Draft Conversion Practices Bill - published

It has been said since this first reared its head that its main purpose was to get this idea of 'transgender identity' written somewhere in law.

We barely have a decent definition of "gender" let alone a definition of "gender reassignment " that everyone agrees on. We would need a cast-iron definition of "transgender identity " before you could even begin to apply this under a Conversion Ban Law, or explain people's rights under said proposed law, or prosecute anyone for not obeying this part of the law.

Do you want to take a stab at defining "gender reassignment " and "transgender identity " so that it covers everyone who is, thinks they might be, is thinking about maybe being, wants to be, doesn't want to be, wants to prevent someone from being, tries to encourage someone to be, etc.?

Because that's what a law will need to do, if we are to avoid a different interpretation from every court case outcome.

ps. And I genuinely would like a definition of these terms, not some activist guff. I am posting in good faith here.

Lots of pieces of legislation use slightly different terminology; unless the legislations overlap in their scope and the definitions create a conflict this isn't a problem. What do you think is the overlap or the conflict here?

Why do you think it would be in conflict with the EA?

In EA2010 the PC is 'gender reassignment' not 'transgender identity'.

Why do you think it would be in conflict with the EA?

From James Esses' post: and @noblegiraffe

It further enshrines the notion of ‘transgender identity’ in the law and makes the offence ridiculously broad: “conduct causing someone to believe that they have or do not have a transgender identity”.
It further enshrines the notion of being ‘non-binary’ in the law.

How do you "cause" someone to believe they have an identity? I suppose you can argue with someone, or threaten someone, until they say they believe they have a particular identity. But how do you prove it? (both the cause and the effect?)

But, honestly (!) how on earth do you cause someone to have an identity, and how do you prove that cause and effect? How is this measured? Do we all have secret magic powers that this Bill will release?

It further enshrines the notion of ‘transgender identity’ in the law
And, more seriously, how will this Bill/law fit alongside the EA 2010?

What the fuck is this poorly defined drivel?

• (b) causing the individual—
• (i) to have or not to have,
• (ii) to believe that they have or do not have,

Do they have it or do they merely believe they have it and if they merely believe they have it but don't actually have it then what is wrong with trying to talk them out of it?

Say a kid has been obviously groomed online, egg cracking and all that bollocks. They now believe that they have a trans identity despite not showing any previous signs of gender incongruence. They are autistic and not having a good time with puberty and not fitting in with their peers.

What will be done about the online groomers? Nothing because they're not in the UK

And what will be done about the parent who sits down with their child and tells them they've been groomed? Criminalised?

As we've also seen in Darlington case and the Peggie case; when it comes to he said and did/she said and did (even with contempraneous notes), after years of process and expense to get to the day in court, it's discarded because it's impossible to prove either way.

Agree, it cuts both ways.

You'd think with the country broke on its arse, and the court system at breaking point in trying to deal with actual serious crime, the last thing the govt would want is to create a huge open door for a lot more timewasting in court over tiny petty matters at the taxpayer's expense. Always fur coat and no knickers.

I suspect that a lot of the "criminal" elements of this Bill will have to be watered down quite a bit, if it's ever to pass into law. Many people will argue that it's an affront to the right to free speech, which much of it would be, in my opinion.

@Wishesandhorses I agree about the court cases. It's going to either be unworkable or unenforceable without a lot of legal shenanigans.

Non-binary doesn't exist and you can be locked up for telling someone that?

Wishful thinking or rewriting history, take your pick. Other facetious reasons are available.

No one should be told there is something wrong with who they are....

Unless they're homosexual or a woman who wants sex based rights and spaces?

Really? Is this an announcement of reciprocal tolerance all of a sudden?

It's a charter for a lot of petty he said/she said court cases, most of which will be about hurt feelings and someone who breathed wrong or held the wrong facial expression at the wrong moment. And the excerpts strongly suggest, unsurprisingly, that while gay needs are mentioned briefly, the massive majority is all about trans.

Unintended consequences need to be examined to the absolute nth degree in this. For a start, obviously, many professionals just now refusing to take trans clients, or having contracts that state if gender comes up during work then the client will need to find another professional; why would anyone want to take these risks? Filming every session and recording every conversation would have to become standard practice in case a client takes them to court. This could easily lead to people wanting support with gender identity and related issues finding that there's pretty much no support left.

However I am looking at the brief mention of ^Conversion practice’ means … any conduct … with the intention of— (a) causing the individual— (i) to have or not to have, (ii) to believe that they have or do not have, a sexual orientation or a particular sexual orientation; ^

And indeed the proposed amendment: any conduct that uses coercion, threats or manipulation to cause the individual to change their sexual orientation

and thinking lesbians and gay men can get straight to court on that one re the cotton ceiling stuff and the 'learn to cope' stuff, and the 'sexual racism' stuff. Which will not be liked by TAs at all.

There's a reason why every time this has come up, it's been booted back into the long grass; it would create a lot of expensive mess, time wasting, wrangling and chaos. There's also no clear picture of what exactly this bill would achieve in terms of protection from real, serious coercive and abusive conversion practice (the historic stuff the gay community did actually suffer, electrodes and all) that is not covered by current law?

From Stonewall (it's just so precious, I had to post some of it):

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/news/government-finally-publishes-long-overdue-draft-bill-to-ban-conversion-practices

[my bold]
"...From repealing Section 28, equalising the age of consent, lifting the ban on military service and marriage equality. We’ve always worked towards building a society which is free from discrimination, prejudice and inequality, and today’s announcement of a draft Bill to ban conversion practices is another step closer to this goal....

No one should be told there is something wrong with who they are....

...The draft legislation will now go through a process of pre-legislative scrutiny, before being considered by Parliament. Over the coming weeks and months we will carefully review the legislation, and continue to work with sector partners, Parliamentarans, and government to ensure the legislation is robust, effective, and puts and end to conversion practices once and for all...."

From Simon Blake, CEO:
**
"No one should be told they have to change who they are...."

After having read James Esses' take, if it really is that bad, I wonder if the new government will quietly scupper it or quietly dump it. If there are no protections for therapists, then no one in a professional therapy role will support this, only activist parents will support it, and LGB Alliance and Sex Matters will be all over it.

Too optimistic?

ps. or it will be debated ad nauseum so the government can stretch it out and then find some reason to say it will be "too expensive" to implement? (that's what they apparently do with everything they are virtue-signalling but have no intention of implementing)

I think warring parents will use this as a weapon in the family courts (in both directions) which at least means some thought-out evidence-based judgments on what is really happening when a child 'decides' to 'change' their sex and perceived sexuality, including whether they are being subjected to psychological pressure and/or harms to their physical health.

Given the cognitive limitations of children, the impossibility of changing sex, and the non-zero physical harm caused by the attempt, it's high time to put a stop to proselytising to children, in every context.

Link to the above https://x.com/JamesEsses/status/2070069126010142886

James Esses' take on X

'Breaking: The UK government has published a draft ‘Conversion Practices Bill’🚨

As expected, it is an utter nightmare. The fact that Stonewall is celebrating tells you everything you need to know.

On the week that it pushed forward with the puberty blockers trial, the government may now rob children of the opportunity to become comfortable in their own bodies.

It includes no exemption for parents. Parents who try to dissuade their children from ‘transitioning’ could be criminalised and put in prison for 5 years.

It further enshrines the notion of ‘transgender identity’ in the law and makes the offence ridiculously broad: “conduct causing someone to believe that they have or do not have a transgender identity”.

It further enshrines the notion of being ‘non-binary’ in the law.

The protection for therapists and other medical professionals is severely lacking, with a test of ‘reasonableness’ created. There is also a low threshold for what constitutes ‘abuse’.

Make no mistake about it, this Bill will criminalising talking. It poses a significant threat to freedom of speech, religious freedoms and to the safeguarding of vulnerable children.

It must not be allowed to become law.'

The problem comes from the definition of "transgender identity". The very definition of gender dysphoria is believing that you are something that you are not.

Making it illegal to tell a man that he is not a woman is problematic and the legislation will be set up in a way to allow for a test case at court. I'm sure TRAs already have test cases lined up.

I’d like to see included third party coercion - eg when a ‘therapist’ tells parents that if they don’t affirm their child’s wish to be seen as the opposite sex their child may commit suicide.

Thanks for the AI summary, which is a helpful starting point.

My first thoughts, before I had even finished reading the summary is:

a) in a one-to-one therapy situation, how is a therapist supposed to protect her/himself against accusations of "conversion practices" if the session is confidential? Accusations can come from the client and/or the client's family; and

b) how us the patient/ client supposed to protect her/himself against conversion techniques if (1) the client doesn't recognize the techniques as conversion and/or (2) they can't claim that it happened because it's all confidential and one word against another? I imagine the simplest remedy is just to stop the sessions and find a new therapist.

respectful, exploratory therapy

Who decides the definition of this? E.g. what if a client wants to be affirmed as trans and doesn't want anything else? Can they say the therapist was not respectful if they don't?

there is a risk that the Bill will undermine access to the very care that some individuals need to reconcile with their sex and live comfortably in their bodies.

My thoughts exactly. If I were a therapist, I wouldn't touch this subject with a ten foot pole, but you could be three sessions into therapy before it comes up.

The whole thing sounds like a minefield.

Anyway, just my initial thoughts in the heat, and I haven't read it yet. I'm sure someone will come along and correct me, which would be much appreciated, actually!