Who’s converting whom?

Wait a second. The Telegraph says Conversion therapy ban to be delayed but…

Rishi Sunak is expected to delay a promised ban on conversion therapy following disagreements over how the legislation should be worded.

‌Ministers said in the summer that a draft Bill banning people from trying to change a child’s gender identity or sexuality would be published by the end of the parliamentary session in November.

Wait. They’re calling it “conversion therapy” to try to change a child’s “gender identity”? But what do they think gender identity itself is???

Let’s be real. Gender idenniny is itself conversion. Why is it wicked and suspect to try to undo the original conversion of a child from its natal sex to a fictional “gender identity”? Why isn’t it the original conversion that’s the problem? If you don’t like conversion, why not start with the ur-conversion?

Serious question. Why is conversion from factual, born sex to imagined, artificial new “gender” a good thing while deconversion is a bad thing? Why is it better to be trans than not trans? Why is the first change glorious while a return to square one is wicked and to be forbidden by law? What is the thinking here?

The assumption seems to be that transing isn’t any kind of conversion or change, but that’s just nonsensical. If there is no change then the word “trans” doesn’t mean anything. They can’t have it both ways, or at least they shouldn’t be allowed to.

10 Responses to “Who’s converting whom?”