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?

Absolutely this.
But the bigots who are obsessed with trans people know this - their whole aim is to spread as much disinformation as possible to stoke a moral outrage. And it's a very old tactic to conflate LGBT people with paedophilia.

Interesting/concerning concepts coming from this bill.

For example - effeminate boy thinks that he must be a girl because he isnt attracted to girls and doesnt "fit" with the call of duty and football playing boys in his school.
Peers and school affirms and duly insists on she/her pronouns being used

Or teenage girl is attracted to females, has short hair, likes hanging with the boys, cannot be arsed with taylor swift and makeup thinks this must make her a boy because this is what shes seen/heard and her "transness" is being well and truly "affirmed" by school and assorted rainbow lanyard draped professionals.

Both declare that they are trans.
Boy wants skirts and a name change.
Girl wants a breast binder through puberty.
Both want access to support from GenderGp and mermaids.

This is all completely affirmed by all bar the parents.

Parents say - actually, they're gender nonconforming LGB's. We do not consent to the "transing" of our children. We do not want pronouns of the opposite sex to be used in relation to them, we do not want them treated as members of the opposite sex, and we do not want any decisions on this topic made until they are 18.
Both children distressed, both hitting the roof as parents have restricted to gender affirming media and services and exceptionally distressed.

Which could be considered conversion practices?

Affirming to LGB kids that theyre really members of the opposite sex and lining them up for medical pathways and surgery?

Or refusing gender affirmation and trans identities because they are at odds with GNC LGB?

Of course it can be clear. Look at where we are with legislation so far. We’re only diverging from Australia where legislation has failed to determine spaces for women.

Now the creator of that says she got it wrong. Not much can be done now.

This is similar but with children.

The concern is that maybe the intention with the bill is that there is extremely high threshold , but in reality it is how this were to be interpreted further down the line . I oppose this bill, I don’t think some of those pushing for it want there to be a high threshold and I think once law it is open to interpretation.

“Only criminal offences are prosecuted” tells us nothing about what this Bill would make an offence.

There does not need to be a separate crime called “misgendering”. Clause 1(2)(b)(ii) covers conduct intended to change whether someone believes they have a transgender identity. Clause 1(6)(e) includes psychological or emotional pressure among the factors courts consider when assessing abuse.

Using a child’s existing name would not automatically be criminal. The prosecution would still have to prove the required intention, abuse, and serious harm or serious alarm or distress substantially affecting daily activities. But that does not answer the concern about being drawn into an investigation.

The process can itself become the punishment. A parent could face police questioning, legal expenses, safeguarding scrutiny and damage to family relationships without ever being found guilty. An allegation that ultimately goes nowhere can still leave a family living under suspicion and afraid of saying the wrong thing.

If parents become afraid to discuss sex, sexuality or their child’s distress because they fear being reported, the law can inhibit responsible parenting without producing a single conviction.

That is why clear safeguards matter before anyone becomes a test case. “You probably wouldn’t be convicted” is little reassurance to a family already caught in the process.

Would that be the same medical community who pushed the trans agenda in the first place?

The doctors who willingly perform mutilating surgery on people?
Remove women's healthy breasts and men's healthy penises?

The doctors like Beth Upton who demand to be allowed to invade women's changing rooms even though they're biologically male?

I'm in Scotland. My Dd is gay. She feels much 'more like a boy than a girl'. Like Temple Grandin she is interested in Engineering, farming & trucks. Her GP suggested putting her on the 'pathway' to drugs and surgery. Her College tutor told her that it 'wouldn't matter if you become incontinent as you'll be your true self'. She's Autistic, semi verbal and takes a teddy bear to school. So no it's not always best left to 'the professionals'.

Thanks for running things through AI. I'm afraid to say that I could've done that myself.

Conversion therapy is already banned. This bill is about policing speech and belief.

Yep. The process is the punishment for a start.

As for the medical community agree with @TheBroonOneAndTheWhiteOne

It doesn't need any prosecution to take place to be disastrous for parents who don't support the transition of their child.

For those who might be interested, barrister and gay rights activist Dennis Kavanagh (with others from Gay Men's Network) - who believes the draft Bill isn't about gay rights but an attempt to smuggle gender identity into law and undermine legal decisions such as Forstater - has prepared a legal analysis in the context of other laws and rights: criminal law; human rights; civil, family and public law.
There is a handy executive summary for anyone who doesn't care to plunge into 57 (heavy going) pages of legalities.

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6a3cfe99e7bc27bb9c952b62/6a9c0cce5b7c62baf895c4fb_GayMensNetwork_DraftConversionTherapyPracticesBill_Response_2026.pdf

And here is a link to the Government Equality Office Policy Paper of 1 Sept 26 giving the content of the draft Bill
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-conversion-practices-bill/conversion-practices-draft-bill

No she hasn’t. This bill is a total shitshow.

What exactly are those “healthier and more constructive ways” for a parent to protect their child from the harms of breast binding and/or puberty blockers, that wouldn’t be criminalised under this law?

Given that the only threshold that needs to be met is causing “alarm and distress”, and any kind of conversation about it all could be reported by the child as causing that?

Can you give specific examples?

This is my question as well.

Possibly becuase we have those kinds of kids in our family with ND as well.

Plus why is this bill needed - is conversation therapy really a thing in UK society I mean I suppose it's possibly in some religious enclaves but surely violence and coercion are covered by other laws already?

Exactly.

They are not “only banned for the use of gender dysphoria” they are prescribed off label for a few other conditions related to hormones, they aren’t handing them out like smarties to everyone else 🙄

Absolutely 💯 agree

It is naive and there are specifically people pushing this bill who want to criminalise all these things. Some are influential. There are very few safeguards. It’s all in the interpretation.

This bill is 100% a Trojan horse for gender identity ideology.

This is terrifying and a serious safeguarding risk putting children in harms way. This is a form of gay conversion therapy backed by the pharmaceutical industry and men with fetishes.Any kids who don't feel they quite fit into the 'norms' of society are being coerced into thinking they are born in the wrong body. Follow the ever increasing horror stories of detransitioners to better understand the harms. Kiera Bell was one of the first to speak up.

Quite. There's no evidence that conversion therapy is happening in this country. None. At all. So this law isn't about preventing conversion therapy.

What is is about IMO, is the chilling effect it will have on therapists, social workers teachers and parents who don't jump straight in with full affirmation for any child who dislikes puberty. We've already seen the chilling effect of years of institutional capture, including parents cut out of discussions about their child by professionals, social care referrals and threats of hate crime reporting, when parents are concerned that there's something else than gender going on with their child - such as trauma, abuse, or being ND or same sex attracted. All of those things were wildly overrepresented in children referred to GIDS before it closed (see photo).

And anyone who expects the law to show some kind of common sense in this area, think again. A man was arrested by 5 armed police officers for tweets. A woman for taking a photo of a sticker, another for tying a ribbon on a tree. The law will not protect you in this area already, and this Bill will make it far more dangerous to even try to question why your child has suddenly thrown in their lot with a new group of online friends and started threatening suicide if you don't do everything they want. Parents in other countries who have these kind of laws have lost custody of their minor children because they don't want them to be given puberty blockers or hormones.

I think the secondary purpose of this law is to enshrine 'non-binary' in UK law for the first time. And after that, to try to undermine the Forstater and FWS ruling.

This is not about stopping conversion, it's about embedding gender ideology into law. It's a bad piece of legislation badly drafted and will be a bad law.

I was a gender non confirming young woman who thought I was a boy. If I had been young today, I would have gotten swept up with the idea that I was born in the wrong body, and nobody would have been allowed to protect me from it. I eventually came to be happy in my own body which would not have happened had I been encouraged along the path that leads to mutilation and hormones instead of gently encouraged away from it.

This is a bill hiding behind the boogie words "conversion therapy" to scare people. This is not about stopping quacks from electrocuting the gay away. It's a bill denying parents, therapists and other responsible adults the right to tell a child they are fine as they are.

I've read the executive summary and it's excellent. Thanks for linking to it.

There is no way this bill should pass. It will undermine healthy family relationships and could potentially sink those services (already under strain, such as social services) who are supposed to support distressed children via vexatious complaints on ideological grounds.

It's bonkers. And I think it's politically motivated - as the executive summary says there is no evidence that conversion practices are widespread in the UK. And there is existing law covering harm from any conversion practices. So why this new bill? It seems to be trying to entrench an ideological position via the back door.

It also appears to be in direct conflict with safeguarding legislation and KCSIE.

This bill as is will be extremely destructive to our society and family life.

From the Bill 'Meaning of “conversion practice” and related terms
(1) This section has effect for the purposes of this Act.
(2) “Conversion practice” means (subject to subsection (3)) any conduct carried out by a person towards an individual 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; or

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

a transgender identity or a particular transgender identity.'

It does exactly what the OP says, if you read the draft Bill.

I've highlighted some text from the bill above to demonstrate how doolally it is. Why is it conflating sexual orientation AND gender identity? Why? Well the answer is because wither they are idiots (possible) or there is nefarious gains to be had by doing so (possible)

Sexual orientation is a given. It cannot be changed.

Gender Identity is a person wishes or desires, about how they wish to present themselves.. it is not a fact, unlike sexual orientation.

To conflate the two is disgusting, especially in a bill called 'conversion practices' - which as we all know alludes to the horrific practices used by some nutcases (usually in the USA) to try and change a persons actual sexuality.

This is yet another case of the gender wang movement manipulating and using language to confuse and redirect people ('transwoman' to mean 'man', anyone?)