Why the Conversion Therapy Ban Must Be Stopped

When section 28 of the Local Government Act¹ was repealed, 안에 2003, we were told this was to prevent anti-gay bullying. Some of us warned that this wasn’t true. Section 28 was designed only to prevent the dissemination of materials intended to encourage LGBT behaviour: 그리고 not to obstruct efforts to encourage tolerance and understanding of sexual minorities. But we were ignored. The other day, a friend’s pre-teen daughter came home from school asking, “How do I know I am a girl?” But now, the UK government is about to criminalize any attempt to persuade young people away from a path into a homosexual or transgender lifestyle. An official ‘consultation’ ends on 4th February 2022: but the actual consultation text reads like a Stonewall manifesto and states categorically that, “The government will ban conversion therapy. There is no justification for these coercive and abhorrent practices and the evidence is clear that it does not work.” (Introduction, opening statement, emphasis mine.)

Don’t get me wrong. I was bullied as a ‘cissy’ (and later a ‘homo’) throughout my early years. I understand what it feels like to want to be ‘normal;’ yet find oneself utterly unable to change direction and end up contemplating suicide. 아직, for me, everything changed shortly after I became a Christian at 14. I discovered that God’s love was more powerful than sexual compulsions; and today I am a very happily married grandfather! But if I had been exposed to the constant barrage of LGBT propaganda that is being pumped into our schools and youth media today I very much doubt if I could have held out against the tide long enough to discover my true identity.

Which brings me to my first, and most important, reason why this consultation should be scrapped…

The Deeper You Go, the Harder it is to Get Out.

My own experience prior to my conversion never took me further than self-experimentation: yet I was heavily addicted and convinced there was nothing I could do to break this. 하지만, to my astonishment, it only took one desperate prayer, when I was at rock bottom, to shatter the hold this had on me. 하나, my comprehension of sex and love was so messed up that it took 4 years of total abstinence before I was sufficiently healed even to think about the possibility of a normal sexual relationship.

If the government had its way, I would instead have been forced to continue deeper into a homosexual or transgender lifestyle for those 4 연령! How much harder do you think it would have been then?

LGBT Lifestyles Involve Far Greater Risks

It is frequently claimed that ‘conversion therapy’ must be banned because it is harmful; the most frequent allegation being that it increases the risk of suicide. The Coventry Report, commissioned by the government to support its consultation, makes much of a study claiming that suicidal thoughts amongst those who had ‘conversion therapy’ were twice as common as amongst those who had not.² (In fact, that study is fatally flawed; and re-evaluation of its mistaken assumptions actually suggests that even failed therapies normally result in some reduction of suicidal tendencies.³) But even if it had been true, how does this compare with the suicide risk from LGBT lifestyles? The most thorough examination of this question for LGB persons — an analysis of the US ‘Generations’ Study data⁴ conducted by pro-LGB researchers — concluded that the incidence of suicidal thoughts was over seven times greater than for non-LGB peers!⁵ Far worse — a Swedish study of actual suicides following sex reassignment surgery found the rate was nineteen times that of their non-LGBT peers!⁶

So why does the Consultation focus on banning ‘conversion therapy’ without ever mentioning the far greater risk posed by the promotion of LGBT materials in schools?

50 Years of Pro-LGBT Laws have Failed

하지만, even more revealing than simple suicide figures, the study cited at [5] above was designed to test the expectation that improvements to the social environment for LGB persons resulting from 50 years of legal reform would have resulted in an improvement in their quality of life. They did this by comparing the survey results for 3 different age ‘cohorts.’ But their conclusions were (emphasis mine):

“We found significant and impressive cohort differences in coming out milestones, with members of the younger cohort coming out much earlier than members of the two older cohorts. But we found no signs that the improved social environment attenuated their exposure to minority stressors—both distal stressors, such as violence and discrimination, and proximal stressors, such as internalized homophobia and expectations of rejection. Psychological distress and suicide behavior also were not improved, and indeed were worse for the younger than the older cohorts.”

“We found a clear disadvantage to the younger cohort that seems unique to sexual minority people. Research has also shown that no significant bias in reporting patterns to this scale could explain the pattern of our results.”

“Our findings are clearly inconsistent with the hypothesis.“

The researchers attempt to explain these findings by suggesting that they, “speak to the endurance of cultural ideologies such as homophobia and heterosexism and accompanying rejection of and violence toward sexual minorities.” But, whilst it is true that LGBT-inspired government interventions may well have induced a sense of public resentment in some quarters, in the main there is a greater sense of public tolerance than previously. It is high time we began to face the possibility that, in spite of social improvements and greatly improved medical care, many practising homosexuals have simply not found the fulfilment they were hoping for.

What is Really Going On?

The consultation claims that, “Our proposals are universal and protect everyone, whatever their sexual orientation and whether they are transgender or not.” 하지만 all of the research in it’s specially-commissioned paper, “Conversion therapy: an evidence assessment and qualitative study” (hereafter referred to as the “Coventry report”) is focussed on the following definition: “Evidence suggests that modern forms of conversion therapy are commonly based on a belief that same-sex sexual orientations and transgender identities are developmental disorders, addictions or spiritual problems.” (Coventry report, 1.2.1, “What forms does conversion therapy take?“) The consultation similarly states that “Legitimate talking therapies that support a person who is questioning if they are LGBT do not start from the basis that being LGBT is a defect or deficiency” (Background, 4th para. (#37), emphasis mine. Unravelling this obscure language, it again means that any therapy that doesn’t start from the assumption that LGBT behaviour is perfectly normal will be illegal.) There is absolutely no research or discussion of the possible implications and dangers of pro-LGBT indoctrination. 그래서, whilst this does not completely rule out the possibility that attempts to convert someone to an LGBT lifestyle might be liable to prosecution, it is very clear that the primary purpose of the proposed legislation is to criminalize any therapy which espouses the view that heterosexuality should be our normal, natural or default expectation for human sexual relationships.

If that were not bad enough, the government has deliberately sought to exaggerate and encourage prejudice against those who question LGBT dogma, especially by several times branding conversion therapy as “coercive and abhorrent” and seeking to associate it in people’s minds with practices such as state-sponsored use of drugs, aversion therapies, ECT, castration (and even ‘corrective’ rape) — all of which were, quite rightly, banned decades ago! Even the choice of the term, ‘conversion therapy’ appears deliberately intended to associate such practices with attempts to pressurise people into changing their religious beliefs. As Mike Freer MP, Minister for Equalities told the Women and Equalities Committee on 30 Nov 21, “I thought the consultation document was too soft. I felt it was not graphic enough. The danger with talking about talking therapy is that it all sounds a bit fluffy. Who can possibly object to talking therapy? I wanted it to be a bit more graphic.”

The primary target of this legislation is not physical acts: it is the beliefs that we encourage others to follow.

Why is This Happening?

Speaking from my own experience, as a youngster no-one ever told me that LGBT behaviour was abnormal. But it only takes a very basic understanding of sex and human biology to realize that our bodies are designed for heterosexual relationships. I felt no attraction towards girls; and I very much resented the compulsions that were driving me towards conduct that merely brought temporary relief before coming back stronger than ever. The result was, quite simply, a deep sense of shame; and I deeply resented — and vigorously denied — any insinuation that I was ‘queer,’ etc.. In many personal encounters and other occasions over the years I have seen the need to cover this inward sense of shame as a primary motivating factor in the gay community. The very meaning of this acronym (‘Good As You’) and the promotion of ‘Gay Pride’ events tell the same story. This is often referred to as ‘internalized homophobia’: but in practice, it is often not so much ‘internalized’ as ‘inward’ or even ‘instinctive.’ So for those who feel trapped in an LGBT lifestyle few things hurt as much as being reminded of those feelings of shame — especially if you’ve tried the ‘cure’ and it hasn’t worked.

Can ‘Conversion Therapy’ Work?

Again, from my own experience I can say that it does; and almost the only human help I had was from the minister who dared to point out the root of my own problem and encouraged me to pray. But I have to say that breaking out of a homosexual or transexual lifestyle is likely to be very difficult at times. The instinct for sex — any kind of sex — is very strong; and if a person is not convinced that life and love are about far more than mere sexual satisfaction they are unlikely to persist. I don’t have a ‘gay conversion’ ministry; in fact I’ve had more dealings with ex-drug addicts than ex-LGBT’s. But I have often told ex-addicts that breaking out of an LGBT lifestyle is more difficult than giving up drugs. A drug addict can choose to dump their drugs and avoid pushers: but an ex-LGBT always has to take their body with them. I have seen ex-addicts lapse back into both drug-taking or LGBT practices — some several times before finally breaking free. 그리고, 물론, I’ve met plenty who have yet to find freedom. 하지만, yes, it does work⁷; and I am so thankful to God for setting me free!

Good and Bad Therapy

For me, as with all the ex-LGBT folk known to me personally, the most important thing was coming to know that real love is not about sex. There was a God who loved me passionately just as I was, even though there were obviously things in my life that he wanted to change. Affirmation of a person’s intrinsic value as a human being is hugely important; and especially so to someone who is accustomed to living with shame. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that we must approve of all their actions or suggest that everything about their lives is ‘good.’ It is very easy to get the balance wrong and hurt or mislead rather than helping; which is why it is vitally important to compare different therapeutic methods and learn from their results.

Normally, this can be achieved by the free exchange of information, opinions and results between professional bodies. But in the case of sexual change therapy there is a glaring lack of experimental evidence. This is because, for many years, LGBT groups have focussed on discrediting and silencing those who claimed that change was possible. Almost no research was done that took account of the different counselling approaches and the motivations of those seeking therapy. Even the Generations survey merely distinguished between treatment from non-religious professionals and religious leaders and — critically — restricted its analysis to failed therapies by only including those who currently claimed to be LGB. 하지만, since 2015, when LGB lobbyists first persuaded the majority of professional counselling organisations to sign up to their recommended ‘Memorandum of Understanding’⁸, the situation has been far worse. Any therapist daring to challenge LGBT philosophy is now banned from professional practice, or even advertising their services. This has made thorough research impossible.

Groups of therapists who do not subscribe to the MoU do still exist, 물론, such as the International Federation for Therapeutic and Counselling Choice (iftcc); who recently held a scientific symposium in London, exposing the glaring scientific flaws in the government’s Coventry report. The venue for this had to be kept secret until the last minute due to the risk of sabotage by LGBT activists: but recordings of the sessions can now be viewed 여기.

Since the introduction of the MoU, a further lobby-group inspired change has been made to it: which is now causing serious division between different LGB and LGBT groups. For an detailed account of how all this has been brought about, despite of a lack of genuine scientific consensus, 보다 여기.

Certainly, there have been cases where therapy has proved unhelpful; due sometimes to poor therapeutic practices, sometimes to a lack of understanding of the complexity of, and time required for, the healing process and sometimes lack of follow-up in the event of failure. 하지만, as Sullins’ analysis showed, even failed therapies generally resulted in reduced suicidality (possibly by confirming a person’s conviction about their true identity). There are strong grounds for recommending more thorough research to establish the most appropriate and productive counselling methods in any given circumstance and for seeking to ensure that participants are properly informed of the potential for both success and failure of any treatment. There should be provision for civil, or even criminal, penalties if people misrepresent the services they offer, or for compensation in case of accident or neglect; so there is a good case for establishing an open and accountable regulatory framework. Back-street therapies can only increase the risk of accidents. The government proposals will have the effect of preventing us from learning the facts before it is too late.

Should Children be encouraged into LGBT lifestyles?

The Memorandum of Understanding seeks to ban any therapy that “demonstrates an assumption that any sexual orientation or gender identity is inherently preferable to any other.” Yet the scientific evidence is clear that the human genome is naturally configured to favour heterosexual relationships. Under all normal conditions, humans have either an XY or XX chromosome combination, resulting in male or female body patterns, respectively. Thus, physical sex is normally fixed at birth: but exceptional circumstances, especially during gestation and puberty, can sometimes lead to expression of physical characteristics of the opposite sex or suppression of normal characteristics. These physical intersex conditions are rare⁹, usually disadvantageous, and may require corrective medication or surgery; making it entirely reasonable to describe them as defects or deficiencies.

Particularly during puberty, it is quite normal for children to question why they were born male or female. Research indicates that some 60-70% do so to some degree: but the vast majority will have a normally-functioning male or female body; and will have come to accept this by their early 20’s, without any therapeutic intervention. 하나, puberty is also the period when any less obvious physical intersex conditions are likely to manifest: so it is important that professional screening services are available if this is suspected.

Apart from the primary sexual characteristics of male and female, our genes endow us with an immense variety of secondary characteristics, including minor permutations of body shape and colour, major variations in height, weight and strength, acuity of senses, mental abilities and even ‘instinctive’ behaviours. There is also evidence that some secondary sex-related characteristics are associated with genes which do not necessarily reside in the X or Y chromosomes. Some of these may affect characteristics, such as the ‘thrust’ reflex, which have some effect on sexual behaviour and experience. And there are many other human characteristics, such as the propensity for risk-taking, aggressive behaviour, empathy, etc., which are more commonly associated with one sex than the other and probably have a genetic component.

The result is a broad spectrum of genetically-related characteristics ranging from ‘effeminate’ males to ‘butch’ females. These kind of variations are commonplace and perfectly normal: but excessive cultural stereotyping can result in stigmatization of those with a combination of secondary characteristics that is more typical of the opposite sex and lead to questioning of that person’s ‘real’ gender. To this extent, LGBT objections to sexual stereotyping are not without appreciable justification. But there is no evidence of there being any ‘gay genes.’ None of the known genetic variations, apart from the XY chromosomes, have ever been shown to be reliable indicators of sexual orientation. Even in the case of genetically identical twins, if one decides to change sex, the chances of the other doing so are less than 1 안에 3.

This is because what makes humans unique as a species is our adaptability. We are aware of ourselves, of others, our environment and the effect we can have on it; to the extent that we can even override our natural instincts when necessary and seek out means of exploiting or compensating for our natural strengths and weaknesses. 그리고, as we grow, we are not merely shaped by our genes and circumstances; we come to realize that our lives are often shaped far more profoundly by our choices and by what we believe to be true.

In this connection, it is important to acknowledge the effect of upbringing, particularly the importance of parental neglect, trauma and sexual abuse. A child will react to such circumstances, seeking comfort, affection and acknowledgement; and this can easily lead to the establishment of habit patterns and beliefs that may cause long-term distortion of the child’s natural sexual inclinations.

The consequences of persuading a sexually healthy child to believe that they should transition to the other sex are catastrophic. It involves permanent sterility, the destruction of healthy organs and their replacement with substitutes that can never truly emulate the physical experience of having a body of the opposite sex. No wonder the suicide rate is so shockingly high! If any form of conversion therapy should be made illegal, this would be it!

What of homosexuality? This is a much more difficult issue to resolve; as it depends very much on what a person believes about themself. Many people inclining towards homosexuality struggle with feelings of shame because they can see that it is contrary to their natural design. They can then be easily enticed by the “I’m OK – I’m just in the wrong body” philosophy of transgender extremists. Or, if someone believes their life to be the result of blind chance, they might simply choose whatever option gives them the most physical pleasure. But if someone believes that their physical form is meant to reflect God’s purpose for their life: then it is necessary to start asking some much deeper questions about the relationship between real love and sexual attraction (보다 사랑의 목적.) But for now I’ll simply repeat that, if someone wants to break free from sexual compulsions, they first need to discover the difference between sexual and divine love: and that God loves them passionately, even with all their faults!

A Human Rights Nightmare

The government claims that its proposals respect human rights. In reality, they are a human rights nightmare…

Rights of the Child

The consultation cites the Equality Act 2010, which deals only with the rights of adults: but children’s rights are legally protected under both the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The government’s declared intention to ban all conversion therapy for under-18s has the potential, depending on circumstances, to violate any or all of the following UN articles: 3 – the child’s best interests, 5 – respect for parental rights and family life, 12 – self-determination, 13 – freedom of expression and access to information, 14 – freedom of thought and religion, 24 – health, 37 – cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and 39 – recovery from abuse. The government is attempting to usurp these rights by setting itself up as the sole judge of what is in the child’s best interests.

Moreover, if the government thinks that its policy is consistent with the ECHR, then it should consider that its proposal is in direct opposition to the more scientifically-oriented policy of Finland, which states that, “Treatment should aim to reduce or resolve gender dysphoria by aiming to reduce or resolve predisposing disorders, and not change bodies until psychologically treated and 25 years old.”

Freedom of Religion and Conscience.

The blanket nature of the proposed ‘talking therapy’ ban, impacts on anyone who in any way dares to speak out or advise against the prevalent LGBT theories of sexuality, whether for religious, moral or intellectual reasons. Assurances to the contrary have little value, given the known determination of LGBT extremists to harrass those with whom they disagree by legal suits, threats, censorship, etc., regardless of the legal validity of their claims. Not only so; but specific attempts to ban prayer ministry – and any attempt to attribute sexual problems to spiritual causes – make this an open attack on freedom of religion and conscience. For a detailed response, signed by over 1,000 Christian ministers, 보다 여기. But note that similar considerations apply for many other religions and, indeed, to any who believe in the importance of moral foundations for a civilised society.

Sex and Sexual Orientation

The government’s proposals, whilst claiming to be even-handed, are anything but. They are focussed on promoting the rights of the LGBT minority (rights that most of us respect) at the expense of those who, in all good conscience and intention, disagree with these practices – and especially at the expense of that smaller minority who, having tasted the LGBT lifestyle, regret doing so and wish to abandon it.

This is simply not 정당성, responsible government 또는 respect for human rights; 그리고 I am prepared to face jail rather than submit to such a law.

Destroying Democracy

The most concerning feature of this entire, ongoing, attempt to ban ‘conversion therapy’ is the manner in which normal democratic processes have been hijacked by non-democratic and publicly-unaccountable pressure groups, such as Stonewall, Global Equality Caucus, 그리고 ILGA World. This is, 물론, not to suggest that such organisations do not have a right to be heard, and their views taken into account. But governments are supposed to be careful not to show undue bias towards one particular lobby group or another: and that is precisely what has been happening. Even the minister’s introduction to the consultation makes clear the immense importance the government is attaching to the forthcoming, ‘Safe to Be Me’ conference, to be chaired by Global Equality Caucus’ Nick Herbert (who has also been appointed by the PM as the UK’s Special Envoy on LGBT rights). Is it only coincidence that the conference is in June, 그리고 “It is the Government’s intention to deliver a ban as quickly as possible and we will be preparing a draft Bill for Spring 2022” ?

But the extent of Stonewall’s behind-the-scenes influence in manipulating government and public bodies is far more concerning. Following a number of expressions of concern about Stonewall’s unusual ability to influence public policy, BBC Radio Ulster’s ‘Nolan Investigates’ program launched an 18 month investigation resulting in a series of 11 podcasts, which may currently be accessed on BBC Sounds. The very even-handed but hard-hitting series examines how Stonewall’s multiple roles as lobby group, expert advisor and performance assessor have enabled it to significantly alter the policies of government departments, major employers and media (including the BBC) even beyond the existing scope of the law. Not only so; but Stonewall has profited massively from both government grants and charges for its services. It has also imposed gagging clauses on government bodies preventing them from informing the public of potentially ‘confidential’ advice that it has given! Following these revelations a number of these bodies have now left, or are considering leaving, its ‘Diversity Champions’ scheme.

On November 13th 2021 both the Times 그리고 Mail OnLine carried a report that Nikki da Costa, who in August resigned her position as Boris Johnson’s director of legislative affairs, had complained that, “A group of Boris Johnson’s most senior advisers are allowing government policy on trans rights to be dictated by Stonewall.” She claimed that “a powerful lobby in No 10” was undermining women’s rights, even to the extent of “deciding what Johnson saw in his red boxes and refusing to arrange meetings with people who would present opposing views.” The Mail quotes her as saying, ”There is no other organisation — no business, or charity, no matter how big — that can pick up the phone to a special adviser sitting outside Boris Johnson’s office and get that person to speak directly to the prime minister.” “But that is the kind of access that Stonewall has.” Most recently, on 6th January 2022, the Telegraph has reported that Stonewall “received £1.25 million in taxpayer-funded grants in the past 18 months”, plus “more than a million pounds a year that the charity has been receiving from public bodies” for membership of its ‘Diversity Champions’ programme.

This Wasn’t (and Still Isn’t) a Genuine Consultation

On 30 Nov 21, when asked why the consultation period was initially so short, Mr Freer, who as Minister for Equalities is currently running this consultation, told the Women and Equalities Committee, “Frankly, because it is about ‘how’, not ‘if’. Most Government consultations will start off from the premise: ‘Should we do this? What are your views?’ That decision has been taken. We are proceeding with a ban on conversion therapy…” The chairwoman then asked, “Are you worried that some of the key stakeholders might miss out because the consultation process is short, or are you confident that they are all—” Mr Freer responded, “I am absolutely convinced that everybody who has a view to share has already got those views to share.” This, 물론, does not explain how those who had not seen the consultation questions in advance could prepare an adequate response in half the usual time, especially as news of the consultation had been buried in the pre-Christmas rush and speculations about Covid. At that point, the consultation was due to end in 4 날: 하지만, following a threat of Judicial Review by the rights group “Sex Matters”, this has been extended to 4th February ’22. But the government’s insistence that they will carry on regardless remains unchanged.

How Can We Halt this Juggernaut?

The government Petitions website allows any British citizen or UK resident with the support of 5 others to start a petition; provided that it conforms to the government’s eligibility rules, defined 여기. If the petition gets 10,000 signatures, the government will make a formal response. If it gets 100,000 signatures, it will be considered for debate in Parliament. 하나, it is important to understand that it is not permitted have more than one petition at any one time that makes the same or a similar request.

A petition to “Cancel plans to ban conversion therapy”already exists on the site, 여기“. But the wording failed to make clear the seriousness of the issue: and it received no publicity, gathering only 20 signatures in its first 3 months! This is decidedly strange, since there are a great many organisations and people expressing deep concern about the government’s intentions; but many are reluctant to sign this particular petition because it does not make its points in the way they would prefer. 하지만, after publicizing it to my personal friends, the number of signatures quadrupled in just 4 날! The petition’s wording cannot be changed now; but is not particularly important, as a petition cannot compel the government to do what is asked. But it can send a strong signal that this is a matter of considerable public concern; and the government needs to stop and review its proposals.

We have less than 2 weeks in which to take action to protect our children from further institutionalized abuse. The consultation ends on 4th February; and the government intends to push ahead with these radical Stonewall-style measures as quickly as possible after that. Therefore, I am asking all my friends and anyone else who shares my concern, to not only sign this petition themselves but to pass on this request to their own friends as a matter of urgency. Will you join with me in this? (N.B. To sign, you must be a UK citizen or resident. You will be asked to respond to a confirmation email: but your name will not be published.)

STOP PRESS! Over 2,500 ministers have previously signed a joint submission to the government consultation. Christian Concern are now asking all Christians to make their own submissions to the consultation, and to also add their names to the ministers’ letter. I would encourage you to also do both. This is not about who has the best petition: it is about doing all we reasonably can to protect our children and all our fundamental rights.

Footnotes

1. In the original draft of this article, this was erroneously referred to as the ‘Education Act.’ Section 28 was actually a clause of the Local Government Act which forbade (ㅏ) local authority-funded promotion of homosexuality and (비) teaching in maintained schools that promoted ‘the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’ (i.e. for the purpose of raising children).
2. “Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, Adverse Childhood Experiences, and Suicide Ideation and Attempt Among Sexual Minority Adults, United States, 2016–2018”, published online by American Journal of Public Health (AJPH), 10 유월 2020.
3. Sullins, Donald, Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) *REDUCE* Suicide: Correcting a False Research Narrative (March 16, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3729353 또는 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3729353.
4. “Generations. A study of the life and health of LGB people in a changing society”, an online resource by Ilan Meyer, et al., accessible at http://www.generations-study.com.
5. Meyer IH, Russell ST, Hammack PL, Frost DM, Wilson BDM (2021) “Minority stress, distress, and suicide attempts in three cohorts of sexual minority adults: A U.S. probability sample.” PLoS ONE 16(3):e0246827.
6. Dhejne C, Lichtenstein P, Boman M, Johansson ALV, Langstrom N, et al. (2011) “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.” PLoS ONE 6(2): e16885. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016885 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246827
7. “X-OUT-LOUD — Emerging Ex-LGBT Voices” Features 44 unique stories, ...에서 22 countries, of men and women leaving LGBT identities, published by Core Issues Trust, https://store.core-issues.org/product/x-out-loud-emerging-ex-lgbt-voices/.
8. The primary purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is, “the protection of the public through a commitment to ending the practice of ‘conversion therapy’ in the UK.” This is, “an umbrella term for a therapeutic approach, or any model or individual viewpoint that demonstrates an assumption that any sexual orientation or gender identity is inherently preferable to any other, and which attempts to bring about a change of sexual orientation or gender identity, or seeks to suppress an individual’s expression of sexual orientation or gender identity on that basis.” (MoU paras 1 & 2).
9. Genetically-induced homosexual or transgender tendencies are necessarily rare because the carriers of such genes do not normally reproduce.