What we learned from the Conversion Therapy debate

Principally, we learned that a vast number of MPs are pretty mediocre thinkers who are simply not listening to homosexuals on this issue, but some gains here nonetheless.

In a dispiriting display of mediocrity a small cube full of gender borg MPs descended to the Westminster Hall conversion therapy debate today to publicly ventilate a show of poor critical thinking, wild misinformation and morally bankrupt rhetorical appeals to emotion and authority. Plus ca change you might think, biology denial being a magnet for lightweights and those who make a habit of performance outrage, it’s no surprise really this sad affair was a hot ticket for the opposite of the great and the good. Banality incarnate (complete with more than a few crocodile tears) it may have been, but even at their most boring the gender borg often give themselves away, and there’s invariably some strategic gain from watching them flail around trying to discuss adult policy even among those who appear to write their speeches in crayon.

A part machine dangerous social force who believes in the mandatory conversion by assimilation of sentient beings into an army of mindless drones and also the Borg Queen from star trek

So, what did we learn? Well, the following so far as I’m concerned.

• Mike Freer MP (the minister for this area) told us the legislation won’t hit until September and the government is cooking up some fast track answer to the trans element of the policy in the meantime. Goodness only knows what the latter is but the former tells us we have some time at last to desperately attempt to educate Parliamentarians as to the fact that there is a dark joke at the country’s premier gender abattoir that “soon there will be no gay people left”. (That obvious tension from the introduction of Iranian style healthcare into this country was sadly lacking in this debate).

• Various cancel drones were unable to identify a single instance of “trans conversion therapy” but, significantly, all said their aim was not to criminalise talking therapies but instead to go after “quack pseudo therapists” who (in their fantasy world) apparently practice trans conversion therapy. This is an outrageous fiction of course, but it does demonstrate the borg are now ceding ground on not going after NHS staff. That is unlikely to go down well at Stonewall who are committed to bringing in an Iranian style gay conversion by gender via the “affirmation only” approach. Strategically, it seems to me, the borg should now be pressed for examples of precisely which “quack therapists” they have in mind. This is a weak spot where paucity of evidence will unravel the ludicrous claims made. Please also not this was repeated mantra like by many of the middling sort in attendance so it’s perfectly safe to conclude it originates from one of the indistinguishable institutionally homophobic and misogynist charities behind this.

• The laughably bad studies produced by biology denier amateur hour “social scientists” were common currency with the ludicrous claim that “trans people undergo or are offered conversion therapy is double the rate for gay people”. This lie has been repeatedly debunked by response after response but to the hard of thinking this easy reach stat seems to offer some supposed leverage in the debate. When one considers that proponents are unable to identify a coherent legal meaning for (i) trans or (ii) conversion therapy thereon the point is somewhat made but plainly this matter ought to command more of our attention given the virulence and spread of this lie.

Oldie but a goodie, this all comes from porn you know

• Much said to the effect that other countries have this legislation without a problem. For straight people unconcerned with Iranian style conversion by gender healthcare systems, I’m sure from their perspective there is “no problem” - it’s only gay kids after all. MPs plainly unfamiliar with evidence from clinicians in Australia and Canada (most predictably anonymous) about how they feel constrained and pressured to prescribe life changing medical pathways for fear of prosecution. Strategically note this is a defence line now being pursued and campaigners should look carefully for these foreign examples to combat this rather silly attack line.

• Much guff about “we will make sure the wording of the legislation is right” and “there is a clear need to act on this” without identifying (a) the proposed “right wording” or (b) why there is a “clear need”. Virtually no real adult understanding of what is actually going on at gender abattoirs or familiarity with the growing national scandal.

• “Non Binary conversion therapy” is, according to some MPs, apparent a sentence one can say without laughing or pausing to critically analyse it. The fact grown ups are uttering these words or supporting a campaign to ban “asexual conversion therapy” would be poor form even in a parliament of fools, but that didn’t stop the assembled drones, vichys and general whiners from using it. What is asexual conversion therapy anyway? Buying someone a drink? Winking? Nudging? Saying no more? Lunacy.

• The majority of contributions were delivered in a deeply irritating “heal the world”, faux emotionally exasperated, “this is shameful, that is an outrage” tone with predictably emotional and incoherent assertions taking the place of any real analysis. We had the roll call of the usual nonsense about the “most marginalised people on the planet”, suicide rates and the rest of it. Thus, the assembled low-performing MPs have shown themselves to be vulnerable to basic misinformation tactics and to be the sort that peddle in appeals to emotion over adult policy making. The tone policing was particularly obnoxious, such as was the case when the wonderful Jackie Doyle Price MP, speaking about the proven and evidenced correlation of taking on novel gender identities and autism was told she was being offensive by some forgettable Scottish MP.

• The shows of deference and apologia to a group inversely powerful to the description of how marginalised they are was off the charts. An early intervention to the badly dressed Tory Vichy who moved the motion regarding the monstering of Helen Joyce and Professor Stock was almost entirely ignored with many of these obviously captured MPs preferring to deal in infantile platitudes about vulnerability.

Sadly bloody accurate

• Very little mention of Stonewall. This is significant. Even C grade MPs now recognise this is a toxic brand and they preferred appeals to authority to be based on the Scottish EHRC and (much to my amusement) Churches (who of course have a FANTASTIC record on the whole conversion therapy thing). SW is now plainly viewed as a liability in public debate and while I have no doubt many of the low functioning MPs were reading SW briefing sheets, it’s fast becoming the charity that dare not speak it’s name. Good.

• Quite a lot in the debate to seriously irritate common or garden homosexuals such as myself from some not very serious man saying gay people owe their rights to those assuming gender identities, the “No T without LGB” homophobia of telling us gays how we are and are not permitted to politically organise and

So while the whole affair was deeply irritating and many a homosexual will have had fairly high blood pressure all afternoon, the debate in a wider context was really a rump of discontented gender borg MPs having an afternoon whinge and it’s important to recognise the government have seen sense on this issue.

The value of this debate, (as ever with such things), is to make a study of one’s opponents. Boring though it is to watch those who can’t or won’t fire their neurons, there are strategic gains here and clear indications as to how the forces of Iranian conversion by gender will make their next inept move.

Bring on it drones. We homosexuals are ready for you.