Peter Jenkins examines the background to the current UK attempt to ban conversion practices. This is the latest in a long line of unsuccessful attempts to bring in a new law on this controversial and highly contested topic.
Introduction
The weather is changing, the nights are drawing in – so, it must be time for yet another attempt to bring in a criminal law ban on alleged conversion therapy. Only this time, the focus has shifted slightly away from therapists and more towards other potential targets, such as parents in conflict with their child, who suddenly identifies as trans. The legislation also potentially looks towards attacking gender critical organisations. The shift away from ‘conversion therapy’, always a problematic concept, to the supposedly more inclusive ‘conversion practices’ was originally suggested by the now defunct Ozanne Foundation (2021). There are two significant and somewhat surprising carve-outs or exceptions to the law’s remit, one visible, the second still largely invisible, but more of these later.
The draft shows its blind allegiance to Queer Theory, by avoiding any inconvenient reference at all to such trivial details as age restrictions concerning potential victims. After all, according to Stonewall (2022), children can know and express their own gender identity from the age of two. The removal of the core distinction between therapy for children and for adults (UKCP, 2024) is also a core feature of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy (MOU), although this crucial change remains almost completely unpublicised. Oddly enough, the MOU has been signed by most major UK medical and therapy professional associations (BACP, 2026). It is a matter of fervent belief for trans activist therapists, who attest to toddlers’ inherent ability to communicate their gender identity preferences (‘I boy!’) (Kenny, 2020: 98). However, perhaps even such precocious toddlers may well struggle with communicating yet further nuance, given their admittedly limited cognitive and language skills (‘I asexual!’, or perhaps, even: ‘I non-binary!’). We will return to some of the more serious criminal law implications of this bizarre trans fantasy later on.
Defining conversion therapy
But, to try and start at the beginning: what exactly is ‘conversion therapy’? if it really is so bad, why not just ban it? This takes some unpacking. Conversion therapy proper relates to attempts to ‘cure’ patients, both men and women, of homosexuality, using either medical or psychological methods. These ill-founded and brutal methods used classic aversion therapy during the 1960s, inflicting nausea or electric shocks on gay and lesbian patients. However, by the mid-1970’s, the heyday of conversion therapy, geared towards changing sexual orientation, was over. This followed on from a gradual sea-change in terms of public acceptance of gay and lesbian sexuality. Changes to diagnostic categories in key psychiatric manuals, such as the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual (DSM) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), also signalled a retreat from past discriminatory practice towards gays and lesbians. Homosexuality became much more widely accepted as a variant of human sexuality, rather than being seen more narrowly as a clinical pathology. The attempt to ‘convert’ homosexuals to heterosexuality, quietly derided by Sigmund Freud as inevitably ineffective (1920/1991: 376), suddenly fell out of its limited therapeutic fashion. Attempts in the 1980’s to revive it in the form of ‘reparative therapy’, as led by ‘ex-gays,’ proved to be short-lived.
Attention then shifted towards what seemed, on the surface, to represent a recent parallel reinvention of conversion therapy. This was a version supposedly geared to changing the declared gender identity of people identifying as trans. This move, to add conversion therapy on the basis of gender identity (an internal sense of discrepancy with one’s birth sex) to that of sexual orientation, gathered strength in the mid-2010’s. But declaring one’s gender identity is, after all, to make a statement of belief, which is, in essence a political belief, and to express allegiance to a wider political ideology. Gender identity is intrinsically part of a comprehensive belief system. It is emphatically not a medical condition as such. If medical intervention, such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, double mastectomy and phalloplasty, is desired and then provided, this means drastically modifying a healthy body, simply in order to conform to an ideologically driven internal sense of identity.
Gender identity and social affirmation
Declaring an incongruent gender identity necessarily runs counter to one’s biologically sexed reality. Expressing a gender identity therefore inevitably requires intense and continuous social affirmation, from partners, family, peers and from a range of professionals, including therapists. For, if social constructionism tells us that gender is essentially built on performative social role expectations, how much more completely does this kind of social influence process apply to expressing a gender identity and to attempting to change it from within? So, in relational terms, any withholding of social affirmation, e.g. towards a child by their concerned parents, is likely to be perceived by trans allies as conversion practice. And for therapists to withhold social affirmation, by not using preferred pronouns, or by wanting to explore a range of background experiences possibly linked to being trans, is very likely to be experienced by any trans client as conversion therapy, which is, supposedly, even worse.
Yet the existing research attempting to prove the widespread nature of conversion practices, including conversion therapy, to borrow Hilary Cass’s phrase about puberty blocker research, is ‘remarkably weak’ (2024: 13). It almost seems that the more draconian the legislation, with Victoria State, Australia as the desired ‘gold standard’, the more tenuous and speculative the underlying evidence base for trans protective law. Thus Victoria State’s heavily punitive legislation relies on a carefully cherrypicked convenience sample of just 16 people alleging religiously based conversion therapy (Jenkins, 2021). The UK’s LGBT survey (2018) and Ozanne Foundation survey (Matousek, 2020) have been subject to detailed critique (Jenkins & Esses, 2021). Both of these are non-random, online self-report surveys, which can really tell us nothing solid about the UK prevalence of alleged conversion therapy. The attempt to shore up the LGBT survey by Jowett et al (2021) has also been heavily critiqued (Sex Matters, 2021).
Given the pressure building on therapists to socially affirm their trans clients, as noted above, Jowett’s qualitative data, apparently confirming conversion therapy, is open to alternative and much more plausible explanation. Therapist failure to affirm a client’s declared belief in gender identity can be much more accurately understood as a significant breakdown in the client-therapist alliance (Jenkins, 2024). This is a phenomenon well-known to experienced therapists, and is described in the research literature as a ‘therapeutic alliance rupture’ (Safran et al, 1990). Thus trans client outrage, however well-amplified in sympathetic GALOP surveys, is not evidence in itself of widespread therapist conversion therapy.
Proposals of Draft Conversion Practices Bill
So, what does the draft Conversion Practices Bill propose? The Bill sets out new criminal offences of abusive conversion practices, of encouraging the commission of such practices abroad, and extends the remit of the law to include organisations, as well as individuals. (See Summary of the Conversion Practices Draft Bill. CP 1604.)
___________________________________________________________________
Summary of Cabinet Office (2026) Conversion Practices Draft Bill. CP 1604.
Introduces criminal offence of abusive conversion practice:
- Covers England and Wales; also applies to encouraging similar abusive conversion practices outside UK;
- Definition of (abusive) conversion practices covers both: sexual orientation (including persons who are asexual); and transgender identity; latter includes transsexuals, persons seeking gender reassignment under the Gender Recognition Act 2004; and persons who are non-binary;
- Excludes activities carried out in the course of providing health care services (or similar non-medical services) to the individual, unless these fall “far below the standards reasonably expected of a person in their position”, i.e. the standard for determining ‘gross negligence’;
- Constitutes a criminal offence, i.e. abusive conversion practice, if:
– including words or behaviour, which are: sexual, violent, threatening, controlling, or coercive; applying economic, psychological or emotional pressure;
– causes serious harm to the individual’s physical or mental health, or serious alarm or distress to the individual which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities;
- Offence applies to individuals, and/or formal and informal organisations;
- Offence punishable by fine or 5 years imprisonment;
Conversion Practice Protection Orders
- Introduces preventative or protective Conversion Practice Protection Orders, which can be applied for by the proposed subject, the police, local authority, or any other person;
- The CPPO can carry conditions for a set period, and does not require notice to be given. It can be sought both within civil (Family Court Proceedings) and criminal proceedings;
- Offence applies to individuals, and/or formal and informal organisations;
- Breach of a CPPO can lead to arrest or legal action for contempt of court in civil proceedings. A criminal breach of a CPPO can lead to a fine and 2 years imprisonment.
Cabinet Office (CO) (2026) Conversion Practices Draft Bill. CP 1604. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-conversion-practices-bill/conversion-practices-draft-bill
NB: References above in italics from:
Office for Equality and Opportunity (OEO) (2026)Explanatory Notes to Conversion Practices Draft Bill. CP 1604. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-conversion-practices-bill/explanatory-notes
Research evidence on alleged conversion practices
The current draft Bill is linked to further supposedly conclusive evidence of conversion practices in the UK, produced by GALOP. This is a niche activist lobby, with its original roots in anti-LGBT violence work, including domestic abuse, honour-based violence and forced marriage. Their recent report belongs to the traditional practice of self-evaluation by third-sector specialist agencies of carrying out their own audit or research. This research is often closely linked to identifying unmet needs, gaps in provision and consequently a need for more funding for the same organisation carrying out the research. GALOP’s research is based on a non-random sample (n: 191) and is therefore not representative of the wider trans-identifying population. Basic demographic data is not recorded, e.g. sex, ethnicity; large chunks of data are missing, i.e. relevant citizenship data is not recorded for 27% of the sample (Carlisle, 2026: 16). The multiple, overlapping contexts, e.g. extended family networks, religion, and being sent abroad for punishment, suggest that many respondents’ experiences were based on highly specific cultural, religious, immigration and family contexts, which are not necessarily representative of wider UK society. These highly specific cultural contexts refer to the coercive role of Imams and other religious leaders, forced marriage, honour-based systems of social control and the risk of being sent abroad to extended families as punishment.
Furthermore, the report does not present a detailed case for introducing a legal ban on conversion therapy. It does briefly acknowledge that many, if not most, of current forms of ill-treatment are already covered by the existing criminal law. Thus, the various forms of alleged conversion practices include the following:
“coercive and controlling behaviour; physical violence; sexual violence; forced marriage efforts; religion-based practices; psycho-medical practices; being forcibly taken abroad; false imprisonment, and other forms of abuse” (Carlisle, 2026: 10).
The vast majority of these activities are very far from being ‘Still not illegal’, as alleged in the report’s persuasive title. Most are actually proscribed by the current criminal law. Hence ‘corrective rape’, for alleged conversion purposes, is not in a special category of its own, as somehow existing outside or beyond the reach of the current law, which therefore urgently needs revising and extending. Rape of any kind, whether allegedly ‘corrective’ or otherwise, is still rape in the eyes of the law, and constitutes a criminal offence under s.1, Sexual Offences Act 2003. Finally, the GALOP report does not advance any cogent reason at all why, if current criminal measures relating to gay or trans victims are not at all effective or properly enforced, the move to introduce a whole new raft of legislation, such as proposed Protection Orders, would be any more effective in the future. In fact, brief examination of other relevant legislation would suggest the exact opposite to be the case.
Introducing Conversion Practices Protection Orders
The draft legislation’s proposal for a Conversion Practices Protection Orders (CPPO) provides the razor-sharp teeth now seemingly required to effectively police our social attitudes towards trans-identifying people. The CPPO is closely modelled on the Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order (FGMPO), but with apparently absolutely no hint of irony here. FGMPOs provide legal protection against females being sent abroad for genital excision. (There was, however, no equivalent legal protection in place in 2014 in the case of a 16-year-old male child sent abroad to Thailand for major trans genital surgery (Sloan, 2016)). The movement to introduce FGMPOs has a number of parallels with the current proposal regarding CPPOs. These include: initial reforming zeal to address a burning social issue via rather ponderous legislation; weak supportive research on prevalence; and potentially limited evidence of efficacy.
Experience of Protection Orders against FGM
Hence, with FGM, there was yet another highly emotive political and parliamentary campaign to highlight the widespread harm apparently caused by this practice within the UK (‘Abuse unchecked’). However, research into the actual prevalence of FGM proved to be contradictory and inconclusive, not recognising the growing social pressures within UK communities to resist traditional harmful practices such as FGM. FGMPOs carried both civil and criminal aspects, and were intended to reshape wider social attitudes, as well as to enforce criminal sanctions. However, the prevalence of FGM may well have been seriously over-estimated (Karlsen et al, 2023). The results of FGM policy have hardly been impressive in terms of enforcement. Roughly 3 FGMPOs were made per year between 2009 and 2018. None of these resulted in legal action being taken. “Of the 173 alleged offences reported under the Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Act 2003, only two proceeded to charge and neither were found guilty” (Karlsen et al, 2023: 213). This is clearly not an impressive balance sheet, in terms of what was, presumably, a well-intentioned flagship social engineering policy project.
Of course, the crucial difference here is that FGM is clearly a real, objective, observable and measurable behaviour, causing serious and often irreparable harm to female victims and survivors. In contrast, conversion practices rest on the foundational concept of gender identity, and on alleged attempts to undermine and change this self-belief. Identifying conversion practices relies crucially on a subjective perception of, say, parental intent and behaviour, and on the attribution of overall meaning to this process as being coercive and controlling. Conversion practices are therefore radically different in form and content to previously legislating a ban on Female Genital Mutilation.
Policing gender critical views
The other major attempt to literally police social attitudes towards people identifying as trans, amongst other groups, has been via the use of Non Crime Hate Incident (NCHI) recording. The latter are defined, as “Any incident where a crime has not been committed, but where it is perceived by the reporting person or any other person that the incident was motivated by hostility or prejudice” (NPCC/COP, 2025: 16). Yet the role of NCHIs seems to have become increasingly blurred over time. Their original purpose was to gather intelligence on behaviours and attitudes which might be conducive to carrying out criminal acts against people with protected characteristics, such as race, disability, or transgender status. However, police investigation of NCHIs has been experienced by some as heavy-handed sanctioning of social media tweets, for expressing critical views concerning gender identity ideology.
In common with both FGMPOs and CPPOs, police investigation can be triggered by individuals. In the case of NCHIs, high profile gender critical and free speech activists, such as Helen Joyce, Graham Linehan and Harry Miller, have each been the subject of intrusive (and, on one occasion, heavily armed) NCHI police investigation, triggered by hostile trans activists (Joyce, 2025). However, the resulting criticism of the police and of NCHI intrusion into the realm of public debate, has led to the police reviewing this policy as ‘not fit for purpose’. Looked at in terms of the broad sweep of social policy, from the original introduction of Tony Blair’s Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, to FGMPOs, and then the problematic use of NCHIs, the proposal to introduce CPPOs fits rather neatly into this much wider narrative about policing dissent and curtailing free speech about gender identity. No wonder that the Conversion Practices Bill, and its potential for unleashing vindictive and harassing CPPOs, bear all the hallmarks of Stonewall’s influence, original home of the ‘No debate!’ slogan.
Potential impact of the Conversion Practices Bill?
The tabling of the Conversion Practices Bill comes at an ominous time. Any incoming Prime Minister will be pressured to lend active support to it, simply in order to keep restive Labour back-benchers quiet, in spite of the glaring weaknesses of the Bill itself. The Bill has one significant carve-out, in removing medical and therapy services from its remit, unless practice falls well below the standard applying to gross negligence. This may prove to be simply a temporary reprieve, given the well-known historic animus of the trans lobby towards non-affirming health practitioners. The other, much less visible, carve-out is the striking absence of any focus on religion as a major factor in promoting alleged conversion practices. The Explanatory Notes piously note that the Bill is “not intended to interfere with people’s right to religious belief and expression” (OEO, 2026: para 14). However, this statement sits very oddly with the research data, which consistently locates alleged conversion practices as having a strongly religious focus. Even Jowett et al (2021) confirm that: “In summary, the evidence [from the Rapid Research Review: PJ] suggests that conversion therapy most commonly takes place in religious settings.” So the Bill’s deflection away from religion maybe suggests this site is being held in reserve for future, perhaps more carefully targeted, legislation.
The Bill’s main target focus seems to be on family relationships, on the civil courts, such as Family Proceedings Courts, and in facilitating legal action against gender critical organisations. There are a number of cases going through the courts, where parents are in sharp disagreement with each other about consenting to medical transition for children under 18 years. This Bill will enable trans activists, and allied organisations, such as the Good Law Project, to take out Conversion Practices Protection Orders against dissenting parents, or supportive gender critical organisations (‘Protect the dolls!’). Unfortunately, the very agency designed to independently represent the best interests of the child in this kind of contested family proceedings, namely CAFCASS, seems also to have fallen prey to conversion ideology. CAFCASS advice for independent social workers is, apparently: “Consider that a child/young person living with a parent or carer who doesn’t respect their identity can be at emotional risk and there may be a potential safeguarding concern” (FJYPB/AYP, nd).
Impact on family courts and parents
The spectacle of a dissenting parent being sent to jail, as happened in British Columbia, Canada for refusing to comply with the social and medical transition of their child, may become much more than an academic footnote in the future UK family law context (Weichel, 2021). Given the astounding lack of age protections, the Bill offers a disturbingly easy route of access for trans activists to intervene aggressively in family life, in order to prevent parents resisting the social or even medical transition of their child of any age, ranging from babies and toddlers up to 18 years.
Despite the many soothing reassurances, the Bill is likely to collide heavily with parents’ rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, namely the right of “respect for his private and family life”. The Bill will also conflict directly with the growing movement of young adults seeking to detransition, that is, expressly to reject their former gender identity, often with the help of parents, peers, family, professionals and informal support organisations. This may put gender critical support organisations at risk of prosecution. Yet the Bill’s Explanatory Notes appear to be quite misleading here, in stating that the Bill’s prosecution remit will be limited to “defined senior officials in companies and organisations” (OEO, 2026, para 21). The Draft Bill makes it very clear that the law will enable the prosecution of ordinary members carrying out roles within member-led organisations, i.e. “an unincorporated body managed by its members” (CO, 2026, s.5). The Draft Bill therefore begins to resemble nothing less than a trans activist rescue charter. How it will fare in the civil and criminal courts, given that its role is in direct conflict with the already established right to free speech on gender critical issues, upheld in the Forstater case and in multiple other similar court cases, still remains to be seen.
Conclusion
The Draft Bill feels like the last gasp of an expiring Stonewall lobby, desperate to hold back public scepticism about our needing yet more special provision for those identifying as trans. In terms of the threatened new Protection Orders, we should learn from the stunning failure of similar orders applying to Female Genital Mutilation, and the police’s own damning verdict on Non Crime Hate Incidents as being ‘not fit for purpose’. The research on conversion practices is skewed, partisan and unconvincing. Thus, therapist failure to affirm a trans client is clearly not evidence of conversion therapy. So, even GALOP’s own work ruefully acknowledges that many of their listed examples are already covered by the criminal law. The Bill is best read as a missionary’s charter for heroically rescuing that cultural invention of the last decade, namely the ‘trans child’. After all, ‘I, boy!’
Non-electronic references
Freud, S. (1920/1991) “The psychogenesis of a case of homosexuality in a woman”, pp. 367-400, In: Case Histories: 2, Penguin Freud Library, Vol. 9, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Kenny, D. (2020) “Gender development and the transgendering of children”, pp. 93-107, In: Moore, M. and Brunskell-Evans, H. (Eds) Inventing transgender children and young people. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
National Police Chiefs’ Council & College of Policing (2025) Non Crime Hate Incidents Review: Progress Report. NPCC/COP.
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://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/counselling-and-psychotherapy-professional-practice/book243292
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