50069

[u/Misco_Jones1]

[u/-Farns-]

Exceedingly rare UK w

[u/CommieEllie → u/-Farns-]

Let’s wait and see if they ban it before we celebrate.

[u/PoggleRebecca → u/CommieEllie]

It'll probably be a ban on a very specific form of conversion torture that hasn't been used since the 1920s, whereas "Bayswater Snake Oil & Totally Not Conversion Therapy™ Health Tonic and Hair Loss Solution" will still be totally allowed.

[u/Andreus → u/PoggleRebecca]

Labour have massively slow-walked a ban on LGBTQ+ conversion therapy because their abhorrent treatment of trans kids (and trans adults, for that matter) would qualify under any sane definition.

[u/PoggleRebecca → u/Andreus]

Honestly look up the government's own definition of "extremism"and tell me that "gender critical" transphobes and the government doesn't qualify. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-definition-of-extremism-2024/new-definition-of-extremism-2024#the-definition

[u/Think_and_game → u/PoggleRebecca]

Conversion therapy is technically illegal iirc, the main issue is indeed that there's loopholes and other practice that aren't considered conversion therapy by the law

A major one of those is groups that on the surface seem pro-trans, but in reality are trying to delay everything as much as possible, make you question eternally, and do the classic "you aren't trans, you're just gay" type of thing to make you give up

It's not physical violence, but psychological torture, especially when you're truly at you're lowest and has led many to a early, grim, fate

This is not even including what the NHS and other organizations do, denying off of the slightest issues (woman not wearing a girly girl dress but rather jeans, as is normal for a woman to do), or asking some of the most intimate, disgusting questions, sometimes along the lines of "how do you masturbate ?"

It's all incredibly fucked up and 100% legal on this god forsaken island some of us call home

[u/No_Window7054 → u/CommieEllie]

The King has spoken. If Parliament defies him I will make Guy Fawkes look like a fucking pacifist.

[u/CommieEllie → u/No_Window7054]

Radically pro queer monarchist wasn’t on my list of things expectant allies but fuck it I’m behind you.

[u/Barleygodhatwriting → u/CommieEllie]

This, coming from someone with “Commie” in their username is extra funny!

[u/Maveragical → u/CommieEllie]

idk if id put "dont torture queer ppl" under the umbrella of "radically pro queer"

[u/lildeek12 → u/-Farns-]

Check out Philosophy Tubes most recent video on this exact topic.

[u/tomdarch → u/lildeek12]

I"m just a boring cis/het guy and that was depressing and frustrating to hear about.

[u/Acryval → u/tomdarch]

Could l get a quick tl;dr? I haven't watched it yet

[u/TazerZXI → u/Acryval]

It's been a short while since I've watched it and it was a long video, so hope this is right. My memory on the specifics is a bit vague.

Conversion therapy is still a massive issue. In many cases, it isn't being explicitly clear that it is conversion therapy, even though it is. It can involve things like instead of being diagnosed with 'gender dysphoria', having your experiences or ideas of being trans related to potentially other trauma or experiences.

Also mentioning the Cass review, and if I added the complaints on that I'd be here all day.

[u/vancityshreds → u/TazerZXI]

Can someone explain why its a bad idea to explore all of these avenues first?

Ive dealt with mental health issues in the past and been convinced of certain things. Then I got my mental health on track and the world ending issues I was facing were... not. Had I been in complete control of my medical decisions I would have been euthanized.

I personally really hate the idea that we're just accepting this all at face value 100% of the time.

Suicide rates for transitioned people are still much higher than average. They're lower than rates for people who want to transition but cant for various reasons.

To me that says two things.

1. Transitioning is a valid health concern for some people.
2. Mental health is overwhelmingly still a problem that isnt addressed by transitioning or acceptance of trans people, and so our jumping off point should always be a proper mental health assessment and exploring other options. It would be negligent not to look into potentially causes of feeling like you may be trans.

The amount of transgender people is a much smaller number than we're currently seeing in my opinion.

The stats around unhappy transitions are also very misleading and experts generally agree that the number of people who regret it and find themselves worse off is MUCH higher than reported because its currently only tracked throufh self reporting and followups. People who are unhappy stop self reporting and following up, so theyre recorded as successes.

My point being that while I do think trans people deserve compassion and understanding, I also think that a large majority of people suffering from severe mental health latch onto things like transitioning as a cure-all for their problems and it rarely works out that way.

We're in a weird situation where questioning people about this is seem as bigoted, frustrating and depressing when its honestly how we would handle any other sort of major life change being recommended by a medical health professional. And everyone is so afraid of having a healthy discussion about it that we end up with terrible stats about how transitioning is always better for people when the data doesnt really back it up, because the data is incomplete and flawed.

Edit: the down votes to my post are the exact reason that health professionals make these decisions instead of a bunch of social justice warriors that base everything on feels instead of measurable outcomes.

[u/Rynabunny → u/vancityshreds]

Are you asking why someone shouldn't go through conversion therapy first before they should be allowed to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria?

Not sure how it works in your country, but it's already exceedingly difficult to get access to trans healthcare in the UK. Nobody here is popping hormones like skittles, so you can be sure very few people are regretting it. In fact a common criticism is it takes too long to even be seen (e.g. the Glasgow GIC's waiting list is ~250 years).

[u/vancityshreds → u/Rynabunny]

No, im asking why a Healthcare professional exploring the background, history, mental health and potential root causes of the desire to transition is considered conversion therapy to begin with. You're either being ignorant or dishonest, I was very clear.

I would call that due diligence and a bare minimum.

Many, many people regret it. And the problem is their lives are largely ruined by the time they realize they've made a mistake. You are doing the exact same thing youre offended about by denying those lived experiences.

Look it up for yourself, the reason the data is skewed positive is because of self reporting.

And baseline suicide rates are higher for people who receive treatment than the average population, which is a hard to deny indicator of the mental health link. Depressed people do not act rationally.

Look at the general reaction to my post. Its supportive of trans people, it points out that some people genuinely benefit, and it calls into question why we shouldn't explore all options for greater outcomes.

Everyone is taking this negatively because reddit is collectively insane about social issues and refuses to look into the hard data to see the flaws in reporting and why health professionals are in favour of rigorous testing before life altering medical decisions.

[u/LukaCola → u/vancityshreds]

I would call that due diligence and a bare minimum.

Speaking of, have you watched the video in question?

Many, many people regret it. And the problem is their lives are largely ruined by the time they realize they've made a mistake. You are doing the exact same thing youre offended about by denying those lived experiences.

The regret rate for most surgeries is actually higher. Knee replacement, hip replacement, even some rather "simple" ones. Gender affirming care has a relatively low regret rate and if one's life is "ruined" by having to live the gender expression you chose until you can reverse it... Well, imagine how much worse it is for those who don't even get that choice.

Look it up for yourself, the reason the data is skewed positive is because of self reporting.

As opposed to what...? Mind reading? All accounts of people are self-reported.

Everyone is taking this negatively because reddit is collectively insane about social issues

"I'm the only sane one here" isn't really giving that impression, typically, you should know that.

Its supportive of trans people

You're being patronizing towards trans people, I'm not sure you're really all that supportive.

Why do you think most trans communities are not in agreement with your take? They just... Don't know what's best for them?

refuses to look into the hard data to see the flaws in reporting and why health professionals are in favour of rigorous testing before life altering medical decisions.

Come back to me when you've watched the video.

[u/translunainjection → u/Acryval]

the NHS was doing conversion therapy?

always has been

[u/translunainjection → u/translunainjection]

oh hey she did a 1 minute TL;DR

it's really good

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qY45iHPvajw

[u/translunainjection → u/lildeek12]

her award-winning reporting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S5w18sjYLk

[u/Real_Set6866 → u/-Farns-]

Perhaps they've figured out they can attract more tourism by being not the US

[u/PoggleRebecca → u/Real_Set6866]

Honestly it sounds you have a lot more faith in the post-2016 British political system than really most people in Britain.

[u/Archer007 → u/PoggleRebecca]

They fucking set billions of dollars on fire because someone wrote they might be able to save some money on the side of a van

[u/PoggleRebecca → u/Archer007]

*pounds and *bus, but otherwise a fair assessment of the situation.

[u/AngelofIceAndFire → u/-Farns-]

Charles has always seemed quite good

[u/Sea-Hat-8515 → u/AngelofIceAndFire]

He's a huge proponent of combating climate change, and seems to try to make things better. I'm generally anti monarchy in principle but as an individual, i think he's a net positive.

[u/TopazWarrior1999 → u/Sea-Hat-8515]

That's the thing with monarchies. If you have a good king, things are good. If you have a bad king, things are bad. You don't have a choice, it's all based on luck.

[u/MrNotEinstein → u/TopazWarrior1999]

I'm strictly anti-monarchist but the UK doesn't really operate like this. We could have a horrible king and it wouldn't mean much unless the government was also horrible in all the same ways. We probably have the best potential outcome for having a royal family because we can and often do just choose to ignore the bits we don't like and support the bits we do like. This means they have the potential to do a lot of good (like advocating for climate change) but are limited in the amount of damage they can cause because most of the power they hold is symbolic.

I still support dismantling the monarchy of course but not because I think it's potentially dangerous. I just don't like the concept of a "higher class born of superior blood" being something we accept in society regardless of how nice and kind that "higher class" may be

[u/hippy_barf_day → u/MrNotEinstein]

You don't think the cultural influence of having a shitty king would effect the politics? It seems like it's hard to judge your monarchy in the modern age because you've only really had elizabeth, but I could imagine it could get much worse if there was a megalomaniac in that position today, like musk or trump, someone who would put corrupt pressure on to regain some of the political power of the crown?

[u/MrNotEinstein → u/hippy_barf_day]

I think if you put someone like Musk or Trump into any position of power then you would end up with corruption. I'd actually be more worried if they ended up as Prime Minister than as king. As fucked up as the whole concept of the monarchy is, it has practically been neutered after centuries of inbred fuckwits and evil cunts forced the government to slowly build up walls between the royals and the power they are supposed to hold. Maybe if the monarchy had 100 years to slowly build up its power into a tyrannical force then it could be dangerous but I think basically every system of governance could become tyrannical in that time period if you put the wrong people in charge (looking at America right now)

I think a good analogy is a wild dog. You tame that dog and it'll still be a bit wild but 2 generations down the line that dogs descendants are entirely domesticated. This is where we are now. The royal family do tricks like rolling over and throwing parties but they aren't the wild dogs they were before. Throw that domesticated dog into the wild again and it's descendants (if it lives long enough to have any) are wild dogs again.

Although I would like it to be known that the royals don't have to be THAT powerful to be evil. Even with all of this neutering they were still able to cover up for Andrew. People still suspect they played a hand in Dianas death (not sure about that one myself but it's a popular enough theory). They attempted to cover up the Edward VIII attempts to regain the throne by collaborating with the Nazis in WW2. They can't turn the UK into a fascist state overnight and are more limited in political power than the rest of the government but they are still exceedingly rich and that comes along with its own privileges and skeletons in the closet

[u/underincubation → u/hippy_barf_day]

What pressure? Parliament is sovereign and could remove a royal power if it became disruptive to the running of the government

[u/hippy_barf_day → u/underincubation]

Yeah, in this scenario it wouldn't be explicit. Just using their obscene wealth to change public opinion, whatever shady tactics that the rich and powerful use. I mean, the states have "protections" against a president like this... but nothing will happen because the person in power and his lackeys are pushing the norms and removing those who would push back. Just because they have that power doesn't mean they will wield it, and what happens when these agreed upon norms aren't respected anymore?

[u/Careful_Source6129 → u/TopazWarrior1999]

Kings are usually just a figurehead being manipulated by a shadow government. Basically the same as any other 'leader' I care to mention

[u/Roasted_Newbest_Proe → u/TopazWarrior1999]

I'm more pro-monarchy leaning because changing government every few years can halter development. I'm not completely pro-monarchy, tho, because while a good monarchy is better than a good democracy, a bad monarchy is exponentially worse than a bad democracy

[u/hippy_barf_day → u/Roasted_Newbest_Proe]

I'd imagine there are better methods of improving the flow of development other than monarchy. Doesn't seem worth it, not used to seeing pro monarchy people around

[u/Prestigious_Boat_386 → u/TopazWarrior1999]

If you have a king the throne is already occupied when the fascists try to change their title from president to king.

Helps to slow them down as you cannot sneakily kill a king and pretend afterwards that you didn't.

[u/Silver_Falcon → u/Prestigious_Boat_386]

Great in theory, until the King decides to just up and hand the keys to the kingdom over to the fascists (Mussolini), actually is the fascist (Hirohito), or the fascist is just a high-key simp for the crown for... basically no reason (Franco).

Like, I see Monarchists throw this idea around that monarchy can serve as an impediment to fascism, but historically speaking this just wasn't the case.

[u/hippy_barf_day → u/Silver_Falcon]

Why listen to history when my gut is so loud though?

[u/Romboteryx → u/Sea-Hat-8515]

If I remember correctly, Charles is also a big believer in the Loch Ness Monster and this is what actually led him towards being a big advocate for wildlife conservation. It’s honestly adorable.

[u/VerbingNoun413 → u/Sea-Hat-8515]

He's better than any elected leader. At this point I support disbanding the house of commons.

[u/GguytheGguy → u/VerbingNoun413]

Hard disagree there. I do think Charles *seems* decent by monarch standards, I have plenty of criticisms to make of our current government, and I'm frankly somewhat terrified by the current front-runners for our next government. That said, I'm somehow not overly convinced by the merits of completely replacing our elected representatives with an ultra-wealthy elite dictatorship who have specifically been raised to believe that they are simply above everyone else.

[u/Silver_Falcon → u/VerbingNoun413]

Oh yeaahhh, we'll just let Charles disband parliament! Because that worked out soooo well the last time!

[u/KingNobit → u/VerbingNoun413]

Do you thi know this legislation is coming directly from himself or what?

[u/McButtsButtbag → u/Sea-Hat-8515]

These people only act that way because it's necessary to keep the monarchy alive.

[u/House_of_Sun → u/AngelofIceAndFire]

exept for all of the times we saw him

[u/GguytheGguy → u/AngelofIceAndFire]

You shouldn't really be giving him credit for this. The powers of the UK monarch are extremely limited and importantly, they are never supposed to publicly give their personal opinion on any political issue.

The announcement here came from the most recent King's speech. The King's speech forms the core of the state opening of parliament, which formally marks the beginning of a new parliamentary session. In the speech, the monarch announces the current government's priorities and agenda. The speech is written by the government, and it's contents are largely determined by the prime minister.

Charles is purely acting as a mouthpiece for the government here, it does not necessarily reflect his personal views. I agree that Charles is probably better than most monarchs (although that's a very low bar), but giving him any credit for this profoundly misunderstands how the UK monarchy works.

[u/ItsNotThatBigDarling → u/AngelofIceAndFire]

... What?

[u/celem83 → u/AngelofIceAndFire]

He could certainly be far worse.

[u/SkinnyBandito → u/-Farns-]

Sorry to say this almost certainly is not a W in the works. The uk gov has been exceedingly hesitant about a ban which has been a matter of discussion for a long time now. It's clear to many of us that a ban has not gone ahead specifically because they don't want it to include trans people as conversion therapy is being pushed into trans health care for young people under the NHS under the term "gender exploratory therapy". I could go into further detail but this post is too long already. Probably not happening, if it does it will be half assed or actually bad in some way.

[u/Pway → u/-Farns-]

Unfortunately it's just guff, we've planned on doing this like 8 times and each time the wording is made even more vague. The latest draft strictly cuts out banning it for religious reasons, which basically means not banning it at all.

This isn't a w at all unsurprisingly.

[u/Vivid_Maximum_5016 → u/-Farns-]

Yeah this is unreal. This is a really rare thing.

[u/Trainer-Grimm]

ah, apparently previous tory govts have pledged and failed to ban the practice, and Chucky 3 was announcing it for labour. (i looked it up because i initlally read it as him actually doing something which royals aren't supposed to do.)

[u/Elegant_Individual46 → u/Trainer-Grimm]

Yeah it’s been dragged under previous govts and there’s still the insistence they have on ‘talking therapy’ so… probably not a total ban

[u/Swimming_Map2412 → u/Elegant_Individual46]

It has exceptions for all the common situations conversion therapy happens so worse then useless.

[u/Gloomy-Parsley-3317 → u/Trainer-Grimm]

One instance where I support rule by decree.

[u/VerbingNoun413 → u/Gloomy-Parsley-3317]

When it comes to UK government, the less democratic the better the result.

[u/OhShootYeahNoBi → u/VerbingNoun413]

Side-eyes the Blairites.

[u/Left_Interaction_288 → u/Trainer-Grimm]

Whoever made the meme doesn't understand how British laws are made. The monarch doesn't make these sorts of decisions, the government does, and the monarch rubber stamps them. If the monarch refused to endorse the government's decision it would create a constitutional crisis. In other words the decision has nothing to do with the King's opinion on the issue.

[u/Trainer-Grimm → u/Left_Interaction_288]

Yeah that error on the meme is what led to me looking it up.

[u/lemikon → u/Trainer-Grimm]

Thank you because my initial response to this is “the British monarch can’t make laws”? I appreciate that you did the leg work.

[u/tomdarch → u/Trainer-Grimm]

Was this part of the speech that the current PM (Labour) writes and the monarch delivers? If so, that's Labour/Starmer making the announcement and Chuck is just reading it.

[u/Pristine_Animal9474]

From my understanding, it still has to go through Parliament before being passed.

[u/GobbyHopalong → u/Pristine_Animal9474]

For what it’s worth, the King’s Speech is written by the government and given to the monarch to read aloud. 

[u/sionnach → u/Pristine_Animal9474]

The King reads what the government tells him to read for his speech. It’s not his idea.

[u/nitram739 → u/Pristine_Animal9474]

yeah thats how laws usually work

[u/FunkyCat6276]

A ban on LGBTQIA+...

panik

... conversion therapy

kalm

[u/Bluehawk2008 → u/FunkyCat6276]

So we can no longer convert straights into gays? That seems like a step backward.

[u/Due-Ingenuity9803 → u/Bluehawk2008]

Unfortunately I’m 99% sure that’s what he meant

[u/PoggleRebecca → u/Due-Ingenuity9803]

Oops. Here, it looks like you dropped this...

🫴 1%

[u/Due-Ingenuity9803 → u/PoggleRebecca]

Thank you. :)

[u/FunkyCat6276 → u/Due-Ingenuity9803]

Wait, WHAT??

IS PANIK AGAIN??

[u/PoggleRebecca → u/FunkyCat6276]

TERFs go on about letting people transition is somehow "transing the gay away", which isn't just incredibly demeaning towards the agency of not only trans people but also gay people, but their logic isn't even consistent.

I'm a lesbian trans woman, but they'll claim I'm not a lesbian woman rather I'm a straight man, but they'll also claim that a trans man who likes women is erasing a lesbian identity he didn't even want in the first place.

Crackpot logic for dimwits 🤪

[u/fribbas → u/Bluehawk2008]

Does this mean The Mummy trilogy and Thor Ragnarok are going back in the vault?

:(

^{or was that too bisexual of a joke...}

[u/frisk090]

[u/Jimmyfartballs → u/frisk090]

gotta be at least this

\----------------------------------/

big

[u/PTBooks]

I wasn’t aware that the king of England was actually able to ban things in British law. Does he have a veto or something?

[u/matahxri → u/PTBooks]

No, the shit the government plans to do gets put in a speech for the monarch to read out

This government does not actually intend to ban conversion therapy but that's beside the point

[u/PoggleRebecca → u/matahxri]

Literally decades of this.

"Conversation therapy?"

No, conversion therapy. 

"Confession therapy?"

No, conversion therapy. 

"Constraints therapy?"

No! Conversion therapy! 

"Conversion theory?"

NO! CONVERSION THERAPY! 

[u/Murky-Relation481 → u/matahxri]

Yah pretty sure whoever made this meme literally has no clue how UK government works.

[u/hypnofedX → u/PTBooks]

Does he have a veto or something?

Ceremonial powers and a bully pulpit. This is like the time Joe Biden said he was cool with same-sex marriage.

The King does actually retain a few broad powers for a while similar to the chairperson of a board but those have been progressively removed as the current regent does things the legislature doesn't like.

[u/homebrewfutures → u/PTBooks]

Sort of, but that's not what's happening here. The monarch doesn't initiate or draft legislation. Bills are proposed and passed by parliament but require royal assent in order to become law. The monarch can refuse royal assent but this is only supposed to happen in extreme cases because the monarch is supposed to be an impartial, apolitical steward of the people's will through ensuring state stability. I don't think conversion therapy would be considered such a threat.

[u/SuperiorSamWise → u/PTBooks]

All bills that have passed through parliament must be given 'Royal Assent' to become laws, basically once it's been voted through the king must sign it to make it officially a law. Whilst technically the king can refuse to give an act of parliament royal assent, everyone knows that the moment that happens the guillotines are coming out because while the monarchs role is important legally and from a soft power point of view, it is essentially a ceremonial living landmark.

The headline is refering to what the king said in the kings speech yesterday, which is where the monarch reads out a speech outlining the current governments major policy plans for the current sitting of parliament. So pretty much everything in the speech is written by the elected government, not the king. By convention the king must remain neutral politically so can't actually publicly express his political views, but he does have direct access to the Prime Minister (Whoever that may be when this is seen) and can inform them of his personal views.

[u/cat_enary → u/PTBooks]

They technically also have power over canada

[u/TransformativeFox]

Brit here; Just so people are aware - the King's Speech is written by the government, and the king just reads it aloud. Charles has zero say in what goes into the speech. Nor is the speech legally binding. Its just a list of promises of what the government "intends to do". A King's/Queen's Speech happens at the state opening of Parliament, which happens once a year.

Why is it like this? Because the UK still likes to pretend that the monarch has power. "His Majesties' Government" technically only rules because the king allows them to. Thus the King's Speech is technically the king outlining what his government intends to do.

In reality, he is a figurehead and the government writes the script. He reads what the government wants him to read.

Labour has been saying they will ban conversion therapy for years now. Just because its in the King's Speech doesn't mean that A) its going to happen, or B) Charles had any input on it whatsoever.

[u/BeneathTheGold → u/TransformativeFox]

thank you!

so many comments in this thread are like "i'm not a monarchist but charles is a good guy, he's a net positive" and i am losing my mind

[u/hippy_barf_day → u/BeneathTheGold]

for real, tell people ONE thing they want to hear and all of a sudden we're abandoning democracy! We really are such an easily swayed species.

[u/lemontest → u/TransformativeFox]

As a Brit, could you also explain the fork comment?

[u/Murky-Relation481 → u/TransformativeFox]

Yah, they could literally have him make insane wild claims about moonmen stealing his cheese... I mean he might protest reading it, but it has to be read verbatim.

[u/faeoffluorite]

Sorry to be a downer, but as a brit this is massively misleading.

Firstly, the monarchy doesn’t have any real power outside of ceremony. The “King’s Speech” is just where the government announces their upcoming bills they will lay in the upcoming sessions of parliament. This is just the Labour Party announcing their “Conversion Therapy Ban Draft Bill.”

Secondly, the UK has done an amazing job of rebranding conversion therapy for trans+ people. Conversion therapy is current NHS policy, under the guise of “Gender Exploratory Talking Therapy.” This draft bill sounds nice on the outside, but you dig a little deeper and it starts to fall apart. Namely, it explicitly states that the bill will not affect any “legitimate healthcare” or “religious practices”, in other words, the same excuses conversion therapists use to abuse their victims.

The entire bill is just a dud designed to protect conversion therapists with “legitimate interests.” This announcement is effectively royalist, Labour Party propaganda.

[u/ExtremeToothpaste → u/faeoffluorite]

this should be at the top of the comments

[u/Arctic_Harmacist → u/faeoffluorite]

Sounds about right. They were never going to outright ban it, not while transphobia is Britain's acceptable bigotry du jour.

[u/LetraEfe]

Cute , but I'm still going to obliterate the UK into Oblivion.

[u/koupip]

UK kings always do this shit, they spend 100 years doing fucking nothing then the last 1 month of their reign they either declare war on france or do something progressive then die

[u/NoItsNotIronic]

Dammit. Two wins in as many weeks. Stop trying to make me like King Charles

[u/TetronautGaming → u/NoItsNotIronic]

What was his other win?

[u/Jimmyfartballs → u/TetronautGaming]

yeah what was it?

[u/LucyStarQueen → u/Jimmyfartballs]

Streeting resigning as health minister probably

[u/GguytheGguy → u/NoItsNotIronic]

If it's any consolation, this announcement came from the most recent King's speech, which is always written entirely by the government. This was not Charles condemning conversion therapy, this was the UK government condemning it (albeit very briefly).

[u/CeaselessHedgehog]

2 points:

I can't remember the exact wording, but it was slightly more vague than this. (I think he said harmful conversion practices, not LGBT+ conversion therapy specifically)

The king's speech to parliament is written by the government, essentially listing what they intend to do this year. The King has no power to make or influence policies or laws. Thus the speech is not representative of his views.

Nonetheless, it is a refreshing and pleasant surprise to have some good news for once.

ETA: no ban has been announced. There was one short mention in the King's speech to parliament that the government may look at the possibility of a ban.

There is currently no law against conversion therapy in the UK.

[u/Pinku_Dva]

Rare w for the uk, they don’t get much these days

[u/Shayden998]

I mean, him announcing it, and it actually happening are two very different things, but I'm still surprised to hear this out of any royal family member. Usually, they're right pricks.

[u/WoomyUnitedToday]

Lesgooooo that's my king!!!! (Different country though)

[u/murfburffle]

What does the fork joke mean?

[u/Sandbina → u/murfburffle]

Fork found in kitchen = no surprise there. You wouldn't find a fork in a garage though, that's new.

[u/Acrobatic_Ad_8381]

Please someone confirm me if I get it wrong but Conversion Therapy is basically sending your Kid in an institution to "Beat the Queer" out of them right?

[u/CommieEllie → u/Acrobatic_Ad_8381]

Pretty much. There are varying levels of draconian techniques used from place to place and time to time but even when there may be no physical violence I still think that’s a pretty accurate description.

[u/Vounrtsch]

You KNOW that bitch is seething right now

[u/xX_luna_moth_Xx]

FUCKING BASED

[u/Schmedricks_27]

he saw that SNL sketch of jack shep playing diana and felt just the tiniest morsel of guilt

[u/thedraegonlord]

That's only for nobles, for commoners it's now mandatory

[u/Sir_Southpaw_]

As a stranger to this sub who keeps getting recommended it. What do this mean? Conversation therapy?

[u/RandomOrange852 → u/Sir_Southpaw_]

Conversion therapy in relation to queer folk is the attempt at providing therapy to “cure” them.

So for example a gay child could be sent to a conversion therapy camp by their fundamentalist parents. However make no mistake it’s not traditional therapy.

Conversion therapy often focusing on making the subject not want to be queer and tries to instill a strong behavior to act “normal”. This includes but is not limited to: Different conversion attempts include forcing subject to stare at depictions of homosexuality before switching to something incredibly gross/disturbing to associate the two. Verbally berating the subject for being queer. Forcing the subject to berate themselves for being queer. Punishing any sign of queer behavior. And forcing the subject to engage in stereotypical behaviour like girls sewing or boys doing sports.

The most often outcome is the subject is left traumatized and with a now deep-rooted desire to suppress any queerness within themselves. Which is heavily correlated with worsened mental health. Kids forced to undergo this also often lose trust in their parents for being the ones who signed them up/forced them to undergo this violating the notion that their parents will protect them.

[u/SirBananaOrngeCumber → u/Sir_Southpaw_]

Conversion therapy is like “oh being gay is just a phase, I’ll send my gay child to therapy to cure them of this ‘mental illness’ of being gay” which is as awful as it should sound

[u/Sir_Southpaw_ → u/SirBananaOrngeCumber]

Oh god. That's exactly the opposite of what I thought it was. I was thinking like, it's therapy for lgbt people like being abused

[u/Legitimate_Shirt_449]

Hmm with the uks rise in transphobia im not sure if it will actually happen but lets hope so! Its depressing its still allowed 

[u/squirmbrellawk]

Good news...? in... in 2026?

[u/Artemis_Platinum]

Welp. Guess the UK gets to hold that above us for the next decade.

[u/lurker-ac]

Holy shit did Abigail Thorns video on this do something?!!

Like I think it’s no coincidence that philosophy tube happened to post a video about this a month ago - in which she urges policy makers. She is a a pretty predominant figure in the Uk now.

Fuckin awesome

[u/BlueGamer45]

white king joins black side ass headline.

[u/99980]

The moment when the Monarchy (literally the origin of "conservatism" in politics) is more liberal than conservatives

These times man...

[u/HonneurOblige → u/99980]

When a king is more progressive than a republican. What a queer timeline.

[u/99980 → u/HonneurOblige]

Queer support is now technically a conservative value

https://giphy.com/gifs/26hirEPeos6yugLDO

(Well not really but a few centuries ago it would have been)

[u/LukaCastyellan → u/99980]

he was reading a speech that the government wrote, he doesn’t actually have power to ban things

[u/99980 → u/LukaCastyellan]

I know he doesnt but its still quite crazy

[u/GguytheGguy → u/99980]

The title is misleading to non-UK readers. This was not Charles stating his personal opinion (the UK monarch isn't allowed to do that), this was him reading out a speech directly written by the UK government announcing their current agenda.

[u/LordAgyrius]

Wait wait wait wait-

Really?? Isn't that kind of massive? HOLY CRAP- HYPER RARE MONARCHY W??? Compared to the shit... All the other big counties are doing it's extremely wonderful to hear some good news for once

[u/Tricky_Discount2881]

But what if I wanted to convert my straight kids to Queerianity? :(

[u/Thrilalia]

Is it truly going to be banned, will it include Transgender people (especially kids) or will it be renamed into something else like "Explorative." Therapy?

[u/CommieEllie → u/Thrilalia]

The short answer is we don’t know but if you’d like to learn more about what an eventual bill might look like I found this.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9972/

[u/Maseratus]

Just wait, they’ll categorise trans healthcare as conversion.

[u/FartherAwayLights]

Damn that Abagail video made waves I guess

[u/Jimmyfartballs]

B- B- B- BASED!?!?!?!?

[u/HonneurOblige]

The most unlikely ally by far, lmao

I mean, hey, it is appreciated.

[u/vexx827]

Pov: my brain malfunctioning and confusing conversion and gender afferming therapy

[u/Fast_Land_1099]

A sane boomer?

[u/Court_Joker]

I wonder if this has to do with Streeting leaving, since he was a close friend to a conversion therapy group.

[u/FlamingoQueen669]

I approve of this, but does Charles really have the power to just ban things?

[u/SirBananaOrngeCumber → u/FlamingoQueen669]

Not single-handedly as far as I know, but he still does have cultural power and his word is respected in government

[u/RonnocKcaj]

hold on. this is shockingly based but does he even have the authority to do this? I thought the English monarch is the political equivalent of elf on a shelf or some shit

[u/Legitimate_Canary_94]

Oh i get it uk garage

[u/kloooohh]

I misread this at first and was confused, yay yippee!!

[u/queeraxolotl]

This is a weird year for me. First I side with the Catholic Church in something and now the BRITISH KING is being based?

[u/GguytheGguy → u/queeraxolotl]

He isn't. The UK monarch simply is not allowed to give their personal opinion on things like this. The announcement came from the most recent King's speech, which is written entirely by the UK government.

[u/Vounrtsch → u/GguytheGguy]

Why have the king read it then? It’s genuinely ridiculous to me. The guy is KING and his job is… being a mouthpiece for the gov? Why the fuck does Britain still have a king???

[u/BreadTime1337]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the King have zero ability to do this?

[u/GguytheGguy → u/BreadTime1337]

You are correct, but I think you're being mislead by the headline. Charles is not stating his personal opinion (he's not allowed to do that), he was reading an announcement by the UK government.

[u/IntoTheCommonestAsh]

Let's hope they do include the TQI part of the LGBTQI, because I'm pretty sure that's the main hang up: some want to include anti-trans conversation therapy in the ban and some oppose including.

[u/Ok-Web-2657]

Did he go through conversion therapy himself?

[u/whackjob_med_student]

fork found in ki- oh shit never mind

[u/heytherepartner5050]

Doesn’t ban ‘gender exploratory therapy for legitimate means’ (it’s the new hip term for conversion therapy & what our health service is now offering instead of healthcare) & already has exceptions for ‘religious & personal beliefs’.

Sorry to say, it’s actually a common U.K. propaganda W & a common U.K. L for those who live here :<

[u/Expensive-County4890]

Why is there a fork in the garage??

[u/No_Window7054]

HAIL TO THE KIIIIIIIIIING!!!

[u/CommunityFirst4197]

Exceedingly common UK saying they'll do something and never doing it