I'd like to see what some of you guys see regarding this legal trend happening here in North America, not sure if anything similar is taking place in Europe or anywhere else around the world. So in the US, Democrat lawmakers are trying to get a nationwide ban on what is known as "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ youth under the age of 18. The practice is already banned in: California, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico and the District of Columbia. In Canada it's banned in my home province of Ontario as of 2015, I believe it's illegal in Manitoba, and of course the process is in motion to have it outlawed in other provinces as we speak. So what does it mean exactly? Well I'm sure we've heard of parents sending their kids to some kind of "pray the gay away" camps or whatever put on by some church. Personally, I think services like that to try to turn a gay person into a straight person by shaming them or whatever are pretty dumb. If an adult wants to go that route for themselves, let them, but a parent shouldn't be allowed to force their kid under 18 into that. So I'm in agreement with the law. But what does it mean in a trans context? Well here's where it gets interesting, and it's a genius way to play with language that I'm sure @IDL would appreciate: "conversion therapy" for a trans youth is treatment that looks to avoid beginning the transition process soon as possible - socializing as the opposite gender and starting the child on puberty blockers - and see if the child can become comfortable in their own skin and live as their birth sex. Proponents of this method point to the research that shows about 80% of trans children grow to be cis-gendered if given time to mature (most grow to be homosexual). After all we're talking about emotionally disturbed children who have yet to go through puberty yet. Since so much trans rhetoric these days throws the word "science" around, one wonders why it's so important that therapy for both homosexuality and transgenderism would be covered under the same legislation - obviously from a scientific standpoint these are 2 different things right? Anyway here's an article I found interesting on the subject: https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/1...ensnaring-transgender-children/#disqus_thread If you read that and follow the links, it paints a pretty disturbing picture. "Conversion therapy" for trans is demonized and outlawed while "gender affirmation" is not just considered the preferred treatment option by trans activists, it's the only legitimate one and if you disagree you have blood on your hands from all the trans people who commit suicide due to a society that doesn't accept them. But they're big on dogma but short on evidence: there's no data showing that trans kids who go through the affirmation process are less likely to kill themselves than those who don't. We know that kids often have body issues, especially little girls. Could a child going through some emotional issues become convinced that they're trans - especially in the face of a media push that lionizes transgender people, and an education system that gets children to start thinking about their gender identity (which they stress has nothing to do with biological sex) at a young age? So if a child then insists that they are actually born in the wrong body, is it really fair that the only therapy available should be to start treating them as the opposite sex and chemically delaying their puberty, with an eye to starting them on cross hormone drugs (thereby sterilizing them) when they reach 16? I personally don't agree with this. What do you guys say? Should "conversion therapy" be considered the same for transgenderism as it is for homosexuality? Should transgender issues really be handled under the same umbrella as those of homosexuality in general? And should left-of-centre political parties (Liberals and Democrats here in North America) try to untangle themselves from the trans advocacy movement or should they stay the course?