"'I am very conscious that this legislation is not a given . . . That’s why it’s so important that when we bring forward this proposal it’s clear, it’s watertight and we have the research to back it up.'"
"While the number of participants was relatively large, they were not a random sample of the overall national population so the results may not be representative...Any follow-up to this study should use a representative sampling approach to overcome these limitations."
Many see including "gender identity" in a ban on conversion therapy as a Trojan Horse to prevent health professionals from doing their job of counselling young people. Is "affirmation" of young people leading to hormones and surgery the real "conversion therapy"?
Statistics based on self-identified gender identity rather than sex are misleading and unreliable. By contrast a survey based on sex by the Red C polling company for the new grassroots women's group The Countess deserves far greater coverage by the media.
Why are politicians proposing a ban on conversion therapy which includes "gender identity?" Who stands to benefit if health professionals find themselves obliged to "affirm" a child's claimed gender identity and at what cost to children's lifelong health and happiness?
How does legislation get changed without the public knowing anything about it? Is it perhaps through EU legislation which well resourced lobbyists manage to get submissions in to in good time?
If the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth can't answer the question as to what evidence there is of "conversion therapy" taking place here, why do we need legislation to ban it?
The coalition government is planning to allow children 16+ to legally self-id their gender without the requirement for two specialist reports, examine arrangements for under 16s plus amend equality legislation which may adversely affect women and girls