Thread by @TwisterFilm

1./ More crap conversion therapy "science". If you imagined the govt's proposed conversion therapy ban is based on authoritative evidence, you'd be wrong. You can tell because the team behind it are now churning out self-justifying rubbish like this. 👇theconversation.com/does-the-gover…

2./ In his essay Adam Jowett gives the impression he surveyed so MANY people who were incredibly representative; peppering it with comments like "several people felt" or "most told us". Never does he admit the grand TOTAL of people he spoke to in his research was...30. Yep 30!👇

3./ I've said before you might be able to make useful comments about the experiences of just 30 people. But here's the same Adam Jowett retweeting someone slamming a recent BBC article and dismissing the experience of 80 lesbians as "marginal". Is 30 less marginal than 80?👇

4./ A criticism made of the survey, of lesbians who were harassed by transwomen, was that the organiser's existing bias undermined her research. So what are we to make of Jowett's bias? Here he is retweeting criticism of Rosie Duffield, suggesting she is a homophobe. She isn't.👇

5./ Here he is, in his own words this time, lampooning the widely regarded Nolan Investigates podcast that exposed the influence of Stonewall within our institutions. So just how much does this obvious bias affect the study the govt is using to shape its policy? Let's find out.👇

6./ The 30 people Jowett interviewed were found through LGBTQ+ groups, leaflets "at 2 Pride marches" and the @OzanneFoundn which seems to be as familiar with facts as I am with hairspray. Here's @JayneOzanne claiming Brits are being beaten up and raped to convert them.

7./ Beating people up and corrective rape are already serious criminal offences. Doesn't Jayne realise that? If you were a serious science researcher would you rely on her and her hyperbolic claims to find you reliable witnesses? I wouldn't. Jowett did. 👇

8./ Ozanne is also an evangelical Christian. They believe "in the centrality of the conversion experience". So they want the right to convert people including children to their 2000 year old belief system just as long as its not spiced with what they call homophobia? Hypocrisy?

9./ Amazingly, the govt is relying on research to guide its policy which was led by someone with an obvious axe to grind using interviews sourced in ways that amplify that bias. It gets worse. Here's Jowett on the other main plank of his research: analysis of previous studies.

10./ He says, because none of the studies are randomised trials "it is not possible to make robust claims...or causal inferences". The studies also rely on self-reporting which "makes the findings vulnerable to biases". Weren't his own 30 interviews also self-reported?

11./ The studies also used different definitions of conversion therapy, and recruited through conversion therapy networks which "may introduce sampling biases". But didn't Jowett recruit through Ozanne's conversion network? So wouldn't THAT introduce sampling biases?

12./ The hilarious thing is the team admit 👆part of their research "involved searching the websites of organisations like @ILGAWORLD" and "entries for conversion therapy in Wikipedia". Yep WIKIFUCKINGPEDIA. This is the clearly the finest research taxpayers' money can buy. 💷

13./ Lest it sound like easy money, with 30 interviews organised through Jayne Ozanne, some peeps on a Pride march and a few activist mates, please DO remember it also includes "analysis" of a few academic websites. Otherwise known as a glorified google search.👇

14./ 35 of the 46 studies were done in the US; only 3 in the UK. We are the most secular nation in the world so why would we base our policy on studies conducted in a country where one of the President's "pastors" calls publicly on angels to overturn the election? #nutjobs

15./ What's worse, many of the studies were 10 or even 20 years old. 2000, 2003 and 2004 in terms of homophobia was another world. The Equality Act was only passed here in 2010. What possible relevance can these old, largely American studies have to us now in the UK?

16./ To be fair, Jowett's paper does admit some limitations. Here's one : people's memories of conversion therapy a decade or two ago are imperfect and "their experiences may not represent current practices". Great. So let's legislate for problems that may not exist any more.👇

17./ There's one key finding his team never mention in public. Far from all his UK interviewees being traumatised by "conversion therapy", a third reported some "secondary benefits" including "a sense of connection and belonging with other men in the same situation". Whoops.👇

18./ I was amazed, as no doubt Adam Jowett was. But it's there in black and white. "In some cases lasting friendships ..and a sense of community formed." One interviewee says "it's still helped me today with things that aren't to do with my sexuality". Eh?!

19./ Personally, I can't imagine a third of gay people who go through conversion therapy get some benefit out of it. Who knows. But might this be just another sign of how totally unreliable this study is, and how the findings are undermined by the methodology?

20./ That's crystallised by the fact this research effort managed to interview only 6 trans or non binary people, 3 of whom underwent any form of conversion therapy. This means ANY experience any ONE of them had represents a third of all trans. That's frankly useless.

21./ I'd love a conversion ban. But given this study could only find 3 trans people who'd experienced it and 33% of the gays claimed to have benefited (despite the bias of the study) surely we should gather proper evidence and certainly not rush the ban? Let's get it right.

22./ After all, it's clear as day this research and the clamour for the ban itself is a ploy to use the understandable disgust about gay conversion therapy to enforce a medical regime that halts the puberty of thousands of kids in order to affirm trans gender identities.

23./ Truth is, the most dangerous gay conversion isn't being pushed by the odd evangelical. It's on an industrial scale and state sponsored. Gender identity clinics aren't just shaming young, vulnerable lesbians and gays. They're sterilising them. This crap research enables that.