ScotGov results of consultation on banning conversion therapy are out

[OhBuggerandArse]

Have just been emailed links to the analysis of the consultation responses:

Dear Respondent,

I am writing from the Scottish Government's Ending Conversion Practices Bill team to inform you that the responses to our consultation 'Ending Conversion Practices in Scotland: A Public Consultation' which ran from 9 January to 2 April 2024 are now available to be viewed online. Click here to view published responses .

While we have endeavoured to publish all responses in full where permission has been given to do so, responses have been moderated to remove any defamatory language and profanity, as well as to safeguard the identity of respondents or others. However, in order to maintain the integrity of responses and respondent views, some published responses contain language and opinions which may be considered offensive or - in some cases - discriminatory. As a result, reader discretion is advised.

You can find a summarised update on the consultation process at the following link: Ending conversion practices in Scotland: consultation - we asked, you said, we did - Citizen Space .

Noting the range of views and volume of responses, the Scottish Government appointed an independent external contractor to analyse responses. A report of this analysis can be found at the following link: Ending conversion practices in Scotland - consultation analysis report - gov.scot .

The Scottish Government's official response to this analysis can be found here: Ending conversion practices in Scotland - Scottish Government response to consultation analysis - gov.scot .

Kind regards,

Ending Conversion Practices Bill Team
Directorate for Equality, Inclusion and Human Rights
Email: [email protected]

Have only had a quick look so far; the analysis seems to acknowledge that women's rights perspectives on gender identity exist and inform respondents' positions, but the language used throughout is otherwise captured. Response from Kaukab Stewart is pretty much 'la la la we're going to do exactly what we intended anyway despite anything anyone has said', but any attempt to actually make it happen seems to have been punted into the first year of the next term of government, so events (the election) may intervene.

It's difficult to navigate the individual responses, and many that I opened seemed to be fairly identikit, but I did laugh at this attempt to deal with what they presumably understand as 'language and opinions which may be considered offensive'. We can have a sweepstake on what the redacted text was. 'Imaginary'? 'Bollocks'? 'Misogynistic nonsense'?

Oh, damn, my screenshot got censored (ironically in the circs) - will try again here.

All pics have to be admin approved these days. Hope it appears soon.

Kaukab Stewart of "decapitate terfs" infamy? I'm astounded she is still in the position she is in.

She is extraordinarily inadequate for her role.

All the Scottish Government are.

Have just seen this absolutely pathetic post from the Equality Network sharing the news, totally failing to engage with the arguments against the proposed legislation, painting any dissent as hateful and negative, and encouraging people not to read the views submitted to the consultation in case they get upset. As an organisation they are not fit for their purpose any more than Kaukab Stewart is. https://www.facebook.com/EqualityNetwork/posts/pfbid02qBM5kftxGp54sD4CFfJmtDtsC2KRyCcrdSuX9TCaScQhUtvazQtAmBsQ2HkrwHuMl?rdid=NJlPA9GQSTOIhvyR#

Thanks @OhBuggerandArse I got the same message and I was reassured to learn that my views are being ignored at the very highest levels.

The Official Response is worth reading. It's pretty scary, especially if you're the GC parent or relative of anyone with gender issues.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-response-consultation-analysis-ending-conversion-practices-scotland/

On the one hand it's supposed to be symmetrical:

45. .... We also believe that it is important to protect all people from harm on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is why we proposed legislation which would apply “both ways”, i.e. legislation would apply to conversion practices which intend to change a person from homosexual to heterosexual, or heterosexual to homosexual.

But not when it comes to gender identity:

53. We also wish to be clear that the processes or practices surrounding gender transition or gender recognition are not the subject of these proposals.

Apart from this LGBTQI etc are smeared together. There's no recognition that there could be any diferences or contradictions between the needs of these groups with respect to "conversion practices".

What I get from this is that it will still be absolutely fine to tell a vulnerable person that transition will solve their problems, but not to tell them that transition will make them worse. Transition as a reaction to homophobia will still be tickety boo.

It's even more scary when you see the Criminal and Civil offences laid out in a diagram.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-response-consultation-analysis-ending-conversion-practices-scotland/pages/6/

There's very little said about the Civil bit. The impliation is that parents who don't want to transition their kids will be under the threat of a "Civil Protection Order" which implies removal of parental rights based on some undefined notion of "harm" and goodness only knows how parents prove anything different. The process will be the punishment.

The bit about "intent" to cause harm (and in this area you can commit a crime regardless of intent) is quite scary:

56. Where the intent requirement was highlighted in responses, some respondents who were against proposals overall stated that it would be usual for a criminal offence to require either an intent to cause harm, or recklessness as to whether harm was caused. They argued that the ‘intent’ element of the offence being intent to change or suppress sexual orientation and/or gender identity, rather than intent to cause harm, is unjust.

57. We note that the approach to the intent requirement that is set out in the consultation paper was developed to address the unique complexities of conversion practices in that many who carry out conversion practices undertake the harmful acts without the specific intention to cause harm. In fact, conversion practices are often carried out with the belief that they are being done to help an individual. In continuing to develop proposals for legislation, we will take account of the evidence mentioned earlier in this response, that conversion practices are harmful, regardless of who carried them out, or whether the harm was intended.

And when you remember what a destructive mess the Hate Crimes bills have turned out to be for people who fall foul of TRAs, their reassurances that the bars for criminalisation are "high" are not in the least bit reassuring.

Did it at anytime give a definition of what 'conversion therapy' is, you can't really ban something if you can't describe what it is you're banning. Although the politicians have been bringing out vague, undefined, unworkable legislation for centuries, so who am I kidding.

I am unsurprised. They ignored majority opposition to the GRA and hate crime bill consultations so why would they take any notice of us on this one. I wish they wouldn’t waste my money on expensive consultations if they are just going to ignore the majority opinion and do what they wanted anyway

The term "conversion practices" is used rather than "conversion therapy" and no it's not simple or well defined at all. It's here in the consultation:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/ending-conversion-practices-scotland-scottish-government-consultation/pages/6/
and it's several paragraphs long, mainly here:

42. The conduct associated with conversion practices can vary greatly from case to case and those who have experienced conversion practices report a broad range of conduct being carried out against them. Common forms of conversion practices described by victims include the use of talk-therapy, counselling, and certain faith-based practices. It can extend to physical abuse and practices such as forced marriage, and may also take the form of cumulative, coercive behaviour over a longer period.

Coercive behaviour refers to an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation, or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten a victim.
The intention to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

and more.

The first question in the consultation is whether people agree with the definition or not.

In the end the definition is circular: if it's a conversion practice then it's harmful and if it's harmful then it's a conversion practice.

From the point of view of the windbag politicians the vagueness of the definitions of both "harm" and "conversion practice" are a feature not a bug. It means they can blether on about how righteous they are and if a few parents get trampled no-one will notice.

(Sorry, I've been a bit cross about this ever since I wrote to my MP a couple of years back and got one of those "I have no clue what you mean but Conversion Practices are a Bad Thing" responses)

Thanks for the info, I find this particularly worrying "....include the use of talk-therapy, counselling", that's pretty much what the genderwangers want, any child who claims they're the opposite sex must be confirmed straight away and must not be questioned in any way.

I also wrote to my MP, in Westminster, not Scotland, I sent him a link to an article about a father in Australia, all the father did was have an honest and heartfelt conversation with his 13 year old daughter who was about to be started on a medical pathway to 'transition' and because of the conversation, she decided she didn't want to go ahead with the treatment. At the time of the article she was now a health, happy 15 year old who had no problem whatsoever with being a girl. I pointed out to my MP that if the law as described came into effect in this country, this father would be guilty of conversion therapy, I asked him to consider how wrong possibility was.

My MP (Labour) did reply and assured me that he would give any proposed legislation due consideration blah, blah, blah. I haven't bothered to email him about anything since.