Main Edition
US
FR
July 23, 2024 - 1:00pm
Back in January, the Scottish government announced a consultation on draft legislation banning “conversion practices”. That is, attempts to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or their self-perception of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The initial response was mixed, with some praising this as a vital protection for LGBT people and others decrying it as an unnecessary intervention into a fraught space that may criminalise careful therapy for gender-distressed patients or land parents in prison for up to seven years.
As the months have gone on, particularly in light of the publication of the Cass Review in April, it has become increasingly clear that a careful, nuanced approach to this topic is essential.
This week it has been reported that Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney is poised to scrap the SNP proposal and work to support Labour’s legislation, announced in last week’s King’s Speech. This represents an opportunity to pull back from what has been described as an “extreme” approach and begin anew in cooperation with Keir Starmer’s ministry, conveniently shifting the bulk of the responsibility for getting the balance right away from the Scottish government.
Some parts of the SNP proposal weren’t controversial at all — in particular, the introduction of a requirement on courts to account for when an existing crime such as assault is motivated by an attempt to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. An attempt to “correctively rape” a lesbian is a crime, but only on account of the rape rather than the attempt to “correct” her homosexuality. Allowing for harsher sentences in cases such as this would be supported by plenty of Britons.
The problem is that the SNP proposals went much further, including the introduction of two new criminal offences of causing physical or psychological harm — including distress — with the intention of changing someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. These offences could come about either during the provision of services such as talking therapy or as part of a pattern of coercive behaviour. While there were some exceptions for sexual orientation in the context of a gender clinic, the same exception did not apply for gender identity.
It seems that the Scottish government was aware that an affirmative approach to gender identity could be classed as an attempt to change sexual orientation in some contexts. For example, vulnerable children struggling with both sexual orientation and gender identity may have internalised homophobia and therefore would prefer to be a straight boy rather than a lesbian girl. This has led to some staff in gender clinics commenting that at times gender identity affirmation “feels like conversion therapy for gay children”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI am not sure I follow the whole argument as I get lost amongst all the changes of sex and sexual orientation.
Two observation spring to mind, though:
Do we really need a new offense for this? Are other rapes less bad because they don’t try to correct you? This makes little sense to me.
Do we really need a “careful and nuanced approach to this topic“? Probably because the word “nuanced” is so overused to have become the go-to word when you want to sound clever and sympathetic, but I would have thought the best thing to do is to ditch all the gender woo and forget about it all. Is there a need to be nuanced? Is the offense of “corrective” rape an example of being nuanced?
I’d amend your last point to the effect that we’ve always needed a nuanced approach to the issue of sex and gender – especially gender – rather than requiring one in the light of the Cass Report.
In fact, that’s what we had before trans activists adopted a dogmatic stance, exclaiming “trans women are women” ad infinitum. They’re the ones who need to adopt nuance.
I agree. We need a nuanced approach on many, many issues. Everything is binary these days. You’re either with us or against us. We need a nuanced approach to climate change, immigration, racial equality, trans rights etc…
Yes, I came here to make the same point re corrective rape. It does sound like downgrading the awfulness of other rape crimes.
I’d add that corrective rape doesn’t stem from a serious intention to “convert” a lesbian to heterosexuality; rather, it’s just an excuse for men to rape women, no different from all the other excuses (“asking for it”, “shouldn’t have been out alone” etc)
Quite!
I think a corrective rape being treated as more serious is like hate crimes in America. For example, the three men who were found guilty of murdering a black man jogging through their white neighborhood received a harsher sentence because they killed the black man because he was black. A hate crime. A corrective rape happens because the woman is a lesbian.
Why is killing someone because he is black more serious than killing someone because you don’t like his face, or how he is dressed, or for any of a thousand other stupid reasons?
Exactly. If you murder someone because you’re a racist, you should get a higher sentence than if you murder them for some other ‘reason’? None of this makes any sense. Odd world.
There is an ever-growing cottage industry dedicated to treating certain groups of mascots of perpetually fragile flowers in constant need of helicopter parent attention. This creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop because when people get attention for a certain behavior, there will be more of that behavior.
Eventually, the Ls and Gs will figure out that they are fundamentally at odds with the rest of the alphabet, which is as hostile to homosexuals as it is to women of any orientation.
Nikki Hiltz, a transgender non-binary runner qualified for US Olympic team after winning the Women’s 1,500-meter race at trials over the weekend
87663375-13660579-image-a-4_1721735676445.jpg (634×423) (dailymail.co.uk)
He doesn’t even try to be like a woman.
.
I think American women will reject the misogynist Trump in favor of the patrons of this crap and elect the right president
All nonbinary men chose to participate in women’s sports, use the women’s restroom, etc. This way, they can live as men, and make women miserable.
Hang on, that *is* a woman.
Exactly. And a self-obsessed one too.
Exactly!
I’d be prepared to bet that this is an actual woman who has a narcissistic need for extra attention, amply provided for by the now terribly fashionable claim to ‘non binary’ status.
Exactly. Headlines should read ‘Delusional woman wins women’s race’. I must admit I’m getting weary with this nonsense.
The article states: ‘The SNP proposal had an explicit exemption to permit attempts to change sexual orientation in a gender clinic while making it a criminal offence to attempt to change actual or perceived gender identity.’ Can anyone point me to where in the proposal I might find that? If true (which I’m not inclined to doubt) it is absolutely shocking.
I thought exactly the same!
Logically, it would have to include such an exemption but it lays bare the scandal of ‘transing the gay away’ that the Tavistock whistleblowers highlighted.
Yes, it’s true. It was in both the original Bill & in the Act, despite sensible amendments that would have changed it. All were voted down. Holyrood was well and truly captured by the gender Borg.
Do you happen to know which clause in the act?
Government sanctioned Doubleplusthink.
Whilst some hideous conversion practices have gone on in the past, many of which were could have been tried under existing laws is there any evidence that they are continuing today in UK?
No.
Even the LGBTQ organisation asked to provide evidence for May’s government failed to come up with any concrete evidence other than one gay man who had undergone conversion practices in the 1970s.
This is just an opportunity to get ‘gender identity’ onto the statute books.
That’s exactly what I’ve been wondering too.
The question needs to be asked yet again: What rights don’t trans people have that the rest of the population does?
They want the right to have their self-diagnosed ‘gender dysphoria’ (read AGP fetish) affirmed & ‘treated’ by the NHS as a health issue. Thereafter they demand the ‘right’ to intimidate & bully women in toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, sports etc, which gives them ‘euphoria’ (read hard on) and after this they demand HRT (hormones that are in short enough supply for actual women who need them). Then it’s plastic surgery to add breasts, remove Adams apple etc. (Very very rare is the fetishist who removes anything else, ahem) Then they want their facial hair lasered off. All on the taxpayer. And what mugs are letting this happen? Oh yes, every organisation institution & government department. Bandwagon-jumpers & virus-signallers every one, & all infiltrated by these grotesques in the form of DIE – sorry DEI – ‘officers’.
How does anyone know what the various motivations for rape are? Rape is rape & it’s a heinous crime whatever the motivation. Unless the perpetrator admits it or was actually heard by witnesses professing a desire to ‘convert’ a lesbian by raping her, the motivation will always be unknown. It’s a violent sexual assault.
‘Conversion therapy’ – which was a barbaric practice that was used to ‘turn’ gay people straight has been illegal for decades. ‘Trans’ activists have revived the term entirely to protect their fetish. And no one is using conversion therapy – as it used to be – on children. The conversion therapy taking place right now is entirely by ‘trans’ activists who want very much for children to ‘be trans’. It affirms & validates them if children say it, which is why they’re all over the schools, convincing teachers that ‘sex is a spectrum’ (which is bollocks) & telling kids that they can be ‘born in the wrong body’ (which is also bollocks). Plus it also gives access to children for some pretty dodgy men – & that’s putting it mildly.
Gender stereotype non-conforming children are just that. True gender dysphoria is rare. But an adult man may now simply profess himself to ‘be a woman in a man’s body’ and bingo – he’s instantly affirmed. Just for wearing a dress & growing his hair. It’s a fetishist’s charter & an insult to all women.
The notion that motivation for a crime should be an input to the severity of the sentence is nonsensical. Particularly when the motivation is assumed rather than admitted.
Reading this makes my head spin.