Originally a comment by maddog on If they do not affirm.
The bill defines “conversion practice” as any conduct with the intention of causing the individual to have or not have (or to believe that they have or do not have) a particular sexual orientation or transgender identity.
If you look at it a certain way, the sex realists should not have anything to fear from this statute. The key thing to remember is that sex is different and separate from “gender” or “gender identity.” The genderists scream at us all the time that we’re the ones mixing everything up, when in fact they are the ones constantly and conveniently equivocating sex and gender.
Mostly, nobody is interested in gay conversion any more, except (1) the traditional religionists who think homosexuality is sinful, and (2) now, the transgenderists who are persuading gay kids that they are not really gay, but transgender, born in the wrong body.
The transgenderists had better watch out, lest conversion therapy charges be levelled against them, and prosecution brought by intervening busybodies.
Anyhow, on the “gay conversion” prong, the sex realists shouldn’t have anything to worry about, because we don’t care if someone is gay, and we are not interested in talking anyone into or out of being gay.
On the transgender prong, the sex realists also should generally not have anything to worry about, because, again, we don’t care about the fantasies in their heads. What we care about is the reality of sex. If we correctly-sex a transgender person, we don’t have any “intention of causing them to have or not have … a gender identity.” They can claim whatever gender identity they want. That’s not important to us. Sex is what is important in a lot of contexts, and we are only talking about sex. We are only guarding against people lying about their sex.
Having “G” gender identity does not give that person license to lie about their sex. That’s our issue, not whether or not someone claims a gender identity.
Leave a Reply