Main Edition
US
FR
September 8, 2024 - 8:00am
Scotland has scrapped controversial plans to legislate for a ban on conversion therapy in favour of working collaboratively with the UK Government on its own proposals. This could signal the dawn of a new era of cooperation between the two governments — a move away from reflexive combativeness and a return to carefully considered legislation. It could also be nothing more than a tactical decision to abandon a practice of introducing contentious bills on social issues which has repeatedly caused the SNP more trouble than initially anticipated.
Earlier this year, the Scottish Government announced a consultation on draft legislation banning conversion practices, defined as attempts to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or their self-perception of their sexual orientation or gender identity. To some, this was a vital step towards a more tolerant society in which harmful and dangerous practices would be outlawed. To others, this was an ill-thought-through intervention into a fraught debate that would hang a sword of Damocles — in the form of a 7-year prison sentence — over the heads of therapists, and even parents, encouraging gender-distressed young people to think carefully before undergoing social or medical transition.
This proposed legislation should not be viewed in isolation. The last ten years have seen the Western world consumed by a “culture war” over gender identity issues. That label is often thrown around as a term of abuse to describe toxic sloganeering and inflammatory rhetoric pitting social groups against each other, but it can also be framed as a cultural conflict of ideas where some ideological groups attempt to impose their own worldview on mainstream society.
Now, it is not uncommon for those proposing controversial social and legal change, backed up by civil and sometimes criminal law sanctions for those who dissent, to portray all opposition as culture-war rhetoric. That might work as effective sloganeering on social media, but it has no place within a legislature. It is itself emblematic of a culture-war mindset that careful lawmakers tackling complex social issues should eschew.
What made the social-justice legislation introduced in the Scottish Parliament politically damaging was not so much its content — which was bound to provoke disagreement — but the rhetoric that came with it. Leading politicians would behave like petulant children, plugging their fingers in their ears and refusing to listen to anyone who raised concerns, even if they were respected medical professionals, lawyers, or human rights campaigners. All were dismissed as bigots or culture warriors.
Examples abound but one need look no further than the response to the Cass Review from some senior Greens in Scotland — the ones proposing and championing both this legislation and the intolerant way in which it was debated. Green co-leader Patrick Harvie refused to accept the Review’s findings, prioritising the views of activists within his party over the collective weight of four years of careful research and analysis by a world-leading paediatrician. Ross Greer, a senior Green MSP, amplified voices calling the Review a “transphobic and conservative document”. Whatever criticisms the review may be open to, it is shameful that politicians decrying culture-war rhetoric should encourage this kind of attack on the motives or character of a distinguished healthcare professional in doing her job.
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.
SubscribeThe SNP undoubtedly got high on their own supply of progressive self-righteousness, from which the come down has been deservedly horrible.
But it was also a deliberate political tactic to bait the Conservative government in Westminster and force Labour to choose between following the SNP into madness or be seen as siding with the nasty Tories.
I don’t believe this change of approach is much more than another political tactic. An attempt to take the focus off the SNP’s disastrous handling of these policy areas. I doubt it marks a genuine return to reality in respect of the leadership’s support for such policies as a “conversion ban” which in the hands of these ideologues will likely amount to forcing wider society to affirm the metaphysical fantasies of the mentally ill.
It would be very interesting if Michael Foran could write an article here summarising and exploring the various legal positions and arguments around this proposed legislation. His work explaining these issues is exemplary.
Perhaps they’ve realised that they simply can’t compete with Starmer on progressive self-righteousness (and who could ?) ! And they certainly need to position themselves as somehow different from Labour.
I suspect, like you, that the positioning is the more important factor than actual policy beliefs here.
Nailed it : “mentally ill”. End of.
I do take issue with the fact that self id consumes so much energy in our public life and discourse. We need to step back and take a long hard look at the issue and remind ourselves that it is complete nonsense, a fantastical notion that replaces cold hard reality with self serving invention.
A scatter diagram of particular identities v numbers adopting it would not require any great interpretive skills it would just be a single dense ‘blob’ of men identifying as women. As Julie Bindel pointed out recently, no one is identifying as disabled.
That we give it any credence at all is the mystery here. journalists and commentators express their sadness and plain exhaustion with the ‘toxic debate’ around the ‘culture wars’ as if the 2 sides are equally at fault and should just sit down and have a calm debate and compromise.
The only noise coming from women and their GC allies is a long scream that our institutions and commentariat take self id seriously and are allowing, once again, an assault to be mounted on women’s’ rights and protections.
‘As Julie Bindel pointed out recently, no one is identifying as disabled.’
Really? Lots of people like to have disability stickers so they can park in disability places.
A Guardian article said :-
‘Tom Marsland, the policy manager at the disability equality charity Scope, said: “It’s appalling that year after year blue badge crime seems to be flying under the radar. This has been going on for too long. Misusing a blue badge could mean you’re taking the parking space of a disabled person who truly needs it.
“Laws around blue badge misuse are pointless if they aren’t enforced.”’
Yes but they don’t claim the disability as being who they are. Obviously they do not let their disability define them. The blue badge is not tied up with their identity. It’s there so they can enjoy life, take part in the community, despite their disability.
“As Julie Bindel pointed out recently, no one is identifying as disabled.”
I greatly respect Bindel’s work in this area but I think she’s wrong on this point. This already happens in various ways: lots of us know people who spin minor ailments into “disabilities”, ringers in para-sports, people with dysphoria who want a limb cut off etc.
Given the chance there will always be people who will self-ID into any category where they perceive there is some reward for them. That reward might be money or prizes, social capital, a sense of relief from psychological distress and so on.
Self-ID inevitably undermines any category which is designed to protect or promote specific groups based on shared criteria.
I believe that amongst younger people at least it is more about girls wanting to be boys.
That is certainly a trend since the pandemic. But lets be honest the culture wars have never been about transmen.
It’s simple why so much energy is expended on it, upper middle class bureaucrats are looking to create more work for themselves in order to justify their employment by finding a problem to exploit by supposedly trying to fix a problem. Identitarianism and the problems it creates supports this goal, It not only that help some maintain their employment, It provides social and political prestige for themselves. It’s made worse by the fact that the upper class see this is a means both to get rich off of as well as denote social and moral legitimacy to themselves by being caring about the supposedly oppressed groups. There’s also the fact that they want to get rich off these people because they have such large amounts of disposable income and are very materialistic and want their slice of the pie, but also want to attract and retain these people because these beliefs are used the pander to them in order to attract and retain both their business and their employment. Not to say that all this is just cynical self-interest, these people also tend to believe all this stuff in both the classes mentioned, Even though they’re reasoning is an odd combination of genuine piety and cynical self-interest. On an existential level, these kind of beliefs provide a source of self-esteem and identity that these people often lack due to often being dissatisfied with there life. Money and material gane just don’t do it for them anymore and they’re looking for something to fill the void within themselves.
More likely, and worryingly, is that the SNP know that they can let the UK government bring in this mad and evil law.
I wouldn’t trust the SNP to be transparent about anything. Every time they say something we have to reach for the VERY small print and get an interpreter to understand it (or at least I need one)
As we have read (see Wings for details) their acceptance of the Cass review is anything but…
Again, as Wings pointed out, the more interesting aspect of the “pragmatic” decision is that it may bring the government down (not a big loss, if you ask me) if the greens vote down the budget as it has been anticipated and the wicked toooaaaries don’t support it.
I do hope that once the SNP is out there will be a very thorough purge in the civil service as well.
Unfortunately, Scottish Labour will get in. They’re marginally less bad and almost as woke. I’m nit convinced that any purge of the Civil Service will do anything other than install their own cronies.
Considering that a few of top civil servants might end up in jail, a purge might well be unavoidable.
Said that, as we know, if you are well connected you can get away with pretty much anything (see Massie’s article in The Times), so…
True enough. If a few of these scunners get the gaol, that’s something at least.
The shift in transition ideology from “possible problem” to “gender-affirming care” affects children most of all. Our National Post ran a story last week that shows how potentially damaging this can be.
“Ontario school hid girl’s transition, called CAS on parents questioning trans identity”
Canada’s noted gender therapist Dr Kenneth Zucker was hounded out of Canada’s leading gender clinic (Jordan Peterson wrote several articles about it) because his years of research and treatment of gender dysphoria in kids revealed over 85% of them were not actually interested in transitioning, but were dealing with other issues. That sort of “let’s talk about it first” approach is now called conversion therapy.
Ken Zucker was “hounded out” for fraud, not truth telling.
He’d claim he cured that 85% who he counted as “pretransgender” ( a term of his own solipsistic invention) even though near none of them ever met the criteria for recommended gender transition in the first place — most because they had no desire to do so. He wasn’t about “talking”; he was about running his fake “cured” numbers up.
Ken Zucker is a charlatan.
Swinney was an enthusiastic supporter of these policies, and a loyal toady to Nicola Sturgeon (the chief woke whipper). Has he seen the light, or is just treating the public in the way that politicians always do?
Michael Forman’s otherwise excellent article failed to mention that this totally unnecessary proposal could be used to harm the daily ministry of local churches and endanger the preaching of repentance which is basic Christian teaching.
This is still a live issue in England and now the wokes are in control with a huge majority (based on an even smaller vote share than Corbyn in 2019) it could become law. If you pray then pray that this gratuitous proposal turn to dust and ashes. There is already legislation to outlaw evil practice in this area. This proposal is a studied attempt by activists to strangle free speech and debate and force their views on the majority.
That would be turning away from reality, because conversion therapy has never worked. Whether trying to make gay/bi people straight or transgender people cisgender, it does not happen. This is true to the extent claims to the contrary by medical providers are fraud.