King's Speech: gender identity conversion therapy

[southbiscay]

Apparently Labour are going to commit to a ban on gender identity conversion therapy in this years's legislative program. I think this is very bad news for all the reasons long rehearsed on this site. However I am sceptical that it will make much progress; it is such a flawed concept that surely it is going to be hard to write coherent legislation. With Hillary Cass in the Lords it will also be interesting to listen to that debate when it occurs. Maybe I'm being over optimistic, but I can't help feeling there's many a slip ...

I hope your optimism is deserved but Labour need to throw some kind of bone to the rabid mob on Twitter post pb ban extension. I'm worried it's going to be this.

Labour will say anything just to consider that box ticked.

I have been pleasantly surprised by Wes Streeting’s stance on puberty blockers but I’m concerned that a ban on so-called conversion therapy will leave the children who have sold a lie with no appropriate mental heath support. If therapists are too afraid to discuss anything that is not 100% affirmative then these children are going to be massively let down, at a time they most need support and I sincerely hope that doesn’t happen.

We’ll see.

They are struggling with the drafting in Ireland: www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2024/07/12/legislation-banning-conversion-therapy-unlikely-in-governments-lifetime/

So we’re going with a strategy of “yes you’re obviously trans, but no we won’t ‘treat’ you and all the interactions you have on the internet will tell you this will lead to your suicide”

Well, what could possibly go wrong?

It'll be challenged in court by gay rights activists.

Will it protect against conversation from c*s to trans, ie kids being told by teachers, charities and well-meaning adults that they must be trans because they hate their bodies?

Given the size government's majority I'm not convinced that the quality of either the drafting or the parliamentary debate will count for much.

But I hope your optimism proves to be correct op.

So lesbians / gay men can't be told they must be trans?

They would need to have the legislation define conversion therapy as including making a gay person think they are trans; and include making an ordinary person ( including those who are autistic, or traumatised) think they are trans.

But in practice , there would be a whole combination of people making a gay person, or anyone think they are trans - a homophobic family or milieu, teachers including ‘gender identity’ at school, peer pressure on the internet. None of which could be pinned down.

I presume that under current thinking a gender psychologist simply affirming a patient who is saying they are trans could not be accused of practising conversion therapy.

So maybe the law needs to say that all psychologists ‘must’ treat trans-presenting patients in depth and in an exploratory manner, over a long enough period, or else they are guilty of the crime of giving conversion therapy.

I think I read somewhere that they will ban conversion therapy but allow talking therapy.

That would make sense

There will have to definitions of each in the bill, then.

Is it even possible to legislate sensibly on this? Or to try to ban 'bad' therapy, and allow 'good' therapy? Where what's good and bad may be hotly disputed? Judging by the drafting of some recent laws, it's hard to be optimistic.

So far Labour has shown it is not so good, nor keen, on clear definitions of the sort required for workable law.

So, a law to further cement an ideological construct that one is not permitted to question or explore.

Does anyone k ow what conversion therapies are being practised these days on gay people, and on trans people?

Allow me a moment of happy thoughts...

I'm just imagining the lords all dining together. The subject comes up. Some hapless Lord mentions that the ban sounds like a good idea. The place falls silent as everyone turns to look at how high Dr Cass's right eyebrow has raised.

The stories on this site are the only examples I've seen.

https://www.banconversiontherapy.com/

In all cases except one, the conversion therapy has been carried out by a religious community which the people belonged to (Christian, Jewish or Muslim), and they are all gay or lesbian. The exception is a male who identifies as a transwoman who was subjected to conversion therapy in the 1960s.

One of the young people also identifies as trans, but is also same-sex attracted.

Thank you, I have read those stories. Clearly religion does play a very large part, even before a religious practitioner, or specialist ‘therapist’, undertakes the attempted conversions. As you said too, all but one were gay, and the trans person was clearly gay but feeling guilty.

It is difficult to imagine how a ban would work, as it could make exorcisms/praying over someone, talking them out of being gay, or electric shock aversion therapy illegal, but not the religious belief causing the guilt in the first place.

It's not imo.

It's crazy for them to try and legislate about what constitutes appropriate therapy, that's not the kind of things you make laws about.

It's already illegal to do things like detain people or force them into therapy they don't want.

Yes, my concern is that this is the actual unspoken purpose of this ban: to create ‘gender identity’ as a concept in law.

Come, friendly bombs!

Yes, my concern is that this is the actual unspoken purpose of this ban: to create ‘gender identity’ as a concept in law.

I am concerned about the detail of how they balance the ban on conversion therapy with safeguarding duties for people like teachers. They create a risk of a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation. You can’t have teachers and safeguarding leads feeling that they can’t speak to a child about ROGD for example because it could deemed to be challenging the child’s gender.