A ban on conversion therapy, which could well be in the Kings Speech - will require a definition of both Conversion Therapy AND Gender Identity - that's going to be tricky...

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

But I feel probably for everyone's advantage.

Lawyers will be ALL OVER IT given the amount of stick the government are getting constantly on all gender issues (rightly).

How can you give a legal definition to a belief? One that most people do not believe in?

My understanding from this briefing they are saying it has as it were already been accepted, and they just haven't got round to drafting it. And / or have realised that cant just cobble together the TRA version of this, which has been the impetus.

ie TRAs want it to be a law that nobody can say to someone, if a young child, do you know what you mean want by trans, what else is going on in your life etc. etc..

But old fashion LGB are saying that trans identification is always right, is more often than not an attempt to convert people who are same sex attracted.

So its the same old fight.

Not sure how any one can even attempt to draft it because both sides will say the other is the conversion menance.

I suspect that it will go on not being drafted, in much the same way as they will never bring the draft guidelines to the HoC.

Sorry should have included that there is also the lack of agreement among so called professionals who are meant to counsell people also disagree as to how you do that ie the method rather than the content of what is said.

Note Labour Women's Declaration are all over this and the Home Secretary is sympathetic to them. They have already been briefing ministers etc. Details:

https://labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/resources/trans-inclusive-conversion-practices-ban-2/

Plus now Scottish Labour is all in on biology things are looking better there.

It isn't 2018. There is a good chance that a conversion therapy bill might recognise sex as being biological . So this could end badly for the TAs. We don't know what will end up with. It could be a meaningless law which basically says religions shouldn't try conversion therapy on gays. Which doesn't happen that much and is already covered by existing laws.

The getting self ID by the backdoor plan has closed. It isn't coming back unless the Greens get a majority.

There is no way Labour want to go into 2029 election arguing women don't exist. It isn't that they are wonderful, but that they see the issue as being something to avoid. The Greens might but I don't think Labour does really.

The TAs claim way more grassroots support within Labour than they have. One issue is most of the fanatical members who deeply care about this left long ago.

Go LWD go, here's hoping they have an impact, if it comes to it, with any luck it'll the whole thing will die the death it's long overdue. 👏

Don't forget that even the Council of Europe, although passing a conversion practices ban, voted to have this amendment inserted first:

The Assembly affirms that a conversion practices ban should not limit supportive interventions by parents, organised religious institutions or qualified clinicians providing healthcare services to adults, young people and/or children, nor limit their independence, so long as the interventions do not attempt to change, repress or suppress.

There are plenty of people intervening aiming to convince young people that they are trans but I assume they will not be banned.

Indeed - will it ban people trying to convert gay young people into trans and therefore straight young people, that's the question.

I was thinking of autistic kids, but yeah, gay ones too.

Okay, that seems reasonable, what am I missing because everytime some seems reasonable it turns out to be a Trojan Horse for the loonie tunes to get they're way. 🤔

It's the long game. In Germany, conversion therapy was criminalized by law in 2011 or so, mainly focused on gay conversion by religious groups (or that is what they said). This law is now used to silence therapists of the watchful waiting school. Because they would be "converting" "trans kids" to be "cis" .
I would be interested if the results of the Finnish Study mean that it is actually the other way around and gender affirming therapists can be sued...

I don't think they could have got the voting numbers without that amendment, and I am glad it passed. Even Ruth Hunt and Kate Osborne voted in favour. However, I don't trust them an inch. Hopefully https://athena-forum.eu/ will keep an eye on them.

Well on one hand given that Labour is in such a mess and constantly fire fighting, they might just adopt this wording with the added benefit (for them) that they are (re) aligning the UK with Europe.

It's 'only' the parliamentary assembly of the CoE, so doesn't hold that much weight, but maybe they'll take that into account. IMHO the bigger issue is professional bodies and Unions not supporting their clinicians when they don't automatically affirm. I agree with PP that a good solution would be to outlaw affirmation too, as a gay/straight to trans conversion therapy.

The unease you are feeling is legitimate. The Trojan Horse is that even if this government passes a "decent" conversion therapy ban law, something that allows for compromise and nuance, and which protects autistic children and potentially gay teenagers, the government and police/prosecutors will only enforce the law if they feel like it.

Exactly the way they "enforce" the laws we already have.

I never foresaw that the response to the Supreme Court judgement would be to simply ignore it. Is there precedent for it?