Draft Conversion Practices Bill - Oral Evidence 29/10/27, 12.15pm

[ImNotAsCooperativeAsYouMightWantAWomanToBe]

This will be worth watching on Thursday. It will be on Parliament TV.

(Image incoming)

Thanks all, just caught up.

Ilia’s and his fecking “that’s abstract so not worthy of formulating a response” vs Dennis “see article x and then we can discuss article y as it’s all there and works well, and I can discuss the words it has but let’s talk about the words it doesn’t have and the ramifications of that”.

How much louder could they shout “don’t ever say you weren’t warned”.

Do you think I could marry Dennis? I really, really like a bloke who is clear about things.

I've just been playing spot the difference with two screenshots. The two missing for the second session were Maria Goldman, Lib Dem and Lord Hope of Craighead, Crossbench

Cracking sleuthing.
I bet they've got all the allowances that they are entitled to though.
Shameful behaviour .

AI tells me Lord Hope isn't a trans advocate and he did seem a bit doddery in the first half so maybe his absence was for a genuine reason?

Whereas Maria Goldman is 100% TWAW and didn't look a happy bunny in the first half.

Thanks for the commentary, I'm glad those who know this bill is absolute shite got the opportunity to say so.
I am however not hopeful about the outcome, everyone in the EU has one, so our copycat government is going to have one too, it's like whistling in the wind.
I am however, grateful to those that tried, this preformative crap can't get a free pass we have to make the objections to it a part of the official record.

If you're the standard demographic for this board then you're not his type! I have to admit I was fangirling him massively during that, especially the repeatedly hammering the fact that we have laws on the books already that relate to the practices mentioned, the police failures to recognise that they could be used, and the massive holes in the provisions of the bill as drafted. And then being politically savvy enough to throw them a bone by suggesting provisions for prosecutions where someone is sent abroad for practices that would be illegal here. It's rare that Helen isn't my favourite person of a panel she's on, and to be fair she did very well, but he was an absolute star, and the Committee would be foolish if they didn't take his warnings into account.

I understand they both have family members who identify as ‘trans’.

@TakingMyChancesWithTheRabbits 😍. Don’t care.

I think that whatever their particular allegiances are, walking out part way through is piss poor.

(Unless you are in dire need of medical assistance.)

The committee did seemed attuned to the pitfalls of the bill, particularly the impact on the family and the risk of criminalising parents. If amendments are made to the bill to remove this risk, then TRAs will be very unhappy, so we may end up with a bill that everyone hates.

Why did Marie Goldman agree to be part of the committee if she is not willing to listen to arguments from both sides?

Does seem like a perfect example of 'I'll only listen to that which I want to hear' behaviour.

I find the act of pointedly walking out when people you don't want to have an opinion start to speak, by our elected officials like the Green's in Bristol, extremely anger inducing. 🤬

A big bunch of twats on a long, long list of twaty people.

As far as I'm concerned that should be a declared interest

Thanks all, catching up now.

My main takeaway really - this is a wish to make causing an uncomfortable emotion in someone who is claiming a gender identity to be a punishable offense.

With no definition or boundaries of any kind around what a non special person would have to do to be seen to be 'causing'. All motives irrelevant. And no evidence required. Which means even frantic indulgence of said special person at all times still may not save you.

Which renders it absolute farce, particularly when taken with the very obvious co morbidities, emotional issues, psychological and mental health issues etc involved.

Professionals could at least have a very carefully legally checked wording about how they absolutely do not fucking dare to ever get involved with a trans client are not experts on this very sensitive and special issue and therefore must refer all even possible gender issues to someone so qualified.

Parents will have no such escape.

Will the existence of anything that causes an uncomfy emotion in a special person instantly be prosecutable? Christmas lights? Women's spaces? FWR? JKR?

Agree, so clear and engaged with all the questions in depth.

I haven’t read the details of the bill but is it exclusive to conversion in the context of sexual orientation and gender?

Just wondering if there is a religious / proselytising element to it that could be considered alongside the GC belief / other WORIADS beliefs. E.g. a parent challenged by this could potentially turn it around to say they were being faced with ‘conversion tactics’ that challenge their protected beliefs.

Note - am thinking out loud, might be nonsense

In theory it works both ways, but in practice we know how these sorts of things generally play out. I’m fully supportive of making the drafters aware of these unintended consequences though, see the current thread by TinselAngel about a trans widow perspective.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5594066-conversion-practices-bill-unintended-benefits-for-trans-widows?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Not sure if the man at the back shaking his head has already been identified in the thread, but according to X he is Dr S Chelvan - Junior Barrister? LGBTQ activist who mainly deals with asylum law.

What was so impressive was that unlike the supporters of the bill, DK etc were so clear. They've drilled down into detail - not just all the legal aspects but the human consequences for family life that this bill will impact on. How it will criminalise parenting, dismantle aspects of safeguarding and undermine parental rights / responsibilities.

Depressing to think that there are politicians who will dismiss this.

I'm confused. Professor Ilias Trispiotis keeps saying 'it's a very high bar', but if the bar is so high, aren't we talking about actions that are already illegal?

That has been the point of DK and the Gay Mens Alliance since the first incarnation of this.

The Trojan Horse was caught with its trousers right down today. However we have many MPs stupid enough to wave it through.

Bloody right.

Stonewall has published online (27 October 2026):

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/news/help-make-abusive-conversion-practices-a-thing-of-the-past

Help make abusive conversion practices a thing of the past
^^
The Government published a draft Bill to ban conversion practices in June 2026, and the Bill is currently being scrutinised by a Joint Committee of MPs and Lords.
^^
On Monday 26th October the Joint Committee published a call for evidence, seeking views on how the draft Bill could be improved and how any issues in the current drafting of the Bill can be resolved.
^^
The deadline for submissions in Monday 16 November at 5PM. You can read more about the call for evidence here....