One of the most important reasons for research in medicine is to develop an ‘evidence base’ that will demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a medical intervention. The criteria required to satisfy an evidence base is well documented and understood.
To undertake an irreversible, sterilising hormonal and surgically mutilating procedure in an otherwise healthy child that is not evidence based is clearly a violation of the most basic medical principle.
Gender transition in children is not evidence based.
The Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2024 can be seen as employing a bait-and-switch tactic by conflating sexual orientation and gender identity, two distinct concepts that require separate consideration. Here’s how this tactic works within the context of the bill:
1. Bait: Protection of Sexual Orientation
The bill starts with the premise of protecting individuals from harmful conversion practices aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation—a long-established and widely condemned practice. Most professionals have rejected conversion therapy aimed at making someone heterosexual as unethical, dangerous, and psychologically damaging. Framing the bill in terms of protecting LGBTQIA+ individuals from these types of harmful practices is an effective way to garner public sympathy and support, as most people agree that a person’s sexual orientation should not be subject to coercive or abusive practices.
Sexual orientation refers to whom a person is romantically or sexually attracted to (e.g., heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual).
There is a long history of social and legal recognition of the harms done by attempts to forcibly change sexual orientation, providing a strong foundation for legislation aimed at stopping such practices.
2. Switch: Conflation with Gender Identity
Once the groundwork for protecting sexual orientation is laid, the bill expands its scope to include gender identity under the same umbrella, despite the fact that these are very different concepts. This is the switch: the bill moves from the widely accepted goal of protecting sexual orientation to the far more complex and contested issue of gender identity.
Gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of their gender (whether male, female, or something else), which may or may not align with their biological sex.
The treatment of gender dysphoria—especially in children and adolescents—is far more controversial and involves significant medical interventions, such as puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries, which carry long-term risks and consequences.
By bundling gender identity with sexual orientation, the bill makes it difficult for critics to oppose it without seeming to support harmful practices like conversion therapy. However, these are not the same issues. People who are gay or lesbian do not require lifelong medical treatments or surgeries simply because of their sexual orientation, while individuals with gender dysphoria may be pushed toward irreversible medical interventions. The underlying psychological, social, and biological factors differ between the two, and each requires distinct approaches.
3. The Consequence of Conflation: Suppression of Dissent on Gender Identity
By treating gender identity in the same way as sexual orientation, the bill discourages questioning or providing alternatives to gender-affirming treatments, effectively making any therapeutic approach that doesn’t affirm a young person's gender identity potentially illegal. This has several consequences:
Therapists and parents who want to explore non-medical avenues for children questioning their gender identity may be accused of engaging in "conversion practices," even if their goal is to avoid premature medicalisation rather than force a child into a specific gender role.
Critics of gender-affirming medical treatments—which are often irreversible—could be lumped in with those who historically engaged in abusive conversion therapies aimed at sexual orientation.
This conflation leads to a bait-and-switch scenario: public support for protecting individuals from sexual orientation conversion therapy is leveraged to push through legislation that also restricts the exploration of non-medical treatments for gender identity issues. The moral legitimacy of banning sexual orientation conversion therapy is extended to the much more contested and medically risky domain of gender identity treatments, creating a situation where even raising concerns about irreversible medical interventions can be cast as harmful or bigoted.
4. Why It’s Problematic
Different Solutions for Different Issues: While sexual orientation conversion therapy is about trying to change who someone loves, gender identity issues involve complex and sometimes life-altering medical decisions. By treating these two issues as the same, the bill may prevent the necessary, nuanced discussions about the risks of medical interventions for gender dysphoria.
Medicalisation of Children: The bill may lead to a rush to affirm gender identity through drugs and surgeries while suppressing alternatives. The stakes are higher when dealing with gender identity because the interventions are permanent, and many who transition may later regret the decision, as seen in the growing number of detransitioners.
Suppression of Freedom: The conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity under a single legislative framework could infringe on the rights of parents, therapists, and even individuals themselves to discuss gender identity freely and explore non-medical approaches without fear of legal consequences.
Conclusion
The bait-and-switch tactic in this bill uses the public’s broad agreement on the harms of sexual orientation conversion therapy to silence dissent on gender identity issues. By conflating these two distinct concepts, the bill discourages any exploration of alternatives to medical transition, leading to a potentially harmful pathway for children while shielding those who stand to benefit financially from such medicalisation.
Quite good with very valid points! However the above fails to incorporate the fact that the bill specifically states what is NOT conversion practice in Section 3 of the Bill which includes facilitating an individual's exploration of their gender identity by both health professionals and parents; and "genuinely advising an individual of the potential impacts of gender affirming medical treatment".
There is a tendency with theses ban bills to forget the exclusions! As the RANZCP's position statement #103 says "pyschotherapy is not conversion therapy" (issued Dec 2023).
I am not sure why ChatGTP missed Section 3. It is possible to ask it to rewrite what it has written and include a reference to Section 3. My main point that ChatGTP, if used wisely, can be a useful tool in the discussion of the gender industrial complex.
Bernard, would love it if you could do a dive into the way research is manipulated from the outset - the way this survey forces you to sort your answers at the end seems a bit dodgy.
---
Hi everyone, my name is Jonathan and I am PhD candidate with the School of Population Health at Curtin University in Western Australia.
We are pleased to announce that the Gender Journeys research project has been launched. This exciting new project explores the lived experiences of people in Australia regarding gender detransition, retransition, and reidentification.
The project and questionnaire have been designed over the past 12 months in consultation with our Advisory Group and input from members of the LGBTIQA+ community including trans and de/retrans community members. This project has been assessed and approved by the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC number = HRE2024-0245).
One of the most important reasons for research in medicine is to develop an ‘evidence base’ that will demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a medical intervention. The criteria required to satisfy an evidence base is well documented and understood.
To undertake an irreversible, sterilising hormonal and surgically mutilating procedure in an otherwise healthy child that is not evidence based is clearly a violation of the most basic medical principle.
Gender transition in children is not evidence based.
Not sure where to post this, but I have been experimenting with ChatGPT. This is some of what it it said about the 2024 SA Conversion Ban Bill.
=======================================================================
The Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2024 can be seen as employing a bait-and-switch tactic by conflating sexual orientation and gender identity, two distinct concepts that require separate consideration. Here’s how this tactic works within the context of the bill:
1. Bait: Protection of Sexual Orientation
The bill starts with the premise of protecting individuals from harmful conversion practices aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation—a long-established and widely condemned practice. Most professionals have rejected conversion therapy aimed at making someone heterosexual as unethical, dangerous, and psychologically damaging. Framing the bill in terms of protecting LGBTQIA+ individuals from these types of harmful practices is an effective way to garner public sympathy and support, as most people agree that a person’s sexual orientation should not be subject to coercive or abusive practices.
Sexual orientation refers to whom a person is romantically or sexually attracted to (e.g., heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual).
There is a long history of social and legal recognition of the harms done by attempts to forcibly change sexual orientation, providing a strong foundation for legislation aimed at stopping such practices.
2. Switch: Conflation with Gender Identity
Once the groundwork for protecting sexual orientation is laid, the bill expands its scope to include gender identity under the same umbrella, despite the fact that these are very different concepts. This is the switch: the bill moves from the widely accepted goal of protecting sexual orientation to the far more complex and contested issue of gender identity.
Gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of their gender (whether male, female, or something else), which may or may not align with their biological sex.
The treatment of gender dysphoria—especially in children and adolescents—is far more controversial and involves significant medical interventions, such as puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries, which carry long-term risks and consequences.
By bundling gender identity with sexual orientation, the bill makes it difficult for critics to oppose it without seeming to support harmful practices like conversion therapy. However, these are not the same issues. People who are gay or lesbian do not require lifelong medical treatments or surgeries simply because of their sexual orientation, while individuals with gender dysphoria may be pushed toward irreversible medical interventions. The underlying psychological, social, and biological factors differ between the two, and each requires distinct approaches.
3. The Consequence of Conflation: Suppression of Dissent on Gender Identity
By treating gender identity in the same way as sexual orientation, the bill discourages questioning or providing alternatives to gender-affirming treatments, effectively making any therapeutic approach that doesn’t affirm a young person's gender identity potentially illegal. This has several consequences:
Therapists and parents who want to explore non-medical avenues for children questioning their gender identity may be accused of engaging in "conversion practices," even if their goal is to avoid premature medicalisation rather than force a child into a specific gender role.
Critics of gender-affirming medical treatments—which are often irreversible—could be lumped in with those who historically engaged in abusive conversion therapies aimed at sexual orientation.
This conflation leads to a bait-and-switch scenario: public support for protecting individuals from sexual orientation conversion therapy is leveraged to push through legislation that also restricts the exploration of non-medical treatments for gender identity issues. The moral legitimacy of banning sexual orientation conversion therapy is extended to the much more contested and medically risky domain of gender identity treatments, creating a situation where even raising concerns about irreversible medical interventions can be cast as harmful or bigoted.
4. Why It’s Problematic
Different Solutions for Different Issues: While sexual orientation conversion therapy is about trying to change who someone loves, gender identity issues involve complex and sometimes life-altering medical decisions. By treating these two issues as the same, the bill may prevent the necessary, nuanced discussions about the risks of medical interventions for gender dysphoria.
Medicalisation of Children: The bill may lead to a rush to affirm gender identity through drugs and surgeries while suppressing alternatives. The stakes are higher when dealing with gender identity because the interventions are permanent, and many who transition may later regret the decision, as seen in the growing number of detransitioners.
Suppression of Freedom: The conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity under a single legislative framework could infringe on the rights of parents, therapists, and even individuals themselves to discuss gender identity freely and explore non-medical approaches without fear of legal consequences.
Conclusion
The bait-and-switch tactic in this bill uses the public’s broad agreement on the harms of sexual orientation conversion therapy to silence dissent on gender identity issues. By conflating these two distinct concepts, the bill discourages any exploration of alternatives to medical transition, leading to a potentially harmful pathway for children while shielding those who stand to benefit financially from such medicalisation.
Quite good with very valid points! However the above fails to incorporate the fact that the bill specifically states what is NOT conversion practice in Section 3 of the Bill which includes facilitating an individual's exploration of their gender identity by both health professionals and parents; and "genuinely advising an individual of the potential impacts of gender affirming medical treatment".
There is a tendency with theses ban bills to forget the exclusions! As the RANZCP's position statement #103 says "pyschotherapy is not conversion therapy" (issued Dec 2023).
I am not sure why ChatGTP missed Section 3. It is possible to ask it to rewrite what it has written and include a reference to Section 3. My main point that ChatGTP, if used wisely, can be a useful tool in the discussion of the gender industrial complex.
Bernard, would love it if you could do a dive into the way research is manipulated from the outset - the way this survey forces you to sort your answers at the end seems a bit dodgy.
---
Hi everyone, my name is Jonathan and I am PhD candidate with the School of Population Health at Curtin University in Western Australia.
We are pleased to announce that the Gender Journeys research project has been launched. This exciting new project explores the lived experiences of people in Australia regarding gender detransition, retransition, and reidentification.
The project and questionnaire have been designed over the past 12 months in consultation with our Advisory Group and input from members of the LGBTIQA+ community including trans and de/retrans community members. This project has been assessed and approved by the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC number = HRE2024-0245).
If you would like to participate in this project, please follow this link to complete the online questionnaire: https://curtin.au1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0CKC19v4thl1HSK?Q_CHL=qr
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to know more about the project - jonathan.oneill@postgrad.curtin.edu.au