Draft Conversion Practices Bill - published

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

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

Any time you try to claim your personal belief as a fact, you’ll be challenged.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1uf52tc/conversion_practices_draft_bill/

Bill has not gone down well on the other side at all...

Hilarious, considering how Stonewall - which has welcomed this law that has inherent risks for lesbians and gay men - was telling us lesbians that we have to be open to dating biological men who have an "internal sense" that they are lesbians otherwise we are akin to racists. What is that if not an attempt at conversion therapy of lesbians, to make us be attracted to men? Trans ideology in many cases is conversion therapy of gay people.

So, if I tell man who enters a ladies loo that it's for women only and he says "I am a woman" then it's illegal for me to point out that he isn't a woman and he therefore shouldn't be in the women's loos? But, according to Labour biological men shouldn't be in women's loos. Now they're telling us that it's illegal to tell biological men that they shouldn't be in the women's loos? Labour really need to work out what their laws are.

Is it ok for me under this new proposed law to say that I don't believe transwomen are women, that I believe transwomen are men and that they always will be men and that it's impossible for men to become women, as long as I don't say directly to a man who claims to be a woman that he's not a woman, he's a man?

You say “most women and most gay people do not support your movement”. That just is not borne out by the data.

Polling over the last few years shows that a clear majority of Britons want toilets, changing rooms and showers to remain single-sex. In a JL Partners poll of 1,500 UK adults in March 2026, 78% preferred single-sex workplace toilets, 81% preferred single-sex toilets in parks or pubs, and 86% preferred single-sex showers and changing rooms. Only around one in five respondents said trans-identifying people should be allowed to use whichever facilities they prefer, and this was true even among 18- to 24-year-olds and Green voters. https://sex-matters.org/posts/single-sex-services/new-poll-shows-most-people-prefer-single-sex-toilets-and-changing-rooms/]

YouGov’s own research says much the same. In December 2024, fewer than four in ten Britons said trans women should be allowed to use women’s changing rooms or toilets, while 55–58% were opposed. A majority, 55%, said letting trans women use spaces reserved for women, such as toilets or changing rooms, presents a genuine risk of harm to women. 74% said trans women should not compete in women’s sport. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51325-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-transgender-rights-in-2024-25]

Support is also moving away from self-ID. Among women, YouGov found support for people legally changing gender had fallen from 44% in 2022 to 37%, while opposition had risen to 42%. Among 18- to 24-year-olds, support for legal gender change fell seven points, while opposition rose sixteen points. Overall, only about a third of Britons now say people should be able to change both their social and legal gender, while a similar share say neither. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51325-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-transgender-rights-in-2024-25]

A YouGov poll for Sex Matters in December 2024 found that 54% supported clarifying the Equality Act so that sex means biological sex, and among those expressing a view support was more than 2:1 in favour. It also found almost three-quarters thought women’s sport should exclude all males, regardless of claimed identity. https://sex-matters.org/posts/single-sex-services/poll-shows-support-for-sex-meaning-sex-in-equality-act/]

None of this means the public is hostile to trans people. More in Common found that most Britons want a “live and let live” approach, with compassion and common sense as the starting point. People want trans people treated decently and protected from bullying and discrimination. But the same report also found that most of the public, 57%, think trans women should not compete in women-only sport, and that people want inclusion balanced with fairness. https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/britons-and-gender-identity/]

Ipsos found the same international trend in 2025. Only 22% across 23 countries supported trans athletes competing based on gender identity rather than sex, down from 32% in 2021. Opposition was strongest in Great Britain and Hungary, both at 61%. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2025-06/ipsos-pride-report-2025.pdf]

Gender critical is not a mad fringe view. It is a massive majority across all sections of the country. In the ordinary, practical sense — humans cannot literally change sex, and women’s spaces and sport should not be opened to males on the basis of identity — it is now basically the mainstream UK position, and it always has been

Most people do not hate trans people. Most people are happy to be polite, live and let live, and let adults present however they want. What they do not accept is being told that sex is not real, that women cannot have boundaries, or that single-sex spaces must become mixed-sex because activists demand it.

And I think support is falling partly because people have seen what “trans rights” activism actually asks for in practice: self-ID, males in women’s sport, males in women’s changing rooms, compelled language, no debate, and anyone who says “hang on” being called a bigot. That is not winning people over. It is pushing ordinary women, gay people and plenty of decent middle-of-the-road people towards the gender-critical position.

TRAs have shot their own movement by pushing too far and being dick heads.

https://stoptheconversiontherapyban.uk

Please sign.....

Labour’s conversion therapy bill is not fit for purpose
By Josephine Bartosch

https://archive.ph/DzVsU

The problem with determining what is "cruel and excessive" when it comes to a trans identity' is that it is as vague and undefinable as the term 'trans identity' itself. Is it cruel or extreme, for example, to remind people that they remain the sex they are; or is a non believer simply refusing to use false pronouns also cruel and excessive?

Nobody wants for people with trans identities to be subject to 'corrective rape', or be beaten, held captive, or forcefully marrried off to a stranger. That is the sort of cruel practice that is being referred to when it comes to same sex attracted people being subject to forced conversion practices.

And, of course, one of the issues that concerns people here is that the use of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and surgical procedures on children and young people with mental and emotional distress. This could certainly be seen as cruel and extreme. It could also be seen as a conversion practice, since many of these children are actually gay. This was the testimony of gay clinicians who worked at the Tavistock gender clinic before it was closed down.

Very interesting. They are horrified there is a medical exemption.

Hopefully this opposition from the TA side will help undermine the bill.

There aren't really laws around gay marriage, there are laws around same-sex marriage.

Discrimination laws around homosexuality don't revolve around the victim being homosexual, but rather a belief that the victim is perceived to be homosexual. Heterosexual people can be victims of homophobia too

Really most laws don't require any evidence of homosexual attraction.

There's an irony that conversion therapy is defined as various treatments such as electroshock and talking therapy to cure them of transsexuality, but removing organs, pumping the body with synthetic hormones is considered humane.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5546860-aibu-to-think-parents-must-be-allowed-to-say-no-to-gender-ideology-petition-against-the-terrible-draft-conversion-therapy-ban

Thanks for the article, fromorbit

Yet there is one thing legislators should be able to agree on: laws built on vague definitions are dangerous.

What confidence can a clinician have that exploratory questioning will not later be characterized as an attempt to alter or suppress a patient’s identity?

The problem is that once vague concepts are written into statute, they cease to belong to the politicians who drafted them.

Isn't this interesting? Did I not just say all this earlier, and was dismissed without even attempting to answer any of these apparently pertinent concerns? Seems I'm not the only one concerned about correct definitions in law. Who would have guessed??

All this angst and pain and delay, only to come back round to what Glinner said SIX YEARS AGO. He was right then and he is still right now.

"You don't tell children that they were born in the wrong body because they're children and they will believe you."

• (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

So someone could prosecute a teacher who teaches about 'transgender identities' and TRAs who groom on Bluesky or Discord?

Interesting.

Maybe it will all eventually come down to no one is allowed to talk about gender ideology at all, or talk about being gender critical, or about nonbinary, or any of this, because everything you say could get you prosecuted! 😆

Honestly, if we could guarantee that men would be forbidden forever more in female single-sex spaces and services, and no one would be forcing us to use the wrong words for things (like forced pronouns, or cervix-havers) I'd be very happy to never, ever discuss any of this ever again!

I don't understand why they decided to drop this bill now, in the dying days of the Starmer government. To sabotage Burnham? Or it's been rushed out by Olivia Bailey, Minister for "Equalities", when government is in a kind of drift and she thinks no one will notice. Perhaps she's worried it will be shoved under the carpet when Burnham takes over.

This bill will satisfy no one and annoy all sides. I always thought it was a leftover from the full-on trans activist infiltration of the Labour party (if you look at some of the language associated with early versions of the conversion therapy "ban" proposal, it was very circa 2017).

As it currently is, it's a mess that makes no sense and will be unworkable in practice (any conversion therapy ban would be, truth be told, but this one in particular sounds like it's trying to square circles). This bill would also contradict the Equality Act and the EHRC guidance, as, for example, trans-identified men won't be able to use women's loos because they are not biological women. They are thus having their "internal sense" of being a woman violated.

I did say earlier that I thought the new government might quietly dump it, perhaps after a bit of haggling and a consultation or something. It's not really worthwhile tabling it now just to say " well, see what we did for you, and the other Party dumped it" because they're both Labour.

It may have been done at the behest of Andy Burnham, but I think that's high unlikely, even as a sop to him. He's not even guaranteed the Leader position yet (yet!)

So this has to be a "Starmer thing before he goes" thing or a "let's do this quickly before Starmer notices" thing. If so, Burnham might want to withdraw it, tweak it, whatever, so that he can say it was "a former PM's idea" ( if he doesn't want it) or "look at my, greatly-improved, Bill" (if he does want it).

I have hopes that it will be "withdrawn for further consideration and consultation." I'm not an optimistic kind of person, generally 😬

It was promised in the Kings speech, anyone who thought they were going to dump this is still clinging to the idea that Labour are the party of the people.
Every other country in the Global Left club has got one, Labour activists are all part of that gang. They're more interested in impressing the internationist than anything the insignificant population want, they're all part of a Transglobal movement, we don't count.

I think it's the timing of it that's confusing. And the King does one of these speeches every year, and this recent one was for Starmer's government. Burnham may want a different direction, even if it's just for the sake of being different. If Labour still wanted Starmer and everything he stood for, he wouldn't be leaving!

I don't believe Labour is the party of the people. Labour cares only about themselves, and lots of them don't agree on anything. I still think that if Burnham wants this Conversion Bill, he'll want to put his own stamp on it. We'll see.

Not a great surprise: I think the two areas most affected by this will be religious groups that discourage homosexuality and pro-trans advocacy organisations.

Much discussion here and elsewhere is on the description of "Conversion Practices" in the bill, but the real content is the proposed offence of carrying out or encouraging "Abusive Conversion Practices". With "Dangerous Driving", the "Dangerous" part is a lot more important than the definition of "Driving", and it's the same here.

For "Conversion Practices", the description is incredibly broad, but the key part is what counts as "Abusive" from the characterisation in paras 1(5) and (6):

This is not simple, but it is very much in the vein of recent legislation that tries to cover things like "coercion" in relationships that is abusive while not outright violent. It's extremely hard to operationalize but definitely important.

I think there are two novel elements, compared to current legislation.

1. Making an offence of conversion practices that use emotional or other controlling coercion — existing legislation already outlaws physical harm like electroshock. Extending that to "words or behaviour" is difficult to do well, but I think important to address. It might cover, for example, religious organisations running a weekend camp on "freedom from same-sex attraction"; or a group that suggests ways to get your kid to go on that camp.
2. Including gender identity as well as sexuality. That's new: persuading someone they "really are trans" is definitely a conversion practice and, if done in certain ways, could be abuse in law.

My reckoning is that for sexuality, bogus scares about "gays will try to make everyone gay" leads to legislation that in practice hits the real issue of those trying to pray away the gay, and that's a good thing. Adding in "gender identity" because of TRAs campaigning that we all want to sacrifice "trans kids" will in the end turn out mostly to be effective against "come join our rainbow family" groups. Here's hoping.

I personally know several young men who have desisted and regret having been convinced to take oestrogen because they’d still like to father children despite taking oestrogen they obtained online. They told me of being encouraged to think of themselves being trans by anonymous posters on discord etc. Including a young gay man who says he’s a straight woman now. There’s a tsunami of young autistic men out there being confused and many regretting that. But I know you don’t care. No need to reply.

That is just so, so awful.

And yet those anonymous discord posters will have nothing to fear from this bill. No one will be going after them.

Though i suspect it will be rushed through as a sop to the activists who still cannot reconcile themselves with the SC ruling or the new guidance.

It will be a poorly made law with inevitable unintended and unforseen consequences, which will take up lots of time and energy to unravel going forward.

Does the bill have a glossary of terms somewhere? I was wondering whether they have a definition for "transexual".

(8) The circumstances in which an individual has a transgender identity include (but are not limited to) where—

• (a) the individual is undergoing, is proposing to undergo or has undergone a process of gender reassignment,
• (b) the individual is transsexual,
• (c) the individual identifies as neither male nor female or as not solely male or female.

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

No one should tell a child/adolescent their belief they are in the wrong body is true because that implies there is something wrong with the child/adolescent.

The Finnish expert in adolescent gender medicine, Dr Kaltiala reported on this (my bold).

Asked by Helsingin Sanomat what she thought of gender self-identification for minors—a proposed element of the new Finnish law that did not ultimately pass—

Kaltiala emphasized that it is “important to accept [children] as they are,” but this means neither pressuring a child to conform to behaviours traditionally associated with the child’s sex nor “negating the body” by confirming that the child’s gender self-identification is real. “In either case,” said the psychiatrist, “the child gets a message that there is something wrong with him or her.”

^Evidence from a combined 12 studies to date demonstrates that when children with cross-gender or gender variant behavior are left to develop naturally, the vast majority—“four out of five,” according to Kaltiala—come to terms with their bodies and learn to accept their sex. When they are socially transitioned, virtually none do.*

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/finland-youth-gender-medicine

Dr Riittakerttu Kaltiala, a psychiatrist at Tampere University, founded one of Finland's two pediatric gender clinics in 2011.