Conversion therapy will be banned under a new law to be announced in the King’s Speech.
Sir Keir Starmer will push ahead with a ban at the first opportunity by including the proposals in Labour’s legislative agenda for its first year in office, to be set out on Wednesday.
The move comes despite fears that outlawing the practice, which attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, would risk criminalising parents who try to help children who think they are trans.
Strapping someone down, Clockwork Orange-style, might not even work let alone be morally permissible. And so , OK, illegal then.
Being anything less than wholly supportive would be seen by some as an attempt to deter the conversion.
So, what’s the definition of conversion therapy then?
Any “therapy” which involves giving confused and frequently autistic children hormones to stunt their natural development followed by cutting off their tits and bits in order to convert their external appearances should definitely be banned.
Let’s hope Labour’s bill outlaws these vile unscientific and harmful practices. It can’t happen soon enough.
This is from the Labour Policy Forum:
“Conversion practice means any practice, sustained effort, or treatment that— (a) is directed towards an individual because of the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression; and (b) is done with the intention of changing or suppressing the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”
I think this means that it’s fine to shout “You’re not a real woman, just a wrong ‘un in a dress!” but you mustn’t make a habit of it with the same person. That would constitute sustained effort and would get you done.
Lawyers might also note that “any practice…directed towards an individual because of the individual’s sexual orientation…done with the intention of changing or suppressing the individual’s sexual orientation” probably means they have an absolute legal right to bum you if they ask nicely.
@ Simon Neale:
” Conversion practice means any practice, sustained effort, or treatment… done with the intention of changing or suppressing the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression…”
Does that mean they’ll be going after the TRA’s who groom children into believing they were born in the ‘wrong body’?
“ Conversion practice means any practice, sustained effort, or treatment that— (a) is directed towards an individual because of the individual’s sexual orientation, ”
Does that mean converting a gay boy in to a girl is conversion therapy and therefore illegal?
Kier’s an ideas man, it’s for the little people to work out the messy details, of course.
A friend’s autistic granddaughter, aged 13, is pressing to be allowed to “convert”.
It’s all like the witch craze of the 15th-17th centuries. I hope it doesn’t last as long.
Body dysphoria includes, for example, people who believe they are really a blind person trapped in a sighted-person’s body and to make them ‘who they really are’, they should be blinded.
Hands up if you think that parents supporting a child in this is acceptable.
Why is it OK to cut off healthy body parts, force physiological changes or condone/support someone in their mental illness fantasies if it is to do with sex, but not for other body parts and functions – like feet, arms, eyes of people whose inner self is in conflict with their biological outer self?
When did this lunatic thinking become normal and acceptable, even commendable?
So, what’s the definition of conversion therapy then?
Like much recent UK legislation, whatever they want it to be.
I respectfully suggest you’d do well to get out of that country whilst you still can. But to the USA wouldn’t be a good choice.
I look forward to the objective tests for someone’s “real” sexual orientation or gender.
Labour is the Nonces and Ponces party, so it’s open season for child grooming.
Unlike the Conservatives, who are the party of Ponces and Nonces, which is why it was also open season for child groomers under the Con.
@John B
Amputation of healthy limbs as a treatment for body identity disphoria where a person believed one of their limbs was not theirs was only outlawed in Scotland fairly recently
They seem to have an exemption for the trans crowd
This will of course completely cut across freedom of religion, the human right we all enjoy. We have the right to practice that religion to help someone deal with what we call sexual sin – how can that be made illegal if we have that right?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2012/may/30/1
The idea of amputating healthy limbs is anathema to most surgeons, but I would argue that in some cases it might be the best possible treatment option. My rationale is simple. Psychotherapy and drugs are completely ineffective in alleviating the condition, and BIID [Body Integrity Identity Disorder] sufferers will go to any length to be rid of the unwanted limb. Some build home-made guillotines, blast their unwanted limbs off with a shotgun, or try lie under a jacked-up car and try to crush it. One particularly popular method is to submerge the limb in dry ice for several hours, in order to damage the limb irreparably and thus force doctors to amputate. In May 1998, a 79-year-old man from New York travelled to Mexico for a black-market leg amputation, and then died of gangrene in a motel about a week later.
Offering a clean surgical amputation to those BIID sufferers who really want it would therefore minimize the harm that they might cause to themselves by taking matters into their own hands.
See also: transability, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_dysphoria#Transability
Should it be a criminal offence to perform any practice, sustained effort, or treatment that— (a) is directed towards an individual because of the individual’s transability or identification as disabled; and (b) is done with the intention of changing or suppressing the individual’s transability or identification as disabled, by attempting to persuade them that their limb is healthy and does not need to be amputated?
Steve
Channelling Phil Collins again from c. 2001??