by John Richards
A Conversion Therapy Prohibition bill has, belatedly, been introduced in the UK parliament. [You see it and its progress here. Ed.]
I expect, dear reader, we agree that Conversion so-called ‘Therapy’ is unscientific and harmful – there are many cases of suicide – an example is that of Alan Turing (medication rather than ‘counselling’).
Sexuality is natural in many forms and treatment intended to change orientation is inappropriate. Attempts by others to impose on individuals their ideas of what their non-evidential creator deity ‘approves of’ is heinous.
If we are in agreement about the general principle of the bill to prohibit ‘Conversion Therapy’, the issue might be the precise wording. As I see it, this is an example of the law, which we know is an ass (Dickens), encroaching upon medical affairs where case by case expert judgement is more appropriate than blanket ruling (just like the abortion issue). And, since Biology is the science of exceptions, nothing is cut and dried, so tolerance is the watchword.
It has been established that one of the few properly binary things in a universe of continua is: sex, where deviations from either possibility is around 0.2%.
Sexuality (how a person practises sex) is, of course, something else and I have no problem with people exercising their desires in any way that doesn’t harm others, especially others who cannot give consent.
Consequently, I am not in favour of hormone blocking therapies for gender reassignment purposes and I will bow to the medical experts for how this treatment is prescribed.
Writing laws about matters of this sort is fraught with problems…
You may have experience in this field – let me hear your views – please email email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org to leave a public comment.