Should "Conversion Therapy" be banned?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mercurial

Member
Dec 4, 2018
648
364
So-called "conversion therapy" is any form of intervention that aims to suppress or change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. There is no evidence that such interventions work, and substantial evidence that they cause harm to those who are subjected to them.

However, attempts to ban conversion therapy are controversial for at least three reasons:

(1) They may be paternalistic to the extent that they ban conversion therapy for adults as well as children - we may think that adults should have the right to choose to undergo such therapies, even when the evidence shows that they do not work and are likely to make things worse.
(2) It is not clear how exactly conversion therapy should be defined, and the definition offered above may be overly broad.
(3) Anti-trans rights campaigners object to the inclusion of gender identity in anti-conversion therapy laws, which they believe will require practitioners to "affirm" trans people's identities, rather than adopting a so-called "watchful waiting" approach, or attempting to change a child's gender identity from trans to cis (more extreme anti-trans campaigners simply object to such bans because they believe that conversion therapy for trans kids works and is good for them).


It is likely that opposition to the proposed Irish law will focus on one or more of the above. Defenders of the law are likely to defend the above definition as suitably precise for the purposes of legislation, to insist that the state has the right to regulate any form of mental health practice that is shown to be harmful for patients, and to defend the rights of trans kids not to be subjected to interventions that will be likely to harm them. While we can expect the usual figures on the right to oppose such laws, this debate (along with proposed changes to anti-hate speech laws) may also be the first test of the political power of the growing anti-trans movement in Ireland, which ultimately aims to dismantle gender recognition laws.



Sources:

 

Mercurial

Member
Dec 4, 2018
648
364
Yes. Next.

It might seem obvious, but the number of countries that have enforced such a ban is actually quite small. It's an issue that faces distinct objections from a number of different groups (libertarians, anti-trans activists, and religious conservatives, for example), which perhaps explains why it is harder to implement than one might think.
 

Statsman

The nice one, or so it seemed.
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
9,617
10,380
A quiet retirement home
It might seem obvious, but the number of countries that have enforced such a ban is actually quite small. It's an issue that faces distinct objections from a number of different groups (libertarians, anti-trans activists, and religious conservatives, for example), which perhaps explains why it is harder to implement than one might think.
The question you pose is should it be banned, not will it be banned. To me at least that's not up for debate.
 

Bill

Member
Mar 9, 2019
2,156
2,315
Livin' La Veda Lockdown
So-called "conversion therapy" is any form of intervention that aims to suppress or change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. There is no evidence that such interventions work, and substantial evidence that they cause harm to those who are subjected to them.

However, attempts to ban conversion therapy are controversial for at least three reasons:

(1) They may be paternalistic to the extent that they ban conversion therapy for adults as well as children - we may think that adults should have the right to choose to undergo such therapies, even when the evidence shows that they do not work and are likely to make things worse.
(2) It is not clear how exactly conversion therapy should be defined, and the definition offered above may be overly broad.
(3) Anti-trans rights campaigners object to the inclusion of gender identity in anti-conversion therapy laws, which they believe will require practitioners to "affirm" trans people's identities, rather than adopting a so-called "watchful waiting" approach, or attempting to change a child's gender identity from trans to cis (more extreme anti-trans campaigners simply object to such bans because they believe that conversion therapy for trans kids works and is good for them).


It is likely that opposition to the proposed Irish law will focus on one or more of the above. Defenders of the law are likely to defend the above definition as suitably precise for the purposes of legislation, to insist that the state has the right to regulate any form of mental health practice that is shown to be harmful for patients, and to defend the rights of trans kids not to be subjected to interventions that will be likely to harm them. While we can expect the usual figures on the right to oppose such laws, this debate (along with proposed changes to anti-hate speech laws) may also be the first test of the political power of the growing anti-trans movement in Ireland, which ultimately aims to dismantle gender recognition laws.



Sources:

Are there any people offering it in this country?
 

livingstone

Member
May 30, 2021
115
125
Should it? Yes. Absolutely. For both adults and children. We restrict the freedom of adults to make decisions that we consider exploit them all the time - adults can’t sell themselves into slavery, or sell their kidneys, or work for less than minimum wage, or consent to work in a workplace that flouts health and safety rules. It’s no more a stretch to say they should not be allowed to be exploited through damaging conversion therapy.

Will it? This is one area where the far right goal of splitting the LGB from the T will probably bear fruit for them. Conversion therapy should be banned for both LGB people and Trans people. But the determination of transphobes to allow conversion therapy for trans people mean they will stand in the way of any meaningful ban.
 

Mercurial

Member
Dec 4, 2018
648
364
The question you pose is should it be banned, not will it be banned. To me at least that's not up for debate.
I think there's a debate to be had over the circumstances under which the state can protect adults for their own good, for instance - isn't there a case to be made that adults are entitled to do stupid things to themselves without the state intervening?

(I also think that while there are some issues that shouldn't be up for debate, people will debate them regardless.)
 

Mercurial

Member
Dec 4, 2018
648
364
Should it? Yes. Absolutely. For both adults and children. We restrict the freedom of adults to make decisions that we consider exploit them all the time - adults can’t sell themselves into slavery, or sell their kidneys, or work for less than minimum wage, or consent to work in a workplace that flouts health and safety rules. It’s no more a stretch to say they should not be allowed to be exploited through damaging conversion therapy.
Do you think homeopathic remedies should be banned, for instance?

I agree with the general principle you outline above, but it's not clear to me where to draw the line between practices that should be banned and those that shouldn't.
 

livingstone

Member
May 30, 2021
115
125
I think there's a debate to be had over the circumstances under which the state can protect adults for their own good, for instance - isn't there a case to be made that adults are entitled to do stupid things to themselves without the state intervening?

(I also think that while there are some issues that shouldn't be up for debate, people will debate them regardless.)
Sure. The test for me is whether a person in the position of making a choice is likely to be genuinely making the choice freely. Someone who is willing to work for €3 an hour is unlikely to be making that choice genuinely freely but dictated to by their economic circumstances.

Similarly, someone seeking conversion therapy is often acting on internalised homophobia or transphobia, or under pressure from others.

The other angle here is broader societal impacts from making a particular decision. If a decision might work for you but would drive wages down for everyone and result in a wider more exploitative environment for all workers, then there is a good case to say even if it’s a good decision for you you shouldn’t be free to make it.
 
Apr 24, 2020
1,909
1,696
To echo Statsman's comment: yes, they should. They are clearly harmful.

However, as a site, we have one locked "trans" thread, and, in point #3 you introduce a conflation of "watchful waiting" as a form of anti-trans therapy, and cast it in the same bucket as conversion therapy.

Consequently, one can only see this as a "trans kids thread by stealth", which would run counter to the current mod view of that discussion topic.
 

livingstone

Member
May 30, 2021
115
125
To echo Statsman's comment: yes, they should. They are clearly harmful.

However, as a site, we have one locked "trans" thread, and, in point #3 you introduce a conflation of "watchful waiting" as a form of anti-trans therapy, and cast it in the same bucket as conversion therapy.

Consequently, one can only see this as a "trans kids thread by stealth", which would run counter to the current mod view of that discussion topic.
I don’t think merc is doing the conflating, but rather saying that is the professed concern of transphobic people. That banning conversion therapy would effectively ban the watchful waiting approach which they claim to support for children.

I think that’s nonsense. Watchful waiting is the wrong approach in my view, but it is not conversion therapy and would fit no definition of conversion therapy that I’ve seen.

Which begs the question - why do people who claim to support watchful waiting object to a ban on conversion therapy for children experiencing gender dysphoria. Unless watchful waiting is not actually the goal.
 

Mercurial

Member
Dec 4, 2018
648
364
To echo Statsman's comment: yes, they should. They are clearly harmful.

However, as a site, we have one locked "trans" thread, and, in point #3 you introduce a conflation of "watchful waiting" as a form of anti-trans therapy, and cast it in the same bucket as conversion therapy.

Consequently, one can only see this as a "trans kids thread by stealth", which would run counter to the current mod view of that discussion topic.
Nobody told me that we're not allowed to discuss political issues affecting trans people in Ireland. That would be a really weird policy for any politics discussion site to take. As far as I know, we're allowed to discuss any political issues provided that we do so respectfully.

A straightforward assessment of the appropriateness of "watchful waiting" can be made if we imagine what that policy would look like in the context of a child expressing a sexual orientation, for instance: hoping that it's just a phase and that the child will simply grow out of it isn't a great look. Another problem with such an approach is that anti-trans activists typically don't believe that any child is genuinely trans and/or they believe that it's possible to "trans" kids.

Fundamentally the issue with "watchful waiting" as an approach in terms of whether it should be counted as a form of conversion therapy is what might motivate it; after all, if a child identifies as cis we don't tend to think that such an approach ought to be adopted. So why wouldn't you accept a child's identity as trans unless you thought it was something to be avoided if possible?
 
Last edited:

Mercurial

Member
Dec 4, 2018
648
364
Sure. The test for me is whether a person in the position of making a choice is likely to be genuinely making the choice freely. Someone who is willing to work for €3 an hour is unlikely to be making that choice genuinely freely but dictated to by their economic circumstances.

Similarly, someone seeking conversion therapy is often acting on internalised homophobia or transphobia, or under pressure from others.
I think I'm wary of an approach like this, especially under a capitalist system where so many forms of labour could be characterised as inherently exploitative. I would also worry about the implications for certain forms of work like sex work, where the argument is often made that nobody would choose to do such work unless they were being exploited/manipulated/coerced in some sense.
 
Apr 24, 2020
1,909
1,696
I think I'm wary of an approach like this, especially under a capitalist system where so many forms of labour could be characterised as inherently exploitative. I would also worry about the implications for certain forms of work like sex work, where the argument is often made that nobody would choose to do such work unless they were being exploited/manipulated/coerced in some sense.
I see no dispute or grey area here. Sex work is invariably either coerced via violence (of one sort or another), or is a product of utterly shitty social welfare systems, or a product of someone's deep psychological damage.

Very few well adjusted, and empowered people work as prostitutes out of choice. Unicorn stuff.

And same goes for exploitative wages in other jobs. Typically a symptom of horrific labour laws .
 
Last edited:
Apr 24, 2020
1,909
1,696
Nobody told me that we're not allowed to discuss political issues affecting trans people in Ireland. That would be a really weird policy for any politics discussion site to take. As far as I know, we're allowed to discuss any political issues provided that we do so respectfully.

A straightforward assessment of the appropriateness of "watchful waiting" can be made if we imagine what that policy would look like in the context of a child expressing a sexual orientation, for instance: hoping that it's just a phase and that the child will simply grow out of it isn't a great look. Another problem with such an approach is that anti-trans activists typically don't believe that any child is genuinely trans and/or they believe that it's possible to "trans" kids.

Fundamentally the issue with "watchful waiting" as an approach in terms of whether it should be counted as a form of conversion therapy is what might motivate it; after all, if a child identifies as cis we don't tend to think that such an approach ought to be adopted. So why wouldn't you accept a child's identity as trans unless you thought it was something to be avoided if possible?
This is exactly the arguement of the trans kids thread. And now you are conflating watchful waiting with conversion therapy whilst also assigning an equivalence of being cis and being trans in the context of childhood development.

Which is patently not the case.

You are doubling down on a preciously locked thread. How will this be different.?
 

Mercurial

Member
Dec 4, 2018
648
364
I see no dispute or grey area here. Sex work is invariably either coerced via violence (of one sort or another), or is a product of utterly shitty social welfare systems, or a product of someone's deep psychological damage.

Very few well adjusted, and empowered people work as prostitutes out of choice. Unicorn stuff.

And same goes for exploitative wages in other jobs. Typically a symptom of shit labour laws .
I think you're kind of proving my point: if views like yours were combined with views like Livingstone's the result would be an argument for banning sex work.

I also think your view isn't compatible with the testimony of many sex workers.
 

Mercurial

Member
Dec 4, 2018
648
364
This is exactly the arguement of the trans kids thread. And now you are conflating watchful waiting with conversion therapy whilst also assigning an equivalence of being cis and being trans in the context of childhood development.

Which is patently not the case.

You are doubling down on a preciously locked thread. How will this be different.?
The issue we are discussing on this thread is specifically proposals to ban conversion therapy in Ireland (including but not limited to attempts to change a person's gender identity). As far as I'm aware, there is no rule saying that we can't discuss political issues that relate to trans people (that would be a really weird rule, as I suggested above).

As to your points above: I am not "conflating" watchful waiting with conversion therapy - I am arguing that it can plausibly be understood as a form of conversion therapy given that it explicitly rejects affirming a child's expressed identity, on the basis that doing so would potentially be harmful for a child. Any approach based on such an assumption is going to amount to conversion therapy in practice, if not in theory, since it is necessarily predicated on the idea that it's better for kids to be cis than trans and/or the idea that it's likely to be harmful if a child identifies as trans who later identifies as cis.

On your second point, I am of course comparing being cis and being trans insofar as being trans is not inherently worse than being cis. It is not a problem to be fixed, just as being cis is not a problem to be fixed. We affirm cis kids' identities, so we should affirm trans kids' identities as well.
 
Apr 24, 2020
1,909
1,696
Which begs the question - why do people who claim to support watchful waiting object to a ban on conversion therapy for children experiencing gender dysphoria. Unless watchful waiting is not actually the goal.
I think there is a distinct difference between watching and seeing what may develop and deciding that a possible or actual trans identity or gay orientation needs to be converted.

The latter is clearly abusive. And clearly distinct from the former.
 
Apr 24, 2020
1,909
1,696
The issue we are discussing on this thread is specifically proposals to ban conversion therapy in Ireland (including but not limited to attempts to change a person's gender identity). As far as I'm aware, there is no rule saying that we can't discuss political issues that relate to trans people (that would be a really weird rule, as I suggested above).

As to your points above: I am not "conflating" watchful waiting with conversion therapy - I am arguing that it can plausibly be understood as a form of conversion therapy given that it explicitly rejects affirming a child's expressed identity, on the basis that doing so would potentially be harmful for a child. Any approach based on such an assumption is going to amount to conversion therapy in practice, if not in theory, since it is necessarily predicated on the idea that it's better for kids to be cis than trans and/or the idea that it's likely to be harmful if a child identifies as trans who later identifies as cis.

On your second point, I am of course comparing being cis and being trans insofar as being trans is not inherently worse than being cis. It is not a problem to be fixed, just as being cis is not a problem to be fixed. We affirm cis kids' identities, so we should affirm trans kids' identities as well.
As I responded to Livi, watchful waiting is not the same as deciding to eradicate something.

Not affirming an identity quickly is not the same as psychologically beating it out of a kid. I accept that you may see WW as slow, or neglectful as it delays affirming an identity, and may lead to issues regarding biological development. But, and this is important, it is clearly distinct from pro-active "conversion".

Furthermore, the thread is attempting to deal with both gay and trans "conversion therapies". Let me be clear, both are, in my opinion, abusive, and merit a banning.

But expanding what constitutes "CT" into "WW" could lead to psychologists and other medical professionals back away from treating more people, due to a legal minefield of staying on the right side of a perceived line of both.
 

livingstone

Member
May 30, 2021
115
125
I think there is a distinct difference between watching and seeing what may develop and deciding that a possible or actual trans identity or gay orientation needs to be converted.

The latter is clearly abusive. And clearly distinct from the former.
I agree - so anyone who genuinely favours watchful waiting has nothing to fear from a ban on conversion therapy.

So if those who claim to support watchful waiting oppose such a ban, that should tell us that they are being less than honest in saying they support watchful waiting.
 

Mercurial

Member
Dec 4, 2018
648
364
As I responded to Livi, watchful waiting is not the same as deciding to eradicate something.

Not affirming an identity quickly is not the same as psychologically beating it out of a kid. I accept that you may see WW as slow, or neglectful as it delays affirming an identity, and may lead to issues regarding biological development. But, and this is important, it is clearly distinct from pro-active "conversion".

Furthermore, the thread is attempting to deal with both gay and trans "conversion therapies". Let me be clear, both are, in my opinion, abusive, and merit a banning.

But expanding what constitutes "CT" into "WW" could lead to psychologists and other medical professionals back away from treating more people, due to a legal minefield of staying on the right side of a perceived line of both.
There are many ways in which you might try to change a person's identity. Obviously some are more extreme than others, and "watchful waiting" is less extreme than an active attempt to change a person's identity.

However, let's think about what watchful waiting actually is - it's a response to a child's self-expressed gender identity that fails to affirm that identity. Essentially, you're saying to the child "I'm not going to believe you yet."

Now combine that with the fact that we don't normally apply such an approach to a child who identifies as cis (or gay, or bi) and a clear double-standard emerges. Watchful waiting is a response to the assumption that a trans identity is inherently more problematic than a cis identity, so some extra level of caution is thought to be required.

When you affirm a cis kid's identity but fail to affirm a trans kid's identity, what kind of message does that send the trans kid except that their identity is, at best, a burden that is to be avoided if possible.
 

Statsman

The nice one, or so it seemed.
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
9,617
10,380
A quiet retirement home
I think there's a debate to be had over the circumstances under which the state can protect adults for their own good, for instance - isn't there a case to be made that adults are entitled to do stupid things to themselves without the state intervening?

(I also think that while there are some issues that shouldn't be up for debate, people will debate them regardless.)
A therapy assumes a malady, some kind of illness or condition that requires treatment. A person's sexual orientation is not a malady and therefore anyone purporting to treat them is engaging in the kind of fraudulent activity we often call quack medicine. If you accept the role of the state to enforce the rule of law then you're highly unlikely to argue that fraud should be permitted to go unchecked.
I fear that we may be engaging in an artificial debate on this thread. At least I feel sure we can manage to remain on topic.
 

Statsman

The nice one, or so it seemed.
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
9,617
10,380
A quiet retirement home
There are many ways in which you might try to change a person's identity. Obviously some are more extreme than others, and "watchful waiting" is less extreme than an active attempt to change a person's identity.

However, let's think about what watchful waiting actually is - it's a response to a child's self-expressed gender identity that fails to affirm that identity. Essentially, you're saying to the child "I'm not going to believe you yet."

Now combine that with the fact that we don't normally apply such an approach to a child who identifies as cis (or gay, or bi) and a clear double-standard emerges. Watchful waiting is a response to the assumption that a trans identity is inherently more problematic than a cis identity, so some extra level of caution is thought to be required.

When you affirm a cis kid's identity but fail to affirm a trans kid's identity, what kind of message does that send the trans kid except that their identity is, at best, a burden that is to be avoided if possible.
To you think watchful waiting is really on topic on this thread?
 

livingstone

Member
May 30, 2021
115
125
To you think watchful waiting is really on topic on this thread?
Surely it is. The various approaches to treating trans kids is pretty inherent to a discussion of conversion therapy. The issue of conversion therapy begs the question of which approaches to trans kids might meet the definition of conversion therapy. And politically one of the biggest barriers to a ban is claims by some that a ban would criminalise watchful waiting (their preferred approach) and mandate an affirmative approach.

So on both the substance and the politics it surely is relevant.
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,639
6,190
A therapy assumes a malady, some kind of illness or condition that requires treatment. A person's sexual orientation is not a malady and therefore anyone purporting to treat them is engaging in the kind of fraudulent activity we often call quack medicine. If you accept the role of the state to enforce the rule of law then you're highly unlikely to argue that fraud should be permitted to go unchecked.
I fear that we may be engaging in an artificial debate on this thread. At least I feel sure we can manage to remain on topic.
This.
 

Mercurial

Member
Dec 4, 2018
648
364
A therapy assumes a malady, some kind of illness or condition that requires treatment. A person's sexual orientation is not a malady and therefore anyone purporting to treat them is engaging in the kind of fraudulent activity we often call quack medicine. If you accept the role of the state to enforce the rule of law then you're highly unlikely to argue that fraud should be permitted to go unchecked.
I fear that we may be engaging in an artificial debate on this thread. At least I feel sure we can manage to remain on topic.
The fraudulent aspect would surely be the fact that such treatments are marketed as being effective, not that they suggest that there’s anything wrong with being LGBT. The former is a testable empirical claim, while the latter is a value judgment.

If conversion therapy actually worked, and some (adult) person didn’t want to be gay (for religious reasons, for instance), then it is difficult to see on what basis the state should prohibit it.
 

Mercurial

Member
Dec 4, 2018
648
364
To you think watchful waiting is really on topic on this thread?
Yes - the law that is being proposed in this case is likely to be objected to on the basis that it includes gender identity (in addition to the other potential objections I described in the OP). [In fact, these objections are already being made on social media]

Similar legislation that was recently passed in Victoria faced its most public opposition from anti-trans campaigners who favour the watchful waiting approach and who claim that this kind of legislation would make such approaches unlawful or at the very least make practitioners afraid of pursuing such strategies.

So far on this thread, one interesting question that has emerged, in my view, is whether such laws really would prohibit watchful waiting (Livingstone has suggested not) and whether such laws ought in fact to prohibit such approaches (I’ve suggested that anything short of affirmation probably counts as a kind of conversion attempt).

In addition to that question, there is the distinct question of paternalism and the limitations of such laws (whether they should apply to adults, for instance), which I addressed in my other comment above, and the empirical question raised by another poster of the extent to which such therapies are actually practised here (although it’s not obvious that we need strong evidence that it’s happening in order to ban it).
 
Apr 24, 2020
1,909
1,696
So far on this thread, one interesting question that has emerged, in my view, is whether such laws really would prohibit watchful waiting (Livingstone has suggested not) and whether such laws ought in fact to prohibit such approaches (I’ve suggested that anything short of affirmation probably counts as a kind of conversion attempt).
It is clear that you consider WW to be harmful and want it banned as part of a CT ban.

It is also clear that this is a thread about trans kids rather than CT in the gay community.

And it is only a matter of time when CT will (in your view), firmly include WW, and all opponents be considered transphobic.

It will end up as a dialogue of the deaf, where the bar for not being transphobic will be way beyond reasonable, even for very supportive posters.
 

Cruimh

Rhubarb fetishist and proud of it!
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
16,389
10,571
Under the blue skies
www.xxx-rhubarb.com
A therapy assumes a malady, some kind of illness or condition that requires treatment.
This can be a problem in our world still shackled by its roots in Judaeo Christian morality.

The biggest Christian Church teaches that it is objectively disordered - so I went looking to see what that means - because a disorder arguably would validate the use of the word therapy.

They tie themselves up in knots a bit in here


So in respect of same sex attraction:

At the same time, the attraction cannot be described as good or neutral because it is ordered toward an act that is, by definition, immoral. Consider a young college male who is sexually attracted to a female classmate. Though this attraction can be directed toward sinful thoughts and actions, his attraction in itself is capable of being and is naturally ordered toward particular goods (i.e., mutual complementarity, marriage, and procreation). His attraction to a female classmate is naturally directed toward his (and society’s) flourishing and his happiness. However, if the same male college student finds himself sexually attracted to a male classmate, such an attraction itself can never be directed toward any particular goods such as mutual complementarity, marriage, and procreation. This attraction, if acted upon, is incapable of leading to his flourishing and happiness.

Grounded in the natural law, the Church notes that while the sexual attraction to the female classmate can be (and is naturally) ordered toward his good, the sexual attraction to his male classmate cannot be ordered toward his good. This is what the Church means when it uses the term, “disorder.”

A person's sexual orientation is not a malady and therefore anyone purporting to treat them is engaging in the kind of fraudulent activity we often call quack medicine. If you accept the role of the state to enforce the rule of law then you're highly unlikely to argue that fraud should be permitted to go unchecked.
I fear that we may be engaging in an artificial debate on this thread. At least I feel sure we can manage to remain on topic.
I agree - but we live in a world where homoeopathy isn't pursued as fraudulence. Ditto Scientology and all the other weird and wonderful things.

For me the worry is mainly where minors are addressed. If an adult who is unhappy with his or her life wishes to try to change it with this sort of quackery then as we allow Jehovah witnesses to refuse sensible treatment etc then I'm inclined to say that while it is malarkey an adult can inflict it upon him or herself. But as with the state interfering when a JW Child needs a blood transfusion, the state should interfere when the well being of a child is threatened by being lined up for conversion therapy
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,639
6,190
There’s discussing, debating and proselytising.

The first two require acknowledging other opinions and allowing those options to be taken into consideration in order to progress. The third doesn’t, as it presumes that it is impossible for the speaker to be inaccurate or misinformed, only the listeners.

It’s an act of bad faith to claim to be starting a debate or discussion when the actual aim is to proselytise.
 
Last edited:

ruserious

Member
Dec 4, 2018
5,138
4,881
It should be outlawed for children under 18 and strictly monitored for adults who wish to undertake it.
 

Clanrickard

Member
Jan 30, 2019
582
69
Yes if it passed off as a medical intervention. I blieve this also should be the case with other quck medicine like rekki, homeopathy and the like. Otherwise no.
 
Apr 24, 2020
1,909
1,696
Yes if it passed off as a medical intervention. I blieve this also should be the case with other quck medicine like rekki, homeopathy and the like. Otherwise no.
By your analogy, which has merit btw, homeopathy at worst, means foregoing actual treatment, but usualy does no harm. But CT does harm in most instances.

And CT gives validity to being gay being a disorder. And completely dismisses gender identities as valid.
 

Mercurial

Member
Dec 4, 2018
648
364
It is clear that you consider WW to be harmful and want it banned as part of a CT ban.
Well I should hope so, given that I’ve said so quite explicitly several times on this thread. One might also hope, given that this is ostensibly a discussion site, that the reasons I gave to support that view might be engaged with.

It is also clear that this is a thread about trans kids rather than CT in the gay community.
This thread is about what I wrote in the OP, i.e. proposed legislation to ban conversion therapy for both sexual orientation and gender identity. I listed a number of potential objections in the OP, including one relating to trans kids, who are part of the LGBT community, and who have found themselves at the center of objections to similar legislation elsewhere.

(You seem to have engaged with this thread on the basis that there is some sort of rule against discussing political issues that affect trans people. No such rule is posted anywhere on the site or has been publicly communicated by any of the mods. I assume the reason for that is because it would be absurd to run a political discussion website where posters are banned from discussing a subset of political issues for no good reason. )

And it is only a matter of time when CT will (in your view), firmly include WW, and all opponents be considered transphobic.
I haven’t made this claim. Whether WW should be thought of as a form of CT doesn’t mean that it will be, and whether supporters of WW should be considered transphobic doesn’t mean they will be either (in fact, I don’t believe I have argued here that supporters of WW are necessarily transphobic - it’s possible that someone might want to allow WW precisely because they don’t realise it’s a form of CT, for example).

It will end up as a dialogue of the deaf, where the bar for not being transphobic will be way beyond reasonable, even for very supportive posters.
If that happens, if will be a self-fulfilling prophecy - it’s up to you to decide whether and how you engage with other posters and their arguments. The concept of transphobia is itself a legitimate topic of political debate, and you’ve been given arguments above as to why watchful waiting should be considered to be rooted in transphobia. You’re free to engage with those arguments or not, but you’re not entitled to shut down a debate simply because you don’t like the fact that it includes some arguments which would entail that you hold transphobic views.
 

Mercurial

Member
Dec 4, 2018
648
364
There’s discussing, debating and proselytising.

The first two require acknowledging other opinions and allowing those options to be taken into consideration in order to progress. The third doesn’t, as it presumes that it is impossible for the speaker to be inaccurate or misinformed, only the listeners.

It’s an act of bad faith to claim to be starting a debate or discussion when the actual aim is to proselytise.
It’s an act of bad faith to insist that someone is not interested in debate unless they have access to your views and then refuse to express those views on that basis.

There is nothing in the OP or in any of my subsequent comments that entails that I think it’s impossible for me to be inaccurate or misinformed. If you think I am, the option is there for you to engage and say why. But in the absence of any such evidence or engagement all you’re doing here is making claims about my motivations without evidence in an effort to shut down the debate before it can begin.
 
Apr 24, 2020
1,909
1,696
It should be outlawed for children under 18 and strictly monitored for adults who wish to undertake it.
Challenge is whether the adult opting for CT is making a free decision. I accept that adults should, as a rule, be free to do as they please once it affects no one else, but in the case of CT, my gut is that it only exists as an offshoot of religious zealots imposing their societal views (intrinsically disordered, to borrow a phrase).

And many subjected to CT will end up with psychological disorders.

And then there is the risk that suppression may lead to hetero marriages and children with such psychological issues coming to the fore. So collateral damage....
 
Apr 24, 2020
1,909
1,696
Whether WW should be thought of as a form of CT doesn’t mean that it will be, and whether supporters of WW should be considered transphobic doesn’t mean they will be either (in fact, I don’t believe I have argued here that supporters of WW are necessarily transphobic - it’s possible that someone might want to allow WW precisely because they don’t realise it’s a form of CT, for example).



If that happens, if will be a self-fulfilling prophecy - it’s up to you to decide whether and how you engage with other posters and their arguments. The concept of transphobia is itself a legitimate topic of political debate, and you’ve been given arguments above as to why watchful waiting should be considered to be rooted in transphobia. You’re free to engage with those arguments or not, but you’re not entitled to shut down a debate simply because you don’t like the fact that it includes some arguments which would entail that you hold transphobic views.
And there you have it. I am now deemed transphobic because I see a distinction between WW and CT.

And you feel anyone who considers WW to be ok, is transphobic.

There is no other reading of your post that holds water.
 
Apr 24, 2020
1,909
1,696
Furthermore, nothing in any of the links posted by the OP refer to WW.

The conflation of WW and CT is solely that of the OP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom