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 ...

BBC reports

• A draft Conversion Practices Bill will introduce new restrictions on "abusive" practices intended to change people's sexual orientation or gender identity

It looks like talking therapy is going to be permitted. I guess the use of puberty blockers could be seen as 'abusive' conversion therapy?

I think the devil will really be in the detail once they come to draft it

The TRA's will be ranting again.
Pinning their hopes on a Labour govt is backfiring.

Here is the text from the
King's Speech 2024: background briefing notes

Draft Conversion Practices Bill

“A draft Bill will be brought forward to ban conversion practices.”
● Conversion practices are abuse. They are acts that aim to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, mostly in relation to LGBT+ people. Such practices have no place in society and must be stopped.
● Through the Conversion Practices Bill, this Government will deliver our manifesto commitment to bring forward a full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices.

What does the draft Bill do?
● The draft Conversion Practices Bill will propose new offences to target acts of conversion practices that are not captured by existing legislation. The Government wants to ensure that the criminal law offers protection from these abusive practices, while also preserving the freedom for people, and those supporting them, to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity. This will mean those providing medical care and support are in no way impacted by this Bill.
● We are clear that any ban must not cover legitimate psychological support, treatment, or non-directive counselling. It must also respect the important role that teachers, religious leaders, parents and carers can have in supporting those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity.
● This is a government of change, which will give respect and dignity to everyone. That is why the ban will be fully trans-inclusive. We are committed to listening to all viewpoints and concerns with respect.
● This Government is getting on with delivering a conversion practices ban. There is genuine cross party and cross society consensus to see these practices banned. But to ensure we have a ban that works and achieves that for the long term, we need to work closely with everyone and bring everyone with us as we do so - because no one thinks the status quo is acceptable.

Territorial extent and application
● The Bill will extend and apply to England and Wales.

a full, trans-inclusive ban

I read that as not applying to transing confused kids.

A lot to worry about, BUT we have advantages.

Sexual and trans identities contradict each other.

So do religious identities.

Labour think that open debate is going to lead everyone to to love each other in happy unicorn land.

Reality is open debate is going to be a huge war. We know what is at stake.

Children's safety and women's security and the chance for gay people to have normal lives.

There is a multitude of people ready to speak up.

We might lose, but we fight every step of the way and attempt to booby trap the whole thing. If we put enough safeguards for gay and lesbian identity and proper counseling in the bill we can derail the gender train later.

If the Act passes with the right clauses we can use lawfare to sue Mermaids/NHS clinics for gay conversion. They have to prove in court someone is 100% trans and they provided good counciling not brain washing. How do they do that?

Honestly good luck to the civil servants drafting that!!!

It's a draft so it's kicking the can down the road. The GRA was snuck in, in Blair's second term. Starmer might be handling that Ming vase for a while yet.

It's also a vehicle for "gender identity" to get on the statute books.

How come it applies to England AND Wales though? Thought devolution was the order of the day!

Which brings us to the danger point - Scotland. How that would play out as their MPs have been wiped out but Holyrood is still stuffed to the rafters with them though, is anyone's guess.

We are clear that any ban must not cover legitimate psychological support, treatment, or non-directive counselling. It must also respect the important role that teachers, religious leaders, parents and carers can have in supporting those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity.

if that is taken on face value then that sounds fine to me, along with the headline about it focusing on banning abusive conversion practices.

it remains to be seen whether it is possible to draft clear, unambiguous legislation that defines the difference between exploratory, supportive counselling allowing people to explore their own feelings and motives, and abusive forced conversions.

I'm dubious whether it can be drafted in such a way. 'Unambiguous legislation' seems a lot to hope for these days.

I'm in agreement with everyone who has mentioned how difficult it will be to draft anything sensible and unambiguous.

Previous consultations and private members bills have all failed because of the unintended consequences, lack of clear definitions etc.

Practices that involve physical conversion practices are already illegal, so I presume any new law would focus on talking therapy and where do you draw the line between exploration and conversion? And what about encouraging transitioning in someone who is actually gender non conforming same sex attracted? That equally would be conversion therapy but I'm not sure the likes of stonewall recognise it as such.

As pp have said there are two key issues:

• how to draft the bill
• the HoL have shown they have quite a lot of GC or sensible members. They forced a vital concession to the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021.

Won't banning gay conversion and trans conversion cancel each other out? So you can't suggest someone might be trans instead of gay and also can't suggest someone might be gay instead of trans. So affirming someone as either gay or trans would be illegal?

Dennis Kavanagh had a really good Twitter thread on this. The gist of it was that a refusal to believe in gender identity is protected in law; therefore, how can you prosecute someone for trying to change a person's gender identity if they don't believe in gender identity in the first place?

(I may have lost some of the nuance in translation.)

x.com/Jebadoo2/status/1813124302096507008

I suspect the inconsistencies mean it will be somewhat of a dead letter law, the aim from the TRAs is to get more gender stuff into the law.

However this will be balanced by recognition of transing the gay away.

Also remember we have Four Gaza MPs now. Be interesting to see what they do with this. Their reaction might cause drama.

The more open debate we have the better. Because they cannot handle that look what is happening to JM.

Also remember we have Four Gaza MPs now

That's very brave of them. I look forward to seeing them on the TV in Gaza in the thick of the action.

I think there are about twenty Muslim MPs in Parliament now.

A: I am a fairy.
B: You are not a fairy. Fairies don't exist.
A: You are trying to convert me.
B: But I can't be converting you because fairies don't exist. My right to say this is protected in law because it's a commonly held view.
A: But they do. You are denying my existence.
B: Well no you exist, you just can't be a fairy because fairies don't exist, you are just a human who thinks you are a fairy.
Copper: I arrest you for trying to convert this fairy to a human
Courts: What fuck is this lunacy? Not another poorly legislated load of unenforceable ridiculousness where the law is impossible and breaks

This is what Labour want to write into law and legislate.

In a nutshell.

Yes but I think most of our Muslim MPs have a variety of viewpoints even within their own party. They were elected because they were Tory or Labour or whatever not purely because of their religion though that may have helped. Within Labour we have gendercrit Muslims and TRA Muslims. For instance a key figure is Shabana Mahmood MP Birmingham Ladywood, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice who is the most powerful openly gendercrit MP.

The Four independent Gaza MPs are there because they are Muslim. They are in fact sectarian to a degree somewhat like,many NI MPs. They speak for themselves and their interpretation of Islam. They all however signed up to the Muslim Vote pledges:
https://themuslimvote.co.uk/pledges/

One of the Education pledges is

• Issuance of Department for Education guidance to schools and academies reflecting that cultural and religious sensitivity must be taken into account when discussing LGBT matters, particularly by schools in areas where the majority of the community are from a religious background. This should include proactive and meaningful parental consultation, particularly concerning issues such as the teaching of RSE.

Their existence an positions will cause division within the far left which has a huge contradiction over its approach to conservative Islam.

As I said above, I’m happy to accept that drafting this legislation will be extremely difficult. However, given the context of the kings speech, I’m satisfied that at least at the start, the government is looking like it’s attempting to move in a sensible direction. Long may it last, I hope they hold their collective nerve.

You hope that Labour can legislate gender religion into law with no problems with the Forstater ruling or without removing the Forstater ruling by forcing us all to believe in gender?

Ok then.

• A draft Conversion Practices Bill will introduce new restrictions on "abusive" practices intended to change people's sexual orientation or gender identity

Will Sam Smith be done for constantly flipping his?

I’ll try again.

i accept it will be nigh impossible difficult to draw up workable legislation as outlined in the speech. But I am heartened that the new government is saying things like counselling and psychiatry should not fall under any legislation, which means worries about affirmative only treatment being permitted can recede a bit. It shows their intent is headed in the right direction of protecting children even if they haven’t yet grasped the implications of the Forstater paradox.

I may well be naive, but I voted for Labour as a) I have a good local MP and b) I considered it the least worst national option as I am not a single issue voter. Along with upholding Cass and making the PB ban permanent I am pleasantly surprised so far. We’ve not had to battle from Day 1 as I feared. I may be being lulled into a false sense of security so I’m not being complacent. There is always the risk that they could introduce legislation that supersedes Forstater for example.

I am hoping that the well meaning idiots just haven't thought things through enough.

Ive said all along that most people tend to have been in a mindset of 'be kind' and just haven't thought because they are just nice people and presumed that others who think differently aren't well meaning. And when they do start to go along that path they inevitably come the wall of reality, and go 'oh'. And its just that some of here are further along this path and then they realise that actually we are well meaning we just figured out ages ago that it was a load of unworkable bollocks.