UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Fishnut » Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:17 pm

The government has opened its consultation on banning conversion therapy for sexual orientation and gender identity.

The government's press release is here.
The consultation description including links to research documentation is here.
The consultation document is here (website) and here (PDF).
People can submit their responses online here.

The consultation is open to everyone but they are particularly interested in hearing from the following people:
- Members of the public – particularly those who have experienced conversion therapy;
- Organisations that work with victims of conversion therapy and within the wider LGBT charity sector;
- Religious organisations and people with religious beliefs;
- Medical practitioners and healthcare providers, particularly those who support people who may be questioning whether they are LGBT;
- Other organisations that have experience of conversion therapy.

The consultation is open until 10 December 2021.

Stonewall are in the process of creating guidance for people who wish to join in the consultation. I will share a link once it's available. While waiting, I recommend reading this thread by Stonewall's Head of Policy Kieran Aldred on the consultation. There's a lot of good but he highlights some concerns, particularly around the "consent" loophole - the proposed bill allows for conversion therapy in religious settings so long as the person consents. Aldred argues, quite sensibly imo, that you can't consent to abuse and coercion.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:45 pm

Thanks for posting that Fishnut.

This is a good thing. Conversion 'therapy' is wrong.
Fishnut wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:17 pm
There's a lot of good but he highlights some concerns, particularly around the "consent" loophole - the proposed bill allows for conversion therapy in religious settings so long as the person consents. Aldred argues, quite sensibly imo, that you can't consent to abuse and coercion.
I was concerned by that, but from the consultation document there doesn't seem to be a religious exemption. Instead it appears that there is a general exemption for adults who have given informed consent. In that it seems to be consistent with the law as applies to other so-called 'therapies' that may do great harm to people who receive them (eg a 'therapist' telling someone to forego medical treatment for cancer in favour of quack remedies.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Fishnut » Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:01 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:45 pm
Thanks for posting that Fishnut.

This is a good thing. Conversion 'therapy' is wrong.
Fishnut wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:17 pm
There's a lot of good but he highlights some concerns, particularly around the "consent" loophole - the proposed bill allows for conversion therapy in religious settings so long as the person consents. Aldred argues, quite sensibly imo, that you can't consent to abuse and coercion.
I was concerned by that, but from the consultation document there doesn't seem to be a religious exemption. Instead it appears that there is a general exemption for adults who have given informed consent. In that it seems to be consistent with the law as applies to other so-called 'therapies' that may do great harm to people who receive them (eg a 'therapist' telling someone to forego medical treatment for cancer in favour of quack remedies.
That's an interesting comparison and one I hadn't considered. I guess the nub is the "informed" bit - can you truly be said to be informed if you're consenting to treatments that only have harms and no benefits? If no, then why does the government allow those treatments to be legal?

It may be that if we can get them to close the loophole that allows people to consent to conversion therapies, it may help us close the loopholes that allow quack treatments (I can't bring myself to call them 'remedies') to proliferate. And just to make it clear in case it's not, I'm in no way suggesting that we prosecute people who do consent to these treatments, though I would happily see those who offer them prosecuted.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by sheldrake » Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:14 pm

The interesting and difficult cases here will be where an adult gives consent and the 'therapy' just involves talking.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:33 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:01 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:45 pm
Thanks for posting that Fishnut.

This is a good thing. Conversion 'therapy' is wrong.
Fishnut wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:17 pm
There's a lot of good but he highlights some concerns, particularly around the "consent" loophole - the proposed bill allows for conversion therapy in religious settings so long as the person consents. Aldred argues, quite sensibly imo, that you can't consent to abuse and coercion.
I was concerned by that, but from the consultation document there doesn't seem to be a religious exemption. Instead it appears that there is a general exemption for adults who have given informed consent. In that it seems to be consistent with the law as applies to other so-called 'therapies' that may do great harm to people who receive them (eg a 'therapist' telling someone to forego medical treatment for cancer in favour of quack remedies.
That's an interesting comparison and one I hadn't considered. I guess the nub is the "informed" bit - can you truly be said to be informed if you're consenting to treatments that only have harms and no benefits? If no, then why does the government allow those treatments to be legal?

It may be that if we can get them to close the loophole that allows people to consent to conversion therapies, it may help us close the loopholes that allow quack treatments (I can't bring myself to call them 'remedies') to proliferate. And just to make it clear in case it's not, I'm in no way suggesting that we prosecute people who do consent to these treatments, though I would happily see those who offer them prosecuted.
The consultation document includes a summary of what hey mean by informed consent, so at least they've considered it.

I think that the basic issue as that in general society allows people a lot of liberty to do harm to themselves.

I'd definitely support making it unlawful (or more unlawful) for people to pretend to provide medical treatments. They can't call themselves 'doctor' or 'nurse' etc, but its easy to use similar language like 'therapy'.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Fishnut » Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:51 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:33 pm
I think that the basic issue as that in general society allows people a lot of liberty to do harm to themselves.
I don't have a problem with this, in general, and think that people should be allowed to do what they like providing it doesn't harm other people in the process (so no drunk driving, etc). But I think there's a case that can be made about needing to protect particularly vulnerable people, such as those who've been given a life-changing/limiting diagnosis or who have realised their sexuality is at odds of that expected by their community. The phrase "desperate times call for desperate measures" springs to mind and I think that under those circumstances the law can and should be there to protect them from people willing to exploit that desperation.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Fishnut » Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:54 pm

Just an FYI - The Times has put out an incredibly misleading article about the proposals included in the consultation. They claim that they will outlaw gender affirming services. I'm not going to provide a link to the article as they don't need any more hits but if you're desperate to read it I'm sure a quick google search will find it. I will, however link to Stonewall saying that the government categorically denies their claim.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:11 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:54 pm
Just an FYI - The Times has put out an incredibly misleading article about the proposals included in the consultation. They claim that they will outlaw gender affirming services. I'm not going to provide a link to the article as they don't need any more hits but if you're desperate to read it I'm sure a quick google search will find it. I will, however link to Stonewall saying that the government categorically denies their claim.
I can't be bothered to get past the Times paywall.

The document states
Our proposal is to introduce a new criminal offence that will capture talking conversion therapies. Our view is that a talking therapy delivered to either a person under 18 or a person who is 18 or over and who has not given informed consent, with the intention of changing their sexual orientation or changing them to or from being transgender, should constitute a criminal offence. In line with existing law, vulnerable people aged 18 and over who lack the capacity to consent will also be considered unable to consent to talking conversion therapies.
The key phrase being " with the intention of changing their sexual orientation or changing them to or from being transgender".

The context for this is provided in the preceding text:
Legitimate talking therapies are important for society, indeed particularly for LGBT people, who have worse than average mental health outcomes.[footnote 1] Banning conversion therapy must not result in interference for professional psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, counsellors and other clinicians and healthcare staff providing legitimate support for those who may be questioning if they are LGBT. The ban will complement the existing clinical regulatory framework and not override the independence of clinicians to support those who may be questioning their LGBT status, in line with their professional obligations. The government’s assessment is that no form of conversion therapy is consistent with the existing regulatory standards of statutory healthcare professionals.

The government is of the view that talking conversion therapies will have the intention of changing a person’s sexual orientation or changing them to or from being transgender. These are the therapies we want to capture. The term ‘talking therapy’ is a working term used to give a sense of the non-physical nature of these acts. The government is also interested to hear about any examples of acts of non-physical conversion therapy that might not involve talking.

Legitimate talking therapies that support a person who is questioning if they are LGBT do not start from the basis that being LGBT is a defect or deficiency. Instead the therapies are open and explorative discussions focused on helping a person to decide on their options in a supportive manner. Professional bodies and regulators are best placed to set out professional obligations and identify practices that are harmful for the individual involved.
So it would appear that the intention of the proposal would be to outlaw a 'therapy' that sought to change someone "to or from being transgender" from the outset. Though I'm not aware that such an approach even exists. But it would continue to allow someone who has been appropriately qualified to help and support someone else to explore their gender identity.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by lpm » Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:59 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:17 pm
Aldred argues, quite sensibly imo, that you can't consent to abuse and coercion.
Obviously you can't. And I'm delighted it's finally not just me saying this. I look forward to quoting this argument in the future.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Fishnut » Fri Oct 29, 2021 3:01 pm

I get the impression that the language is a sop to groups who believe there are a cabal of people out there trying to turn kids gay or trans. As there aren't, there's nothing to worry about. Helping people explore their sexuality or gender identity, and supporting them if they chose to identify as non-straight and non-cis is still allowed.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

Allo V Psycho
Catbabel
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Allo V Psycho » Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:14 am

I have an impression (and hope the more legally informed will comment) that there is a level of harm that you cannot consent to. A vague memory suggests it was about breaking a bone in SM play.
Otherwise, SM practices may be a difficult area. People may consent to behaviour which would otherwise be illegal.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Woodchopper » Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:45 am

Allo V Psycho wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:14 am
I have an impression (and hope the more legally informed will comment) that there is a level of harm that you cannot consent to. A vague memory suggests it was about breaking a bone in SM play.
Otherwise, SM practices may be a difficult area. People may consent to behaviour which would otherwise be illegal.
Yes, its complicated. Leaving aside S&M, boxing, taekwondo or rugby are legal and regulated. But bare knuckle fighting is illegal. So people can consent to being victims of physical violence, but that isn't unlimited. As for breaking bones, that isn't very uncommon in contact sports.

Allo V Psycho
Catbabel
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Allo V Psycho » Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:52 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:45 am
Allo V Psycho wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:14 am
I have an impression (and hope the more legally informed will comment) that there is a level of harm that you cannot consent to. A vague memory suggests it was about breaking a bone in SM play.
Otherwise, SM practices may be a difficult area. People may consent to behaviour which would otherwise be illegal.
Yes, its complicated. Leaving aside S&M, boxing, taekwondo or rugby are legal and regulated. But bare knuckle fighting is illegal. So people can consent to being victims of physical violence, but that isn't unlimited. As for breaking bones, that isn't very uncommon in contact sports.
True. So perhaps you can consent to the possibility of a broken bone, e.g. in sport, but not to the certainty, as in SM, if my memory is correct.

Back to the thread: the consultation outline doesn't look too bad to me: at the moment I could say that I would agree to this.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by sheldrake » Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:47 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:45 am
But bare knuckle fighting is illegal.
Bare knuckle boxing is not illegal in the UK, it's just that the bouts aren't sanctioned by the British Boxing Board of Control.

Eta: Some people actually think refereed bareknuckle is less dangerous because the fights tend to be stopped due to surface cuts much sooner than a match with gloves would be so less brain damage. I doubt that there's a peer-reviewed consensus supporting it though.

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by discovolante » Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:05 pm

Allo V Psycho wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:52 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:45 am
Allo V Psycho wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:14 am
I have an impression (and hope the more legally informed will comment) that there is a level of harm that you cannot consent to. A vague memory suggests it was about breaking a bone in SM play.
Otherwise, SM practices may be a difficult area. People may consent to behaviour which would otherwise be illegal.
Yes, its complicated. Leaving aside S&M, boxing, taekwondo or rugby are legal and regulated. But bare knuckle fighting is illegal. So people can consent to being victims of physical violence, but that isn't unlimited. As for breaking bones, that isn't very uncommon in contact sports.
True. So perhaps you can consent to the possibility of a broken bone, e.g. in sport, but not to the certainty, as in SM, if my memory is correct.

Back to the thread: the consultation outline doesn't look too bad to me: at the moment I could say that I would agree to this.
You are thinking of R v Brown, which involved homosexual sadomasochism. Wiki article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown?wprov=sfla1 which also links to the judgment.

R v Barnes addresses the threshold for bringing criminal proceedings when injury is caused in contact sport, summary here: https://www.5rb.com/case/r-v-barnes/
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Fishnut » Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:33 pm

Allo V Psycho wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:52 am
the consultation outline doesn't look too bad to me: at the moment I could say that I would agree to this.
The commentary I've seen so far aligns with this view. I think the biggest reason for completing the consultation is to confirm that people are happy with it and the vocal minority who want to allow conversion therapy to continue don't get to water it down.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by bob sterman » Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:31 pm

Looking at the consultation document it's a bit unclear how they are going to define "therapy" - i.e. how formal does an arrangment need to be to constitute "therapy"?

Incidentally, in the USA...

The American Psychological Association says...
Since the practices of so-called “conversion therapy” do not meet the definition of “therapy” according to the APA Dictionary of Psychology as “remediation of a physical, mental, or behavioral disorder or disease,” we typically refer to them as Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE).
https://www.apa.org/international/unite ... mments.pdf

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Nov 01, 2021 9:26 am

sheldrake wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:47 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:45 am
But bare knuckle fighting is illegal.
Bare knuckle boxing is not illegal in the UK, it's just that the bouts aren't sanctioned by the British Boxing Board of Control.
Fair enough, it isn't explicitly illegal. Perhaps better to say that its in a legal grey area due to it not being an officially recognized sport.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by sheldrake » Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:07 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 9:26 am
sheldrake wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:47 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:45 am
But bare knuckle fighting is illegal.
Bare knuckle boxing is not illegal in the UK, it's just that the bouts aren't sanctioned by the British Boxing Board of Control.
Fair enough, it isn't explicitly illegal. Perhaps better to say that its in a legal grey area due to it not being an officially recognized sport.
It's really not as 'grey' as people imagine. UK Barenuckle bouts have been show on cable TV and hosted at the O2.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:42 am

sheldrake wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:07 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 9:26 am
sheldrake wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:47 am


Bare knuckle boxing is not illegal in the UK, it's just that the bouts aren't sanctioned by the British Boxing Board of Control.
Fair enough, it isn't explicitly illegal. Perhaps better to say that its in a legal grey area due to it not being an officially recognized sport.
It's really not as 'grey' as people imagine. UK Barenuckle bouts have been show on cable TV and hosted at the O2.
I should have used a different term than 'bare knuckle fighting'.

If two people agree to have a fist fight then they have committed assault despite both having consented. See here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1981/1.html

There is though an exception for "properly conducted games and sports". Does bare knuckle fighting cross that threshold? I don't know and it might be an interesting case if it came to court.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:51 am

Allo V Psycho wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:52 am
Back to the thread: the consultation outline doesn't look too bad to me: at the moment I could say that I would agree to this.
I agree, it seems to be a reasonable attempt.

As for the exception for people who give informed consent I think its something that it would be better to allow. Certainly it sticks in the throat, as would someone recommending using meditation to treat cancer.

But overall I think its a benefit to have a basic presumption in law and society in general that consenting adults can have whatever conversations they like (with the exception of planning to commit crimes, slander etc). That probably most benefits people who are in minorities.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Fishnut » Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:15 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:51 am
As for the exception for people who give informed consent I think its something that it would be better to allow.
I have to disagree on this. From what I've read, a lot of this "informed consent" is actually coercion. In this regard I think it differs from alternative medicines, which are often taken without the knowledge or support of those around them, even if the levels of desperation are the same. Conversion therapy is very rarely something people decide to do by themselves - they are recommended it by friends, family or people in positions of authority such as religious leaders. The pressure this places on people not to let others down, particularly when they are coming from a genuine (if misplaced) position of concern and love, is immense. Parsing genuine "I do not want to be gay, please convert me to being straight" from "my family will ostracise me if I'm gay, please make me straight" to "my community really want me to try this and I can't find any more excuses not to" is incredibly tricky.

Determining what is consensual is incredibly difficult, as we see all the time in rape cases. But when there's no benefit to conversion therapy (there is no evidence that it works) and provable harms (self-harm and suicides are greater among LGBT people who have undergone it) an outright ban seems the simplest and most easily enforceable solution.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by sheldrake » Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:37 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:42 am
sheldrake wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:07 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 9:26 am


Fair enough, it isn't explicitly illegal. Perhaps better to say that its in a legal grey area due to it not being an officially recognized sport.
It's really not as 'grey' as people imagine. UK Barenuckle bouts have been show on cable TV and hosted at the O2.
I should have used a different term than 'bare knuckle fighting'.

If two people agree to have a fist fight then they have committed assault despite both having consented. See here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1981/1.html

There is though an exception for "properly conducted games and sports". Does bare knuckle fighting cross that threshold? I don't know and it might be an interesting case if it came to court.
This is way less hypothetical than the way you describe it. Tickets to barenuckle boxing matches are sold, quite publicly and legally, in the UK and bouts fought both here and in the US are shown on television
e.g.
https://ubkb.uk/
https://www.dazn.com/en-US/news/bare-kn ... flhor4h6zz

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Nov 01, 2021 12:27 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:15 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:51 am
As for the exception for people who give informed consent I think its something that it would be better to allow.
I have to disagree on this. From what I've read, a lot of this "informed consent" is actually coercion. In this regard I think it differs from alternative medicines, which are often taken without the knowledge or support of those around them, even if the levels of desperation are the same. Conversion therapy is very rarely something people decide to do by themselves - they are recommended it by friends, family or people in positions of authority such as religious leaders. The pressure this places on people not to let others down, particularly when they are coming from a genuine (if misplaced) position of concern and love, is immense. Parsing genuine "I do not want to be gay, please convert me to being straight" from "my family will ostracise me if I'm gay, please make me straight" to "my community really want me to try this and I can't find any more excuses not to" is incredibly tricky.
Those kind of situations situations are though ruled out by the consultation document (see the sections on consent and on coercion).
Fishnut wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:15 am
Determining what is consensual is incredibly difficult, as we see all the time in rape cases. But when there's no benefit to conversion therapy (there is no evidence that it works) and provable harms (self-harm and suicides are greater among LGBT people who have undergone it) an outright ban seems the simplest and most easily enforceable solution.
Yes, I agree, it would be difficult to prove a lack of informed consent (especially as this wouldn't occur is someone had been influenced by another).

I'm still rather nervous about banning conversations if the thresholds of informed consent have been met. You write above that people are trying to push an interpretation that would involve the proposals banning genuine therapy given to trans people (and presumably gay people as well). An outright ban might also be something that would assist that agenda if they were to declare gender affirming therapy to actually be conversion therapy.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Nov 01, 2021 12:28 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:37 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:42 am
sheldrake wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:07 am


It's really not as 'grey' as people imagine. UK Barenuckle bouts have been show on cable TV and hosted at the O2.
I should have used a different term than 'bare knuckle fighting'.

If two people agree to have a fist fight then they have committed assault despite both having consented. See here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1981/1.html

There is though an exception for "properly conducted games and sports". Does bare knuckle fighting cross that threshold? I don't know and it might be an interesting case if it came to court.
This is way less hypothetical than the way you describe it. Tickets to barenuckle boxing matches are sold, quite publicly and legally, in the UK and bouts fought both here and in the US are shown on television
e.g.
https://ubkb.uk/
https://www.dazn.com/en-US/news/bare-kn ... flhor4h6zz
Then perhaps it crosses the threshold of being an organized sport.

Post Reply