Draft Conversion Practices Bill - published

Bayswater Support

A draft conversion practices bill has now been published. We will continue scrutinising the detail, but we believe this bill constitutes an indefensible incursion by the state into family life with devastating impacts for parents who are trying to support their children in what is already a hostile environment.

^https://gov.uk/government/publications/draft-conversion-practices-bill^

Individual parents, parent-led support groups like BayswaterSG
, and healthcare professionals (including the NHS paediatric gender services) continue to be subjected to a barrage of false accusations that they are engaging in "conversion". This draft bill adds the threat of criminal prosecution to those wildly inaccurate claims.

Even if the bar for prosecution is high, the chilling effect and the detrimental impact on public understanding of transgender identity is profound. One thing we can be sure of is that accusations of conversion will come thick and fast, as they have done over the last decade. Escaping prosecution will be scant consolation for those subjected to this onslaught of fabrication and intimidation.

The threat of being prosecuted for corporate conversion means that schools will be even more inclined to affirm a child's attested cross-sex identity, despite safeguarding advice to exercise caution. The potential psychological and lifelong medical consequences for the child will be less of a concern to a school than its own legal risk under poorly defined legislation.

The press release for the bill claims "robust thresholds that protect open conversations, and free speech", but those are nowhere to be seen in the bill itself.

Instead, the bill relies on subjective assessments to define what constitutes criminally "abusive" conduct, stating that this would need to involve "controlling or coercive words or behaviour" or "use of psychological or emotional pressure".

Accusations of psychological or emotional abuse are rife when it comes to transgender identity. If this bill becomes effective, parents will justifiably fear that such accusations could now escalate into a threat of a criminal offence that carries a penalty of imprisonment up to 5 years.

But that is not the only concern for parents who must now worry about the prospect of a "conversion practice protection order" should they disagree with their child over the merits of a "transgender identity" as the explanation for the child's experience. Any parent who fails to affirm their child's "transgender identity" or who voices concerns about a belief that mind and body can be mismatched in this way could be accused of exerting "psychological or emotional pressure" under the terms of this bill.

None of this will help the parents of a distressed young teenager who is convinced that her "transgender identity" means she needs to source DIY testosterone to modify her body in line with her identity. Or parents frantic with concern over their young adult son, who is failing to hold down work or social relationships, all while pinning his hopes of happiness on a medical transformation with significant risks to his long-term health and well-being.

Most importantly of all, this bill will harm the very people it purports to protect by enshrining in law a belief that is inextricably bound up with rejection of the body and psychological distress.

If the bill goes through, insisting that homosexuality isn't a thing and it's all about gender, will be a straight route into court for those who are actually gay as opposed to role playing.

Edited to add; of course you then have two groups using that law: homosexuals saying the TAs wish to erase and appropriate and redefine homosexuality and deny it's a thing, and the TAs arguing that to erase their gender based homosexuality is equally against the law, and under the complete pigs ear of this drafted bill, both will be right. Which shows you how ridiculous it is. How does the law deal with both those situations in conflict? And it will be a playground squabble anyway, taking years, costing God knows how much, using up court time, and based on a ridiculously bad piece of legislation that achieves sod all

Very interesting facts coming out

teresa smith

‘Meeting with the Greater Manchester LGBTQ+ Equality Panel in October 2022, Andy Burnham, Mayor of GMcr raised an urgent business item at the November GMCA Board meeting to obtain formal agreement from the Panel’s GM Pledge to End Conversion Therapy’

I tell you who else is interested in defining things well in law.

All the senior lawyers in the House of Lords. This bill is going to get amended very very seriously if not defeated outright.

We are ripping the bill to shreds here and we have hardly started.

Meanwhile..

SEEN in Journalism

No journalist should be buying the claim that this is about gay people. That should be treated with the cynicism for which we’re supposed to be famous. Apply Occam’s Razor and it’s about self-identification of sex. It’s entirely plausible - in fact very likely, and journalists should at least ask the question - that having failed to achieve self-ID in the UK via Scotland, via unlawful policy, via media or judiciary capture, or via ‘misogyny’ legislation, campaigners aided by activist civil servants are wheeling out ‘conversion therapy’ as the latest vehicle for a deeply unpopular campaign that’s been repeatedly rejected.

A biological man and a biological woman who both identify as men and are in a relationship are not gay, however much they may claim they are. They are heterosexual. I actually came across such a couple last week, who insisted they were gay men in a gay relationship, despite one of them obviously being a woman and she had in fact given birth recently. Just to make it clear for you in terms you may understand: before same-sex marriage (which wasn't that long ago) they would have been able to marry, whereas a same-sex couple would not have been able to.

Then there are also the creepy heterosexual men who call themselves "lesbians". Don't forget, Stonewall has said that actual lesbians who don't want to form relationships or have sex with transwomen (i.e. heterosexual men) are akin to racists.

This is exactly why all the "gender" stuff is homophobic - heterosexuals claim to be "gay" or "lesbian" (and take over actual gay and lesbian things and also pressure politicians to take pro-"gender" stances that effectively erase homosexuality), whilst we actual lesbian and gay people are pressured to have relationships with people of the opposite sex who claim to be of the same "gender" as us otherwise we are "transphobic" or like "racists".

Let's also not overlook how this kind of stuff messes up actual gay kids who are going through the phase of trying to work their sexuality out. When so much "gender" stuff is presented to them, and people who oppose the gender woo are presented as phobic and uncool, while the "gender diverse" are cool and special and precious, it's very easy for them to slip into thinking that what they're feeling means they are "genderqueer" or trans or nonbinary or whatever, and not gay. That might be ok if they were just left to work things out and grow up and eventually get to a point where they are comfortable with being gay, but a "conversion therapy ban" of the sort described in this daft bill would make it very difficult for their friends and family to talk to them and say, for example, "hey, it's ok to be gay and like other boys" (if they are male but "identify" as a girl) because that would be akin to encouraging them to think they are not trans, which apparently is "conversion therapy".

There is no "state-sanctioned torture". Stop being so histrionic. A state-certified therapist trying to explore the causes of a distressed youth is not torturing them. A private individual telling a friend or child who says they are trans to think about whether they are or not and just to keep an open mind before taking any permanent steps to transition is not "torturing" anyone. Private conversations are not "state-sanctioned".

I haven't read the thread but this may be interesting..
https://x.com/i/status/2070181377538981973

Show me this research. However low it is, it proves that it’s a made up phenomenon otherwise there would be no such thing as a detransitioners.

No dear, gender identity is stereotypes. If it were truly about a misalignment with ones sexed body, then why do middle aged men who suddenly claim a trans identity dress up in clothing most women wouldn’t be seen dead in? School uniforms, fishnets, massive fake breasts, nylon wigs, stilettos?
It’s about misogyny. Hatred of women combined with the desire to be seen as a woman. Keep away from our children.

You’re being extremely homophobic here. Homosexuality is the attraction to people of the same SEX. Gender has nothing to do with it.

If you have genuinely been abused by your parents then I’m sorry. But let’s be very clear here. A parent who tells their child that they cannot change sex is being the very opposite of abusive. Children with gender dysphoria need supporting to feel at ease with their sexed bodies. Not coerced by some basement dwelling online porn addict or a radical ‘therapist’ or doctor such as Webberley that they’re really in the wrong body and must change it at all costs lest they end up trying to kill themselves. Even the most cursory research into the rise of the trans phenomenon leads you to men who a) have a fetishistic desire to keep children in a pre pubescent state or b) people who have financially benefitted from ensuring children remain in a state whereby they are lifelong purchasers of drugs to keep the delusion going. The myths around suicide have been well and truly busted.

Trans people have exactly the same range of sexualities as cis. Some are gay (meaning attracted to the same gender), others straight (meaning attracted to the opposite gender), bi, ace or pan.

Sexuality isn't gender.

Surgery on under-18s is banned in the UK. The vast majority of trans children don't so much as see a counsellor, and have to cope alone with gender dysphoria. Feeling unsafe at home can push them over the edge at a time when they also have to cope with growing up, peer pressure and huge exam stress.

Conversion practices are never anything other than abuse, and many abusive, controlling parents have severely harmed their children under the guide of 'converting' them.

Anyone who's ever made an NSPCC or social services referral regarding child abuse (I've done it three times to try and help families suffering DV) knows that basically nothing happens - a case is opened and then closed, in most instances. It takes so much for a parent to be prosecuted. The idea that police and the social will be swooping in on parents who don't 'affirm' is ridiculous. They barely turn up when you're burgled.

Conversion therapy is state-sanctioned torture, and abusive behaviour from parents - ostracising, verbal abuse, isolating, controlling, forcing them to deny their identity - should never be excused. No parent is entitled to control their child.

I can see you're concerned for trans children, and thank you for your kindness, but the biggest danger they face isn't being trans - it's the violent behaviour of other people. They need their parents, because feeling you cannot trust your guardians is intensely traumatic. I'm so pleased to see this is finally being addressed, and the abuse loophole closed.

Giving into your kids about an untruth isn't good parenting, it's collusion.
Refusing to countenance the claim from your kids that they can/have changed sex isn't bad parenting, it's being truthful.

Yeah, pretty much. Most trans/nb kids are afraid to tell their parents because they know how common it is to lose all support.

Parents really need to consider more often whether their kid might be LGBT, because this fear's very common.

When my son was younger, I avoided a couple of parents because I only.knew their nb kids by their 'out' names. They had no idea, which is really sad. No child should feel they have to hide their true selves from their families - but sometimes, it's necessary for self-protection.

I personally know two out young trans men and four trans women, and my kids know more. Every one of them except my son has been rejected by their parents, and none of the (very young) trans women can go home after university.

IIJM who thinks that 'most' trans kids have plenty of support from their parents?

Therapists telling parents not to harm their children is pretty standard.

Of course trans children feel suicidal when they're rejected by their parents and abused by them.

Sadly, it's very common. Most trans kids get no support at all, and many are kicked out of home.

There's a basic logic here: if losing the support of your parents, being unable to trust the people who should be keeping you safe, losing your home and living without financial security doesn't stop teenagers being trans, then why would anything else?

Conversion therapy is torture, and a loophole which allows abusive parents to openly harm their kids.

It certainly should be.

We had discussion here of TRAs talking about actively searching out people online in order to 'crack their egg'. There was talk of keeping score of the number of people each activist had 'cracked'

In the trans community, an "egg" is slang for someone who is transgender but has not yet realized or accepted it. When their "egg cracks," it means they have just had that pivotal "aha" moment of self-realization where they finally recognize their true gender identity

I wonder if this active hectoring ('pushing' ?) someone towards a transgender identity would be considered abusive?

Fair point. Not being a lawyer, I don't know whether that kind of wordplay would be taken seriously or treated on the same basis as "a stationary bollard crashed into my car".

Full text of draft is at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-conversion-practices-bill and is readable if a bit back to front (earlier statements get subsequent carve-outs).

I expect that would be a threat of violence as well as psychological and emotional pressure, so abusive (paragraph 1(6)); with the intention of causing an individual to believe that they have a particular transgender identity (paragraph 1(2)(b)(ii)), and that causes actual harm (paragraph 2(1)). Which would make it an offense of abusive conversion under the proposed bill. I think that's a good thing.

The problem may be the array of imagined offenses TRAs are going to try and get brought to court over this, regardless of how ridiculous (see ongoing SEEN tribunal).

I agree with you, of course, but am just afraid that their actual wording (cause) might not legally mean that, because, if you are affirming, you are not literally causing, but just agreeing with, the child’s state of already having a particular identity ( which many people believe they were born with).

I don’t agree with affirmation at all, but using the Gov’s proposed wording in the pp, affirmation is not cause when the young person/ tras/ many people in the government/ Stonewall believe that
even very young children may have been born with a trans identity ( while, ridiculously, being autistic, traumatised, in care, being gay etc has no bearing!).

In truth, they have it all wrong because research shows that affirmation does in practice send what, otherwise, would most likely have been only a transitory phase of a troubled adolescence, into an irreversible trajectory.

In other words affirming effectively causes someone to become trans just as you say. But the law needs to write that. Affirmation of a child’s belief in their trans identity needs to be banned.

Has anyone who has read the full outline seen if “Affirmation” of trans has been banned?

If "the way that you say it" includes threats of violence, then yes. But I don't think that's quite what Banarama meant.

(Emotional or psychological pressure, though, is definitely a tricky border to patrol.)

Yes, this!

Unfortunately you'd only need to read that Reddit link for two minutes to see that this will constantly be landing innocent people in court cases, because anything except unconditional affirmation is deemed genocide. As demonstrated in court today, duplicating the Peggie court sessions, there is no way anyone can say anything off a very very strict script without disaster. And frankly many devoted allies have ended up in the soup with one wrong move.

This is going to be as bad as the non crime hate rubbish that wasted so much police time, and worse.

Does this mean that affirmation falls into the Bananarama zone? - it's not that you affirm, it's the way that you say it

Why wouldn't affirming be seen as having the intention to cause someone to believe they have a particular transgender identity? That seems to me to be exactly what it covers.