The call for a formal government consultation
In autumn 2021, the UK Government opened a formal consultation, entitled “Banning Conversion Therapy”. The University’s LGBT+ Staff Community asked the Vice Chancellor’s Office if we could take a stand. As a result, individuals and the University, as an institute of higher education, responded. What follows in this article is an outline of some of the key points, important to us as a whole community.
Why was it important to take a stance and reply to the consultation?
The University’s recent awards from Stonewall, celebrating us as 75th in the “top 100 UK employers list” and a “Gold Employer, 2022” are evidence of our commitment to take equality, diversity, inclusion and belonging as serious commitments for the well-being of our wider community. How could we not respond!
Various domestic laws and social policies over the past few decades have moved some way forward in bringing in various equalities for all people, despite former discriminations based on minority sexual orientations and / or gender identities. Coupled with legal changes, attitudes in society are at various levels of improvement, for some people, too, not least across our higher education communities (Natzler and Evans, 2021). It is important to recognise, however, that even in abbreviations such as LGBTQ+ (or similar), there are often differences in social attitudes and acceptance, whether on grounds of sexual orientation (lesbian / gay / bisexual) or gender identity (e.g. trans, intersex, non-binary and cis-female people). The “Q+” might refer to people who are “questioning” their orientation or gender identity, or those who take a Queer Theory stance of being anti-labelling in, and of, itself. The “+” implies “and all those others” who see themselves as part of this rainbow alliance. So what is ”conversion therapy” and what does it matter for LGBTQ+ people and wider society?
One of the individual respondents to the consultation was David Evans, professor in sexualities and genders: health and well-being. A nurse and former Catholic priest, David says he understands only too well what notions of “conversion” and “therapy” mean. That’s why, he says, he started his response to the government by actually challenging both those terms, only ever using them in ‘inverted commas’ or prefacing them with “so-called”.
“Conversion” is a concept based on a Greek word (metanoia) which literally means an about-face, a total turn-around. In regard to sexual orientations, it implies that there is a default “norm”, or “natural” orientation; that’s part of the thinking often called heteronormativity or even heterosupremacy. Heteronormativity / supremacy, the world and history over, are equated with the majority orientation: heterosexuality. “Conversion” therefore implies that someone is wrong, something not quite fitting the particular ‘normative’ way desired. In fact, therein lies so much of the world’s misunderstanding and discrimination against people of minority sexuality orientations, treating us as the opposite to both the perceived “normal” and “natural. “Conversion” is therefore seen as trying to make someone’s orientation completely about face, i.e. to turn from one way to another. In relation to trans people, “conversion” takes on different forms, too. For example, when a person’s gender assigned at birth is at variance with their affirmed gender, so-called ‘conversion therapy’ maybe deployed to prevent their transitioning.
Finally, the word “therapy”. Again, this is of Greek origin, too, meaning literally “to heal”, hence its use in the psychological therapies (i.e. mind healing). To imply LGBandT+ people need healing, or to turn away or orientate themselves differently, is nothing less than psychological abuse. That’s why it is important for many of us as individuals, and the award-winning institution we work and study in, to take a stance, to advise the government that so-called ‘conversion therapy’ has no place in our society of today; doing nothing but harm and based on erroneous understandings about orientations and genders (Evans, 2017).
We are delighted that the VC’s office agreed to respond. They did this by gathering information from experts across the institution. The result from the University was a combination of re-affirming individual people’s submissions to the consultation, whilst also building in a narrative of our respectful values for promoting equality, celebrating diversity and enhancing inclusivity and belonging of all. In doing so, we are framing the need for intervention in the consultation, calling out, as something fundamental to our core beliefs, the harmful practices of so-called ‘conversion therapy’.
At time of writing, it is unclear when we will know more about the outcome of the consultation. Until then, we are pleased the VC’s office agreed to take a stance and thank Professor Jane Harrington, personally, for her continued support.
Written by Prof David Evans, OBE, National Teaching Fellow
@David_T_Evans
Evans, D.T. Sexualities, Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory, edited by Bryan S. Turner, Chang Kyung-Sup, Cynthia Epstein, Peter Kivisto, William Outhwaite, J. Michael Ryan. Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Natzler, M. and D.T. Evans (2021) Student Relationships, Sex and Sexual Health Survey, HEPI Report 139, London, Higher Education Policy unit and Brook.
