Attempts to introduce a legal ban on conversion therapy in the UK have had a chequered history so far. Initially promised in 2018, proposed bans in Scotland dramatically ended the promising political careers of two First Ministers. Attempts to bring in a ban under the outgoing Conservative Government also foundered badly, as the difficulty of bringing transgender persons into its remit became all too apparent. Now the Labour Government, newly converted to the reality of sex-based rights set out by the UK Supreme Court, has picked up what seems to be the poisoned chalice of bringing in the conversion therapy ban.
Even the term ‘conversion therapy’ defies easy translation. It refers to attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation, classically from being gay or lesbian to straight. More controversially, it can also include attempts to change or suppress a person’s gender identity, that is their inner incongruent sense of gender. While sexual orientation is based on observable behaviour, the term gender identity lacks any agreed criteria. It depends crucially on self-declaration, as the expression of an untestable belief. Research on the incidence of conversion therapy in the UK continues to be strongly contested (Jowett, 2021; Sex Matters, 2021).
Banning conversion therapy
Where conversion therapy (or ‘practices’) does take place, it seems to occur most often in religious settings. Gay aversion therapy, always controversial and never mainstream practice, had definitely peaked by the mid-1970’s. Conversion therapy aimed at trans identifying people is hard to pin down with any certainty (Jenkins, 2021a). Unhelpfully, the culturally dominant trans paradigm insists that even therapist failure to affirm their clients gender identity is directly equivalent to conversion therapy (Ashley, 2020). So we might be tempted to conclude that a conversion therapy ban for sexual orientation is completely unnecessary, while a similar ban for gender identity is completely untenable.
Despite this, attempts to revive the flagging fortunes of the movement to ban conversion therapy have begun to re-emerge. Jeremy Clarke, with a background in influencing government policy on state-provided therapy services, recently provided a webinar on this topic for the British Psychoanalytic Society (BPS). The BPS is one of the more august bodies on the UK therapy scene. It carries some degree of clout within the government corridors of power. According to Clarke (2025), the situation is clear: “We should support the introduction of the legislation against conversion therapy”. Many countries have already brought in legislation of this kind. Conversion therapy is a breach of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, constituting a form of torture. In a rather curious phrase, he added that it should not be a case of following “courtroom type arguments in the transgender culture war”. This could only produce winners and losers, rather than a much-needed consensus on this divisive issue.
LGBT survey
Yet one of Clarke’s key arguments relied on just such a courtroom argument of very doubtful validity. Based on the Government Equality Office (GEO) LGBT survey of 2018, he argued that “if 7% or so of 2.5 million LGBT citizens are at risk of conversion therapy that could add up to something like 175,000 cases of potential compensation that the Government has to pay out” (Clarke, 2025). This might well seem a persuasive case, likely to bring round even the most reluctant of government ministers to support the economic case for a legal ban on conversion therapy.
But these figures really make no sense. The true size of the LGBT population is a relatively unknown factor, according to the Office of National Statistics (Booth, 2024). The GEO Survey is a non-random, unrepresentative, self-report survey. It simply cannot be extrapolated in this way (GEO, 2018: 10). The resulting figure of a potential 175,000 live cases is not credible by any reasonable standard. It implies that every person responding positively to the survey question was actually offered, or did actually undergo, conversion therapy as claimed, and also that every case would win hands down in court.
One might well wonder, if there really is this horrendous backlog of viable conversion and torture cases waiting to be heard, then where did they all suddenly disappear to? The striking absence so far of successful legal cases for conversion therapy might well point to the opposite conclusion. The enormous gap between just ticking a box on a questionnaire and making a successful legal claim in court perhaps points towards the powerful atmosphere of moral panic on this issue. This has been promoted and maintained by a wider media’s narrative about trans oppression.
Conflict with the Cass Review
The other major, but still largely invisible, barrier to a conversion therapy ban is to be found in the form of the Cass Review. Keira Bell, a detransitioner, brought an epic judicial review of the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in 2020. This revealed an institution in complete disarray, lacking evidence-backed protocols, driven by trans ideology, and bereft of effective clinical governance (Barnes, 2023). A sharply critical investigation by the government watchdog, the Care Quality Commission, rated the GIDS as inadequate. Hilary Cass, a senior and well-respected paediatrician, then carried out a systematic review of NHS provision for children under 18 experiencing gender distress. This led to the closure of the GIDS and its replacement by a more psychologically-based holistic model of care, less oriented towards medicalised intervention via provision of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones (BBC, 2022).
However, this shift towards a cautious approach has generated a firestorm of adverse criticism. Within the trans paradigm, exploratory therapy is all too often equated with attempts at conversion therapy. Cass does not accept this heated claim: “The intent of psychological intervention is…to explore their concerns and experiences…It is harmful to equate this approach to conversion therapy as it may prevent young people from getting the emotional support they deserve” (Cass, 2024: 150).
MOU opposition to Cass Review
Igi Moon, Chair of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy (MOU), has followed the lead of trans activists, in openly opposing the recommendations of the Cass review (Transactual, 2024). Rising concerns over the MOU’s equivocal provision for exploratory therapy then led to the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), a leading UK psychotherapy professional association, to leave the MOU (UKCP, 2023; 2024). Another major UK professional therapy association, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP), seems to have simply ignored Cass. This is despite the Cass Review’s widespread and immediate relevance to school counsellors over the issue of facilitating children’s social transition.
So, here’s the problem: the Labour Government is committed to the Cass reforms of gender healthcare; the Labour Government is also committed to a legal ban on conversion therapy; Cass supports the need for exploratory therapy, which is imperilled by a ban on conversion therapy. To complicate things further, as if that were possible, the MOU and most medical and therapy associations now support a conversion therapy ban; some therapy associations also oppose (or wilfully ignore) Cass.. So the Labour Government simultaneously supports a major, evidence-based reform of gender services, and also supports the introduction of a legal ban on conversion therapy, which will render these reforms unworkable.
Getting the conversion therapy ban over the line
Which is where Jeremy Clarke and the British Psychoanalytic Society webinar comes in. Moon speaks for the trans activists, who now effectively control gender policy across a wide swathe of the medical and therapy professions in the UK. But another tack will now be needed, if Labour politicians are to be persuaded that a conversion therapy ban won’t cause an embarrassing clash with Cass. Clarke, a former deputy Chair of the MOU, clearly has the background and clout to influence those in the government corridors of power, given his past work on the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies scheme. This was a government backed programme to provide much wider access to Cognitive Behaviour Therapy in the UK, now known as NHS Talking Therapies services.
So, while Moon can talk for the activists, Clarke can presumably speak for the lobbyists, to help MPs move the conversion therapy ban over the finishing line, inch by inch. And, of course, once a conversion therapy ban is in force, whatever the promises and safeguards which are offered along the way in order to protect exploratory, mainstream therapy, once the ban is in force, just like the draconian legislation in Victoria State, Australia, it will be far too late (Jenkins, 2021b).
Courtroom arguments
So, returning to this prickly theme of ‘courtroom arguments’. The research case for a UK conversion therapy ban is weak and inconclusive. Sweden, a country with comparable levels of healthcare provision to the UK, carried out its own survey of alleged conversion therapy and decided that a legal ban was not required. It found “no clear indication that therapy-imitating methods (2) occur. Since criminalisation should not be applied for pre-emptive or preventive purposes, there is no reason to consider criminalisation of these forms of conversion efforts” (Holke, 2023: 36).
In fact, courtroom arguments have so far provided an absolutely essential defence of freedom of speech for those people, including therapists, who have resisted the chilling effects of gender ideology and a proposed conversion therapy ban. The case of James Esses is illustrative in this respect. Esses, a trainee psychotherapist with Metanoia, was abruptly dismissed from his course for raising safeguarding issues about trans-identified children on his placement with Childline. He brought a successful legal case against Metanoia and its governing body, UKCP, which was settled out of court in 2024 (Gentleman, 2024).
Legal protection for gender critical therapists
But this is merely one of a whole tranche of successful legal cases brought against employers for breach of rights under the Equality Act 2010 since the landmark Forstater case. This latter legal precedent affords strong protection for the expression of gender critical beliefs. The success rate for cases brought by employees experiencing unlawful harassment or discrimination in the workplace usually hovers at around 12%. However, it soars to an exceptional 83% in the cases brought to defend the right to hold and express gender critical beliefs, as a mainstream part of free speech within a democratic society (Birchall & Phoenix, 2024).
Therapy students have also faced enormous pressures to bow to gender ideology as the mainstay of their training programmes: as one aggrieved student put it: “Tutors talk about ‘conversion therapy’ as if it is a feature of practice in the UK (it isn’t)” (Thoughtful Therapists, 2025). But now the law to protect freedom of speech in universities is to be radically enhanced, via the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (Parker Hall, 2025).
Even the recent Supreme Court ruling on the biological definition of sex in applying equality law now presents something of a direct challenge to MOU adherents. According to Moon, “The idea of a two-sex model may be great for some people if that’s what you want to believe then fine you believe it but you can’t believe that alone if you want to work with clients” (MOU, 2021; emphasis added: PJ). It will be more than interesting to see how comfortably the MOU’s flat-out rejection of the ‘two-sex model’, a model so strongly endorsed by the UK Supreme Court, will sit alongside the future implementation of the Cass reforms under Secretary of State for Health, Wes Streeting.
Conclusion
Attempts to introduce a UK legal ban on alleged conversion therapy have had a bumpy ride so far, and a notable lack of success. The research evidence base for conversion therapy is remarkably unimpressive for any observer not already swayed by gender ideology. The latest attempt to bring in a legal ban on conversion therapy, however defined, will confront several major blocks to its adoption. A legal ban might well have the support of most medical and therapy professional associations, captured as these appear to be by trans activists, and marshalled by the MOU. However, a conversion therapy ban will directly clash with and undermine yet another major government policy, namely its implementation of the much-needed Cass reforms. A ban will also clash directly with the now well-embedded legal defence of gender critical speech for therapists as part of an impressively growing body of UK law. However skilfully British psychoanalysts might seek to finesse the unravelling of this particular Gordian knot, it will inevitably come down in the end to courtroom arguments to decide this issue once and for all.
References:
Andersson, J. & Rhoden-Paul, A. (2022) NHS to close Tavistock child gender identity clinic. BBC News. 28th July. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62335665
Ashley, F. (2020) “Homophobia, conversion therapy and care models for trans youth: Defending the gender affirmative approach”, Journal of LGBT Youth, 17(4), 361-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2019.166561
Barnes, H. (2023) Time to think: The inside story of the collapse of the Tavistock Gender Service for Children. Swift: London.
Birchall, R. and Phoenix, J. (2024) Don’t Get Caught Out: A Summary of Gender Critical Belief Discrimination Employment Tribunal Judgments. Occasional Paper. Employment and Justice Series. School of Law, University of Reading. https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/118472/8/Dont%20Get%20Caught%20Out%20final%20%28002%29.pdf
Booth, R. (2024) Official estimate of trans population in England and Wales dropped by ONS. Guardian. 12th September. Official estimate of trans population in England and Wales dropped by ONS | Transgender | The Guardian
Cass Review (2024) Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people. https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report
Clarke, J. (2025) Policing the analytic space: The BPC Code of Practice and its new ‘no go’ areas’. British Psychoanalytic Council. Webinar. 15th July. “Policing the analytic space: the BPC code of practice and its new “no go areas”
Gentleman, A. (2024) Student psychotherapist wins apology over expulsion for gender-critical views. Guardian. 15th August. https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/15/student-psychotherapist-wins-apology-over-expulsion-for-gender-critical-views
Government Equalities Office (GEO) (2018) National LGBT Survey: Research Report. Department for Education: Manchester. www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-lgbt-survey
Jenkins, P. (2021a) Unpacking research into the prevalence of conversion therapy by therapists in the UK. Transgender Trend. https://www.transgendertrend.com/conversion-therapy-therapists-uk/
Jenkins, P. (2021b) LGBT research and the push for a UK ban on conversion therapy. Critical Therapy Antidote. https://criticaltherapyantidote.org/2021/09/26/lgbt-research-and-the-push-for-a-uk-ban-on-conversion-therapy/
Jowett, A. et al (2021) Conversion therapy: An evidence assessment and qualitative study. Conversion therapy: an evidence assessment and qualitative study – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Judge Holcke (2023) Enhanced protection of personal privacy: The need for measures against virginity checks, certificates of innocence and innocence interventions and conversion attempts. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (SOU) (Ministry of Justice). Stockholm, Sweden. Förstärkt skydd för den personliga integriteten Behovet av åtgärder mot oskuldskontroller, oskuldsintyg och oskuldsingrepp samt omvändelseförsök, SOU 2023:37
Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy (MOU) (2021) Therapists against Conversion Therapy: 4/11/2021: (Video)
Parker Hall, S. (2025) Office for Students free speech in psychotherapy and counselling trainings: What the Office for Students new guidance could mean. Foundation for Academic Integrity and Responsibility. free speech in psychotherapy and counselling trainings
Sex Matters (2021) A rapid review of the Coventry University research on “gender identity conversion therapy”. https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Coventry-University-research-on-conversion-therapy.pdf
Thoughtful Therapists (2025) Stories from therapists: How gender ideology impacts us. https://www.thoughtfultherapists.org/therapists-stories
Transactual (2024) Letter to Wes Streeting. https://transactual.org.uk/blog/2024/10/18/trans-community-letter-to-secretary-of-state-for-health-wes-streeting/
UKCP (2023) Guidance regarding gender critical views. https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/news/ukcp-guidance-regarding-gender-critical-views/#:~:text=Case%20law%20has%20confirmed%20that,therefore%20not%20be%20discriminated%20against
UKCP (2024) UKCP Update on conversion therapy. UKCP update on conversion therapy
Legal references
Forstater v. CGD UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ. Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)
For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) [2025] UKSC 16 https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042
By Peter Jenkins, counsellor, supervisor, trainer and researcher in the UK. He has been a member of both the BACP Professional Conduct Committee and the UKCP Ethics Committee. He has published a number of books on legal aspects of therapy, including Professional Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy: Ethics and the Law (Sage, 2017). https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/author/peter-jenkins
Peter is also a member of Thoughtful Therapists. His critique of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy was described as ‘instrumental’ in persuading the UKCP Board of the case for leaving the MOU in 2024.
Leave a Reply