Draft Conversion Practices Bill - published

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-conversion-practices-bill

Yes, that's what I thought, it's partly a sop to the activists. As you say, it will be a big mess of a law with all sorts of unforeseen consequences. Hopefully it will get lost in the move to a new government and Andy Burnham's apparent newfound gender-critical view (or, at least, awareness that this is the sort of thing that loses Labour votes). I can't see his Makerfield voters being too happy with this kind of thing.

Burnham doesn't have much room to make missteps, and supporting this bill will be a huge misstep. Trying to see a bright side, Olivia Bailey may have felt the need to get the bill out now because she knows she's not going to be in a Burnham government.

Sorry I'm just catching up.

Did they mean the Bill to be able to prosecute those who encourage people to believe that they have a transgender identity? Because there's a LOT of that about.

(2) “Conversion practice” means (subject to subsection (3)) any conduct carried out by a person towards an individual with the intention of—[…]

• (b) causing the individual—
• (i) to have or not to have,
• (ii) to believe that they have or do not have,

a transgender identity or a particular transgender identity.

Too hot to read through the whole thread so sorry if this has already been raised.

I'm wondering about the scenario where a child thinks that they are transgender but a parent tries to explore the possibility that they are gay.

Would this be classed as conversion therapy under the proposed legislation?

Yes, it's a "conversion practice" (because it really is hoping to get someone to change how they see things) but the only possible offence is if it is an "abusive conversion practice" because it is done through threats or coercion. Simply talking to someone wouldn't clear that threshold.

Think of dangerous driving — the question isn't "does this count as driving?" but "is this dangerous?". Same with the proposed offense of "abusive conversion practices".

The TRAs aren’t happy at that. Or the carve out for healthcare.

ISTR she’s a bit of a dimwit from something else.

Unfortunately, affirming would not be deemed to be, (b) “Causing the individual - to believe that….(ii) they have a particular gender identity.

Harmful though affirming would be.

So affirming in what would be considered a harmful way rather than affirming someone on a path that could lead to a harmful outcome?

Yes: this proposal looks to be about the action taken, not the supposed destination. With sexuality, being gay or straight isn't itself any problem, but trying to cajole someone about it might be.

I know some think "identifying as trans" is intrinsically damaging, and I'm not sure I would disagree, but this proposed bill doesn't cover that.

Why wouldn't affirming be seen as having the intention to cause someone to believe they have a particular transgender identity? That seems to me to be exactly what it covers.

Does this mean that affirmation falls into the Bananarama zone? - it's not that you affirm, it's the way that you say it

Unfortunately you'd only need to read that Reddit link for two minutes to see that this will constantly be landing innocent people in court cases, because anything except unconditional affirmation is deemed genocide. As demonstrated in court today, duplicating the Peggie court sessions, there is no way anyone can say anything off a very very strict script without disaster. And frankly many devoted allies have ended up in the soup with one wrong move.

This is going to be as bad as the non crime hate rubbish that wasted so much police time, and worse.

Yes, this!

If "the way that you say it" includes threats of violence, then yes. But I don't think that's quite what Banarama meant.

(Emotional or psychological pressure, though, is definitely a tricky border to patrol.)

I agree with you, of course, but am just afraid that their actual wording (cause) might not legally mean that, because, if you are affirming, you are not literally causing, but just agreeing with, the child’s state of already having a particular identity ( which many people believe they were born with).

I don’t agree with affirmation at all, but using the Gov’s proposed wording in the pp, affirmation is not cause when the young person/ tras/ many people in the government/ Stonewall believe that
even very young children may have been born with a trans identity ( while, ridiculously, being autistic, traumatised, in care, being gay etc has no bearing!).

In truth, they have it all wrong because research shows that affirmation does in practice send what, otherwise, would most likely have been only a transitory phase of a troubled adolescence, into an irreversible trajectory.

In other words affirming effectively causes someone to become trans just as you say. But the law needs to write that. Affirmation of a child’s belief in their trans identity needs to be banned.

Has anyone who has read the full outline seen if “Affirmation” of trans has been banned?

I expect that would be a threat of violence as well as psychological and emotional pressure, so abusive (paragraph 1(6)); with the intention of causing an individual to believe that they have a particular transgender identity (paragraph 1(2)(b)(ii)), and that causes actual harm (paragraph 2(1)). Which would make it an offense of abusive conversion under the proposed bill. I think that's a good thing.

The problem may be the array of imagined offenses TRAs are going to try and get brought to court over this, regardless of how ridiculous (see ongoing SEEN tribunal).

Fair point. Not being a lawyer, I don't know whether that kind of wordplay would be taken seriously or treated on the same basis as "a stationary bollard crashed into my car".

Full text of draft is at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-conversion-practices-bill and is readable if a bit back to front (earlier statements get subsequent carve-outs).

We had discussion here of TRAs talking about actively searching out people online in order to 'crack their egg'. There was talk of keeping score of the number of people each activist had 'cracked'

In the trans community, an "egg" is slang for someone who is transgender but has not yet realized or accepted it. When their "egg cracks," it means they have just had that pivotal "aha" moment of self-realization where they finally recognize their true gender identity

I wonder if this active hectoring ('pushing' ?) someone towards a transgender identity would be considered abusive?

It certainly should be.

Therapists telling parents not to harm their children is pretty standard.

Of course trans children feel suicidal when they're rejected by their parents and abused by them.

Sadly, it's very common. Most trans kids get no support at all, and many are kicked out of home.

There's a basic logic here: if losing the support of your parents, being unable to trust the people who should be keeping you safe, losing your home and living without financial security doesn't stop teenagers being trans, then why would anything else?

Conversion therapy is torture, and a loophole which allows abusive parents to openly harm their kids.

IIJM who thinks that 'most' trans kids have plenty of support from their parents?

Yeah, pretty much. Most trans/nb kids are afraid to tell their parents because they know how common it is to lose all support.

Parents really need to consider more often whether their kid might be LGBT, because this fear's very common.

When my son was younger, I avoided a couple of parents because I only.knew their nb kids by their 'out' names. They had no idea, which is really sad. No child should feel they have to hide their true selves from their families - but sometimes, it's necessary for self-protection.

I personally know two out young trans men and four trans women, and my kids know more. Every one of them except my son has been rejected by their parents, and none of the (very young) trans women can go home after university.

Giving into your kids about an untruth isn't good parenting, it's collusion.
Refusing to countenance the claim from your kids that they can/have changed sex isn't bad parenting, it's being truthful.

Trans people have exactly the same range of sexualities as cis. Some are gay (meaning attracted to the same gender), others straight (meaning attracted to the opposite gender), bi, ace or pan.

Sexuality isn't gender.

Surgery on under-18s is banned in the UK. The vast majority of trans children don't so much as see a counsellor, and have to cope alone with gender dysphoria. Feeling unsafe at home can push them over the edge at a time when they also have to cope with growing up, peer pressure and huge exam stress.

Conversion practices are never anything other than abuse, and many abusive, controlling parents have severely harmed their children under the guide of 'converting' them.

Anyone who's ever made an NSPCC or social services referral regarding child abuse (I've done it three times to try and help families suffering DV) knows that basically nothing happens - a case is opened and then closed, in most instances. It takes so much for a parent to be prosecuted. The idea that police and the social will be swooping in on parents who don't 'affirm' is ridiculous. They barely turn up when you're burgled.

Conversion therapy is state-sanctioned torture, and abusive behaviour from parents - ostracising, verbal abuse, isolating, controlling, forcing them to deny their identity - should never be excused. No parent is entitled to control their child.

I can see you're concerned for trans children, and thank you for your kindness, but the biggest danger they face isn't being trans - it's the violent behaviour of other people. They need their parents, because feeling you cannot trust your guardians is intensely traumatic. I'm so pleased to see this is finally being addressed, and the abuse loophole closed.

If you have genuinely been abused by your parents then I’m sorry. But let’s be very clear here. A parent who tells their child that they cannot change sex is being the very opposite of abusive. Children with gender dysphoria need supporting to feel at ease with their sexed bodies. Not coerced by some basement dwelling online porn addict or a radical ‘therapist’ or doctor such as Webberley that they’re really in the wrong body and must change it at all costs lest they end up trying to kill themselves. Even the most cursory research into the rise of the trans phenomenon leads you to men who a) have a fetishistic desire to keep children in a pre pubescent state or b) people who have financially benefitted from ensuring children remain in a state whereby they are lifelong purchasers of drugs to keep the delusion going. The myths around suicide have been well and truly busted.