I think I could have done @GeorgeOrwellsTurningGrave

@GeorgeOrwellsTurningGrave these parts of your (very excellent) post resonated with me:

“On top of that, its cool! You get celebrated! It's an idea that's being promoted in schools and in media.”

and

“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.”

I’ve posted a few times about my experience of having anorexia and I can’t get past the similarities between my teenage anorexic self and what I see in lots of trans identifying teenage girls’ stories. In the depths of my anorexia I can wholeheartedly say I would absolutely have signed up to life altering surgery or risky drugs if I thought it’d make me thinner. I also experienced, as a teenager in the mid noughties, a culture that celebrated thinness. Even extreme thinness to an extent. It made it very very difficult for anyone to convince me that what I was doing was bad or wrong. ‘They’ just didn’t understand, or were jealous that I had the ability to be good at dieting when they weren’t.

God only knows what would have happened to me if therapists and counsellors hadn’t been able to openly and confidently challenge my delusional beliefs.

Incidentally, I only really began to recover and emerge from that in my mid twenties, which is when your brain really starts to mature. Before that point I would have been dead sure about my decisions, but would’ve been catastrophically wrong about them too. I feel a desperate sadness for young people who have been allowed and enabled to make irreversible decisions affecting their bodies, fertility, sexual function and other aspects of their lives at a time when they were vulnerable and too young to make a fully informed decision. It’s a travesty.