The five tests that must be passed before any new law banning “conversion practices”
The government has announced in the King’s speech that a “draft bill will be brought forward to ban conversion practices”. In the briefing notes accompanying the King’s speech the government says:
“There is genuine cross party and cross society consensus to see these practices banned”.
Of course there is cross-society consensus that no one should be abused, assaulted or tortured, and such acts are already criminal. Attempts to “cure” people of homosexuality with electric shocks or nausea-inducing drugs are also thankfully a thing of the past. However, activists have now redefined the phrase “conversion therapy” and the even vaguer “conversion practices” to mean any attempted therapy which does not accept the idea that people are “born in the wrong body”.
To date we have seen no robust, contemporary evidence that there are abuses that cannot be prosecuted under existing legislation, but we have seen the cautious therapeutic approach to gender-distressed children recommended by Hilary Cass branded as “conversion”.
Five tests for legislation to “do no harm”
In advance of the King’s speech Sex Matters, together with other organisations including Gay Men’s Network and the Lesbian Project, wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to resist calls to take speedy action to legislate for a ban on so-called “conversion practices”and instead to commit to five tests that must be satisfied by any proposed legislation, based on the principle of “first do no harm”:
- Is there robust, contemporary evidence of abuses that cannot be prosecuted under existing legislation?
- Will legislation ensure that normal professional standards of therapy, medical treatment for co-occurring issues, pastoral care and family life are not criminalised?
- Will legislation be consistent with full implementation of the recommendations of the Cass Review?
- Will legislation be compatible with other human rights, including freedom of belief, freedom of speech and right to family life?
- In summary, will new legislation make life better for gay, gender-questioning and trans-identifying people?
The briefing notes for the King’s speech reflect an understanding that some of these tests need to be met, saying that the draft bill will:
- propose new offences to target acts of conversion practices that are not captured by existing legislation
- preserve the freedom for people, and those supporting them, to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity
- protect those providing medical care and support through legitimate psychological support, treatment, or non-directive counselling
- respect the important role that teachers, religious leaders, parents and carers can have in supporting those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Test 1: Where is the evidence?
The government explains the lack of evidence by saying conversion practices are “often hidden, covert and associated with shame, which results in a reluctance of victims to come forward”. It then recycles extremely weak survey statistics as evidence that:
“There is consistent and current evidence of prevalence which suggests [conversion practice] takes place today and is not a historical issue.”
The briefing cites two studies which have already been debunked. The first is research carried out by Galop in 2022 in which respondents were asked whether they had ever experienced someone taking action to try to change, cure or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is the source of the claim that nearly 1 in 5 (18%) of “LGBT+ people in the UK” have been subjected to conversion practices and 43% of trans-identifying people. Sex Matters published an analysis of this in February 2024.
The sample for this survey was not representative. 25% were transgender; 40% were disabled or had a lasting health condition (UK disability is cited as around 24% in 2023). The question did not ask about contemporary experiences.
The detailed answers in the Galop report did not provide evidence of anything that justified a new criminal offence. 56% of those who said they had experienced “conversion practices” were referring to treatment within their families such as these:
“I told my parents that I wasn’t my agab [assigned gender at birth] when I was a child and they told me I was wrong and stupid. When I expressed attraction to women they started forcing me to wear dresses and set me up on dates with teen boys they knew. It was crushing and I became an alcoholic when I was 17.”
“My father made constant references to how disgusting it was to be gay, quoting the bible, despite not being a believer.”
“I was actively told by a friend of mine at the time that I wasn’t really trans and that I was doing it for the attention and that they’ll never see me as trans and will actively go against it and tell people I’m lying.”
“I was outed at a young age (~12/13ish) by a friend I had confessed feelings to. I went to a religious school and the gossip spread quickly. One of the other pupils advise I attend her church to help me become straight. I was confused and so agreed to go.”
While these experiences were clearly unpleasant, they are not the business of the police or the criminal justice system. Other accounts include acts that are already criminal:
“Regular beatings by father and other children from a very early stage, extending to beatings from my brother and continuing through university. I have multiple old breaks in ribs, nose, cheekbone etc. Several hospital stays. Two suicide attempts.”
“I was raped by men who told me I wouldn’t like it (be gay) anymore after that.”
The other survey quoted in the King’s speech briefing is the 2017 National LGBT Survey commissioned by the Conservative government. In this survey, 2% of those who responded reported having “undergone conversion or reparative therapy in an attempt to ‘cure’ them of being LGBT”, and a further 5% reported having been offered it.
The survey described conversion therapy as “techniques intended to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity”, saying:
“These techniques can take many forms and commonly range from pseudo-psychological treatments to spiritual counselling. In extreme cases they may also include surgical and hormonal interventions or so-called ‘corrective’ rape.”
This evidence is extremely weak. The survey reached a self-selected sample which is not likely to be representative of the population of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people in the UK. It also did not distinguish between historic and contemporary practice and it bundled spiritual counselling together with abuses such as corrective rape and hormonal interventions.
As Sex Matters set out in 2021, it is notable that it found the frequency of reporting of experience of “conversion therapy” was higher for older than for younger people, suggesting that “conversion therapy” is largely a historic practice in the UK.
Legislating to ban something for which there is no evidence is likely to harm the children and vulnerable people the government seeks to protect. Rather than promising to move ahead with a ban, the new government needs to first ensure it is necessary and can be passed without doing more harm than good. It is a positive sign that the government stood firm against pressure from Stonewall to rush ahead with a “no delays and no loopholes” approach and will instead publish draft legislation for consultation. This is a slow-track approach that allows issues to be debated broadly, problems highlighted and changes proposed before the government decides to formally introduce a bill.