Labour gender therapy plans ‘risk criminalising parents who don’t want children to transition’

[IwantToRetire]

Labour’s “trans inclusive” ban on conversion therapy risks “criminalising” parents who do not want their children to transition, Sir Keir Starmer has been warned.

A cross-party group of MPs and peers as well as psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors and consultants has written to the Prime Minister to express their “grave concerns” about his proposals.

They warn that such legislation also risks criminalising therapists who do not “unconditionally affirm” a child’s desire to transition.

with the Government earlier this month launching a new Office for Equality and Opportunity, stating that one of its “key immediate priorities” will be “delivering a full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices”.
The new cross-departmental body will be spearheaded by Annelise Dodds, the equalities minister, who has previously vowed to make it easier to change gender.

But the letter’s 140 signatories – which include Graham Stringer, senior Labour MP, and Dr David Bell, the former Tavistock Centre governor – warn that if such a ban goes ahead, a “slippery slope towards criminalising parents awaits us”.

They point out the “serious and harmful unintended consequences” of the plans, adding that medical interventions known as “gender-affirming transition” have been revealed as a “major medical scandal”.

This is only a few paragraphs from a much longer article which can be read at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/19/labour-gender-therapy-plans-risk-criminalising-parents/

I guess one hopes this might move him. But if he isn't aware of these problems by now he is deliberately not paying attention so I don't see why that would change.

This also comes into conflict with the Cass Report and the ban on puberty blockers. So let's say this law does go through and therapists are forced to positively affirm everything. What then?
A change of clothes and hairstyle and it's done?

Well, if transition just becomes a change of clothing and hairstyle, that's no bad thing.

As long as it doesn't mean we're expected to accept any man in a dress and a wig into women only spaces and pretend he's actually a woman.

If it just becomes a case of "wear what you want, but you can't change sex", that actually seems like a step forward.

But the letter’s 140 signatories – which include Graham Stringer, senior Labour MP, and Dr David Bell, the former Tavistock Centre governor – warn that if such a ban goes ahead, a “slippery slope towards criminalising parents awaits us”.

Well, at least Bell putting his name to it may stop some of the inevitable wails of "Transphobia."

I’m all for steps forward but ultimately, if we are to restore sanity, safeguarding and women’s rights we need to do away completely with the the concept of ‘transition’.

I don’t want to derail with calls for repealing the GRA, so for the purposes of this thread, the comment from Miriam Cates (on X) seems apt:

”There’s no such thing as ‘gender identity’ in law or in fact. Thus a law that criminalises anyone who seeks to ‘change or suppress’ a person’s gender identity is a nonsense. And a law that seeks to undermine parental authority is a charter for child abuse.”

The government proposals are unlikely to ultimately be passed because of this and because of the legal implications to gay people. There's a whole court case ready to go, should they pass it. The government know this.

This is an important move, because it's all about keeping up the pressure to say 'car crash here if you continue on this path'.

This government is already getting caught up in 'messy' issues. This one has neon flashing lights. They won't want the drama of it.

It'll get quietly buried at some point.

I wish I had that faith, Red.

So far the govt have apparently been happy to breenge ahead with poorly thought through policy - 2 child limit, carbon capture, WFA - regardless of people warning them of the risks and pitfalls.

I don't known if it's incompetence, or a bullish refusal to listen to criticism, or both. Or indeed signals and favours for key funders.

This is Labour’s “Section 28”

I wish I had that faith, Red.

I felt this too. Potentially you have two departments dug in against each other (notwithstanding the glaring loopholes of the "ethical" PBs trial in Cass Review). Might just need one of them to get there first.

But any government that thinks criminalising parents who are protecting their children is a good move, might well find they end up having to confront the depth of feeling on this.

Hmm.

It feels more poll tax to me.

This is going to look a particularly poor reference point if challenged in court by the gay mens network.

It says that the letter has been organised by James Esses.

“The letter, organised by James Esses, a campaigner, states that: “Whistleblowers in this field have been vindicated by recent events, such as the final report of the independent Cass Review, the NHS decision to halt the prescription of puberty blockers, the closure of the GIDS gender clinic at the Tavistock, and the revelations contained within the WPATH files, amongst other things.
^^
“Many confused and vulnerable children who medically transitioned through puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have suffered irreversible developmental issues, physiological damage (such as loss of bone density, infertility and sexual dysfunction) and significant social and relational harms. Those most at risk are children who do not conform to traditional sex stereotypes.”
^^
Last month, a United Nations expert warned that a trans-inclusive bans on conversion therapy could backfire by putting girls and boys at risk of harm if governments rush their implementation.

Reem Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, warned governments considering such a ban that there was a danger it could make it easier to “fast track” lesbian and autistic girls on the path of irreversible medical gender transition.”

(name change inspired by her gorgeous majesty arabella)

The second half of the article is a piece from James Esses. A brief extract.

“However, a new battleground has emerged in the fight for child safeguarding. The Labour government has pledged a “trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices”.
^^
To outsiders, this may sound compassionate, even sensible. It is anything but.
^^
There is no robust evidence to suggest that harmful practices are taking place throughout the UK. When people think of “conversion”, their minds often jump to horrendous acts of torture, such as corrective rape, or electric shock treatment. Thankfully, such tortuous acts have long been criminalised in this country.
^^
In reality, this legislation will prohibit and criminalise forms of talking therapy; the very same therapy that Dr Hilary Cass said should be at the forefront of treatment for children with gender dysphoria in her final report.
^^
Dr Cass reported the fact that activists seek to portray explorative therapy as conversion therapy. If this legislation is passed, clinicians will essentially be forced to affirm children to transition, thereby denying them the opportunity to settle into their bodies. Many clinicians from countries in which legislation has been passed now refuse to work with children suffering from gender dysphoria, for fear of being struck off, or put behind bars.”

Another reason this lacks hope is that, under the Tories, this thread would've lit up. Under Labour, it's tumbleweeds.

If Labour is prioritising this and retains its stance on removing the whip for dissent (perhaps the fuel allowance and the previous one were just the practice rounds to flex muscle?), a terrible Bill could get pushed through based on Labour MP volume alone.

I presume abstention or being ill on the day wouldn't involve whip removal but I'm guessing there are pats on the back and talk of career progression within the inner circle if you demonstrate you're doing as you've been told - even if you don't agree with it (but you've eased your conscience and gaslight yourself into thinking it's not that big a deal because it's just a tiny, "marginalised" population and anyway, it's "important to be nice" - to borrow a Tim Davie quote).

The new cross-departmental body will be spearheaded by Annelise Dodds, the equalities minister, who has previously vowed to make it easier to change gender.

Christ almighty. We are all doomed.

Edited to add that I had held faint hopes that Labour wouldn’t be this bad, but those hopes have faded fast. Corbynista knee jerk acritical thinking I use that word lightly runs through many of the policy statements so far in areas of so-calked liberal topics. Yet, budget cuts and repatriation of asylum seekers are every bit of Tory as the Tories. Political schizophrenia or as someone suggested pre election how Labour will virtue signal in some areas as sleight of hand to hide their more ruthless acts?

To be fair, we all suspected this before the election, but getting the Tories out mattered more.

Thinking out loud, Iain Anderson is remarkably quiet at the moment publicly. I haven't necessarily got these in chronological order but it all looks pretty relevant to me.

Here he is in 2022 re conversion therapy:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60993881.amp

Here he is switching to Labour....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-conservative-iain-anderson-election-business-b2430302.html

Iain Anderson, who quit the Conservatives in February in protest at the party’s alleged “f* business” attitude, has been tasked with helping the party give small businesses a stronger voice in a Labour government.
(My bold)

And also resigning from Stonewall as chair...
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/news/catherine-dixon-appointed-stonewall-chair#:~:text=Iain%20Anderson%20(he%2Fhim),Stonewall%20with%20excellent%20organisational%20leadership.

Iain Anderson (he/him) said:
“I am proud to have served as Stonewall’s Chair over the last year and will continue to support as a Stonewall Ambassador for the charity which has made such a huge difference in my life. I am confident Cat will continue to provide Stonewall with excellent organisational leadership. I am proud to stand for and with all lesbian, gay, bi and trans people and will continue to champion our communities’ rights and potential in everything I do.”
(My bold)

Here he is having a breakfast meeting with Keir Starmer, Anneliese Dodds and others:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12304879/With-Keir-Starmer-unable-define-woman-no-wonder-Stonewall-targeting-Labour.html

Here's what he's currently doing as LGBT Business Champion & Executive Chairman, Cicero Group....
He currently serves on the Advisory Board of the Institute of Business Ethics from what I can see (it seems to be current):
https://www.speakersforschools.org/speakers/iain-anderson/

"Speakers for schools" seems rather ominous, given how useless Bridget Phillipson is currently being on addressing the school to gender clinic pipeline. We've got movement from Wes Streeting on health and crickets from Bridget Phillipson, on what should be a joined up approach utilising existing frameworks and guidance within schools e.g. KCSIE, Gender Questioning Children guidance and EHCPs for autistic children (35-48% of GIDS referrals between 2010 and 2019 were autistic).

It's concerning that schools and conversion therapy seem to have Iain Anderson as a (quiet) common denominator. How much influence is he having on policy in this whole area, I wonder?

This is his pinned tweet:
https://x.com/iain_w_anderson/status/1752257619681554930?t=0FwQQdkuM9kwvHjpOoOKmg&s=19

(And for some light relief, here's his comedy facial expressions when he's trying to work out what his own opinions actually are 😄)

Each to their own but getting a particular party out (or being loyal to any party) would never matter more to me than child safeguarding.

Edited to add point about party loyalty. I’m just not loyal to any party any more. I can’t see I ever will be either

Banning conversion therapy is light years away from criminalising parents who resist their child transitioning. I am not aware of a reversal to the pubity blocker laws, so this is just the Torygraph having a song and dance about nothing.

Is that you, Iain? 🙃

I'm no Tory. But I can recognise a massive risk to parents of gender questioning children when I see one, regardless of which paper writes about it.

It saddens me no end that my natural political home (Lib Dems) seems to be even further in than Labour when it comes to pushing gender identity belief as truth. Obviously it must be pure coincidence that Ferring Pharmaceuticals donate to them.

The problem with Starmer, and which is already more than evident, is that he sees any criticism or questioning of his proposals and promises as a threat - and so tends to double down instead. He seems to see being open to changing one's stance as being indicative of a lack of integrity.

Criminalising parents is already happening in other countries, There's no arguing about that. Every reason to be vigilant that it doesn't happen in the UK.

How is it "light years away" given that 'conversion', when it comes to the concept of 'trans' can be a simple matter of questioning the existence of an innate gender identity, or refusing to go along with new names and pronouns etc?

There is already form for this type of persecution of parents in Canada, for one. It is not so far fetched at all.

We’ve gone from Johnson who changed his mind every second to Starmer who isn’t going to change his mind. Period. Except when it comes to filling the £22b £40b black hole. Then it’s to correct us in our misunderstanding that all along he and Reeves didn’t mean employees, just employers.

Why oh why is it so impossible to get intelligent and politically astute politicians? Is it us? Would we not elect them?