To believe that Parents must have the right to tell their children they are not “in the wrong body” and children cant be “transgender”?

[DoubleMM]

The government wants to bring in a law that threatens anyone including parents with up to five years in prison for denying a child’s or an adult’s “transgender identity” -. The draft Bill is in Committee stage. Labour have committed to making it law. Surely this is just bringing back the Scottish Parliament’s vote that everyone has to agree? That men are women if they say they are? This time parents are in the firing line if they dont agree to their child being “transed” at school or elsewhere? The Bill proposes that the courts should be able to make an order to enforce compliance on parents. Surely this can’t be allowed to go through without a fight?

Puberty blocker drugs are illegal to prescribe to children in this country, so they would be illegal drugs.

Exactly.

So teenage girls getting mastectomies, isn't happening?

Please also quote the piece of the legislation that confirms parents will NOT be prosecuted for refusing to give their children haribo for breakfast every day. Otherwise I will have no choice but to assume this falls foul of the law and stock up on haribo immediately.

That’s in the eye of the beholder isn’t it? If you were a trans-affirming teacher and my DD reported “Mum said God made me a girl” they’d be screaming religious abuse no doubt.

Most transgender people don’t believe you can literally change sex either. Those who keep saying “but you can’t change sex” are missing the point.

The legislation specifically says that if an individual feels "serious alarm or distress to the individual which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities."

Literally my dc begging for Snapchat.

This is being brought in about the supposed 'conversion practice' of failing to acknowledge a 'trans kid' and their 'identity'.

Just in case you completely failed to recognise the risk of giving a child mutilation and sterilisation 'treatment'.

This thread should stand.
There is a lot to discuss regarding this bill. Please see the podcast I posted at 11.10am on pg 3. You may or may not agree with what is said, but it is not exactly clear how this bill would work in practice if enacted.

The problem with this - and a lot of existing legislation - is the question of who gets to decide what ' distress' or 'abuse' means.

Some people think someone disagreeing with them even in mild terms is extremely distressing or even akin to genocide. These extreme terms are bandied around for things that clearly aren't appropriate and don't fall under any normal definition of the word.

How many children will stomp and shout at their parents that they're 'abusing' them for asking them to tidy their room or do chores?

The police have notably actually arrested people (which was no doubt extremely distressing for them) for someone making a joke that 'caused distress'. Yet the person who is 'distressed' at the joke apparently matters and the person who is arguably much more 'distressed' at physically being arrested doesn't matter, basically.

So it ends up being subjective and based on what the police and the lawyers collectively decide is good or bad. The people who are 'in' and the people who are 'out'.

It's so easy for laws based on nebulous and contested terms to be used for abuse much worse than the alleged crime, oppression and control.

It needs much more pinning down as to what falls under these definitions or it has huge potential to be abused.

We should absolutely pressure test these laws, it is blatantly obvious that the people that bringing them in dont seem able to.

Those hand waving away concerns need to step up and show where in the legislation it says 'that wont happen'. Because as sure as shit, if it isnt in there, it will happen.

I do understand your concerns actually but I don't understand how you think it would work in practice if all laws had to include within them a list of everything that didn't count as breaking them.

Show me where anyone here has "promoted conversion therapy as a good thing"?

What about hiding or destroying your minor child's cigarettes, vapes, drugs or anything else the parent has a well-grounded belief is harmful to the child's physical or mental health? Not to mention being against the law of the land for the child to have such a thing, so putting the whole household at risk.

Teenage girls wearing a binder to flatten their breasts are putting their health at risk. It's not against the law, of course (even though the cultural practice of breast ironing, which is very similar in its effects, would be considered abusive here - https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/caa/child-abuse/breast-ironing-flattening/ ).

There have been cases of P. E. teachers who know they have pupils doing this being advised to let the girls sit the lesson out because their breathing is affected. This is just going to make matters worse. Girls are already not taking as much physical exercise as boys and it's extremely beneficial for both physical and mental health to get away from screens, ideally out of doors, and do something that really gets the blood circulating and the muscles moving.

Here's a page on the risks of binding from WebMD, which doesn't condemn it, just gives some advice on reducing the risks. Still bad enough that a concerned parent would probably much prefer to try to get her teenager not to use a binder at all. https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/what-is-chest-binding

Calling it a “conversion therapy ban” doesn’t answer the objection.

Being gay isn’t a defect. Rejecting sex stereotypes doesn’t make a child the opposite sex. Helping children explore distress and accept their bodies is not equivalent to trying to make gay children straight. That distinction is central to LGB Alliance’s objection.

Yes, the bill requires abusive conduct causing serious harm or seriously disruptive distress. But it includes emotional pressure when assessing abuse, with no specific parental exemption. Sex Matters warns that fear of allegations could silence caring parents and therapists.

Children deserve kindness. Kindness doesn’t require agreeing that they were born in the wrong body.

If ordinary, caring conversations are meant to be protected, put that protection clearly in the bill.

Not quite, they are only banned for the use of gender dysphoria.

I fear you are missing the use of the word "prescribed" in my post.

Thank you, very well expressed.

They're only illegal to use for the purposes of treating gender dysphoria.

Once again, I refer you to the use of the word "prescribed" in my post.

You are being wildly unreasonable, inaccurate and inflammatory presenting the Conversion Practices Bill in this way.

There's so much hate in the world right now, why on EARTH are people spending their time trying to stir up more, especially on such an important issue?

For anyone interested in facts not hysteria:

Minister for Equalities Olivia Bailey has confirmed that the bill does not include a blanket "carve-out" or exemption for parents, stating that parental rights are not absolute and are bound by the best interests of the child.

But this does not mean that standard, open parenting conversations, advice, or exploratory discussions will be criminalised. The government states that the law targets high thresholds of abuse - specifically conduct intended to change a person's sexual orientation or transgender identity through abusive acts that cause serious physical or psychological harm, or serious alarm and distress affecting daily life.

Everyday family talks are protected. The legislation is designed to address sustained coercive or controlling behavior rather than routine parenting or parental guidance.

It is no different to any other aspect of parenting - when it tips over to abuse, it's illegal. Nagging your kids to eat vegetables - not abusive. Holding their mouth open and forcefeeding them like you're making foie gras, denying them any other food until they eat their 10 a day - abusive.

If you don't understand the difference between parenting and abuse, you shouldn't have kids.

This is a pro-LGB argument. Same-sex attraction needs no cure. Rejecting sex stereotypes does not make a child the opposite sex. Children should be free to grow up lesbian, gay or bisexual without being told their bodies need fixing.

If you mean medical transition, your claim of worldwide medical unanimity is wrong. NHS England ended routine puberty blockers for under-18 gender dysphoria and has paused new under-18 cross-sex hormone prescriptions. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons now recommends delaying gender surgery until at least 19, citing insufficient evidence that benefits outweigh risks. Dismissing concerns as coming from YouTube does not answer that.

Of course parents have responsibilities. Those include questioning evidence, setting reasonable boundaries and considering long-term consequences. Taking a child’s distress seriously does not mean treating their explanation as beyond question.

Opposing this bill does not mean supporting abuse. The law must clearly distinguish abuse from compassionate, exploratory conversations with no predetermined outcome. Reassuring a child that there is nothing wrong with being gay or rejecting sex stereotypes is entirely consistent with supporting gay rights. Calling that “anti-LGBT” sidesteps the argument.

Yes same with the initial GRA.

@Bloozie I think you're being naive but hope you're right.

You are presenting disputed safeguards as settled facts. There are specific problems with your account.

First, the Bill does not require “sustained” conduct. Clause 1(2) covers “any conduct”. Coercion or control is not essential either: clause 1(6) also lists psychological or emotional pressure as factors when assessing abuse. The Government’s own explanatory notes, paragraph 22, identify existing laws’ requirement for a course of conduct as a limitation this Bill addresses.

Second, “everyday family talks are protected” is an assurance about how the general thresholds will operate, not an express safeguard in the text. Clause 1(3) provides a specific healthcare exception. There is no equivalent provision for reasonable parental guidance. Whether the general thresholds provide sufficient clarity for parents is precisely what is being disputed.

Third, conviction is not the only issue. The Schedule permits preventative civil protection orders against abusive practices likely to cause the specified serious effects. A previous criminal conviction is not required.
Yes, the main offence requires abuse and serious harm or seriously disruptive distress. Ordinary upset is insufficient. But your force-feeding example only establishes that obvious abuse is wrong. It does not resolve the disputed boundary between abusive pressure and responsible guidance when a child is distressed about their sex.

Parents should be able to reassure children that being gay or rejecting sex stereotypes does not mean their bodies need fixing. Asking for clear protection for those conversations is entirely compatible with prohibiting abuse.

If the Government intends to protect reasonable parenting, it can make that explicit. Telling people they “shouldn’t have kids” does nothing to answer the drafting concerns.

No definition of transgender identity. Or of serious distress. Or what an “abusive practice” is. No No limit or definition of what a sexuality is. Paedophilia is a sexuality. No evidence