The conversion therapy law must not be rushed

Shoddily drafted legislation would leave vulnerable children at risk

On Thursday night, a leak revealed that the Prime Minister had decided not to proceed with the Conversion Therapy bill, which was to be published in draft next session. With no context provided, the uproar was understandable. Within hours there was a partial U-turn: the bill would go ahead, but it would focus on sexual orientation, while more time was taken to consider issues connected to gender identity. Cue cries of transphobia.

The truth, like the legislation, is far more complex. At its heart lies a concern that legislation could cause, rather than prevent, harm to children. The existing criminal law framework already protects against acts likely to be done in the name of conversion therapy (an attempt to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity). Reinforcing this seemed easy. But a problem emerges when extending the law to “talking therapies” for under-18s. “Talking therapies” is usually shorthand for well-intentioned support to help an individual explore who they are. Now, the term is being used in a negative way to describe attempts to stop children from being themselves, but no clear definition nor examples have been provided.

If a child asserted they were trans, could their parents, counsellor or therapist find themselves hauled through the courts if they asked questions, or prompted reflection over time? How would the line be drawn in law between what was and was not acceptable? What safeguards were there to be to prevent the overzealous application of the law?

Alarm bells have already started to ring in the US, France and Nordic countries, where children presenting with gender dysphoria – discomfort with their sexed bodies – were being affirmed or even encouraged to see themselves as trans without sufficient exploration of what else might be going on.

Previously, gender dysphoria had largely affected boys in their early childhood. Now, two-thirds are teenage girls. A third have autism. Many are same-sex attracted. And often there is a history of pre-existing mental health problems. What else could be causing this generation’s distress? To what extent is puberty, and all the associated confusion, playing a role and a reason for caution? Should studies that suggest that gender dysphoria often resolves in later adolescence or early adulthood really be discounted?

These issues have not seemed of primary importance to LGBT lobby groups, but they should be when children may be placed on a pathway of puberty blockers, with potential consequences for brain and bone development, cross-sex hormones leading to irreversible physical changes and potential infertility, and surgery such as double mastectomies for girls. They also add great complexity to declaring children “transgender” in law, and require careful consideration of how legislation can be written to avoid criminalisation of parents or clinicians who encourage a child to explore what else might be going on.

Unfortunately, any bill banning conversion therapy for sexual orientation is bound to see poorly drafted amendments to insert gender identity tabled within weeks of introduction. Lobby groups will whip up a social-media storm, portraying anyone that votes against the amendment as transphobic, and MPs and peers will have to decide whether they have the courage to intervene.

When the stakes are as high as they are in this case, involving vulnerable children, the need for circumspection has never been greater. It is very easy to rush legislation, but it’s what happens after Royal Assent that tells us if Parliament did well. Let us hope our parliamentarians are up to the challenge.

Young people may be placed on a pathway of puberty blockers, with potential consequences for brain and bone development, and irreversible physical changes