icowden
Legendary Member
Usually I'd agree but Sarah Vain makes a habit of it...
The Nasty Party (AKA the Tories), it's back!
- Thread starter Hitchington
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
There both fecking rotten and a well matched couple.
winjim
Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
Her twitter handle is Westminster WAG. Nobody said she was a mouthpiece for her husband, that's why I used the word 'associate'.
newfhouse
pleb
It seems to be acceptable to some to protect one group of people at risk of abuse by so-called therapists (usually not medically qualified, often religiously motivated) but not another. I fail to see a worthwhile distinction.
icowden
Legendary Member
It's all smoke and mirrors anyway. The bill is having its second reading in May.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2939
Once through second reading there will be a vote. Then Committee reviews it, then there will be a vote, then it reaches report stage, and there will be a third reading and vote, then it goes to the Lords where the process is repeated before it passes back to the commons. All Boris is doing is changing the wording for the Queen's speech on planned legislation. The chances of the bill going through 7 more votes, 5 readings and two committees without it applying globally seem remote. It would also be impossible to police if it were only gay conversion therapy - I mean what happens if you are gay and trans for example?
At the moment it's pretty basic:
So it doesn't ban therapy aimed at mental health or establishing whether someone wants to transition. What it bans is advertising a therapy as conversional therapy specifically to alter sexual orientation or gender identity.
It will change a lot...
AuroraSaab
Legendary Member
The concern is that the law will enshrine the affirmation model of treatment in legislation. Which is to say, if a child says they are the opposite sex then the therapist must affirm that, and thus any therapy which fails to do that but instead seeks to explore the reasons around these feelings would be deemed to be conversion therapy because 'attempting to change a person's ... gender identity' is prohibited.
This is what is meant by the bill having 'unintended consequences' because it is muddy and badly drafted.
We wouldn't affirm the body dysmorphic condition of anorexia without looking at the underlying issues, so it makes no sense to affirm gender dysphoria and dish out medicines and even surgery without exploring deeper issues first.
In most children body dysphoria resolves itself by adulthood and they do not transition. To deny children exploratory therapy, which is done through qualified counsellors and therapists on the NHS, to look at both their body dysphoria and wider issues, is to set them on a pathway that may not be the best solution for them.
As far as I know, most same sex attraction doesn't disappear in adulthood, whereas gender/body dysphoria can and does. Deciding you're gay does not entail a pathway of puberty blockers and hormones, and sometimes surgery. Surely a cautious approach for children and young people is more appropriate than banning exploratory therapy.
There have already been cases where children have been put on a medical pathway to transition without any exploratory therapy and after only brief meetings with a doctor because the doctor was happy to follow the affirmation model without further evaluation.
Even the Katolinska Institute in Sweden, which pioneered much of the established gender treatment in young people, has stepped back from the affirmation model and ended the use of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones. France and Denmark have similarly begun to adopt a more cautious approach.
This is what is meant by the bill having 'unintended consequences' because it is muddy and badly drafted.
We wouldn't affirm the body dysmorphic condition of anorexia without looking at the underlying issues, so it makes no sense to affirm gender dysphoria and dish out medicines and even surgery without exploring deeper issues first.
In most children body dysphoria resolves itself by adulthood and they do not transition. To deny children exploratory therapy, which is done through qualified counsellors and therapists on the NHS, to look at both their body dysphoria and wider issues, is to set them on a pathway that may not be the best solution for them.
As far as I know, most same sex attraction doesn't disappear in adulthood, whereas gender/body dysphoria can and does. Deciding you're gay does not entail a pathway of puberty blockers and hormones, and sometimes surgery. Surely a cautious approach for children and young people is more appropriate than banning exploratory therapy.
There have already been cases where children have been put on a medical pathway to transition without any exploratory therapy and after only brief meetings with a doctor because the doctor was happy to follow the affirmation model without further evaluation.
Even the Katolinska Institute in Sweden, which pioneered much of the established gender treatment in young people, has stepped back from the affirmation model and ended the use of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones. France and Denmark have similarly begun to adopt a more cautious approach.
AuroraSaab
Legendary Member
I'd be fine with something like that. I think some people see therapy for dysphoric kids as gate-keeping, but when the transition pathway involves drugs and sometimes surgery, and when the research isn't of good quality and the long term effects are often unknown, it's right to be cautious with those under 18.
deptfordmarmoset
Über Member
Piece of work...
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
I'm not sure which is worse....the Charlie on his kebab box or the ice cubes in his white wine !
newfhouse
pleb
Have we recorded this dodgy looking donation yet? It’s so bloody hard to keep up.
View: https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1510297949032562695?s=21&t=EEx-dPKumiwnJGQZBelXyA
It's worth reading the entire thread.
View: https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1510297949032562695?s=21&t=EEx-dPKumiwnJGQZBelXyA
It's worth reading the entire thread.
Before this goes the way of all flesh why in your second sentence do you consider religious views on this as automatically abuse?
I don't think many evangelicals have a problem with anything that has actually proven harmful by way of therapy being banned, especially if the counsellee was coerced into it in the first place. There is a fair amount of antipathy to therapy in the first place.
On the other hand, pastors can be the last port of call for people who have found no satisfactory answers anywhere else. They need to be able to give them freely and without fear of prosecution because the relationship is voluntary, there is no compulsion. Some troubled people only begin to find peace when they are told 'what you have done is terribly terribly wrong' or 'the problems in your marriage are because you are bone idle' (I've heard someone say this!). Decades of pastoral counselling usually make a man more than qualified to help with the issues of life, and many are given years of training in this.
What if a homosexual, seeing where the lifestyle is taking him spiritually, emotionally or physically wants out, and wants help with this? Doesn't freedom and tolerance cut both ways?
I have also noticed that village atheists seem unable to grasp the difference between 'Christian conversion' and 'conversion therapy'. Legislation that doesn't see the difference is likely to be bad law, and I don't even this Tory govt is being nasty if it is careful in what it enacts.
glasgowcyclist
Über Member
It might not be your intention but that reads as though you view homosexuality (or, by extension, any sexuality) as a lifestyle choice.
What is the lifestyle of a homosexual?
