Conversion Bill Consultation closes Monday at 5

The Sex Matters site suggests you can do it in as little as 15 mins. You don’t have to respond to every question. Of course the actual answer is “how long is a piece of string?” - if you have lots to say or really want to address multiple points, then it could take some time. But I think it should be possible to submit something in under half an hour.

I addressed only the effect the law can have on parents. I gave as an example my family (in a very anonymised way). I linked my experience to the Class review, to the remit of the new hubs, and to the guidance to school, to mention that it can have effects on therapists and educators. It took me ten minutes.

It took me 45 minutes. I did as Sex Matters suggested and answered questions 1, 2 and 5 and then one of the longer ones. I am quite methodical and details focussed and not a great wordsmith, if that helps anyone to judge the time it might take them.

I used my previous surname and didn't include my forenames, which is fine apparently.

Hey Dennis. Firstly, thanks for all you do for children and women. Secondly, it took me a while to realise that it all needed to be done on a Word doc and then uploaded, if you think it might be useful to address that in your video.

And it might be worth mentioning that a quick email to the committee if time-pressed is a hell of a lot better than nothing.

(Email: [email protected]
Subject heading: FAO the Recipient: Joint Committee on the Conversion Practices Bill)

And again, thank you. Really, genuinely, thank you so very much, Dennis.

Are the names made public? Seems really unfair if so. People - especially professionals - with foreign or unusual names will be put off.

From Sex Matters:

If you are worried about being identified

• If you are concerned, contact the committee before you submit, at [email protected].
• You can ask the committee to publish your evidence without your name (anonymous evidence), or not at all (confidential evidence), by ticking a box when you upload it. The committee decides.
• You can use the most generic version of your name, for example your maiden name, or just “Mrs Smith”, rather than your full name.
• You can submit with a few people in a similar situation as a named group (“concerned parents of Wessex”) so the evidence can be cited without naming anyone.
• Check the text itself. Leave out details that could identify you or your family, such as your child’s school or your town.

What happens to your evidence?

If you submit evidence, the committee will read it and decide whether to accept it. If it is accepted, it becomes the committee’s property, and you should expect it to be published online (though this is the committee’s decision). It may be quoted in the committee’s report. Once published, your evidence stays public permanently.

Your name, or your organisation’s name, will usually be published. You can ask for your evidence to be published without your name (anonymous evidence) or not to be published at all (confidential evidence).

Thinking of publishing your evidence yourself?

Do not publish your evidence before you submit it. Your evidence must not have been published elsewhere before the committee decides to publish it.

If you want to share your evidence publicly, you must wait until the committee has published it, given you permission to publish it or told you it has been rejected.

Thank you Dennis. So important that parents let the government know what we think about their dangerous overreach

First, MANY thanks to @DennisNoelKavanaghOffTwitter 🙏

Similar laws have been passed or are in the process of being passed in several other jurisdictions.

The worst (or "gold standard" as trans activists would have it) is the one in Victoria, Australia, which came into force in 2022 and which Scotland is looking at eagerly.

This is currently being reviewed by the Victorian Law Reform Commission, which should have reported by now as it said in February that it expected to publish "in sex months". Consultation on the Review ended in March.

Focused Review of How the Change or Suppression Practices Ban Is Working: Consultation Paper
Published on February 24, 2026

"The Attorney-General has asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission to review the operation and effectiveness of the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021.

The Act prohibits practices that aim to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The review will focus on the terms of reference and examine how the current law is operating, whether it is effective in responding to change or suppression practices and how it might be improved. The purposes of the Act and the desirability of having criminal offences and a civil response scheme are not part of the review."

https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/publication/change-or-suppression-practices-ban-consultation-paper/

Thanks to Grok for the rest of this post - I have not checked for accuracy so replies with any corrections would be welcome!

Q. Conversion Practices/Therapy Bans.

1. Which jurisdictions globally have enacted such legislation and when?
2. Find any published research into the outcomes of such legislation.

Activate Ambiguity Mode. List cited sources with links as References. Stick to evidence. Think step-by-step. Qualify uncertainties. Verify facts. Review for errors. No tribal framing.

Answer:

Jurisdictions with enacted legislation

As of late 2026, sources such as Wikipedia’s compilation (drawing on primary legal texts and ILGA tracking) indicate roughly 28 countries have some form of restriction on conversion practices/therapy (attempts to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity). Scope varies widely: some impose criminal penalties on any person, others restrict only licensed medical or psychological professionals, and a further group impose indirect limits (e.g., prohibiting diagnoses based solely on sexual orientation or gender identity). Sub-national bans exist in federal systems. Numbers and classifications differ slightly across trackers because of definitional differences (criminal vs. professional-regulatory vs. diagnostic).

Full or criminal bans applying to any person (examples with approximate enactment/effective dates):

• Ecuador (2014 Penal Code provisions equating certain practices to torture).
• Malta (2016).
• Germany (2020; primarily minors, with limits on advertising and coerced adult cases).
• Canada (federal Criminal Code amendments effective January 2022; prior provincial measures from 2015 onward).
• France (2022).
• Greece (2022; mainly minors).
• New Zealand (2022).
• Spain (2023; national framework, with some regional variation and later challenges).
• Cyprus (2023).
• Iceland (2023).
• Belgium (2023).
• Norway (2023/2024).
• Portugal (2024).
• Mexico (federal 2024; many states earlier, from ~2020).
• Netherlands (legislation passed 2026, effective 1 January 2027; targets systematic/intrusive practices on minors or vulnerable adults, plus offering such services).

Restrictions mainly on medical/psychological professionals (examples):

• Brazil (Federal Council of Psychology resolutions from 1999, reinforced later).
• Albania (psychological association ban ~2020, effectively limiting practice).
• Chile (health ministry circulars and mental-health law provisions ~2021–2023).
• India, Israel, Taiwan, Vietnam (professional or regulatory limits in the 2010s–2020s).
• Greece is sometimes listed in both categories depending on the exact provisions.

Indirect or diagnostic bans (examples):

• Argentina (mental-health law provisions from ~2010 onward limiting diagnoses based solely on sexual orientation/identity).
• Uruguay, Fiji, Nauru, Samoa, Paraguay, parts of Switzerland (cantonal in some cases).

Sub-national examples:

• Australia: Explicit criminal bans in Queensland (2020), Australian Capital Territory (2020/2021), Victoria (2021/2022), South Australia (2024/2025), New South Wales (2024/2025). Other states/territories lag or have different measures.
• United States: As of 2024–2026 data, roughly 23 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico restrict licensed professionals from providing conversion practices to minors (earliest California and New Jersey ~2012–2013; later additions through the 2010s–2020s, including Minnesota, Michigan, Kentucky). Some states have funding restrictions or executive orders only; local ordinances exist in additional places. Several bans have faced First Amendment litigation (circuit split historically; Supreme Court activity noted in 2020s cases). No nationwide federal ban.
• Additional local or professional measures appear in parts of Switzerland and elsewhere.

Bills or proposals remain active in other places (e.g., some Austrian, Finnish, and UK processes; EU-level discussion). Classifications can shift with amendments, court rulings, or commencement decrees. Always check primary legislation for precise definitions, exemptions (e.g., exploratory therapy, religious speech, adult consent), penalties, and enforcement.

Published research on outcomes of the legislation itself

Direct evaluations of the effects of bans (as opposed to studies of the practices themselves) are limited. Most empirical work examines associations between exposure to conversion practices and later mental-health outcomes, or uses quasi-experimental designs around ban adoption. Causal claims require caution due to confounding, selection, measurement (often retrospective self-report), and the difficulty of isolating ban effects from broader social changes.

• Studies of exposure to the practices: Multiple observational and systematic reviews link recalled exposure to higher rates of depression, PTSD symptoms, suicidality, and related harms. Examples include a 2024 Lancet Psychiatry cross-sectional analysis of U.S. sexual and gender minority adults (associations strongest for combined sexual-orientation and gender-identity efforts) and earlier difference-in-differences work on transgender youth using the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (elevated subsequent suicide-attempt and runaway risks after exposure, larger for younger ages). A large review of decades of literature (summarized in 2026 secondary reporting) found consistent patterns of association with harm across many studies, though individual-level effect sizes and causality remain debated; none demonstrated reliable, lasting change in orientation or identity under rigorous designs.
• Studies of ban effects: Quasi-experimental work is scarcer. One difference-in-differences analysis of U.S. state bans found modest reductions in suicide mortality (driven mainly by young males) and improvements in self-reported mental health after adoption. Another stacked difference-in-differences study using Youth Risk Behavior Survey data associated bans with lower rates of seriously considering suicide among high-school students in the years after enactment (larger point estimates for LGB respondents in some specifications). A 2023 Journal of Health Economics paper on conversion-therapy exposure among transgender youth used a related design and reported substantial increases in attempt and runaway risks post-exposure. These designs attempt to address time trends and selection but remain subject to the usual limitations of observational policy evaluation (parallel-trends assumptions, heterogeneous enforcement, spillover).
• Broader context: Professional bodies (e.g., major psychological and medical associations) have long classified the practices as ineffective and potentially harmful on the basis of the cumulative evidence. Economic analyses have estimated substantial lifetime costs associated with harms. Enforcement data and prevalence estimates after bans are sparse and sometimes contested; some jurisdictions report continued informal or religious practices outside professional regulation.

Uncertainties remain significant: definitions of “conversion practices” differ across laws and studies; many bans focus on licensed providers and minors, leaving religious or adult voluntary settings less regulated; long-term population-level outcome data post-ban are still accumulating; and selection into studies or surveys can bias results. No high-quality randomized evidence exists (ethically infeasible), and null or mixed findings appear in some narrower or older literature. Independent replication and better administrative data would strengthen the evidence base.

References

• Wikipedia, “Legality of conversion therapy” (compilation current to late 2026, with chronology and country details): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_conversion_therapy
• ILGA World Database on bans: database.ilga.org/conversion-therapies-lgbti
• Global Equality Caucus legislative tracker summaries.
• Campbell et al., “Conversion therapy, suicidality, and running away…” Journal of Health Economics (2023).
• Tran et al. / Stanford PRIDE Study analysis, The Lancet Psychiatry (2024).
• Harrell, “Conversion Therapy Bans, Suicidality, and Mental Health” (working paper / difference-in-differences analysis, ~2022).
• Overhage et al. on state bans and youth suicidality (Youth Risk Behavior Survey difference-in-differences).
• UK Government evidence assessment (2021) and subsequent reviews of the literature on effectiveness and harm.
• Official gazettes and parliamentary records for specific enactments (e.g., Netherlands Staatsblad 2026 for the 2027 commencement).

Facts were cross-checked against multiple secondary compilations and primary citations where available. Classifications and dates can lag or vary by source; primary statutes remain authoritative.

Grok share link:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_ff34434a-f5c0-4781-9b5b-d9cc2c199454

Bin The Bill Campaign
Finally, there are now over 250 links to relevant information, articles, videos, etc. on the Bin The Bill Linktree:
linktr.ee/binthebill

Many thanks, bin, that's very useful.

Just listened to the latest Inciteful Sisters on this subject:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4MGRG2ySMkNKy34u5EJngj

A really good episode, talking in brief about many ways in which this bill is a disaster. I found it reminded me of other things I might have said in my submission. Worth a listen if you're not sure where to start.

Many many thanks to all involved in Bin the Bill, you are wonderful!

Submitted my Consultation response via the FSU site.

The FSU site asked me for my general thoughts, a little general info about my reason for submitting a response, and for my main objections to the Bill. Then it helped me to condense and formalise my answers into something that better suits the tone of the type of documents received by Parliamentary Committees.

Took me about 30 minutes altogether and I feel better for getting it done in plenty of time.

Honestly, though, I'm getting very fed up of increasing numbers of Public Consultation requests that have really short deadlines. It doesn't feel as though they're set up for everyday members of the public to be involved in our own democratic process, it feels like these short periods of Consultation are better suited to NGOs etc.

edited: spelling

Tonia Antoniazzi interview about the Bill:

I found it quite fun, bizarrely. Submissions in court can be quite effective playing through one's opponent's case - look what would happen if s/he were right. With a legal hat on and looking for the loopholes, it was just so bloody easy. And yet I have no expectation this bunch will realise that, it will be down to individual cases again which is just such a shitty way to make law.

Thanks for this, Dennis, and I’d just like to add that your contributions to the most recent This Isn’t Working podcast were a real eye opener to what an absolute poisoned chalice this bill could be to many of those who are so eager to see it come into law.

Shall I bump this? Deadline is 5pm tomorrow (Monday, 16 November 2026)