Is this woman a transphobe?

[Raheem]

Then they quote some text from the LGBA website. If one were following up these arguments thoroughly, it would be necessary to check the source and make sure that what they quote does not selectively exclude other stuff that is important. But there's not even any need to do that, because what they quote contains this statement:

View attachment 294606

This just leaves me .

That and several other bits of the article make me feel it's an unreliable account of other things including what it says were the main reasons for the students' objection to KS.

Are you thinking that the term "conversion therapy" applies only to coercive practices? That would be your misunderstanding.

 

[teuchter]

Are you thinking that the term "conversion therapy" applies only to coercive practices? That would be your misunderstanding.

The text quoted from the LGBA website (which isn't linked by the way, so I can't even find the original) seems pretty clear to me - they are against "coercive or manipulative" attempts to change someone's sexuality, but they think that religious people should still be free to discuss things including their sexuality within their faith group.

This is then interpreted as "supporting" religious leaders aiming to suppress someone's homosexuality.

This is typical of this whole debate - you define something as including stuff you don't agree with, and then apply that definition to what the other person has said, regardless of what their actual intent was, to make it look like they are taking an extreme position on something.

In this case, "conversion therapy" is deemed to include any kind of discussion involving sexuality carried out within a faith group. Then when the LGBA say that they don't think all such discussion should be outlawed, they are deemed to "support conversion therapy".

Taking what I think would be a generally accepted idea of what "conversion therapy" is, is it reasonable to say that the LGBA "supports conversion therapy"? No, I don't think it is. So, when later in the article I'm told something like Kathleen Stock wants to erase trans rights, or whatever, I'm inclined to suspect this is a misrepresentation of her views.

 

[teuchter]

Prior to reading in that article I was actually going to forward it to someone I know who's quite angry about what's happened at Sussex and who is worried about issues of academic freedom and so on. In discussions I've said I don't know a lot about the background but that they should try and read up on "the other side" before coming to conclusions about what's going on based only on what's reported in the Guardian etc.

I think I'm not going to send that article though. I am pretty sure that it would only entrench how they view the situation.

 

[belboid]

The text quoted from the LGBA website (which isn't linked by the way, so I can't even find the original) seems pretty clear to me - they are against "coercive or manipulative" attempts to change someone's sexuality, but they think that religious people should still be free to discuss things including their sexuality within their faith group.

This is then interpreted as "supporting" religious leaders aiming to suppress someone's homosexuality.

This is typical of this whole debate - you define something as including stuff you don't agree with, and then apply that definition to what the other person has said, regardless of what their actual intent was, to make it look like they are taking an extreme position on something.

In this case, "conversion therapy" is deemed to include any kind of discussion involving sexuality carried out within a faith group. Then when the LGBA say that they don't think all such discussion should be outlawed, they are deemed to "support conversion therapy".

Taking what I think would be a generally accepted idea of what "conversion therapy" is, is it reasonable to say that the LGBA "supports conversion therapy"? No, I don't think it is. So, when later in the article I'm told something like Kathleen Stock wants to erase trans rights, or whatever, I'm inclined to suspect this is a misrepresentation of her views.

you're fucking shit at searching then, there's a big fat page with all the quotes on. They are very explicit that they do not support any extension of the law on conversion therapy and are only interested in it to 'stop transing the gay away' Utterly vile group.

 

[Raheem]

In this case, "conversion therapy" is deemed to include any kind of discussion involving sexuality carried out within a faith group. Then when the LGBA say that they don't think all such discussion should be outlawed, they are deemed to "support conversion therapy".

You seem to have quite a big excluded middle here, Teuchter.

"Conversion therapy" is anything that purports to be able to help a person change their identity permanently from one thing to another (gay to straight, most commonly).

In some cases, people are forced or pressured into undergoing conversion therapy. But in probably the majority of cases, a person enters into the therapy of their own free will. For example, by going on Google seeking the services of a counsellor.

It's this second type of conversion therapy which the LGBA appears to think is fine. It's an unusual position for a gay rights organisation.

General discussion of sexuality and counselling for LGBT people is not at issue, because no-one is seeking to ban those things, although they do form a common straw-man argument for people who support conversion therapy.

 

[hitmouse]

An archived version of the relevant page is here:

archive.ph

But yeah, it does seem like the point at issue is "so long as it is not a coercive or manipulative attempt to change someone’s sexual orientation" - which I suppose leaves open the question of what a non-coercive or manipulative attempt to do that might be? Also relevant is this:
"What does “enforce existing legislation” mean?
Many of the practices we typically associate with conversion therapy, such as torture, physical assault, “corrective” rape, kidnapping and something else are already illegal activity. An additional piece of legislation is just a distraction and a chance for the government to pat itself on the back for doing “the right thing”. The existing laws need to be enforced and the government needs to provide guidance to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and other agencies as to which laws are applicable to be used against conversion therapy practices."
Which seems to suggest that they're fine with conversion therapy so long as it stops short of including practices like torture or kidnapping. I appreciate that a lot of this comes down to whether you want to read the ambiguities in a charitable or a suspicious way, but the fact that prominent LGB Alliance figures have documented links to Christian Right groups like the Heritage Foundation does seem to lend weight to the suspicious reading.

 

[teuchter]

You seem to have quite a big excluded middle here, Teuchter.

"Conversion therapy" is anything that purports to be able to help a person change their identity permanently from one thing to another (gay to straight, most commonly).

In some cases, people are forced or pressured into undergoing conversion therapy. But in probably the majority of cases, a person enters into the therapy of their own free will. For example, by going on Google seeking the services of a counsellor.

It's this second type of conversion therapy which the LGBA appears to think is fine. It's an unusual position for a gay rights organisation.

General discussion of sexuality and counselling for LGBT people is not at issue, because no-one is seeking to ban those things, although they do form a common straw-man argument for people who support conversion therapy.

Is it really an unusual position for a gay rights organisation to take, to be "not opposed" to therapy/counselling in general?

Obviously there is always going to be loads of disagreement about what should or shouldn't happen during a therapy session of any kind. Whether it relates to sexual orientation, gender identity, or anything else. Any therapy session has the potential to change the subject's thinking on or interpretation of various things. If you want to remove all possibility that counselling or therapy might involve inappropriate suggestion or persuasion, then as far as I can see the only position you could take is that no-one should go to any counselling session ever.

 

[hitmouse]

This is Stonewall's position on it, fwiw:

Ban Conversion Practices

LGBTQ+ people have nothing to be ashamed of and there is nothing wrong or broken about who we are, yet conversion practices are still legal in the UK…

www.stonewall.org.uk

Ban Conversion Practices: Why we need a ban with no exemptions and no…

A full ban on conversion practices must include religious settings and protect trans people.

www.stonewall.org.uk

They seem to think that existing legislation is insufficient and the law should be changed.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

It seems odd that people would go to this so-called 'conversion' therapy, but surely if someone chooses to do so and they are not being forced, then that is their right? I don't see what business it is of the government what people choose to do with their own body/mind.

 

[teuchter]

This is Stonewall's position on it, fwiw:

Ban Conversion Practices

LGBTQ+ people have nothing to be ashamed of and there is nothing wrong or broken about who we are, yet conversion practices are still legal in the UK…

www.stonewall.org.uk

Ban Conversion Practices: Why we need a ban with no exemptions and no…

A full ban on conversion practices must include religious settings and protect trans people.

www.stonewall.org.uk

They seem to think that existing legislation is insufficient and the law should be changed.

As far as I can make out from that archived page, LGBA don't say that the existing legislation is sufficient nor do they say that the law shouldn't be changed. Their position is to do with the ways in which they think it should be changed.

 

[bimble]

This is old but i was reminded of it now, reading about this banning conversion therapy stuff. The last paragraph particularly.

Tavistock trust whistleblower David Bell: ‘I believed I was doing the right thing’

The psychiatrist behind a critical report on the gender identity unit at the NHS trust on the efforts to silence him and his concerns about children’s access to treatment

www.theguardian.com

 

[belboid]

(oh not a double post, in fact the original has disappeared!)

It seems odd that people would go to this so-called 'conversion' therapy, but surely if someone chooses to do so and they are not being forced, then that is their right? I don't see what business it is of the government what people choose to do with their own body/mind.

Virtually nobody freely chooses to go to such therapies. They are forced into it by their family/church/peers. Even the tiny number that may choose to go by themselves do so because they fear how they will be accepted by their community who have made them feel they'll be going straight to hell. That is not a 'free' choice.

If you are being consistent on this, you should support female genital mutilation, as long as the women have decided to do it for themselves.

 

[belboid]

As far as I can make out from that archived page, LGBA don't say that the existing legislation is sufficient nor do they say that the law shouldn't be changed. Their position is to do with the ways in which they think it should be changed.

There is no call for any further legislation, it explicitly says what we have already is sufficient. If you have any issues with that, then its your comprehension issues.

(you needn't go to an archived page, its still on the main website. I wont link because we dont link to hate sites here)

 

[hitmouse]

2) Enforce existing legislation and guidance​

We call on the government to enforce any existing legislation that can be used to help #EndConversionTherapy. Government also needs to enforce the existing guidance for schools to avoid misinformation that may lead children to believe either their personality or their body is in need of changing.


Why not just ask for a law to ban conversion therapy?
While simply banning conversion therapy sounds like a good idea, creating new legislation – especially with imprecise language – will not #EndConversionTherapy. There are existing laws against most of what we would traditionally understand to be conversion therapy and these need to be implemented. We don’t oppose the idea of banning conversion therapy, but we don’t just want to ban it; we want to #EndConversionTherapy...

What does “enforce existing legislation” mean?
Many of the practices we typically associate with conversion therapy, such as torture, physical assault, “corrective” rape, kidnapping and something else are already illegal activity. An additional piece of legislation is just a distraction and a chance for the government to pat itself on the back for doing “the right thing”. The existing laws need to be enforced and the government needs to provide guidance to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and other agencies as to which laws are applicable to be used against conversion therapy practices.

 

[belboid]

They do actually want to extend a ban on 'conversion therapy' in one sense. They believe that any counselling that might a young persons notion of being trans should be banned, because that is 'transing the gay away.'

 

[teuchter]

There is no call for any further legislation, it explicitly says what we have already is sufficient.

No it doesn't.

 

[hitmouse]

Where they say "An additional piece of legislation is just a distraction and a chance for the government to pat itself on the back for doing “the right thing”.", is that what you interpret as them supporting a change to the law?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

(oh not a double post, in fact the original has disappeared!)



Virtually nobody freely chooses to go to such therapies. They are forced into it by their family/church/peers. Even the tiny number that may choose to go by themselves do so because they fear how they will be accepted by their community who have made them feel they'll be going straight to hell. That is not a 'free' choice.

If you are being consistent on this, you should support female genital mutilation, as long as the women have decided to do it for themselves.

I don't think FGM is comparable here. FGM is done to children who by definition cannot consent. As for surgeries that relate to altering a person's genitalia in other ways, no I wouldn't ban adults from having such surgery. Although I do believe it should be discouaged with therapeutic options as a first port of call. As I say, it is their body.

The question of what is coercive and what isn't is a tough one. How do we distinguish between a person that is coerced, and someone that has a genuinly held belief that leads them to seek these 'therapies'?

 

[teuchter]

(oh not a double post, in fact the original has disappeared!)



Virtually nobody freely chooses to go to such therapies. They are forced into it by their family/church/peers. Even the tiny number that may choose to go by themselves do so because they fear how they will be accepted by their community who have made them feel they'll be going straight to hell. That is not a 'free' choice.

If you are being consistent on this, you should support female genital mutilation, as long as the women have decided to do it for themselves.

You could say the same about any conversation that a young person has with someone from a trans rights advocacy organisation and there are suggestions that could be made during that conversation that some people might have a problem with. We can't be sure how freely they entered into such a conversation nor can we be sure if there was any coercive element to such a conversation. So to "be consistent" you'd have to be against this too.

When you use the wording "such therapies" you are doing the thing of defining unacceptable therapies as the ones you consider unacceptable.

 

[belboid]

You could say the same about any conversation that a young person has with someone from a trans rights advocacy organisation and there are suggestions that could be made during that conversation that some people might have a problem with. We can't be sure how freely they entered into such a conversation nor can we be sure if there was any coercive element to such a conversation. So to "be consistent" you'd have to be against this too.

When you use the wording "such therapies" you are doing the thing of defining unacceptable therapies as the ones you consider unacceptable.

I now understand your comprehension issues. I'mm sure you'll find someone who digs gibberish though, carry on.

 

[teuchter]

Where they say "An additional piece of legislation is just a distraction and a chance for the government to pat itself on the back for doing “the right thing”.", is that what you interpret as them supporting a change to the law?

No.
I have not said that I interpret them as "supporting a change to the law".
In trying to understand their position I would look at the entire page including this bit:

Why more research?
To effectively tackle a problem, you have to understand exactly what is going on. If legislation is necessary, along with other measures, we first need to be in possession of the facts. This means conducting full and detailed research into the extent of practices that would be classified as conversion therapy, as well as exploring and clarifying the reasons these practices are taking place.

 

[Raheem]

It seems odd that people would go to this so-called 'conversion' therapy, but surely if someone chooses to do so and they are not being forced, then that is their right? I don't see what business it is of the government what people choose to do with their own body/mind.

Think it makes better sense to look at it from the perspective of the rights of practitioners, rather than their consumers.

Few people would think it would make sense to allow absolutely any therapeutic treatment to be offered on the basis of absolutely any claims you like, regardless of efficacy, harm or informed consent. So it is really a question of where you draw the line.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Think it makes better sense to look at it from the perspective of the rights of practitioners, rather than their consumers.

Few people would think it would make sense to allow absolutely any therapeutic treatment to be offered on the basis of absolutely any claims you like, regardless of efficacy, harm or informed consent. So it is really a question of where you draw the line.

Is there a line to be drawn at puberty blockers for children?

 

[Raheem]

Is there a line to be drawn at puberty blockers for children?

That's a bit of a swerve in direction compared to your last post. But obviously there's a line to be drawn with any medical treatment, whether it's one side or the other.

 

[belboid]

Is there a line to be drawn at puberty blockers for children?

absolutely not if refusing them would lead to harm for the child, attempted suicide, severe mental trauma, etc

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

That's a bit of a swerve in direction compared to your last post.

Not really. The issue of informed consent was brought up, and this relates directly to what therapies, and by extension, surgeries we can say for sure are acceptable. All of these decisions take place within a social context in which the ideas around us in some sense condition our choices.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

absolutely not is refusing them would lead to harm for the child, attempted suicide, severe mental trauma, etc

That's a very absolute position you have there. What is your evidence?

 

[belboid]

That's a very absolute position you have there. What is your evidence?

The 'is' should have been an 'if' (now corrected). I am against medication unless it is absolutely necessary, but there is no doubt that some young people become massively traumatised with the onset of puberty, in which case blockers (which delay, not completely end) puberty are an absolutely vital piece of the toolkit.

 

[smokedout]

I've just read that and find it unconvincing.

I don't know lots about Kathleen Stock, and have only become aware of her since this Sussex University thing came up. In the bits of reporting I've read, the impression I've got is that the objections to her are based on particular interpretations of things she has said, rather than clearly stated positions that she has expressed. That article reinforces that impression.

The main objections are two-fold - her position on the board of an organisation which opposes existing trans rights and seeks to destroy the historic solidarity between LGB and Trans people and that she signed the Declaration of Women's Sex Based Rights, a document published by an openly trans eliminationist group which calls for amongst other things the global ban on any legal recognition of trans people's aquired gender.

Personally I think there are issues with her scholarship, conduct, and claims of expertise in a field she is not qualified in as well although I'm not sure what the university should do about that. Maybe make the position clear as Washington University did recently regarding anti-trans 'expert' Dr Hruz (who recently gave evidence to the UK courts in Keira Bell's case).


There's a good piece on the background of some of the issues around Stock here.

 

[smokedout]

This is old but i was reminded of it now, reading about this banning conversion therapy stuff. The last paragraph particularly.

Tavistock trust whistleblower David Bell: ‘I believed I was doing the right thing’

The psychiatrist behind a critical report on the gender identity unit at the NHS trust on the efforts to silence him and his concerns about children’s access to treatment

www.theguardian.com

The problems with the Tavistock are manifold, one of the main ones being it's dogmatic adherence to Freudianism and talking therapies. They should never have been put in control of GIDS, nowhere else in the world are Freudian psychoanalysts running trans healthcare, and it's hardly suprising those who support an ideology which claims girls grow up with penis envy and boys with castration anxiety should become obsessed with healthcare for trans kids.