Should gay conversion therapy be banned in Ireland?

skooterblue2

KaneToad wrote: »

But then again I'm also puzzled about the popularity of the aforementioned chiropracty, reiki, accupuncture et al...

You should really check why those therapies are becoming so popular. Doctors are no better drug pushers. 7 minutes per patient is enough time to write a perscription for anti depressants. Any alternative practitioner will talk with you for atleast 45 minutes before engaging in treatment. Have you seen the court cases recently? Doctor put milton fluid on cancer patient growth? Radiographer xrays child 4 times in a row, German obstetrician had problems with registration in Germany, Sudanese doctor couldnt tell the difference between an ankle x ray and an elbow xray.

EdgeCase

The history of this stuff is absolutely grim and historically was about medicalising and treating homosexuality as a mental illness. It belongs In the annals of crimes against humanity. You're talking about a practice that has in the not very distant past included medical interventions with hormones, aversion 'therapies' that involved showing people homoerotic images and administering electric shocks, or the use of apomorphine to induce vomiting and nausea in an attempt to associate what should be pleasant or erotic imagery with pain or feeling sick.

There were reports circulating about a guy who'd been electric shocked repeatedly in 1998, so you're not talking about a hell of a long time ago.

Not only that but certainly into the 1960s and 70s ECT and even psychosurgery was used on gay people! 75 men in Germany ended up having Hypothalamotomies between 1962 and 1965.

If you go back before that you'd everything including lobotomies being carried out on homosexual 'patients'.

Take a look at what happened to Alan Turing in the 1950s where he was compelled by a court to take female hormones which caused him to develop breasts, put on weight and ultimately drove him to commit suicide. This was a man who was a marathon runner and had pretty much been the father of computer science and saved Britain from the nazis by cracking encryptions systems, yet he was treated like this.

This history of gay conversion therapy is absolutely awful stuff. The current counselling and religious approaches that have been popularised amongst the US far right religious fundamentalists and so on may seem a lot less extreme, but they're essentially still coming from the same notion that someone who's gay is 'disordered' and in need of repair. They're still attacking a very fundamental part of that person's very essence and they do serious damage.

There is a vast array of genuine, factual, university based research on how bad this history was in psychological and psychiatric journals, medical journals and various historical research documents.

It is not a subject to be treated lightly or for flippant discussion on boards.

This is horrific stuff that was done to people like me and I will absolutely not stand by while it's normalised on an Internet forum.

The history of gay rights is absolutely not something to be treated as flippantly as it has on this forum. People have been and continue to be tortured and killed because of their sexuality.

While I am not using Wiki as a source, go have a read through some of the many, many journal articles cited in this article if you want to see what this stuff comes from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m talking about conversion therapy which is the subject of the thread. I’d have thought that was obvious in a thread about the subject.

So your happy enough to have a facility for parents to send their children 'for counselling services' if they suspect they are gay.

Gay youths do not ordinarily need counselling for their sexuality but for the fear they feel in society for coming out. Not that that is as much a problem as it once was.

I need counselling for living my childhood and young adult years in an oppressive Catholic family/society for which I am still suffering the repercussions from. I am still not accepted in my immediate family to this day despite all the general social acceptance of homosexuality. It would be a bit hard for them to suddenly accept me when they spent their whole lives thinking they were better than me. I have 6 siblings and only my youngest sister ever talks to me, ever contacts me, and the rest get on with their dreary standard Catholic lives, have the house built, have the kids done, all good upstanding Catholic stuff. When the gay marriage ref came up not a single person in my family ever brought the subject up, not one, even the ones that can be bothered to speak with me.

TheChizler

jaxxx wrote: »

I find it somewhat concerning that the "No" percentage is so high... 1 on 5 think gay conversion therapy is ok? Pardon my French but what the actual duck?!

What poll asked people if they thought it was OK? The only one I can see is asking them whether or not they think it should be banned.

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

So your happy enough to have a facility for parents to send their children 'for counselling services' if they suspect they are gay.

Gay youths do not ordinarily need counselling for their sexuality but for the fear they feel in society for coming out. Not that that is as much a problem as it once was.

I need counselling for living my childhood and young adult years in an oppressive Catholic family/society for which I am still suffering the repercussions from. I am still not accepted in my immediate family to this day despite all the general social acceptance of homosexuality. It would be a bit hard for them to suddenly accept me when they spent their whole lives thinking they were better than me. I have 6 siblings and only my youngest sister ever talks to me, ever contacts me, and the rest get on with their dreary standard Catholic lives, have the house built, have the kids done, all good upstanding Catholic stuff. When the gay marriage ref came up not a single person in my family ever brought the subject up, not one, even the ones that can be bothered to speak with me.

I’m as happy about their existence as I am about the existence of abortion clinics.

However, I recognise that people have fundamental rights and freedoms and I’ve always been very consistent in that parental rights should supersede the authority of the State. I’ll often disagree with how parents choose to raise their children, but I recognise their fundamental right to do so, as does the Constitution.

The Constitution also recognises other fundamental rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the Family through marriage being the fundamental unit of Irish society which carries with it other fundamental rights with regards to parents and their children -


- The right of parents to be the main and natural educators of their children. The State must respect your right as parents to provide for the religious, moral, intellectual, physical and social education of your children. The State cannot oblige you to send your children to school or to any particular type of school but it may require that children receive a certain minimum education.

- The right to decide the religion of your children. The State cannot interfere with this right.


That being said, it does sound like you’d a shìtty childhood. Welcome to the club. I’ve been told I should avail of counselling, but I don’t feel I need it, I’m fine as I am, and counselling IMO is a largely ineffective therapy anyway as far as I’m concerned - all types and all methods of counselling. The only difference between counselling provided by quacks and licensed therapists is that therapists have a license.

stefanovich

jaxxx wrote: »

I find it somewhat concerning that the "No" percentage is so high... 1 on 5 think gay conversion therapy is ok? Pardon my French but what the actual duck?!

I would imagine that it is possible for some, who may have certain feelings, to also be disturbed by them and the best solution they could see is if they no longer had those feelings.

I think it is down to the individuals choice if they want conversion therapy or not.

Mrs Shuttleworth

I am absolutely horrified at some of the antidiluvian, bigoted comments on this thread.

I thought we had moved on from 1950s regressive Ireland, but obviously not.

If I want to avail of a specific therapy, as long as that therapy does not involve unapproved invasive treatment, I should have the right to do so.

My Body, My Choice.

uck51js9zml2yt

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I doubt it - it’s been proven that you can actually be born in the wrong body. It’s what we call being transgender.

Sexual orientation is different - my brother for example wasn’t born with the wrong orientation. He wasn’t supposed to be straight and ended up gay instead.

It’s not a choice and not something you can change.

Pseudo-science. Buy let's keep on saying it to everyone believes it !!





Absolute nonsense.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They can?

Your citation is a discussion on how people can be born with a genetic predisposition towards buying into religious nonsense. It is not - at all - evidence they are actually born religious. That is a different thing entirely and not at all supported by the text.

KaneToad wrote: »

Would you ban chiropractors?
What about accupuncture?
Reiki?
Or vitamin supplements?

Ultimately yes but not by merely singling them out and banning them by decree.

Rather what we need is a more general approach to validating any claims to the efficacy of treatments offered and ban anything that does not meet the criteria. Rather than simply getting uppity about a single treatment of some type and writing specific legislation to attack it - we would be better off with a more global approach to what people can offer under the guise of a treatment.

There is very little evidence of any kind supporting the efficacy of gay conversion - AA - Acupuncture - homeopathy and much much more. We can not fight a war against each and every one singly. So I think ultimately we need a better more general approach as to what people can sell and what claims they can make about what they sell.

nelly17

jaxxx wrote: »

I find it somewhat concerning that the "No" percentage is so high... 1 on 5 think gay conversion therapy is ok? Pardon my French but what the actual duck?!

Surprised by these numbers it would appear we are not quite the progressive society we like to pat our selves on the back so often for being.

EdgeCase

Well, it's 21% of those online who were attracted to read this thread. I wouldn't extrapolate that to mean anything about the Irish public.

TheChizler

nelly17 wrote: »

Surprised by these numbers it would appear we are not quite the progressive society we like to pat our selves on the back so often for being.

You know it's possible to believe that someone providing these services is lowlife scum, but disagree that it should be legally banned? It's not a sign of a progressive society to ban everything you dislike IMO.

EdgeCase

We ban plenty of dangerous practices.
Try wiring your own house or getting some randomer to do your has plumbing.

Drugs and medicines are highly regulated.

You can't go around calling yourself a medical doctor, a nurse, a psychologist, an electrical contractor etc etc if you're not.

In the food sector, you can't make ludicrous and unscientific claims on labeling or in advertising. You have to can't just make up any old recipe in your kitchen and start selling it. Your kitchen has to be complaint with health standards, your processes have to be safe, you have to have allergen information .... Loads of regulation.

There are loads and loads of areas of every society where we regulate things because they're harmful or dangerous.

Mrs Shuttleworth

EdgeCase wrote: »

We ban plenty of dangerous practices.
Try wiring your own house or getting some randomer to do your has plumbing.

Drugs and medicines are highly regulated.

You can't go around calling yourself a medical doctor, a nurse, a psychologist, an electrical contractor etc etc if you're not.

In the food sector, you can't make ludicrous and unscientific claims on labeling or in advertising. You have to can't just make up any old recipe in your kitchen and start selling it. Your kitchen has to be complaint with health standards, your processes have to be safe, you have to have allergen information .... Loads of regulation.

There are loads and loads of areas of every society where we regulate things because they're harmful or dangerous.

Your post makes no logical sense.

If an individual has a legal entitlement under Irish law (which they expressly do) to access services to change gender then they should also have the right to access services to change who they are sexually attracted to.

The ban you propose would also discriminate against transgender people, who may not wish to be the "gay" version of the gender they've just transitioned to if they found themselves as same post-transition.

gmisk

EdgeCase wrote: »

Well, it's 21% of those online who were attracted to read this thread. I wouldn't extrapolate that to mean anything about the Irish public.

Can you suggest some type of therapy to help with their attraction?

I believe gay conversion therapy is really dangerous, it is totally unregulated and should be banned in Ireland.

There is an excellent real life memoir about the topic called Boy Erased.

Plus I dont think even the idiots running these kind of services believe it works!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/25/david-matheson-former-gay-conversion-therapy-advocate-comes-out

PopePalpatine

jaxxx wrote: »

I find it somewhat concerning that the "No" percentage is so high... 1 on 5 think gay conversion therapy is ok? Pardon my French but what the actual duck?!

LoveBoats is one hell of a drug.

suicide_circus

what if a gay person wants this therapy?

Rory28

suicide_circus wrote: »

what if a gay person wants this therapy?

What if this therapy is forced on a kid?

suicide_circus

Rory28 wrote: »

What if this therapy is forced on a kid?

you first

EdgeCase

I don't know why I even bothered posting here. Homophobic circle jerk of a thread.

Apiarist

jaxxx wrote: »

I find it somewhat concerning that the "No" percentage is so high... 1 on 5 think gay conversion therapy is ok?

It is not ok, it is stupid and useless. Should we ban all stupid and useless things that we do not like? No. My view is that if an adult person wants to "convert", let them.

But it must be prohibited for anyone to send somebody else. Definitely parents must not send their children to be brainwashed.

gmisk

victor8600 wrote: »

It is not ok, it is stupid and useless. Should we ban all stupid and useless things that we do not like? No. My view is that if an adult person wants to "convert", let them.

But it must be prohibited for anyone to send somebody else. Definitely parents must not send their children to be brainwashed.

It is "stupid and useless" and the general consensus is it can be incredibly harmful to the individuals involved, why would you not want to ban it?

What good exactly can come from it?

suicide_circus

gmisk wrote: »

It is "stupid and useless" and the general consensus is it can be incredibly harmful to the individuals involved, why would you not want to ban it?

What good exactly can come from it?

It's down to what kind of laws you want. Do you want Mother state making all your decisions for you and interfering in your private life or do you take a more libertarian point of view and think adults should make their own decisions?

Rory28

suicide_circus wrote: »

you first

If a gay person want to stop being gay I would recommend going to a therapist. There are a lot more issues there than denial. I would still rather gay conversion therapy be banned but in a one on one with a shrink you can certainly give it a go.

Now what if by keeping these places open we give them an air of credibility? Now that it has publicized legal recognition it won't seem so extreme to send queer kids there. I mean they would only be trying to do whats best for the kid by breaking the flamboyant mannerisms he has so wheres the harm?

It is not something the modern world needs. If an adult wants to try and stop being gay he can go to a shrink.

suicide_circus

Rory28 wrote: »

It is not something the modern world needs. If an adult wants to try and stop being gay he can go to a shrink.

so you're not opposed to an adult making this decision but your rather they went to a psychiatrist. fair enough.

3DataModem

gmisk wrote: »

It is "stupid and useless" and the general consensus is it can be incredibly harmful to the individuals involved, why would you not want to ban it?

What good exactly can come from it?

For the same reason we don't ban smoking. Or parachute jumps. Or fortune telling. Or belly button piercing. Because the world is a place where lots of people want to do lots of irrational stuff that might be bad for them somehow.

I think banning mislabelling or advertising of any physical or psychological therapy as being 'medical' or 'evidence proven' is good.

I think banning things *just* because most people don't like it is bad.

gmisk

Rory28 wrote: »

If a gay person want to stop being gay I would recommend going to a therapist. There are a lot more issues there than denial. I would still rather gay conversion therapy be banned but in a one on one with a shrink you can certainly give it a go.

Now what if by keeping these places open we give them an air of credibility? Now that it has publicized legal recognition it won't seem so extreme to send queer kids there. I mean they would only be trying to do whats best for the kid by breaking the flamboyant mannerisms he has so wheres the harm?

It is not something the modern world needs. If an adult wants to try and stop being gay he can go to a shrink.

Totally agree with you here.


Gay conversion therapy is a pseudoscience, it is not the same thing as an adult talking one to one with a trained psychiatrist.

gmisk

3DataModem wrote: »

For the same reason we don't ban smoking. Or parachute jumps. Or fortune telling. Or belly button piercing. Because the world is a place where lots of people want to do lots of irrational stuff that might be bad for them somehow.

I think banning mislabelling or advertising of any physical or psychological therapy as being 'medical' or 'evidence proven' is good.

I think banning things *just* because most people don't like it is bad.

Gay conversion therapy is exactly that.....it is the perfect example of pseudoscience! You dont have to be trained in anything to try and "convert" someone.
There is no evidence it works, the evidence I have found points to the complete opposite it can be extremely harmful to the individuals involved.

Apiarist

gmisk wrote: »

What good exactly can come from it?

"Good" is subjective. What good is chewing tobacco? It is gross and harmful to your health.

Suppose there is a gay person who really wants to convince themselves that they are not gay. If they have "help" and really want to believe, they will "convert". A personal capability for self delusion is significant. They may actually believe into the "conversion".

From a rational point of view, this person made a stupid decision that probably cost them money, wasted their time and prevented them from finding a better life for themselves. But from their point of view, they have taken control of their life and did something "good".

gmisk

victor8600 wrote: »

"Good" is subjective. What good is chewing tobacco? It is gross and harmful to your health.

Suppose there is a gay person who really wants to convince themselves that they are not gay. If they have "help" and really want to believe, they will "convert". A personal capability for self delusion is significant. They may actually believe into the "conversion".

From a rational point of view, this person made a stupid decision that probably cost them money, wasted their time and prevented them from finding a better life for themselves. But from their point of view, they have taken control of their life and did something "good".

Maybe "good" was the wrong word but I think you know what I meant.

As was already said by another poster......the people performing these "conversions" are not trained psychologists, there is no real evidence that it works, in fact it points to the fact that it is extremely harmful and mentally damaging to the individuals involved.

If someone (over 18) wants to talk one to one on the topic with a trained psychologist that is a different matter.

The fact you liken it to chewing tobacco is bizarre.

Mrs Shuttleworth

EdgeCase wrote: »

I don't know why I even bothered posting here. Homophobic circle jerk of a thread.

Ah here now, take off your tin foil hat.

Rory28

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Ah here now, take off your tin foil hat.

In fairness we are talking about the idea that being gay is a choice. By its nature its homophobic as it makes it out that we chose to be gay. I don't think you are homophobic but this is a sensitive topic.

Apiarist

gmisk wrote: »

..the people performing these "conversions" are not trained psychologists, there is no real evidence that it works...

Here is where I must strongly disagree. I am against any such conversion, whether it is done by "trained psychologist" and regardless whether it works or not.

I find your question really troubling. First of all, there is nothing that prevents a "conversion therapist" from obtaining a degree in psychology. Then what? Would you bring your kid to be "converted" to a certified quack?

Now to the other part of you question. "No real evidence that [the conversion] works" -- I can tell you exactly how it works -- by duping a person into believing a lie.

gmisk wrote: »

The fact you liken it to chewing tobacco is bizarre.

Exactly. Chewing tobacco is a bizzarest thing, yet some people do it and it is not banned. Similarly if somebody personally want to "convert", they should be allowed even if it harms them.

gmisk

victor8600 wrote: »

Here is where I must strongly disagree. I am against any such conversion, whether it is done by "trained psychologist" and regardless whether it works or not.

I find your question really troubling. First of all, there is nothing that prevents a "conversion therapist" from obtaining a degree in psychology. Then what? Would you bring your kid to be "converted" to a certified quack?

Now to the other part of you question. "No real evidence that [the conversion] works" -- I can tell you exactly how it works -- by duping a person into believing a lie.

Exactly. Chewing tobacco is a bizzarest thing, yet some people do it and it is not banned. Similarly if somebody personally want to "convert", they should be allowed even if it harms them.

I think its best IMO to ban the whole thing as there is no regulation whatsoever for a start, it is total quackery and pseudoscience also what part of my response makes you think i would want kids to be "converted"?
Come on now.

I simply meant if an adult wants to discuss their sexuality one to one with a trained psychologist that might be the best way to go.

Mrs Shuttleworth

gmisk wrote: »

I think its best IMO to ban the whole thing as there is no regulation whatsoever for a start, it is total quackery and pseudoscience also what part of my response makes you think i would want kids to be "converted"?
Come on now.

I simply meant if an adult wants to discuss their sexuality one to one with a trained psychologist that might be the best way to go.

Well you see latest medical evidence suggests that sexuality is fluid and as not as permanently "hardwired" as much as one might think, look at the many middle aged women who leave marital relationships with men and enter lesbian relationships in later life.

Surely you're not suggesting they're all faking it?

gmisk

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Well you see latest medical evidence suggests that sexuality is fluid and as not as permanently "hardwired" as much as one might think, look at the many middle aged women who leave marital relationships with men and enter lesbian relationships in later life.

Surely you're not suggesting they're all faking it?

Of course I am :rolleyes:


Sexuality can of course be fluid, but it should be a persons own decision and process to decide what they are, but we are not talking about that in this thread.


That specific example you cite I am guessing some of those may have been people who preferred woman possibly but suppressed that feeling due to societal pressures etc, I have no idea, how would gay conversion therapy be relevant to people like that? Would gay conversion therapy mean they would still be sitting at home happy as larry with their husbands?

Mrs Shuttleworth

gmisk wrote: »

Of course I am :rolleyes:


Sexuality can of course be fluid, but it should be a persons own decision and process to decide what they are, but we are not talking about that in this thread.


That specific example you cite I am guessing some of those may have been people who preferred woman possibly but suppressed that feeling due to societal pressures etc, I have no idea, how would gay conversion therapy be relevant to people like that? Would gay conversion therapy mean they would still be sitting at home happy as larry with their husbands?

Well you see your argument totally falls down when viewed in light of current gender recognition legislation.

I was "born female", I didn't have a choice. But if I "want" to become a man the law expressly assists me to do so.

It seems very unfair therefore to say to a gay person, born that way with no choice in the matter, that if they "want" to become a heterosexual person the law will expressly forbid services that purport to assist in such attraction transition from being offered.

freshpopcorn

suicide_circus wrote: »

what if a gay person wants this therapy?

To be honest with you I don't know if it's easily accessed here. I know somebody who tried to find it a few years ago and they had no look.
They could only really find stuff in the USA.