“Conversion Therapy”: Why is Ireland ignoring the experts?
By An Cailín Ciúin
We are very grateful to our Irish guest author for taking the time to write this piece.
Insulin comas. Lobotomies. Conversion Therapy. These forms of medical torture are the most shameful chapters in the history of medicine. Right?
Yet one of these is not like the others. “Conversion Therapy” is an oxymoron. If you’re seeking to convert a therapeutic client to anything, you are not conducting therapy. And across the Western World, clinicians, parents, detransitioners and even some politicians are raising the alarm about the way the term “Conversion Therapy” has morphed into something quite unrecognizable – and something that threatens the provision of good care for gender-questioning kids.
On the 9th of August 2021, the Irish Times published an article by clinicians voicing reasonable concerns that the current wording of The Prohibition of Conversion Therapies Bill 2018 could limit the ability of therapists to provide ethical psychotherapy for children with gender dysphoria.
In June 2020, the Anti Conversion Therapy Coalition (ACTC), a cross-party coalition activist group, met with Minister Roderic O’Gorman and Senator Fintan Warfield. Their reaction to the article was extreme: they tweeted that, “by publishing this article the Irish Times is using it’s platform to defend torture.” Along with other activist groups, the ACTC demanded an apology and retraction of the article, and have called for their supporters to boycott the Irish Times until their demands are met.
“Torture” is an extraordinarily strong word to use, in any context. But we’d like you to make up your own minds: read the article for yourself. See whether you think it is defending torture, and whether it is so egregious that the newspaper that published it deserves a boycott.
Minister O’Gorman responded to the article in the Irish Times in September 2021. The Minister did not directly address the key concerns about wording raised by the clinicians, but cited New Zealand as an example of good practice, saying New Zealand “demonstrates how a law can provide clear definitions both of what is covered by “conversion therapy”, but also what practices would fall outside that definition.”
So what does an example of good practice look like?
In September 2021, New Zealand held a public consultation inviting the public to “tell the Justice Committee what you think” about their conversion therapy bill. The consultation received a record-breaking 106,700 submissions, the highest number of submissions received for a public consultation for any piece of law in the New Zealand Parliament’s history. 3,400 of those who made written submissions asked to make an oral submission, and the New Zealand Justice committee held 18 oral hearings of evidence.
Stella O’Malley, Genspect’s Director, was one of the international experts who was asked to make an oral submission. Stella is an Irish psychotherapist who works with families who have been impacted by gender, and was named as one of the authors of the Irish Times article published in August. Here’s her testimony for you to watch yourself:
She emphasized the concerns raised in the Irish Times piece about the wording of legislation, and how it could negatively impact psychotherapy for children with gender dysphoria. You can also hear her speaking about this topic in an interview on Ireland’s Newstalk, with Sean Moncrieff, which raises many of the same issues that would later turn out to be relevant in the case of New Zealand.
Following a review of the written and oral submissions, the New Zealand Justice Committee introduced amendments to their conversion therapy legislation. These amendments included wording changes to address concerns raised about psychotherapy for children with gender dysphoria. On February 15th 2022, the New Zealand parliament passed that legislation.
Minister O’Gorman said in September 2021 that heated debates do not provide clarity for people who genuinely wish to gain a better understanding of the issues. So, who exactly is contributing the heat to this debate?
Is it experts voicing concerns which subsequently transpire to be both valid and good practice? Or is it others who appear to be either unwilling or unable to engage in any reasonable discussion on these issues?
It very much seems to be the latter – and it is alarming that they seem to be the only people the government is currently listening to.
Stella and other Irish clinicians have requested to meet with the Minister to discuss concerns about the Irish Bill have, to date, not been offered a meeting. It remains to be seen if the Minister actually intends to practice what he preaches, and do anything substantive to follow the example of good practice in new Zealand which he cited, or if those were just empty words.
Minister, if you are reading this – please do drop us a line.