Conversion therapy

[NerdGirl]

Oy veh.

 

[Carl Emerson]

This helps to put the matter in context...

EFC - Bill C-6 to Ban Conversion Therapy

 

[hedrick]

The NZ article suggested that they were proposing to model after Australia, which has a fairly limited definition.

The Canadian one defines "conversion therapy means a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour."

It does not seem to be limited to health providers. Thus it could include religious counseling. While it would not include things like sermons, I would consider the last phrase too broad.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That’s for Quuensland. I believe they are part of Australia. The OP is about a proposal for New Zealand.

I have not been able to view detail of NZ's proposal but the guidelines are coming from the UN it seems - Canada is discussing the same proposals.

 

[seeking.IAM]

It says it would not criminalize private conversations...school counselors, faith leaders, friends, and the like...does it not?

 

[Carl Emerson]

That is the possible position of Canada but it seems Australia is much more restrictive.

 

[hedrick]

It says it would not criminalize private conversations...school counselors, faith leaders, friends, and the like...does it not?

I see nothing in the Canadian version that exempts school counsellors or faith leaders. The most likely problem would be a pastor counseling a minor who is gay to not act on it. That’s not conversion as most of us would think of it. While I would disagree, I don’t think it should be illegal.

 

[Anthony2019]

Conversion therapists have a tendency to look at the world in a very simplistic and concrete way. They are very uncomfortable with ambiguity and are unsettled by life's difficult questions. In fact they are so obsessed in striving to have the "right" answers that they are incapable of listening to the questions and pride takes precedence over humility. The reason is very simple. They are terrified of being wrong. Their faith is almost like a game of Jenga. It is great when things are orderly and predictable, but take just one small piece away, and the whole structure comes tumbling down.

 

[hedrick]

I see nothing in the Canadian version that exempts school counsellors or faith leaders. The most likely problem would be a pastor counseling a minor who is gay to not act on it. That’s not conversion as most of us would think of it. While I would disagree, I don’t think it should be illegal.

Part of my problem with the Canadian wording is that I can see ministers counseling heterosexual teenagers to control their sexual urges. It would seem very weird to prohibit treating gay kids the same way.

I'm pretty sure that's not the intent. But Canada seems to have some pretty extreme advocates who might try to push a case like that. It would be better to adjust the wording.

 

[hedrick]

I don't see any official UN policy on this issue. However the Human Rights Council authorized an Independent Expert to produce advice on various topics. Here's their report on Conversion: A/HRC/44/53 - E - A/HRC/44/53. I very much doubt that the UN General Assembly would approve this, but it does show the thinking of the Human Rights Council.

The document discusses the evils of conversion therapy, and suggests that it be made illegal. However it doesn't give precise proposals for legislation. It reviews various approach that have been taken. The author does, however, support a wide definition. While not specifying his own wording, he quotes with approval "Edmonton, Canada, approved a by-law that
prohibited “any business” from offering or providing counselling or behaviour modification techniques, the administration or prescription of medication, or any other purported treatment, service or tactic used for the objective of changing a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or gender preference, or eliminating or reducing sexual
attraction or sexual behaviour between persons of the same sex."

This is basically the Canadian wording already being discussed. I'm not sure it's accurate to say that they got it from the UN, since the most recent UN report quotes them.

 

[Paidiske]

Which section?

The section defining conversion therapy reads:

"Meaning of conversion therapy

(1)Conversion therapy is a practice that attempts to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Examples—

a practice attempting to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity by—•inducing nausea, vomiting or paralysis while showing the person same-sex images
•using shame or coercion to give the person an aversion to same-sex attractions or to encourage gender-conforming behaviour
•using other techniques on the person encouraging the person to believe being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex is a defect or disorder

(2)Conversion therapy does not include a practice by a health service provider that, in the provider’s reasonable professional judgement—
(a)is part of the clinically appropriate assessment, diagnosis or treatment of a person, or clinically appropriate support for a person; or
(b)enables or facilitates the provision of a health service for a person in a manner that is safe and appropriate; or
(c)is necessary to comply with the provider’s legal or professional obligations.

(3)Without limiting subsection (2), the following are examples of the types of practices to which that subsection may apply—
(a)assisting a person who is undergoing a gender transition;
(b)assisting a person who is considering undergoing a gender transition;
(c)assisting a person to express the person’s gender identity;
(d)providing acceptance, support or understanding of a person;
(e)facilitating a person’s coping skills, development or identity exploration, or facilitating social support for the person.
Examples of the types of practices—

•exploring psychosocial factors with a person or probing a person’s experience of sexual orientation or gender identity
•providing a speech pathology or gender transition service for a trans-gender or gender-diverse person wishing to alter the person’s voice and communication to better align with the person’s gender identity
•advising a person about the potential side effects of sex-hormonal drugs or the risks of having, or not having, surgical procedures."

Correct but the definition of the 'Therapy' is very broad and will include getting along side and supporting an individual who wants to transition from gay back to straight. This will be a crime.

No, it really won't.

Okay, your post is conflating different ideas, so let's try to sort them out a bit. First, "transition" isn't about sexuality. It's about gender identity. So that's not about a gay person being straight, it's about whether a person identifies as their birth gender or not.

Assisting someone who wants to de-transition back to presenting as their birth gender (after a time of presenting as the opposite gender) would fall under "assisting a person to express the person’s gender identity," which from what I quoted above is explicitly allowed. As long as the person has decided that that's the gender identity they want to express (and you aren't trying to make them decide that or force them to express that), there is absolutely no issue there.

But as for trying to turn a gay person straight, (that is, change their underlying sexual orientation, which is defined in this act as "capacity for emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, persons of a different gender, the same gender or more than 1 gender"), yes, that will be a crime for very good reason; we have no effective and harmless technique for doing that. The law is preventing all the harmful techniques people try anyway (and examples are listed above). It's worth noting here that it's the person's capacity for attraction and relationships that we're forbidden to try to change; this is not the same as, for example, assisting someone to live a celibate life if they so wish.

Thank you. That is helpful to read. I just did a scan but Part 5, 213H seems to apply only to "A person who is health service provider..." It refers you to a dead link to see the definition of "health service provider." Is there any evidence (don't want to read it all if someone else already has) that it broadens it to those who are not health service providers or they have a wide definition of who is a health service provider?

It seems in Queensland the legislation only applies to health service providers (who are pretty tightly defined here). Other states have broader legislation; I know the Australian Capital Territory's legislation was more specifically targetting "unregulated programs" which would fall outside the usual health service parameters. There's a helpful report here, which includes noting the specific protections for "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to demonstrate their religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community and whether in public or private."

This kind of legislation just isn't the monster some groups are making it out to be.

 

[hedrick]

There's a helpful report here, which includes noting the specific protections for "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to demonstrate their religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community and whether in public or private."

This kind of legislation just isn't the monster some groups are making it out to be.

If the news article is complete, their definition is "a treatment or other practice … the purported purpose of which is to change a person's sexuality or gender identity"." That is a reasonably strict definition of conversion. It's "repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour" where I begin to question the law.

Part of the question is how to balance religious freedom and parental rights against harm to children. I actually think if a teenager is convinced they are gay, things that are likely to be said by conservative Christian churches and parents are harmful. But we have to decide how far we're prepared to go in prohibiting religious expression.

Actual conversion attempts seem clear. Going further than that in countries with strong protection for religious freedom is questionable. Unfortunately the kids are going to have to find a way to survive until they get out of the house. Of course the result is likely to be that they and any friends who know what they're going through become enemies of Christianity. But I don't think we can legally prohibit actions because they're going to turn kids into atheists.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I don't see any official UN policy on this issue. However the Human Rights Council authorized an Independent Expert to produce advice on various topics. Here's their report on Conversion: A/HRC/44/53 - E - A/HRC/44/53. I very much doubt that the UN General Assembly would approve this, but it does show the thinking of the Human Rights Council.

The document discusses the evils of conversion therapy, and suggests that it be made illegal. However it doesn't give precise proposals for legislation. It reviews various approach that have been taken. The author does, however, support a wide definition. While not specifying his own wording, he quotes with approval "Edmonton, Canada, approved a by-law that
prohibited “any business” from offering or providing counselling or behaviour modification techniques, the administration or prescription of medication, or any other purported treatment, service or tactic used for the objective of changing a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or gender preference, or eliminating or reducing sexual
attraction or sexual behaviour between persons of the same sex."

This is basically the Canadian wording already being discussed. I'm not sure it's accurate to say that they got it from the UN, since the most recent UN report quotes them.

Thanks for coming on board and providing some balanced comments...

 

[kybela]

2018 the European Parliament voted to adopt a text which condmened gay ‘cure’ therapy and urged its member states to ban the practice.

The ban in Germany:

To whom does the ban apply?
The ban applies to everyone, not just to professionals in this field.

Does the ban also apply to pastoral or psychotherapeutic conversations?
The ban will only apply if the conversation partner deliberately attempts to influence someone’s sexual orientation or their self-perceived gender identity.

 

[nolidad]

yeah some books used to describe black people in pretty horrible and hateful ways too.

Like it is, as teh psych fields are very very soft and subjective science- you get a lot of quacks practicing there.

 

[Quartermaine]

Like it is, as teh psych fields are very very soft and subjective science- you get a lot of quacks practicing there.

the only quacks i know of are those engaging in conversion therapy and none of them are psychiatrists.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Well thankfully a psychiatrist friend of mine wrote a paper on psychiatry from a Christian perspective and was deregistered for it.

After a long battle she was reinstated and is prominent in the profession.

I know of christian psychiatrists leaving the profession because the rules of engagement don't allow then to deal with clients clearly possessed. Christian counselling is a better avenue for them - at least until proposed laws like this try to prohibit dealing with that as well...

This is the nature of the spiritual battle.

Bind folks up and make it illegal to set them free...

 

[Philip_B]

Surviving Conversion Practices - Star Observer

Broadly, successful legislation must affirm that LGBTQI people are not ‘broken’ or ‘disordered’, ban practices in formal and informal settings (paid or unpaid), protect children and adults, and prohibit the false, misleading, pseudoscientific claims that drive conversion practices. It must target practitioners without requiring survivors to drive difficult complaints processes, ‘prove’ harm, or be exposed to their abusers through unnecessary conciliation meetings.​

I am certainly not advocating anything, however there is another side to this discussion, and we do well to her those voices too. I have no knowledge of the person who wrote the article, however it does resonate with other conversations I have had.

Jesus did not come to save straight people only, and it seems to me that turning people straight is not the mission of the Church. I tend to accept that the risks in damagining people still further, and I believe that we are all damaged, on the evidence I have seen suggests it is an area generally well avoided. I would however accept that there are those who wish to make a free and informed choice to work on the sexuality and gender identity, and I can see a role in ministry to walk with people on that journey.

 

[NBB]

Surviving Conversion Practices - Star Observer

Broadly, successful legislation must affirm that LGBTQI people are not ‘broken’ or ‘disordered’, ban practices in formal and informal settings (paid or unpaid), protect children and adults, and prohibit the false, misleading, pseudoscientific claims that drive conversion practices. It must target practitioners without requiring survivors to drive difficult complaints processes, ‘prove’ harm, or be exposed to their abusers through unnecessary conciliation meetings.​

I am certainly not advocating anything, however there is another side to this discussion, and we do well to her those voices too. I have no knowledge of the person who wrote the article, however it does resonate with other conversations I have had.

Jesus did not come to save straight people only, and it seems to me that turning people straight is not the mission of the Church. I tend to accept that the risks in damagining people still further, and I believe that we are all damaged, on the evidence I have seen suggests it is an area generally well avoided. I would however accept that there are those who wish to make a free and informed choice to work on the sexuality and gender identity, and I can see a role in ministry to walk with people on that journey.

You need to stop sinning or at least want to to be a christian, you cannot embrace your sins and be a christian, a thief, liar, murderer, fornicator, adulterer, homosexual, need to stop doing all that or you will be on step one, 'the repentance of your sins' all your 'christian' life. I don't know if such person who at least doesn't try to stop sinning is going to find the favour of God.

Lets go back to the gospel as it really is please.

 

[Paidiske]

I can see a role in ministry to walk with people on that journey.

For sure. There's a vast gulf between "walk with" on that journey, and attempting to coerce or drive on that journey, though.