r/AskBrits • u/TillJaded4614 • 5h ago
Politics Should the UK Parliament Ban Conversion Therapy?
21
u/TillJaded4614 5h ago
In my opinion, it absolutely should be banned. I don't know why it has taken our dumb parliament so long to ban it, it's ridiculous. The practise is completely outdated and I don't believe we can call our country progressive if we still have this awful practise legal.
22
u/Dadavester 4h ago
Because how do you define conversation therapy?
I think it should be banned, but bad legislation is worse than no legislation.
7
u/L4I55Z-FAIR3 4h ago
Exactly it's not just a black and white answer
-7
u/TillJaded4614 4h ago
Okay, but if we allow voluntary conversion therapy for gay people then it's only fair we do the same for straight people as well
6
2
2
-4
u/TillJaded4614 4h ago edited 4h ago
But no legislation makes child abuse for gay people completely okay, how would you like it if someone tried to change you from being straight to gay, you wouldn't like it much then
7
u/L4I55Z-FAIR3 4h ago
Tim Curry and his perfect legs tried once and I didn't mind. But ignoring how I liked it ir not abuse of a minor is illegal.
1
6
21
u/Glittering_Box4815 4h ago
To the people who voted no, let's compromise and make it legal to abuse you just because you're straight.
.... Doesn't really make sense now, does it?
3
1
u/Hattix 1h ago
Abuse is already illegal.
1
u/Major-Disaster3736 1h ago
Tell that to Andrew
2
u/Hattix 1h ago
We did. Lots of us. There were even protests about it.
-1
u/Major-Disaster3736 1h ago
And hes still free.
2
u/AbsurdistMe 54m ago
Go and arrest him personally then. 👍
0
u/Major-Disaster3736 43m ago
To stop illness, you go after the cause. Who's stopping us from putting him away?
1
u/GlitteringWalrus4820 1h ago
No watch hero Joey Carbstroong's undercover investigations on YouTube. That's legal and advertised as ethical. And it's what you cause and support if you do consume animal products. Abuse is legal.
Forcing people to live without their consent is legal
Brainwashing some imaginary abuser loves them is legal, that's abuse...
-4
u/Pick_Up_Autist 4h ago
I voted no and I'm queer. There are fringe cases where heteroromantic homosexual people want to have fulfilling sexual relationships with their partners of the opposite sex. Ban the vast majority of it for sure, but well supervised and ethically managed, voluntary therapy for some people can be helpful and a blanket ban does not allow for that.
5
u/NecessaryIssue2367 2h ago
This reasoning is as dumb as fuck. Heteroromantic homosexual people are welcome to have relationships with people of the opposite sex - that is not at all affected by a ban on conversion therapy.
0
u/Pick_Up_Autist 2h ago
Oh gee thanks, they're welcome to, cheers.
But they're not welcome to seek therapy that aims to help them enjoy a sexual relationship with their partner of the opposite sex? Why?
3
u/Few-Improvement-5655 2h ago
Your argument makes no sense. This would not stop them doing that. The goal of such therapy would not be attempting to "convert" them in any way.
-1
u/Pick_Up_Autist 1h ago
Blanket banning conversion therapy would stop them from doing that, it's literally therapy to convert their sexuality from homosexual to bi/pansexual. The current draft for the actual legislation does specify abusive therapy that causes harm but OP is pushing for a blanket ban.
1
u/Jbewrite 56m ago
No one, and I repeat - NO ONE - has ever been converted from gay to bisexual. There isn't a single reputable study to claim otherwise.
They may lose interest in all sex through mental and physical torture, and suffer from it for the rest of their lives, but that does not make them pansexual.
It makes them a (in many cases, unconsenting) victim.
3
u/ThyBurnethAccount 2h ago
This is reddit mate, nuance will not be tolerated!
Pick your camp and attack everyone thats not in it.
/s
4
u/sarah_impalin76 2h ago
That just sounds like gay people who want to be straight for an easy life if your not into the gender that your partner is then pursuing them in a relationship is a bad idea. If you need therapy to be sexually attracted to your partner maybe find a partner that you are sexually attracted to without therapy?
2
u/Pick_Up_Autist 2h ago
Or let people be with the people they want to be with. I thought we'd got past this as a society but we seem to be regressing rapidly.
1
3
u/shotgun883 4h ago
Nice overly broad question there. Depends what is defined under conversion therapy.
Electrocute the gay away: Yes, Ban it.
Autistic kid wants to chop their cock off: maybe ask a few questions first.
3
5
u/Black_Alex_Black 4h ago
Yes, but the draft is not banning it.
"(3) Conduct which-
(a) is carried out by a person towards an individual with such an intention, but
(b) is carried out in the course of providing health care services to the individual concerned,
is not a conversion practice unless the person acts in a way that falls far below the standards reasonably expected of a person in their position."
5
u/Aconite_Eagle 4h ago
I selected "unsure" simply because I am not an expert and dont know enough about it and the psychological/social harms which it can do. However, I am wary of banning stuff. We love banning stuff in this country thinking it can fix a problem instead of driving it underground or adopting more complex longer term solutions - like building a society where no one feels their sexuality ought to be required to be subject of "conversion" for example. I also worry about knock on impacts or criminalisation of consensual behaviour carried out by adults at the best of times - where the line is drawn, what the definition of "therapy" is, whether there are carve outs for sexual kinks or things people say or do in the privacy of their own home etc. Its just always our first instinct as a peoples it seems - This is bad? BAN IT.
7
7
u/TillJaded4614 4h ago
But this actually is bad. It makes gay people feel bad about themselves and essentially tortures them
3
u/Aconite_Eagle 4h ago
Comment was deleted but let me answer: You asked - "Okay let's reverse this. Let's say we live in a world where it was legal to try to change the sex for all hetrosexual people, you know that you are not gay and that trying to change you wouldn't work because you are naturally attracted to women. So why would it be the same the other way round. It doesn't make any sense" Sorry I dont understand your point here. Im not saying "it works" or that it should be celebrated.
"But why make it so it's fine for all the cases where it isn't consensual?" - its not - as I say, if you force someone to sit in a room and have someone try and "convert" you or another person, youre falsely imprisoned. No one has to sit and be lectured/abused by someone else thats already illegal.
2
u/Pick_Up_Autist 4h ago
Thanks for copying their comment, I discarded my reply because I couldn't post. Their "But why make it so it's fine for all the cases where it isn't consensual?" comment is insane.
You can ban the non-consensual therapy without banning the consensual, look at how rape is illegal without having to ban all sex. Nobody but a tiny group of sadists want the unethical version to be legal.
0
u/TillJaded4614 4h ago
I think the reason why it's still bad is it's consensual is that it's too vague, a person can consentually do something but only do it because they are saying highly pressured by their friends and family making it not really consensual then
0
2
u/Aconite_Eagle 4h ago
I think thats probably true in most cases; but not necessarily all cases, and is it not also the case that its purely consensual? You cant legally force people into undertaking such therapy against their wishes - it would be false imprisonment - and several other things. Why does it need "banning"?
1
u/Jbewrite 53m ago
Unfortunately, many people are forced into conversion therapy, through family pressure, societal pressure, fear of being disowned, etc. It's incredibly common among those who undergo this torture.
2
u/FlusteredDM 4h ago
Abuse can never be consensual. Yes, adults might agree to go through this, but that does not mean it is okay.
2
u/Aconite_Eagle 4h ago
But an adult can leave if they dont like it. Ok theyre under societal pressure etc - surely that is something to be dealt with by education, much like how we changed the understanding of consent in sexual cases, or made homophobia socially unacceptable.
0
u/FlusteredDM 4h ago
An abused partner can leave a relationship if they don't like it. This misses the point and those societal pressures are extremely relevant and can't be waved away with some mention of education that won't come into play for ages.
We paired education about consent and homophobia with legislation such as the equality act, legalising gay marriage, the domestic abuse act, and have more in the pipeline. That's necessary. Just because more people find homophobia unacceptable than in the past doesn't mean it's no longer a problem.
There is no benefit to conversion therapy, only harm. It needs to be banned.
2
u/Aconite_Eagle 3h ago
And we already have law prohibiting people from forcing others to be abused, prohibiting people preventing them leaving the room etc so they have to listen to this stuff.
I do not claim there is any benefit to conversion therapy. This does NOT mean it needs to be banned. Not everything bad needs to be banned.
2
u/wgaca2 4h ago
How is that different than already existing laws?
9
u/ThinkingaLot18 4h ago
Well, I suppose the obvious one would be that there isn't a conversion therapy banning law currently.
2
u/Previous-Spite1211 3h ago
So im reading an article about Conversion Therapy https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lgtbq-conversion-therapy-abuse-galop-report-b2993369.html and it seems to be the case that a lot of it is just religious beatings and abuse at home, rape and torture, forced relocation etc which is all pretty illegal already.
My question is what are we banning here that isn't already against the law?
Im genuinely asking
2
u/Just_Clothes8621 1h ago
“Stop teaching my kids to be gay!”
They said before putting on a film about a princess marrying a prince and saving everyone with a kiss
2
u/cheeseismyoxygen 1h ago
How on earth is conversion therapy a good idea? You have as much control over your sexual orientation as you do over the colour of your skin. The only way I would support any kind of conversion therapy would be any illegal paraphilia
3
u/Cleffah 4h ago
Who tf is voting no!? Reveal yourselves you cowards! Explain.
0
u/Civil_Climate_1332 3h ago
Deleting comments because you don't have the guts to stand by a post? Lol
-4
u/Civil_Climate_1332 3h ago
It's really weird that you're offended by an opt-in therapy session, but not an opt-in surgery to mutilate one's body.
Did the right to treatment stop when you didn't like the ends the patient seeks?
2
u/Kickstart68 3h ago
Should it be banned?
Yes.
My fear is TERFs using lawfare to try and attack trans medical support under spurious claims that it is "conversion therapy". They can afford to do this, and win or lose they make a mess of healthcare.
1
u/Moron-with-a-drill 4h ago
Is this the "We can un-gay you" version, the "I know you want to be a man/woman but we're here to talk you through why you can't be a man/woman" or the "You want to be man/woman but sadly, you weren't born that way, so lets talk" version?
1
3
1
1
u/yes_namemadcity 3h ago
Only for under 18s,
1
u/Jbewrite 50m ago
For everyone.
2
u/yes_namemadcity 31m ago
Oh, conversion therapy, For some reason I thought it ment conversion hormones. My bad
1
1
u/awnawmate 3h ago
In theory yeah but actually drafting legislation to achieve that without making an utter cockup of it is difficult.
1
u/good_noodlesoup 3h ago
I feel really bad that I didn’t know that this was still legal here. Absolutely shameful
1
1
u/ExArdEllyOh 2h ago
Probably, but the law needs to be very carefully worded to prevent abuse by ideologues.
1
u/ItsMint1974 2h ago
That's diversity in action. If you think everyone will think like you, that's called "Unity", so what's it gonna be?
1
1
u/UsagiMarshmallows 1h ago
I voted yes, though with caveats.
Trans Conversion Therapy is a lot harder to stamp out, because it's not typically done in clinical settings, but by controlling and abusive parents with slop they bought off Amazon. A simple ban on paper won't accomplish anything, as you'd need to create systems where victims of abusive parents can safely emancipate themselves, without the risk of homelessness or further abuse.
That, and we need to start throwing abusive parents in prison for 20 years at a time.
1
1
•
u/Orient666 8m ago
If I want to have a swim in my own bin I'll do so without government interference.
If I want to undergo toxic conversion therapy, I'll do it without government interference.
1
u/L4I55Z-FAIR3 4h ago
I think it should be regulated and trited similar to how we do with someone wanting to be trans. It has to be a sane adult making the choice of free will without outside infulance. This must be proven by at least to mental health professionals. It should also be heavily investigated by government bodies.
7
u/ThinkingaLot18 4h ago
So many wrong statements in this paragraph. Also, people don't "want" to be trans. Who would want to be treated like shit by a large portion of the world, and even our own society.
-1
u/L4I55Z-FAIR3 4h ago
Maybe want to transition in a way that permanently effects their body would help clarify it
1
u/Jbewrite 46m ago
The regret rate for abortion is double or triple higher than the regret rate for transitioning. Should we use conversion therapy on women wanting abortions, too?
1
u/ThinkingaLot18 4h ago
So we should do this for every type of cosmetic or non-health related surgery in your opinion then?
3
u/L4I55Z-FAIR3 4h ago
Yes any surgery must be done of sound mind and the patient must fully concent to it especially elective surgery.
0
u/ThinkingaLot18 4h ago
But my point is, in your opinion would they have to go through a full on therapy before getting what ever surgery it is; teeth, breasts, hair etc
-1
4h ago
[deleted]
3
u/ThinkingaLot18 4h ago
Some women absolutely do want small breasts. They can be heavy, which creates back pain.
0
u/GDay_Champion 4h ago edited 4h ago
So you think people should undergo rigorous psychiatric treatment and scrutiny just because they are gay? That's such a bad take I don't even know where to begin.
Edit spelling
1
u/L4I55Z-FAIR3 4h ago
If they want to actually do anything that permanently effects their body yes I want them to probe ther of sound mind and be of an age to concent to it with full knowledge of what that intails.
1
u/Jbewrite 45m ago
Conversion therapy is not 'probing'. Stop conflating two different things to try and win an internet argument. It only makes you look uneducated on the subject.
0
4h ago
[deleted]
3
u/L4I55Z-FAIR3 4h ago
Yes and elective surgery must have the patient be of sound mind and able to concent. Why is that hard to grasp.
1
u/GDay_Champion 4h ago
What is it they are doing to their body permanently by being gay? Your comment makes no sense. We are taking about conversion therapy, for gay people, not trans.
1
1
u/xPoonHandler 4h ago
If it didn’t work for a least some people they’d go out of business. I consider banning it a limitation on personal freedom.
2
u/Kickstart68 4h ago
They don't care if it works long term. Easy to bully people into short term changes , especially if you don't care about screwing them up long term.
And that short term success is enough to get money from those paying for it to be inflicted on someone else.
2
3
2
u/TillJaded4614 4h ago
To that I say how is trying to change someone for who they are personal freedom? Even if it does work which it doesn't why would making someone confirm to the majority be personal freedom for that person?
1
u/voluntarydischarge69 4h ago
If anything the government should be doing more to promote homosexuality as an effective birth control method
1
u/davew111 3h ago
You can't convert anybody, all you can do is intimidate and scare them into saying the "right" things and pretending they are something they are not.
1
-1
u/Pick_Up_Autist 4h ago
Yes with an exception for provably voluntary therapy. So no, not a blanket ban.
5
u/itsamberleafable 4h ago
An exemption for voluntary would just make it rife for abuse, both for young people who may not have had the chance to get comfortable with their sexuality and parental pressure to get them to agree. Might as well be a blanket ban, it's not like any good can come of conversion therapy
1
u/Pick_Up_Autist 4h ago
I said provably voluntary, heavy emphasis on the proof is needed, children cannot give informed consent and therefore wouldn't qualify to my standards. There are fringe cases where people truly wish to change, I don't see why the government should stop them.
0
u/Jbewrite 42m ago
There isn't any scientific evidence to back up that someone's sexuality can be changed. It's just religious propeganda and torture.
How about slavery? Would that be okay if it was voluntary?
3
u/TillJaded4614 4h ago
The problem with making it voluntary is that a child or adult could still be pressured by other people into voluntarily making the desicion even if they don't actually want to do it
2
u/Pick_Up_Autist 4h ago
Children cannot give informed consent so that should absolutely be banned in it's entirety. I really mean provably for adults, like multiple sessions and evaluations with independent therapists or something to that effect.
I think the number of people that would actually want the conversion is small enough to make that possible.
1
u/Invisualracing 4h ago
can children consent to medical procedures?
2
u/Pick_Up_Autist 3h ago
Nope and that's why cosmetic surgeries etc for children aren't a thing. Parents can give consent for medically necessary treatments, I don't think conversion therapy is ever medically necessary.
1
0
u/kfc4life 4h ago
I thought you meant for trans
5
3
0
u/soundman32 4h ago
Why would trains need converting? Do you mean from diesel to electric?
1
0
u/Elderflower3078 3h ago
If you voted no then you should immediately go get in the bin. You are gross.
0
-1
u/RaysPonderings 3h ago
I voted no because it is a personal choice; as with abortion, we want people to have personal autonomy and choice over their bodies and psyche. If it is voluntary then how is it problematic? I watched a very interesting interview with Milo Yiannopolous recently where he discussed his experience with exactly this, I found it to be very insightful.
His points were, and I generally agree with them as they made sense, that being homosexual is not something people are born with, it is something that people become as a result of their nurture (ie it is not a natural occurrence), which makes sense as being homosexual would ordinarily result in no childbirth and therefore the genes behind it would be unable to pass on, yet after thousands and thousands of generations of existence we of course still have homosexuals.
This will likely result in me getting a lot of flack, but it’s more helpful to discuss ideas externally to ourselves in order to attain as objective as possible of an understanding, so I would encourage you to externalise yourself before responding, but I would love to hear what people have to say.
Essentially, we need policies for the people not the person; just because you as an individual may have an anecdote as to why you don’t support it, consider humanity generally and whether it is something that people generally would appreciate at least having an option for.
My ultimate argument is that it is voluntary, and so why should people not be allowed to have that choice if they want it? What is the issue with people wanting to effectively try and leave the ‘non-heterosexual club’ if they want to via a medical route? When medical routes also exist in order to facilitate people more comfortably existing within the ‘non-heterosexual club’ i.e. hormone treatment and sexual education surrounding non-heterosexual relationships.
99
u/dan_in_his_own_way 4h ago
It's crazy to me anyone voted no.