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/

Maybe intelligent and politically astute people aren't going into politics these days.

Presumably if Tony Blair says it, Keir Starmer will happily u-turn while pretending he hasn't. And to be fair, he probably hasn't fully u-turned because he clearly still won't settle on what "woman" and "man" mean if he's allowing a Bill like this to be put forward.

I really do wish someone would ask him on camera if he would date a woman with a penis if he and his wife ever split up.

As for his doubling down, we've already seen how he snakes around when he does this. For example, the Tony/Rosie situation above where Tony Blair repeated what Rosie Duffield was saying about biological sex and suddenly it was all OK - the doubling down here was on Rosie (he refused to acknowledge she was right), not on the facts about biological sex. Also how he spun the situation in parliament when Rishi Sunak mocked him for multiple u-turns in multiple policies (that his changing position on the definition of a woman was only 99% of a u-turn... where previously KS had said 99.9% of women don't have penises) by saying that Rishi Sunak had disrespected Brianna Ghey's mum with that comment. That was a real low from KS to use the awful tragedy of a murdered child as a weapon in that way. It was clear that Rishi Sunak's dig was at Keir Starmer, not at children or young people who felt that they had a gender identity that differed from their sex.

As for "light years away" we only have to look at Germany, which is about to go live with its new law on 1st November that anyone from the age of 14 can change their "gender" (which replaces their sex in legal terms) and anyone who "misgenders" them faces a fine of up to €10k. Clearly any parents who were concerned about their gender questioning child doesn't stand a chance advocating for a neutral therapeutic approach to unpick what might be causing the distress. It would simply be seen as a parent attempting conversion therapy. Presumably all EU countries will need to recognise children's self-ID from 14 years old too, after the recent case in Romania.

Once again I think, in an alternate universe where Brexit didn't happen, the EU now would be a better place with the UK in it.

Here's the letter with all the signatures

x.com/jamesesses/status/1847924438303465752?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

I never understand why anyone bothers to post something along the lines of its just the Telegraph making trouble.

But then, have got used to people not bothering to read articles that are linked to an OP, and just take the opportunity to repeat there single mantras whether relevant or not.

Just for those who need it spelling out.

The article is about a letter that some quite well know people have written to express their concerns.

They are people who are part of professions where the conversion ban could impact on them.

Okay so far? Or am I going too fast?

Now if you have evidence that these practioners are making stuff up then please do share. That would indeed be a news story.

In the meantime, it isn't about it being the Telegraph, it is about the fact that so called liberal, caring (ha ha) papers never report news like this.

So because it is from a "right wing Source" it doesn't make it right wing.

What it does make it is censorship by the left, liberal elite.

Every day, on at least one thread on FWR is like ground hog day.

Hear! Hear!

It is an important letter with important signatories. Part of its importance is how the government responded:

A UK Government spokesman said: “We will bring forward a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. 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.”

A law on these lines is obviously incoherent, because it is seeking to do something near impossible keep realists, religious people and TAs all happy. It has very real dangers, BUT if it legally defines ways to prevents gender distress as legitimate it also could be useful as well. It may allow the many medical professionals who see gender distress accurately to carry on as normal and even potentially use the law to defend themselves against genderist fanatics.

Remember too Labour is dependent on religious voters especially Muslims. My suspicion is the bill will be terrified of offending anyone so it will in practice define illegal conversion therapy so narrowly that it will be meaningless. However we need to watch it like a hawk.

We need to wait and see what the bill actually says. Gender realists/critics are a powerful well organised block now with some of the best lawyers and medics in the UK. This is a warning shot before the Bill is drafted. If it has major flaws we attack it, demand amendments etc. While we can't trust Labour to do the right thing, TAs can't trust them either to give them much either. There is going to be a big battle and it is one we might be able to win at least in part. Because all we need is the ability to speak, the TA side need to silence people because in open discussion their position disintegrates