Read on Twitter
forgive the screenshotting but it seems apparent to me that this is precisely where a robust health-professional regulatory approach, that this group has dismissed as unnecessary, is particularly important.
quick somewhat musing thread
quick somewhat musing thread
disclaimer/emphasiser, this is not in any way an attempt to play one group off against the other nor to minimise anyone's experience, merely an attempt to describe the state of play as I see it.
as it is, trans identity is pathologised and transition medicalised and gatekept(...)
as it is, trans identity is pathologised and transition medicalised and gatekept(...)
both in healthcare setting and in law, as well as in the broader societal conception. a trans person seeking to medically transition has to undergo psychological and other assessment, they may also interact with mental health services at higher rates.
accessing this care privately is relatively common due to waiting times in the NHS too. a child who comes out as trans may be taken to a psychologist. basically, there are a lot of touchpoints with services, related directly and indirectly to transition.
thus conversion therapy techniques (conduct that encourages/discourages behaviour or thinking related to identity, or that which seeks to alter identity) within healthcare settings are likely to be disproportionately incurred by trans people.
risks may also be elevated due to accessing care outwith the NHS, where there is generally not the same level of control/oversight as in public provision.
some of the relevant conduct here may be subtle, or even unintentional, and may not meet a criminal threshold that would(...)
some of the relevant conduct here may be subtle, or even unintentional, and may not meet a criminal threshold that would(...)
generally be considered to be a proportionate one to set (e.g. due to lack of provable intent/malic or whatever), and it may be appropriate to subject such spheres to specific regulatory action/rules in addition to criminal sanction where warranted. it would additionally (...)
ensure that the relevant professional is sanctioned or disqualified where their practice is considered to be inappropriate and/or coercive etc., without necessitating criminal prosecution to do so (in treating it as specific professional misconduct.)
further, such action may be quicker and have a higher likelihood of leading to some action being taken, rather than relying solely on criminal law.
I'm not trying to have a pop at the ECT group, I have no reason to do so and that is why I've not QT'ed them. but their position that Scotland can and ought to act with the powers that it has which, imo, gives the impression that they regard this as sufficient, is, imo, (...)
one that doesn't always account for nor explain the nuances of this. I do not mean to give the impression that they oppose a regulatory approach, they do not - but their position has frequently, to me, come across as dismissive here.
apologies if this thread causes any offence to anyone involved in this work. I don't mean to do that nor diminish the effort, but also wished to put across my view here. feel free to disagree, I may delete this anyway though.
cheers.
cheers.
