By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Dutch parliament has recently voted to criminalize conversion therapy, which involves abusive practices aimed at changing someone’s gender identity or sexuality. This legislation passed after modifications to the initial draft, focusing on “systematic” and “intrusive” attempts to change someone’s identity, rather than general conversations. While LGBTQ+ groups celebrated this as a victory for freedom and equality, some parties expressed reservations due to concerns over the law’s scope. This action contrasts with the situation in the UK, where, despite repeated promises and public outcry, a ban on conversion therapy inclusive of trans people has yet to be enacted.
Read the original article here
The Dutch parliament’s recent move to criminalise gay conversion therapy feels like a breath of fresh air, doesn’t it? It’s a clear statement against a practice that’s been proven harmful and ineffective. And, frankly, it’s about time. It seems almost unbelievable that we’re still having to debate this in the 21st century, especially when the core issue is about basic human rights and well-being. Conversion therapy, in any form, is a form of emotional and psychological abuse.
The conversation inevitably drifts towards the UK, and the promises of a ban that have yet to materialize. It’s frustrating, isn’t it? I mean, one would think this would be a relatively straightforward issue to address. The fact that it’s still being debated, or worse, being used as a political football, is infuriating. I mean, what’s taking so long? The delay gives off this impression that it is not as bad as it actually is. It is an attack on the vulnerable.
Some might remember that there was a promise, maybe even a half-hearted attempt at a ban a few years back. Perhaps it was just the advertising that was affected? The whole situation underlines a bigger issue: the glacial pace at which some political processes move. We’re left wondering if this delay is because of some powerful, vested interests at play – perhaps donors who are invested in the practice or those with strong ideological opposition.
The broader context here is the slow creep of some troubling trends. When the focus is on the perceived sins of homosexuality instead of the well-being of children, something is fundamentally wrong. There is a disconnection in priorities, and people are being let down because of it. The shift in societal norms can leave you feeling like there is an intentional blind eye.
The conversation takes another turn, and we start to see how this situation relates to the trans community. I mean, we’re talking about potentially banning one harmful practice while simultaneously pushing trans healthcare into a system that can provide these practices to children. The very people who are supposed to be protecting the most vulnerable are, in a sense, creating this dichotomy. This is why, at times, it can be hard to tell who to trust, or which way to go.
Let’s just be clear: the problem isn’t merely a lack of action; it’s a complex web of interests, and those interests are sometimes playing politics. The Labour party, for example, is getting a bit of a reputation for being anti-Trans. The political machinations feel like the priority, and it is hard to ignore the political game being played.
It’s clear that the political landscape in the UK is a minefield. Parties are actively seeking to court right-wing voters. Banning conversion therapy might have been an easy win for them. And here, we see that the conversation about political direction is ongoing and the concerns around who is or isn’t on the right side of history. The fact that a member of “Sex Matters” is now the head of communications for the Labour Party is a startling choice, and it raises a lot of eyebrows. It does feel like the conversation surrounding this ban is not being prioritized, and that the community is being left behind.
The situation with the Cass review, which is now being provided to gender clinics, raises even more concerns. How can you provide millions in funding for things and services that go against the proposed agenda, or in this case, are a version of conversion therapy? And this is a part of the NHS? This is a very concerning development.
The involvement of groups like SEGM, which has been discredited in court, and the myth of “brains not developing until 25” are central arguments used in favour of such initiatives. This theory has been widely debunked, but continues to be used by some as the driving force behind policy. The same groups are lobbying the government and are making progress in the healthcare system.
The UK situation is not great, and the Cass review has been pushed at the cost of a long list of findings and planned changes. Labour is actively trying to find a way to court right-wing voters while alienating the very people they should be representing.
There is no way to get around it: This is a deeply troubling state of affairs. Groups, such as Sex Matters and Bayswater, are actively lobbying, the conversation around transgender rights is being driven by biased reports, and the NHS is seemingly moving in the opposite direction. The potential outcome would be incredibly harmful and irresponsible.