LGBTQ+ rights groups criticise uni’s conversion therapy lecture
LGBTQ+ organisations have criticised Reading University for hosting a lecture by Dr Holly Lawford-Smith on Monday, amid a protest on campus.
Rights advocacy groups across Reading and Berkshire submitted an open letter to Reading University, including Reading Pride, Club FOD, and Support U.
Dr Lawford-Smith was invited to speak to law students on campus by Rosa Freedman, professor of law, conflict, and global development at the university.
The lecture, titled Who put the GI in SOGI, challenged the inclusion of gender identity in the banning of conversion therapy.
She argues that while conversion therapy has been proven harmful and dangerous when used to change sexual orientation, there is no substantial evidence that it is as harmful for gender identity.
The open letter argues that many are concerned that the university could be failing to support its trans students by not putting adequate safeguards in place.
It also noted that conversion therapy “is a practice medical professionals agree causes harm and long-term psychological damage.
“It has a pre-determined outcome- to fix what is perceived as broken.
“But we in the LGBT+ community are not broken.”
The organisations requested that consent for the lecture to take place on campus was revoked and challenged representatives to meet with LGBTQ+ communities and groups to discuss further action.
This was not actioned, and the lecture went ahead.
Dr Lawford-Smith, associate professor of political philosophy at the University of Melbourne, went ahead with the talk, referring to gender identity being included with sexual orientation in conversion therapy.
It comes just three weeks after a protest was held by the organisations in Reading, which rallied against the government’s failure to include gender identity in its conversion therapy ban.
It also comes two years after the university was ranked in Stonewall UK’s top 100 list of best employers for equality and inclusivity.
Dr Lawford-Smith has previously been criticised for arguing that trans activism creates a “conflict of interest” with women’s rights, though she notes that this is not the case with men’s rights.
In the letter, advocacy groups argued that those “subjected to the torture that is conversion therapy” are not having their voices heard.
They say: “It is clear that conversion therapy should be banned for all, regardless of sexuality or gender identity.
“There is nothing to fix – except this dangerous culture war which sets out to divide us and which is being given a platform at the University of Reading.”
A spokesperson for the University said: “Academic freedom is written into our Royal Charter, and we are committed to freedom of speech.
“We exist to allow people to further understanding, to explore ideas, and foster discussion, particularly in areas of contemporary relevance.
“The internal academic seminar, organised by the school of law, is focused on the development of new laws on the use of conversion therapy for sexual orientation and gender identity in Australia and the UK.”
They explained that the event has been reviewed against their external speaker policy, and those speaking will be obliged to abide by the university’s code of conduct.
“We are committed to providing equal opportunities and non-discriminatory treatment for all, particularly with regards to gender reassignment, sex or sexual orientation.”
Reading University Students’ Union also released a statement which echoed the open letter.
The statement reads: “RUSU believes in welcoming free speech and allowing students and staff to express their views and engage in conversation.
“We also want to be creating welcoming and safe spaces for all students,
“If we or the university choose to hold a talk on such a topical matter, we feel it is important that speakers from both sides of the platform are in attendance to maintain balance, and to have open conversation.”
It explains that the union has also raised concerns with the university about safeguarding and whether “correct procedure” was followed.
In the open letter, Reading Pride, SupportU, and Club FOD acknowledged the need for open debate and freedom of speech.
“We champion freedom of expression, but echo concerns raised by students that both Lawford-Smith and Freedman’s personal opinions, campaigns, and biases should not unnecessarily encroach into lecture theatres.
“We implore the university to do the right thing for its students and for Reading.”